Category: Reporting

Full Plate

It’s the end of my week, and already I’m looking at four stories. Each one is “major,” in that each one is worth at least a day of my time. When it comes to issues like the Fraser mill, slumlords in Berlin, Clean Power, Laidlaw and PSNH, or any of the development opportunities the city is looking at, each one should get at least a solid eight hours. Think about it: I’ve got to talk to a bunch of people, digest and understand it all (sometimes starting from no knowledge) and explain it to readers.

Sometimes there just isn’t the time. These four stories are all going to happen, to be sure, but never with the depth and breadth I’d like.

In a city of this size it’s remarkable there are two papers at all, particularly considering the economic conditions. I have to guess a big part of why the Reporter is able to function is because the only real expense is me. Without an office, and by sharing administration with the Democrat, the paper avoids racking up large expenses. It’s essentially my salary and mileage.

But four more reporters would be awesome, wouldn’t it? I often make a call on one story, receive a call on another and get an email about a third in a matter of minutes. Multiply that by every day of every week and you’ll understand my week. I love it.

But the city needs more coverage. It needs more people asking questions. I hate to drop stories because I don’t have the resources, but it undoubtedly happens. Luckily there is another paper able to pick up the slack, but even between the two papers there are only three reporters. Not exactly a fleet.

I’m noticing, however, that I’m starting to understand things here a little better. I’m starting to know where to poke and prod to get some interesting stories. My year plus here is starting to pay off with enough institutional knowledge and personal connections to put pieces together.

I’ve been reading that one of the challenges of modern journalism is that too many reporters spend a year or two in a place and then move on, and they take their knowledge and connections with them. I understand that perspective better now, as stories are starting to grow out of those relationships.

Berlin needs those types of reporters, those with ties to the community. Without an office, however, that will be hard for the Reporter to achieve. I work out of the community college–not exactly the center of the city. With no permanent presence in Berlin, the Reporter loses out. As the reporter, I lose out. No one can drop in to drop off a tip. People need my email or phone number to make something happen.

How do you balance community connections with budgets? Beats me. I just keep running with my full plate and hope I can work fast enough for the residents of Berlin.

Speaking of, I think my phone is ringing.

Week Beginning…

And ending.

It’s always funny to me how my deadline is Monday morning. Tomorrow I’ve got the council meeting and the police log to do, but otherwise if it’s a quiet day I just finished my work week. (Only sort of, but it feels that way.)

This week is good. Real good. I got to delve into the CPD/Laidlaw issue as it pertains to the Coös County Commissioners. It’s quite a story, I think, definitely worth reading.

On top of that, I had a good discussion with the folks the New England Forest Rally about why they decided to uproot and go to Errol. It’s an interesting perspective on how Berlin works with people looking to make things happen. It’s not a glowing review, but maybe the city can learn from it.

I also hung out with Charlie Bass for a little while when he came through town to reconnect with voters. Politics is funny: he railed against earmarks, but then he said he tried to bring whatever he could back to New Hampshire. That’s his job, but the about-face is interesting to watch.

I was talking with Councilor McCue about politics just the other day. He mentioned being one of two conservatives in his left-leaning family. I’m luckier—I’m unaffiliated. I try to get honest answers out of both sides, which is tougher than picking one or the other.

I got a great response offline to my comments about dedensifying the city, and then a few day later I heard a story on Marketplace about a related topic. There are city eliminating highways, and they wind up with less congested cities. Planners thought it would create chaos, but instead it disperses traffic and supports local businesses. It’s an argument perfect to combat those people who want to see a highway to Berlin. Why? To route shoppers away from the downtown merchants?

OK, it’s late, I’m done my week (but not). I’m going to get to sleep so I’m not yawning when I get to the police department in the morning. And hopefully nothing has happened that will require scrambling tomorrow morning (did I just jinx myself?).

Summer Rain

It’s pouring out, for the first time in weeks. The 90 plus degree temperatures of the last 10 days made everyone lethargic, me included, and this reprieve is a blessing.

But in that time, aside from some interesting developments in Berlin and Coös County, I’ve unearthed some interesting opportunities as well.

First, I’m headed to Peru for three weeks in August for vacation. The trip was originally going to be a fun/climbing trip, but now I might be profiling the area I’m going to for Climbing Magazine. I’m going to go, shoot photos and write something up, and they’ll possibly buy it on spec.

Second, I’m trying to embed with the 94th Military Police Company, out of Londonderry, this fall. They are going to Iraq to train security forces, and I’m going to go to tell New Hampshire what their soldiers are doing in the war zone. I am currently looking for angles on this, but it should be an interesting project.

And then additionally there is all that is going on in my coverage area. I’ve been hearing rumors about the Fraser mill sale, but nothing I can put into print yet. And the city is finding out just what ATV do for business this weekend—it’ll be interesting to see if the festival has a real impact on non-ATV-centric stores. Broadband will be getting a major boost from a $44.5 million federal grant, and the struggle for biomass continues. There is never a shortage of stuff going on.

The other day all the staff at work had a meeting—my editor and the reporters from the Democrat—the first of its kind. We bounced stories off of each other and discussed angles. It was a great discussion, because we generated ideas not one of us would have come up with alone. It made me realize how much of a handicap it is to work in an office of one. I make the decisions and see things from my perspective, and that perspective rarely gets challenged or questioned. But my perspective isn’t all encompassing, and the Androscoggin Valley would do well to have more viewpoints looking at facts and for stories. We all had ideas for each other that spurred new ideas, and in the end the sum was greater than the whole. As a reporter trying to inform residents that greater sum is invaluable.

I’m hoping we can try it more often, because it gave me some great ideas. My office at WMCC is great, but every once in a while it’s nice to share an office with a colleague.

Going Deeper…

I was doing some research into PSNH’s new PUC docket, and I realized something I knew all along: no one is willing to go deep. Or maybe no one has the capacity to go deep. Or the resources. I did my CPD/PSNH story for NHPR last week, and several people commented it didn’t get deep enough. I totally agree. Unfortunately NHPR doesn’t have the resources to devote half an hour to such a story. (I’m not sure NHPR listeners have the patience to listen to a half-hour version of it either.)

But there is always more. As I wrote the script I knew there was more, and as the news editor cut it down and revised it to fit the time slot I knew I was going to get to say less.

But what’s the solution? PSNH already gives significantly to NHPR, and so do New Hampshire residents (read: rate payers). Interest groups are contributing what they can. Which one should we ask to give more to allow for more depth in reporting that affects them? And what implications would that have on the stories? (The host read a PSNH underwriting tag about 10 minutes before my story aired on Wednesday night. I had to laugh when I heard it—nice coincidence.)

Norm said something on here about the model for democracy being broken. I don’t agree; I agree with the Winston Churchill quote more: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

The same can be said for journalism. It isn’t perfect. In fact, someone at the IGA on Monday told me they can’t believe how bad the paper is (they were talking about the daily). I wish I knew a better answer. I wish there was a way to allow people to take part in democracy, to get engaged in the debates, that didn’t neglect the depth.

I’ve been trying to figure out how I could change that in Berlin. The fact is being a reporter is more than a full-time job; news doesn’t happen on the 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. schedule. But running after the day’s or the week’s news doesn’t allow for enough context, enough depth, to tell people what they really need to know. It takes those parts that get edited out to really understand what’s going on.

So how do you revive what lays on the cutting room floor? I’m not sure. As a staff of one, freelancing and reporting via cell phone and Internet, it’s tough to see where their is room for expansion. I see the need, but not the market. How do you make it profitable for a paper like the Reporter to reopen an office in Berlin, expand the staff and increase coverage. How do you pay for a three thousand word story about the ins and outs of energy? How do you make that argument to a publisher, who is running the paper as a business, not a philanthropic endeavor?

I don’t know, but I see the need. I recognize the criticism my story got as valid, but I have to take it as criticism of a broken system. I would have loved to add the details, but there simply wasn’t time. How do you make time? That’s the real question.

Or Tonight…

If you were listening to NHPR last night and didn’t hear my PSNH/CPD piece, it isn’t because you weren’t listening intently.

I had a computer meltdown and then a server issue that nearly caused me to throw my computer out the window. The large audio files I was using (new recorder) overwhelmed my editing program, and the final mix had large gaps in the sound. I raced to patch it together in time for All Things Considered last night, but it wasn’t happening.

So it’ll be on tonight. Luckily the only time reference in the story is to Friday, so one day late doesn’t matter.

It’s a shame though—with the limited time I had to tell the story I wasn’t able to get into the meat as much as I would like. It’s the same issue as the paper: stories are money, and companies and organizations only have so much money.

I have the sound, however, to tell the story a little more completely, although it may come out a little closer to 10 minutes (for NHPR it was three). I am thinking about mixing it together and throwing it up here, with more depth.

Anyway, it will be on tonight around 5:45, and then again tomorrow morning. I hope I didn’t mess anyone up by giving them the information a day early. But believe me, no one was more distraught than I.

Budgeting Berlin

The council passed a budget last night that laid off six city employees, all of them teachers. The police department, fire department and public works department all avoided layoffs.

It was a close finish to the most important part of the council’s year. If the council’s goals are the same next year they will face an even more challenging scenario, but they pulled it off this year.

A representative from one of the city employee’s unions told me last night they could have found an additional $300,000 in savings, but after the council rejected the teachers’ proposal no one else wanted to be next. That might be ingredient that enables the city to keep the tax rate flat next year.

$200,000 made it in to take down dilapidated properties the city got through tax deeding, and $200,000 more for street repair. While those are minuscule amounts compared to what the city needs the council is clearly committed to upgrading the city’s aging infrastructure, though it has limited resources.

So if you live in Berlin, your taxes shouldn’t go up and your services shouldn’t go way down. The battles may have left some bad blood (a firefighter spoke last night with some strong words for the council) and class sizes are going to go up, but the fire department isn’t getting any smaller.

Now the city just has to expand its tax base. Easier said than done.

On another note, if you’re looking for an update on the CPD/PSNH dispute listen to NHPR tonight. My story about how some people feel PSNH is deciding Berlin’s future through its control of the energy markets should air around 5:45 p.m. It will have the latest on the easement issue. I talked to a number of councilors about this, but I tried to restrict the voices to those of people in the middle, instead of ardent CPD supporters or opponents. I only had four minutes to explain years, but I think it came out well. Let me know what you think.

A PPA and more

It’s official: PSNH has reached an agreement with Laidlaw Berlin Biopower to buy their power. The PUC still has to approve the PPA to ensure it is in the best interests of the rate payers, but this is a big step toward getting financing for a major generation project for any private developer.

At the same time there are some new roadblocks to CPD’s project, which will be in next week’s paper (Tuesday night meetings vs. weekly paper schedule). Again it involves PSNH. Energy, it again seems, will be a big part of the coming Reporter.

I’m also seeing if I can do an NHPR story on CPD and Laidlaw.

At the end of Wednesday night’s meeting there was a short debate about the mayor’s position on the two plants, as well as those of several other councilors, which didn’t make it into my council story last week. I had to follow up on a major story I’d done two weeks before, and by the end of it I didn’t have room for a new version of on an old argument. Not that the argument is unimportant, but I simply didn’t have room.

In fact, a lot happened on Monday night that didn’t make it into either paper. That’s how it always happens. There just isn’t enough space dedicated to news to capture all that goes on at those meetings. Those decisions are made by publishers, but reporters, editors and citizens have to live with it.

It makes me wonder about all mediated messages. It’s impossible to follow all that’s going on, but it is imperative residents stay informed. The media doesn’t have room for all of it, but unfortunately in Berlin there is seldom any other account of events. When Mayor Grenier asked for public comment on Monday night at the start and end of the meeting the only person in the audience was Bobby Haggart. There funny looks from councilors who recognized the absurdity of the moment.

Thus my version of what happened, and that of the daily’s reporter (both inevitably incomplete), make up the story of Monday night’s meeting. The councilors also have their opinions of the discussion, but their views reflect their politics. Residents don’t have access to a complete, unbiased view of the meeting. A few more first hand accounts would be phenomenal.

(Some people would say the meeting minutes provide this, but I assure you they are incomplete; not in content, perhaps, but in emotion. The debates often involve backstory and personnel interactions that the secretary doesn’t write down. It’s like reading a script versus watching a movie—one doesn’t compare to the other.)

People come out for issues, but not to ensure their city is run to their liking. For day to day decisions, often only the reporters (and Mr. Haggart) are watching. And there just isn’t enough newsprint available to capture it all.

Do you ever notice the daily has three stories on Wednesday about what happened on Monday? They could do more, too, if they had a bigger news hole. It’s amazing how much goes on in the evenings at city hall, and how few residents are engaged.

But then again, maybe the silence is approval. The budget hearing last month was much quieter than I’d expected, considering teachers, cops, public works employees and firefighters are all getting laid off. Maybe Berlin is OK with that. Maybe even thought the papers can’t get the word out people are confident the politicians are doing a fine job. Aside from the occasional street name change perhaps everyone is happy.

That seems like a stretch. I’ve talked to many people who don’t like what’s going on there, but then I never see them at public comment times. Everyone who cares about the city must know the papers do not have the space to answer all the pressing questions, and residents have to take a keen interest if they want to see Berlin thrive. The best stories develop largely through interactions with residents and seeing what people care, often at these meetings. Media doesn’t act alone. It takes engaged citizens to generate engaging reporting. And it isn’t enough to just read the stories. People need to show up.

The Long and Short of It

It was a long story week this week, and now I’m facing a short week with tight deadlines.

I started with one story idea for something in depth, but midway through the week several other things butted in. How the paper comes together is so interesting, because it grows out randomness and circumstance. For the past two weeks there have been dozens of opportunities for photos and stories; all winter I was plagued by too few. The weather warms and the stories come out of the woodwork. And then I’m choosing which one to cover, not trying to uncover something to write about.

This week I had to threaten a Freedom of Information Act request as part of the first story I had in mind. Along the way the details I got from that request fell through the cracks because of everything else going on. The basics made it in the paper, of course, but the real meat didn’t get in. Still, the story was more than 1,000 words, the stated limit for the Reporter.

Then another piece blew the limit out of the water. But when police are running metal detectors over every student in a local school it isn’t easy to distill that down.

Then I had a meeting with representatives from the Union of Concerned Scientists. The story I got out of that was another monster, approaching the 1,000 word limit.

I wish there was some “objective,” easy formula for how a paper comes together, but there isn’t. Decisions have to be made on every level, and some of those decisions come down to logistical restrictions. I’ve got proms, award ceremonies, honor rolls and dedications to photograph, firefighters to interview, councilors to pester and utility spokespeople to call. I’m thrilled when every once in a while a good story comes out with my name attached. I often wonder what this job would be like if there were an office, with colleges and desks and mailboxes. The Reporter is a tag-team effort across miles of fiber-optic cable. The quality of it could undoubtedly improve, but for what it is I’m proud. My editor and I, along with a few other awesome reporters, put two papers together every week. I’ve seen life rafts with more personnel.

This week is short, and I’m going to be cramming like a college freshman to get everything in. I have the Coös Symposium starting tomorrow, and because of the holiday my deadline is Friday. How much news can I pull together in a day and a half? I’ve got a bit going already, but I’m not sure. The big news of the last two weeks will hopefully keep rolling. The budget hearing on Wednesday will likely generate at least one piece, but I’m going to have to search for other stories on limited time. When it’s long it’s long, it seems, and this week it’s short. But at least there is news at all.

Context Context Context

A recent discussion in the comments section has made me think more about how context plays a role in reporting. I found two great examples of context to enhance the discussion:

Here’s a piece from today’s New York Times that weaves excellent reporting with context, connecting a Democratic senate candidate with his ambiguous comments about his military service. It is the context, the background, the history of his comments juxtaposed with the his past that have made for a story. What will it do to his future? Who knows, but it’s good to have someone leafing through records and checking the facts. (Mr. Blumenthal responded to the article today.)

Considering the Times is often called a liberal paper by detractors it is interesting to note the candidate’s Democratic Party affiliation. Independent but not neutral would likely describe the Times’ philosophy as well.

This video is another great piece where context fills the gaps.

Notice the Russian official is held to account for her earlier comments. What does the inconsistency do to her credibility? Is the reporter exhibiting a bias by asking those questions and reporting the incongruities, or is it  good journalism?

Those are all good conversations to have in the public sphere, where people can decide just what kind of press they want. Does the Russian model seem desirable? Not to me, and I doubt it would to most people.

I bet the candidate from Connecticut, however, would likely prefer a little less press freedom right about now. But the Times is hardly to blame for his dubious statements; if he is upset with their compiling what he said he shouldn’t have said it. Each individual statement, reported as stated and unverified, was not have been news. But by compiling them and putting them in context with his record the paper exposed his hypocrisy. Context sometimes is where the story lies. Reporting isn’t just reprinting what people say.

Writing or Reporting?

I got some very interesting feedback today: someone asked me why there was such a difference between my work on LPJ and my work in the Reporter. I started to say because I don’t feel like I can afford to have an opinion in the paper, while on here I can, but they stopped me. The style, they said, that’s what they wondered about. Why the rigid style in the paper and the much more comfortable, conversational writing on here?

It was an interesting question. Whenever I tell someone I work for a newspaper they respond, “Oh, so you’re a writer?” I never know how to answer that. I’ve never considered myself a writer; I consider myself a reporter. Writing is the medium I use to get stories across, but the real product I create is the story. I like to think I’m OK at writing, but writer isn’t a title I would bestow on myself.

But their comment caught me. They obviously were more intrigued with my LPJ work than my Reporter work, and they suggested I might try applying my LPJ style to my reporting.

I went and looked back through my stories and understood what they meant, but I still have a challenge to deal with: how much of me and how much of my subjects are supposed to come through in my stories? How does that apply to the paper?

LPJ is mine, wholly and completely. I set it up because I’m passionate about reporting and the region I cover, and I don’t get paid to write any of these posts. I’m not representing anyone but myself in this venture, and if my personality shows through that’s fine. The Reporter, however, covers a city. I work there, just doing my job (reporting), and I shouldn’t overwhelm my subjects. That would do Berlin no good. I should almost invisible in the story, so to speak, in some ways.

But that doesn’t work either, because people don’t read blah stories. I could attend every council meeting from now until eternity, but if people aren’t reading what I’m writing what does it matter? It’s got to be captivating to get into people’s heads, or else they’ll put down the paper for the remote.

So I’ve decided to try to meld my reporting with the LPJ style, the one that has a bit more of my stamp in it. Hopefully it will help me improve what I’m producing  and people to get reading about their city.

I started tonight with a council story about Councilor Danderson and his comments about the police department. Honestly I think it makes me look  like I disagree with Councilor Danderson’s every word, but instead I just point out some hypocrisy in recent statements he’s made. I actually had one extra line that made him look even more of a hypocrite, but I took it out because it didn’t seem fair. But maybe it’s not fair to remove the line, because it’s all things he’s said and suggestions he’s made.

It’s a tough line to draw. It’s doubly tough because I’m not surrounded by colleagues who can weigh in with their opinions and experiences. But that’s the nature of the 21st century newsroom, where a laptop and a wireless connection are what make the news world go ’round.

This all goes along well with the last post about neutrality in the newspaper business. Hopefully I can toe the right line here, and inspire a more engaged citizenry in Berlin. One can only hope, right?