Storytelling not dead

This is from Rachel Shulman, a student at UW-Madison:

Prof. Sue Robinson recently sent around this story on how the internet is killing storytelling. In it, Ben Macintyre laments the demise of the narrative. He blames the spawn of the digital age – Twitter, Facebook, blogs, smart phone applications – for the imperilment of the long-form story. According to Macintyre, our reliance on a medium of “interactive chatter and noise” is eroding our culture.

When I read this story, I couldn’t help but be reminded of the philosophy of Neil Postman, a media theorist who was most well known for his 1985 book on television, Amusing Ourselves to Death. Postman deplored technology’s ability to distribute more information faster, arguing that it fills our heads with fragments of irrelevant, disorderly, and superficial information. Postman feared that television meant the demise of the written language and reason; he predicted that its rise signaled the demise of cultural values. Sound familiar?

I don’t think that Postman nor Macintyre give the story reader/listener/watcher enough credit. Long-form narratives aren’t dying – they’re just changing. The internet allows users to piece together their own multi-media narratives from many different sources. I don’t think we can ascribe any more value to narratives that follow a prescribed (and often predictable) structure determined by the storyteller than narratives that follow a network-based structure determined by the user.

Uncertain future of China’s muckraking magazine

The following post is from a UW-Madison Journalism student: Yifei Lieu

China’s most influential business magazine has been thrown into turmoil recently: it has received tons of resignation letters, including its general manager, the top advertising executive, and 70 workers in business department. Even worse, the biweekly magazine may also be about to lose its founding editor, Hu Shuli, and her core journalists allies.

It means, the magazine will be left as an empty shell.

The massive exodus is an expression of discontent by the magazine’s employees over the intensive editorial interference by the magazine’s owner, Stock Exchange Executive Council (SEEC), and a dispute about whether SEEC should surrender its majority control and allow other investors, according to The New York Times, The New Yorker and China Daily. The employee uprising against the publisher is not as common in China as in United States. Actually, it never happened before in China. Will it be a sign of the rising power of media employees in China? Or it will turn into a failed attempt? It’s too early to judge now. For me, an interesting point is: in the employee alliance against the publisher, those in business department resign first, seems the journalists still need more courage.

Caijing magazine, known for its bold coverage of corruption, fraud, pollution and public health care, has possessed more freedom than most Chinese media since its foundation in 1998. Two main reasons account for its unique freedom: one is the laissez-faire editorial policy under an oral agreement between the SEEC and Ms. Hu, and more importantly, it is benefited by Ms. Hu’s perfect editorial judgment: she knows when and how to expose the governing problems without enraging the central government. The judgment comes from both her long-time professional experiences and her intimate private relationship with high-level government authorities. However, with the rise of influence and profit of the magazine in recent years, both the owner and the government have felt more discomfort about the incisive coverage and then given more pressure to the magazine. Finally, the war between the power and the magazine breaks out.

The leaving of Ms. Hu will be a big blow for Caijing magazine. Without Ms. Hu and her core journalists, the muckraking platform may turn into a mediocre and humdrum economic journal. However, it may be not a loss for the investigative media industry in China: if Ms. Hu resigns, she may found a new magazine with the help of other resigned colleagues. If it is true, will it be a new front runner in the investigative report in China? Or will it turn into another victim in the battle against business and government forces? No one knows. But at least we know, the 56-year-old woman, who is called “an incurable muckraker” by The New Yorker, will not easily be stopped.

Journalist or Investigator?

The following post is from UW-Madison student Rachel Shulman:

I recently heard a story on NPR’s “On the Media” that was of particular interest to me as a graduate student in journalism.

Journalism students at Northwestern University and the Cook County District Attorney are battling over the students’ investigation of a 1978 murder, a crime for which Anthony McKinney has been serving a life sentence for over 30 years.

Led by professor David Protess, students conducted the murder investigation as part of the Medill Innocence Project, a non-profit directed by Protess that aims to free wrongfully convicted people.

During the students’ three-year investigation, two eyewitnesses responsible for McKinney’s conviction recanted their testimonies, saying that the police bullied them into lying about witnessing the murder. The students presented this finding in addition to other materials suggesting McKinney’s innocence to the Center for Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern’s law school in 2006.

Recently, the Cook County District Attorney subpoenaed these investigative materials, in addition to the students’ grades, performance evaluations, emails, expense reports, and interview notes. Lawyers in the attorney’s office claim that they need these materials to assess whether the students had a grade incentive to find McKinney innocent.

Northwestern’s journalism school counters that, although the Innocence Project has helped release 11 inmates – including five from death row –the project has also had student investigations’ find convicts guilty.

The District Attorney maintains that the students do not deserve the same protections afforded to journalists because the students are investigators rather than reporters.

Northwestern Dean John Lavine says that the students’ investigation is journalism. As journalists, the students would be protected under the Illinois Shield Law, which would give them the right not to reveal their sources and unpublished materials. Federal law also prevents the university from turning over students’ grades to the prosecution.

Lavine says that the journalism students should not be responsible for producing evidence for court. Instead, the students’ job is to produce facts for the university’s law school, which then double checks these facts before handing them over to the prosecution.

This legal battle has implications for journalism students’ pursuit of truth. Students need to know that they can be journalists without fearing that they might end up in court for completing a class assignment.

For more information:

• Prosecutors Turn Tables on Student Journalists
• University's justice project finds itself targeted

HELD BY THE TALIBAN

This post is from UW-Madison student: Will Mueller

David Rohde of the New York Times is currently releasing a five-part series entitled “Held By The Taliban” in which he provides perhaps the most in-depth account possible of a terrifying event he did not expect to live through.

Rhode’s dedication to bringing a complete story to the public led him and two Afghan journalists on a journey to interview a Taliban commander, Abu Tayyeb, where they group was kidnapped and held until their escape more than seven months later.

While Rhode’s dedication to providing a complete picture jeopardized his life, his skills as a reporter yielded a detailed account of his kidnapping which would probably be otherwise impossible to obtain from interviewing someone else in that position.

Rhode’s knowledge of Afghan culture and of the geographic layout of the region allowed him to explain to readers not only where he was throughout his captivity, but brought light to some of the inner workings of the Taliban and showed the power they truly hold in the region.

Aside from the larger picture of a military society largely believed to be one where Osama Bin Laden is hiding, Rhode brought additional details to the story from the Kalashnikov rifles the young soldiers all carried to the Barbie blanked which he was given to sleep beneath.

This is an interesting case where the journalist becomes the story and writing it from the first person perspective allows readers inside of the mind of someone in a situation most Americans have no ability to imagine. The ability to piece together a seven month story without the option to take notes truly shows why this perspective is a unique one likely impossible without Rhode’s skills and journalistic techniques.

This blog post comes from BA Klein:

I came across this article in the Detroit Free Press, "Ghost hunters stalk Detroit military base."
I think it uses an interesting strategy for a classic Halloween season story. The writer, Jeff Seidel, splits up the story between a traditional news story with information on the background, people seriously involved, and experts who research the phenomenon of an event like this. In between bits of information he talks about his personal adventure skeptically joining along on a ghost hunting mission in Detroit. He gives enough information for the reader to get a distinct background of ghost hunting, but also paints a different light for the people involved with the activity. By mentioning a lot of the proceeds for joining on this adventure help keep the historic Ft. Wayne army base used for this particular hunt in commission. Jeff also realizes, like many who will read the article, his own personal account may be just as valuable to show the reader you are not alone in thinking this is a bit insane.

Just as important as the article itself the pictures and video accompanying the article are vital to the overall presence of the article. The photos are taken in a mysterious way and the video is accompanied with interviews from paranormal investigators, strange sounds, and showing the intimidation of Ft. Wayne on it's own. The video also contributes to the myth of the Ft. Wayne barracks mentioning how many in the army went in for help, but "never came out." I thought it was a unique way of creating a piece of this nature even for this time of year.

Libel Tourism

The following is from a UW-Madison MA J-student, Erin Kapp.

When I wrote about Simon Singh's libel case, my commentary on the case included, you may have noticed, a comment that I shouldn't have to wonder if I was going to be sued in Britain. That 'I' was not rhetorical. British courts tend to take the view that their libel law can apply widely. Very widely. Like to books that weren't published in Britain.

Singh is British, so it at least makes sense that he would be sued for libel in Britain. Rachel Ehrenfeld, on the other hand, is American. She was sued by Khalid bin Mahfouz, who is Saudi Arabian. Ehrenfeld's book sold a grand total of 23 copies in Britain, via internet or special order- it was not published in Britain, to avoid exactly this situation. The first chapter was available on the internet.

That was enough for Justice David Eady to decide that British courts had enough authority to take the case. Ehrenfeld did not appear to make a defense and a default judgement was awarded against her.

Cases like Ehrenfeld's have spawned a new term: libel tourism. It refers to plaintiffs taking libel cases to foreign (particularly British) courts because of the relative ease of winning a libel claim there.

In reponse to libel tourism, California recently became the third US state to bar its courts from enforcing foreign libel judgements unless that judgement was made in a court whose free speech protections were equal to or greater than those in the US. New York, Florida, and Illinois have passed similar laws; on a nationwide basis, HR1304, is currently in the House.

While that's nice news for those of us in the US, it doesn't much help our British colleagues, or address the issues underlying libel tourism. Hopefully, the controversy stirred up by high-profile cases like Singh's and Ehrenfeld's will lead to a revision of British law, and British writers will be able to depend on truth as a defense against libel.

British Libel Law

The following was written by Erin Kapp, a UW-Madison MA student:

In the US, we're used to the idea that truth is the ultimate defense against libel. If someone wants to sue me for libel, it's up to them to prove that what I said was not true. If it was--even if they disagree--they're out of luck.

Simon Singh, a British science writer, is being sued for libel because he said that the British Chiropractor Association "happily promotes bogus treatments." The promotion he referred to included claims that chiropractic treatment can help with ear infections and asthma.

Singh recently co-authored a book analyzing the scientific evidence for various flavors of alternative medicine, including chiropractic treatment. The remainder of the article was largely information about the results of studies on the effectiveness of chiropractic manipulation and some instances in which chiropractic manipulation has seriously harmed people.

The BCA sued Singh for libel. The judge ruled that the phrase in question implied that the BCA was being dishonest. Britain's libel law puts the burden of proof on the defendent--meaning he or she has to prove that what they said was not libel. Given these conditions, it's perhaps not surprising that Singh lost.

Singh has been granted permission to appeal, but needless to say, the outcome isn't a given.

As an aspiring science writer, this case illustrates a worrying situation. Writers and scientists should be able to comment openly and honestly on scientific claims and evidence without having to be concerned that someone with the opposite view is going to sue them in Britain.

If open conversation about scientific issues is suppressed because libel law is applied so freely, as it is in Britain, that's bad news for journalists and for scientists. I—and any other writer or scientist—should be able to honestly critically evaluate science and people's treatment of science without the specter of being sued in Britain.