




I think this is a popular story idea for this time of year. With enough support and valid evidence, it could have been done well. In this story on Tampa Bay Online from the Associated Press, the reporter writes that if local businesses have a good Spring Break, then it could be a good indicator of how well the area is recovering from last year’s BP oil spill. The article depends mostly on anecdotal evidence from business owners and one statistic from an Expedia spokesperson. The story also doesn’t measure what a good Spring Break is for the region by providing actual statistics and figures.
In my opinion, the story isn’t well-focused because it isn’t really reporting on anything but rather posing a question that can’t be answered yet. If a reporter gave me this story, I would ask them why they think this story should run now. I think this story would be much stronger if 1) it explained what a financially successful Spring Break would be for the local businesses and 2) the reporter gathered a month’s worth of data to support a later version of the story. I think asking, “What’s the story?” would help strengthen the story by making the reporter think about the timing and factual support.
WHAT-Block tuition that could be implemented at Florida’s public universities and colleges.
WHEN-The next few years or whenever the legislation is voted on.
WHERE-Florida’s public colleges and universities
WHY-Block tuition has been at the center of many on-campus protests and was even voted against by UF’s student body during this past student election.
The Slate writers have a point. Are these stories ridiculously overinflated? Yes. Could the reporter have done a better job of gathering facts and data? Yes. But are these stories absolutely useless and irredeemable? No. The reporters (and editors) in these cases are guilty of bad execution, not bad ideas. The reporters were curious about a particular issue, but went about finding support in the wrong ways.
I think there are ways to effectively report on a trend story that informs readers without misleading them. A better way to report the trend would be to choose a single, large event and report on that event individually. National Public Radio did a good job of this in a recent story about Glenn Beck. In “When Beck Attacks, Someone Could Get Hurt,” the reporter talks about Frances Fox Piven and her particular history with Beck. Although it would be very easy, the reporter doesn’t try to generalize what happened to Piven. The focus is on one case, and the story provides evidence that directly backs up what she goes through. She has hundreds of e-mails in which people threaten her life, and these don’t appear until after Beck discusses her on his show. I think this story is a good example of how to provide valid evidence of a trend.
In the case of the library story, I think it’s hard to ignore the Alachua County Library District’s own report. I don’t think the problem is the report itself but the officials who try to attribute the increases to the economic downturn. The reporter probably could have tried to come up with other reasons for the increases, but it was really attractive (and easy) to attribute the upturn to the bad economy.
The “Jimmy’s World” case shows how important it is for an editor to be critical of any and everything that comes before him or her. The story of Vivian Aplin-Brownlee, who doubted the story from its very beginning, stands out to me. She had the characteristics a good editor needs. She knew her reporters and the type of work they were capable of and she was vocal about her concerns. Had she not gone on vacation before the story was published, then history might have turned out very differently and we might not know Janet Cooke.
I think it’s important for journalists to learn from incidents like “Jimmy’s World” because knowing how to avoid and spot these occurrences helps preserve the integrity of our work. If a publication as large and credible as The Washington Post can fall prey to a scheme like this, then any news organization can.
One thing I always worry about is the task of maintaining accuracy in an increasingly digital world. In the rush to scoop a story or get on the web, I think we as journalists may end up chipping away at our accuracy and the integrity that being accurate brings. And this is why good editors are more important than ever. Every news organization need individuals who will scrutinize a story in order to make sure it’s suitable to be published because once it’s out there, it can never be taken back.
Some red flags I noticed in the “Jimmy’s World” story include:
Bo Diddley’s estate in limbo
http://www.gainesville.com/article/20110219/ARTICLES/110219397/1169?p=2&tc=pg
The story starts off by discussing what Diddley’s attorneys plan to do with the song’s publishing rights, but we don’t hear from this from the attorneys. Why are doing this? Why is this better or worse than other options? How does the family feel about this? There’s no attribution for the statement: “Diddley's attorney and two agents/managers are seeking to sell the publishing rights to his entire music catalog for $4.3 million to pay off possible tax debts for his estate, estimated to be worth about $6 million.”
In a story that deals with figures and money sums, there’s no crediting of these figures. “The sale of publishing rights would mean Diddley's heirs — six children and 16 grandchildren — would be out about $400,000 a year in record royalties for the next four decades.” Where does this figure come from? How did the reporter come up with it?
The story mentions court proceedings, and the accompanying photo shows Diddley’s son and granddaughter leaving a courtroom. It’s possible the reporter got much of this information from setting in the courtroom, but this is unclear.
The story does have creditable sources. One of them is Diddley’s attorney and the trustee of his estate, Ron Stevens. Although, he provides some insight into the proceeding, it is through e-mails, which aren’t a preferred method of interviewing. Another source is the judge in the case, Robert Roundtree, Jr. But, like with other sources in the story, it is unclear whether the quotes are taken from what was said in the courtroom or if the reporter personally interviewed the sources.
One thing I liked about this story was the reporter obtained a copy of the will from the family. Instead of relying on what either side said about the will, the reporter used independent information to verify the facts. Including the will gives the story credibility and support.
I think this story’s strength lies in its closeness to the case and proceedings. The reporter went to the courtroom, listened to the facts of the case and the version of events from both the family and the estate trustees. The reporter didn’t rely on getting the information secondhand from a wire service story or a phone interview the next day.
However, one thing this story could have done better was to better identify where the information was coming from. It’s unclear if the information and the quotes are coming from the court proceeding or from independent, separate interviews. I think the reporter could have done a better job of attributing the various bits of information to its sources.
To improve the story, I would include a quoted source near the beginning of the story. The story is divided into six pages on the web, and it’s not until the middle of the second page that the reader finds quotes. Including a quote higher up signals to the reader that the story isn’t a brief about the court case but a longer, more in-depth piece about the family’s battle. I would also try to clarify just where the quotes are coming from? Are they from the proceeding or were they obtained afterward? Overall, this story has good information, but without proper attribution it’s hard to know who said what.