-

Back-to-front journalism

Posted by Dave Lee on 12 February 2008 at 15:10
Tags: Student Journalism

The blogosphere has been nattering about a new case study blog: Getting Ink Requests; a site that attempts to make finding difficult case studies a lot easier by literally ‘asking around’.

Roy Greenslade adds his endorsement here.

I’m new to this game — as I suspect most of the readers of this blog are - but I find something a little unsettling about the insular nature of such a project. As it stands, the sole readers of this case study blog are journalists and maybe the odd PR. Now while journalists know real human beings as well (I mean that in the nicest possible way, of course), I’m sure there are more effective ways of finding legitimate case studies for stories.

If we rely on our journalism colleagues for our stories, we only increase the perception of the press only representing a small portion of society, an argument I hear all too often from non-journo friends. I’m sure all student journalists will be familiar with the breed of student journo that looks to their immediate family as a source of stories. “My Auntie went to Taiwan, so I’ll do a feature on that” is the sort of thing I hear all too often. The Getting Ink blog isn’t as sinful as that but, in my opinion, it’s not too far off.

Again, I may be showing my green side here when I doubt the integrity of the “think of story, find case study” process. This outlook seems to encourage thinking up crazy ideas for stories and then searching the wilderness for a case study that fits the bill. Features to order, in other words. There will always be an element of “you’ll do” about it.

Freelancers have a tough job. Stories don’t arrive on a freelancers desk the same way it will for a news editor. A freelancer has to actively seek out stories. I accept all that — but I seriously question the integrity of this back-to-front journalism.

The logical question at this point is what do I think we should do to get good case studies. Well, you know, I’m not sure. I guess you find extraordinary people when you least suspect it.

Related:

No related posts

Tags: Student Journalism

Comments

Add your own comment

1. Sally Whittle |  12 February 2008 at 16:07

   Dave

   Thanks for the link.

   No offence, but if there were more “effective” ways of finding case studies other than word of mouth, we’d be using ‘em.

   Short of standing on the street corner asking strangers whether they’ve had a miscarriage, cheated on their husband or whatever, I’m not sure what you’d do (and really, good luck trying that on a rainy day in Glasgow).

   I’d also love to see you tell an editor demanding three case studies in 24 hours that you’re just going to kick back and wait for some extraordinary people to “find you when you’re least expecting it”.

   I seriously, seriously take issue with having the “integrity” of the site questioned. This is simply an online version of what hacks have always done - asking people they know if they, or the people they in turn know - can help with contacts, suggestions, or stories. How exactly does that lack integrity Dave? How exactly do we find case studies if not by asking people?

   Incidentally, analysis of the 1200 people who visited the site yesterday showed a mixture of hacks and PRs (who have clients and non media friends, lets not forget) plus charities, broadcasters, bloggers and various other sorts of people. Not especially insular, I don’t think.

2. Martin Stabe&hellip |  12 February 2008 at 16:17

   To be fair to Dave, he’s hardly the first journalist to wonder about how “case studies” come about using web sites that connect journalists and PRs.

   Nick Davies makes a similar point in Flat Earth News.

3. The Wordsmith |  12 February 2008 at 16:59

   Just to add, I plugged the site on my blog yesterday and I know for a fact that I pull in a wide range of readers beyond hack circles (and beyond PRs too). One reason for my plug (beyond promoting what I think is a great idea) was to get some of those ordinary people who tune in to me regularly to consider talking to the press. Often, people don’t unless you ask them to, then it occurs to them that actually readers could be very interested in their story.

   Anything that reaches out beyond one hack asking another has to be a good thing. I get fed up of features that feature 2 or 3 case studies who all just happen to be freelance journalists because the writer didn’t look further afield. We all have friends and family outside the trade, who in turn have friends and family in a range of jobs and across the social spectrum. GI’s blog is just another creative route to finding those people. Don’t knock it until you’ve tried it.

4. Sally Whittle |  12 February 2008 at 17:11

   @Martin - To be fair to Dave, he was writing without checking the audience of the site and his piece was factually inaccurate on several points - which now seem to have been removed. It’s also grammatically inaccurate, but maybe the kids don’t care about the difference between “to” and “too” these days, either?

   Our site is simply a way for journalists to extend the “word of mouth” process they’ve traditionally used to find case studies. Surely, this is better than either

   a - asking round the office and relying purely on the perspectives of other journalists

   or

   b- using a commercial site and broadcasting requests only to those organisations fortunate enough to be able to afford a PR agency with a subscription.

   Just a thought..

5. Dave Lee&hellip |  12 February 2008 at 17:13

   Sally,

   Thanks for your comment, and, also, for the private message on Journobiz about the matter.

   ****

   “I’d also love to see you tell an editor demanding three case studies in 24 hours that you’re just going to kick back and wait for some extraordinary people to “find you when you’re least expecting it”.”

   ****

   That’s the basis of my argument right there. Is it right to approach stories this way? The impression I get here is one of journalists tailoring people into the stories they want to write.

   I’m not questioning the integrity of the site — rather the integrity of the journalistic process involved. That’s not something yourself or your colleagues have created — it’s the popular press as a whole, especially the women’s market. My worry with ideas such as yours is that rather than sharing stories from people of from all walks of life, case studies found in this manner serve only to heighten the sense that the mainstream media serves only a microcosm of society.

   ****

   “Incidentally, analysis of the 1200 people who visited the site yesterday showed a mixture of hacks and PRs (who have clients and non media friends, lets not forget) plus charities, broadcasters, bloggers and various other sorts of people. Not especially insular, I don’t think.”

   ****

   Would I be out of line to suggest that the charities visiting would be part of the PR audience? Broadcasters… bloggers = journalists?

6. Sally Whittle |  12 February 2008 at 17:47

   Dave,

   So an editor gives you an assignment to find case studies for a story and you say “sorry, I only write about stories that find me? It’s unethical to find case studies after the story idea?”

   How does that work, exactly?

   We’re saying – as hacks, we’ve always used our contacts to find stories. The internet, and social media in particular, lets you have a bigger circle of contacts.

   Yes, many of our readers work in media, communications or marketing, but not all do – and they all know lots of people who don’t. If 1200 people read the site and they all know 10 people, that’s 12,000 people who could potentially work as contacts for your request.

   We hope that with smart SEO and tagging, we’ll grow our sphere of influence and broaden it over time, certainly. Like it says, it’s an experiment and we’re seeing how this stuff works.

   My issue with this blog post – which I note has been substantially edited since posting – is that:

   1. You didn’t check your facts before posting, saying we were read solely by hacks when this isn’t in fact true.
   2. You referred to what we do as unethical without proposing a single alternative method of finding case studies that does pass your integrity test.

7. Linda |  12 February 2008 at 20:08

   I can understand the concerns about ‘back to front’ journalism and to some extent see where Dave is coming from - but in all honesty the 101 blog is the wrong target, imho.

   Years back I used to get pissed off with journalists who would come to me in my voluntary role of helping the multiple birth charity Tamba and say: “We are writing about psychic twins” or “we are writing about twins who slept with their sister’s husband” can you help us with a “case study” and I found that really frustrating - like they were making a case study ‘fit’ some ridiculous scenario or other.

   But that is not what this blog is about - I have two call-outs on there - one is for people to speak to for a book and the other for a parenting article.

   I am always wary of posting requests on forums or services for PR people as I think it can be perceived as lazy - but I have come to do it more and more - the point is that these are not the only places the requests are going - I do also hit the phones and *shock horror* talk to people - I even wrote for Press Gazette about how a local lollipop lady or hairdresser can bring some great stories.

   If a journalist is writing about a specific industry and needs peope to speak to then every way of communicating can help. You can gather possible case studies from a variety of sources and then find the best - some may come from hitting the phones while others may come from online.

   I had someone contact me through Facebook for a story - who’d have thought it?

   To be honest I find the idea that anyone should be criticised for ‘thinking of a story’ then ‘finding a case study’ per se hilarious.

   I bet even someone reporting on the media may think, “I’ll write about bullying in journalism’ - ‘ooh I need to speak to some journalists who have been bullied’ (Hang on I did that!) - can anyone seriously tell me anything’s wrong with that?

   If I get the right story - thats what matters, not where it comes from.

   Anyway the site is already doing what is was set up for - nothing wrong with debating it all I’m sure.

   Declaration of interest - I’m a 101 trainer!

   Another declaration of interest: I don’t want an editor calling me a c*** cos I can’t find three people in the UK to talk to me for a 1,000 words - that’s why I welcome the blog and the Facebook case studies group too.

8. Case study blogs: back-to&hellip |  13 February 2008 at 15:58

   [...] The launch of a new blog to help journalists find case studies has been questioned by student journalist and blogger Dave Lee, who says such projects provide case studies representing too narrow a field. [...]

9. Kyle MacRae |  13 February 2008 at 17:33

   “I bet even someone reporting on the media may think, “I’ll write about bullying in journalism’ - ‘ooh I need to speak to some journalists who have been bullied’ (Hang on I did that!) - can anyone seriously tell me anything’s wrong with that?”

   Well, yeah. Think of it in terms of bad science. If you were to hypothesise scientifically that there is bullying in journalism, your role as a scientist would be to test the hypothesis by finding evidence. If you don’t find any evidence, you ditch or modify the hypothesis and try something else. That would be good science. What you’re apparently advocating is bad science - you’re committed to the conclusion before you begin (because you have a commission) and therefore compelled to find evidence to fit. Otherwise you have no story.

   Clearly if you already have some evidence that bullying in journalism exists, you have grounds for the hypothesis. You’d then be smart to pitch the idea, get a commission and investigate the subject thoroughly. But it’s not obvious that this is what you’re saying.

10. Linda |  13 February 2008 at 21:20

    Sorry, perhaps the example given that bullying in journalism being written about wasn’t obvious enough to some, but yes I wrote about it because there was evidence it existed.

    Perhaps I should have made it clearer that I wrote about bullying in journalism because there was evidence it existed.

11. Sally Whittle |  14 February 2008 at 13:19

    I think where Dave’s argument ultimately falls down is that simply waiting for case studies, comments etc to land in your lap isn’t something any professional journalist can do.

    The vast majority of case studies are sought to back up stories that have already been commissioned, and are part of the journalistic due diligence process, ie is The Thing I am writing about really happening? What do real people say about this issue or product or trends?

    Now, I could stop random people on street corners until I find someone who happens to have a strong experience relating to raising teenage daughters, or implementing a business software package, or filing their tax return online - but professional journalists working for actual editors don’t have the time or resources to do this.

    I suggest Dave’s idealised waiting for people to appear process may only work in the hallowed halls of student journalism.

    As a professional hack with editors to placate and deadlines to meet, I’m going to do whatever I can to expedite the process of finding great (and they do have to be good, however I happen to find them) case studies. I post on public Internet forums, I post to PRs on my personal mailing list, I post on magazine websites, I might use clips at the end of relevant TV shows and - also - I use Getting Ink Requests.

    Perhaps Dave does think hacks using hacks as case studies is poor practice. I agree. But it’s not what Getting Ink Requests is all about.

    Getting Ink Requests already has an audience that includes PR and marketing professionals, students from the UK, US and Europe, charities, small businesses, professional networking groups, journalists and researchers and several universities in the UK and US. And that’s after three days.

    Sally

Leave a Comment