If journalist's totally misinterpreted an event in a court case, to the point that they essentially made up the facts - what would that mean? Is it because journalists don't care about the truth? Because they're inherently bad people who just want to do as little as possible and pick up their pay check at the end of the day? Because when there's nothing exciting happening journalists just like to make stuff up?When mistakes or misreporting happen, there's isn't an excuse - but there's always a reason.
There was a blog post last month objecting to how journalists have interpreted what Anders Behring Breivik said about his time playing World of Warcraft. It quotes Breivik's statements where he says he used World Of Warcraft as a reward and a recreational break before he carried out his attack. It then takes issue with journalists reporting that Brievik used World of Warcraft to 'prepare' for his attacks.
As a journalist who has spent some time court reporting I've been thinking about the article and what its criticisms mean for my profession.
I can understand why there is a desire by journalists to report the online gaming aspect of the trial. What does it mean when a mass murderer immerses himself in a particular online game? Does it mean anything? Does it say anything about the game itself? Though journalists can't really unpick the answers in 300 words or less, such an intriguing aspect of the trial will make journalists want to report on it.
I do agree with the blog post on Rock, Paper, Shotgun. Breivik did not say he used the game to practice his attacks or prepare in the sense that it aided his planning or execution. Breivik has been taken out of context and the trial reportage leaves the impression that the game can be used to prepare people for violent acts. It's not great journalism in any sense.
So I then started to imagine myself in that courtroom as a journalist reporting the Breivik case. What would I have done if I were covering the trial and my editor had asked me to come up with an angle on that particular aspect of it?
In a 40 second radio story, or a 90 second TV package, or 300 world online piece, how could I have described that part of the trial in a way that used the fewest words possible (as my profession and editors demand) as well as retell the story in a way that interested my audience (another demand of my profession).
How else could I have written the leadline or headline?
"Breivik took year off to play World of Warcraft"? Sure, we could go with that, but what if my editor wants something more interesting? Would this be enough to make the audience read the story or listen to the rest of my piece? Would you?
"Breivik 'rewarded' himself with year long gaming gorge" Ok. Better but a little unclear.
"Brievik took year-long break to play online game before attack" Wordy and not very, I'll say it, 'sexy'.
"Brievik mentally prepared for attack by playing World of Warcraft". Bingo.
A journalist might argue that even though Breivik said he was using the game as a way of taking a break before the attack, you could interpret that as a way of mentally preparing, by checking himself out for a year and rewarding himself before the attack.
Now we have the beginning of the reportage moving away from what should be clear, crisp and truthful. It won't take much for an editor to remove the word 'mentally' in that headline so that the story becomes that Breivik used the game to prepare for the attacks.
This is not a great way to report, most especially in court cases, and I'm not defending incorrect reportage a lot).
Journalists aren't evil people who don't care about what they do - there might be a couple there but the vast majority really care about their profession and want to be known for doing a good job. They want to tell the story and get people out there to care about it.
I don't know what the journalists at the trial were doing, why they chose the headlines they did or what their aim was, I wasn't there.
But what I'm wanting to demonstrate is that through the process of doing what's expected, the facts can get reinterpreted rather easily. When journalists don't have a lot of time, but much is still expected of them, liberties can be taken in the way they interpret stories and quotes. Sometimes it's expected and is understood to be the business of journalism -- depending on the newsroom and outlet.
When you read some of the best journalists in the Guardian or the Independent (both well respected newspapers), they build up a portfolio of the facts, and then they tell you what that means and how to interpret it. That's what they're supposed to do, especially if they have an expertise. Otherwise it would just be pages and pages of listed facts with the reader not knowing what to make of it or the time to figure it out. But this system only works well when you fund it and give the journalist resources and time.
Most journalists don't have that luxury.
But why can't journalists just say what happened in the trial and be done with it? Why the need to dress it up?
Firstly, journalists are under pressure to find a sexy headline, and some facts of a case don't lend themselves to that (Again - just stating what happens, not saying it's right).
Secondly, journalists are now often expected to file every hour - sometimes every 30 minutes.
Think about what you can achieve in that time frame on an ordinary day. Maybe get ready for work? Write a shopping list? Normally you wouldn't think to give yourself 30 minutes to write a cogent piece that's meaningful, accurate and interesting all at the same time. But that's the job. Journalists need to fill the empty space and so they rush to keep delivering material.
I haven't even covered whether the same journalist gets sent out for the whole trial. Often it's a different journalist each day trying to understand the context of one small part of the trial they're witnessing - and then file on it. Very hard to get a whole picture, or know if you're making a big deal out of an aspect of the trial that isn't worth it. It's not like you know you are going to be covering the trial on that day and can prepare for it. You're assigned your story when you arrive for your shift.
There is also this desire to somehow make each element of a court case link back in a meaningful way to what the accused has actually done. We start to report 'around' the issue, picking bits and facts in isolation because they make an interesting part of the story. The result is that we can start to fracture the picture so much, that the context and reality of what has actually happened and why, becomes lost.
These days we more and more start to justify 'interpretations' of events that remove themselves bit by bit from what's really happening because we're interpreting those events on the run.
I'm not defending every piece of sloppy journalism out there, clearly some journalists just get it plain wrong. For the talented writers the compromises are much smaller because they can manage to get around the pitfalls with clever writing, but otherwise there are many journalists out there who do make mistakes, forgivable or not.
But journalists are under more and more pressure to deliver a story out of their hour in court or their time on the scene. Think about how many news channels there are - sometimes multiple channels for the one outlet: online, radio, TV, headlines, long format programming ... all these have to be fed everyday.
Journalists don't get a few hours or one day to go back over what they write before they present it to the international boardroom.
Gone are the days when a journalist could sit in court all day and then come back to the editor and say 'look, nothing significant really happened and if you want a headline I don't have it' and the journalist wouldn't be judged for it.
There is such a demand for content that journalists are under enormous pressure to 'get a story out of it'. If you get sent to the story, especially the biggest one in the country - get something out of it or you're not doing your job. Can you imagine a headline on the Breivik Trial: "Nothing happened today"?
It takes a very brave editor that is willing to defend the journalist and spend money just to have someone babysitting a trial without getting a story out of it.
In the newsroom, some get the reputation for being a 'storykiller'. That's when you're a journalists who says too many times 'nah there's no story in it'.
Many journalists don't want to be known as storykillers. They want to try and 'feed the beast' and do what their bosses expect of them. If you have a round or beat, and you're in radio, several stories are expected out of you in the one day - maybe five or six.
Let's not even go into the fact that with pay actually dropping in real terms for journalists, many more junior reporters are covering stories, with older people who need to pay the mortgage getting out of the business. Junior reporters who lack rigorous training and experience.
Sometimes the media outlet won't send its own correspondent as it doesn't want to pay for the trip, so the newsroom relies on stringers who get paid on a story-by-story basis. That means that stringer wants as much as possible to get something 'up' so that they can get paid for it.
What are we to do?
The fault lies in the lack of time given to journalists these days, the lack of space, the increased pressure, the drastically reduced pay when you compare it to other highly skilled industries. The pressure isn't where it should be from editors - the desire to get it right, no matter what and the space to do so.
Now, editors want to go home and hear the story they had on their output also appear on another outlet. They don't want to 'miss' the story - they want to do what everyone else is doing. This is more true in some countries than others. What choice do they have? They need to 'compete' and they need their bulletins filled and their online content fed no matter what -- you can't broadcast a shorter bulletin because there's no news.
The reality is, you get what you pay for.
We're not paying enough experienced journalists and giving them the time to report accurately, without the fear of 'not bringing back a good story'.
And so we get World of Warcraft misreported.
But how do you fix it? It would take a major restructure and rethink of traditional forms of bulletins and news feeds. But our whole industry is now geared to feeding the beast and I don't see that changing any time soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment