The Laughing Wolf

Playing “Telephone” With The Media

Teresa’s comment to the fourth part of my “Do They Want Us To Lose?” series made me laugh, and made me realize that many people do not know the basic internal workings of the media. Understanding the process truly is crucial both to discussion and to avoiding some common pitfalls. For a number of reasons, I am going to stick with something close to newspaper operation though it will be very generic and simplified.

One of the biggest myths about journalism is the intrepid reporter out searching for a story. That industrious soul scouts the city/location tirelessly, looking for wrongs to be righted, human interest stories to be told, and kittens to be saved from trees. What a load of hooey.

The modern reporter rarely has to go search for stories. They may stumble across one, but most of the time the story comes to them. Let’s review the process a bit, and see how news is made.

Within any newspaper newsroom, there are essentially two systems in place: general assignment and specialty beats. The reporter generally is at the bottom of the food chain in either, and there is a rigid pecking order within the ranks of reporters based on seniority, splash, and then talent. It not being a terribly efficient use of resources to send reporters out to look for stories, most are assigned to the reporter. Newspapers get lots of story ideas submitted to them. They constantly get faxes, calls, e-mails, and sometimes even very unusual presentations of information and story ideas.

In general assignment world, these go to assignment editors and associated staff, who wade through the material and combine it with information from the newswires (Al-AP, Al-UPI, Al-Reuters, etc.), what they see on the television shows they monitor, and whatever they can divine from the entrails of interns who screw up. There being only so much room in any given paper, the amount of weedout is impressive. They run the stories by the top editorial staff, who often have things they want to see in, and ultimately a decision is made as to what stories will be pursued. The assignments are then given to the reporters.

The reporters may or may not know anything about the subject in question, but they are supposed to study up, sometimes aided by a research desk within the organization, develop a plan of attack, and then go commit journalism. Ideally, they will have enough info to recognize excrement when it is shoveled in their direction, ask decent questions, and to determine who all they need to interview on a given story. They are also supposed to look for other sources who can confirm or deny what is being said. Then, they go write up the story and turn it into the process.

Understand that the reporter writes the story, and nothing else. Most stories have some identifier (rocket reaches space) for the story and some identifier for the reporter (Hominigrits01). The story is often submitted to a direct supervisor, who reviews and edits it, and sends it on to a specific editor. That editor then reviews and edits the story, and it may go to yet another editor or straight on to the copy desk.

The copy desk is semi-insulated from the newsroom. While they are a part of it, they are also separated at least somewhat, so that impartial checking can occur. In many organizations, the copy desk reviews the story, they edit for grammar and spelling, they edit to the style guide of the organization, they check facts, they check for obvious legal problems, and they check for standards. This can mean that they will call the people quoted to verify quotes; it means that they may call expert sources to verify facts with them; and, it means that they make sure the stories and photographs meet the standards of the organization and of journalism.

The approved text then can do one of two things: another senior editor can review it (this should take place with all major stories) or it can go to the technical editor and staff. This is the group – whatever the name – that lays out and designs the publication. They know that they have so much space for the story, and they have to fit it in by hook or by crook. If space shrinks because another, more important, story grows, then they have to cut text elsewhere. This can mean holding a story to print later, killing it entirely, or in simply taking out chunks.

Another part of the process, which may or may not be a part of the technical area, is the headline writers. In some cases, they never see the story for which they write the headline. They are simply given a summary, and told “We need a two line headline for this story that fits in X space.” They then provide just such a headline, often on extremely tight turnarounds.

The result is that the reporter knows what they submitted, but they may not know what comes out or what the headline will read. In a good organization, a reporter should know what comes out and should be contacted in the event of significant changes or questions about the story. It does not always happen, however.

There are some good reasons for the process. The idea behind it is to catch bad stories early and prevent them from getting out. The staff in the review chain may or may not let the reporter review the edits. Theory one is that letting the expert on the story review it prevents editors and others from adding in mistakes. Theory two is that by preventing the reporter from reviewing, it removes any chance for bias or intentional manipulation. You pays your money, you takes your reality.

Personally, I like something between the two, especially with specialty reporting. Specialty beats are things like sports, science, living, etc. You want someone with knowledge of the area in question to approve the final product, so that your organization does not end up as the joke of the day. One brilliant example of this was a story on a plasma physics experiment done in space that ended up with a headline stating that a blood experiment had been done in space, the copy or technical desk apparently having a biological bias.

Thus, if you want someone to talk about sports stats and rules, you want someone from the sports desk. If you want someone who can talk about “supplements” and what they do, you want someone like me. Some of the worst stories out there, especially science related, come from when the science writer or desk is bypassed and the story done by general assignments, who often know nothing about the given specialty area. Examples of this can include Alar, breast implants, and much more.

And therein lies one of the largest problems facing any media organization: knowledgeable staff. To cover many stories, you need people who specialize in and understand various sports, science, technology, medicine, computers, military, and more. That gets expensive fast, so most papers tend not to have lots of specialized people. There is also a tendency to bypass the specialist when they say something is not a story, especially when its something juicy. Accuracy far too often takes a back seat in that case, and sensationalism rules.

Radio, because many of its pioneers came from newspapers, tends to follow a similar route for news. The number of steps is usually reduced, and there may or may not be a copy desk to fact check, but it is similar in fundamentals. Television, however, does operate a bit differently. The basic unit there is a team of the personality, the producer, and the cameraman. In more cases than you probably realize, the personality may have done little or no reporting/investigating, as the producer develops and packages the story. This varies, but the person to get to know on such a team is the unit producer or the assignments editor/producer at the station.

Another part of the process that needs to be understood is the “space” allotted for news. Be it a publication or a broadcast, there is only a certain amount of space available. That space must be shared with advertising, because the business of the media is not journalism, but business. They are in it to make money, they just happen to do that by “informing” the public. The amount of space available for news is dependent on many factors, but it can be as little as one third the available space.

If you are truly looking to change the media, this key is the advertising and money. All media organizations make their money by the sale of advertising, with the cost of ads dependent on readership/viewership within target demographics. While there are walls between the news division and the advertising side (or are supposed to be), if you want to make changes go through the advertisers. Let them know that you no longer read/watch a given outlet, and that you will not be supporting those who advertise on same. One or two people doing this can and will be ignored. Larger numbers and organized groups will get attention. Boycotting an outlet works, but it is slow as it takes time for ratings to drop. Boycotting and letting advertisers know there is a boycott shorts that particular circuit.

Hope this helps one and all understand some of the mechanics of the media a bit better. It is an interesting process, and one that should be understood by anyone with an interest in the media and accuracy.

-30-

UPDATE: You may also be interested in this post.