Global Communications (Chapter 13): Skills, Strategies & Storytelling Across Four Continents - My Life As An International Journalist
CHAPTER THIRTEEN: MJ's Filters & Polishers, Part II
In Chapter Twelve: MJ’s Filters & Polishers, Part I, I kicked off this two-chapter package full of tips and techniques for, first, how to improve the story-ideas I pitch to editors; then, once an editor green-lights my assignment, how I enhance the value for readers who choose to consume my content. In this detailed chapter, I’ll largely focus on the second half of that challenge: how to “broaden and deepen” our stories. But first, a few more of my favorite “filters and polishers.” Plus, I offer an exercise for nearly each of them - if you'd like to apply it to your own content-creation. If you try these exercises, please let me know how they work out for you! Meanwhile, contact me today, if you'd like a free Consultation.
A Timely Hook
By now, perhaps we’ve caught an editor or producer’s attention, having persuasively made the case for why an audience would find our proposed story interesting, if not important. Yet they may follow-up with us, with a query of their own: Why should we run this piece today?
Indeed, what is our “timely hook”? We use the term hook here, as if we’re fishing with tasty bait – and trying to hook an audience. If we’re trying to sell an idea or publish a story, we’d first want to hook the gatekeeper (our targeted editor or producer) with the most compelling argument possible, for why exactly they should publish or broadcast our story now. To give it a sense of timeliness or urgency.
More broadly – if we’re self-publishing, or publishing content for our employer – the main target is our consuming audience: Why exactly should they read, watch or listen to this content today? With so much media competing for their eyeballs, we must give our audience a reason to consume this now.
This “timely hook” technique not only injects that sense of timeliness, which may nudge an editor or reader to act now – it also helps transform our feature into a more appealing news feature: While a simple feature could, in theory, be published any time, a newsy feature should possess greater urgency, or at least timeliness. Something relevant has just happened, is ongoing, or is about to happen.
So many possibilities can illustrate this: a new law, fresh policy, or court case related to our topic. Or a controversial campaign, groundbreaking research, a growing debate, or loud public reaction. Or perhaps it’s the latest in a series of events. Like that third pitbull attack in Budapest, described in Chapter Twelve. Or another mass shooting in America – as a timely hook to explore the bigger picture what’s new, or the ongoing challenge, in the gun-control movement. Or another devastating storm – as a timely hook to highlight what, if anything, is being done about climate change.
Any could be a “news hook” that justifies publishing or broadcasting our story today. The classic example are “anniversary” stories. When I first jotted notes for this section, America was about to commemorate 20 years since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11th, 2001 – it unleashed a flood of anniversary-related media coverage. Likewise, the US had just pulled troops out of Afghanistan. I expected stories on how the brutal Taliban now ruled – 100 days since taking over. Or one year later.
Similarly, in January 2022, there’d be stories spotlighting One Year Since Joe Biden Became President. In March 2022, stories along the lines of Two Years Since COVID Struck America. In 2004, I returned to Kosovo after persuading my editors it was worth looking at the war-torn Balkan region – exactly five years after NATO airstrikes, in 1999. There are endless possibilities for a smart timely-hook.
Heck, I could’ve written about my family history any time, but chose to do on a significant 50th anniversary, in 2006 (as I showed in Chapter Eleven). Why? Not just for sentimental, round-number reasons. It’s also because I knew it’d enhance my story’s salability, when I pitched it to my editors.
Upward, Downward Movement
Then there are the broader timely-hooks into a story: As I came to realize, within every issue of the day is actually some newsworthy “movement” or “trend” – at this very moment. It depends how we view it, or where we look. Generally speaking, though, there are only three possible directions:
*Is the issue or situation we’re exploring getting better, getting worse – or remaining the same?
You can see how those three options cover the entire spectrum of possibilities. Or, to view it through an alternate prism: Is the situation improving, worsening or stagnating/stabilizing?
If we can place a “finger on the pulse” of that trend (and can support our analysis by digging up enough credible research, of course), we do much more than persuasively answer the Why-run-it-now? question. We’d instantly deepen our story – and make it more appealing to an assignment editor.
Beyond Journalism, this principle is applicable whenever we pitch any idea or proposal to colleagues, seated around the conference-room table: Why do we need XXX now? Because YYY is getting better … or progressively worse … or stubbornly stagnant … and so on. Some examples:
Is corruption in Bulgaria getting better, getting worse or remaining the same?
Is gun violence in America getting better, getting worse or remaining the same?
Is air pollution in China getting better, getting worse or remaining the same?
Is climate change getting better, getting worse or remaining the same?
Is COVID prevention getting better, getting worse or remaining the same?
Is global hunger getting better, getting worse or remaining the same?
Needless to say, we’d want to do more than merely conclude “Yes, it’s increasingly better” or “No, it’s gradually declined.” Why, why, why? Again, we’re here to inform and educate our audience. So, whether a situation is improving, worsening or stagnating, seek to answer why exactly it is.
The most exciting aspect of this filter is how it practically guarantees us a deeper, more meaningful story. If, minimally, we explore what the “movement” is within our issue today, I can’t imagine any situation not generating a newsworthy angle. It’s that effective an idea-polisher.
In fact, say I were an editor who assigned my reporter to investigate “What’s new” in some political, economic, scientific, societal, cultural, environmental, or other field. If they replied “There’s nothing new to report,” I wouldn’t believe them. Why? Even “Nothing new” is a story! Why exactly is there nothing new to report with situation XYZ? Why exactly is no one acting to improve that situation?
Here’s an example. From 2011-15, I spent four years in the tiny African kingdom of Lesotho. I enjoyed getting to know the Basotho people, and the natural beauty of their “Mountain Kingdom.” Unfortunately, though, their society suffered from the world’s second-highest rate of HIV infection.
In the years before I moved there, as their HIV rate climbed higher and higher, that upward movement raised a crucial question, which many were keen to explore: Why exactly is the rate rising?
But by the time I arrived there, in late 2011, the HIV rate was a curiosity: The United Nations and other international organizations had poured millions and millions of donor-dollars into Lesotho to fight HIV, yet the official infection-rate among the most sexually active cohort – ages 16 to 49 years old – held steady at 23%. Year after year, the same percentage.
You might think: There was nothing new to report. It wasn’t improving. It wasn’t worsening. Was just doing NOTHING. Correction: It was doing something – it stubbornly refused to improve. For me, the journalistic follow-up question became: Why exactly is it stagnating? Why exactly won’t it budge?
In July 2014, that led me to produce two evidence-driven commentaries. The first, Ignorance and Denial Are Prolonging the AIDS Crisis in Tiny Lesotho, was published by The Global Post newspaper:
My second essay, The Basotho on the Brink – and Dangerously in Denial, was published by two platforms: the New York-based website, The Mantle; then by Lesotho’s main daily, The Lesotho Times.
To summarize, whenever we explore an issue or situation – and aim for a smart-but-skeptical audience that demands proof – can we truly prove that it’s improving, worsening or holding steady? Can we show-not-tell the reality – by providing enough credible, quantifiable evidence?
Next, can we persuasively explain to our audience why exactly this movement or trend is so interesting, even important, that they should consume our content? Not just some of it, but all of it?
Exercise: Identify the upward-downward movement in your topic. Then prove it.
Broaden & Deepen
In Chapter Five: What Audiences Need, I explained why we should contextualize our content for a non-expertaudience. However, “context” in that case was more related to explaining the “relevant backstory,” so that we supplied the non-expert with enough details to still find our content accessible.
Context, though, takes many forms. I speak often about two others, which are related to the symbolism and connect-the-dots polishers described in Chapter Twelve: our need to “broaden and deepen” content. Let me explain the two concepts.
By broaden, first I mean geographic context. Let’s say we’re asked to spotlight one aspect of China’s poverty-reduction efforts – in one part of China. Is the situation we explore unique to, say, this one Chinese village, town, city or province? Or is a nationwide trend, pattern or phenomenon? Do we have credible evidence to prove or disprove it, either way? Then, analysis to explain why it is or isn’t?
Now, think more broadly, beyond China. Is this situation we’re exploring unique to this one nation? Why or why not? Is it part of a broader pattern across Asia? Or perhaps part of a global trend? Why or why not? (I’ll expand on this next – in the Regionalize, Globalize, Localize section.)
Similarly, if we’re writing about individual families, friends, children, teachers, colleagues: Is their situation (or some issue affecting them) unique to their specific area? Or part of broader trend?
Let’s return to my Lesotho-HIV example for a moment: Is it only Lesotho that HIV has hit so hard? No. In fact, the world’s four highest rates of infection were then all neighbors in Southern Africa: Swaziland, Lesotho, Botswana and South Africa. This begged the question: What is it about that entire region? Why exactly are the four highest HIV rates all down here?
On the flipside, as I explained in Chapter Twelve with the filter of Is it unique, or part of a broader pattern or trend?, if Lesotho were truly an anomaly – suffering high HIV rates, while fellow Southern African nations boasted relatively low rates – the contrast itself becomes a meaningful angle: Why exactly is Lesotho unlike its neighbors? (Or, more harshly: Why’s it worse than the neighbors?)
Broadening the geography also broadens a story’s appeal. If pitching my editor, this would no longer be a story about one country, but would open a window onto an entire region: Southern Africa.
In fact, this is a path toward more serious, more responsible storytelling: If unique to this one place – for some interesting reason – let’s prove and explain it. But if it illuminates a broader issue and wider challenge, let’s connect dots, explain how it connects, and provide our audience a reason to care.
That said, beyond geographically, there are other ways to “broaden” a story. For example, if we read a report about discrimination against women in the IT sector, we could broaden to explore if such discrimination occurs in other STEM sectors – or if it’s truly unique to IT. Then, explain why or why not.
Or, if there are reports of pollution affecting a specific water source, we could explore if that pollutant is tainting other water sources elsewhere. And why. On the other hand, we could explore if it uniquely affects only water, or is causing other forms of environmental damage: to air, soil, wildlife, etc.
In short, we can also broaden by connecting dots politically, economically, culturally, and so on.
Next, if we’re committed to producing deep, meaningful content, there’s the need to “deepen a story”: By this, I mean historically. Truly serious, responsible content requires at least some historical context. Or the relevant backstory, as I explained in Chapter Five: not just any history, but only the most relevant details that enable our target-audience to follow our content clearly and comfortably.
Why? This harkens to the classic whine of some students: Why should we study history? The more accurately we grasp the past, the better we understand the present – how exactly, and why exactly, we got to where we are today. And why exactly we are where we are. That knowledge helps us anticipate where exactly we might go from here, into the future – and why exactly we may be headed in that direction. Well, the same principle applies to our journalism; in fact, to all non-fiction storytelling.
Moreover, I apply this principle of relevant background context to both my individual interviewing and broader storytelling. In Chapter Fifteen: Interviewing Skills, I’ll introduce you to my unique interviewing technique, The Darwinian Storyteller, in which I describe how and why the “origins and evolution” of any issue or issue is essential for impactful content. However, I’ll summarize here, too.
In short, no situation happens overnight, in a vacuum, a void. If we don’t explain a bit of how exactly Situation X originated, why exactly it originated that way, then how exactly it evolved, and why exactly it evolved the way it did, we may even do a disservice to our audience.
For example, if we hear about the latest eruption of violence between the Israelis and Palestinians, a non-expert might reasonably wonder Why’s this happening? Yet a serious news organization, determined to responsibly inform its audience, would be compelled to include some relevant historical context (from reliable sources, backed by credible evidence) to show how this fresh situation flows logically from history. Or, if an incident is an aberration, outside the norm, then prove it.
That’s why one of my four Bulgarian stories in Chapter Twelve focused on the how-and-why corruption originated and evolved there – told through the prism of a young Bulgarian wrestler today.
Or how can any reader outside of China grasp, then appreciate, how challenging an issue like air-pollution is, unless we give them some idea of where it actually originated? (And why.) Then, how much China seems to have evolved since? (And why.) More on this in Volume Two: Storytelling from China, since I speak from experience: a training I led in Beijing aimed to enlighten the foreign audience.
Likewise, how can any foreigner grasp the complexity of Lesotho’s HIV tragedy? It didn’t unfold overnight or materialize out of thin air. Certain cultural factors, even socio-economic realities, fueled the uncontrolled rise of infections among the Basotho – as I explained above, in my own reportage.
Again, just as we study history to better understand the present, how can we effectively address a challenge like HIV in Africa unless we appreciate how exactly it began, why, how exactly it spread, why, and so on? (You’ll find more on my awareness-raising work in Lesotho, in Volume Two, when I began to immodestly refer to myself as The Media Missionary of Maseru.)
That’s why we should always deepen our story, by inserting a bit of the most relevant context. At least one, two, three sentences. Or one, two, three paragraphs. It depends on space restrictions. Since one of our ultimate goals is to betterinform and educate our audience, it’s clear that injecting relevant context is a crucial, even essential, way to do that.
Exercise: How to broaden and deepen the situation or issue you're exploring
Regionalize, Globalize or Localize?
Speaking of broadening, here’s another polisher to widen the scope of our story and satisfy our two-fold objective: add value for our consumer-audience, plus enhance its salability to a client. Once we identify what a situation or individual symbolizes about a nationwide Big Picture (how and why exactly it’s unique or part of a pattern), we can connect dots even further: let’s regionalize or globalize it.
For example, here’s how to “regionalize” a story:
Is what’s happening in Hungary happening elsewhere in Central Europe? Or across the European Union? Or throughout the European continent? Or is it truly unique to Hungary? Why or why not?
Is what’s happening in China also happening elsewhere in East Asia? Or across all of Asia? Or is it truly unique to China? Why or why not?
Is what’s happening in Lesotho also happening elsewhere in Southern Africa? Across Sub-Saharan Africa? Or throughout the African continent? Or is it truly unique to Lesotho? Why or why not?
No question about it: this requires more time and effort, for us to research and prove these arguments. Yet, ponder the potential dividends of our investment. Magically, we present our audience – a paying client, consuming reader, etc. – with a “regional” story, versus a single-country story.
As I showed in Chapter Six: The Flourishing Freelancer, when I carved out my “beat” – covering post-Communist Central and Eastern Europe from my base in Budapest, Hungary – we can achieve this “easily” enough, without having to travel elsewhere in a region. From our own home, while sitting in our pajamas, we can surf online for evidence of what’s happening regionally, to support our assertions.
To further strengthen our storytelling, we should include one, two or three anecdotal examples from the region – as illustrative evidence. Then, to reinforce our evidence, we interview a regional expert or two, quoting their big-picture analysis, as they explain for our audience how the dots connect.
Applying the same rationale, we can even globalize an idea, when pitching or producing a story:
Is the Situation XXX [insert brief description of the issue, challenge, etc.] that’s happening in Country YYY [insert name of our country that’s our focal-point] also happening around the world, in different corners of the globe? Is it unique or part of a broader trend? How so? Why or why not? Moreover, like Country YYY, are they tackling the issue, challenge, etc., with Solution ZZZ [briefly summarize what exactly they’re doing about it]? Or trying other solutions? Why or why not?
This, too, is an ambitious undertaking, requiring extensive research. But the value and appeal are obvious, right? Show similarities, highlight commonalities, accentuate differences. As always, prove it one way or the other – with credible evidence and illuminating examples, to which we hyperlink. Then, explain it all meaningfully – by also quoting expert analysts-observers, who help connect the dots.
Here’s a potential narrative (or “storyline”), which is similar to the unique-or-part-of-pattern formulation that I described in Chapter Twelve, when searching for symbolism:
While Situation XXX in Country YYY is similar to the ZZZ trend happening around the world – in ways AAA, BBB and CCC – it’s also unique in ways DDD, EEE and FFF … This contrast is because of XYZ …
Then, fill in the blanks, plus analysis. Or perhaps it’s the opposite assertion: Situation XXX in Country YYY is unlike the ZZZ global trend, in ways AAA, BBB and CCC … Because of reasons XYY …
It could be something as simple as: Country YYY passes a new anti-smoking law. How it’s covered illustrates an essential difference between the approach of a local or international journalist.
Understandably, a typical local journalist, reporting for domestic media, produces a story for the audience that’s purely about the new anti-smoking law and its local impact. Though, an enterprising local journalist could still place the new policy in broader perspective: if they connect dots globally – to compare and contrast the new law with others elsewhere – they’d surely add value for the audience.
On the other hand, a Foreign Correspondent couldn’t get away with the first approach: proposing the topic of Country YYY’s new anti-smoking law, by itself, would be unappealing to both the Foreign Editor and the international audience. After all, why exactly would any foreign reader find it interesting? Because … why? (Even if the country in question is China, with its newsworthy angle that the Chinese smoke an estimated one in three of all the world’s consumed cigarettes.)
Instead, that correspondent would necessarily need to highlight if there were something unique, novel or controversial about that new law. Then, broaden the angle, to compare and contrast it with laws elsewhere – for it to appeal more to an editor, and to be more interesting for the audience.
Perhaps, though the law is similar to laws elsewhere, Country YYY was the laggard in passing such a law – for some interesting, noteworthy reason? So, that’s what makes this situation unique?
Or maybe there’s nothing truly “unique” about it. Instead, we might use Country YYY’s new law as our “timely hook” to explore the entire issue of anti-smoking laws worldwide: Country YYY is “the latest country to pass such laws”? So, how effective are they? What’s worked, what hasn’t? And why?
I’ve now described how to broaden a story, by aiming to regionalize or globalize. Yet here’s a third, related approach to polishing ideas, but brainstorming the opposite: how to localize a global story.
Let’s say it’s May 31st: World No Tobacco Day. The World Health Organization and others seize upon this occasion for the international community to promote and discuss this health issue. Beyond any worldwide coverage, an enterprising domestic journalist could seize upon this global “timely hook” to explore why their own country doesn’t have national anti-smoking laws. Or: maybe they do, so this is a chance to compare-and-contrast with others. Or: explore if our law is effective, why or why not, etc.
Here’s an example of how I “localized” a hot global story, back in early 2011, while based in Bratislava. It was the “Arab Spring” uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, which sparked movements in other Middle Eastern countries. At the time, from Slovakia, I enviously eyed the action in North Africa, not so far from me. Short of parachuting into the region myself, I brainstormed ways to contribute coverage.
I hatched an idea: Just as the world was watching history unfold in Egypt and Tunisia, remind readers of the lessons-learned from the revolutions of post-Communist Eastern Europe. My Editor at Foreign Policy magazine liked the idea, for its fresh approach and value-added. He published my reportage as an analytical “think-piece,” entitled Purging the Bad Guys: A How-To Guide. Here it is:
That said, to clarify for smart FP readers why I’d linked these two seemingly disparate parts of the world – and two very different chapters of history – I opened my essay by connecting dots like this:
If anyone can understand the rush of change that revolutionaries in Egypt and Tunisia are experiencing right now, it’s their counterparts in post-communist Eastern Europe. This region gorged on change, evolving – painfully – from dictatorship to democracy. After decapitating the leadership, East Europeans know what comes next. The purge. It’s begun in Egypt and Tunisia, with a despised target in the crosshairs: secret police.
The essay continues, hopefully making sense to readers why I drew this parallel.
Exercise: With whatever situation or issue you’re exploring, can you connect dots in a way that nationalizes, regionalizes or even globalizes your content?
What, If Anything …?
Here’s another of my favorite idea-filters and story-polishers. Whereas the ones above aim to broaden and deepen the initial idea, this one strives to move the story forward. Especially, in a positive, even uplifting, way.
Let me explain, by returning to my Lesotho-HIV story for a moment: When pitching it to editors, I didn’t stop with that why-is-the-HIV-rate-stagnating question. I went one step further, by exploring:
*What, if anything, is being done to break through this stagnation? Why?
*What else, if anything, can be done? Or should be done? Why?
*What hasn’t worked? And why hasn’t it worked?
The reason why this is an all-time favorite is because I’m convinced: If we pursue an answer to this thought-provoking, what-if-anything question, we’re almost guaranteed to generate a stellar story.
Here’s how it works: Let’s say we identify (or are presented with) Situation XXX – it’s some sort of problem, challenge, crisis, dilemma. Say, climate change. We could simply explore and explain Situation XXX in a straight-forward way: What the crisis is, why it’s a crisis, why we should care, etc.
However, we should have higher standards, if for no other reason than our target-publication or employer hopefully has higher standards for the content they publish, to deliver high-value content to their smart, curious audience. With that in mind, we dig deeper.
Again, we should identify “movement” within the story: examining, for example, if climate-change is getting better, getting worse or staying the same. Let’s say it’s getting worse: we should pinpoint with explanation and analysis how exactly it’s getting worse, why exactly it’s getting worse, and so on. Then, we could quote an expert-analyst, explaining all of this, why it all matters, etc.
We could stop there – and many storytellers might – as it’s already quite a complete story. Yet, here are two more components, to make it more meaningful, and enhance its value for consumers. First, this question helps “move the story forward”: Where does this situation go from here? Why there?
Second, if we were to end our reporting here, it’d sound quite passive – as if climate change just happens on its own, independently, ignoring the role of humans. Specifically, the legion of government officials, environmental activists, foreign donors, academic researchers, business leaders, and others trying to do something about it. At this moment. (Or imagine all those not doing something about it.)
As part of that movement, explore: What, if anything, is being done about Situation XXX today?
The beauty of this question is that it contains two possibilities. Here’s how: First, remove the “if anything” clause and focus on The What: What exactly IS being done about it?
While we should never assume we know the reality, but always seek to confirm the facts, for the sake of argument let’s now assume that someone is doing something about Situation XXX. Or, at least someone (an NGO?) is striving to do something to improve, rectify or resolve it. So, we investigate:
Who’s doing what? And why them?
Is their approach working? Why or why not?
If it’s working, do they have credible, verifiable proof that it truly works? Why or why not?
If it isn’t working, do they have evidence it isn’t? Why aren’t they trying something else?
We now have more of a story, which not only reveals “movement” for our audience, but brings it to life with some humanized action, even drama. But what if we’ve researched all credible resources online, as well as asked around among credible human sources. Everything we see or hear indicates that nothing is actually being done to improve Situation XXX.
Before we excitedly tell our boss: “Nothing’s being done about this!” – can we conclude that with certainty? Would we bet our reputation, even our job, on being right? If we’re really that confident, while still attributing this to our research and our sources, then we can state so authoritatively: According to activists familiar with Situation XXX …Nothing is being done.
It’s a bold position to stake out, so we’d better be 100% right about this. But this is where the second component of the initial What question – if anything – comes into play. The reality is that not every problem or challenge out there is truly being addressed. In that case, our story could become:
Why exactly is nothing being done about Situation XXX?
While this two-part filter-question is my idea, the overall concept is not: For several years, the U.S. has been home to a growing movement called Solutions Journalism. The rationale behind it: Simply raising awareness of a problem isn’t enough; we should show the audience what’s being done about it.
I agree. When the media is relentlessly negative, presenting the many intractable issues that plague the world, it can emotionally impact the audience – making us feel hopeless and helpless. It’s depressing. Consider any of the issues I’ve touched on: Climate change, air pollution in China, HIV in Africa, gun violence in America, and so on. How helpless or hopeless does it make us feel?
Conversely, how much more hopeful or optimistic would we feel, knowing that there are at least some sincere, dedicated individuals and organizations working hard to combat these issues? Perhaps even ways for us to join the battle, to somehow make a difference in our own small-but-significant way?
That’s where the media can play a positive, not negative, role: inject a bit of hope, simply by presenting a more complete picture, spotlighting the fact that some in society are taking action to tackle such challenges. Just as media can be the bearer of bad news, it can be a force for uplift and inspiration.
That was precisely my rationale with a Global Communications-Strategic Storytelling training project that I later carried out in China, during 2016-17. In a country with some of the world’s worst air-pollution, I secured funding from the US Embassy in Beijing to train 20 environmental activists, whom I dubbed The Chinese Champions of Environmental Protection.
I then taught them how to tell their own story of awakening – and activism. As I wrote on the website I created for their stories (see screenshot above), my objective was also influenced by Solutions Journalism:
On the one hand, our stories are strategically aimed at an internal, Chinese audience: to not only raise awareness, by championing the issue, but perhaps inspire more Chinese youth to take action, with a virtual how-to guide that demystifies how to do so. On the other, you’ll notice our stories are published in English, not Mandarin. Which points to our second Communications objective – targeting YOU, a primarily external, foreign audience. We imagine you to be curious to learn something meaningful about a China that, simply put, matters … in every way, on the international stage.
For those of you who for some reason care about universal issues like climate change, global health, sustainable development, and other such topics, the latest CNN or BBC report and images of China’s toxic air might make you wonder: Do the Chinese even care about their pollution, their environment, their health? If so, are they doing anything about it? This project answers both questions – with a resounding YES. However, we don’t expect a smart but skeptical audience to simply take our word for it. To persuade you, we should show you, not just tell you. Which is what these 20 stories aim to do.
As a footnote, I was delighted to further spread the word in a 10-minute video program on my training, produced in 2016 by the country’s leading English-language newspaper, China Daily. Here was that coverage:
The Circle-Out Reporting Strategy
Time for a friendly reminder: many of the MJ Method filters and polishers that I’ve described in this and the previous chapter aim to answer Step #2 and Step #3 of my Four-Step Formula: What exactly our story is – and why exactly our audience should find it interesting. (If not important.)
By now, we’ve worked hard enough to brainstorm reasons why exactly the audience (an editor, client, reader, or anyone else) should detect the value of consuming our piece. Minimally, they should eventually feel better informed, even better educated, thanks to our snapshot of reality.
That said, as we formulate our pitch, we need one more element to deepen the impression, before we try to persuade someone to green-light our assignment to produce the entire story.
Once we feel good about our story’s core message, focus, hook, angle, argument, etc. – and why exactly it should be produced today – let’s now enable our target to visualize how exactly our story might look. That means we shift to the essential Step #4 of my formula: The How.
How exactly should we tell our story?
How exactly should we deliver our message?
Which storytelling elements should we assemble – and how exactly should we present them?
Which facts, details, anecdotes, sources, research, photos, graphs, reports, bits of historical background, bits of regional context?
What exactly does our audience need to see? Why exactly do they need to see that?
What exactly does our audience need to know? Why exactly do they need to know that?
Where exactly should we go, to which “central locations”? Why exactly should we go there?
Whom exactly should we meet and interview? Why exactly should we speak with them?
What exactly should we ask them? Why exactly should we ask them that
Thinking through these questions serves two functions. First, if done appealingly enough, The How may clinch a story assignment from an editor or client. This enables our editor, client, colleague, etc., to be able to visualize what we visualize, for our content. Before, we were making an argument, or spotlighting something meaningful. But now we’re focused on how to bring it all to life.
On the other hand, it serves a second function: Once we secure that green-light of an assignment, we must also consider how we’ll persuade our reader/viewer/listener to consume it – clearly and comfortably. Vividly and persuasively. Impactfully and even memorably.
Therefore, if we eventually show and prove to our audience that we’ve collected the right/ideal material, identified the right/ideal visuals, visited the right/ideal places, interviewed the right/ideal people, and so on, it may enhance our content’s credibility – in the eyes of our skeptical audience.
That said, I should clarify: There’s a fine line here. Initially, while we must enable the editor/client to visualize our vision for the story, we shouldn’t invest hours and hours into a full-blown storytelling strategy, before we’ve even secured an assignment. Don’t expend so much effort – yet. That greater effort should only come once we have that assignment in hand. For now, we should do just enough to convince them that we actually do have a vision – with an effective roadmap – in mind.
Then, once we get the green-light, we’ll plot out a more comprehensive strategy:
*Which research and evidence should we track down - and why exactly that? (Because …)
*Which locales should we visit to illustrate our story - and why exactly there? (Because …)
*Which sources or subjects should we interview - and why exactly them? (Because …)
*Which questions should we ask them - and why exactly those? (Because …)
Why exactly should we later answer these questions? For two main reasons. First, because at this level of professionalism, I believe every decision must be defensible. That’s why exactly I attach the “Why exactly” questions! Nothing should be random or willy-nilly; each of our steps should be justified.
Second, while I wrote earlier about collecting “the right” storytelling elements, the more accurate term is relevance: Which details are most relevant, even necessary, to tell our story? (I explain more on how to choose between relevant and irrelevant details in Chapter Sixteen: Writing Our Story.)
To explain both aspects, I developed a graphic to enable my students to visualize the challenge of defending all our decision-making. I call it the Circle-Out Strategy: we place our story-angle in the circle’s center – at the heart of our focus. We then work outward, pasting the unknown elements the circumference, along the perimeter. Eventually, we want to identify each of these unknowns: clearly connect the dots and articulate their relevance – why exactly we’ll need them to tell our story well.
Here’s how the first slide looks, as we begin to collect the most relevant research:
There’s greater flexibility in the research, though, as we can invest even an excessive amount of time collecting research, which we ultimately might not even cite in our story. It’s better to have too much, than too little. We should feel authoritative enough on our topic to communicate it clearly and confidently to an audience. (Plus, this research can be done from home, while even in our pajamas.)
However, our time and energy are more precious when it choosing which folks we should interview, or which places we might visit. We should be more precise, realistic and certain about those.
The most time-consuming for us, of course, are the “central locations” we want to visit. After all, interviews can be done from afar, as we sit at home, in an office, in a café, or anywhere else. It’s not ideal – versus being able to look someone in the eye, face-to-face – yet can still be done remotely, if no other option. The same isn’t true for things, or actions, we really should see with our own eyes, up close.
To defend our decisions, and determine a site’s relevance or irrelevance, I developed two filters:
*My content could/should include a visit to Site X, because … Why exactly? Finish this sentence.
*My audience will better appreciate this topic through my visit to Site X, because … Why exactly?
Here’s what that aspect of the Circle-Out Strategy looks like, as a graphic:
At these central locations are people we’d interview (as “subjects” or “sources”). Though, again, we can find many other experts/observers/commentators whose “location” isn’t relevant to our story. Let’s think through who exactly to interview – and what precise role they’d play in our story. Again, to defend our decisions, and determine who’s relevant or irrelevant. For this, I developed several filters:
*What perspective do they bring to the table? How would that add value? Why
*How would it benefit our audience’s understanding of this issue? Why?
*My content could (or should) include Source X, because … Why exactly? Finish this sentence.
*My audience will better appreciate this topic by hearing from Source X, because … Why exactly?
Here’s what that component looks like, as a graphic:
Likewise, once I’ve identified a handful of relevant subjects to possibly interview, then actually arrange to interview them, I adapted my Circle-Out Strategy to identify which relevant questions to ask:
That said, I’ll soon delve deeper into the interviewing process, and questions to ask, in Chapter Fifteen: Interviewing Skills. For now, I only wanted to share the applicability of my Circle-Out Strategy.
Similarly, I’ve adapted the Circle-Out Strategy for when I move onto the story-writing stage. Again, I delve deeper into the writing process in Chapter Sixteen: Writing the Story. For now, though, I’ll share how to identify which are the most relevant and necessary details to include – or exclude:
Exercise: With the situation or issue you’re exploring, plot your Circle-Out Strategy to identify the most relevant research you’d justifiably include. Likewise: Where exactly would you go; what exactly would you want to see; whom exactly would you want to interview; what exactly would you ask them?
Go To “The Frontlines”
As we continually polish our story idea, toward its most intriguing, impactful potential, we juggle in our thoughts the question of how to “bring to life” our content. As stated above: Where to go, what to see, whom to interview, etc. In my early TOL trainings in Prague, I’d refer to this as identifying “central locations”: as if in a movie, where we can witness (and relate to our audience) the most relevant action, meet the most relevant sources, and capture the most relevant details.
Over the years, though, I embraced a more colorful military reference: Go to the frontlines.
The “frontlines,” or “the front,” refers to the spot where rival armies confront each other – as in the old days, with soldiers situated so close they could see “the whites of their eyes.” Journalistically speaking, though, the frontlines of any story is where we essentially find two types of story-subjects:
*The real people who are somehow affected by any issue, or by any situation.
*The activists, officials, experts and others somehow involved with that issue or situation.
So, while the notion of “central locations” is very similar, in terms of imagery, it’s also quite vague. On the other hand, it became more vivid for me to coach my students to head to the frontlines.
More important, especially from a Foreign Correspondent/International Storytelling perspective, reporting from the frontlines is an essential function and our true value-added to a distant client.
After all, so many stories might be reported by others back home: over the phone, via Internet, from the newsroom, or a café, or even from their home – while in their pajamas. Instead, we’re the ones who are out “in the field,” with a chance to be “on the ground,” and bring it all to life.
Here are a few examples of what I mean by heading to the frontlines, to interview those who are either directly affected by an issue or situation, or those who are directly involved with it:
*For a story on the homeless, visit a shelter to interview the managers and those being assisted.
*On environmental damage, the site of damage to meet residents affected, activists involved.
*On a growing art or cultural trend, a venue where we find both audience and artists/creators.
*On a booming technological trend, a lab where we find both industry leaders and engineers.
*On the COVID-19 response, a hospital to meet healthcare workers, patients and their families.
An aside: Another skill I honed over the years was the ability to shoot decent, usable photos to accompany my story. Imagine, what were the odds that my cost-conscious clients would also assign and send a staff or freelance photographer to shoot what I was witnessing on the frontlines? Slim to none. Imagine the money saved, then. So, I realized the added appeal and enhanced salability when pitching such stories: He can shoot his own photos, too? Great! Even better. (More in Chapter Twenty-Seven: Keys to Freelancing.)
In that case, when mulling where to go, what to see, whom to meet, and so on, how to identify these elements? By thinking through:
*Where’s the action of my story? Where are the frontlines? Why exactly is that the frontline?
*What’s happening there? Why do we need to see that, then show our audience
*Who’s there? Who’s affected by this issue/situation? Who’s involved, trying to resolve it?
*Why do we need to interview them, then transmit their words to our audience?
In fact, we may have multiple frontlines to choose from, yet limited time or resources. Why exactly choose this site over that site? Where’s the value-added for our audience? What necessary (and relevant) content can they learn from our visit to this site – over another? And why?
To answer these questions, and defend our decisions, it’s worth repeating my one-line filters:
*I should visit location X, to see Y, and interview Z, because … Why? Finish that sentence.
*My audience would benefit from that storytelling, because … Why? Finish that sentence.
Exercise: Which frontline would you visit, for the situation-issue you’re exploring
Access Is Key
That said, it’s one thing to identify where are the frontlines of a story, then pinpoint a precise location to visit. It’s another question whether we can actually gain physical access to that locale. (Note: Gain access differs from making our story accessible to audience, as described in Chapter Sixteen: Writing Our Story.)
For example, don’t propose to investigate a prison, if we can’t actually gain physical access to that prison.
Don’t offer to observe a military maneuver or police operation, if we can’t gain access to either.
Don’t pitch a profile of a business titan, controversial politician, star athlete, celebrity chef, popular musician, Hollywood actress, etc., if we can’t gain access to them.
(Or, if we can’t at least gain access to their “inner circle.”)
In short, don’t promise what we can’t deliver. That harms our reputation as much as anything.
You may recall that I first learned this lesson from my absurd story pitches for Bosnia, prior to my Big Break. I’m sure one factor in my early failure was that I proposed investigating both a UN peacekeeping mission and transnational criminal syndicate – yet offered no evidence that I’d ever investigated such topics or organizations. Another was that I never stated if I’d have access to either.
I can only imagine how easily those editors rejected my pitch.
On the other hand, I eventually did gain access to that Zagreb orphanage. Years later, I’d also gain access to a Romanian prison, Bulgarian police academy, a UN refugee camp in Macedonia, rape victims from Kosovo, and many other sensitive institutions and locales.
One critical factor in gaining access is the reputation of the organization we represent. Certainly, the doors of access may swing open if we’re reporting for the BBC or New York Times – versus a media outlet that the targeted institution has never heard of. But our own personal reputation comes into play, too. Not to mention, how charming and/or persuasive we can be with the power of our words.
Ultimately, the most decisive factor is likely to again be self-interest: whether or not that institution, or that individual, considers it to be in their self-interest to grant us that precious access. I’ll explain more on this, especially on how to push the right button, in the next chapter - Chapter Fourteen: Interview Psychology.
In that chapter, I also note that while I advise my journalism students to aim high and optimistically – in hopes of gaining access to a big-name agency or institution – we should be realistic, too. Regardless, the crucial first step should be to arrange an interview with The Boss of that institution.
The Boss, like the role of editors described in Chapter Four, serves as gatekeeper and first-line of defense to their organization. However, if we prepare well, meet them, handle ourselves professionally, then conduct an impressive interview, by the end, I’ll broach several additional requests:
May I have a tour of your operation, to see it in action? (Perhaps even take some photos?)
May I interview some of your staff? (Perhaps even take some photos?)
May I interview some of your beneficiaries? (Perhaps even take some photos?)
If we’ve built their confidence and earned some trust – and if they continue to view our inquiry as in their professional and/or organizational self-interest – they’ll probably open their doors to us.
Here’s one example of my own reporting in Romania, which I produced with Romanian partner, as part of a journalism-training project. (More on that in Chapter Twenty-Four: Minorities & Me.) For this story, on how the country was tackling the rise of HIV infections within its prison system, we did indeed gain access to one prison on the frontlines of this issue. Starting with the director of the prison hospital.
Why’d the hospital director grant us access to him and his facility? Furthermore, access to several of his staff – and to two of their HIV-infected inmates? Presumably, the warden was pleased with the work he’d done – and sensed it was in his self-interest for us to promote those efforts.
Here’s that story, including some of the photos I was allowed to shoot:
In fact, I later spun that story into a second, for another client – The Global Post:
There’s also a somewhat sneaky strategy I devised for how to gain access to a tricky location. In this case, entry into the neighborhoods of Eastern Europe’s Roma – the most marginalized minority in Europe, known pejoratively as Gypsies. Many in the white majority had warned me, on so many occasions, with more than a hint of racist prejudice, that if I dared to enter the Roma quarters – often referred to as ghettoes – that I’d be beaten up by the Roma, if not killed.
Well, I’m an open-minded guy. In fact, one trait of a serious journalist should be open-mindedness. I refused to be swayed by the stereotypes, even if they were intended to “protect” me.
As I later wrote in an essay, Seeing Things For Myself, sure, I’d often enter Roma neighborhoods with a Roma interpreter. That helped, to walk alongside “one of their own.” But I didn’t always.
So, I brainstormed a technique: First, find and meet with a respected community member outside the neighborhood, earn their trust, then enter the neighborhood with them – for all to see.
Here’s that essay:
In Hungary, I later modified that tactic, since I knew no one inside the community. Standing outside the Roma quarter, I noticed a Romani father and daughter inside a bakery. I approached them, introducing myself. Chatted about my story topic, I asked the father for his thoughts.
He gradually warmed up, and we hit it off. He began to trust me. So much so, that when I asked if I could walk back home with him, he quickly agree. Bingo. There was my access: His neighbors saw us together, and surely figured I “must be OK,” since I had this community member’s approval. The interviews flowed from there, from him to other neighbors. They also posed for photos. (For more of my writings about Roma communities, as well as those trainings with Romani journalists, see Chapter Twenty-Four: Minorities & Me.)
Overall, your challenge is: Can you earn the trust of sources – and gain access to the story?
Do As I Do
Now let me make this chapter a bit more applicable to you and what I think your reality may be. Throughout this how-to guide, the vast majority of what I’ve written is from the perspective of a freelancer: as if it’s me, alone, who is responsible for generating story ideas.
Then, the solo-flying freelancer will pitch, sell and deliver on those ideas.
However, there aren’t many of us in the field of content-creation, especially abroad, who can enjoy this empowering sort of freedom. (Or, this burdensome responsibility – depends on your perspective.) Indeed, most of us work for someone, with little flexibility about the content we produce.
That’s why I’ll now imagine myself as if I were in your shoes and our Boss assigns us a story. Or, a supervisor tasks us to create some needed content for our organization. Regardless of the circumstances or the content-to-be-created, my mission here is to always demystify every process, as much as I can. First, by chronicling my experiences, via essay, commentary, case-study even travelogue.
That achieves both prongs of my two-prong strategy for persuasive communications, when the target is a smart-but-skeptical foreign audience. First, the concrete, credible evidence: my journey, backed by hyperlinked facts and other forms of proof. Combine that with humanizing my content: bringing to life many of my great lessons-learned.
So, I’ll try to lead by example. That’s the most effective way to teach, as I’ve noted throughout. Mindful of all this, I’ll describe how I myself would tackle this task. For you to envision, as a roadmap.
That said, to reinforce my guidance here, I’ve created another case-study, which I’ll flow after this essay. Just to note, though, the idea of this case-study hit me in September 2021, about 1.5 years into the COVID pandemic. So, I created a case-study that is absolutely pegged to that period of time:
First, in this section, though, I also want to be as specific as possible with my details, because perhaps you yourself will try all this one day, following in my footsteps. That’d make me so happy.
In my heart, I’m both Journalist and Teacher. I hope to inspire others to try some of these impactful adventures, for themselves. My passion for this sort of storytelling runs so deep, that helps explain why I write in such rich (even exhaustive) detail: Driven by some desire to share all that I know.
With all that in mind, feel free to follow the dozen steps that I’d follow, in chronological order:
Step #1: First thing I’d do is seek to clarify with my Boss, or with whichever colleague has just assigned us the task, at this moment. I ask to talk, either on the spot or in the soonest possible meeting.
Because, the very first steps I take after either claiming of an assignment, or being handed an assignment, is to investigate and clarify the fine details of that assignment. Some relevant questions:
*Who exactly is our target-audience for this? Why exactly them? (If it’s not absolutely obvious.)
*What objective do we aim to achieve, by targeting that audience with this content?
*What exactly do you find most interesting or important about this issue/situation? Why that?
*Why exactly do you think our audience should consume this content? Why should they care?
*What exactly do you think should be the core message we deliver to our audience? Why that?
*Which elements would you definitely want us to include or spotlight in our content? Why those?
Why do I ascertain all this information beforehand? To ensure that I’m “on the same page” with my colleagues or leadership – and already striving to satisfy their expectations as precisely as possible. It also communicates at least two strategic messages to the audience’s (in this case, my colleague’s) heart and mind: not only do we care about this topic, but we also care to be as precise as possible.
Moreover, these are core skills in the workplace: listen to instructions, follow, execute, deliver.
Step #2: As I receive this necessary feedback and relevant insight into their vision for the content, we hopefully grow in sync. But I don’t just rely on my memory.
Since their guidance is so important for me, and to remain clear-eyed and laser-focused on my mission, I’d lay out all these relevant details according to my Four-Step Formula. Except now I need to adapt it to the next step.
I take the same formula that I initially modified from Idea-Polishing and recast as Story-Pitching – and apply those insight toward conquering my next challenge: Content-Creation. Here’s that PPT slide:
Step #3: Now, let me shift back to imagining myself in your shoes: I kindly request from the assigning colleague that they please email me any (or all) documents or links to any relevant reports, articles, websites, or other materials. Whatever content sparked and shaped their own creative vision.
I do this for two reasons. First of all, it serves a wise, practical purpose: catapulting me deeper and more effectively into my own hunt for relevant research and contextual background.
How? Imagine the unwise alternative: Start from zero, plough utterly virgin terrain. Why do that, when my assigning colleague may already have some of that necessary research in their hands? We’re all on the same team, after all. Still, we should request it respectfully and appreciatively.
Step #4: Second, this project also presents an opportunity to build my own brand, through the Strategic Communications we produce about our most impactful work experiences and lessons-learned. Let’s always keep an eye-out for a chance to build our brand, as I explain in Chapter Twenty-Seven: Keys to Freelancing.
Here, too, is one such chance. I refresh my own Strategic Communications, and what core messages I want convey to new audiences – or reinforce for audiences already familiar with my work. I then think through, with empathy, their perspective – and to which messages they might be receptive.
Nowadays, I’d settle on a multi-faceted message of confidence, competence, creativity, passion, dependability. I want to consistently transmit this message to all clients or colleagues, above and below. With my follow-up questions, though, the subtle signal is: I share your mission. We’re on the same page.
What are your core messages? Why exactly those? Why might they resonate with the audience?
Step #5: That said, here’s a crucial question for you to consider about the Boss or colleague who assigned this: Once we dive into our element-gathering, and gain a clearer understanding of the topic, is that same colleagues open to us brainstorming further with them?
What if we thought of a way to potentially sharpen the angle of the story or content? Or, do they truly want it exactly the way they described it? (And the implication is clear.)
This matters to our own personal Big Picture. Not just because additional brainstorming may lead us to creating more effective, more persuasive content.
But from a self-interested perspective, if we underlings are encouraged to keep our eyes open and propose more (and better) angles, hooks, messages, arguments, talking-points, and so on, that may enhance our professional reputation as a valuable contributor to the team. Burnish our brand, as well.
On the other hand, as we know, some bosses, supervisors or colleagues can be stubborn, arrogant or overly sensitive about their own ideas, products or services. If they’re not open to well-intentioned brainstorming and enthusiastic polishing – and if I hope to keep this job – we probably ought to just keep our mouths shut and do as we’re told. (Of course, I learned this the hard way. We all do.)
Step #6: Regardless, we now have this task: What do I already know about the topic?
I sift through the dusty archive that is my brain.
*Have I followed this issue or situation before, in general?
*Have I covered it before, specifically?
*Do I know literally nothing about it?
*Is the content intimidating or mystifying to me? (If about science, high-tech, finance, etc.)
I gauge my own level of knowledge, to now become what I call an insta-expert. Meaning, not a real expert on this issue or situation. But I should elevate myself to be at least “expert enough” on a topic – to describe it in my own words, authoritatively, for our smart-but-skeptical foreign audience.
Why’s this important? Simply put, if we’re confused about a topic, then we’ll describe it in a confusing way, too. We’ll have committed the sin of Ineffective Communication. Our boss won’t be pleased, nor will the audience. We always want to avoid confusing our audience – or we’ll lose them.
This has happened so many times with students. They may write something utterly confusing. I tell them to clarify. If the confusion persists, I ask: Do you yourself understand what exactly the situation is? They often admit, sheepishly: Not really. (More on this in Chapter Fifteen: Interviewing Skills.)
I’ll remind them of the minimal standard we should set for ourselves: Never leave an interview if we’re confused about any piece of information. Conversely, only leave when we’re crystal-clear. Don’t be afraid to speak up. Fact-check. Even ask them to (please) repeat themselves, if necessary.
But that’s the interview, which is a step beyond. For now, I’m referring to only the research.
That said, if we’re assigned a story or to create content about a topic we’re sincerely concerned about, because of a mental-block or some other aversion to that topic, then I’d suggest two options.
First, is it possible to get out of this? Or can I “turn a negative into a positive”? For example:
Boss, there are many topics about which I feel confident and comfortable to produce a story/content. But I don’t feel as authoritative in field/industry XXX. Would you please assign me another topic, which I’d produce with greater confidence?
After all, if they appreciate our candor, and care that our quality won’t be top-notch, isn’t one trait that makes a boss good is the ability to identify each team-member’s strengths? (And weaknesses.)
More realistic, perhaps, is the second option. Try what I did, way back when I first established myself in Foreign Correspondence: Pry open our mind, force ourselves from our comfort-zone.
In this case, surf online to our preferred search-engine, to explore whatever tricky issue has triggered our anxiety. Perhaps the topic is political, economic, technological, scientific, artistic, or anything else. We’re smart enough to figure it out for ourselves, to learn on the job.
Step #7: Let’s then pose a broader query as the basic and elementary question. Even if we’re quite familiar with a topic, it’s good to go back to the basics with many of these topics. Why? We should recall that our foreign target-audience is not only smart and curious, but a skeptical non-expert. They demand both credible evidence and relevant context, for them to gradually understand – and trust.
To communicate with them most effectively, we should have our firmest possible grasp on the most important tensions – in order to explain it as clearly and confidently to our audience.
I confronted that challenge every day in 2019, while living in Beijing and working for the China Global Television Network. My Chinese colleagues were routinely challenged by precisely this riddle of how to communicate with the global audience. About China. As effectively as possible. In English.
Here are just a trio of examples, which emerged for me in 2019:
*Why is the Korean Peninsula important in international affairs?
*Why do semiconductors matter to the high-tech industry, around the world
*What does “currency manipulation” mean – and why is it bad for the global economy?
Not only am I continually amazed by how much content is online, but how many people and organizations take the time to reduce complex topics into explanatory, easy-to-comprehend nuggets. By plugging in such questions, we start the demystifying process and becoming passable insta-experts. Ultimately, our goal is to do whatever necessary to feel more confident about our topic.
Step #8: For the research I’m now unearthing, I always create a Word document, where I copy-and-paste all my notes and research: website addresses, relevant links, PDFs. Sometimes, even entire articles and reports. If I’m expending so much time and effort to unearth, I might as well save it fully.
After all, I’m creating my own archive, to which I may return over and over. Indeed, maybe not just for this assignment, but others in the future. In that case, I try to minimize wasted time and effort.
Step #9: We’re now more fluent in our topic, so let’s ponder our audience:
*Why exactly might they find this interesting?
*Why might they even find it important?
*Why should they pay attention? Especially today?
*Why should they care?
*What can they learn from this?
There’s a fine line, though, with the research: Balancing what interests me, versus what might also interest my smart-but-skeptical audience. Reading through content – while still considering them:
*What catches my eye?
*What’s most interesting to ME?
*But why exactly might that thing that interests me also interest THEM?
I’m not only trying to collect the most relevant content, but simultaneously weeding out the more-relevant from less-relevant materials. Some may seem to matter, but doesn’t make the cut.
That’s why it’s so important to have a clear focus about what’s truly relevant to our story or other content. (As I described from the start of this chapter.)
At this stage, though, I generally cast a wide net with my research. I’m not yet identifying what exactly to insert into my content. Nor do I even read it entirely. For now, if I detect any value, I save it.
Step #10: Later, when perusing my gathered research, I highlight in yellow the most relevant facts, details, quotes, sources, etc.
I create a second Word file, in which I sketch a skeletal outline, noting the most relevant, exciting, interesting or necessary points. Including links, plus keywords – to make it all easier to find later, when I need it – to prepare before interviews, or as I organize my notes and write my story.
As I read through, my curious mind wants more. In my notes in Doc #2, I pose follow-up questions that demand further exploration, as research or interview questions: Why this? Why that?
More specifically, I keep my audience in mind:
*Would they want to know more about this? Why?
*Should they learn more about this? Why?
*Do they need to learn more about this? Why?
If the answer to these is yes, I add them to my list of relevant questions. I now have a growing list of relevant research, relevant evidence and relevant questions. (We’ll get to the meat-and-potatoes of interviewing, in Chapter Fourteen: Interviewee Psychology and Chapter Fifteen: Interview Skills.)
If necessary in the future, though – especially if my colleague presses me, later – I’ll be able to justify what material I have, and why I have it. Again, at this level of professional Communications, we must be able to defend each of our decisions in content-creation.
Step #11: By now, our head may be swimming with information about this topic. Perhaps it all seems interesting or necessary for our audience. That may feel overwhelming.
*Where to start?
*What to include or exclude?
*How to organize all this material?
*How to write it up?
For now, don’t worry about those latter questions. In Chapter Sixteen: Writing the Story, I’ll not only explain how to wisely pick and choose the most relevant elements, but how to structure it.
Still, what will calm our nerves is if we occasionally return to, and regularly refresh our memory, of our initial focus. Handed to us by our Boss or colleague, we enshrined it in our Four-Step Formula. Simply put, it’s too easy to lose focus – which, ultimately, will displease our colleague.
Step #12: That said, it’s one thing to envision our core message before we begin the assembly process. At that point, it’s more abstract and theoretical. Sometimes, the process unfolds precisely the way we imagined it would – and perhaps the core message remains intact, from start to finish.
More commonly, though, it requires adjustment and adaptation. As we actually assemble our elements, we may realize something more noteworthy, meaningful or impactful deserves the spotlight.
In this case, not only should we remain flexible – but our colleague should, ideally. Especially if we can make a persuasive case for why we should modify our original focus. Or, switch gears entirely.
At this stage, before we get to comprehensively organizing, winnowing and structuring our material (which we do in Chapter Sixteen: Writing the Story), it makes sense to revise our core message:
*If our audience remembers one key point from our entire content, what should that be?
*Why exactly should they remember that core message?
*Why exactly do we think they might be receptive or responsive to that core message?
From here, the rest should flow with relative ease: from interviewing to storytelling.
Up next ... CHAPTER FOURTEEN: Interviewing Psychology
#journalism #internationaljournalism #globaljournalism#journalists #foreigncorrespondence #foreigncorrespondent #reporting #internationalreporting #globalcommunications
#internationalcommunication #crossculturalcommunication #reporter#reporters #budapest #hungary #lesotho #bratislava #slovakia #unicef#beijing #china #freelancer #freelancers #freelancing #freelancejournalist #bosnia #sarajevo #serbia #croatia #palestinian #palestine #palestinians #palestinerefugees #palestinianrefugees #kosovo #yugoslavia #albania
The Christian Science Monitor Jewish Telegraphic Agency
UNRWA United Nations UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency
Long Island University College of Mount Saint Vincent Transitions Media Hong Kong Baptist University Rutgers University - Newark
Masaryk University Masaryk University Brno Donau University, Krems Universität für Weiterbildung Krems (Donau-Universität Krems)