Nygaard Notes #372

Nygaard Notes
Independent Periodic News and Analysis
Number 372, May 11, 2007

On the Web at http://www.nygaardnotes.org/

******

This Week: The Party Talk Technique


1. “Quote” of the Week
2. White House Denies That It’s Occupying Iraq!
3. Values and the Media, Part I: Who Wins When News Values Conflict?
4. Writing (or Seeking) a News Article 101: The Party Talk Technique

******

Greetings,

I said last week that this issue you’re now reading would expand the idea of values in the news, and specifically would be focused on values and priorities and where journalists get them. As it turns out, there is more on this subject than I could fit into this issue, so there will be a “Values and the Media, Part II” next week.

I suppose I don’t have to tell you this, but the piece on “The Party Talk Technique” is one that I thought I had published long ago. But I hadn’t. I mention it when I do workshops and classes and things, but never have I graced the pages of Nygaard Notes with this little trick. How embarrassing to not even know what I have published!

By the way, this issue is coming out very near the U.S. holiday known as “Mother’s Day.” I prefer to call it “Mothers’ Day.” Note the placement of the apostrophe. You may want to go to the Nygaard Notes website and read my 2003 piece, “The Complex History of Mother’s Day,” which explains why the apostrophe is important, among other things.

To the new readers of Nygaard Notes—Welcome!

Until next week

Nygaard

******

1.
“Quote” of the Week

Television journalist Bill Moyers made a speech at the National Conference for Media Reform on January 12, 2007. Here’s a little of what he said:

“What does today's media system mean for the notion of an informed public cherished by democratic theory? Quite literally, it means that virtually everything the average person sees or hears, outside of her own personal communications, is determined by the interests of private, unaccountable executives and investors whose primary goal is increasing profits and raising the share prices. More insidiously, this small group of elites determines what ordinary people do not see or hear. In-depth coverage of anything, let alone the problems real people face day-to-day, is as scarce as sex, violence and voyeurism are pervasive.

“Successful business model or not, by democratic standards this is censorship of knowledge by monopolization of the means of information. In its current form, which Barry Diller happily describes as ‘oligopoly,’ media growth has one clear consequence. There is more information and easier access to it, but it's more narrow and homogenous in content and perspective. What we see from the couch is overwhelmingly a view from the top. The pioneering communications scholar Murray Edelman wrote that opinions about public policy do not spring immaculately or automatically into people's minds. They are always placed there by the interpretations of those who most consistently get their claims and manufactured cues publicized widely.”

******

2.
White House Denies That It’s Occupying Iraq!

On March 29, 2007, White House spokesperson Dana Perino made a truly remarkable statement in the daily press briefing, one that reported in only one newspaper in the country, as far as I can tell (and that paper relegated it to a brief story on page 4). The remarkable statement was this:

“It is not accurate to say that the United States is occupying Iraq.”

Yes, she actually said that, in a response to a question by the indefatigable Helen Thomas.

For those who are interested, here is more of the exchange, taken from the official White House transcript:

Perino: “It is not accurate to say that the United States is occupying Iraq. We are there under the –”

Helen Thomas: “It's not right to say we're occupying Iraq with 150,000 troops there?”

Perino: “That's right. Helen, we are there at the invitation of the sovereign government of Iraq that was democratically elected.”

Thomas: “Did we invade that country?”

Perino: “We were there under the U.N. Security Council resolution, and we're there now at the—I think one of the things to point out, and I think somebody brought up the [Iraqi President Jalal] Talabani comments this morning, is that he was talking about the initial—initially when we went in of establishing a Coalition Provisional Authority rather than an Iraqi Provisional Authority. And we were there under the U.N.—”

Thomas (Off mike) “—you have a right to go in?”

Perino: “We were there under a U.N. mandate, yes.”

Although the official White House transcript notes that there was “laughter” in the room at least eight times during this particular press conference, there is no record of laughter during the above exchange. No record of derisive hooting, either.

******

3.
Values and the Media, Part I: Who Wins When News Values Conflict?

The true values that are held by a person—or by an institution—cannot be determined by listening to what they say. They can only be discovered by observing actions. For example, imagine that a man you know says he values women as equals. Yet, every interaction you see between him and many different women indicates that he considers women to be inferior to men in many important ways. Which indicator are you more likely to believe?

Now think of two news corporations. Imagine that both of them say in their mission statements that they exist to provide high-quality news and information to a wide audience. Now, consider that one of these news organizations—we’ll call it NewsCorp A—wins numerous awards for its journalism, is highly regarded in the journalism world, and is responsible for breaking several major stories that result in national legislation to address the issues raised by its hard-hitting investigative pieces.

Meanwhile, the other news corporation—NewsCorp B—wins no awards, is widely-known for sensationalism and poorly-sourced stories, and is rarely cited by any legislative or other powerful actors in the process of crafting solutions to social problems. OK, got the picture? NewsCorp A is all about journalism. NewsCorp B is all about selling stories to large numbers of viewers.

Now, imagine that NewsCorp A posts a modest 5 percent profit for eight quarters in a row and sees the value of their stock decline ever-so-slightly. Meanwhile NewsCorp B posts an average profit of 20 percent over the same period and sees the value of their stock increase every quarter. In which organization do you think there will be pressure to do things differently? NewsCorp A, right? It’s kind of a no-brainer, really.

So, what are the values exhibited here? Most likely the journalists working in both organizations want to do their jobs well. And they don’t want to lose money. But what we see is that, regardless of the wishes of the journalists, the environment in which news organizations exist is centered on profit. In such a system the organizations that do well—that survive, ultimately—will be the ones that please their stockholders. Stockholders are not bad people, and they don’t necessarily dislike good journalism. They just don’t care. They simply buy stock that is profitable, and journalism has nothing to do with it. Those are the values of the “market.”

An illustration: Consider the recent case of “shock-jock” Don Imus. Was he fired as soon as his “superiors” discovered that he was broadcasting racist ideology to millions of listeners? No. He was fired as soon as some major advertisers pulled their ads after they decided they did not want their products associated with him. As a headline in the Toronto Globe and Mail put it: “Money, Not Morality, Biggest Reason CBS Fired Imus.”

As long as the organizations that provide us with our daily news and “entertainment” are organized as for-profit corporations, we can expect money to trump morality pretty much every time. This is a good illustration of the comment I like to cite from the Project for Excellence in Journalism, in their report “The State of the News Media 2006.” They said that, “heading into 2006, there was more worry that the publicly traded corporation may not be positioned to address the problems of journalism to the satisfaction of society.”

That is, the values of “the publicly traded corporation” may not be the values of “society.” But it doesn’t stop there, as I’ll explain in the next Nygaard Notes.

******

4.
Writing (or Seeking) a News Article 101: The Party Talk Technique

When talking to young writers about how to write up a news story, I often encourage them to use the “Party Talk Technique.” It’s useful for news readers and news viewers, too, so here’s how it works:

First you imagine that you are a reporter, and that you’ve been asked to read a newly-issued report from the Social Security Trustees on the future of the program, and then write up a story on it. [Note: Such a report actually came out a couple of weeks ago.]

Step One: Before you begin the assignment, you first imagine that you have already written your story! And then you imagine that you are at a party. The Party Talk Technique now kicks in.

At your imaginary party you start talking to someone, and you imagine that this someone is a person who represents the people who read your articles. This someone asks you what you did today. When you tell them that you wrote a news article, their first question will be, of course, “What was the story about?” For your answer, you paraphrase the assignment your editor gave you: “The Social Security Trustees just put out a report on the future of Social Security, and I wrote a story about what they said.” (At this point, you have to imagine that your party acquaintance is interested in learning more, and doesn’t just go off to get another beer.)

The next question, predictably, will be “What’d they say?” Your answer to THIS question will be the “lead” (or “lede”) of your story. The lede, in journalistic terms, is the basic one- or two-sentence summation of what the story is about. Some young reporters think this is the easy part. (“You just read the report and tell people what it says!”) But it’s never that simple.

Consider two actual stories on the actual 2007 Social Security Trustees report. The Heritage Foundation ran this headline in their April 24th summary: “2007 Social Security Trustees Report Shows the Urgency of Reform.” The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, in contrast, said in their April 24th summary that: “The trustees’ report reaffirms that Social Security does not face a near-term crisis and can continue to pay full benefits for more than three decades but will eventually face a significant imbalance.”

Well, which is it? Is there an “urgent” problem, or an “eventual” problem? Here’s where you return to one of the Two Most Important Questions for journalists to ask: That’s the “Who says?” question. In this case, the “who” is the Social Security Trustees, and you may wish to mention the fact that four of the six Trustees are political appointees of George Bush, and that they may have an interest in painting a bleak picture of the program’s future. (And if this interest is shared by many at the Heritage Foundation, that may be worth mentioning, as well.)

So, even in the lede, which is very brief, there are a lot of possibilities for interpretation, and much research will be needed to back up whichever choices you make.

Your conversation at the party doesn’t end here. Following the Party Technique, what you do after you figure out your answer to the “What’d they say?” question is to go on to imagine—using all of your skills of empathy that enable you to imagine what is of interest and importance to your Average Reader—what questions might follow from your statement about the basic gist of the article.

And you go on from there. After each statement, you imagine the next question that might come into the mind of the “average reader.” Your answer is the next paragraph in your story.

It’s helpful, when doing this exercise, to imagine that your party acquaintance is a pretty skeptical person. Imagine that they keep interjecting questions like, “How do you know that?” or “That’s not what I heard.” Whenever you imagine questions like these, you’ll know that this is where you need to have extra-credible sources, and more than a couple. Knowing what you know about the Trustees, for instance, you’ll probably want to go find some people who don’t have the same interest in the future of the program as the politicized officials, and quote them in your article. For balance, y’know.

Finally, during this exercise, you need to remember that it doesn’t work if your party acquaintance gets bored and drifts away. Every journalist is a story-teller, and needs to care about their story. Otherwise, your readers will head for the proverbial punch bowl and will never read your wonderful and important article.

How About the Readers of the News?

Last week I mentioned how important it is for news “consumers” to learn to ask our own questions before engaging with the daily news. To help you do this, you can also use the Party Talk Technique. Just imagine that you are the person talking with the reporter, and the reporter is working on a story about the very subject that interests you. What would you ask her? What is the most important thing to know? Imagine, further, that this party you are attending is filled with reporters working on the same story. If you find that the first reporter you talk to doesn’t know the answers to the questions that are important to you, then go get some more chips and dip.

Oops! I mean, go find another reporter to talk to. Keep looking until you find one who shares your values and priorities, as they will be a better surrogate for you, and will be more likely to have asked the questions that you would ask.

OK, now come back to your real life, and you’ll see what to do: Find real reporters who share your values and priorities (Hint: They may not be found where you think!) and make them your first stop when you look to the media for answers to your important questions. This may involve breaking some old habits. For example, you may wish to stop watching TV news. Or you may have to subscribe to Nygaard Notes or other “alternative” publications. The more you practice, the more you’ll know what to do.

**********

If you have received this issue of Nygaard Notes from a friend, or by accident, or through some other bizarre quirk of inexplicable fate which leaves you with no useful return address, be aware that you can receive your own free subscription by asking for it in an E-mail sent to Nygaard Notes at Or visit the Nygaard Notes website at http://www.nygaardnotes.org/

I would like to continue to provide this service for free. You could help by making a voluntary contribution (anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00) You can donate online by going to the Nygaard Notes website at http://www.nygaardnotes.org/ Then just get out your credit card and follow the instructions. Of course, you can always just send a good old check through the mail. Make checks payable to “Nygaard Notes” and send to: Nygaard Notes, P.O. Box 14354, Minneapolis, MN 55414. Thank you!

--
Jeff Nygaard
National Writers Union
Twin Cities Local #13 UAW
Nygaard Notes
http://www.nygaardnotes.org