Story Abstracts for Week 4
Covering crime stories can be a touchy subject for any journalist. It is important to keep in mind that in this country, according to our legal system, everyone is innocent until proven guilty. There is a tendency, when all the evidence seems to be against someone, to come right out and say that he did the crime. Being a suspect in a crime, however, does not necessarily mean that the individual is guilty. Saying a man was arrested for killing his wife is not the same as saying a man was arrested on suspicion of killing his wife, or a man was arrested and is being charged with murder. It’s easy to get caught up in all the police report jargon, but a journalist’s main aim is telling what actually happened, not determining guilt. Therefore, it is crucial to stick to the facts and only report on what is known to be true.
I found Al Tompkins’ “Smarter Crime Coverage” to be very helpful in guiding young journalists through the mucky waters of working the crime beat. Tompkins offers 11 tips on writing crime stories fairly and accurately. Following the advice he gives will not only make any journalist a more effective crime reporter, but will also help one avoid any sticky legal issues such as a libel or defamation suit. He stresses keeping the story in context, and covering trends as much as actual crimes. Additionally, he discusses the importance of writing about those who have been acquitted, not just the ones who have been arrested and found guilty. I think this is not seen nearly enough in today’s journalism, partly because the typical audience seems more intrigued with guilt than innocence. With the exception of very high-profile cases, how often do we as readers see stories about not guilty verdicts, or cases of mistaken identity. We constantly hear about the men and women that have been arrested on serious charges, but how often do these charges actually hold up? A person’s reputation is at stake when it is reported that he may have possibly raped three women or murdered his ex-wife’s lover or stole someone’s BMW at gunpoint. But suppose a witness comes forward and admits to being uncertain of what he saw, or an alibi arises later that clears the man’s name. Do we hear about this? Tompkins says to go beyond conventional wisdom, and find out the “so what” instead of just the “what.” If reporters focused more on the consequences of these crimes, and less on the grisly details of the crimes themselves, I think many inequalities, injustices and uncertainties would be revealed. It is for a court of law to make a judgment of innocence or guilt, not a journalist.
Tompkins’ “Crime Story Resources” was a solid continuation of his article on smarter crime coverage. In this piece, he lists several different types of crimes and criminals, and how to go about reporting on them. He discusses juvenile offenders, prostitutes, coaches who prey on children, slumlords, speeders and women in prison, just to name a few. I think the point of this article was to call to attention certain aspects of crime in society that aren’t touched on as much as some of the more obvious story sources, like murders, rapes, kidnappings, robberies and white-collar crimes like fraud and tax evasion. While those subjects may stand out more to an audience, there are still several other issues to be covered.
We always hear about what gets people into prison, but never about what happens once they’re there, or how it affects their families, or what societal causes may have led them to be there in the first place. So often, these criminals become mere statistics on a bar graph showing the over-crowding of jails or the rise in a community’s crime rate. But what led these people to commit these crimes? What happens once someone is found guilty and thrown into the corrections system? Tompkins writes that journalists need to “find stories that expose the real truth behind statistics and commonly held beliefs,” and I agree with him. I’m not saying that drug addicts are great role models or good sources for flowery human interest pieces, but maybe there’s more to them than what meets the eye. Although we must not alleviate the responsibilities of these individuals for their actions, we should take into consideration some of the societal causes that may have led them to do what they did.
While the third article I read is not based on crime coverage, I did find that it slightly related to the other two in that it discusses another touchy subject in the journalism industry: the use of profanity. Gal Beckerman’s “What the F—k Are They Driving At?” was focused on one specific instance, but its subject lends itself to a broader look into the issue. The article is about a quote that the New York Times changed to omit an obscenity, which, according to Beckerman, turned “fury into mild exasperation.” Beckerman wasn’t arguing that newsmakers should include obscenities in their publications, but they should tell the audience when one is being omitted. Profanity, while offensive to some, is one of the strongest means by which a person can stress his point with heavy emotion, especially in print. Unless it explicitly states it, a reader would not know just by reading words on a page if what was said was done so calmly or violently or excitedly. Removing profanities can make a statement emotionless, but it is in good taste, so what should editors and reporters do? Saying “I’m mad at you” is not nearly as forceful as saying “I’m f—king mad at you.” Yes, there are several instances in which a reader, given the context, could determine the extent of my anger, even without the expletive. Nonetheless, removing any foul language could misrepresent an emotion altogether.
Take, for instance, the fictional quote “Investors need to get their money out of newspaper stocks, or their portfolios will be f—ked.” If we wanted to remove the profanity without changing any words or adding on words that weren’t said, the quote would have to be shortened to “Investors need to get their money out of newspaper stocks.” This doesn’t convey the urgency or power of the quote nearly as well as the entire sentence. But obviously, hardly any mainstream paper would publish this quote as is. So what should a good journalist do? Beckerman argues, and I agree, that it should be mentioned when a curse word is being deleted so the reader knows that this was said with such great force. Yes, it may not be very classy, but sometimes swearing is the best last-ditch effort one has in getting an important point across. It’s a touchy subject, but a good reporter would want to convey this emotion as effectively as possible, while still remaining decent and not offending the entire audience.
“Cover Story: 20 Under 40” gives insight to the “20 people under the age of 40 who represent the enthusiasm, talent, hard work and innovation that’s needed to carry the newspaper industry into the future.” I scanned through the profiles of many of the winners of this prestigious honor awarded by the Newspaper Association of America, but the overall themes of this story package are best summed up on the first page. Each winner was asked the same five questions. What’s the most challenging aspect of your job, what’s the most rewarding part of your job, in what ways do you think your current position will change over the next five years, what’s the best career advice anyone ever gave you, and what three things would you change about the newspaper industry? While many of the responses were unique, most touch on very similar themes. Many newspapers are still hesitant when it comes to pursuing new ideas. Audience demand for local coverage is growing, but is often pushed aside in favor of negative national news. The industry needs to become platform independent, and not only think along the lines of print media anymore. Failure can teach us just as much success.
I think the two biggest trends in journalism today are the move to more interactive, in-depth coverage online, and the increased amount of locally-oriented publications that stray from the typical design, layout and function of print news. In order for a journalist to succeed in today’s ever-changing industry, an emphasis needs to be placed on thinking outside of the box. I also think it is necessary for reporters to continue trying new means of giving the readers not only the information that the publication thinks is important to them, but giving them the chance to weigh in on these issues themselves. The news media industry is becoming more of a give-and-take system, straying from the former concept of simply giving the information and calling it a day. Innovation is the key to the continued success of journalists in this country. If newspapers cannot provide the information that the audience finds most pertinent, then readers will go elsewhere for their news. I think Paul Provost put it best when he said “We have to be able to respond to our readers’ and advertisers’ needs in print and online, and we are all responsible for the innovation and continued development of our multimedia products, which at this point have not even begun to scratch the surface of their potential.” It will be interesting to see which companies evolve and continue to find new outlets for informing the public, and which will buckle under the pressure of successfully reaching out to readers outside of the slowly-dying print medium.
