The Real Faces of the Syrian Conflict

If you're a regular reader here, I'm sure you've heard me say it before. I'm not a big fan of rewriting or summarizing press releases to make a news story, even if the release is of a highly newsworthy event. I feel that it is incumbent upon the journalist to gather and add original content that enriches the story.

When I received an offer of support from the UN to publish around the milestone date that marks the passage of the one millionth child refugee crossing the border to escape from the Syrian conflict, I was eager to take on the task. I asked for access to a UN staffer who was local to the region and for the full story of at least one child or family who had been displaced by the conflict - one that would be exclusive to my article as opposed to those included in the media package made available to a broader selection of journalists and news agencies. The UNHCR was happy to provide those resources for which I asked. I also received an exclusive photograph of that child for use with the article.

The Real Faces of the Syrian Conflict: Today Marks 1 Millionth Child Refugee

The interview, due to the time differences and the short deadline that I had to get the story published in time for the milestone (August 23rd), meant that I had to stay up all night, conduct a telephone interview with a subject who was 7 hours removed from me in Amman, Jordan, and spend the morning writing and editing the piece.

I hope you find it as moving as I did.

UPDATE: The article has just been moved to the front page feature position on Yahoo.com (in the photo scroll at the top of the page).


 

Networking and contact lists

An interview with a newsmaker, subject matter expert, corporate executive or anyone else benefits a journalist in two ways. First you get the interview and can use it for one or more articles right away. Second, it provides you with a resource for future articles. If you keep good records, over time, you'll develop your own Rolodex of database of experts and newsmakers that you can contact to comment on relevant news stories.

For example, I interviewed the Polling Director at the University of New Hampshire for a story on GOP infighting in New Hampshire during the 2010 election season. He, of course, is an expert on polling methodologies, politics (national and local), and political history. At the conclusion of the interview, I made sure I had all his preferred contact information and he invited me to call him for a comment anytime. So, every time there's a primary, debate, election, or other political development (a President receives a public approval polling bump after a notorious terrorist is killed, for example), I have a source who can provide an expert opinion and who is just a phone call away.

One advantage of using these types of contacts for comments is that your article will have 100% original and newsworthy content that isn't found anywhere else on the web or in print. Another is that you automatically have  original and possibly local (if your source is local to your region) angles for almost any national news event once you have a good selection of sources in your file. This should translate into higher upfront payments (at places like Yahoo! Contributor Network), more opportunities, and more incoming links to your articles, from top bloggers and from other well-ranked news sites.

Ideally, you'll have multiple sources for each news category or topic. That offers you the ability to have different viewpoints on the same topic or lets you highlight the fact that multiple experts agree. Multiple original sources within an article give your article much stronger credibility and authority.

Once you've collected many sources, however, you may have trouble remember who is who and what they know. I use a Rolodex-like system of paper cards. OK, I admit that I'm old-fashioned. An electronic database would probably work as well, but I find the paper system faster as it doesn't require me to spend time opening the program or worrying about overtaxing my poor overworked laptop CPU.



A database, however, offers you the ability to search multiple fields which is a major aid in finding topic matter experts. To mimic this in my Rolodex system, I file each contact on two or more cards. One is a standard contact card, filed alphabetically by the contact's name (or company, if that is more relevant). The other is like a library's subject matter files. I file it under the particular topic or topics of expertise for the contact. So a subject matter card might look like this:

Politics (national, NH, polls, history)
Contact name
Official title (such as director of the University of New Hampshire's Survey Center and an associate professor of political science)
Preferred method of contact
telephone number(s)
Preferred time to call 
email address 
Notes: political leanings (if any and if relevant), areas of particular interest, personality notes (likes to be addressed formally as Dr. so-and-so, for example), any other information that will make the interview smoother or more informative. (Has a brother living in Cairo, Egypt who is a political activist there, for example). Requests a link to articles post-publication.
Author of: List Book Titles and Publication Dates
List of previous contacts: This is a list of everytime I've contacted this individual which includes the date of the contact, method (telephone, email, etc), resulting article title(s).

This last bit lets me know whether I am bothering someone too much or under-utilizing a resource. It also allows me review what I've already discussed with this person so I can ask questions like: "In the September of 2010, you said that you thought any sitting president with a disapproval rating greater than 46% might be expected to face challengers in his own party's primary, citing the Kennedy candidacy of 1980, as an example. In your opinion why hasn't such opposition emerged this year?" It also reminds me whether the interview was amicable or hostile, so I know what to expect going in for any future calls.

So that card would be filed under "P" for politics, but would also be duplicated with the contact's name as the first entry and filed that was as well. With this system, I can quickly find a particular individual or I can pull out a list of political or other subject matter experts from which to choose. A database would have searchable fields for area(s) of expertise. Notes fields might be keyword searchable as well. Some might allow active links to the prior articles in which the source was used.

Whatever system you use, keep excellent records of your contacts and sources. They can be used over and over again. That said, you must be prudent in your use of a contact. Most will certainly not want to be contacted every day to respond to Rush Limbaugh's latest rant. Use them when appropriate, but don't wear out your welcome by calling them too often of for trivial or unrelated matters. What is too often? That will depend upon the individual and you'll have to get a feel for each person.

Establishing a Personal Connection

Ideally, you want to develop a personal relationship with each contact so they feel comfortable talking with you. This will allow a more candid conversation during interviews and may result in them actually contacting you when they have something they consider newsworthy. You should definitely make clear to each contact that you would like them to contact you when they have news they think should be heard. There's nothing better than a good story showing up in your inbox unsolicited. If you have a good relationship with your sources you can occasionaly even just call and ask them "What's news?" in their area of expertise and get an impromtu interview and story idea, but don't overuse this technique or use it before you have a comfortable realtionship with the individual or you might scare them off.

The Ettiquette of Interviews

Which brings us to the matter of etiquette. Very few people want to talk openly with, or be helpful to, someone they don't like. Always be polite and professional with your interview sources. Even if the interview is adversarial in nature (they are being misleading or uncooperative), be polite and professional, and act just as if they were cooperating (although, your questions should still dig into the matter and try to reveal the truth), your tone and behavior should not show anger or be insulting or accusatory in any way.

If they are saying something you suspect is false, then confusion while showing you have a knowledge of the topic and can't be (easily) fooled is appropriate: "I'm not sure I understand how you draw that conclusion... The budget, as written and as the President signed it, actually contains a net tax reduction averaging $1150 for each household with income under $250,000 annually, a number which includes 93% of American families, yet you say that he has increased taxes for the average American. How do you support that statement?" That's an appropriate and professional question that will be helpful to your readers, while "You're wrong, the President's budget decreases taxes...." or any accusatory words or tone is generally inappropriate (with a very few exceptions which I may discuss at a later date).  It is an even worse sin, by the way, to accept and print as truth an interviewee's statement that you know to be false without challenging it or providing counter-evidence to the reader.

Aside from a solid command of the language, a good list of reliable sources is a journalist's most valuable tool. Cultivate your sources carefully and they will provide a bountiful yield.

Finding interview candidates: Go back to school

College professors, by definition, are experts in the subjects they teach. They can speak knowledgeably about their subjects and current events that fall within their spheres of knowledge. A political science professor can talk about the history of partisanship and compare present levels to those at various points in history for example. An Egyptian studies professor who has lived and studied in Egypt can knowledgeably and credibly discuss public protests and the nature of the government hierarchy of Egypt.

College professors, furthermore, are used to talking and explaining, that’s what they do for a living, after all. It’s almost never difficult to get enough information from an interview with a college professor.
By visiting a university’s website, you can find department heads and often direct contact information for each professor. However, by going to the college’s research or publication page, you’ll often find a media contact who can facilitate a contact between you and the person they consider best-equipped to answer your questions. Furthermore, by perusing the most recently published faculty papers, you can find topics that these professors are probably eager to discuss and have publicized.

So, let's look at an example. I'm just going to pick Wake Forest to see what we can find. If I look at their home page, I see a tab on the header labelled NEWS. Clicking that, I am brought to a page that lists a variety of Wake Forest related news items. These include changes in Wake Forest staff, research published by Wake Forest students and faculty, and anything newsworthy about the school. That's helpful, BUT, in the upper right hand corner of that page, is what we're looking for. There's a box labelled "For the Media: sources, topics, research and more." Bingo.

When I go to this page, I find a cornucopia of useful information. There's a section called Story ideas of the week which includes briefs on things like "Finding the good (or at least the best) in natural disasters" which includes events that journalists can cover directly, including sitting in on special lectures pertaining to newsworthy current events like tornado strikes and political analysis. More importantly, though, there's a section called Experts which lists a sampling of Wake Forest faculty such as sociology professor Robin Simon, author of "The Joys of Parenthood Reconsidered" and lead researcher of a study showing that adults with children are not happier than adults without children. Her link includes her fields of study and areas of expertise, current research, recent publications, a brief bio, and some noteworthy quotes. Not to mention a photo for media use. In short, everything you need to help you decide if she's the right person for your interview on parenting and depression (hint, yes she is).

Aside from the lists of experts and story ideas, the media page also contains fact sheets, news archives, and this very helpful list of media relations contacts (complete with email addresses and phone numbers) who can help you get an interview with any Wake Forest staff or faculty member, or visit to cover an event on site. If you have a Wake Forest or college sports beat or are just covering a college sports scandal story, you might find the Wake Forest Athletics Media Relations page of particular interest. Here, again you find a list of contacts with email address, phone number and area of responsibility of everyone from the Media Relations Directors for each different sport to student volunteer "Gameday Assistants" who can facilitate your coverage of a campus sports event.

Approaching it from the other end of the news spectrum, if I see a story like this one from MSNBC which involves a study by a Wake Forest researcher. I can find the name of the researcher, Anthony Atala, and search for it on the Wake Forest site to come up with this page which includes everything he's ever done at Wake Forest including growing new body parts... There's also a telephone number to call to reach a media relations representative for an interview with Dr. Atala. Many universities will include the direct phone number and email of each individual professor if you prefer to use the direct route, although I recommend going through the media relations rep. if the schools website seems to be suggesting that route as Wake Forest's does.

By developing a relationship with the media relations reps, you can get prioritized access to almost anyone on the staff instead of having to start all over with each professor.

If you email for an interview request, be very clear about who you are and what you want. I always include MEDIA REQUEST in the subject line of any such email. Tell them the general topic of the interview or article, the specific person or the area of expertise to which you'd like access for an interview and don't forget to tell them when you need the interview completed. If you have a deadline you can give them that and say you'd like to have the interview completed by X time on X date so that you have time to write it up and submit it for X date deadline. I generally do not include links to my profile page or any sample articles in the initial request. If they ask, I send them sample articles written in a similar tone to the one I am planning. I don't want to send Dr. Atala a light-hearted article sample on entomaphagy when asking for an interview about regrowing kidneys from stem cells, for example. Keep it simple, professional, brief, and to the point.

Universities and colleges are excellent sources for interview candidates on an amazingly broad variety of topics. Need a legal opinion on the Casey Anthony case? Look up a law professor. Need some information about the failed clinical trial of an immortality pill? Call someone from this list of gerontology research scientists at the University of Washington's Institute on Aging. What does the latest poll mean for control of the House after the 2012 elections? Ask a poli-sci professor. By the way, if you ask a professor from your local university, that adds a nice localization angle for national issues if you are a local Examiner, or have a local Y! News beat.

Remember, unless you are a direct employee of a media outlet, you can not represent yourself as such. You can say that you are a freelance journalist (or writer) working on an article to be published at Yahoo! News (if you have such an assignment or a beat for that topic), but you can't say you're with or from Yahoo! News, or that you are working for Yahoo! News. If your article is for the Yahoo! Contributor Network instead of for a specific assignment you have from Yahoo! News, then say it's for the Yahoo! Contributor Network. The same applies to Examiner and most other similar outlets although you should check the specific rules for each one yourself rather than relying on my say so.

The Cutting Room Floor: I edited this from an earlier draft of the above post, but tacked it on here because it makes a useful point about the willingness of these people to participate in interviews...

Conversely, when you see, in any other publication, TV program, or other outlet, a new study which interests you as a journalist, look for the lead researcher’s name and school affiliation, then go to the school’s website to find contact information for that person or the school’s media contact. If the study gives a contact person other than the lead researcher, it is best to follow that channel rather than try to bypass the suggested contact. By contacting people involved directly in the study, discovery or invention about which you wish to write, you automatically separate your article from that of other outlets. You’ll have material that is absolutely original in the form of unique quotes from the news maker. You’ll be able to ask them questions that lead them down the angle you wish to pursue, and you can discover, in the course of the conversation, ideas and angles that aren’t obvious from the previously published study summary. These are often the easiest interviews to get. These researchers want their work to be noticed. They want the media to publicize what they have done, and their institution wants the same thing. You will find willing partners in the media contacts at universities. If you go through them, you have the opportunity to develop on-going relationships that can facilitate contacts not just with this one interview subject, but with the entire staff of that college or university.

Typical interview preparation

When I was younger, I recall watching hurricane expert Dr. William Gray explain the dynamics of tropical cyclones on television, The Weather Channel, I think. Recently, Y!CN asked if I would interview him about this year's hurricane season forecast for publication on Yahoo! News. In this case, they named the individual they wanted interviewed, but did not have any contact information or ongoing communication with him. It would be left to me to establish that contact and get him to agree to the interview.

As usual, the first thing I did was start researching. I found that he typically issues four forecasts or updates each year. His next update was due in about ten days. If I did the interview right away, the information could become obsolete very quickly. I explained the situation to the folks at Y!CN who gave me the assignment. They agreed that it would be better to wait and get the updated info. I had just completed three Yahoo! News assignments about hurricanes, so I had gained some basic knowledge about The Formation and Behavior of Hurricanes, Hurricane Naming Conventions, and Hurricane Category Ratings. Perhaps that helped the Y!CN team select me for this interview.

Meanwhile, I contacted Dr. Gray and asked whether he would consent to an interview based on his planned June 1st hurricane forecast update. He said that he would be discuss it, just shoot him a message on the morning of June 1st. I also did some more research in the interim.

Dr. Gray, it seems is well known for his views that global warming is a largely natural event with little influence from human activities. He is quite vocal on the topic. He and his hurricane forescasting colleague Dr. Phil Klotzbach have also just adopted a new forecasting method (used in conjunction with other methods). I checked out hurricane season forecasts from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, since I had recently seen a Facebook post on the upcoming hurricane season by NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco. I also read through 44 pages of Dr. Gray's last hurricane forecast to familiarize myself with the terminology, format and content of his reports. I made a little cheat sheet with annual averages hurricane stats, NOAA's predictions, Dr. Gray's last forecast, and left room for his new forecast numbers. I also wrote out a draft of the interview questions I intended to ask, based on all that I had learned.

When his report was released on the morning of June first, this advance preparation let me skip to the important parts of the report and understand it so that I could engage in a good discussion with Dr. Gray. I updated my interview questions and called Dr. Gray at the phone number he had provided to me the prior week. I was able to conduct the interview within about an hour of the public release of his updated 2011 hurricane forecast, not coincidentally released ont he first day of the 2011 hurricane season.

In the end, the Y!CN News team thought the article, at over 2500 words was too long. They suggested chopping it into two articles and offered a second assignment for the sub-topic of long-range hurricane activity cycles with a separate generous upfront payment. Furthermore, a tangential topic covered in the interview will likely turn into a beat article on environmental issues, since it was omitted from the other two articles.

The main interview about the 2011 hurricane forecast is here.
The follow-up article about long-term hurricane activity cycles is here.

Respect for the interviewee

Generally, when I conduct an interview, I send a link to the finished work to the subject of the interview. Often, however, they will ask to see the work before it is published in order to "correct any mis-statements they may have made." I always acquiesce to these requests to see the content before it is published and to date, no one has had any real issues with the content. I don't always include the title. In this article, though, I did include a title, the one that is on the article now. When I submitted it for publication on Yahoo! News, my editor requested that I change the title. So, it was published with a title different than the one now show. It was accurate and truthful, but could be interpreted in a couple of different ways. One of which was somewhat controversial.

The subject of the interview, wrote me back and strongly objected to the new title which was included in the URL, as well. He objected so strongly that he said he would withdraw permission to use his comments if it were not changed. While it might not be a legally defensible threat, I like to maintain good relations with my contacts, especially when the request to change the title did not reduce the integrity of the article itself.

I contacted my editor and explained the situation. He was able to immediately change the title, and request that the article be taken down from Yahoo! as this was the only way to eliminate the disputed title from the URL. Meanwhile, the article was added to Y!CN under the new title. Once the original was purged from Yahoo!'s cache, it was resubmitted and published at Yahoo! News.

In all it took more than a day and a number of back and forth communications to get everything changed and page views on the original submission were permanently wiped from the system. I felt that changing the title was important as an act of courtesy to someone who had granted me an hour of his time. My relationship and open line of communication with the responsible editor at Y!CN was also instrumental in my ability to accomplish this change.

While the disputed title was factually accurate, would not be considered offensive, and could have been left as is, I felt that changing it was the right thing to do to ease the anxiety my interview subject had. If i had included the disputed title in the prepublication draft I send to him and he had not objected at the time, I might have made a less-strenuous attempt to make the change. If the interviewee simply had second thoughts about what they clearly said during the interview such that it changed the character of the discussion, it would also be a different case.

Think of the example of Newt Gingrich criticizing the Paul Ryan budget, for example. If he had said what he said in the interview and then asked the interviewer to omit those remarks before they were published or televised, I think it would be disingenuous of the interviewer as a journalist to edit the discussion to change its original character. It would be fine to include a note that Gingrich later said he didn't really mean what he said or that he meant to say he supports Ryan's budget, but pretending that it never happened is misleading to the reader or television audience in my opinion. In a case like that, I would have to stand my ground.

In the case of the title change I made on the above-referenced article however, there was no change to the character or content of the original interview, so there was really no reason for me to object to the request.

When we interview people and quote them directly, we have an obligation to represent their words and tone accurately, and, where possible within the limits of our own journalistic integrity, to protect them against threats, real or perceived, to their professional and personal integrity.

How easy are interviews to write?

Some people think that writing interview articles is easier than other types since you are relying on someone else's words and just transcribing them. I strongly disagree.

In the first place, the interviewer must identify a relevant expert, contact him and set up an interview in time to make sure the topic is still newsworthy or timely. Some of the experts are getting calls from many media sources for interviews and they often have work schedules that permit only a small window of available time.

Secondly, preparation for an interview is at least equal to the research for any article. The interviewer must research the topic of the interview, the expert's previous statements and writings pertaining to the interview topic, and research some opposing views and factual information about the topic in order to have an intelligent discussion with the interviewee.

Questions should be prepared in advance, but the interviewer should be willing and even eager to go off the beaten path if the person being interviewed mentions or hints at something that seems interesting.

You are more likley to get in-depth and candid dialogue from the interviewee if you are engaged in a real conversation rather than running through a list of predetermined questions. The more in-depth your advanced research is, the better-equipped you will be to convey a genuine interest in the topic, recognize intriguing opportunities as they develop within the interview, and draw the interviewee out if she doesn't initially provide enough detail.

Finally, once you have the interview, the editing process can be quite time-consuming as well. I'll often talk with a subject for 30-45 minutes. During that time, there are pages and pages of directly transcribed notes. To make that ready for publication, I need to very carefully edit each response in such a way as to accurately capture the tone,context, and main content of the reply. It is important to represent the interviewee and their statements accurately while trimming them down to the bare essentials.

Trimming too much, however, can lead to the danger of stripping out the emotional content of the interview. The article should give the reader all the passion the interviewee feels about the topic and a glimpse of their personality without getting sidetracked.

All in all, I spend far more time on interview articles than I do on anything else I write of similar length. They also tend to be the articles in which I learn the most and I hope that learning passes through to the reader as well.