Reporting on the Taliban

From a UW-Madison student, Beth Mueller:

Want to write an engaging book? Study in-depth reporting!

After reading Ahmed Rashid's Taliban: Islam, Oil and the New Great Game in Central Asia , I've come to the conclusion that anyone writing a book on current events or recent history (or however we categorize that), should study the reporting techniques Rashid uses.

Highlights:

1. Detail after detail about the personal histories of major Taliban figures. When a regime is this secretive and often difficult to understand, this kind of information is just vital for understanding. An example: Rashid talks about the common background many Taliban recruits shared as orphans in gender-segregated refugee camps, being taught an extreme Islamic fundamentalism. No wonder then, that they oppressed women as rulers.

2. Narrative storytelling. Be still my heart, this is a book about history that actually engages readers. Setting scenes and giving lots of physical descriptions really draws interest to the mounds of facts Rashid dug up.

Drawback:

1. Somebody please get this guy some subheads. In-depth reporting requires serious structuring as it stands as long-form journalism, not to mention something as long-form as a book. Rashid's work is interesting and engaging, but still hard to read because it has little structural organization, which is needed even within the loosely grouped chapters.

In all, the reporting techniques Rashid used made the story of the Taliban pop in a personal way. This book, published right before Sept. 11 and U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, certainly provides valuable information in a fantastic genre.

The Ticker Debate

By Abby Sears, UW-Madison

In an age where the attention spans of readers and viewers are relatively short, journalists are constantly searching for new ways to rope them in and maintain their interest. This New York Times article discusses a new way for cable networks to keep viewers tuned in – by keeping their tickers running during commercial breaks. For networks, they’re able to deliver the essential information viewers want to see at all times. For advertisers, however, the constant ticker could mean paying for a smaller advertising space that isn’t exclusively focused on their product or service. Does the ticker distract viewers from the advertising messages in front of them, or does it provide them with immediate access to information?

According to the article, the constant ticker might not be as bad for advertisers as one might think. For one, it keeps viewers from changing the channel during commercial breaks, which means the viewer is more likely to watch at least some of the commercial as opposed to watching something else. Having a constant ticker would force both the advertising and news industries to change somewhat. Advertisers would need to redesign their campaigns to allot for the ticker space while still drawing the viewer’s attention, and the television news industry would need to alter the use of the ticker to keep the viewer tuned in while still giving them vital information. All in all, I think the Ticker Debate reflects a popular ongoing trend in today’s media world – how can we grasp the public’s attention, maintain it and still provide them with the most up-to-date information before the competition?

By a journalism student at UW-Madison:

As industry experts continue the debate over which direction journalism will head in the future, it is good to see some news organizations being pro active and at least trying to create new approaches to make newspapers more financially viable. An AP article about the LA Times highlights how the newspaper has retooled itself. The LA Times' new model is actually one that our J401 class discussed within the last week.
The LA Times decided that it was reorganizing its newsroom into a round-the-clock operation, transforming its web edition into its breaking news center while offering expanded, analytical coverage in its print addition. According to the AP article, the print version would focus on editorials, features, investigative reporting and trend stories, while the web will offer multimedia options and up-to-the-minute information.
I personally think this is a great model for all newspapers to follow. Most newspapers simply publish the exact same information in print and online, while actually offering more multimedia and interactive material online. Why wouldn't a reader then choose to simply read online then? They get more information, and they are not missing anything they would find in print.
In order for newspapers to remain viable, they must be open to these new approaches, and they must let go of the archaic ways of the old days. It is sad to see traditional print journalism change, but print must change if it ever wants to survive. My last blog entry focused on print media finding its niche. In my opinion, this is it.
The Internet's obvious advantage is that it is instantaneous. People look to the Internet for quick snippets of information. Newspaper will never be able to compete with that. Between TV, radio, and the Internet, they have breaking news covered.
In-depth analysis, investigative pieces, and follow-ups are a perfect fit for print though. People don't want to sit and stare at a computer screen for a long time to read long stories, they want that in their hands, like a book. Newspapers were originally built to be in-depth anyway. It is time to go back to print's roots, analyze its strengths in comparison to other forms of media, and like the article says. "Break it on the web, expand on it in print."