The Inverted Blog (Week 6)

JOURNALISM ISSUE ENTRY:

This week's topic was particularly intriguing, as it was to do with the famous (or infamous) inverted pyramid. It explained how this structure has become the most commonly adopted structure for journalists, and has stood the test of time in print journalism. This is mainly due to the nature of the readership in a modern context, in that people are always busy, and in their frantic, fast paced lives, there is little time to catch-up on the news and current affairs. So, what this model does is place the most important information at the top, and then in descending order to least important. However, there are flaws in this structure, as Chapter 6 of The Daily Miracle points out i.e. the geometry of the pyramid suggests that a great deal of info is placed at the top and gradually winds down, whereas the short and succinct most important info is in the prime position. There ARE alternatives to the inverted pyramid, which can work if written skilfully, however in most instances of 'hard news,' it is, arguably, the most effective.

Now, as usual:

J. Jonah Jameson Quote of the week:

"Hoffmann! Call the patent office, copyright the name Green Goblin, I want a quarter every time someone says it"

1. Would you include balancing comment (in the form of a source's statement) in a story if you knew that the statement was untrue but could not say so or prove that it was untrue, and the source insisted that the comment be included?

First I'd negotiate with the source, and ask them to explain exactly why they want the inclusion of the comment in the story, and if it will enhance their argument at all. I'd then interrogate them about the credibility of the statement, asking them to provide evidence that their claim is correct and true, and listen carefully for any Freudian slips, which may occur in the information they are giving me which counteracts and/or counterbalances the information I already have. After all that, if I still couldn't manage to get the truth out of them, I’d then include the comment as requested by the source, but take extra special care in the wording of my report so as to not give the reader false information, using terms such as "alleged" "believed to be" etc. In the end, though, it all depends who the source is and the authority/reliability they have on the given situation.

2. Because you could not locate a source for balancing comment, would you withhold a story on which you have worked hard? Would your decision change if you knew that an opposing newspaper was planning to run a similar story, reducing the value of your effort?

I think, as disappointing as it may be, sometimes journalists will have to sacrifice their efforts on major stories in order to maintain their reputation and integrity. As for another newspaper running a similar story, this would make it a more difficult decision. However, I'm sure that one incident where a journalist declines to run a big story based primarily on ethical grounds, will look much better in the public eye in the future, than a story than is published which only outlines one perspective, potentially tarnishing the reputation of the journalist and the newspaper.

3. You are sent to report from the scene of a major uncontrolled fire in a high-rise building. People are trapped inside. What dangers should you look out for? Who would you interview? When would you start writing your story?

I'd essentially take the approach as outlined in Chapter 6 of the textbook.
"When arriving at the scene of a breaking story, a good journalist will not rush in and try to get as close as possible to the heart of the action. They will approach slowly, taking time to survey the incident - looking for potential dangers and threats to their own safety while getting a clear overview of the situation, something which will help them greatly when they write their article" (The Daily Miracle Chapter 6: Upside-down pyramids p. 129).

I'd make notes about the scene; people nearby who witnessed it go up in flames and other emergency personnel. Sources must later be cross-checked for credibility, especially witnesses.
The Daily Miracle says that:
Ultimately, the reporter will be faced with a bundle of notes in random sequence that might include interview responses from:
The fire chief, three fire fighters, four citizen witnesses, owners of the building, tenants of the building, two ambulance officers, three police officers, a hospital matron, council building inspector, owners of adjoining businesses. The resulting story could begin with a summary intro that highlights the most dramatic elements (Ch 6: p. 130).

4. From your reading of news stories, do you think the inverted pyramid remains the most effective method of structuring material?

It certainly remains the most commonly used in the mainstream media to cater for it audience's busy lifestyles. However it doesn't make sense, from a story telling point of view, to include the "explosive details" at the beginning of the article, only to sacrifice the rest of your efforts in writing the story when people skim the paper. But, that's the nature of contemporary journalism for you!
I'll conclude with some words of advice on the inverted pyramid structure from The Newcastle Herald journalist Ben Smee whom I recently interviewed.
I asked the following question: In terms of the ‘inverted pyramid’ structure, do you always write in this style for ‘hard news’ stories, or are there times when it isn’t appropriate?

It often depends on the story. I have to admit that I don’t necessarily think about the inverted pyramid when I’m writing a story. A fluid, catchy intro always works better than one that struggles to take in as much information as possible. With human-interest stories, I’d hardly ever write like that, but the nature of hard news is that you do tend to put the best and most explosive information at the top of the story.