Out-Of-Class #1: A Quick Overview

For the most part, many people did very well -- but not great. Writing, organization and story structure were in general very, very good, but where we fell short was with range of sources.

In many stories, we had just one side of an issue. Maybe we just talked to officials in charge of something. Maybe we just talked to people affected by something. Maybe we just talked to neutral experts, who have no vested interest in how things turn out, but know a lot about the subject at hand.

What we need to do is talk to all such groups. Not just one, and not even just two of three. We need to explore all the levels of complexity of a story, and reach out to all the niche groups that have an interest in what is happening, is affected by what is happening, is in charge of what is happening, and is expect in what is happening.

To find such sources, we need to ask ourselves, who is interested in this? Who is affected by this? Who is in charge of this? Who is expert in this? And where might I find these people?

Then, we need to find them.

Google is your pal, sure. But it starts with your own curiosity, and your willingness to act upon it. You can't just race to the minimum three sources and think, I'm done. You're done when you've answered those aforementioned questions in italics; then interviewed all those people; and then answered all their questions.

Only then do you know what you have. Only then do you know what to write. Only then have you committed an act of journalism.

Out-Of-Class #1: A Good Thing!

In a past semester, along with the out-of-class story I also received this email from a student:

Omar,

I chose to stick witht the original topic I chose which is "post college stress."  I found out once I started doing my interviews, that the actual stressors the students are facing are different than I suspected.  I hope that this story stays along the guidelines, and is what you are looking for! I really enjoyed doing these interviews, and the surprises I discovered along with this topic.

Thanks, 

And this was FANTASTIC.

Why? Because this is journalism, and not a term paper.

Here's the difference: with a term paper, we have a pre-supposed conclusion, and we simply find facts to fill in that conclusion.

But in journalism, we treat it more like a science experiment, in which we start with an idea or presumption (or, in science, a theory) and then we fact-test it (or, in science do experiments) by talking to people and reviewing data and seeing what checks out and what does not.

Then, we follow the evidence (like in science) and in the end, our conclusion is not necessarily what we started out thinking; it's based on what we found along the way.

And in many cases, we discover things that change our initial perception of the story!

Sometimes, those changes are little. Other times, they are huge and lead to a completely different story than the one you thought you had in the first place.

Want an extreme example? Try Watergate. It started out as a routine burglary-at-a-political-organizing-office story. But the reporters kept checking things out, and eventually they found out that burglary was just one small part of a massive scheme to manipulate elections, run by the President of the United States.

The reporters didn't get the eventual story because they just treated a routine burglary as just that. They got what they did because they were curious, acted on their curiosity, and followed the evidence.

That's journalism. And that's what we did here, albeit on a much smaller scale.

Good journalism is about discovery and surprise and following the evidence based on curiosity. Presumptions should only be a starting point for all that, and nothing else.