I have a lot of appreciation for what Matt Thompson is doing at Newsless, his blog on improving journalism on the Web. So, it’s with respect that I offer a few thoughts on his post, “The 3 key parts of news stories you usually don’t get.”

I don’t know if the kind of wide-angle focus Thompson seeks can be easily implemented into daily news organizations. Moreover, I’m not sure I’d be interested in their attempts to do so. Instead, I wonder whether anyone who wants the “3 key parts of news stories” should stay away from news in favor of long-form journalism, books, or other sources. More importantly, I wonder whether they should regardless of news organizations’ efforts to follow Thompson’s prescriptions.

My argument extends in a few directions. Firstly, I think Thompson conflates two terms that he himself says he finds differences between. Secondly, I’m not sure daily news organizations have the ability to provide “the longstanding facts,” including for reasons Thompson has argued for previously. Thirdly, the kind of writing Thompson wants to see has no necessary connection to “news” or even “journalism.” Instead, it has the characteristics of something broader: a good argument, which is something available to any author and that we should encourage wide consumption of.

“News” and “journalism”

The sidebar on Newsless.org includes Thompson’s belief that “journalism,” as opposed to “news,” “encompasses something much more important — context.” But throughout his piece he seems to switch “news” and “journalism” freely.

The post is designed to improve the presentation of “news stories.” He defines “news stories” as “an ongoing news topic, such as ‘health reform,’ not a particular article.” To me, this definition ascribes to the idea of “news” exactly what Thompson says news is not: contextual.

Context is not something you’re going to find in an organization dedicated to daily updates (like Politico, which Thompsons mentions in his follow-up post to “The 3 key parts.”). It’s unclear to me why we should try to improve news organizations’ presentation of context rather than ditching the news organizations when we want a serious treatment of a topic at hand — like health care.

But why the mistrust of news organizations?

“The longstanding facts”

“There is a universe of facts that stay essentially fixed from day to day,” Thompson writes. Facts are a tricky business, as any reporter knows. Not just whether this fact true or false, but determining from where do these facts emanate, who is interpreting them, and what are his or her assumptions.

Beyond interpretation, however, we can ask the ecolocy question: “And therefore…?” “Tomorrow, we can be virtually certain that the three basic problems health reform seeks to solve will remain the same as they were last year: effectiveness, cost, and access to care.” And then what? Even with similar value preferences, like social responsibility over individual responsibility, we could look at the same “facts” and still come to very different conclusions about health care.

Are newswriters (people primarily involved in producing news, rather than journalism) best equipped for the process of introducing context and nuance into the health care, or any complex, discussion? Are they surrounded by a culture that encourages such inquisitiveness? The editorial freedom to pursue the questions they find?

I am skeptical.

I don’t need to remind anybody that newspapers themselves feel they are short on resources to investigate the context of ongoing issues like health care. [1] But even then if the resources were there, I don’t know how many reporters are trained to, or would be given the license to, operate from a critical thinking perspective that would know how to handle interpretations, value preferences, etc., nor do I know how well anybody could implement them on a tight deadline if they wanted to.

Critical thinking

As evidence that critical thinking is lacking in newsrooms, let me go back to Thompson’s post. He says two of the “things you don’t get” in stories are sections on “how we know what we know” and “what we don’t yet know.” One commenter on his post likened the proposal to the structure of an academic paper. I agree, but I think what Thompson wants are of argumentation on a broader scope.

Any study of critical thinking and argumentation will quickly reveal that “how we know what we know” (otherwise known as evidence and reason) and “here’s what we don’t know” are essential parts of any well-formed argument. [2] As I argued above, I think we will be better steered by well-formed argument in these complex issues than by standard forms of “objective” writing usually found in the news. [3]

I wonder, then, whether we need writers and authors familiar with argument to try to interpret “the longstanding facts,” laying out their assumptions for the reader, rather than trying to shove the argumentative form into the “what just happened” and “objective” hole of news.

For if we don’t often find such writing in the news — as Thompson argues — then why should we look there for high quality writing on important, lasting topics like health care?

Ways to improve

Could news organizations learn the techniques I describe? Of course they could. I hope they do. But on what basis should we expect them to? I admire Thompson’s effort to outline “simple, low-tech or no-tech ways journalists can begin satisfying our need for context” in his follow-up post. But I am less hopeful.

Journalism schools, or at least the one I graduated from in 2008, are not quick to offer the critiques Thompson is willing to make. When they do, it’s meant as an aside, not as something to take seriously in pursuit of a job.

On a broader scale, the writing techniques and “win the morning” attitudes have been in existence for decades. So have critiques of them and handy suggestions. [4] It doesn’t seem like Thompson (or I) have any reason to think this nature of news is going to change.

Notes

1. My favorites are the writers, like Connie Shultz or Tim Rutten, who are so concerned that they turn to the law to protect their business interests. Shultz’s column here, Rutten’s column here. (Return to post)
2. My view of critical thinking comes from my college professors, including the books they used: Browne and Keeley’s Asking the Right Questions and Damer’s Attacking Faulty Reasoning. I was lucky enough to have been taught by Neil Browne. (Return to post)
3. Thompson argued a similar point in an earlier post of his, Eulogy for news voice. (Return to post)
4. One of my favorite books I read in the last year, Our Unfree Press: 100 Years of Radical Media Criticism, demonstrates this quite well. (Return to post)