Shots Across The Bow

When You Have Questions, Go to the Source.

Yesterday was a very interesting day for me. I spent some time in the KNS newsroom, gathering reactions to our coverage of their coverage so far, and asking questions on a few subjects I was curious about. I wanted to know how folks at the paper felt about our coverage, and if we were giving them what they wanted, or what they thought the readers wanted. I also wanted to talk to Jamie Satterfield about what she thought about our commentaries, if she'd had the time to read any.

First, let's get a couple of specific issues out of the way.

1. In Russ McBee's second report, he focussed on the fact that the KNS reporter made a debate over the racial makeup of the jury the central fact of her story, while two TV crews who also made reports never mentioned the incident. From this, he inferred that the racial issue was fairlyminor and dispensed with quickly. While this is a logical assumption, it is an assumption, and in this case, an incorrect one. According to Jaime Satterfield, the discussion over the racial composition of the jury pool took place while the TV crews were covering the orientation sessions.

They weren't even in the room at the time.

2. In this post, I noted a change in the wording of a story that eliminated phrasing that Russ McBee had found objectionable, and I wondered if someone at the KNS was paying attention. The answer is no. The change was part of a routine rewrite, and had nothing to do with Russ or myself.

3. In this post, I wondered whether County Law Director John Owings actually used the phrase "back room stuff," or if that was Satterfield's own characterization. It was her own characterization, and she stands by it as an accurate description of the tactics of the County Commissioners that Owings is defending.

4. Don't attribute any of Jamie Satterfield's coverage decisions to editorial pressure from Jack McElroy, or Dave Keim. She made it very clear to me that she writes the story as she sees it

As I talked to folks in the newsroom, one thing became fairly clear; the whole idea of having somebody watch them work was a bit of a new sensation. I got the impression, mainly because I was told flat out, that there are some folks in the newsroom who don't think we as bloggers have an understanding of what it takes to really cover a story, and to be fair, they have a point. Bloggers are primarily commenter's on other people's stories;we don't often find ourselves in the position of going out and finding the story.One staffer told me that he would like to see at least one of us actually attend the trial and try and write up our own take on the day's events,just so we could get an idea of the challenges facing the reporter.

Since this was part of my plan all along, I agree wholeheartedly. Monday, I'll be in the courtroom for the day and then I'll post my take on the events prior to reading the KNS reports and commenting on them.

One of the other things we discussed is how to write a good story. Not only does the reporter have to condense the essentials of 8 hours of courtroom testimony into a few paragraphs, but she must do so in a way that captures the important facts while still engaging the reader. At times, the reporter must use non-neutral words,not to indicate a personal agenda, but to distill the tone of hours of conversation, interviews, or testimony into a single sentence.

And she has to do this after spending 8 hours in court and while meeting a deadline.

I'll let you know what it's like on Monday.

Posted by Rich at September 14, 2007 12:14 AM | TrackBack