Dynamics of Media Writing

Former UW La Crosse Chancellor Joe Gow loses his tenured professor position after UW Board of Regents decides porn is icky

I know this shouldn’t be my primary concern, but a) is it accurate to call him “chancellor” in the headline and b) is porn-making chancellor properly hyphenated as a compound modifier. If I had to guess, I’d say a = no, but b = yes.

ED NOTE: As was the case when we covered this in December, I apologize in advance for any double entendres. It is almost impossible to write this without hearing a 12-year-old boy in my head laughing, despite my best efforts to avoid such concerns.

Also, Monday, we’ll have a Q and A with one of the First Amendment attorneys at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, the organization that has helped Joe Gow get legal representation.

THE LEAD: Joe Gow, the former University of Wisconsin La Crosse chancellor who was removed from his position after his bosses realized he was making porn videos in his spare time, was fired from his tenure position at the university as well on Friday.

The regents voted unanimously to terminate Gow. Deliberations were made in a closed session away from the public for about half an hour.

In December, university officials discovered Gow had produced and starred in pornographic content across the web in videos and self-authored books he published under a pseudonym. He was fired as chancellor and recommended to be stripped of his tenure.

Besides his future with UW, Gow has also lost $300,000 in accrued medical benefits. Before his June hearing, Gow said he was planning on using the benefits for more than a decade of coverage into his retirement.

 

THE BACKGROUND: We covered this situation here back when Gow lost his role as chancellor when the porn first came to light back in December.

Long story short, the regents removed him after they found out he was making porn. Gow stated he never used university materials, services or anything related to his job as he and his wife made the adult videos. That said, the role of chancellor was basically “You serve at the pleasure of the regents,” so he got yanked.

Still, like most administrators, he had what are called “retreat rights,” which meant he had the right to go back and teach in the department to which his expertise is tied. Thus, the regents had to figure out how to rid themselves of Gow and the baggage his hobby carried without breaking the law or violating his rights as an employed, tenured professor.

 

NEXT STEPS: Gow is out of a job but he is strongly considering legal action against the university. Gow noted he thinks this could go to the Supreme Court, as previous cases involving unpopular but totally legal speech have in the past few decades.

 

DOCTOR OF PAPER HOT TAKE:  The university and the UW system have been stacking sandbags on this one to try to find anything they can fire him for, other than what they are actually firing him for.

There have been accusations of refusing to cooperate with an investigation into his activities, perhaps violating the UW technology policies, engaging in “unethical and potentially illegal conduct” and engaging in activities that would harm his ability to be an effective teacher.

What they really want to say is “This makes us all uncomfortable. Joe did icky stuff, so he needs to go away.”

The problem with what they want to say is that it violates the First Amendment. I always go back to the simplest explanation I have for the First Amendment: It’s not meant to protect expression people like. It’s meant to protect expression people DON’T like.

I’ve also spent more than a little time thinking about the question, “How much of my soul does the university have the right to own?” I mean, sure, there’s the time in class and the time with the kids outside of class and the time in my office and the time publishing and the … Eh… You get the idea.

However, what happens when the university decides that whatever expression I want to engage in or someone else on faculty wants to engage it is considered too uncomfortable for words?

I’m quite certain my friends in the LGBTQ+ community who are of a certain age and worked at public universities found themselves a bit wary of what their private lives would mean for their public jobs. If we kept along that more conservative line of thinking, what would it take for a university to find that two people of the sexual orientation being together as a couple made for a firing offense today?

Conversely, I also know that opinions on certain things tend to change over time, so what seems OK at the moment, might lead to concerns in the future. For a while, there was this massive trend of everyone getting Chinese symbols tattooed on themselves as a form of expression and few people thought twice about it. (One of my students at the time, however, did say that his father, who was fluent in the language, would not write out such symbols for people as it was a cultural concern.)

Today, cultural appropriation is a concern and rightly so, could there be a risk to a professor at a public institution who has these permanent markings in a visible place if enough people make noise about it? I don’t know, but I like living in a world where the First Amendment says, “You can be upset, but you can’t punish someone for expression that is offensive.”

The phrases “objective journalism” and “sexting relationship with a source” rarely co-exist

Not to put too fine of a point on it, but when you Google a person’s name and EVERYTHING comes back related to one story, it’s rarely going to be a good day for that person.

THE LEAD: It’s stories like this that give me a brain aneurysm:

New York magazine on Thursday said its Washington correspondent, Olivia Nuzzi, is on leave after learning the star journalist had allegedly engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a reporting subject. That person is Robert F. Kennedy Jr., according to people familiar with the matter.

“Recently our Washington Correspondent Olivia Nuzzi acknowledged to the magazine’s editors that she had engaged in a personal relationship with a former subject relevant to the 2024 campaign while she was reporting on the campaign, a violation of the magazine’s standards around conflicts of interest and disclosures,” a spokesperson for New York magazine said in a statement in response to questions from Status.

A BASIC LOOK: Nuzzi met Kennedy in person once, according to published reports, as she worked on a profile that ran in November 2023. Kennedy is married to actress Cheryl Hines while Nuzzi was engaged to Politico chief Washington correspondent Ryan Lizza, but the two recently called off the engagement.

A variety of news outlets chipped in bits and bites of this story, but they all generally agree on the fact this wasn’t a physical affair. It included some tawdry banter, full-on sexting and/or Nuzzi sending nude photos to Kennedy. Word of the nudes and texts got back to the bosses at New York Magazine, and Nuzzi eventually confirmed the gist of the situation.

She is currently on leave from the magazine as a result of this situation.

POST-TRAUMATIC JOURNALISM FLASHBACK: I’m not naming names, as the last thing I want to do is dredge up the past or be accused of internet shaming. However, this isn’t the first case of a reporter and a source ending up in a compromising position of this nature. If you don’t believe me, just Google “Reporter source romantic affair” and you’ll find more than a few of these situations have made the news outside of the RFK Jr./Nuzzi situation.

The one that comes back to my mind happened in Milwaukee when a reporter for a local publication wrote a profile about a high-ranking law-enforcement official while simultaneously slipping into a relationship with the person.

This situation was a full-on affair of a physical nature that was eventually nudged into the public eye by other local journalists. I remember the editor of the reporter’s publication standing up for that person in public, only to back off later after finding out things were much more involved than the editor thought at the time.

As this whole thing went into full Dumpster-fire mode, I just kept thinking, “This is not going to look good on a resume…”

THINGS I DON”T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT: You can feel however you want to feel about certain elements of these kind of situations, or this one in particular. As a journalism professor and journalist, here are the things that I don’t give a damn about that are getting reported with breathless pearl-clutching in the press:

  • The age difference: She’s 31, he’s 70. Yes, he’s technically old enough to be her grandfather and no, I don’t want to think about that, either. However, from a journalistic ethics perspective, I couldn’t give a damn. (I seem to recall the Milwaukee situation being a case in which one of the people involved was about twice the age of the other person. Still don’t care.) Whether they were born within nanoseconds of each other, or if they have an age gap that makes the one between J. Howard Marshall and Anna Nicole Smith look tiny by comparison does not make this ethically better or worse. As long as they were both above the age of consent, it’s not an issue. As long as they were source and reporter, that’s the issue.
  • Relationship status: He is married and she was engaged. Personally, I wouldn’t be all that thrilled to find out that Amy was trotting around on me. Also, I know If were doing something like this, I’d come home to find her with a meat cleaver and a shovel, sitting calmly in her chair as she practiced her alibi. However personally sketchy or morally repugnant you might or might not find the concept of breaking the bonds of commitment, it’s neither here nor there for me when it comes to the ethics of this situation.
  • The “level” of the affair: Maybe I missed it somewhere in the SPJ Code of Ethics, or I just haven’t come across one at a yard sale yet, but I don’t think journalists have some sort of “conversion chart” for what is an “acceptable affair” with a source. (“If they only got to second base, and they’re not the subject of a profile….”) There’s a pretty clear line that anyone with a brain has in regard to the difference between being friendly with a source (“So, how are your kids doing in soccer this year?”) and crossing that line into an affair (“So, are your kids still at soccer? Can I come over?”) I know that everyone has their version of that line, but I’m guessing the phrase “sent nudes” would garner general agreement that a line got crossed.

SO WHAT DOES MATTER IN THIS CASE?: For me, it’s a pretty short list, but here we go…

Reporters shouldn’t engage in sexual (or sexually adjacent) conduct with sources: As we’ve reported here, it’s a well-debunked trope that all women in journalists trade sex with sources for information. That doesn’t mean that a) cases in which reporters of all genders having sexually inappropriate relationships with sources of all genders don’t exist and b) it’s wrong, no matter who started it, when it started, how it started, where it started, why it started or what level of sex stuff is involved.

This breaks the ethical code journalists ascribe to in a clear and basic way, as the SPJ code clearly states:

Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts.

Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and avoid political and other outside activities that may compromise integrity or impartiality, or may damage credibility.

No, it doesn’t say, “Thou shalt not have a naughty-time tussle with a source,” but it’s still pretty clear.

Look, I get that journalism is a particularly weird field in which we get really close to a lot of people, and that we’re all damaged in a lot of ways that don’t really lend themselves to finding normal human relationships on the regular. I also know that it’s nearly impossible to spend any time in journalism without running a risk of a conflict of interest.

I had two: In the first case, I became engaged to a city council rep after a relatively brief period of dating. I wasn’t covering the city council, but I still disclosed it to the editor and got it out there. (Oddly enough, I told him on a Friday night and on Monday, I was sent to cover the city council for the first time in my career. When I protested, reminding him of the situation, he told me he had no one else available and, “Just don’t quote her.”) That relationship ended a short time after that situation, so it didn’t become an issue again.

The second was when Amy and I were married and in Missouri. I was the crime editor and she had gotten a job as a police dispatcher at the university police department. We both disclosed and it was fine, in that dispatchers rarely ended up speaking to the media, and I wasn’t about to lean on her for information about anything at MUPD.

That said, there were more than a few nights when she’d come home and want to unburden herself about a ridiculously terrible day, only to stop and say, “Wait, you’re not a journalist now. You’re my husband… Spousal privilege applies.” I didn’t break the faith, but, man… that was tough some days.

The point is: It’s not like this is some uncharted territory or arcane rule we’ve never heard of. That said, “knowing” and “knowing better” are apparently two different things, and “caution” should remain a watch word when we feel the line between source and friend (or more) start to blur.

If A Former President Tells You An Undocumented Immigrant Ate Someone’s Dog, Go Check It Out (A throwback post)

Based on the concerns raised in Tuesday’s presidential debate, we felt it was important to let people know we’ve got an eye on our dog.

If you didn’t watch the presidential debate Tuesday, or you haven’t been withing 5 feet of any device that generates memes lately, the headline on this blog post might seem like a MadLibs game gone wrong, or the start of my slow slide into dementia.

That said, during an actual debate between two people who actually would like to run this country, one of them made the claim that undocumented immigrants in Springfield, Ohio are stealing people’s pets and eating them:

If you aren’t part of what I would most politely call the “tinfoil hat brigade,” you might have been as confused as I was when Trump started going down this rabbit hole. In looking around online now, apparently there have been a collection of randomly stupid social media posts, unsubstantiated allegations at public meetings and out-of-context photos from around Ohio that are trying to link the increase in the Haitian population there with a “pets-as-food” narrative.

I have to say that the most impressive moment of that debate, from a journalism perspective, was when David Muir responded to Trump’s claims by stating the network had reached out to the city manager of Springfield, Ohio to fact check this situation. Muir noted that the city manager found no credible evidence of any of this happening. That meant Muir and his colleagues did a couple things we should all aspire to do as journalists:

  1. Research the hell out of your topic before any big event: The fact that ABC was plugged in enough to all the random weirdness surrounding the “dude ate my dog” theory and other topics demonstrates they were researching well enough to know they needed to be ready for something like this. The economy, abortion rights, the border? Sure, those were slam-dunk topics they needed to know like the back of their hand. Pet eating in Ohio? That was special-level research.
  2. Go to a credible source for fact checking: If you watch the video, Muir notes ABC talked to the city manager, an official source who was acting in an official capacity, who told the network this was total BS. Trump then flails back with an argument I would expect to hear from a grade-schooler about “people on television” saying that someone “took my dog for food.” I’ll believe the guy whose job it is to take the “hey, my neighbor ate my dog” complaints over the “people on television” whoever they are…
  3. No matter how certain you are about something, go check it out:  In an earlier post on fact-checking, I explained that one of the best ways to look at your work is to assume everything about it is wrong. Then, you should go out and try to prove yourself right. What we usually do is assume we’re right unless something shows up that proves us wrong, which can lead to a much higher likelihood of us committing a fact error. No matter how stupid, outlandish or otherwise weird something is, if you’re going to include it or omit it from a story, you need to go check it out.

Today’s throwback post honors this concept with one of the most well-known maxims in journalism: If your mother says she loves you, go check it out.

 

 

 

If your mother says she loves you, go check it out (or why making sure you’re sure matters).

Iphonetext

The adage in journalism regarding verification is: “If your mother says she loves you, go check it out.” The idea is that you need to make sure things are right before you publish them. You also want to verify the source of the information before you get yourself into trouble.

This issue popped up again this week after former White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci had exchanged several emails with a person he thought to be former Chief of Staff Reince Prebus. It turns out, the messages came from a prankster, who baited Scaramucci into an “email battle:”

“At no stage have you acted in a way that’s even remotely classy, yet you believe that’s the standard by which everyone should behave towards you?” read the email to Scaramucci from a “mail.com” account.

Scaramucci, apparently unaware the email was a hoax, responded with indignation.

“You know what you did. We all do. Even today. But rest assured we were prepared. A Man would apologize,” Scaramucci wrote.

The prankster, now aware that he had deceived the beleaguered Scaramucci, went in for the kill.

“I can’t believe you are questioning my ethics! The so called ‘Mooch’, who can’t even manage his first week in the White House without leaving upset in his wake,” the fake Priebus wrote. “I have nothing to apologize for.”

Scaramucci shot back with a veiled threat to destroy Priebus Shakespearean-style.

“Read Shakespeare. Particularly Othello. You are right there. My family is fine by the way and will thrive. I know what you did. No more replies from me,” the actual Scaramucci.

“Othello” is a tragedy in which the main character is tricked into killing his wife Desdemona after his confidante convinces him that she has been unfaithful.

As the article points out, Scaramucci isn’t the first person to be suckered by a prank. Other members of the government had been similarly duped via email. In terms of prank calls, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker found himself once speaking with a person pretending to be billionaire David Koch, discussing ways to attack protesters and destroy liberals.   (The prankster told his side of the story on Politico.)

News journalists have also been caught short when it comes to making sure they’re sure about the sources and information they receive. In 2013, KTVU-TV in San Francisco had what it thought was a big scoop on the Asiana Flight 214 crash: The names of the captain and crew. However, the information turned out to be not only a hoax, but an intentionally racist set of names:

Three people were fired and a fourth resigned for health reasons in the wake of this error. In digging into this, it turned out that the NTSB found the source of the names to be a “summer intern” who thought this would be funny. In its own investigation, the station found that nobody asked the source at the NTSB for his name or title. The station issued an apology, as did the NTSB.

It’s easy to laugh at these incidents or to marvel at how dumb somebody was to buy into this stuff. However, we used to say around my house, “There, but by the grace of God, go I.” In other words, you could be next.

So here are three simple tips to help you avoid these problems:

  1. Verify, verify, verify: If something sounds too good to be true, it usually is. Look up information on various sites, ask a source for other people who can augment/confirm the information and make sure you feel confident in your content before you publish.
  2. If you aren’t sure, back away: It is always better to be late on something than it is to be wrong. It’s also better to let a random email or a text go without a response than to get sucked in and pay the price later. Some of these are easy, like when a Nigerian Prince promises you untold riches if you would just transfer your bank account number to him. Some are harder: When’s the last time you made sure it was your friend texting you about a “crazy night” and not his mom or dad doing some snooping? We just assume we know the actual source. That can be dangerous, so back off if you’re not sure.
  3. Kick it around the room: One of the best reasons why newsrooms, PR offices and ad agencies exist is to gather collective knowledge in one place. Sure, with technology now, it’s easy for everyone to work “off site” but keeping people in a single physical spot can make it easier to have someone look over your shoulder and see if something you just got “smells right.” Take advantage of other people around you and don’t go at it alone.

Just tell me what happened: The difference between writing for yourself and your audience

Packers announcer Ray Scott was known for his exceptional brevity in calling the game, telling you just what you needed to know and not making the call about him or his ego. We need more media folk like Ray Scott.

 

When it comes to perfect writing for media, I tend to love the Associated Press and its approach to sports. Here’s a look at a game I cared about:

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — — No. 9 hitter Brayan Rocchio drove in four runs and the Cleveland Guardians beat Kansas City 7-1 Tuesday night, extending the Royals’ losing streak to a season-high seven.

Kansas City was held to two runs or fewer for the fifth straight game and managed just four hits. The Royals’ losing streak is its longest since a 10-game skid from June 5-16 last year.

Since tying Cleveland for the AL Central lead on Aug. 27, the Royals (76-65) have dropped 5 1/2 games behind the Guardians (80-59), who have won five of six. Kansas City maintained a 4 1/2-game lead for the final AL wild card.

The lead is both simple and yet multi-faceted: I know who won (Guardians), when they won (Tuesday night), how they won (7-1), the crucial reason why the won (Brayan Rocchio drove in four runs) and the overall impact of the event (Royals lost seven in a row, which isn’t great if you’re making a run at the playoffs).

The second paragraph covers the losing streak and its historical sense of perspective. The third tells me what the impact on the playoffs is (Guardians up 5.5 games thanks to a winning streak; Royals still in the mix with a 4.5 lead for the last wildcard.)

Here’s a look at how MLB.com went after the same story:

KANSAS CITY — Tanner Bibee has proven time and time again he can pitch in the biggest moments — it’s why he’d be Cleveland’s ace for this postseason. Tuesday was no different.

The Royals loaded the bases with nobody out in the sixth trailing by two runs, but the Guardians stuck with the 25-year-old right hander to get out of the jam in this crucial AL Central matchup — and he did just that.

The lead drops me in the middle of a weird, unattributed moment. Who says he’s “proven time and time again” how great he is? He’s 11-6, which is fine, but we’re not talking Dennis McLain or Bob Gibson in 1968. We also get a weird em-dash thing, followed by an empty phrase used by poor writers: “X was no different.” (If it’s all the same, why are we writing about it? If it’s different, you don’t have to tell me that, as oddity is an interest element.)

The second paragraph again relies on weird punctuation and another empty phrase: “He did just that.”

Then there’s the third paragraph, which has the feeling of a sugared up 4-year-old telling me about his day:

Bibee kept Cleveland’s lead, allowing just one run to come home on a sac fly, to squash Kansas City’s best scoring chance of the game and lead the Guardians to a 7-1 win on Tuesday at Kauffman Stadium. Cleveland, now just a half-game behind Baltimore for the best record in the American League, moved to 4 1/2 games over Minnesota, which lost to the Rays on Tuesday, and 5 1/2 games over the Royals for first place in the division.

You get 80 words (38 and 42 word sentences) of everything you’d want to know in a pile. The second sentence has TEN prepositions, which makes it read like we’re singing this.

This isn’t to pick on anyone or say that one way of doing this is always right and the other is always wrong. In the comparative, you can see a few things that will improve your writing overall:

WRITE FOR THE AUDIENCE, NOT FOR YOURSELF: One of the things that most writers have difficulty with is considering the needs of the audience over their own interest in writing. Sometimes, it’s because we fall in love with the sound of our own voice, while in other cases, we forget that the audience doesn’t know what we know.

In the case of a ballgame, it’s pretty easy to blow off the score or the “where/when” stuff because you just experienced it. You know where you are, what time you were there and who won. That’s great for you, but your readers are still in the dark on the thing they most want to know. I know that when I go online to grab info about games, the first thing I’m thinking is, “I hope the Guardians won.” I’m definitely not thinking, “I wonder what gimmicky approach the writer is going to take this time.”

Think about it this way: If you didn’t know anything about the game, and you only had 20 seconds to live, what would you hope someone would tell you about it before you die.

 

NOUN-VERB-OBJECT IS YOUR HOLY TRINITY: As is the case with most overwritten sentences, we lack for a strong noun-verb-object core at its center. Each sentence should have a basic premise that starts with “Who did what to whom/what?” If we can nail that down, we end up in great shape. If not, we end up building our sentences on a foundation of sand rather than concrete.

Look at the lead of the first sentence and you see two sets of almost perfect NVO constructions:

  • Rocchio drove in runs
  • Guardians beat Kansas City

Now look at the lead of the second sentence and try to find that same NVO core. Go ahead… I’ll wait… (finishes laundry, grocery shopping, resurfacing the driveway…) Got it yet? OK… I’ll check back tomorrow.

If you can’t nail down the main assertion of a sentence in an NVO core, you probably have both structural and focal problems.

 

SHOW, DON’T TELL: In the case of the first chunk of text, I get a lot of clarity because the writer SHOWS me how things happened (Rocchio drove in four runs, Royals drop in the standings due to seven-game losing streak).

In the case of the second chunk of text, I get a lot more TELLING (vague telling at that) in terms of what’s going on with the pitcher. I have no idea how he got out of that bases-loaded jam or how many runs scored while the writer is waxing poetic in the second paragraph. I also have no idea what makes Bibee that “go-to guy.” Instead I get punch-phrases like “he did just that” and “Tuesday was no different.”

If you find yourself resorting to cliches, empty phrases or other “Boom Goes the Dynamite” moments, step away from the keyboard and let your adrenal gland relax a bit. Then, show me what’s going on without telling me.

 

I Guess I’ll Never Run Out of Current Examples of Mass Shootings (A Throwback Post)

I had another Throwback Thursday post on the launch pad, ready to go, when news about Apalachee High School in Georgia broke:

Four people were killed by gunfire at a high school in northern Georgia on Wednesday, the state’s bureau of investigation said, sending schools across the region into lockdown just over a month after the end of summer vacation.

President Biden called the shooting — the deadliest episode of school violence in Georgia history — “another horrific reminder of how gun violence continues to tear our communities apart.”

I remember once thinking about how certain events were touchstones for certain generations. There were things like the moon landing, the Kennedy assassination, the Miracle on Ice and more. I remember thinking the Columbine shooting would be one of those eternal events, as nothing like it could ever really happen again at that level.

Shows what I know…

As was the case when I was writing the original post below, I’m in the middle of two revisions to two textbooks and I’m constantly looking for fresh examples of things like a social media influencer running afoul of the FTC, a famous person doing something stupid and public relations efforts that were massively successful, with varying levels of results. That said, I’m never at a loss for something having to do with either defamation or a mass shooting.

The saddest thing is that I’ve actually already DONE one of these shooting posts on a Throwback Thursday. That was when 15-year-old Ethan Crumbley used a handgun to kill four and wound seven others at Michigan’s Oxford High School.

I can’t remember if I wove the Crumbley example into a textbook, as the timing might not have fit my deadlines, but I know that whatever emerges in Georgia will likely make the cut for at least one of these upcoming texts.

I am devastated and saddened beyond all belief, but unfortunately not surprised.

As was the case in 2017 when I originally wrote this:

 

The horrifying revisions of my textbooks: Chapter by chapter, shooting by shooting

The first draft of what would become the “Dynamics of News Reporting and Writing” featured a sample chapter written in 2008, discussing at length the Virginia Tech shooting. I was pitching a reporting book to another publisher when the rep for that company asked for two chapters that could help her sell the book to her acquisitions committee.

Kelly Furnas, then the adviser at the student newspaper at VT, had done a session at a student media conference about his newsroom’s efforts in the wake of the attack. I knew Kelly through friends and helped book him for that session. I also was able to talk to him after the session for this chapter, assuming that the magnitude of this event would never be equaled.

It turned out I was wrong about that, much to my continuing dismay.

The arguments of when is the right time to discuss broader issues are beginning to emerge in the wake of Monday’s attack in Las Vegas. So are the calls for all sorts of regulations, restrictions, restructuring and more. It is hard to see the carnage wrought upon the citizens of this country and remain dispassionate or above the fray when it comes to the continually evolving topic of attacks like this one.

As a reporter and then an editor and then an adviser, I always believed in the simplest of ideas when it came to covering something like this:

  • Show, don’t tell.
  • Provide facts and let them speak for themselves.
  • Don’t try to oversell it.
  • Just let the readers know what happened.

This blog isn’t a podium or a pulpit, nor will I use it to advance whatever agenda or whatever “side” some displeased readers would disparagingly note I must be on as a professor, a journalist or whatever other label was convenient.

That said, it struck me tonight as I thought about the morning post that the two books featured here, “Dynamics of Media Writing” and “Dynamics of News Reporting and Writing,” catalog the expansive nature of violent outbursts, here and abroad. Even more, they do so in a way that shows me something exceedingly painful: My continual endeavors to update these volumes in a meaningful way as they relate to these horrific events is an ongoing, losing effort.

After a few years of discussions, the book in which the Virginia Tech shooting story was included did not come to fruition. The proposal was scuttled when the publisher decided to “go another way,” corporate-speak for “we didn’t really think this was worth the time.”

About three years after that happened, I met a rep from SAGE while at a journalism convention. I was looking for a book to use in my writing across media class, while Matt was trying to convince me to write one instead. In writing the pitch, I built two chapters for him, one of which was on social media. I included a reference to the Aurora, Colorado shooting, in which a gunman shot up a theater during the midnight showing of the Batman film, “The Dark Knight Rises.” The point there was not to show the magnitude of the attack, but rather what can happen when people are inept at social media: The hashtag used (#aurora) to keep people abreast of the unfolding situation was co-opted by a fashion boutique to promote the Aurora dress.

After reviewing the pitch and the chapters, Matt came to the conclusion that I really had two books: one for general media writing and one for news reporting, so he signed me to both. This was 2014 and I had already written several chapters for each book. Almost by accident, I had layered in references to additional shootings.

In my initial discussion of the importance of geographic referents in the audience-centricity chapter, I tried to explain how a reference to a “Cudahy man” who had killed six people at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin drove me to a fit of anxiety. My mother taught grade school and middle school in that town for 40-odd years at the time, so I feared some level of connection between Mom and a monster. (As it turned out, there was none as he had moved to the area more recently. In addition, the whole explanation was overly complicated, so I cut it during one of the draft chapters.)

In the reporting book, I referenced the Charlie Hebdo attack in my discussion of hashtags. In the media writing book, I included a reference to Sandy Hook in discussing magnitude. In a law chapter for one of them, I discussed the Boston Marathon Bombing and the “Bag Men” cover that essentially libeled two guys who just happened to be at event.

At one point, I added and cut references to the Northern Illinois shooting, in which a grad student killed five and injured 17. I knew the DeKalb area, as my grandfather had been a police chief there for years and I had interviewed for a job there about four years before the shooting. The adviser at that student paper was also a friend of mine at the time.

I remember thinking when I cut it that it was because it hadn’t been “big enough” for people to easily recall it. It galls me to think that five dead and 17 wounded could be prefaced by the modifier “only.” Unfortunately, it was accurate: Sunday’s attack in Las Vegas had fatalities ten times that one and injuries scores and scores beyond that attack.

Somehow, and I honestly don’t know how this happened, I was between edits or editions of both books when the Pulse nightclub shooting happened in 2016. I could find no reference to this in any draft chapters and it defies logic that the murder of 49 people somehow slipped past me or didn’t make the cut in one of these books.

However, in finalizing the Reporting book, I ended up coming back around to the story Kelly Furnas told me all those years ago. I was building a section on obituaries and realized I never actually published the story he told me about how his staff wrote literally dozens of obituaries for a single issue of the paper. He had long left VT, but I found him and got his permission to finally publish this incredible explanation as to how his extremely green reporters gritted their teeth and met this challenge.

That book is currently in press and is already out of date as a result of the attack in Las Vegas. However, the Media Writing book is in the completed draft phase of a second edition, so this information will likely supplant some previous horrifying event and make the cut. At the very least, I’m going to include the Jack Sins incident to outline the importance of fact checking, even when it feels almost slimy to do so.

In looking back, it’s not so much the number of these incidents or the magnitude of them that disturbs me in an inexplicable way. Rather, it’s that I have recounted these events not by impacted memory but rather a search through my hard drive, using key terms like “shooting,” “dead,” “killed” and “attacked.”

Each time I added one of these “recent events,” it was fresh, clear and horrifying. As I review them now, it is more like looking through a photo album that provided refreshed glimpses and renewed recollections of vague people and places.

Each incident wasn’t so much of a “I’ll never forget” moment as a “Oh, now I remember” one.

What happens when police use AI to draft their incident reports?

(We’re not quite here yet, but it’s a little disconcerting how I keep finding parallels between RoboCop and reality. Also, that Kurtwood Smith was somehow less threatening here than in “That ’70s Show.”)

THE LEAD: Some police organizations are experimenting with AI, in which ChatBots are writing the first drafts of their situation reports based on what the officers’ body cameras capture.

“They become police officers because they want to do police work, and spending half their day doing data entry is just a tedious part of the job that they hate,” said Axon’s founder and CEO Rick Smith, describing the new AI product — called Draft One — as having the “most positive reaction” of any product the company has introduced.

“Now, there’s certainly concerns,” Smith added. In particular, he said district attorneys prosecuting a criminal case want to be sure that police officers — not solely an AI chatbot — are responsible for authoring their reports because they may have to testify in court about what they witnessed.

“They never want to get an officer on the stand who says, well, ‘The AI wrote that, I didn’t,’” Smith said.

The pilot programs have found that the reports that once took 30-45 minutes to draft can be done in a matter of seconds. To kind of hedge their bets on the issue of how much they should be leaning on the technology, some departments are using the AI on misdemeanors and petty crime.

Aside from the idea that the computer might be doing the officers’ “homework” for them, legal scholars and civil-rights activists are concerned about the impact this could have on society as a whole:

“I am concerned that automation and the ease of the technology would cause police officers to be sort of less careful with their writing,” said Ferguson, a law professor at American University working on what’s expected to be the first law review article on the emerging technology.

Ferguson said a police report is important in determining whether an officer’s suspicion “justifies someone’s loss of liberty.” It’s sometimes the only testimony a judge sees, especially for misdemeanor crimes.

 

DOCTOR OF PAPER HOT TAKE: Accuracy and legality lead the list of my concerns here. At one point in the article, the officer notes that the AI included a detail he didn’t remember hearing. That could be the AI capturing something real or it could be fabricating something that the officer then kind of adopted as true.

Experts and users have found AI can engage in “hallucinations” where it presents something untrue as fact. It’s kind of funny when AI tells us that the downfall of Western Civilization began when the coach refused to put Uncle Rico in at quarterback in the ’82 finals. It’s less funny when it tells a court of law that you threatened a cop who pulled you over for speeding.

The officers interviewed for the story mention that they’ve become more verbal in their interactions with the public, which allows the body camera to capture that information and thus improve the AI report.

In this kind of case, it feels more like transcription than creation, which seems safer, but who knows. What would be beneficial for reporters in cases like this would be to get the AI-based reports and the officer’s body-cam footage to do a side-by-side comparison.

Legally speaking, I would be curious to know what levels of access journalists could have to the AI version of a report as well as the final version of a report. Police reports and court documents are public records, but some internal memos and drafts of public items can occasionally be considered off limits. In addition, it’s technically not being created by a public figure, but it’s the ramblings of a computer program. Who can have access to what, when and where and how is interesting here.

It’s also interesting to see how well these things hold up in court compared to other reports, witness testimony and so forth. As with anything new, there’s going to be a learning curve and development issues, with the older technology probably still being better.

When we first started seeing automobiles, they could barely break into double digits in terms of their mph speed. Meanwhile, horses could literally and figuratively run circles around them. As time went on, cars clearly became the faster mode of transportation, but it took a while. It’ll be interesting to see how many lawyers start asking questions like, “So, Officer Smith, did you write the initial report of this or did you rely on artificial intelligence to do it for you?” and then showing off all the stupid things AI has written to undermine AI’s credibility.

The folks in the article who distrust the AI process have noted concerns about racial targeting and other such issues in terms of bias against people traditionally mistreated by legal wrangling. We have seen AI generate some of those kinds of biased reports here, and it is a valid concern. I would probably go a step beyond this, only to say that I’d be really concerned in general for anyone who is being accused of criminal activity while the police are working the kinks out on this system. The article notes that the crimes are generally “low level” but that doesn’t make me feel much better if I’m on the other end of an AI disaster.

 

Four potential story ideas for student journalists heading back to school

QUICK REMINDER: I’m trying to gather information for folks about what students use AI for and what would make them avoid using it to cheat in class. If you are interested in helping out by reaching out to your students, here’s the link to the survey again:

https://forms.gle/WH9nzpHNT2XbMX5KA

Now, on with the show…

With the start of the semester, it can be a bit tough to get back into the swing of things in terms of coming up with some good fodder for the student media outlets out there. Here are four things that came to mind as I was trying (and failing) to come up with something more profound to launch the blog this year:

COVID COMEBACK: According to the Centers for Disease Control, COVID is making a big comeback, with several new variants getting into the act. When we first faced this mess back in 2020, we were isolating like it was a zombie apocalypse and washing our mail before opening it. Today, it’s treated less like the start of the apocalypse and more as a potential annoyance.

That said, what are the policies your school is rolling out for this? Is COVID now covered under traditional illness policies your school has? Is it still a “get out of class for a week” card? What alerts have the schools enacted regarding shared on-campus housing, dealing with workers who have diminished immune systems and more? Your school’s approach might be nothing and it should be something, or it might be a whole lot more than it needs to be.

FAFSA FAILURES: The Free Application for Federal Student Aid, better known as FAFSA, hit more than a few snags this year thanks to an “improvement” to the online application system. What that meant was hotly debated in the spring and the summer, but now we should be able to see what the actual impact is.

A recent national survey found that the freshmen classes are smaller than expected, with fewer overall financial aid applications  and less diversity in their populations. The individual impact obviously varies from school to school, so it would be a good idea to pull the FAFSA data for your school for the past five years and see where things sit today. Anecdotes will also help if you can find people who took an unintended gap year due to these problems or people who otherwise monitor the enrollment situation at your school.

HOT HOT HOT: Regardless of where you live, late August and early September are ungodly hot, compared to other times of the year. It’s also the time in which students are expected to move back to campus, leading to potential health and housing issues.

A number of news outlets in Minnesota, Wisconsin and other normally not that hot states have done the “it’s hot as hell but they’re moving kids into the dorms” stories, so there’s always a good follow up on that kind of thing. It’d be interesting to see about any medical calls (Hey, dads aren’t going to let some BS heat index stop them from hauling a freezer up 15 flights of stairs…) during the move in as well as any follow up about lack of A/C in student housing. It’s also probably not a bad thing to check on off-campus housing with landlords not keeping the air on or otherwise making the places inhabitable.

HOUSING HELL: The cost of housing in the country has become a focal point of everything from news articles to the presidential campaigns. In many cases, the focus tends to be on single-dwelling homes and hedge-fund maneuvers to corner the market on rental units in big cities. That said, every campus has its own challenges when it comes to housing space and getting students put into it.

I remember a few old stories about the dorms (residence halls, excuse me…) being booked beyond capacity, forcing some students to live in shared spaces until at least a few kids dropped out of school or got kicked out for trying to grow weed on the roof of the com building. Then there is this story out of Madison, Wisconsin that says the housing available to students is well outside their price range. (Paywall. Sorry. But Kim is a great reporter and pretty much the sole reason I’m shelling out whatever I’m shelling out to keep a subscription to the State Journal these days.)

What’s the situation out by you? Do they need to build more residence halls or have Silicon Valley billionaires bought every scrap of land around Northeast West South-Central University to corner the housing market? Also, what kind of living situations are people dealing with these days due to these pricing situations? (I’m always amazed when a student tells me they’re sharing a four-bedroom, one bath home with seven other people. I have no idea how that works…)

Hope this helps! Have a great start to the semester!

Vince (a.k.a. The Doctor of Paper)

Help me help you figure out why students use AI to do their work and what it would take to get them to stop

help me help you | HELP ME, HELP YOU! | image tagged in help me help you | made w/ Imgflip meme maker

If you missed Wednesday’s post, we spent a good amount of time talking about what motivates (or deters) students in their use of generative artificial intelligence when it comes to coursework. You can take a look at the ideas behind the motivational theories and how they apply to this issue, but I know the big question is the simple one:

“What can I, as an instructor, do to make them want to do their own work instead of relying on AI to churn out a word salad of content they send in at the last minute?”

This might be the most Pollyanna answer you get all day, but here we go:

“Let’s ask them.”

And this is where I need your help.

I built a Google doc that has two simple questions on it:

  • What kinds of writing assignments do you (or would you) use programs like ChatGPT to do the work for you? What reasons do you have for using the program instead of doing the work independently? (e.g. “I ran out of time,” “I was bored by the work,” “The work was too hard.”) Please expand on your answer as much as you would like.
  • What would motivate you to NOT use generative AI programs like ChatGPT to do your written work for you? In other words, what makes you more willing or able to do the work independently? (e.g. “It would be cheating.” “I’m afraid of getting punished.” “I like what I’m asked to do.”) Please expand as much on your answer as you would like.

(UPDATE: Based on the request of a colleague, I added one more: In what ways have you used AI to facilitate your independent work? How do you wish teachers would allow AI as the tool it could be?)

It collects no private data, it doesn’t require them to log into Google to do it and I’ll have no idea where any of this came from. It’s simply two short answer questions meant to figure out WHY they do (or don’t do) something so we can look for potential solutions based on the research people have done on things like motivation and task completions.

If you want to help me help you, here’s the link:

https://forms.gle/WH9nzpHNT2XbMX5KA

If you have to (or want to) offer extra credit for this, I put a “code phrase” on the completion page you can ask them to give to you.

I’m going to let this run for a couple weeks and see what we get. If we get responses enough to make some soup out of this, I’ll put together something to share with you all a couple weeks after that.

In the meantime, hang in there and keep the faith. We got your back.

Vince (a.k.a. The Doctor of Paper)

What motivates students to use Generative AI and what would motivate them not to?

(The classic scene from “Back to School” that is both outdated and exactly the problem AI presents to us today.)

As most of us have already begun the semester, are headed toward the start of the semester or are in the process of panicking about the semester, we’re booting up the blog to tackle one of the bigger concerns we all seem to have these days.

THE CORE PROBLEM: As the semester began, I started seeing a lot of posts like this one from a friend and longtime college mass com professor:

I am up at nearly 2 a.m., going back and forth about whether to remove a writing component that I’ve used in almost every course I’ve taught over the last 10 years. It’s usually worth 25 to 30 percent of the course grade.
But it’s a massive waste of time to grade writing assignments that have been completed via generative AI.
The alternative? Reading quizzes, blue book responses, heavier emphasis on creative (group) projects, etc. Writing exercises are an opportunity for students to demonstrate the depth and originality of their thought.
The advent of Generative AI seems to be rendering useless a lot of the writing assignments professors have relied on for eons. As students began relying on AI to write their pieces, professors sought AI-detection tools to sniff out the fake stuff, leading to an escalating arms race between improved AI and improved AI detection.
Two years ago, The Atlantic published an essay titled “The College Essay is Dead,” noting that AI would likely challenge our approach to higher ed in ways we were incapable of understanding and dealing with. Journalism professors who once scoffed at this as being more of a “gen ed” problem are now finding AI-written content popping up in their own classes. It has also made several embarrassing forays into the profession itself, with some media chains using it to replace human writers altogether. With AI expanding rapidly to the point in which recorded lectures can be uploaded and integrated into the AI responses and AI helping you to sound less like AI, it can feel like we’re totally screwed.
MOTIVATION TO USE OR NOT USE: I’ve been studying psychological motivation for almost 25 years now and you can find a ton of reasons why people do or don’t do something. I still consider self-determination theory and its motivational spectrum as my bible for such things, including this situation.
Here are the four general motivational pivot points most of us have for doing (or not doing) something:
  • Extrinsic: We are compelled by an outside force to do or not do something. Think of a stick or a carrot as being the sole reason for completing a task: Your parents gave you $5 to cut the grass. Your parents threatened to ground you if you didn’t clean your room. This is the lowest form of motivation and it leads to the worst outcomes overall. This is where “cheating” or corner-cutting usually occurs. So, you pay your little brother $2 to cut the grass and claim the work as your own to get the $5. You take all the stuff that’s messing up your room and cram it in your closet, instead of taking out the garbage and putting the dirty stuff in the laundry etc.
    • NEWSFLASH: This is where we normally are for dealing with stuff like AI, in that we tell the kids in the class not to do it or else they’ll get a zero, fail the class, get expelled or experience whatever this is.
  • Introjected: We are compelled to do something based on motivation that is not entirely ours, but we do it because we feel we have to. Think of guilt or shame as the reason for doing something and you’ve got a handle on this one. You want to go hang out with your friends, but your parents convince you to visit your aunt instead because “she’s probably going to die soon and it would break her heart not to see you one last time.” You don’t feel strongly toward either presidential candidate, but your favorite teacher tells you about “how many people died for your right to vote,” so you cast a ballot.
    • NEWSFLASH: Guilt is a hell of a motivator and this really does work in a lot of cases, particularly for high-engagement people. However, people who are most likely to cut a corner or cheat are those most immune to this form of motivation. In other words, guilting people into avoiding AI for written assignments will work for students who are on the fence about cutting the corner, particularly if there is a strong affinity for you as a professor. However, the people most likely to cut the corner are going to do it, regardless of how much guilt you lay on them.
  • Internalized: We are compelled to do something because we see a benefit in it. Think about a nursing student taking the NCLEX test: They don’t like the test or all the work it requires, but they see value in becoming a nurse and therefore work really hard to pass it. This is one of the better forms of motivation, as the person is geared toward seeing a reason for doing what they’re doing, even if it’s not what they want to do. In short, they own the motivation and value the outcome.
    • NEWSFLASH: This is really the sweet spot for most educators, as it’s more successful than guilt and less Pollyanna than what we’ll discuss next. The underlying issue here is to tell people WHY they’re doing what they’re doing so they can internalize that motivation.
  • Intrinsic: We are compelled to do something because we really like it. This is why my dad sits at the kitchen table for hours doing word searches and why my wife can knit or needlepoint for days without wanting to stop. They really love it.
    • NEWSFLASH: If you can find a whole classroom full of kids that are intrinsically motivated, take a picture for the rest of us.

SO WHY AI? If what we’ve outlined above is true, and about 60 years of research from people way smarter than me says it is, the key to preventing students from AI-ing their homework and calling it good comes down to a few potential things:

  • The work is too hard, so they rely on outside assistance to get it done.
  • The work is too easy, so they figure they’re not missing something by letting AI do it.
    • (NOTE: The concept of flow by Csikszentmihalyi says people are most likely to enjoy an activity and persist in it when the difficulty is just slightly outside of their normal range of ability. In short, if we can feel just a little bit of stretch, we feel motivated to continue. If not, we are bored or frustrated.)
  • Other activities are preferential to the one we use AI to complete.
  • The work provides no inherent or perceived value. (a.k.a. “busy work.”)
  • Lack of repercussions.
    • (NOTE: Carrots and sticks count here, but so does the “So what?” element. In other words, if the kid doesn’t learn about the intricacies of The Council of Trent, what difference will that make in real life? However, if the nursing student doesn’t learn proper titration of drugs into an IV line, they might kill someone.)
  • Other, unknown things we aren’t thinking about but they are. (I’m always amazed at the things I DON’T know when it comes to my students and their reasoning behind doing or not doing something. This includes everything from having seven roommates and one bathroom to getting a ton of tattooing, despite telling everyone how broke they are. This is a true consequence of being old, I imagine…)

So the question obviously is, what is the best way to go about trying to figure out what to do about AI based on all of this.

In tomorrow’s post, I’ll give this a shot, but I’ll need your help.

A dog-gone good end to a ridiculous and weird year

My friend’s dog, Bo, got a chance to assess the “Exploring Mass Communication” text. Add “dog bed” to “coffee coaster” and “door stop” on the list of uses for my books. (Photo courtesy of Bryce McNeil)

In closing off the blog for this academic year, I have to admit, I have not looked forward to a summer quite as much in recent years as I have looked forward to this one.

Maybe it’s because we started later so we’re finishing later.

Maybe it’s because May is finally pretending to be part of summer around here, so we’re not getting 42-degree days with a chance of sleet.

Maybe it’s because this year, 1 in 6 employees here got canned,  the university system decided to put our UWO Fond du Lac branch on hospice care,  the chucklenut who basically runs the statehouse decided to greenlight every state employee pay raise except for those in the university system. The reason? Apparently we’re indoctrinating kids with the idea that empathy, equality of access and basic human decency should be valued.

Could be anything…

It’s easy to become negative at the end of a semester like this. However, I remember reading an interview with Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones once where a journalist asked him about the totality of his life in the World’s Greatest Rock and Roll Band.

He said that he didn’t think about it every day or even every week, but occasionally, he’d be on stage playing the same songs he’d played forever and it just felt great. Wave after wave of people made up a packed audience in an arena or stadium and they’d be singing along.

“And just then,” he said. “I’d think to myself, ‘Jesus, what an incredible band.'”

This semester included some truly incredible moments that to not remember them or thank people for them would be disingenuous.

It’s really real! Just ask Bo!

For starters, the Exploring Mass Communication book finally hit the market. This was one of those projects that kept growing, changing, developing and more to the point I honestly wondered if it would ever see the light of day. Somehow it did and it seems like at least a few people like it, so I’m grateful to you all.

It’s a real pain in the rear to revamp an entire class to account for a new textbook, especially one that’s a first edition. My promise to you remains solid, though: I’m here for whatever you need.

And if you’re interested in getting in on the fun, remember, I still have a T-shirt with your name on it. (OK, it’s my name, but that was more metaphor…)

Speaking of T-shirts, I found out that people outside of my university seem to have more of a use for me than those inside of it do.

When the university decided to furlough me for 11 days, I decided to pull a “John Oliver-esque” move and offer to help people at various universities as part of the “Filak Furlough Tour.”

When I pitched it, I assumed it would fall flat, as I have both the promotional appeal of a gecko-flavored lollipop and the smoothness of tartar sauce. However, it became the most popular thing I’ve done in a long time and it was an absolute JOY to see all those folks in Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Florida, New Jersey, Delaware, Texas, Ohio, Maryland, Colorado and more.

I have to specially thank Julie Lewis of Central Missouri and the entire crew at Iowa State University for their hospitality when I drove out there to spend several days with these folks. It was really great feeling like what I was doing mattered enough for you to give up large chunks of your week in class as well as stockpile some Diet Coke for me.

Speaking of people who thought I had something to say, I was absolutely floored when I found out that the Scholastic Journalism Division of AEJMC considered me as a finalist for the Honors Lecture at this year’s convention in Philadelphia.

When I looked at the list of finalists, I went back in my head to my first conversation with the legendary scion of the Columbia Missourian, George Kennedy.

In interviewing me for a job, the first thing he said to me over lunch was, “I’ve got four people up for this job, and everybody is more qualified than you are.”

That was true here again, and there was no shame in losing to any of the other people up for this honor. That said, it looks like I’m going to Philly:

I also found out around that time that I was a finalist for the Oshcar Awards here at UWO. The athletic department honors the best of the best across all sports at this Oshcar event, so clearly I’d never heard of this thing, nor thought I would be at it. However, the department honors one person with an “appreciation award” for supporting student athletes in a variety of ways. It turned out the volleyball coach and team nominated me and I made the list of finalists.

No, this is not a Russian gangster named Dmitri. It’s volleyball coach Jon Ellman, a man I’m grateful I’ve been able to work with over the past several years as his team’s team fellow.

I didn’t win and the person who did win really, really deserved it. Even with the loss, it was the happiest I’ve ever been to be somewhere it was ridiculously obvious that I was the slowest, weakest and least coordinated person in the room.

As the term ends, I’ll be finishing the revisions to the third edition of “Dynamics of News Reporting and Writing,” and starting the revisions for the fourth edition of “Dynamics of Media Writing.” Sage seems to have continued faith in me, and that’s really all thanks to you folks. It’s a wonderfully strange feeling when I run into folks I’ve never met in person, only to hear them say, “Hey, I use your book in my class!”

(It really does, however, feel like I’m a total tool when I have to say, “Thanks! Which one?”)

I don’t know what next year holds, as things here have the potential to get better and/or worse at the same time over the summer. If that sentence doesn’t make sense to you, clearly, you’ve never worked in a university setting.

What I do know is that I’m grateful that things ended on a high note, that I’m still here blogging and that I’ve got a great summer to look forward to.

After the usual break, we’ll be back for the summer weekly schedule in mid-to-late-June, barring a disaster.

Have a great summer.

Vince (a.k.a. The Doctor of Paper)

 

 

Filak Furlough Tour Update: Hanging out with Wichita State University and The Sunflower Staff

Repping my Sunflower T-shirt for the Sunflower staff at Wichita State University. A nice photo of the group, although I never photograph well. I think it’s that my eyes always look closed and my mouth always looks open. It’s like a demented baby bird or something. (Photo courtesy of Amy DeVault)

 

The Filak Furlough Tour’s final stop of the year is the one I was most excited to make. Amy DeVault at Wichita State University is a great friend and colleague. She advises the Sunflower, the student newspaper there and does an incredible job with some incredible students.

I also have a history with these folks, in that we were blogging about the little …. um… people in student government a few years back trying to slash the paper’s funding and kill the publication. In the end, things worked out well, but I’ve always had a soft spot in my heart for the underdog in the fight, which is why I will always do anything I can to help The Sunflower.

Wichita State University — WICHITA, KS

THE TOPIC: The folks there wanted a basic critique of the newspaper itself as well as the opportunity to do some Q and A stuff, so that’s what we did. I had a chance to see the publication a couple times over the years, including a recent review of it for the Kansas College Media contest.

BASICS OF A CRITIQUE: If you want to see a really great, well-rounded news publication that covers its niche well, grab a copy of The Sunflower. They have a great mix of big pieces and small news bits. They have a strong collection of writers, photographers, designers and graphics folks. I loved a lot of what they did, so I made it clear that pretty much any critique was of the “here are some polish points” variety as opposed to a “Dear LORD do you need a wrecking ball and a blowtorch to get this thing into shape” collection of grievances.

Here are some observations I hoped might be helpful to them, and might also be helpful to you all as well:

  • Size versus value: In some cases, stories can get out of hand a bit, particularly when it comes to pieces that feel investigative, but don’t really add up to a lot. For The Sunflower, one piece in particular had a lot of content to it, but it really didn’t add up to a lot. The story looked at allegations of racial animosity during a rec center basketball game. The reporter dug into every allegation and every explanation offered to counter them, but in the end, the story was basically that a couple dudes got out of control playing basketball and nobody could fully corroborate either side of the argument.
    The story could easily have been cut significantly to reflect that reality and the graphic used to create the front-page centerpiece didn’t really add a lot to the storytelling either. This is one of those cases where the size didn’t mirror the value of the piece. It can be tough to see a lot of hard work essentially amount to less than we would hope for as journalists, but it’s worth remembering that the readers need to see value if they’re going to invest a ton of time in a piece. Whacking the hell out of something can be painful, but your readers will thank you.

 

  • Keeping it local: Overall, there was a TON of great local coverage in the publication. My only minor grouse was a common one on the arts/entertainment page: movie and music reviews. If you can give people something they can’t get anywhere else, fine, do those reviews. If not, leave that stuff for the IMDB’s and Richard Roepers of the world and go cover some local bands or some local theater.
    If you’re asking yourself, “OK, so when WOULD I do a movie review?” my answer is an example from a student paper I critiqued years ago. The paper was from a small religious school out west and it reviewed the movies from the perspective of the faith base. The reviews noted how much violence or sex or whatever was in there and how people who practiced certain levels of the faith’s orthodoxy might be more or less offended by this content. I’m not getting that level of clarity on Rotten Tomatoes.

 

  • Use your voice: The opinion page was solid, and it’s often difficult to critique an opinion page, because it’s often at the mercy of whatever is going on around you. When the paper was under attack all those years ago, the opinion page thundered against the stupidity of the student government with the fire of a white-hot sun. That’s not always possible to do when you’re faced with some “meh” news days. Even more, it can make things worse if you’re trying to gin up some false-front rage for the sake of feeling like you’re wielding the power of the press.
    That said, I did note that they shouldn’t be afraid to go in the corner and fight for the puck when news merits their viewpoint on behalf of the student body. If something needs to be called out, it’s the publication’s duty to use its voice effectively to do so.

PICKING FILAK’S BRAIN: Here are a few of the things that came up in our time together. The questions aren’t direct quotes, but more of the general gist of what we were going after. Answers fit the same pattern:

QUESTION: What kind of balance do you think should be present in the publication between the kinds of things people like and the things people need? Is there a percentage split on something like this?

BEST ANSWER I COULD COME UP WITH: I’ve had a version of this question in a number of other stops on the tour and throughout my time working with student media. What I’ve tried to convey is that ALL information should be geared toward things that provide value to the readership, whether that value is in the form of entertainment, editorial insights, informational alerts or knowledge-building content.

What tends to happen is that we present content without a strong sense of WHY readers should care. In other words, people tend to blow off the “newsier” stories because as writers, we don’t make a strong enough “this matters because” statement for them.

My suggestion, therefore, is to worry less about trying to get people to eat their vegetables by force-feeding them dry news pieces and worry more about trying to make those pieces clearly personally relevant to the readers so they’ll be drawn to those stories.

 

QUESTION: What does it take to make a profile really work well as a profile and not feel so blah?

BEST ANSWER I HAD AT THE TIME: A lot of profiles fall flat because they lack observational elements that add flavor and meaning to them. The SCAM model can help you better find ways to capture the setting, character and action of your source through spending time with that person. You can then convey meaning by making sense of how those first three pieces work together to inform the readers about the overall “vibe” of this person.

You don’t have to describe every hair on the source’s head, all the way down to the worn heels on their cowboy boots to do a good job of describing a person. In fact, the opposite is almost always the case. You need to paint a word picture so that I can see this person in my mind’s eye while I’m reading the story. That can be their physical presence, if that’s crucial to the story. It can be their emotional presence, if that matters more.

Case in point, I was reading a profile today that one of my kids wrote about a young woman who is on a national-championship-winning gymnastics team here at UWO, while also having committed to the Army ROTC program. The programs seem ridiculously disparate: One requires individuality, and glitz, while the other required uniformity and plainness. Gymnasts tend to be tiny and Army folk tend to be giant. So, to more fully understand how that worked in one person, we needed to have a physical sense of this kid.

In another instance, the person was describing a religious leader who used his own struggles with faith and his practical nature here on Earth to help others find their way. In this case, whether he was giant or tiny was less important than the emotional interconnectivity he displayed in life.

Whatever route you go is fine, but you need to do a lot of observation of that person to truly capture the source’s essence and communicate that effectively to the audience. In doing so, you can focus less obsessively on getting every detail about the person’s life in there, like you’re crafting a resume.

 

QUESTION: The people around here in the upper reaches of power tend to like to route everything through the marketing department or just issue statements when we want interviews. How do we get around that kind of thing?

BEST ANSWER I COULD COME UP WITH: This is a trend with a lot of folks, and it happened here as well for a while. The general consensus is that if you don’t actually do an interview, you can’t say something stupid. This is supported by the idea that statements get about 23 people revising them before they go out to the public. Meanwhile, a mouth can yield a lot of problems when someone forgets to put their brain in gear before opening it.

The problem with statements, other than the general reek of bovine excrement that wafts from them, is that there is no chance to ask follow-up questions, refute basic assumptions in them or generally cut through the fog of obfuscation they offer. Thus, getting the interview is vital to making sense of some things reporters are covering.

I argued that you should always push back against the statement approach and track people down who decline to respond to your email requests. The university leaders have offices. Go there. Professors have teaching schedules. Track them down after class and walk with them. Set up camp outside their faculty office or generally be a persistent pain in the rear end. If they refuse to answer questions, turn THAT into part of the story:

“Professor John Smith refused to engage with a reporter who met him after class, instead saying he would ‘have someone issue a statement on the matter.’ When the reporter noted that a statement would be insufficient, Smith went from a slow walk to a brisk trot toward his office. He quickly entered and slammed the door behind him. Knocking to rouse him was unsuccessful.”

In short, as I said to the staff, “Tell the administrators, ‘You mean to tell me that someone of your educational level is afraid of an undergraduate student who works for a newspaper named after a pretty yellow flower? Come on!'”

 

FIN: And that’s where the Filak Furlough Tour came to an end. Thanks so much everybody for letting me be part of your lives and for making my furlough fun.