A disturbance at a local park may be no cause for concern, depending on the clarity of the details of the news story.
More information, please
When I think about the need for clear communications, I think back to my news writing days and my thoughtful editor Dan, who used to say it’s preferable to give people extra information rather than not enough, so they don’t misunderstand the information that you provide. Misunderstanding leads to confusion and misinterpretation, which leads to second guessing and disbelief.
Disbelief is what we felt when Dan told us about a viewer of our website who wrote us to insist that we weren’t correct when we called the sky ‘blue.’
Yes, some viewers would be ridiculous in their comments. There were many that chided us for covering certain stories because they didn’t feel those stories were newsworthy. We always responded kindly and sincerely but what we really wanted to say was: ‘This site is a free service from a private broadcaster. Your tax dollars don’t pay for it so if you don’t like the site, don’t visit.’
There were times when viewers were perfectly justified in their email comments. Often they sought clarification on points in a story. This is normal because news is fast evolving and details often change as facts emerge. For example, the ages and even gender of people aren’t always correct in the first version of a story. Police and reporters ask the proper questions but sometimes the person responding doesn’t have the correct answer, or misunderstands the question.
The matter of emotion
In the case where people are badly hurt, emotions run high. When people are dealing with injuries to others, that may be loved ones, they don’t always think clearly and so they don’t always answer questions correctly. Or, they don’t want to talk at all.
Amid the emotion, we – the online news writers – always tried our best to offer correct and up-to-the-moment details. The public typically understood about the changing of details because we wrote something like this: ‘The age of the male victim was 22, not 21 as previously reported.’
The point is:
As Dan always reminded us, it’s important to offer information liberally and be specific – and careful – in your details. When you’re trying to communicate certain points (facts) in your stories, you don’t want to give viewers leeway to poke holes in them because you didn’t say exactly what you meant to say.
For example, let’s use the hypothetical case of a disturbance in a local park. As a news writer, you don’t want to even suggest that this park is a dangerous place to venture just because one person said so in a quote. It’s fine to offer the quote if it suits the story, but you have to give details to paint an accurate picture. Maybe the quote comes from Gary Hayes, who says he has lived in the neighbourhood for many years and remembers when it was quiet. (So, you know he’s older.) From this detail, you may infer that Gary doesn’t like even a hint of trouble in his neighbourhood. It does not necessarily imply that there IS trouble in his neighbourhood. You also have to be sure to tell the other side of the story. Perhaps the police say the perceived danger is just loud teenagers who have been warned not to return. And, maybe there is another person who says they know the teenagers and can vouch for their character. Plus, what if you got a quote from one of the teenagers saying he’s sorry and didn’t mean to cause any trouble?
Adding or subtracting one or more of these details changes the story but it’s still a minor story that probably won’t grab headlines. But, what if you were reminded that the park was the scene of a terrible string of assaults some years back, and was once a known hangout for drug users and dealers? Those are details you don’t want to leave out. They make the story relevant. Someone knows them and if the news writers fails to reveal them, it looks bad on the writer and the media outlet.
Saving Graces
If you’re getting the idea that news writing can be a slippery slope, you’re right. You’re held highly accountable for the details you share. Often, you don’t have time to deliberate and triple check your sources. You simply have to put your best foot forward all the time. Your saving grace is that ninety percent of the time, people simply want to know the 5Ws: Who, What, Where, When and Why. Once you have a bit of experience and follow the rules, that stuff comes naturally. You can usually avoid the misunderstandings that lead to confusion.
Dan was always big on adding value to stories. Let’s say a major rain storm has passed through the city and has done significant damage. We might give viewers a rundown of the major storms of the past that have wreaked havoc on the city. In the digital age, you don’t need to search high and low for this information. It’s out there. You just have to find it and offer it, and credit the source. That’s easy even for lazy news writers. (Incidentally, I’ve never met any of those.)
As for being clear in the communications and marketing world, that’s a very different story. You typically have time to think and plan. You’re supposed to get it right the first time. You have an obligation to triple-check all your details and sources. If you don’t do that and more, you risk losing business and sacrificing your reputation. When that happens, you’ll have to answer to the boss.
I wonder if that boss yells like some of the news bosses could.