Some advice on covering tragedies

Marathon explosion scene (Aaron Tang/Wikimedia Commons)

Marathon explosion scene (Aaron Tang/Wikimedia Commons)

The media has had a hard time reporting the search for a suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing since the explosions killed three and injured about 100 Monday. CNN and the Associated Press battled with NBC News on Twitter Wednesday morning, each news site claiming that authorities had either found a suspect or hadn’t. The New York Post reported on Monday that 12 people had been killed, citing a federal law enforcement source. In light of the media’s confusion, the Dart Center re-posted a compilation of advice they solicited from several journalists following the shootings in Tucson in 2012.

Editors, freelancers, broadcasters and international reporters shared different anecdotal lessons from covering various tragedies like the Oklahoma and Madrid bombings. Here are some highlights:

Scott Wallace, freelance journalist: “Above all, forget trying to ‘scoop’ your colleagues on this story.”

Steven Gorelick, professor of media studies at Hunter College: “Be very careful about the experts you select as sources. These kinds of high-profile stories are magnets for everyone from legitimate scholars and practitioners to self-proclaimed ‘profilers.'”

Lena Jakobsseon, TV producer: “Chasing victims’ family members down the street seems like a far more reasonable idea if CNN and MSNBC and FOX and all the nets are doing it, too, and you’re about to get yelled at if you don’t get that video. But you always have at least a few seconds to stop and listen to what your gut is telling you. Ratings come and go. The impact on your integrity, and on the people you’re covering — that stays.”

Read the whole compilation here.

Part 2: Papers must charge for web sites to survive

(Gerry Storch is editor/administrator of, a political discussion/media analysis site that bridges the gap between a blog and a book. He has been a feature writer with the Detroit News and Miami Herald, Accent section editor and newsroom investigative team leader with the News, and business editor and sports editor for Gannett News Service. He holds a B.A. in political science and M.A. in journalism, both from the University of Michigan.)

By Gerry Storch

What a thrill … I score by landing an article on the primo Internet scholarly journalism review, … a bunch of guys write in to tell me how stupid I am … I guess I’ve finally made it!!!

They told me I was stupid because I contended 1) the nation’s newspapers, which are failing, should go all-Net, 2) concentrate on what hopefully they do best, local news, and, most importantly, 3) stop giving it away for free with their web sites and start charging big-time.

What galvanized me into trying an encore was quite the incisive article by Chris Anderson in the Jan. 31-Feb. 1 Weekend Journal section of the Wall Street Journal. He writes about the proliferation of “free” goods and services online … and devastatingly tears apart this so-called business model, saying it’s about to come crashing down.

Since Mr. Anderson didn’t mention much about newspapers, here I am. This whole absurd concept on how information wants to and has to remain “free” needs more airing.

If the typical desk potato blogger ever summons the energy to go do some reading in the local library (doubtful), he will find he is not charged admission at the door. It’s free to go in.

But of course it really isn’t free, is it … we just pay in a different way … through our taxes.

Did I use small enough words?

One of my posters correctly pointed out that Google, which I had poked some fun at as the biggest cheerleader for the “free” concept, backs it up by giving its services away … its search engine et al … to all of us for free. But Google gives some things away for free and charges for others because if it didn’t, it would probably GO OUT OF BUSINESS. Just like newspapers are. Google doesn’t give its stock away for free; in fact, it unblushingly charges what the market will bear. As of this writing, it’s about $338 per share.

The little town I live in has two pretty top-grade art museums. The Naples Museum of Art charges for admission, the von Liebig does not.

The one that charges does what I think newspapers should do: it creates an excellent, unique product … proclaims it proudly … values it highly … and sets a significant, not-cheap price. It’s $12 during tourist season.

The one that doesn’t charge … if it doesn’t have to, fine. But if it started failing financially and had to start charging, would I criticize? I would not. If it has to charge to survive, it has to charge to survive.

Another poster wondered if I had flunked Economics 101 way back when. Let’s put it to the test and activate that course. If a business is struggling and needs to generate more money (put your thinking caps on), it often will (fill in the blanks) r—- its p—–.

That’s right, it will raise its prices. Sure, it might try a discount coupon deal but that’s a desperation move. Most of the time, it will take the quick and dirty route and raise its prices.

Now we come back to Mr. Anderson. What he says about the Internet free-model biz world’s biggest names is an eye-opener.

Facebook? “An amazingly ineffective advertising platform … applications get less than $1 per 1,000 views.”

Using Google ads to finance your web site? “Will not pay you even minimum wage for the time you spend writing it.”

Google itself? “Venture capital has dried up … (it) is killing products rather than buying them.”

Yahoo? “Can barely support itself.”

YouTube? “Still struggling to match its popularity with revenues.”

Digg? “For all its millions of users, still doesn’t make a dime.”

And what of Twitter, said to be the future of newsgathering … at a limit of 140 characters, this would have to be the ultimate dumbing down of intellectual effort …”After taking over the world, or at least the geeky side of it, it now finds itself having to actually make enough money to cover its bandwidth bills. … The revenue officer has his work cut out for him.”

What all these ventures relied on … and it’s hard to say this with a straight face … was accumulating enough of a horde of mooches and freeloaders so you could sell the business to somebody else. But now, in this economic climate, “the exit doors are closed.”

Does Mr. Anderson have any credentials to impress the OJR reading/posting community? Well, he’s editor in chief of Wired Magazine. That good enough?

Did he give me his insights for free? He did not. I paid for them via my subscription to the Wall Street Journal. Had I plucked the issue off the newsstand, it would have set me back a hefty $2.

Mr. Anderson sees a role for “free” but only in conjunction with “paid.” The WSJ is probably the most prominent example as it is experimenting with blending free and paid content on its web site.

To me, the most important word in that sentence is “paid.” Newspaper publishers often fancy themselves as daring and swashbuckling, but in truth they are a tremulous lot. They have been cowed by a vituperative, vociferous band of bloggers into shying away from even considering establishing online subscriptions … so that, of course, these very same bloggers can continue to get something for free.

Meanwhile, the carnage continues … the sad, sad news of more and more journalists losing their jobs, with little if any hope of finding another.

Time to get a backbone … time to say the online version of your newspaper is worth something and that it is to be measured in the real world by paying for it.

But hey, it’s only a suggestion.

Sudden re-appearance

Shocking, but a pleasant surprise to see this reformulated version of OJR. I wondered what happened. The new look looks good.

I also hope people will start checking out my online community journalism resource 92067 Rancho Santa Fe Free Press at

We’re hoping to serve as an example of the site sophistication now achievable with no resources due to the development of hosting resources.

We’re going strong on content but need to diversify, so any submissions from OJR visitors to our site is welcome. E-mail at [email protected]