I couldn't resist pointing out this one

I hope that in the 16 weeks of our class you've gotten a sense that I favor a straight news lede over other approaches to a story. If so, you'll understand why I couldn't resist bring this column to your attention.

Seattle Times reporter answers your questions

Over the weekend, Florangela Davila sent back her very thoughtful answers to the questions we sent to her about the profile she did on a longtime news anchor in Seattle. I have sent Flor the link to the blog, so if you have any comments for her -- or in general -- please add them.

Here's Flor:

These were some thought provoking questions! I had to sleep on them. But here you go.

1. As journalists we are supposed to write w/o bias. But I feel like the
author had a bias against Jean Enersen's choice to keep her private life
private. It is a bias I have seen elsewhere. It is as though some
journalists feel it is unfair for a person to keep private certain parts of
their non-public life. I know that privacy makes it harder for a journalist
to do her job, but that doesn't mean a person is obligated to talk about
their private life just so our job is easier or so that the public is
entertained. Do you think that is an inherent bias in journalists?


What a good first question! Well, I think journalists should be fair and accurate but there's already a bias when we decide what stories we'll cover (and which ones we don't); who we end up quoting; how we structure a story (i.e. which side gets quoted first, etc). We're human, we're trying to tell a story, and we can't exclude ourselves entirely from the writing process. So some of us is in the process throughout.

In this case I decided to profile someone who is a known figure to the public. So, the worst thing I could have done was to write a story full of info that everyone already knows about Jean Enersen. Why would anyone bother reading something that didn't aim to tell something new?

I don't think it's unfair that any person keeps their private life private. Usually people are private about some things and if someone has a particular request -- I'd rather you focus on xyz versus abc -- I'm open-minded about that. And if I can find a different reporting direction to follow, some other path that's just as illuminating say, then I'll generally stay away from a subject area because I think it's about maintaining a good relationship: between writer and subject. As long as I have a good understanding as to why the request is being made.

Jean didn't want her daughters to be part of the story, telling me early on that she has always wanted them to have private, separate lives from her. Parents will sometimes say that. So I asked Jean why, to try and understand her request, and I respected it. I never tried to contact them, never tried to talk to them behind her back although I did do some reporting to make sure they existed and were doing what mom had sort of said they were. And I'm glad I accepted that parameter -- sometimes we have to, as reporters, in the hopes that it will lead to something.

But during my interviews with Jean she didn't say No, I don't want to talk about this, or, I don't want to answer this question. She'd sometimes give an answer but it didn't say anything. (How many times have you come back from an assignment with what you think are tons of notes only to find you have nothing useful?). She was gracious but guarded. Polite but private. And I couldn't peel back the layers and examine her closely and relay that to the readers.

As I interviewed both the people she suggested talking to (her friends) and other current and ex-colleagues one sentiment that kept coming up was something like: I've worked with Jean for years but I still don't know who she is.

And those words kept being repeated over and over, often unprovoked by any of my questions other than me saying: I'm writing a story about Jean Enersen. Can you tell me what she's like?

And so as I built up a reporting file from multiple sources saying that, and as I tried examining her up close -- which is what a profile is -- I saw her guardedness for myself. And when it came to write that became the obvious thread. And when I had finished a draft I went over all my notes -- judging the quotes, seeing if I had left out anything -- and then rereading my draft I felt like I had written what I had indeed gathered about her throughout my reporting. (And of course, I've got a length limit -- 70 inches -- so I'm making choices as to what is critical to the story and what can be left out).

I don't think it's about entertaining the reader as much as it's about trying to convey an image of someone as honestly and truthfully as possible.

The reaction to the story has been a combination of people hating the story, saying I was being "catty" or "mean" and, from some of my sources, that I got it just right.

I'm happy with how the story turned out.

2. It seems like you spent a lot of time trying to get that tiny bit of information out of her. How did you keep your focus and your cool during what seems like 18 interviews?
(Also, just wanted to know what you think about working as a journalist in
Seattle, anything you think is fun or challenging.)

I went in thinking I'd have time to examine Jean, get to know her after a period of time, watch/observe and then have time to write. We typically have three weeks to turn a story. Not a lot of time. So you ARE under pressure to find your story, to find your vein/hook/spine -- whatever it is that you can hang your story on -- quickly. Maybe you're able to discover a person's motivations; or triumphs; or failures -- some thing that you can explore -- and then you use subsequent interviews to look at that one aspect of a person.

I WAS nervous this time. Because I went in thinking OK, she's agreed to be interviewed. She'll eventually warm up to me and I'll find something to write about. But then her husband was guarded; she didn't let me or the photographer in her house; I had already agreed that her daughters would be out of it. (Thus, this wasn't going to be a meaningful story about a successful working mother if I wasn't going to get the daughters' side). But as I worried that I didn't have anything (your nightmare especially when you're editor asks: How's it going? And you sort of just smile and say, It's going great!) I suddenly realized I did have something. I was seeing what her friends/colleagues also see. And I think a good test if you've got it right is that a profile rings true to both the reader who knows the subject and to the reader who doesn't know the subject at all. (Ideally you hear from the subject too but in this case I didn't hear from Jean. Although, reportedly, she did like the photos because she contacted the photographer.)

In terms of keeping your focus: believe in yourself. Talk to your editor; report report report. In this case I wasn't getting what I needed/wanted from her so it was even more important to talk to outside sources, asking every person who I talked to, OK, Who else should I talk to? At some point you run out of reporting time and you just have to write with what you've got. In this case I worried but when I figured out hey, I DO have something, it worked out OK I think.

But it does help to bounce things off someone. I've got a husband who heard my fretting. Find someone: teacher, best friend/boyfriend/girlfriend and tell them what you're working on. I had the benefit of some great newsroom friends who knew what I was working on. So I'd bounce ideas off of them and that also helps when you're feeling stressed.

(and of course I had a really great editor. I talked to her as I was about to start to write. And she knew where I was going. And she said I had a story. So whew, that's always nice to know before you start cranking out your first draft).

Working as a journalist in Seattle: Hmm. Seattle is great. But I think what's fun/challenging is being a journalist, no matter where you are. There are always great stories to find. When I'm brainstorming sometimes I'll ask myself: Hey, who do I really want to meet? Or, hey, where would it be really fun to go? And those questions can sometimes lead you to some great reporting assignments.

Oh, I just remembered. Maybe you've heard about that famous story, Frank Sinatra Has a Cold? Long long long story and the writer (Gay Talese) never actually talked to Sinatra. I always remember that: it IS possible to write a profile about someone even if you don't get access to him/her.

I once flew to Japan on an assignment to interview Sasaki, who used to be a relief pitcher for the Mariners. He had told me that I COULD have access to him in Japan. But when I got there he gave me zero. Talk about stress. Overseas and no access. I didn't sleep well. The advantage though is that I had Japan as a character: I could describe the place, his hometown, and Japanese baseball games and I could report on that as the backdrop to my main character. (I also did get his Mom and saw his childhood home so I actually did have the biographical info that I needed). In the end I think the story came out ok. But boy, did I worry. And sure, if I HAD gotten to tail around with him, in his hometown, as he did what superstars do, I would have produced a different story. But again, I think I did ok. You can find that story in the Sea Times archives if you want to look it up.


3. What prompted this story? Has there been recent speculation about Enerson's retirement? I guess this is a question about the timeliness of the piece, and also the reporter's interest in the subject, which seems to be to be admiration. Also, how did the reporter word her questions? Was there a specific order? Did she use tactics to try to get Enerson to open up a bit more by maybe mixing personal questions with those about her career?


We hadn't written a profile about Jean. She's an icon. She's a legend in local broadcasting, which is my beat. So I knew she' be of interest to our readers. And since I'm also trying to learn my beat I also knew that I'd learn something about the industry and the broadcasting profession by writing about her.

Some people, in my own newsroom I'm told, did question why write the story since there was no real news peg: she's not retiring, for example. I tend to think you don't need a news peg to write about someone who just IS. Is part of our community. Think about the people we write about after they've died. Notable people. Why not write about people when you can have a chance to interview them? Why does "being dead" or "retiring" newsworthy but just "being" isn't?

And in answer to you question about questions: Nah, I don't have a specific order. I figured I'd be talking to Jean over a period of time and early on I wanted her to get to know me and my reporting style a little bit. So I was a lot looser, in that "discovery" mode, mining for my hook. And yes, you sometimes have to circle back and repeat some of your questions. I think the reason for doing that is not necessarily to try and "catch" someone. But sometimes, as you know, you have different answers for the same question. I tend to think sometimes if you've asked a question, and you let the person think about it for a couple of days, it sort of sits in their brain. And if you ask it again you might get a much better answer than the first time. Better as in deeper, more reflective.

4. The reporter said in the lede that Jean Enersen is the new record-holder for the longest female anchor in a single market anywhere in the country since Natalie Jacobson retired after 35 years. However, she never asked
Jean how she felt about being the record holder. Why not?
She said Jean wouldn't say whether or not she was retiring, but I'd like to know how she felt about this accomplishment. It was frustrating to throw that out at the beginning and never know how the interviewee felt about it!

You're right. I didn't ask Jean about Natalie. I did ask Jean about her own job. If she had ever wanted to quit? How different was she early on versus now? How she keeps motivated after so many years, etc. I asked her if she thought she was a role model. I asked her if she still likes what she does. I think in a profile a good "vein" is sometimes Why or How? Why/how has someone done xyz. And not necessarily WHO is someone. The why or the how -- that's your verb. And if you find your verb you have something that propels your story.

5. How and when did you decide to handle the extent to which Enersen cooperated or refused to cooperate?
A similar question from another student: Did you know how you would structure this piece before you did the reporting?

I didn't have a say in her cooperating. I mean, as a reporter you hope the person gives you access. I thought she'd give me access and open up. Ideally you find your "hook" early on and you can structure your subsequent interviews in trying to develop that. You're a little more relaxed because you know you have something. In my case I had a deadline. And up until the last interview I wasn't 100 percent convinced I knew what I was going to write. I did when I left, though.

Looking back, if I had known that she's be a hard subject to get to know, I might have spent a lot more time in her newsroom. Watching her live. Or, in the archives and watching old footage of her. As opposed to putting most of my energy into spending time with her in the hopes that she'd open up.

6. How much time did you spend with Jean Enersen before writing this story?

I had a 3 week deadline. But it was spread out in between other assignments. Jean's got a busy schedule. She was working on some documentaries; she was on vacation. So I never got 3 weeks straight, or 2 weeks straight of reporting time which can be ideal.

I got bits here and there.

I didn't know Jean and she didn't know me before we started the story.

7. I would say 90 percent of the people I have interviewed this semester don't have much confidence in reporters/media. Sometimes I don't know if they are just telling me the stuff that people want to hear or they are
really showing me who they are. They are "extremely guarded." All the interviewees know we want something from them and it's really up to them whether they are going tell or not. So my question is: How do I get the interviewee to trust me as a reporter?
I also wonder, as a journalist, what is more important: The business aspect
of the field or personal ethics? For instance, when I interviewed an Iraq veteran, I felt bad because I knew I mentioned things he probably didn't want to talk about, but I still did it. Part of me knows that I want to know more as a reporter and as an individual, but at the same time, I wonder, "Is this what journalism is all about?"

I think if you're open and straightforward with the person -- I want to write about you because xyz -- then you and the person are starting from the same place. Be able to explain why you're doing a story. I think generally when you're interviewing someone you're trying to understand the person or you're trying to better understand some issue. For years I was writing about race and immigration. Those can be touchy subjects. People have opposing views. And so generally I'd say, Look, I'm just trying to better understand why xyz and I hope you can help me explain how you're feeling so I can then explain it to readers. People will open up if they know what you're trying to do. You could even read back quotes to them before you close up your notebook. After you're done with your interview you could say, Ok. I think I heard you say such and such. And there's this one quote here that I think best sums up your feelings. Am I right?

There's no reason not to have a conversation with someone you're interviewing. Maybe they don't trust you because they've been burned before. So find out exactly what happened. See if you can address that. I've emailed past stories to people before -- so they could get a sense of the kind of reporter/writer I am. I've tried being honest with people: Look, I don't know what my story is. At this point I'm just going in all sorts of directions. But when I think I know what I'm going to write I could call you back up and tell you. You're not reading your story to them. But you're involving them in your reporting process. Say you have some controversial issue and you've only found one "no" voice. And that person is nervous about being singled out. You can tell them: Hey, right now I'm only finding "Yes" voices. And I don't think you're the only "No" voice. Can you help me find others who will talk to me? Or, if you can't, you can let them know how you're going to structure your story -- maybe even the exact words you're going to use to introduce their quote -- so they feel you're respecting their anxieties.

I've done stories, especially those involving regular people who don't generally get quoted and who don't know how the media works -- I've done stories where I've called them up before the story has gone to print and I've read back quotes to them; taken them through the story; basically told them all about the story so as not to have them surprised the next day. (And yes, you probably know, but the rule is that you don't show your story to someone before it's published).

There are lot of people who don't understand how the process works. And that might be why they're nervous. So help them understand.

And in terms of you and your Iraq vet. I think yes, there are times when we have to ask the hard questions because we're asking the questions that we think our readers would ask. And yes, sometimes we feel bad. And sometimes that's what you say: Look, I hate asking you this but I'm going to ask you this because xyz (your reason). Because I'm trying to understand how hard it is to shoot someone (or whatever it was).

I'm not sure I understand your question: Is journalism about asking the hard questions? Is journalism about making people squirm? Is it about prying?

Well, it is sometimes. We have to ask tough questions. We have to ask questions in difficult circumstances. Not always but sometimes. But if you know why you want to know something and you can explain it, then I do think you're much better off.

Try having to talk to parents after they've lost a child. And you're writing a news story. And you're calling the family. People hang up on you. People curse at you. And sometimes, people talk because they're grateful that someone cared enough to want to find out more about who their son/daughter really was. You never know how someone is going to react each and every time. And to not ask the question is to keep the door shut on what might be the best question you could have asked. Maybe the person has always wanted someone to ask them that question. You never know.

If you care about what you do and why you do it then I think, while it still may be hard to ask those hard questions, and you might never get used to it, you do end up trusting yourself that you're doing it for the right reason. To tell a story.

Thanks very much and good luck to all of you.

I hope journalism is in your future. You're lucky to have John Saul. He was my editor and I learned a lot from him.

Florangela

Another news site worth bookmarking

I came across Newstrust.net while looking at PJNet (see previous blog entry) this morning. Here's what Newstrust.net says about itself:

NewsTrust.net helps people find good journalism online.

Our non-profit, non-partisan project provides quality news feeds, media literacy tools and a trust network to help citizens make informed decisions about democracy.

The free NewsTrust.net website features daily feeds of quality news and opinions, which are carefully rated by our members, using our unique review tools. We rate the news based on quality, not just popularity. NewsTrust reviewers evaluate each article against core journalistic principles such as fairness, evidence, sourcing and context.

Check it out.

Remember the trouble we had with dates of births?

When Kelly tried to get information from the Missoula Municipal Court she was told she needed dates of birth of the people she was checking on. That proved to be a show-stopper for us.
I was reminded of that when I was in Seattle this weekend and read Mike Fancher's column in The Seattle Times. Dates of birth were essential to an investigative series the paper did Sunday and today on older victims of financial scheming. But the state of Washington is trying to make DOBs non-public information. Fancher discusses the issue in his column. Have a look.

Another example of FOIA getting the story

Check out the top story on News Gems today. It notes that the USA Today story on unreported brain injuries came about with the help of a FOIA request by the reporter.

A lively discussion on future journalists

While waiting for you to file your election stories Tuesday night, I caught up on the Romenesko file and found this free-for-all on whether those who just want to write will be able to find work as journalists or whether it will take multi-media skills to get a job. Be sure to read through the comments on Leonard Witt's PJNet blog.