walls.corpus

Reporting to a conclusion

Monday, 02 January, 2012 — journalism

Finishing a thought on beat reporting I started to have working on my previous post.

Sustained writing about a topic leads to a level of expertise that allows the writer (reporter) to synthesize facts, develop an analysis and – crucially — show what follows from that.

An example of this has been the News & Observer’s work on the intersection of misconduct at the state crime lab, an erratic District Attorney in Durham County and the request by Michael Peterson, convicted of murdering his wife, to get a new trial. That request was granted Dec. 14, 2011.

Because of the depth of reporting on both the SBI and Tracey Cline, the N&O is free to take more license in the news article itself (not just on the editorial pages). In the retrial decision, reporter Joseph Neff can write the following without finding a source to say it for him (emphasis added below):

The Peterson hearing provided evidence that SBI supervisors knew from the start of Deaver’s career that he had a strong bias toward the prosecution. In 1988, soon after being hired, Deaver participated in a mock courtroom exercise to prepare him for testifying at trial.

His supervisor at the SBI crime lab noted several weaknesses, including “a strong bias towards the prosecution.”

That was inappropriate; forensic scientists are tasked with being unbiased, using science to find facts irrespective of whether the truth helps prosecution or defense.

In stories on Cline, J. Andrew Curliss could leverage his reporting to write the following on Dec. 6, 2011 (emphasis added):

Coleman said the motions seem to relate to Cline’s efforts in voluminous court filings recently that allege the senior judge in the county, Orlando Hudson, is out to punish her because she would not dismiss a murder charge.

One of Cline’s filings runs more than 99,000 words and contains a string of unsupported or disputed allegations against Hudson. It also contains verifiable errors. Another filing by Cline says Hudson has “raped” victims in dismissing charges while finding that defendants’ rights were violated by Cline and others.

Cline seeks to remove Hudson from all criminal cases in Durham while she pursues a complaint against him with the state commission that oversees judges. Her complaint has not been made public.

In both cases, the reporter is making a statement, backed by significant experience with the cases at hand and source material, that makes a clear statement of fact.

I have greatly appreciate the N&O’s reporting across this entire convoluted mess of situations. Even if the stories don’t specifically tell you what reporter knows and believes, the depth and care in the reporting and writing should help the reader reach a conclusion. That conclusion may be, but is not necessarily, the writer’s own.

My argument is that the weighty topics at issue at the beginning of 2012, the ongoing fallout from the economic crash of 2008, climate change, how government acts and holding public figures to account requires the level of care that went into the these examples. Even less weighty topics can get the same treatment. Tech industry reporting and writing, for instance. Sports reporting.

Writers should feel comfortable stating, unequivocally, where their reporting takes them and what their experience provides them in terms of insight.

Why: Analysis is not (necessarily) approval

Saturday, 31 December, 2011 — journalism

My last post on the “view from nowhere” and how it relates’s to John Gruber’s writing of Daring Fireball triggered an email from a friend and former coworker, asserting that Gruber was, in fact, an Apple fanboy.

I wrote the following in response, “A lot of what he writes in terms of trying to understand Apple’s behavior and motivation is interpreted as if he wholly approves of their actions. There’s a lot of overlap, certainly, but they are not the same thing.”

I clarified for myself a point broader than the one I was trying to make back to my friend. Frequently, people interpret in-depth analysis of motivation of actions as approval or disapproval. Politics is an easy target, hence why the “view from nowhere” is popular.

For purposes of example, I’ll use sports coverage. A beat writer covers a local team. You follow the team all season. You get to know the players, the arena, the organization. You get to know your fellow writers. You can start to write with authority, on the foundations of your previous reporting, on not only what the team is doing but why. Although what can get enmeshed in debate, why is a far trickier proposition, because its moving beyond strict fact reportage into synthesis and analysis. The writer is trying to explain the motivations behind the actions. This might be less tricky with immediate post-game coverage, but exceptionally so when trying to write about why a team is pursuing a trade, going to fire a coach, seeking a new arena and so on.

It’s very easy for readers to see the writer as a cheerleader if the coverage is “positive” or someone who has it out for the team if the coverage is “negative.” Stipulated, these can be congruent, but they are not causal. It’s trickier for the writer to fully convey a point that comes from an executive’s or player’s thinking and not have the audience associate the writer with that point.

It is all the more difficult for a writer, if she is an independent reporter, to be seen as truly independent, if other writers are not, or are not independent in the same way.

John Gruber on Objectivity

Friday, 30 December, 2011 — journalism apple gruber

NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen uses the term “view from nowhere” to describe how a significant segment of America’s news media presents news, analysis and opinion. If you’re unfamiliar with the premise, please go read Rosen’s explanation of what he means with the term.

I see frequent references to what ends up being false equivalence in several arenas. Political coverage is a big one, particularly around the differences between Democrats and Republicans. James Fallows has an exemplar dismantling of how the Senate minority is acting, and how the media is writing about it. Climate science, the healthcare debate and the global financial crisis all have their examples where the “view from nowhere” pervades reporting and actively obstructs a layperson from understanding of what’s actually happening. It’s also harmful to news organizations committed to the “view from nowhere”, say NPR, when their opponents are willing to leverage that policy against them.

I finished college and started my career in journalism, so I have a deeper interest that I suspect most folks might in the sausage making of reporting and commentary. So, over the couple of weeks, I’ve really appreciated how John Gruber has been trying to get a splinter out from under a fingernail regarding the claim he’s a mindlessly pro-Apple fanboy, after his appearance on “On The Verge”.

I’ve followed Gruber’s writing, with relish, for years and I’m in agreement with roughly 90 percent of what he writes. I like his sarcasm and the fact that it’s generally crystal clear if he likes or dislikes something. It’s also not hard to find when he thinks Apple is off-base. I usually go back to late July 2009, a period when Apple rejected Google’s voice apps from the App Store, but more recent examples abound.

What really clicked in my head and went, “Yes, that!” was listening to his post-appearance debrief with Dan Benjamin on The Talk Show, Ep. 71. Starting about nine minutes in, Gruber takes the “fanboy” premise and goes on a nice discourse on objectivity vs. fairness, using his appearance on the show and the rest of the show segments as examples for why the “view from nowhere” is dishonest to the audience.

If you’re familiar with tech, and you’re familiar with Gruber’s grasp of his areas of interest, listen from minute 9 to minute 30 or so and imagine where else commentary and reporting could benefit by not being watered down by false balance.

iPhone 4S and the persistence of design

Wednesday, 05 October, 2011 — design apple iphone

It’s not hard to find someone (or some people) seemingly disappointed with Apple not releasing a redesigned iPhone 5 today. Rumors were focused on a split iPhone 4S and iPhone 5 announcement, based on leaked parts and case manufacturers looking to get a jump on a new design.

I posit that outside of Apple, a lot of assumptions about what Apple would do are made based on how other companies treat design, not how Apple has demonstrated how it treats design.

Let’s first consider that most manufacturers have multiple phone models. LG, for instance, as of this writing, is showing 120 models / variants. Apple, today, has three phones, in four different capacities in two different colors. As near as I can tell, it breaks down like this:

So, we’re up to eleven active iPhone part numbers. By comparison, the iPad 2 has 18 variants (color, capacity, networking). While the variants might create the impression of complexity, you are left with some simple decisions:

• How much am I comfortable paying for a phone?
• If I’m willing to pay $100 or more, what color do I want?
• If I’m willing to pay $200 or more, what capacity do I want?

You aren’t making decisions about form factor or screen size. There’s no “gaming” or “texting” or “business” iPhone.

But, look back at the LG example. You could just as easily look at Motorola or Nokia and see that you’re making a different set of decisions, based on your presumed use of the phone. The flagship phones change frequently. They change externally. I believe they change because the companies believe users believe they have to change to be “new.”

As a counter-point to the rapid changing of a lot of feature and smart phones, let’s look at the design life of Apple’s computers:

This is somewhat cherry-picked. I’m not including the Mac mini, for instance. I’m also not including design refinements like port addition/subtraction, size variants, edge-to-edge glass or similar. This is a subjective marker of the common ancestor. Arguably, you could go further back with the iMac.

Now, let’s consider the design language of the iPhone. The 3G was announced in June of 2008. The iPhone 4, in June of 2010. The design language of the iPhone 3G, carried forward with the 3GS, will be five plus years old, when a contract signed today expires. The iPhone 4 design language will be three plus years on. Suffice to say, given the context of Apple’s computers, the iPhone 4’s design is not old.

So, what’s at issue? I suspect we have two immediate markers. First, the fast design iteration of the iPhone to the iPhone 3G. Second, the fast iteration of the iPad to the iPad 2. The first versions were to 1) establish the market and 2) learn. The lessons learned were rolled into the subsequent iterations. Apple’s not afraid to make a design departure when it wants to.

But, if Apple believes the design is true, it also doesn’t feel like it has to change anything. Consider the PowerMac G5 case. It’s been iterated, heavily, internally. But the external case is still a winner. Same with the current iMac. I venture to guess we won’t see many more frequent, radical changes. I expect the MacBook Pro will at some point get thinner, akin to the MacBook Air, but then what? The iPad 2 design could likely go years, even as it adds a Retina display and simplify variants to wifi or CDMA+GSM+wifi.

Now, let’s layer on a couple of points from Dieter Rams’s 10 principles for good design:

• Good design is long-lasting
• Good design is innovative

At first glance, these might be contrary positions. But consider, if design can be innovative, it should be. If it can be long-lasting, it should be. Since the original iMac, Apple’s hardware designs have been innovative, but they have also been long-lasting, and increasingly so every year. I daresay design that is incorrect has been edited out. Consider: the dalmatian-spotted iMac, the buttonless iPod shuffle, the four button + clickwheel iPod.

Here’s my bet: Apple knows it has a winner with the iPhone 4 design language. Glass back, external antenna and all. It’s a beautiful and functional object. It isn’t going to change until (and not a moment before) there is something better, functionally and more beautiful. That could be next year. It could just as easily be three years from now.

Steve

Wednesday, 24 August, 2011 — apple

Steve Jobs resigned as Apple CEO. Lots of prognostication already and more to come. Most CEOs could only wish to have that kind of impact. There are plenty of people who will see this as the beginning of the end or the end or something else.

But what if Jobs has some energy yet to contribute to Apple and he wants to put that energy into just contributing creative vision instead of being responsible for the executive team, creative vision and being the public face of the second largest corporation on the planet. Steve’d be a hell of a consigliere.