Taking sourcing advice from a dinosaur

I hold absolute disdain for the “Man on the street” interview that permeates bad news coverage. Even worse are the stories framed around doing nothing but getting “reaction” to some event that took place the day before.

These quotes and stories are low-hanging fruit conceived around the table at the editorial board meeting when no one can think of a better angle. It’s lazy and a waste of valuable journalistic resources.

On this topic, never underestimate the eloquence of a T-Rex.

There are two big reasons why this journalism is so shoddy.

For one, our audience has the ability to think thoughts. They also have the ability to express them to one another. Assuming people can do both of these things without journalists, what are we actually adding?

It’s tripe.

The second problem lies in the difference between facts and opinion. So often when we interview someone off the street, he or she offers some combination of the two. Even more often, the reporter makes little effort to distinguish them from one another, and both make it into the story.

Consider four hypothetical quotes for and against the recently passed health care reform bill.

“This bill will place a bureaucrat between me and my doctor.”

“Health care is a moral obligation the country must take seriously. It’s the responsibility of the government to do what’s right.”

“I shouldn’t have to pay for someone else’s health care, and I don’t like the government forcing me to buy something.”

“We need this bill because it will lower everyone’s insurance premiums, which are really high.”

Which of these statements are opinion and which are just wrong? (Hint: PolitiFact can sort that out)

Regular people on the street shouldn’t be expected to be experts on these stories. That makes it hard to argue that journalists should ask them the “tough questions.” But the problem is that spreading this tripe perpetuates the confusion that has become ingrained in these discussions.

And that’s actually the opposite of our job description.

I’m not making the argument that journalists should limit their sources to experts and suits with nothing but facts and data.

There are plenty of quality sources among “regular people” who have been affected by the issues in real ways. When we make the effort to find them, their input becomes more valuable and gives our audience greater insight. For this purpose, we need anecdotes and emotion because they make the abstract tangible and understandable.

I think News 14 did a good job in this regard following the passage of health care reform. We profiled a small business owner who pays the entire cost of his employees’ premiums for their so-called “Cadillac plan” because he says it’s the right thing to do. He’s against the bill. We also profiled a mother whose son survived cancer at a young age only to live the rest of his life with a pre-existing condition. She’s in favor of the bill.

The piece is far from perfect, but it’s a better approach to the story.

This isn’t the easy road. Forgoing the low-hanging fruit takes research, awareness and time. It also takes the courage to argue against the edit board’s insistence on getting the “reaction piece” by trumping it with more a powerful story.

Journalism like this is always worth the time and the effort.

And besides, we owe it to the man on the street.