America’s Best Newspaper Writing – Week 3
Chapter 2: Local Reporting and Beats
By Hannah Williams
Local reporting and covering beats requires journalistic dedication, both to follow developments within their geographic and psychographic field and to build trust with sources and readers. Meanwhile, local and beat writers are expected to wield “a distinctive vision and a powerful voice,” according to America’s Best Newspaper Writing. The following reporters excelled in both their commitment to the public good of the local community and their story writing: Keeler, Dohrmann, Pope, Golden and Priest received Pulitzer’s for their efforts. Shiffer’s piece is a more recent, excellent example.
“A Very Public Faith” By Bob Keeler – Newsday – 1996 Pulitzer Prize Winner – Beat Reporting
Keeler chronicles the aspects of the worship experience at St. Brigid’s that set it apart from other Catholic masses including multi-ethnic services, multilingual liturgies and a rock musician as a music director.
“Star Player Jackson Symbol of U’s Woes” By George Dohrmann and Kristian Pope – St. Paul Pioneer Press – 2000 Pulitzer Prize Winner – Beat Reporting
Dohrmann and Pope rely on their extensive experience with college athletics to relay the story of the alleged academic fraud that plagued the eligibility of members of the Minnesota Gophers men’s basketball team, using Jackson’s story as an example of the 21 charges of academic fraud that the team faced.
“College Ties: For Groton Gras, Academics Aren’t Only Keys to Ivies” By Daniel Golden – The Wall Street Journal – 2004 Pulitzer Prize Winner – Beat Reporting
Golden examines ““affirmative action of another kind” – granting preference to wealthy, legacy students – through the story of Henry Pack and his classmates at an exclusive private prep school in Groton, Mass., as they vied for admission at Ivy League universities.
“CIA holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons” By Dana Priest – The Washington Post – 2006 Pulitzer Prize Winner – Beat Reporting
Priest cites inside government sources regarding the existence and usage of secret prison facilities for holding and interrogating terror suspects and highlights concerns regarding potentiality for prisoner mistreatment and martial law violations.
“Wedding Vendors Left Standing at the TV Altar?” By James Eli Shiffer – Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune
Shiffer describes an ongoing dispute between a wedding planner who arranged a wedding reality television show and the local vendors who were told they would receive free publicity in exchange for donating their services; however, the reality show has yet to air.
Keeler’s first article about St. Brigid’s ran nine months prior to his piece, “A Very Public Faith”; both are featured in his Pulitzer portfolio. The consistent coverage of the same beat allows Keeler the ability to understand the church in much greater depth and build a trust relationship with the parishioners; thus, he is able to craft a piece in which his readers feel as though they have experienced a worship service as St. Brigid’s. He captures the mood and the tone of the congregation.
Keeler’s longstanding involvement enables him to speak with multiple people about St. Brigid’s, not just the priest. Using numerous sources makes the story multidimensional in a way that one perspective would not. When reporting on a beat it is important to talk to as many different people as possible to ensure a full picture. Keeler could have interviewed a few “outsiders” to really flesh out his story for the reader.
Keeler’s church beat allows him to contrast worship at St. Brigid’s with that of other Catholic churches as well as to highlight the uniqueness of special services. This comparison aids readers to both understand the usual and appreciate the unusual.
Dohrmann and Pope also rely on experience and expertise in their subject matter, to familiarize readers with traditional NCAA and Big Ten Conference athletic eligibility requirements and showcase how University of Minnesota’s Men’s Basketball allegedly violated the academic requirements. Their grasp of the subject matter allows them to convey the significance of Bobby Jackson’s contributions in the U’s making it to the 1996 Final Four in the first few sentences of the piece:
“It was perhaps the University of Minnesota basketball program’s finest moment. The NCAA Tournament quarterfinals. A national television audience. An 80-72 victory over UCLA. The Gophers advance to their first Final Four.
Minnesota’s leading scorer that magical day in San Antonio? Bobby Jackson with 18 points. Its leading rebounder? Jackson with nine. The player who made eight free throws in the closing minutes to seal the victory? Jackson again.
But what did Jackson sacrifice in academics for moments like that?”
Dohrmann and Pope also display vigilance in an investigative report that lead to many dead-ends. They rebound from these untapped sources by citing their attempt for and the sources’ refusals to comment. Instead, they look into the claims of those who have come forth and dig into the documents they can get their hands on.
The authors’ comprehensive efforts again show the reader what is normally accepted behavior and why the Gophers’ actions are the exception to the rule, as did Keeler.
Furthermore, Dohrmann and Pope bring their article full circle, closing with a quote from Elayne Donahue, then academic counseling director: “‘There probably isn’t a better example of how a basketball player could play but never really get close to a degree,’ Donahue said. ‘It is sad.’” Bringing a piece full circle is an effective closure, as showcased by the running metaphor used in Thomas Boswell’s “Losing It: Careers Fall like Autumn Leaves” in America’s Best Newspaper Writing.
Golden’s familiarity with his beat helped him to place his story about Henry Park’s Ivy League rejection in context with the timely debate over the University of Michigan’s Affirmative Action to highlight “affirmative action of another kind” – granting preference to wealthy, legacy students.
Golden allowed his sources to speak for themselves, using extended quotes and providing some background for each. This is important, especially in local reporting, because it may be the only press coverage these individuals receive. As a “reporter for the public good,” it is vital to showcase a variety of viewpoints and to quote people accurately.
Even though he let’s his sources speak for themselves, Golden retains authorial control, weaving comparisons to Park through the piece and maintaining a common thread of unfair preferences in college admissions regardless of the motivation. Like Boswell writes, “The most important thing in the story is finding the central idea. . . . Once you find the idea or thread, all the other anecdotes, illustrations and quotes are the pearls that you hang on this thread.”
Priest identifies her focus immediately, the fact that the CIA is hiding and interrogating terror suspects in secret prisons around the world. She sounds the alarm, “Virtually nothing is known about who is kept in the facilities, what interrogation methods are employed with them, or how decisions are made about whether they should be detained or for how long.”
Priest tactfully handles the story that could potentially put the U.S., US military strategy or her sources at risk. She acknowledges that she has obtained this information through building a repertoire with those people in her beat and agrees to withhold the names of her sources. This could be potentially dangerous, if the sources are giving misinformation; thus, the situation must be handled carefully.
Furthermore, Priest shows discretion, and broadcasts it, by writing, “The Washington Post is not publishing the names of the Eastern European countries involved in the covert program, at the request of senior U.S. officials.” By doing so, she maintains he trust relationships with both her sources and her readers, while conveying the necessary information.
Withholding source names and information, Priest is forced to build her credibility elsewhere. She does this successfully with her confident authorial voice that comes with consistent, solid reporting on the same beat. She also credits a staff researcher for aiding her in checking out her sources and gathering information. This proves the importance of the adage, “When in doubt, leave it out.” Don’t go to print with sketchy information.
The only non-Pulitzer piece in the bunch is a more recent article from Shiffer of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune in which he investigates a local dispute surrounding a wedding reality show that has yet to be produced. Like Keeler, Shiffer constructs the background carefully and concisely, allowing the reader to experience it.
Shiffer sets up the scene wonderfully and proceeds to pace the story by varying the length of his sentences. Shiffer, like Mitch Albom of the ABNW examples, uses “short sentences [to] punctuate the text, carrying powerful messages that echo throughout the piece.
Shiffer plays up the tension between the involved parties, allowing them to speak on their own behalf through quotations and whatnot, but he also adds to the scene by evaluating each person’s statements and comparing them against others. Like Golden, Shiffer understands that in a local piece, this may be the only press that each of the parties receives, and thus, allows them to speak.
Shiffer, like Priest, acknowledges that as a local reporter, he can’t afford to burn bridges; thus, he doesn’t make a mockery of his sources, but does point out inaccuracies to aid his readers.
Like Dohrmann and Pope, Shiffer brings his article full circle to create closure where none really exists, ending on a quote from the bride: ““I’m really upset, because this is my wedding day,” said the bride. “I want it to be done with.”
All of these examples enlist techniques useful to aspiring journalists who will probably begin their careers by pounding the pavement to do some shoe-leather local reporting and beat coverage.
