Download issue (PDF) - Nieman Foundation - Harvard University

Journalist’s TradeThe Wire, the AP’s news Web site. Wedon’t offer it directly to the public, andit can only be reached when a newspaperor broadcast outlet contracts withus for the service. But the public respondsdirectly with E-mailed comments,which then are relayed to writersand editors.But we still remain, in some senses,in the shadows, easy to overlook despiteour key role in the traditionalnews industry—and our equally importantrole in the so-called “new media.”Take a close look at any news Website, be it run by a newspaper or televisionchannel or a hot new Internetstartup. You will see that the bulk ofthe stories and images it is offering forconsumption is news that is being updatedthroughout the day and nightwhich comes from the so-called traditionalnews agencies. It’s the same oldagency reporting that used to feed onlyinto a newsroom ticker and then whenthe world became computerized wentinto the newsroom mainframe. Onlynow it has a new look and, of course,with nifty linking of words, sound andvideo.I do sometimes wonder how in theirdiscussion of new media issues journalistscan forget about this. Yet in thesteady drone of panel discussions, opedcommentaries, journalism articlesand so forth, it is remarkable how rarelyany reference to news agencies is made.But of course, some journalists themselvesare not much more familiar thanthe public with what the news agenciesare producing or the practices they areemploying. (I’d humbly suggest thatthey might pursue a greater familiaritywith how we work for answers to someof their questions on how, for instance,to deliver news quickly and, at thesame time, try to ensure balance andfairness and avoid breathlessness orhype.)Don’t get me wrong: I’m not at allunhappy with innovation, or jealous ofnew media. The truth is I’m thrilled,and nearly all my news agency colleaguesare delighted to see our newsreports appearing within seconds onhundreds of news Web sites. And we’reexcited about what many new technologicaladvances are allowing us—reportersand editors alike—to accomplish.From the most distant, disconnectedcorners of the plant—Antarctica,for instance, or the Brazilianrainforest—we are able to send storiesand images over the Internet. Satellitephones shrink in size and price everyyear, and now laptop-sized models canbe used to transmit words and photosfrom, say, a jungle outpost or from acity cut off from the world by war.Larger systems still are needed to transmitvideo by our TV crews, but thoseare becoming more compact, too.Not only can a reporter send a storyfrom that remote location, but an editorcan send it back minutes later withchanges for review by the reporter.Then editor and reporter can get onthe phone to discuss finer points ofstructure, context and word choice,and the need for an in-depth follow-upor sidebar or details for a graphic. I’vehad these discussions with reporters asthey sat out on some African walkingtrail or in a slum alleyway 6,000 milesaway from my desk at AP’s New Yorkheadquarters.My guess is that not all reporterswould always say they are thrilled atbecoming so accessible to their editors.But it does enable us to put out aquicker, better written and more informedreport. It has enabled us toreach and cover stories that would nothave been covered nearly as thoroughlyor quickly. The 1994 genocide inRwanda, for instance, and the refugeecrisis that followed it would have gonelargely uncovered, or would have beencovered with a significant delay, withoutthe satellite phones that AP couldbring to Kigali and to Goma and manyplaces in between. The war in Chechnyaalso would have gone largely uncovered:There were no phones at thefront.By working in several media, we areable to create an impact that wordsalone, or even words and still photosalone, could not have, not just on TheWire Web site but almost more importantly,in the venue we are most familiarwith: the newsroom. We can createa kind of self-reinforcing cycle whenwe send a TV, photo and writing teamto the same story. In TV news centers,editors pick up their morning paper,read the AP story and ask, “Do we havethat?” while across town, in the newspapernewsroom, an editor is watchingAP’s television footage of the same storyand asking, “Do we have that?” Theexhilarating result: blanket coverage,all across that town and, often enough,across the world of a story nobody mayhave otherwise given much notice.The trick, of course, is not to let theexhilaration, and the intense pressure,of juggling several fast-moving mediadistract us from the same old coreconcerns that good reporters and editorsalways have had: Are we beingaccurate and fair? Are our sources ofinformation reliable, and should wedouble-check? Is the story in context,and does it supply the context a readerneeds to understand it? Have we toldthe story clearly and well? Some thingsare staying, and should stay, the same.Today a story crossed my desk froma reporter of ours in Shanghai about aHong Kong businessman’s plan to deliverthe Internet to Chinese throughtheir televisions, using a simple andinexpensive joystick instead of a costlyPC with keyboard and monitor. BillGates was in China several monthsago, investing in a project along similarlines. Maybe it will succeed, or maybesome other scheme will come alongfirst. No doubt about it: The world isundergoing some head-spinningchanges and the news industry willchange, too, because of them.But as our heads spin with the possibilitiesof global and instantaneousdelivery, media variety, interactivity andso on, we can help keep our balance byasking that cranky-sounding but basicand always valid (especially for journalists)question: What’s really newhere? ■Kevin Noblet is Deputy InternationalEditor at the Associated Press and a1991 Nieman Fellow. (See NiemanNotes, page 81, for more on Noblet.)Nieman Reports / Fall 1999 61