Readings Abstract due Week 2
I’ve now heard it mentioned in my reporting, editing and advanced editing classes: the good reporters are ones who seek out their own stories, instead of waiting to be assigned the story ideas of others. In this week’s reading, “50 places to shop for story ideas,” the author refers to the reporters who seek out stories of their own as “story hunters,” and those who simply wait for an idea to be handed down to them as “perennial assignment receivers.” The primary argument is that story hunters find their jobs easier and more enjoyable because they have a constant bank of ideas to pull from, while perennial assignment receivers are often the ones who gripe and complain about how the stories they were told to cover are not newsworthy, or simply are not that much fun to write about.
Basically, the basis for a good story idea is curiosity. A good journalist should want to know about, well, anything. Within one’s own community, there is a great number of persons, places, events, ideas, occurrences and oddities to write about. The article lists 50 places where one might go in search of a solid, newsworthy story. While the list was quite comprehensive, I think the author might have saved some time and space by making the article one sentence long: anything you read, see or hear can generate a story idea if it’s interesting enough. The list didn’t offer much help (to me, at least), because it offered everything under the sun as the possible source of a story. I knew that before I started reading the article. Some of the ideas on the list were unique, such as hydro poles, tombstone inscriptions and barber shops. Many of the potential “places to shop,” however, seemed either obvious (the Internet, other newspapers, radio and television), or barely worth mentioning (graduation notices, anniversary notices and donation jars). The list was so expansive that it mentioned every single piece of writing or instance of human contact that I would encounter throughout my day, so I feel like I’m back where I started. The only places it didn’t mention as possible sources were at the family dinner table and in my sleep. This article was slightly helpful, but I think it might have served its purpose better if it was narrowed down to around 20 places, instead of mentioning every little thing that might produce a story once every blue moon.
Mark Glaser’s article, “Revamping the Story Flow for Journalists,” outlines the process of writing a story from the conception of the idea to the feedback from the reader. He discusses this progression in three separate sections: the past, the present and the future. In Glaser’s opinion, the future of story writing will be much more interactive between the writer, the editor and the audience. The basis of this interaction stems mostly from the increased use of the Internet in the news media field.
The old system consisted primarily of assembling story ideas from the writers and editors, or occasionally from a press release or letter. The idea is brought up and given the “green light,” then research and interviews are done, the writer gathers all the material, writes the story, and then gets feedback through calls and letters to the newsroom. The current system is almost identical, with the exception of utilizing the Internet, and especially blogs, in obtaining story ideas and gathering information. Glaser now also includes e-mail, along with phone calls and letters, as a means of corresponding with sources and getting feedback. The new system he outlines, or envisions, is much more interactive. It consists of highly networked groups for different beats, in which the audience has a large say in what stories are written, how they are covered, and what should be included. Every step he discusses seems to include involving the “community or social network.” While I agree that readers should have some say in what is covered, as a journalist’s first priority is informing the public and writing about what is of interest to it, I think Glaser wants the public to have a little bit too much of a say in the whole process. In the steps he outlines, it seems as if in the future, he expects the audience, and whoever else makes up the social network, to tell the writers and editors what stories to write, where to go for information, and what they might have left out. It seems to me that Glaser essentially wants this social network to do almost as much of the work as the writers and editors (the ones that get paid to do it). I’m all for people pitching ideas, but I do not think this social network needs quite that much say in every process of writing a story.
