I feel like most journalists go into an event, into a news worthy item with an idea with what they already want to talk about. It’s like the story is already written for many, and the interviews and research are only done to back up the story the journalist wants to relay. I feel like this is a fundamental problem that journalists need to get away from. It’s lazy, it’s easy, and it’s predictable. I think it’s a leading reason to why all of our news stories sound so similar.
For me, I look at event pieces a little differently. I go to the event and I see what the news is. I don’t try and force the story. I observe what is going on, I see what people are saying, interview people, and then I go home. I review the interviews, I review my notes and I see, quite literally, what the story is. What were people saying at the event? What was actually going on at the event? Did the event accomplish what it wanted? I feel this open-mindidness is something that most journalists lack. They already have a pre-conceived notion as to what the story is, and make everything, from their questions to their story, fit that story.
No comments:
Post a Comment