Feedback

(Page 3 of 4)

The key to the whole public feedback equation is that it must be considered equally with the feedback that comes from supervisors and peers. Journalism training must emphasize both angles of this process because it is central to the work and existence of journalists. It cannot be trusted to osmosis.

The need for this became most apparent to me when I began teaching at the Diversity Institute at Vanderbilt University. The institute is a 12-week fellowship that trains adults who had been pursuing other careers to become journalists. It is funded by the Freedom Forum, a nonpartisan newspaper foundation based in Arlington, Virginia which promotes education about the First Amendment and works with newspapers to promote diversity.

As I worked with these adults transitioning into journalism careers, I found that many of them readily grasped the concepts of reporting and writing that other lecturers and and I shared with them. What they seemed to struggle with most, however, was feedback that other instructors and I shared with them about their stories. Some of the fellows would get depressed while others would get downright angry when we would edit their stories or make suggestions on how they could be improved.

After several classes, the pattern became so predictable that I decided we needed to go further in preparing fellows for the editing process. I also realized that it was important to prepare them for the feedback that they would receive from the public.

That’s when I developed the lecture I eventually presented at CUNY. And each time I would present it, I would see a light bulb go off for students who clearly were uneasy with receiving feedback on their work.

Of course, feedback that comes with the editing process always has been essential to newsroom journalism. But the reality is that many newspaper editors and reporters struggle through this process.

Some editors are better than others, perhaps because they have the right disposition or just the right touch to make stories better. Some reporters get through the process better than others because they don’t place too high a premium on the writing; they are reporters at heart. Still others on both sides of the equation simply endure. Some editors are heavy handed and rule by authority, doing as they will to the copy submitted to them. They might edit the story and then ask the reporter to look it over to ensure no mistakes have been made. If objections are made, they shoot the reporter down.

Some reporters consequently divorce themselves from the story and the process, caring only if the facts are accurate. I remember hearing some colleagues say that once they push the send button, they never read the story again  – even after it’s in print.

On the opposite end of the spectrum are the editors who just send everything through, leaving some reporters to think that all is well, when, in fact, it is not.

Then there are those reporters who care about every jot and tittle of what they write, those who will go to the mat on just about every proposed change or suggestion for improvement. The World Wrestling Federation has nothing on these folks. So the editor has to be ready.

I’ve endured my share of wrestling matches but have come to believe that reporting and writing is a shared ordeal – between reporter, editor, and reader.

Unfortunately, many reporters have long considered their work a matter of ownership, that they are the only ones with a vested interest in the story. As a consequence, they haven’t taken too kindly to anyone – whether inside the newsroom or outside – telling them how to report and structure their stories.

The days when such thinking can be tolerated seem to be over.

While my lecture has not been flawless, I have found that it has helped many students get the most out of the editing process. It also has helped them understand the importance of listening to what their readers are telling them. For better or worse, the industry is understanding that the latter is a fact of life. I hope that journalists will learn how to take a balanced approach that will lead not only to better journalism but also better bottom lines.

In this age, the great looming question is, can the two coexist? I think they must.