How to get the best obtainable version of the truth

Carl Bernstein says that the best the press can do is get the best obtainable version of the truth. He says that to get the actual and complex truth, "requires hard work, digging, reporting"

Wow, that is the fanciest way to say nothing that I have ever heard. Let's face it, Bernstein is a reporting legend who is now on the "rubber chicken dinner circuit" and is preaching to those who think he's great. Now, I don't want to say that his points are not valid, or that its all fark, but its a little grandiose.

In the speech that we read, Bernstein manages to say a lot of things that touch on important topics, but doesn't say a whole hell of a lot.

Still there are some great points in here. He hits it right off the bat, " Today we in journalism limit ourselves more often in finding out the truth than the government limits us, because we are not willing to do the hard work of good reporting, of searching out the truth." This gets us into the "best obtainable version of the truth". If anyone really wants the truth they have to get that first polished quote from the government and then sniff around and talk to workers, see if this is really going on. They have to look at records. They have to go in depth.

Bernstein then goes on to talk about why reporters don't go in depth. Trash sells, timeliness is better than good reporting, and people want easy truths not complex ones all fall into why journalism doesn't go in depth anymore.

I have to agree with Bernstein--Rupert Murdoch sucks.

Yet, you have to look at it in some context. Bernstein needs this lecture circuit. If he doesn't talk like the whole of American journalism is going to hell, no one wants to listen. So yes, Bernstein has a lot of good points, but it doesn't go for all of American journalism.

here is one quote I really like. It doesn't really fit in with what I am talking about, but its fantastic!

"The truth is often complex, very complex "The best obtainable version of the truth” is partly about context and this is perhaps the greatest single failing of our journalism in media today. For too much of it is utterly without context. Facts by themselves are not necessarily the truth. Thus the gossip press, the tabloids, too much of what we see on the air, even when the facts are somewhat straight, they are often a form of misinformation, because their aim is to shock, to titillate, to distort, to give grotesque emphasis."

Again, this fits for a lot of the fark you see on TV and in the isle of your local grocery store, but it is not all American journalism.

Bernstein has alot of good points in his speech. Jouranlists should fact-check, talk to multiple sources, follow all stupid lead just incase, and really get thier hands dirty. Journalists shouldn't publish anything till it is well polished and makes sense, but hey that still happens. There is still hope. Smile Bernstein--smile.

Writing about Katrina

The staff of the Times Picayune, started a blog to reach the people of New Orleans, even though they could not distribute a hard paper.

These pieces are all very different in format and style. The first articles read like normal news stories. They get out the hard facts, they serve the public by giving out warnings and advice, and the do so with out bullshit! They are straight and to the point. Everything is written in a tone that shows the immediacy of the situation. They don't sugar-coat anything. They don't have time to write it, the reader doesn't have time to read it. Facts are what's important.

"The weather service cautioned motorists not to drive on roads covered by water because it's difficult to judge the depth. People in vehicles caught in rising water should abandon them immediately and seek higher ground. Winds of 100 mph have been reported on Grand Isle, and gusts of 70 have accompanied rain squalls in the New Orleans area that have dropped as much as 2 inches of rain an hour. Rain totals of 15 inches are possible in some areas today, as Katrina moves over the area."

Only pertinent news.

In the aftermath of the crisis the articles that really stick out are the editorials. Articles titled, "An open letter to the President" and "It's time for a nation to return the favor" do more than just stir dissidence and rage. They are well worded pleas that give moral to a city (reminding it of its greatness), critique a government's failures, and tell those reading from a safe distance how they can help. These editorials go far past rants, but truly serve their readership.

However, the most impressive article that I read from the Picayune's blog was posted on September 19, "'Help me, please don't let me die'". This article is about the 911 operators in New Orleans. It was grim. It was depressing. It showed exactly what it was like to be in that room. It showed the helplessness of the operators. It showed the devastation and despair of the callers. It showed the entire tragedy in one article.

What really moves this piece is the dialogue. They give you every kind of story, the kind that work out:

"'I'm calling to report a fire, at 6131 Bundy Road.'
'What type?'
'There's a whole apartment complex on fire ... ' '
Do you know how long ... ,' the operator interrupts. '
No, ma'am.'
' Do you know if anybody's inside the house?'
'I know there's people over there, that's what I'm trying to say ... '
'... OK, we'll get somebody out there.'
'Ok. Thanks.'"

and the ones that don't:

"'Seek higher ground' - that was all that Allen could tell them, in the calmest voice she could muster. 'I'm already on my roof,' so many of them would respond. "

The article is filled with great quotes, and what really amazed me is that the reporter went through so many 911 tapes. He, Brian Thevenot, writes that the police tapes have been released to the public, and to get the right ones he must have gone crawling through tape after tape.
The most amazing thing about this article is that Thevenot ends in on a (relatively) high note.

"But she said she plans to keep her $9-an-hour job, and to stay in New Orleans. 'I'm not leaving New Orleans,' she said. 'If I have to rebuild, I'll rebuild.'

This last quote leaves the reader with a optimistic idea about such a grim article.

More about 9/11

David Usborne's September 11 articles are great pieces of writing. Personally I like his retrospective piece a lot more. I think that it paints a much clearer picture of what was happening that day. Thinking about it though, I imagine that with so much happening it must have been hard to focus the deadline story. Usborne had so much to tell his reader's in England, but not enough space to really do it. There was just so much. So his focus was a little off, but it told the entire story--from his disbelief to the lines of people donating blood. The retrospective piece was written after everyone already knew what had happened. He does not have to make us believe or see anything--we already have. So with this piece he can speak less of facts and more of details, emotions, and his own story.

The good aspects of his deadline article is that he is in tune with his reader. While taking them through his own 9/11 experiences, Usborne answers all the questions the reader would ask. How many are dead? What are the people in New York doing for each other? Who is responsible? What does the city look like now?

I learned from Usborne that you have to find the story. You have to watch and you have to investigate. Usborne says that he did not even believe the man who said something about the towers being hit by a plane:

"The towers at the World Trade Center had just been struck by two large passenger planes, he told me...Clearly Mr. Mckinney's explanation wouldn't do...it was too outlandish."

Still he goes out to the sight and sees what he can see. Granted eventually he turns back--I suppose the lesson here is to know when to back off.

Usborne really gets a feel for the horror of the day, and with his generous use of the word I, the reader really gets involved in the story.

Finally, Usborne taught me through this article that a good simile never dies. In both articles he compares the Twin Towers to Lego towers. Its rather effective, and I am glad that he brought it back in the retrospect article.

A No Prize Winning Review of a Pulitzer Prize Winning Article

The assignment for today was to read the Pulitzer Prize winning stories of the Wall Street Journal--the guys who won Pulitzer's for thier breaking news of the September 11 terrorist attacks on America. After reading we were supposed to write about how these award winning journalism articles related to fiction.

The article I read for this project was "I Saw It All. Then I saw Nothing" by Daniel Henninger. Let's stop there. The title even sounds like fiction. I put it up there with The Sound and the Fury. I mean damn, that is a loaded title.

I always learned that good fiction starts in the middle of the story, and then gives you background, goes back to the middle, and ends with an open but understandable conclusion. Henninger does a great job of this. He opens in the middle of the story, not only is this interesting but it is the information the reader came for.

"I saw the airliner at the instant it hit the north tower of the World Trade Center. A little later I saw the flames burst out of the south tower when the second airliner hit it. I saw people fall from the top of the World Trade Center. I saw the south tower fall down. A little later, I saw the north tower fall down. I have, in the past several hours, looked into lower Manhattan, and each time, where the World Trade Center stood, there is absolutely nothing."

What Henninger also does in this opening graph is introduce us to his hero--himself. We see the entire incident through Henninger's eyes, and we know that. We follow his path through September 11 and live his experiences. (Read this and try to take the I off my keyboard.) Also Henninger has a great Anaphora with him. The repitition of "I saw" really gets the reader into what he in fact saw.

Now lets talk about setting. Ok, in the first draft we understood that the events take place in New York. To me, New York is a television set. I don't know what it's like. I just know that they have a really nice ball that they drop every New Year's Eve. Henninger does a great job showing us the area around the towers, before the attacks. He makes everything seem real to those who have never been there, and probably makes it concrete for those who have.

"There is a small coffee shop, with very good cinnamon-raisin croissants, across from American Express in the northern tower of the World Financial Center. Dow Jones is in the WFC's southern tower, and the whole complex sits in the shadow of the World Trade Center."

As for dialogue, Henninger does a good job tracing his internal monologue throughout the entire article. As for external dialogue, Henninger does not have much, but the bit that he does have really hits the spot. Its poignant in how it characterizes New Yorker's speech and the insantity that was the disaster.

"He got out and cops were telling people to 'make for the water.'"

There are alot of good things about how this article is written. Henninger is constantly pulling out little sides that really make the story flow. From his quick anecdote about his collegue, to his side about it seeming calm and crickets chirping, he makes the experience come alive.

Near the end of the story Henninger gets a little to artsy and deep for my personal tastes. He really wants the reader to feel the same sense of emptiness that he does. I really didn't feel it, but whose to say that means other people won't?

Seeing the world thourgh journalists' eyes

In Margaret Tablot's article David Simon talks about reporting for the Baltimore Sun. There are some quotes in here that let you know how a reporter sees the world, even when he is not talking about reporting.

"'You can’t make this shit up...stealing life,' as he once described it to me—and knowing which parts to steal."

Great quote. It shows that you can never have an idea of what you are going to write. You have to figure it out first, and then you can report it. Knowing what is bs and what is true and honest--that is the trick.

"To be a decent city reporter, I had to listen to people who were different from me,” Simon explained. “I had to not be uncomfortable asking stupid questions or being on the outside. I found I had a knack for walking into situations where I didn’t know anything, and just waiting. A lot of reporters don’t want to be the butt of jokes. But sometimes it’s useful to act as if you couldn’t find your ass with both hands.”

A good reporter has to go beyond himself at times. He has to be honest about what that means. If it means you have to look at a criminal and tell him that you don't know if 50 bucks is fair for a gram, that means you ask it. If you are going to get the facts, you have to assume you don't know jack.

"I always have to trust my own ideas"

The journalist is the one stuck in the story. The people who really know it, don't know how to write. Others might know how to write, but not be in the story. Follow your gut. If the story is going one way, follow it. It might be a dead end, but even if it looks like a good story follow it. The writer knows what he is looking for and should go for it.