Another kind of feed, from the animal kingdom (Photo by tomsowerby on flickr)

But here’s a path I wonder about sometimes, that Darren just reminded me of by mentioning “churnalism” — a derogatory term for practice of rewriting press releases and calling it news.

To be clear, I’m not saying I hope this is where we’re heading, I’m musing out loud about something I find partly ominous. I also see it as a possibility if certain existing traits of the current news environment thrive and outcompete others.

Follow your own news

What if mainstream media organizations gave up on covering anything that came written well in a press release? As in, if there’s enough in the release that “churnalism” could be practiced, it just isn’t.

The public would still get the information that’s available from the big institutional sources of news by signing up to those institution’s feeds. Instead of reporters tasked with checking whether there’s anything new from the Delta Police or Vancouver Coastal Health, the people who want to know what those bodies have to say pull the information in themselves. Aggregators would emerge (probably from the news media and elsewhere) to curate feeds for people who aren’t interested in doing that themselves.

This is something we already see, a bit. Celebrities talking directly to fans via social media to bypass critical coverage. PR people with more followers than the reporters they pitch.

What, role, then, would journalists play? One possible path (and my hope, in this thought-experiment) is that by curbing time spent on these easy tasks, newsrooms running at full-tilt would have more time to do the hard stuff, like finding more stories someone hasn’t already told, or more thorough information to tell them better.

It’s like that often-retold tale about the jar with sand and rocks, meant to remind us that if you fill your days with little things there’s no room for the big priorities. This would be a switch to more rocks, less sand. I’m happy to say I’m seeing some shift in this direction at CBC right now.

The other possibility is newsrooms would just keep shrinking, and more former reporters would go work for the feeds.

Okay, there’s one dodgy idea. I wonder what cool experiments might already be underway, when it comes to picking battles. Where do you think the news is going?

Taxonomic trees are an interesting way to think about the relationships between things. Here's a rough one to explain what I'm talking about.

I recently participated in a workshop for scientists about talking to the media, led by Nancy Baron, who has written a smart book on the subject.

It got me thinking about how mysterious the media can be for people who haven’t interacted with us much. One thing we don’t always make clear to people is just what kind of interview we’re asking for. Which can make a difference in how someone will prepare, and what they can expect to come of it.

The most obvious taxonomy of an interview is by media line: print, radio, TV. And that has merit. It can help you decide, for example, whether to put on a tie, or brush your hair. It will also determine whether an interview over the phone might be enough (print, radio) or likely won’t be (TV).

But, here’s another way of looking at it.

Conversation vs. quote

After the split between print and broadcast, I think the next most important difference is not between TV and radio, but between two types of broadcast interviews: the conversation vs. the quote. [Note, these are my labels, not standard industry labels. They're both called interviews, but I'm trying to make a distinction.]

The biggest difference for the interviewee is how quickly and clearly they need to make their point(s).

Conversation

In the conversation, where the interview airs as an interview (either live, live-to-tape, or edited down) people will hear more of what you have to say. A typical current-affairs interview one of CBC Radio’s local shows (e.g. The Early Edition) is 5 minutes. So, there is room for a (short) anecdote, and you could take a minute to make a point.

Quote

Compare that to an interview that will lead to quotes (or clips) in a broadcast news piece. A typical clip in a news story is 10-20 seconds, maybe shorter. This is generally with a reporter, rather than with a host of a show.

You can (and should) still explain a lot more to the reporter than the short, pithy, “here’s the bottom line” quotes. I’ll usually talk to someone for 10 minutes or more, and that information is not lost, it helps me decide what the story is (or isn’t). But in the end, I’ll still be looking for short quotes that make the person’s point clearly.

Interestingly, during this second “quoted” type of interview, even though you have to make your point succinctly, you may actually have more time get there. Five minutes on live radio fly by. But you could talk to a news reporter for longer, and come up with the perfect, smart, pithy quote at minute ten (something you never would have gotten to on air).

A few of other nuance differences…

• The advice some people get to address the person interviewing you by name (“Well, Lisa, you see, Lisa…”) should really not be followed if it’s an interview for quotes. This will render clips unusable. Even in a conversation interview, some hosts hate it because it doesn’t sound authentic.
• In an interview for quotes, it’s helpful when people answer in complete sentences, because the audience won’t hear the question.

  Q: Where did you do your field work?”

  A: “We did our field work on Haida Gwaii.” (Not just “Haida Gwaii.”)

  This advice can be dangerous, though, when it leaves people concentrating so hard on speaking in sentences they ploddingly repeat the phrasing of each question (e.g. “Where we did our field was on Haida Gwaii.”)

• In a pre-recorded interview, especially one for quotes, you’ll often be asked whether there’s anything else you want to say but we didn’t get to. I do this every time. But, it will never happen in a live interview.

All this to say, it’s useful to consider where the interview will end up. And either way, you need a clear idea of what you want to say.

What do you think it’s important to know before going into an interview?

[There is a big caveat to all of this. The new answer to "Where will this interview be used?" is "Everywhere." I pull audio from TV interviews for radio news, TV and radio scripts are used for CBC.ca's online pieces, print reporters carry small video cameras, some of our radio shows are videotaped, and some of our interviews that would before only have been clipped for news are now posted online in their entirety.]

Lisa talks with her hands about why she uses social media on the job. (Photo credit: Miss604 on flickr)

This weekend at the Northern Voice conference, Kirk LaPointe from The Vancouver Sun and I spoke on a panel called “How (Should) Journalists Use Social Media.”

The visuals I used, created using a new-to-me online tool called Prezi, are posted online here.

I won’t recount the whole thing, but here’s a couple of key ideas I talked about.

Social media makes my city smaller

My city, but smaller and more interesting. (Photo credit: ecstaticist on flickr)

Smaller, more interesting, perhaps even more friendly.

In my talk, I told a story about my first job at CBC: a short-term stint as CBC Radio’s Nelson bureau reporter. There, it was a lot easier for the public to reach me, if they wanted to. No security desk, no switchboard in Toronto, just a one-room office and the phone number was in the book.

In a big city newsroom like CBC Vancouver, it’s very different. It would be easy (though not smart) to avoid “the audience” almost completely. In my opinion, good journalists don’t — with or without social media. I use tools like Twitter to reach out beyond the people I would otherwise know, to get to know my city better. My networks are bigger, and that makes my city smaller.

Social media as “social scanner”

So, if you see something on Twitter, do you go report it on air? No, of course not.

It’s like a police scanner to me. People who work in news sometimes listen to chatter on the police scanner to find out what’s happening. A fire in Coquitlam. A fatal MVA in Abbotsford. Just because you hear it, doesn’t mean you immediately go on air with it. You need to find out more. But now you know what to find out about.

That’s how I use Twitter, and other social media tools. If I see a tweet about something that could be breaking news (like the injuries at the Alexisonfire concert in Vancouver during the Olympics) then I start asking questions, and searching for more.

Stream vs. reservoir

Other reporters, or people starting to use Twitter on the job sometimes ask me how I keep up with my followers. And the answer is, I don’t.

For me, email : reservoir :: twitter : stream.

The water in the reservoir of a dam is contained and accounted for — stored until it’s eventually released through the turbines, or out some overflow. That’s email to me: I have an obligation to deal with what’s sent to me.

For me, Twitter and blogs and Facebook are streams I dip in and out of. I enjoy them while I’m there, but I don’t feel beholden to track every drop of water that flowed before and after my visit. Nor do I expect that of others.

How do you think journalists should use social media?

Thanks to notes from DameEmma, Stephen Hui, ivantohelpyou, shamelesshussy, Miss604, Gillian Shaw, Rob McMahon, di_marshall and Hummingbird604 for helping me decide what to repeat here.

Credit: esterase on flickr

I’m giving a talk next month to a group of health science graduate students, on how to communicate their work in the media.

I’m no expert, but I have worked in both worlds, and understand a bit about how they often clash.

Both sides have work to do. For example, many (most?) reporters will cover a story about a scientific publication without reading the paper itself (relying instead on the press release). But, since the talk is for a training day for scientists, this advice is for them.

As I prepare I’m going to post my ideas here. Some working titles:

• An introduction to the other side
• Know what your story isn’t
• Be the one to make it simple
• Stay human
• Have confidence in what you know

What does all that mean? I’ll flesh out each point and post it in coming days/weeks.

I’ll admit it, I was a little resistant to taking on what are generally called “consumer stories” on my beat as an environment reporter. (Find out why after the jump)

But my editors have been keen on them, and I have to say they were right — gauged by audience response, at least.

Some of the topics I’ve tackled so far:

• What difference would it make if we stopped using plastic bags?
• How do you find a greener Christmas tree?
• How clean should your peanut butter jar be to get recycled?

Do you have questions about reducing your footprint, that you want answered? (Or at least asked?) Leave a comment.

What’s my beef with the consumer story? They can be overly obvious, like the post-Thanksgiving stories that recommend refrigerating turkey leftovers.

I also had the impression that a lot of “green living” pieces can boil down to the story line, “don’t buy this, buy that.” As if a sustainably-sourced bamboo end table is going to save the planet.

So, my editors and I agreed I’d aim to steer clear of stories that fall into those categories. Which is why I’m always looking for new questions to take on.