The Craft of Research

I meant to post this sooner, but better late than never.  David recently had a story and slideshow about the 12th annual Millburn Fire Department Open House on “The Local” blog for the New York Times.  Make sure to check out the photos, which he took himself.  David’s a regular one-man band!

Today’s bonus: As a proud New York Times blogger myself, feel free to check out my latest.  If you accuse me of “statistical overload,” I may have to plead guilty!

Double bonus: Don’t forget Tuesday’s “due diligence” lesson tips on dates of birth.  Try BirthDetails to find ’em and Can I Vote? to confirm.

I want to simplify this project as much as possible.  It should be a three-step process.

1. Find a newsworthy statistic that interests you.
2. Compare it to something.  (e.g. other geographic areas, the same statistic in previous years, etc.)
3. Use reporting, and possibly more research, to determine and explain why your number compares as it does.  This will certainly involve identifying and interviewing experts on the subject.  In addition to getting them to explain “why,” you’ll probably want them to make suggestions for how to improve the number and/or predictions for the future.

Your grade will be based on how well you handle items 2 and 3.  I’m expecting 800-1000 words.  Approved pitch deadline is 11/10, although earlier is better.   Story is due 12/1.

Common pitfalls to avoid:

• Back-end research: Don’t conjure up a story idea and then try to figure out how to fit (statistical) research into it.  That’s backwards.  The research is supposed to inspire the story.  In fact, don’t even bother making a pitch unless you already have the data that inspired your story idea.  Once you start writing, if you find yourself several paragraphs into the story before you’ve mentioned any numbers, you’re also “back-ending” it.  A research-inspired enterprise story needs the research up high.  If not in the lead, then shortly thereafter.
• Numbers without context: Reporting that there are 27 widget manufacturers in your CD means nothing without context.  How many were there five years ago?  What is the difference from the average CD?  Get it? Some kind of comparison is vital.  Chronological or geographical comparisons are two of the most common and accepted.
• Statistical overload: Don’t operate on the “more is better” principle.  All you really need is one good statistic to inspire your story.  That’s not to say you’re limited to one, but don’t bombard.  Cramming too many numbers into a story often clouds the theme or makes the necessary backup reporting too unwieldy.

Helpful hints: Interesting statistics you found while researching your beat memos may make for good story ideas.  Many of the sites listed on my NYC.gov handout are treasure troves of statistical information.

This should go without saying, but I’ll be kind and give you a heads-up anyway.  You should be providing sources for your answers on the CD beat memo.  In particular, I don’t want to see any statistics without you telling me where they came from.  (Remember one of our key questions to be addressed?  Says who?)  Where applicable, a link to the source is sufficient.

Don’t forget the two questions that need to be addressed when using statistics in a story:

1. Are you sure?
2. Says who?

In other words, you need to check the accuracy of your numbers and must cite their source.

Today’s bonus: I’ve posted about Twitter here before, but these Washington Post videos are flat out hilarious.

Double bonus: Just how many nuts in ACORN?  Sheesh!  San Bernardino and San Diego too?  Update: In a story about James O’Keefe, NBC Nightly News just reported that there are more videos to come…

Tonight’s program also had an interesting spelling note…

Some of you are having more success than others with the databases, but since none of you are “experts” yet, I’d suggest doing some extra searches on topics that interest you.  It might be a little more fun that way, and it will definitely be good practice.  I’ll be sending more individual comments on your daybook research assignment over the next few days.

Today’s bonus: Since I mentioned the Polling Report web site in class this week, I should also point out that our school subscribes to a similar service called Polling the Nations, which aggregates polls taken both in the U.S. and abroad.   Check it out.

Tomorrow’s bonus:  Flashback to a flashback.

This week, we used Nexis and Factiva for background research prior to reporting a story.

Are these databases also good for fact-checking your stories?

No, and here’s why.

Today’s bonus: One-stop shopping for news media errors.

Having received and reviewed your research prior to today’s “man on the street” interviews, I’ll quote one of my Craft teaching colleagues from the spring who must have used the same word at least a hundred times.

Focus.

What was the focus of your reporting assignment?  Was it troop deployment in Afghanistan?  Not specifically.  Was it the neighborhoods where you were doing your interviews?  No again.  That’s not to say background on either of those subjects would be useless to your story, but they shouldn’t have been the focus of your research.  You weren’t going to be interviewing President Obama or General McChrystal, nor writing neighborhood profiles.

Given that you were going to be interviewing average citizens, the focus of your research should have been on the opinion of the general populace regarding troops in Afghanistan.  There are always stories mentioning polls and surveys on this sort of hot button topic.  Armed with that information, you could then compare what you found in your interviews to what the general populace thinks.  Did you find a different vibe in your neighborhood?  You might even be able to ask people some good follow up questions, such as, “Would you be surprised if I told you x percent of the population thinks such and such?”

Kudos to those who e-mailed me yesterday asking for advice on how to tackle the research on this assignment.  I look forward to seeing how you incorporate your research into your work.

Today’s bonus: Since we’ll be talking about how to use social networking tools for research later this semester, I found this Times magazine article interesting.  Is the lure of Facebook wearing thin?

OK, I won’t bore you with a kiddie-style rundown of everything I did the last few months, but here’s some stuff I came across that may interest you…

Just this month, MSNBC acquired EveryBlock, a hyperlocal news aggregator you should definitely check out if you’re not already familiar with it. Also, several parties are challenging a settlement between Google Books and authors and publishers. And this week, I was happy to read that Wikipedia is getting stricter.

Earlier, I stumbled upon an interesting (albeit lengthy) web project about The Future of Journalism. Related to that, I largely agreed with this Columbia Journalism Review article, but found this Huffington Post piece utterly ridiculous.

Here’s a good 4-minute video on political fact-checking.

Twitter obsessed? Then check out The Ultimate List of Twitter Tools.

Speaking of Twitter, Editor & Publisher posted the Wall Street Journal’s rules for online conduct and Pro Football Talk did likewise with ESPN’s guidelines. In January, Poynter had posted the New York Times policy on social networking.

Speaking of the Times, an embarrassing snafu there last month showed the importance of fact-checking and research (more here and here). On the positive side, this New York City homicides map is pretty impressive and the paper continues to develop the Represent database of elected officials representing NYC addresses. Lastly, if you’re looking for Times-related laughs, did you read this article or see this segment from Comedy Central’s Daily Show?

So has everyone been reading all the hype on this newly-launched “search engine” called Wolfram|Alpha?  Some have billed it as a challenger to Google, although it’s really quite different.   I’d call it a “fact engine,” or even an almanac on steroids.  Chock full of statistics in particular, it seems useful in its own way.  I like that it supposedly uses authoritative sources of information, but I don’t see any source citations in the search results, so I don’t care much for that.

But hey, anything to deflect the media obsession with Twitter, right?  Ah, Twitter me Twitter… (more…)

More and more of them are becoming available on the web.

Titles such as People, Sports Illustrated, Time, Billboard, Ebony, Jet, Kiplinger’s, New York, Popular Mechanics and Popular Science.

With many of these now hosted by Google Books, I’m sure the list will continue to grow.