| Home |
| About |
| Groaners |
| Articles |
| Writing Tools |
| Resources |
| Feedback |
“Even in the first few days of fighting, some newsrooms quickly shifted from, “My God, we’re at war!” to “Hey, check this out!” The “gotcha” thing came back.”  |
Serious News Deserves Serious Writing from “A Few Good Men”
“We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline.”
At the start of the Iraq war, as Coalition forces pushed into Baghdad, a newswriter in Los Angeles began a story about Sen. John Kerry by saying the Senator was “under fire” for remarks he made about President Bush.
One night later, at about five minutes to airtime for a local news show, a live camera with an “embedded” reporter on a cable network showed an unexpected explosion. Moments later, the cable reporter explained that it was nothing, just the army unit discharging some excess ordnance. The local producers still insisted on using the footage at the top of their show, scrambling half a dozen people in the newsroom to get it done. “But it was nothing!” some protested, “The reporter himself said so!” “Well, it’s a good picture, “ came the reply.
48 hours after that, a terrorist bomb went off in Beirut, Lebanon, at a fast food restaurant. Several people were hurt, including some small children. One local writer called it a “Big Mac Attack”.
After 9/11, we changed. For a little while anyway, we were jolted out of our punchline mentality, and we began to get serious about telling people what they needed to know. Many of us dropped the silly clichés, stopped trying to artificially dramatize, tossed out the “gotcha” attitude that favored pretty pictures over hard facts. Maybe it was because we were in pain, or angry, or just shocked. But we found ourselves instinctively returning to the basics. It felt right, and perhaps not coincidentally, the ratings went up.
But time passed. And the old ways came back. We slowly reverted to pre- 9/11 form as we got farther away from the actual events. Perhaps it was natural to drift back to “normal” when the raw feelings faded.
As talk of war with Iraq began to build, our tone became serious again, and when the shooting started, the news community met the challenge admirably. The national coverage was nothing short of stupendous, thanks to mind-boggling leaps in technology and truly inspiring courage by reporters and crews in the field. Many local stations did themselves proud as well, busting their budgets, expanding their coverage, bringing in military experts and sending their own people to the war zone. All of them deserve praise.
But something else happened too.
In a small number of unfortunate cases, covering the war didn’t stop the silliness, and may have even accelerated it. Even in the first few days of fighting, some newsrooms quickly shifted from, “My God, we’re at war” to “Hey, check this out!” The “gotcha” thing came back. Sometimes it even seemed as though the war was just another opportunity to “push the envelope”, occasionally into the realm of very bad taste. Stories involving real death, real captivity, real horrors being endured by real people with real families back home, were dressed up with special effects, and even background music.
No one is suggesting we go backward into some prehistoric version of television news, with a talking head and a map. But war is not just another story to be exploited for ratings or jazzed up to catch attention. A few guidelines should be kept in mind:
War is dramatic. All by itself. It doesn’t need any extra help. War is the ultimate news story. Overhyped language, exaggerated terms, special effects or other enhancements are unnecessary. When events and visuals are so powerful, all that’s needed is state the facts clearly and simply. The less elaboration, the better. In fact, some of the most gripping Iraq coverage used no words at all, and wasn’t even visible! It was just the sound of gunfire crackling over a videophone, with the embedded reporter keeping quiet.
Some pictures are worth a thousand words. Some aren’t. That meaningless explosion five minutes to airtime was an interesting picture, but nothing more. Did it really have to be rushed to the top of the broadcast? Sure, producers must stay alert to breaking stories. But once it becomes clear that a “good picture” is NOT breaking news, or for that matter not news at all, common sense must take hold. Perhaps the explosion could have run later in the show as an oddity of war. Just because we’re in battle mode doesn’t mean we dispense with the basic rules of journalism. We still need to evaluate every piece of information, whether it’s an unconfirmed report or a stray picture that may not be fully understood.
At the same time we must not shrink from an honest picture. Believe it or not, a CNN producer tried to stop embedded reporter Walter Rodgers from showing a dead Iraqi soldier lying next to a tank. There was Rodgers, beaming back real time pictures from an actual battlefield, probably for the first time in the history of warfare, and someone is buzzing in his ear, “no bodies!”. Unbelievable!
Battle terminology in non-battle stories makes you look silly. How in the world could you talk about politicians “under fire” when our Marines were under REAL fire? How can you casually refer to a “firestorm of controversy” when the 101st Airborne faced firestorms that actually burned things? We should also remember never to be flip or “cute” when lives are in danger. A terrorist bomb is not a Big Mac Attack.
We’re writers. Not soldiers. We may think we sound authoritative when we barrage folks with reams of military terms, from JDAM’s to IED’s... even WMD!. But if people don’t grasp what we’re saying, what’s the point? The military wrote the book on obscure, convoluted terms and abbreviations. They serve specific military purposes. Clarification is not necessarily one of them. That’s our job.
Adrenaline will flow. Deal with it. Long hours. Not enough sleep. Intense pictures. Chaotic newsrooms. The 9/11 work schedule all over again. Frankly, covering a huge story can make you nuts. During those hectic times you probably produce some of your best work ever. But you’re also very likely to make mistakes. Recognize that. Be ready for it. Have a plan to counter it. Doublecheck things. Bounce things off others. Make a point of stepping back regularly, and getting away from the story for awhile. Take a walk around the block and smell the fresh air. Whatever it takes, keep your head on straight, because there are just too many forces working against your sanity.
We’ll be living with Iraq for a long time. As with any big story, the intensity gradually subsides, and we move on to other things. This time though, let’s try to remember the lessons, good and bad, so that next time (and there will be a next time!) we’ll do our jobs even better!
Other Articles
Don’t Touch That Remote! A Responsible Guide To Writing Teases
5 Minutes To Deadline... Now What? When You Have To Write Really, REALLY Fast
The Rules Have Changed (Written 2 weeks after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks)
Ear Of The Beholder: Does Racism Creep Into Your Writing?
Too Much “Wow!”: When You Have Great Stuff, But You Can’t Use It
When Heart And Brain Clash: The Ethics Of Newswriting
“Dumbing Down” vs. “Clearing Up”: Explaining Without Patronizing
Gone In 14 Seconds: When You Have To Make Your Point In Less Time