Handbook of Independent Journalism: Getting The Story

THE tip came in an e-mail from a former government official who suggested looking into the supply of life rafts on ferries in Washington state. Reporter Eric Nalder, then with the Seattle Times, decided to check it out. His first phone call was to the ferry system’s safety director, who was new on the job, but who gave Nalder the name and location of his predecessor.

When the reporter reached the retired director by phone, he confirmed the shortage of life rafts. Far from being satisfied that he had uncovered a good story, Nalder was just getting started. To get the full story, Nalder needed documents showing the number of life rafts on every ferry, the capacity of each raft, and the maximum number of passengers each ferry could carry.

He had to analyze the data to determine the seriousness of the shortage. He also wanted to ride the ferries and talk to passengers and crew. Only then was he ready to write his front-page story, which revealed that ferries in his state had only enough life rafts to evacuate one passenger out of seven. Reporting is a painstaking process that involves collecting facts and checking them carefully for accuracy.

Journalists sometimes witness stories first-hand, but more typically they learn the details from others who have experienced something directly or who are experts in the topic. That information is reinforced or corroborated by additional sources and checked against documentary evidence in public records, reports, or archives.

The information a journalist collects should answer questions that are commonly known as the five W’s and an H: who, what, where, when, why, and how. Depending on the complexity of the story, a reporter might ask those questions in several different ways.

WHO:
• Who is involved in this story?
• Who is affected by it?
• Who is the best person to tell the story?
• Who is missing from this story? Who has more information about this?
• Who is in the conflict in this story? Do they have anything in common?
• Who else should I talk to about this?

WHAT:
• What happened?
• What is the point of this story? What am I really trying to say?
• What does the reader, viewer, or listener need to know to understand this story?
• What surprised me? What is the most important single fact I learned?
• What is the history here? What happens next?
• What can people do about it?

WHERE:
• Where did this happen?
• Where else should I go to get the full story?
• Where is this story going next? How will it end?

WHEN:
• When did this happen?
• When did the turning points occur in this story?
• When should I report this story?

WHY:
• Why is this happening? Is it an isolated case or part of a trend?
• Why are people behaving the way they are? What are their motives?
• Why does this story matter? Why should anyone watch, read, or listen to it?
• Why am I sure I have this story right?

HOW:
• How did this happen?
• How will things be different because of what happened?
• How will this story help the reader, listener, or viewer? ?e community?
• How did I get this information? Is the attribution clear?
• How would someone describe this story to a friend?

Many reporters use mental checklists like this one to make sure they have covered all of the important elements of a story.

Observation
On-the-scene observation is one of the fundamentals of good reporting. Journalists want to witness events for themselves whenever possible so they can describe them accurately to the audience. Good reporters use all of their senses on the scene. They look, listen, smell, taste, and feel the story so the audience can, too.

To do this well, journalists need an accurate record of their observations. A print reporter can do his or her job with a notebook and a pencil or pen, but many also carry audio recorders and cameras, especially if they are expected to file stories for an online edition as well.

For radio, journalists need to capture sound, and for television, both sound and video. Using a recorder is one way of making sure that any quotations you might use are accurate. But electronics have been known to fail, so it’s important for all journalists to be skilled note-takers. Here are some tips on note-taking from experienced reporters:

• Write down facts, details, thoughts, and ideas. Make clear which is which, and where they came from.
• Draw diagrams of rooms, scenes, or items in relationship to each other.
• Always get correctly spelled names, titles, and contact information. Ask for birth date and year, to make sure you have the person’s age right.
• Spell out interview ground rules in the notebook.
• Don’t crowd the notebook. Leave space for annotating notes.
• Leave the inside covers blank to write down questions to ask later.
• Annotate the notes as soon as possible.

Many reporters use their own shorthand for common words so they can take notes more quickly. Then they annotate their notes, spelling out abbreviations to avoid any confusion later. They also will mark the most important information they have learned, good quotes they may use in the story, anything they need to follow up on or check for accuracy, and questions that still need to be answered.

It sounds obvious, but reporters must be sure they have the tools they need before heading out to cover a story: notebook, pen, tape or digital recorder, and fresh batteries. There’s nothing more embarrassing than arriving on the scene only to discover there is no film or tape in the camera, or that the only pen in your pocket is out of ink.

Today’s journalists often carry additional tools: a mobile telephone and a laptop computer. A few other simple items can be useful, as well. Putting a rubber band around your notebook to mark the next blank page makes it easy to find quickly.

A plastic bag will protect your notebook when it rains, so the pages stay dry and the ink doesn’t run. A small pair of binoculars will help you see what’s going on even if you can’t get very close. A calculator will help you convert information like the number of tons of fuel carried by aircraft into terms more familiar to the audience, in this case, liters or gallons.

Research
Journalists tend to collect much more information than they can put into a story, but that information always helps them better understand the event or issue they are covering. Sometimes, background information is essential to give a story a deeper meaning. In Eric Nalder’s story about life rafts, for example, he included the fact that the water the ferries cross is cold enough in January to kill someone within half an hour.

That information puts the shortage of life rafts in context by explaining more clearly why it matters. It’s exactly the kind of information reporters look for when they do research on a story, either before they leave the newsroom or along the way as questions come up.

Journalists have more research tools available today than ever before, thanks to computers and the Internet. Many of them are just high-tech versions of the basic tools of the trade: directories, almanacs, encyclopedias, and maps.

Others are databases and reports that would have been much harder to find in the days before the Internet, requiring a personal visit to a library or government building. Still, others are resources that few would have imagined two decades ago when the Internet was young: search engines, blogs, chat rooms, and e-mail lists.

All of these resources are useful to journalists collecting background on a story. But one of the most basic research tools has not changed in a century: the news organization’s own library of previously published or broadcast stories.

Whether these “clips” are kept on paper in filing drawers or in computer files, they are a useful starting place for all kinds of stories. Many journalists also keep their own “clip files” of stories they have saved about specific topics. Imagine that the former president of a neighboring country has died.

A reporter assigned to write the story would want to know some basic facts: age, cause of death, and where and when he died. But the journalist would also want information about his time in office, and how the country has changed since he was president.

A first step would be to consult previous news reports, either in the newsroom’s archive or online. Those reports might mention someone who was close to the former president, whom the reporter could ask for an interview.

The reporter would want to have some background on that person before conducting the interview and might learn that the former president’s friend kept all of his letters, which could reveal some surprising new information.

Doing an interview without having done any background research is like driving to an unfamiliar place without consulting a map. You might get where you intend to go, but it’s just as likely that you will miss a turn along the way.

Sources
Reporters use both primary and secondary sources when reporting news stories. A primary source could be an interview with a person who has direct experience of an event or topic, or an original document related to that topic. The journalist as eyewitness also is considered a primary source.

A secondary source might be a written report based on the original document. In the case of a fire, for example, the person whose house burned down would be a primary source. So would a firefighter who had been involved in putting out the fire. But the press release issued by the fire department the next day would be a secondary source.

One rule of thumb reporters follow when researching a story is that no single source can provide all of the information they might need. In the case of the former president, each source the reporter consulted led to another source. Sometimes, sources contradict each other.

To clear up discrepancies, reporters may have to see where the weight of the evidence lies or seek out original sources, such as documents, to determine which version is true. Secondary sources are most useful as a way of confirming information acquired from primary sources.

Whatever sources you use to research the background of a story, it’s critical to consider the validity or credibility of the source. These days, anyone can design a professional-looking Web site, or arrange to send an e-mail that looks authentic but is really a hoax.

Just because you can find it online does not mean that it’s true. Journalists need to verify the source of all information to determine whether it’s credible enough to use in a news story. Deciding what sources to use for a story is a large part of a journalist’s job. Here are some useful questions for evaluating whether you have chosen the right source or the best source for your story.

• How does this source know what he or she knows? (Is this person in a position to know these things, either personal or professional?)
• How can I confirm this information through other sources or through documents?
• How representative is my source’s point of view? (Is this just one person who complains loudly about the landlord because they have a personal problem? Or is this the most articulate voice speaking for an entire group of tenants who have serious, legitimate problems?)
• Has this source been reliable and credible in the past?
• Am I only using this source because it’s the easy way to go or because I know I’ll get something I can use?
• What is the source’s motive for providing information? (Is this person trying to make himself look good, or to make his boss look bad? Why is he or she talking to me in the first place?)

Once you discover a helpful source of information for one story, it’s a good idea to stay in touch with that person over the long term. Get as much contact information as possible for every source, not just an office address and telephone number, but mobile and home telephones and e-mail addresses as well.

Good reporters “work” their sources regularly, contacting them to ask if anything interesting is happening. Make it easy for sources to get in touch with you, as well, by giving your business card to everyone you meet on a story.

Anyone with access to information, including secretaries and clerks, can be a useful source for a journalist. They can provide copies of documents, and they often know who is the most knowledgeable person on a given topic. A reporter who treats them with respect may find his or her request for an interview with the secretary’s supervisor accepted more quickly.

Interviews
American reporter Kristin Gilger says, “Skillful interviewing is the basis for all good reporting and writing.” An interview is defined as information, opinion, or experience shared by a source in a conversation with a reporter. What makes an interview a little different from an ordinary conversation is that the reporter determines the direction of the questioning.

Setting up an interview is not always easy. People may not want to talk with a journalist, especially if the story is controversial. When dealing with public officials, start from the premise that the public has a right to know what the officials are doing. Experienced reporters have found they can persuade even the most reluctant officials to agree to an interview by anticipating the excuses and roadblocks they may use.

• They don’t have time. The reporter can offer to meet at the most convenient time or place for the person they want to speak with. Limiting the amount of time requested also may help.
• They are afraid because they think the story will make them look bad. Treating people with respect and telling them precisely why you want to talk with them will help sources be less anxious.
• They don’t know what to say. Reporters need to be clear about why the story needs a particular person’s point of view.
• They are hard to reach. Reporters often have to go through a secretary or public relations officer to contact the person they want to interview. If they suspect that their request is not being forwarded, some reporters will write a letter to the source, or call during lunch or after business hours in an effort to get through.

Once you have secured the interview and researched the person and the topic, there is still more preparation to do. Most reporters develop a list of questions or topics, which they take with them but do not read from during the interview. Instead, they refer to the list only near the end to make sure they haven’t forgotten something important.

The list also includes other information, documents, or photographs they want to obtain from that source. Questions are the backbone of an interview. ?ey are the rudder, keeping the ship going in the right direction. Good questions can reward you with unexpected answers, rich information, and surprises. Poor questions can leave you wondering why you bothered to talk to that person anyway. Questions that are too specific can lead you down the wrong trail.

The first question in an interview is important because it sets the tone for what follows. A lot of journalists like to begin with an “ice-breaker” question that lets the source relax. It’s something they’re comfortable answering. It may, in fact, have nothing to do with the reason you are there.

But often it helps to establish your credentials with the source, and that can establish a sense of trust and openness. Most of the time, the best questions are open-ended questions that cannot be answered with a simple yes or no. They are also non-judgmental, in that they do not establish the reporter’s point of view. It’s the difference between, “What do you think about that?” and “What could you have been thinking!”

While it’s important to ask good questions, it’s also important to be quiet and let the interviewee talk. Good journalists are good listeners, and often learn the most significant information by being silent. What you hear also can lead to additional questions that may not have occurred to you.

Robert Siegel, who works for National Public Radio in Washington, D.C., tells the story of an interview he did with a Turkish diplomat after Pope John Paul II was shot and wounded by a Turk in Rome. His first question, “Do you know any details about this man, Mehmet Ali Agca; where he lived in Italy, what he did there, what kind of visa the Italians gave him?”

The answers were all no. After several more tries, Siegel paused, about to give up. And the diplomat filled the silence with this, “… except that he is the most famous convicted murderer in Turkey, who escaped from prison after assassinating the editor of one of our major newspapers.”

Siegel says he almost lost a good story by asking questions that were too narrow. He acknowledges that a better way to open the interview might have been, “Tell me about this man.”

Reporters can do interviews in person, by telephone, or online via e-mail or instant messaging. Each approach has advantages and disadvantages. Interviewing in person gives the reporter a more complete sense of the individual. What kinds of photos are on the wall? Is the desk messy or neat? What books are in the bookcase?

Meeting in person also gives the reporter the ability to judge the source’s credibility based on his demeanor. Does he look nervous or comfortable? Is she willing to look the reporter in the eye? Christopher (Chip) Scanlan, director of writing workshops for the Poynter Institute, a journalism school in the United States, tells the story of interviewing a woman who lost her husband to cancer.

She gave him a tour of her home, and in the bedroom, she said, “You know, every night I put just a little of [my husband’s] cologne on the pillow, so I can believe he is still with me.” It’s a detail that the reader can smell and feel, which Scanlan never would have learned over the phone or online.

Telephone interviews take less time, and some reporters find it easier to take good notes when they don’t have to worry about maintaining eye contact with the source. They can even type their notes into the computer. E-mail interviews are useful for reaching people in distant places, but the reporter can’t listen to what’s being said and follow up in “real-time.”

Instant messaging via the Internet is more akin to a telephone interview. But both online methods raise the question of whether the person they appear to be from actually sent the answers. Because of these concerns, the Virginian-Pilot newspaper in Norfolk, Virginia, has instituted this newsroom policy for online reporting:

“In quoting from electronic communications, we will make certain the communication is genuine, as it is easy to fake Internet return addresses or log on as someone else. The Internet is not controlled like a wire service [such as Reuters or the Associated Press]; hoaxes can come from anywhere.”

Reporters using e-mail or other online forms of communication should follow the same professional standards as they would in any other form. They must identify themselves as journalists and tell what information they are seeking and why.

They need to apply the same fact-checking and thinking skills they would to any other source of information. No matter which way they conduct an interview, reporters usually have some questions they save for the end.
First, they may summarize the conversation to be sure they’ve heard accurately what was being said.

Then they will ask if there is anything else the person being interviewed wants to add. They also ask for the best way to get back in touch with the person, especially after hours, and they thank the person for his or her time. And many journalists have one last question they ask at all interviews, “Who else should I talk to about this?”

Ground Rules
Most interviews are conducted “on the record,” which means the reporter can use anything that is said and attribute it directly to the person who is speaking. It is important to make sure the source knows this, especially when the reporter is dealing with ordinary people who are not accustomed to being quoted in the newspaper or on the air.

If the information is not to be on the record, both the reporter and the source must agree in advance to the conditions under which the information can be used. An interview “on background” or “not for attribution” generally means the information can be used in a story and the source’s words can be quoted directly, although he or she cannot be named.

However, the source can be identified in a general way, for example, as “a foreign ministry official” or “a company engineer” — as long as the source and the journalist both agree on the description to be used. Many news organizations have written policies regarding the use of anonymous sources. ?e New York Times newspaper, for example, says:

“The use of unidentified sources is reserved for situations in which the newspaper could not otherwise print information it considers reliable and newsworthy. When we use such sources, we accept an obligation not only to convince a reader of their reliability but also to convey what we can learn of their motivation.”

Reporters should not be too quick to agree to talk on background because sources sometimes try to use it as a cover for a personal or partisan attack, knowing it cannot be traced back to them. And using an unnamed source makes it more difficult for the audience to evaluate the credibility of the information.

There are times when reporters have to get information on the background because it’s the only way a source will agree to talk. A source who fears for her safety if others learn that she has spoken to a reporter may agree to provide information only on background. Here are some guidelines for deciding whether to accept and use background information:

• The story is of overwhelming public concern.
• There is no other way to get the information on the record.
• The source is in a position to know the truth.
• You are willing to explain (in your story) why the source could not be named.

In some capitals, government officials will talk to reporters on the background as well as “deep background,” which means the information can be used but not in a direct quote, and the source cannot be identified. A reporter could write only that officials are known to believe something or another.

Information that is offered “off the record” cannot be used at all, so most reporters will fight this arrangement unless the source is so important to the story that they have no other choice. Off-the-record information cannot even be repeated to another source, but it can tip reporters off to a story that is worth pursuing.

Whatever the arrangement, it’s up to the reporter to make sure both sides understand and agree to the ground rules before the interview. Sometimes sources try to change the rules in the middle, by telling the reporter something important and then adding, “But you can’t use that, of course.”

That’s why it’s a good idea to spell things out at the beginning, and not to agree to withhold information unless a separate deal is reached before proceeding with the interview. Journalists also should be clear about how far they will go to protect the identity of a source. In some jurisdictions, journalists may risk going to jail if they refuse to reveal information about a confidential source in a court of law.

If a journalist is not willing to risk facing time in prison to protect a source, he or she should say so. Some reporters are quite skilled at getting off-the-record information back on the record. Eric Nalder is one of them. When an off-the-record interview is over, he reads back a quote that is quite innocuous and asks, “Why can’t you say that on the record?”

When the source agrees, he goes on through his notes, reading back quotes, and getting them approved for use. He says he once got an entire interview changed from off the record to on. In part, that’s because the source now trusted him to be accurate because he had heard the quotes read back. One other ground rule that is important for journalists to understand is the use of an “embargo” on information provided by a source.

That means the information is provided on the condition that it is not to be used until a specific time. A government agency announcing a new policy may provide a written summary several hours in advance or even a day ahead. That gives reporters time to digest the information before the press conference making the policy official. Reporters who accept information under an embargo are bound to honor it unless the news becomes public before the specified time.

Getting It Right
Credibility is a journalist’s most important asset, and accuracy is the best way to protect it. To ensure accuracy, reporters must check and double-check all of the information they collect for a news story. Reporters will make mistakes, but they should be rare. When an American newspaper, Portland’s Oregonian, studied its own errors, editors concluded they happened mainly because of three causes:

• Working from memory;
• Making assumptions;
• Dealing with second-hand sources.

We’ll talk more about getting it right in “Editing the Story”. But reporters are the news organization’s first line of defense against errors. Reporters who take excellent notes and consult them often, and who search for primary sources whenever possible, are better able to abide by the late American publisher Joseph Pulitzer’s three rules of journalism: “Accuracy, accuracy, and accuracy.” (*)