Nine Steps From Idea To Story 5

Nine Steps from Idea to Story
Finding, Structuring, Investigating, Writing and Presenting Original Stories

By Luuk Sengers and Mark Lee Hunter
This manual is an addition to: Mark Lee Hunter, Luuk Sengers and others: Story-Based Inquiry: A Manual for Investigative Journalists, UNESCO 2009. Free to download at: http://www.luuksengers.nl/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/StorybasedInquiry.pdf
Nine Steps from Idea to Story | 2011 Story-Based Inquiry Associates | Page. 1 of 43
Step 1: Start a MASTERFILE The core technique of the Story-Based Inquiry method is to write a script; a so called Masterfile. This helps structuring the story and the investigation. Building a Masterfile, you are investigating and writing the story at the same time! You write while you investigate. Thats why we call this method storybased inquiry. It differs from the common practice among journalists to do the research first and then write. Open a fresh Word-document and call it Masterfile. Use this file, from now on, for: Your strategy What exactly are you going to investigate? How do you want your final story to look like? What sources do you need? The Masterfile invites you to think carefully about the story you want to tell, before you start an (timecostly) investigation. You investigate your own thoughts, experiences and motivations before you turn to others. The results Collect the fruits of your investigation in the same document. This way your script turns gradually into a story. Two basic techniques We combine two basic techniques for the Masterfile: 1. Brainstorming. It encourages you to do what journalists do best: asking questions. At the heart of every step in the Masterfile is a set of questions aimed at yourself. 2. Visualising. The research is from the very start aimed at the best possible outcome the story with the most impact on your audience. We call this goal the hypothesis. From this story idea you work your way backwards to scenes (smaller parts of the story) and finally to sources. The method results in lively scenes rather than just boring facts. The emphasis is on showing what happened, rather than telling it. This, too, is a form of visualisation. In short: you will ask questions first (= brainstorming) and then try to imagine the answers (= visualisation).
Story architecture You dont just write a story you build it! Its with stories like with buildings: the ones that last, are the ones that were constructed carefully with good materials. Consider yourself an architect. Involve yourself in the choices for every nut and bold that is supposed to hold the building together. Desect the story (like a building) into the smallest parts. And describe the parts in the Masterfile, like it were a building plan. Advantages Building a Masterfile has many advantages, as it has turned out in the practise of newsrooms: - - - - It provides a common (objective) idiom in which to talk about stories and story ideas; All reporters working on the same story are focussed on the same goal, and produce their results in the same document; Eventual flaws in the story can be detected long before the deadline looms; Producing the final story from the Masterfile is easy, because the structure and the content are already there.
Step 2: Choose a SUBJECT What is a good subject for a story? From studying successful investigative stories from all over the world, we conclude that most reporters had their audience in their mind when they picked a subject. They asked themselves: What has recently changed or is changing right now (for better or for worse) in the daily lives of my readers, viewers or listeners? What tough decissions do they have to make, as professionals, consumers, voters, citizens or parents? What dangers are looming for their safety, security or health? What leaders or authorities should they not trust (any longer)? What changes do they actively strive for? What are their (idealistic) goals? We consider journalism not a product but a service. Reporters can help their readers, viewers or listeners to organize their lives: to cope with unexpected changes, to make clever choices, to avoid bad leaders, to prepare for dangers and to jump on challenges. Changes and daily life are the keys to the hearts of your audience. Because: 1) Journalism is about change: no change no news. 2) People pay more attention to information when they are confronted with (unexpected) changes. And 3) Apart from just reporting changes, journalists every now and then want to provoke changes too. Daily life may seem dull, but it becomes the center of attention when change makes an appearance. Most of us are entangled in a daily routine of eating, commuting, working or studying, shopping, housekeeping, raising children, staying healthy, entertaining, socializing and beeing responsable citizens. When these routines are disturbed, we pay close attention. For example: We all drink and use water every day, without thinking twice. But when tapwater turns out to be contaminated, we suddenly want to learn all about it.
Step 3: Choose a STORY There are many stories to tell about every subject. Before you choose your story, why not first make an inventory of the possibilities? Make a list of questions as many as you can think of regarding the subject. Empty your head! Brainstorm! What wonders me is After this first round of brainstorming, you can do a second round, but this time more structured (to be more thorough). Try to formulate as many questions as possible starting with: Who? What? Where? When? How? Why? And get ready for a third round: here are some additional questions, for those who are looking for a scoop or an original angle: Is there a conflict? At the heart of investigative stories is often a conflict something that is not quite right. Things dont go as planned or expected. Somebody acts against the law or against rules, agreements, good faith, good manner, good taste Or just against expectations. An other way to look at it, is that there are two types of conflicts, both interesting for investigative reporters: - - People are bad because they dont obey the rules; The rules are bad and therefore people cant obey them
Here is a list of some (very common) conflicts to look out for when thinking about a subject: - Danger - Threat - Mistake - Negligence - Defect - Lie - Unreasonable argument - Mispending - Fraude - Inefficiency - Force - Abuse (of power) - Monopoly - Conflict of interest - Hate, discrimination - Offence, illegal act - Restriction of freedom (to choose) - Poverty - Pollution, poisoning Apart from reading newspapers and talking to people involved in the subject, there is an other way of spotting conflicts one that may lead to conflicts no-one else has seen, yet: Do a little investigation of your subject in news databases and on the Internet. Book the results in three separate lists: one called Plans, for laws, rules, agreements, contracts etc., one called Reality for accounts of what really happened, and one called Evaluations, for criticism, comments, complaints, verdicts etc. Put the events in the lists in chronological order, from past to present. Now compare the events in the list Plans with those in the list Reality and ask yourself: did everything go as planned? If not, are the conflicts that you have discovered, the same as in the third list, Evaluations? Or did you spot new ones, that were not already mentioned in the press? Does anyone suffer? If there is a form of conflict that is especially hard to resist for investigative reporters, then that is: pointless suffering. We strongly believe that nobody should suffer at the hands of a fellow human being.
What is going right (in stead of wrong)? In a world were everybody is quick to point out what is going wrong, you can try to capture the audience with a story about what is going right. What does function flawless, against the ods? Who presents an excellent example of how to avoid the pitfalls and do things right? Focus on best practices. Show what their secret is. Confront those who make a mess and ask them: why dont you take an example? What is the solution? Make it your responsibility to look into solutions, like you look into problems. Too many journalists focus solely on missery, without presenting their audience a way out of the mess. Dont be a bad neighbour that throws his garbage over the hedge. You live in this world too! We believe that we journalists have an obligation to contribute to solutions whenever we can. Its a question of good citizenship. Show your audience you care! When looking for good examples or solutions, look over borders. What happens elsewhere? In an other town, another country, an other company? (Contrary to what is often believed, a journalist does not have to give up his neutrality or objectivity when he pays attention to solutions. You can investigate solutions, like you investigate problems with an open but sharp mind.) Why not? That brings us to another possible angle for investigative stories: the question Why not? Start a story not with the problem, but with possible solutions and ask everybody involved what is holding them back? It is a common mistake to think that, since there are so many problems in the world, this means that there are obviously not enough solutions. Wrong! A lot of problems are kept alive, not because of a lack of solutions, but because of a lack of motivation to do something about them! There is people out there that has no interest in certain solutions and therefore obstruct them. Confront the obstructionists!
After you have created a long list of important questions regarding your subject, it is now time to make a difficult choice: What is the most important question in the list? Yes, you can only pick one question, since your story can have only one central theme. This doesnt mean that you should leave the other questions unanswered in your story, just that they are not the key questions. When thinking about the most important question, consider: What would I like to know about the subject? Dont embark on a story that does not interest you. On the other hand: if you are motivated to get an answer, it will be hard for anyone to stop you! What does my audience want to know about the subject? Dont ask yourself this question only to be able to sell the story later on. Do it also in order to convince your audience! People will buy your story if it doesnt raise important questions in their mind. So, try to prepare for the questions that they may come up with. We learned this piece of wisdom from sales experts. What question is most urgent? Its not always you, or your audience that decides what is important. News has its own agenda and we are still journalists after all. So, ask yourself also: Whats in the news right now? Or better: what has not been in the news about recent events? What question is easiest to anwer? If you consider writing multiple stories about the subject (and why wouldnt you!), its good advise to acquire some knowledge about the subject by producing an easy story first before hitting the tougher ones. The availability of sources also plays a role: if you need documents with a FOIrequest for one story, for instance, than allow more time.
Step 4: Formulate an HYPOTHESIS In stead of turning immediately to sources for an answer, you can try to answer the most important question yourself. Take the key question, and answer it: What do I think that happened? The possible answer is an hypothesis. Scientists work with hypotheses and detectives too so why not investigating journalists?! Most journalists already use hypotheses in their work, without realising it. Did you ever start an investigation without an expectation about the outcome? Did you not hope, a tiny little bit, that you would be able to proof this or that? That hope is called hypothesis. Proving an hypothesis is simpler if it contains concrete ingredients, like people, places, objects and actions. Things you can point to, things that leave marks. For concrete ingredients answer these questions: Who does what exactly? Formulate your hypothesis (answer) as: A person takes a certain action or Somebody does someting. This raises new questions: Who is the actor? Most stories are home to several actors people contributing to the problem. This is a tough decission: which actor are you going to promote to main character in the story? Who are you going to hold responsible above everyone else? As a rule your audience will love a character that it can identify with (someone from their social group or status), but they also consume stories about people they can hardly identify with like chocolate ice cream on a hot summer day. Think of stories about celebs. Sometimes it is more exciting to learn about the lifes of people we dont socialize with. This is also the place to decide whether you take the perspective of the victim or of the perpetrator. Again: this does not mean that the other characters must be left out from the story. They just get a role that is less important. Finally: be sure to take a person who is active, not passive. Dont state, for example: Human beings get seriously ill after drinking water from plastic pipes. It is too passive: the main characters dont do anything. Getting ill just happens to them. An active alternative would be: Pipe manufacturers add chemicals to their
plastic water pipes that make people seriously ill. (See the example of the plastic water pipe investigation that starts on page 22.) What does he do exactly? Again: choose carefully. Weight your options there are typically many verbs to decribe one and the same action. Which verb is most accurate, you think? Describe the action in the hypotheses like a direction for actors as if it has to be acted out on a theatre stage. Make the action visible. Ask yourself: what can be seen of this action? Be that concrete! Keep away from opinions. Dont say, for instance, He is a crook, but write in detail (if your fantasy allows) how he stole the money. Decribe the process. Equaly keep away from negatives. Dont state what he does not do since things that dont happen are usually hard to proof. (See example on page 25) Where does he do it and when? These are not the most important details in an hypothesis. But if you are able to imagine where the actions took place and when, it will help you a great deal finding sources. Why does he do it? This is the toughest one. It is impossible to prove a motive, since it excist only in the head of the actor. Sometimes the perps dont know themselves why they did what they did. Maybe its best left to your readers, viewers or listeners to decide what the motive must have been. So dont kill your hypothesis just because you cant think of a motive.
The easy way Formulate your hypothesis as: Somebody does something, with something, at a certain place, at a certain time
Multiple answers There are, of course, multiple answers possible to the key question. Make a list of plausible answers. And then make a choice:
What answer would deliver the biggest scoop? We call this the maximum hypothesis. This is the story that you will investigate, in the hope that you will find sufficient proof to publish or broadcast it. Which answers are interesting enough to publish or broadcast? These are minimum hypotheses. If the maximum answer can not be proven or proofs to be false, see if you can proof these, less thrilling stories in stead. Can you not, than cancel the investigation. Dont loose any more time. The minimum stories are the bottom of what you are prepared to go for. Which answers are not satifying enough to justify an investigation? Dont investigate possible answers that no-one gives a toss about. Advantages There are two serious pitfalls in working with hypotheses, but many advantages. Advantage 1: Concentrating on a goal, enhances your chances of success (the power of visualization). Advantage 2: Coming up with your own possible answer, makes you less vulnerable for sources who say that they have all the answers. Advantage 3: Comparing one answer with another is a good way to find the truth. Advantage 4: Agreeing on an hypothesis is a necessary step for an harmonious co-operation. Advantage 5: Some sources are less reluctant to deny or confirm a theory, than to be the first or the only one to break the news. Pitfalls Danger 1: Working with an hypothesis can lead to tunnel vision; while you are chasing a rare butterfly, you may miss the last Siberian tiger. Danger 2: It can corrupt you; you would not be the first to hide facts that dont corroborate your hypothesis. Being aware of these pitfalls and scrutinizing your own work is a way to avoid these dangers. The hypothesis is a work instrument. You must be prepared to alter it if the facts proof your theory wrong! But in our experience, hypotheses are seldom completely wrong. Often there is at least some truth in it. This is not entirely surprising, since an hypothesis is often the result of an personal experience, a tip-off, a statement by somebody or a strong suspicion.
News article If formulating an hypothesis gives you trouble, try writing a short news story in stead. Since we are trained as journalists, we know all too well how to write a news report. It contains the answers to the same questions: who, what, where, when, how and why? So, write a news report as how it would look like, on page one of your newspaper, if you had been able to proof your story. Summary If at this point some-one (editor?) asks you what you are doing or planning to do, you are able to present your plan as a story. Thanks to the hypothesis. Editors like that. Never sell them ideas, sell them stories! You can prepare for this moment by writing a summary of your story. Intriguing, like the text on the back cover of a book (like if your story was ready and presented in a book). Ever contemplated the fates of these people who write back covers? You think: How hard can it be? Well, try it! Hook the potential buyer; make him throw his money at you. Use your imagination and fantasy. Whether your potential story sounds convincing or not, depends on your ability to give plausible answers to the questions an editor may ask, like: What is the news? What do you suspect that is happening? What is the story about? (This is summarized in your hypothesis.) Why is it important and for whom? Who is affected and how? How can they use your story to their benefit? Why is it urgent? What is the immidiate reason or cause to dig into this subject? What is your motive? What do you want to achieve change? Become aware of your motives. Revenge is ill-advised. Convince the buyer of your nobel intentions. There is, by the way, a second good reason for writing a summary at this stage: if you are not able to write an intriguing introduction to your story, than its probably not a good subject. If anything is not quite right about this idea for a story, it better come out now!
Step 5: Choose a STRUCTURE Now that you have created a hypothesis, the next step in the investigation is to proof it. How can you show that your hypothesis is true? Presenting evidence or clues in a structured manner is what an investigative story is about. A story is also a sequence of events. So what you are looking for, is events that proof your hypothesis. We call them evidential events. You have now reached a crucial point in your investigation. Apparently, the events you are looking for not only determine the credibility of your story, but also its structure. So, you have to pick them carefully. How do you find these evidential events? The secret is: they lay hiding in your hypothesis! Look at your hypothesis: it describes an event, right? But look closely again: does it indeed describe just one single event, or merely a whole series of events? A chance of nine out of ten that the event in your hypothesis is the result or the summary of several events. Put it to the test. Look at the event in your hypothesis and try to answer these questions: Could this event only happen because of previous events? Did this event have important consequences? Did the same event happen at different places? Did the same event happen in different ways? If the answer to one of these question is yes, this means that your hypothesis has a relation to other events that it has context. And these events happened previously, consequently or elsewhere. In other words: the hypothesis can be expanded in time or in space. As an investigative reporter you have probably often tried to explain a problem by showing how one event led to another. You showed a process; a sequence of events in time. But at other times it was not the background of the problem that grapped your attention, but the scale of it. You wanted to warn for the spread of the problem by showing examples from different places.
Chronology or Odyssey? There are two dominant structures in storytelling: the chronology and the Odyssey. If the sequence of the events is important, then the chronology is your structure of choice. The characters in the story are followed through (a period of) time. One event leads (sometimes in a chain of cause and effect) to the next. But if you want your story to wander from place to place, careless of time and sequence, you deal with an Odyssey. Instead of going from moment to moment, like in the chronology, you now go from place to place, like in a journey. The classic Greek poet Homer is said to be the inventor of both structures: The Iliad believed to be his creation is a chronology, describing the last days of the Trojan War; his other masterpiece, The Odyssey, recounts the ten-year journey home of one of the heros of the Trojan War, Odysseus.
So, for the evidential events you can look in time or in space. Look in time (create a chronology) when you are dealing with: a history, a process, a search or an investigation Look for the events that happened before the event in your hypothesis and after. You could even look into the future and ask: What should happen next? how can the problem (described in the hypothesis) be solved? Stories that are typically told chronologically are: - - - - - biographies (describing some-ones life) portraits or interviews (describing some-ones experiences) reconstructions (explaining how something could happen) processes (explaining how something works) investigations (describing discovery after discovery)
Look in space (compose an odyssey) when you are dealing with: a journey A character travels from one place to another. This is a classic odyssey. The character is heavily influenced by the places he visits. They are special to him or they determine his faith. The story is mainly about how the character adapts to his surroundings. an expanding problem The classic odyssey has many variations. Like this one. A problem is spreading and you want to show this by pointing to different places where
it has already left its marks. Like a warning. Your audience will especially get the sense that it is traveling when you take it for examples to other cities and other countries. a problem with different faces Also an Odyssey. If a problem has different faces, show one after the other. Use this structure when a problem leaves its marks on different aspects of life. For instance: the spread of fastfood has an impact on public health, the economy, agriculture, education etc. It is also useful when you deal with clues rather than hard evidence. Present the clues (for the existence of a problem) in the order of their importance. Beware: if you reject time as an obvious link between the events, you are obliged to find another strong glue. Link the events by the same cast of characters and/or by a common theme. a dispute or debate Another Odyssey. When the versions of the truth differ too much, you can choose to tell the story from different viewpoints, through the eyes of different actors. Or: When the subject of the story is a debate, you can go from one person to the next and let them give their opinions. (Dont forget to describe the experiences in the persons life that led to that opinion!) parallel stories This is an interesting in-between structure. A parallel tells different chronological stories that happen simultaniously. Typically the stories of people that at some point get involved in the same event. Like people crossing eachothers paths. This is another helpful structure for investigative journalists, since they often deal with a myriad of characters affecting eachother. Try to reduce the amount of characters to two or three, however, to minimize confusion. For instance to a perpetrator, a victim and a witness. Its your choice Almost every story can be told as a chronology. That does not mean, however, that the chronology is always the best option. A chronology puts the emphasis of the story on time and processes. It is an excellent structure for explaining how something happened. But how? is not always the key question. Sometimes we are more interested in: who, or
where, or what Especially when we want to show the scale of a problem, rather than its roots. If you tried to create a chronology and found that the events happening before and after the event described in your hypothesis are irrelevant or ridicul, then try an odyssey. Dont expand your story in time, but in space. See if you can make a journey along places, characters or shapes. Its up to you whether you tell your story as a chronology or as an odyssey. Take into account, however, that fairly every story can be told chronologically, but that it is the odyssey that gets the most attention, because it is different. So, if you see the slightest chance to tell your story in the form of an odyssey: do it.
The easy way Expand your hypothesis by adding the words: after, because, next, and, but, while and elsewhere Look at this example, extrapolated from a scene in Michael Moores excellent docu-film Sicko. The message in this particular scene is: health insurance companies sometimes deny their clients the care they need. And this is how Moore expanded this message in his film: An health insurance company refuses to pay for a life-saving operation, after a man in his thirties was diagnosed with cancer, because it strives to maxi- mize profit. Next the man dies and his wife accuses the insurance company, but the company denies responsibility. Sicko shows more than one example. So, while the scenes are build-up chronologically, the film itself is rather an odyssey: One man dies because his health insurance company refuses to pay for his life-saving treatment, while elsewhere a women does not get compensated for her medical costst because she had forgotten to mention a minor, unim- portant treatment on her application form.
Script Once you start investigating, you will come across more and other events. And you will conclude that some events that you anticipated, just never took place. Its best to consider your list of possible events to be a script or scenario. Let it be your guide. Let it help you to look out for specific details during interviews and visits. But dont let it make you blind. Prepare for the unexpected. Just alter the script.
Step 6: Describe SCENES Structuring your story has helped you identifying the evidential events related to your hypothesis. Its now time to turn these events into meaningful scenes. A typical story is told in scenes. Scenes are building blocks: they make it easier to produce the story and easier to investigate it. That is why we deal with scenes so early in the investigation, and not wait till you are actually on the brink of writing. The true meaning of scene is: a sequence of actions, written momentby-moment, leading to a climax. That means that if you have found the climaxes, you also know where the scenes are. So, what is a climax? Climax means ladder in Greek, and applies to peaks in a story moments when the main character does or decides something that determines the direction of the story. important moments. Now look at the evidential events in your story-structure: are they important moments? They certainly are! So here you have it: you have got all the climaxes already here before you: every event is a climax! You have got the story carved out for you. The only thing that remains for you to do is: describing the scenes behind these climaxes.
Storytelling It may seem an small step for a reporter, but it was a huge step for journalism once: acknowledging that big news is often the result of smaller actions (scenes) and can therefore be told as a story. Although there has always been a great deal of storytelling in investigative journalism even at the dawn of the profession, around 1900 it took half a century for investigative reporters to finally unchain themselves from the dogma that news stories should tell the facts and nothing but the facts. A (noisy) breakthrough was forced by reporters like Tom Wolfe, Truman Capote, Gay Talese and Hunter S. Thompson in the sixties of the previous century. Their movement became known as New Journalism. To be followed in the nineties by a new generation of narrative reporters, warmheartedly refered to as New new journalism. Arguably we now witness a third wave (New new new journalism?), as a result of the fact that more and more newspapers take refuge in background stories (leaving much of the news to the Internet.) Actually, in our story-based inquiry method we take the very same approach as fiction writers. A novelist starts with a plot (only we call it an hypothesis) and retraces his steps from there, identifying climaxes and scenes. Many fiction writer even go as far as coloring their script with actual research!
In a scene, the climax comes at the end of a sequence of actions. Now it is up to you whether you want to describe these actions in your story or not. In other words: are you just going to tell what happened (the climaxes), or are you going to show how it happened? Too often investigative pieces are presented as enumerations of facts (read: summaries). Dull. We prefer instead descriptions of scenes. Because images have a greater impact on the audience. They last longer than just facts. This does not mean, however, that you must describe all the events. Some are rather uninteresting, because they are predictable or futile. You are probably perfectly happy to dig up a person or document that states that the event took place, so that you can summarize it in your story. But at other times, you feel that there is more in an event: interesting characters, high stakes, a conflict And you would like to describe it minute-byminute, movement-by-movement, to capture the suspence. Whether you can decribe a scene, also depends on the availability of details. Descriptions are made of details. The description of a scene must be so detailed, in fact, that it can be put on a theatre stage and acted out. Like a clear instruction for actors. Descriptions are also called images, because a good description projects an image in the mind of the reader. You can decribe: people, objects, locations, fysical actions and dialogues. (What you cant decribe are: figures and other data they can only be summarized). Hunting for details is called reporting for story (as opposed to reporting for facts). Since details can only be obtained from visits, reconstructions or reports, answer these questions: Can I experience the event myself? Can I be present during the event? Are there witnesses that could give me details (in interviews)? Are the events already described in documents (reports, news stories, diaries)? If you cant describe: summarize! Simply summarize the events that dont present enough details for a narrative and save your column space for the more colourful scenes.
Scene elements Pick out the events (climaxes) that you would like to emphasize. And decide which of the following scene elements you can describe or will have to summarize: Character Who is your main character (also called protagonist)? Describe his features; summarize his history (upbringing, carreer, lifes events). Note that you too can be a character in the story. You can choose to tell one or more scenes from your point of view: what did you experience? Why not show the audience the adventures of an investigator? There is no reason to hide the fact that our job can get quite interesting from time to time. Setting Where and when do the events take place? Describe where on earth (culture), in what surroundings (location)? At what time of day (hour) or of the year (season)? Maybe a word about the weather (people tend to remember the weather!) Objects What objects, like instruments, products or objects of nature or culture play a role in the event? Describe them. Previous events What must the audience know about previous events in order to understand what is going on? Summarize the actions that led up to this scene. (This kind of background is called exposition). Goal Why is the main character doing this? What is his goal? What does he hope to achieve? The goal often exposes itself in the actions of the character. For example: a person packing a suitcase has obviously plans to travel. By the way: a goal is not the same as a motive. The goal is what the character wants to achieve and the motive is why he wants it. If you talk about the characters goal, you can also point out his motives to target that goal. Action
What does the main character do exactly? Describe the action, moment-bymoment. Conflict or surprise Does the main character encounter a problem or (possitive) surprise? See if you can give the scene a twist: all seems to go well, when the unexpected happens a so-called conflict. The conflict is a pleasant or unpleasant surprise. The actor has to overcome this obstacle (struggle), in order to reach his goal. All this makes a scene more suspenseful than an ordinary event. A novelist has an advantage here: he makes the scenes up! But a nonfiction writer has to deal with the facts. And in real life, not every event contains a conflict. Some things just go along without barriers and saboteurs. So lets say this up front: you will not be able to introduce a conflict in every scene. (Its a small price we pay for dealing with real people and real situations.) That said, is it often fairly simple to find a conflict. Answer these questions: Did the character reach his goal? If not or not entirely then why not? What kept him from it? Did the character meet opposition? Opposition, resistance, exclusion, sabotage It can come from an other character (called antagonist) or from a social group, like family, colleagues, friends, neighbours, competitors Look for critisism, objections, lies, deceptions, accusations, prosecution etc. Did the character have to overcome a natural or fysical obstacle? Floods, fires and earth-quackes jump to mind. But the fysical obstacles most of us have to deal with regularly have nothing to do with mother nature: lack of money, lack of fysical ability, lack of skills, lack of resources... We can be hit by illness or accident, loss and theft. Also quite common: a sudden change in the contract or in legislation. Did the character struggle mentally? Was he maybe not quite sure about his goal or his actions? Was he affraid of the consequences? Did the character push his luck? Did he know he played with fire; that the outcome of his actions could be bad or disastrous (for him or for others)? People who have to take big decisions, invest a lot of money or dedicate a lot for a goal (politicians, CEOs, scientists), sometimes also take great risks.
Did the character have a stroke of luck? It is also possible to be hit by a positive disturbance. Finally pregnant! An unexpected prize or award! Promotion! A coincidental meeting! Love! The lottery! The true storyteller sees every event as the result of a struggle. But imagining the conflicts, is just the first step. You need to focus on possible conflicts throughout the whole investigation. In every interview: ask if there were unexpected disturbences. In every document: read between the lines. Get a conflict-state-of-mind, like every good narrator!
The easy way See if you can add the word but to the event. Like in this scene from Sicko: A man with cancer receives the good news that his brother is a perfect match for a bone marrow transplant, but his health insure company refuses to pay for the expensive operation.
Decission What does the main character decide? What does he think his options are? Summarize his strain of thought; show him seeking advise. Struggle How does the main character react? How does he cope with the conflict? How does he still try to reach his goal? Describe his actions. These actions are automatically exciting, because the reader, viewer or listener knows, in this stage of the scene, how important it is for the character to succeed, but he does not know the outcome. Climax Does the main character reach his goal or not? Awaits him victory or defeat? Describe the decissive action. Every climax is a turning point in the story, after which a new direction, and new uncertainty awaits the audience. Resolution How does the main character look back on the events? Was it all worth it? What has he learned? What would he do next time? Summarize his opinion.
Keep an eye out for emotions: especially the goal, the struggle and the resolution are full of emotions. And true emotions are the second ingredient, after images, that helps convincing your audience. And remember that the scene structure above is an ideal situation. As a non-fiction writer you will not always be able to adjust reality to it. Just try to find and describe as many of these elements as you can, and no-one will hold it against you that the scenes arent perfect. On the contrary: they will be grateful for every piece of masterful narrative you treat them to! Example: Dangerous drinking water
Rule 1: Formulate your hypothesis as an answer to the question: What is happening? Our investigation* started with an article in a journal for chemical scientists. Researchers at the Technical University of Copenhagen had a test done with plastic pipes for drinking water. They had filled the tubes with water and left them for a couple of days in their laboratory. Then they had run the water through a so-called gas chromatograph and mass spectrometer, to see if maybe chemicals from the plastic tubes had leaked into the water. To their surprise they found not just one or two, but more than twenty chemicals from the plastic in the water. Two they could immediately identify: phenols and plasticizers. The other substances were unfamiliar. Whether they constitute a danger to health, the researchers could not say. But they knew one thing for sure: neither of the chemicals belongs in drinking water. We thought it a useful exercise, said the initiator of the study, Erik Arvin, when we visited him in his laboratory. Whenever a new material is applied, problems occur. So we wondered whether the chemicals in the plastic could leak into drinking water. When we returned from Copenhagen, one question echoed in our heads: Are the plastic pipes in our kitchens and bathrooms killing us? Rule 2: Choose an active protagonist Our first thought was: Plastic water pipes are lethal. We dismissed this hypothesis, however, because it does not contain an human actor: plastic pipes are no human beings, and we should always try, in our opinion, to re- late problems to real people. A second idea was: Human beings get seriously ill after drinking water from plastic pipes. We dismissed this too. It is too passive: main characters dont do anything, do they? Getting ill just happens to them. Looking for a more active protagonist, we came to this hypothesis: Pipe manufacturers
add chemicals to their plastic water pipes that cause serious illnesses in human beings. Rule 3: Expand your hypothesis with the answers to the questions: who, what, where, when, how and why After re-reading the scientific article with which our investigation began, we were able to fill in more details: Pipe manufacturers add plasticizers and phenols to their polyethylene pipes that cause serious illnesses in human beings. Although we could be very precize about the kind of chemicals (plasticizers and phenols) and the kind of plastic (polyethylene), we could, in this early stadium, only be very vague about the illnesses. The scientists who had dicovered the substances, were not sure about the potential harm. In fact it took us the biggest part of our investigation to find out what the un- believable effects of these chemicals were. Rule 4: Expand your hypothesis to related events So we settled for the time being for this hypothesis: Pipe manufacturers add plasticizers and phenols to their polyethylene pipes that make people seriously ill. Our next job was to cut this into a series of evidential events. Looking closely at our hypothesis, we discovered that it was the expression of a process. And we had already identified two steps in that process: Pipe manufacturers add plasticizers and phenols to their polyethylene pipes. Next these chemicals cause serious illnesses in human beings. Could there be more steps? After some logical thinking, we reached this chronology of events: 1. Pipe manufacturers add plasticizers and phenols to their polyethylene pipes. 2. Next installers and do-it-yourselfers use polyethylene pipes in homes and offices on a large scale. 3. Next health autorities dont test drinking water for phenols and plasticizers. 4. Next the phenols and plasticizers leak from the pipes into the water. 5. Next the phenols and plasticizers cause serious illnesses in human beings. While we were doing our research, the European Parliament prepared a new directive (= law) for dangerous substances. Leading scientists from
around the world, who worried about the health risks of phenols in plastic, lobbied in Brussels to put phenols on a black list. A prohibition on the use of phenols in consumer products was in their opinion the only solution. Thats how we came up with this, final, step in the process: 6. Next scientists put pressure on European parliamentarians to ban the use of phenols and plasticizers in consumer products. These six steps could, we thought, be very close to what actually happened. They formed perfect climaxes for our story. All we had to do now, was to prove and describe them. Rule 5: Formulate the events as stage or film directions The problem with steps 4 and 5 is that we can not see them. And what you can not see, is often hard to prove. One step takes place in a closed pipe, the other in a human body. Moreover, these are microscopic substances and not visible to the naked eye. Therefore we tried to formulate these hypotheses as if they had to be acted out before a camera or an audience. This trick is not only useful for TV and radio journalists who need images and sounds. Even we, as print journalists, knew that a story with visible actions is much stonger than one with invisible abstractions. But the main reason for choosing visible actions is that they are easier to prove! We replaced hypothesis 4 by: Scientists discover phenols and plasticizers in drinking water after they had left it for several days at room temperature in polyethylene pipes. Just by swapping matter (phenols and plasticizers) for people (scientists), we have solved the problem. Changing the fifth hypothesis (effects on health) into something visible was more difficult. From a journalists point of view (but not from a human point of view!) the following hypothesis had been wonderful: People drop dead after drinking water from polyethylene pipes. But there is (fortunately!) no evidence for that. Getting ill from chemicals is a much slower process, apparently. Were the effects of plasticizers and phenols on human health ever tested? we wondered. In a controlled environment that excludes other in- fluences? If ever such tests were done, then they were obviously done not on people, but on animals. That brought us to the following hypothesis: Scientists discover cancer in mice after they had administered them phenols and plasticizers.
That cancer could be an effect, was just a guess on our part, based on experience. And then something wonderful happened: just because we filled in all the words plastic, phenol, research, mice and cancer in in Goo- gle, we found a treatise on scientists who, totally by coincidence, had found in their laboratory a link between plastic and cancer. And in a very bizarre way. Cell-biologist Ana Soto told us later in an interview: I was with two colleagues engaged in a study on the impact of estrogen female hormones on the development of breast cancer. We knew that the cancer cells began to proliferate in test tubes when they were brought into contact with estrogen. But to our surprise exactly the same happened in the control tubes, to which were added no estrogen. Incomprehensible! Like Sherlock Holmes we went looking for the perpetrator, Soto recalls. Meticulously, we studied all testing phases and checked all equipment. Only after months of investigating, we discovered the cause: The estrogens originated from the plastic of the test tubes! The plastic contained nonyl- phenols that appeared to mimic female hormones. Soto would in the following years develop into the worlds leading re- searcher in the field of cancer and phenols. Because we had created an internet alert for the keywords plastic, phenol, plasticizers, research, mice and cancer, we were automatically notified of new articles on the web. So a few months later we were alarmed about another U.S. study. Mothers with a high concentration of plasticizers in their urine during pregnancy, gave remarkably often birth to boys with stunted penises and other genital abnormalities, making it difficult for them in later life to have children. For the first time a direct link was established between hormone disrupt- ing substances and reproductivity problems in humans. And we were able to concretize our last hypothesis: Phenols cause cancer and infertility in human beings. Rule 6: Do not tell what is not happening Is drinking water not monitored, you may ask? We too wanted to know. Ac- cording to the government, public drinking water is one of the most scruti- nized food products. How, then, can such hazardous substances appear in water intended for consumption? This is what we thought might be the reason: Health autorities dont test drinking water for phenols and plasticizers. There is a problem with that statement: its a negative. It tells us what does not happen! How could we prove something that does not happen? What is not there, can not be shown. There is a number of ways to solve this problem: 1. Turn the argument around and show what the protagonist does do. For example: Health autorities test drinking water for other chemicals than phenols and plasticizers. Or: Health autorities test drinking water on the ba- sis of a list of substances that does not contain phenols and plasticizers.
2. Let the protagonist prove that he does do something. Like in one of these two ways: Health autorities say they do not check drinking water for phenols and plasticizers, because the process is expensive. Or: Health autorities note in their guidelines that drinking water does not have to be checked for phenols and plasticizers. 3. Let others prove that something does not happen. For example: Experts say that health autorities monitor drinking water with equipment that is not suitable for detecting phenols and plasticizers. Rule 7: Turn the events into scenes by entering an obstacle, a but. Its fun trying to turn an dull event into a lively scene. In a scene the protagonist does not just go about he encounters an obstacle. He faces resistance that he must overcome to be successful. There were potentially strong scenes in our events. Look what happened when we formulated them slightly different (and note the use of the word but...): Erik Arvin pours water into polyethylene pipes. He then puts the pipes in a laboratory room and turns the thermostat to 23 degrees. After seven days he measures the chemicals in the water with a special device. He sees in the results mainly phenols and plasticizers. But there are other substances he does not recognize and he cannot rule out with certainty that these are harmful for humans after consumption. Ana Soto expects the cancer cells in the control tubes without estrogen not to grow, but they do. Sixty prominent scientists, including Ana Soto, published a manifesto in which they call the European Parliament to ban the use of phenols and plasticizers in consumer products. But ultimately, the European Parliament allows the use of phenols anyway. Rule 8: Adapt your hypothesis to the facts - and not the other way around! We discovered in our research that it is not entirely the fault of the pipe manufacturers that phenols seep into the drinking water. They did not put the phenols in the pipes! The phenols turned out to be the result of a chemical reaction of other substances in the pipes with air and water. This meant a considerable weakening of our first hypothesis regarding the role of the pipe manufacturers. At other points we could strengthen our hypothesis: other research on plastic water pipes, for example, showed that the danger does not only come from polyethylene pipes, but also from much more widely used PVC pipes!
Rule 9: Formulate a minimum and maximum hypothesis What would have been the hottest scoop of all? We thought: People drop dead after drinking tap water. It soon became clear, however, that we would never be able to prove that. So we had to consider the question: how far will we weaken the hypothesis? Do we still have a story when people drinking water from plastic pipes only get sterile? And what if we only find that people can get a serious cold from drinking out of plastic pipes? Or if it appears that only very old people are at risk? Or if we find no conclusive evidence that the chemicals can be bad for health? Or is just that fact that it can not be proven that the substances are harmless reason enough for a news story? We chose the latter. It was therefore that we formulated our minimum hypothesis as: The government says it can not guarantee the safety of tap water. Rule 10: Start with the hypothesis that is easiest to prove Go in through a door that is already halfway open. It is simpler, and if this hypothesis proves to be false, you know at least that you dont have to investigate any further. And in case that hypothesis turns out to be true, it will be a huge encouragement to tackle the more difficult hypotheses next. In our example this appeared to be the easiest hypothesis: Installers and do-it-yourselfers use polyethylene pipes in homes and offices on a large scale. Indeed, one phone call was enough to receive an email with the sales results of polyethylene pipes, compared with pipes from other materials. * This investigation was a joint venture of Kaare Gotfredsen, Marleen Teugels, Chris Vermeire and Luuk Sengers. Their stories about hazardous tap water were simultaniously published in 2005, in the Belgian maga- zine Knack, the Dutch newspaper Algemeen Dagblad and the Danish newspaper Fyen Stift Tidende.
Step 7: Map your SOURCES Make a list of sources human beings as well as documents. Answer these questions: Who was there? Who took notes? Who has studied the events? Who published about the events? Who has an interest knowing about these events? Source Tree One way to map your sources is in a tree like the one on the next page (illustration 1). Start with two big branches, left and right. One for human sources and one for documents. Since events leave a trail in the form of memories and documents, we talk about the people trail and the paper trail. The tree shows that the people trail can be divided in initiators (those who took or supported the initiative), afflicted (those who benefited or suffered from the action) and witnesses (those who accidentilly witnessed the event, or observed it professionally). The paper trail can also be divided in three groups: plans (for documents created before the event took place), reports (for documents created during the action) and opinions (for documents looking back at the action). This reflects how a papertrail actually comes into life: we often start with a plan, than we get into action and finally we evaluate what happened. You can expand the tree to the left and to the right with new branches, identifying persons and documents. This example was created in Xmind, a free software program for drawing mindmaps. But a pensil on paper will do the job as well. Source Map Another way to identify sources in your story, is with the help of a tabel like illustration 2. A sourcemap like this allows you to organize your search for sources systematically in orther to diminish the chance that you overlook an important source.
Start with the human sources. Put them vertically in the first column, in the apropriate categories. Then determine for every person which kind of document from the list in the middle column he or she might have created and put the name of this document in the (empty) column on the right. Now you have a people trail on the left and a paper trail on the right. Choose The aim of a sourcemap is to identify as many sources as you can imagine. There is however no need to interview and/or read them all! After your brainstorm session, take a second glance at the (now quite complete) list in your sourcemap and wonder, regarding to every scene: What is the single best source to describe or summarize this scene? And what source is second best? Etc.
Illustration 1: Source Tree
Illustration 2: Source Map
People
Did he or she write, make, file or keep a plan instruction contract law rule license agreement budget *
Documents
Who takes the initiative?
Who supports it?
Who gets better?
Who gets hurt?
Who saw it happen?
report notes diary log email letter receipt bank statement database picture video audio * evaluation audit (inspection) report study analysis discussion commentary complaint protest police report court records verdict sanction defense
Who studied it?
Step 8: Keep NOTES During your investigation, keep the results in the Masterfile. There are five kinds of notes worth writing down: 1. Questions Keep specific questions about a scene under the header of that scene. Make them stand out: start every question with Q: and put it in italic. 2. Answers Write down (or copy-paste) answers from interviews and documents. 3. Observations Make notes of your own observations and thoughts during visits and interviews. (Use 1 as source number for personal observations.) Add dates and sources to your notes, like this: [Date] Note [Document number, page number] Example: [23-1-08] On 23rd January 2008, the European Commission published its Proposal for a Directive on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources. [4,7] The 4 refers to document number 4 and the 7 to page 7 in that same document. Keep a separate list of references at the end of the Masterfile (see next point). You can put your notes in a chronological order, automatically, like this: select the notes you want to order; click Table from the MS Word-menu and then Sort; choose Ascending or decending on Date.
4. References Make a list of the sources you refer to in your notes. Example: 1. Personal note 2. Walt Patterson, Keeping the lights on. Towards Sustainable Electricity, Earth Scan, London 2007 3. Directive on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources, European Commission, January 2008 5. Diary or log Keep track of your progress. What did you try and what was the result? There are two reasons for this: 1) Going over your achievements at the end of every work day, keeps you sharp and on track; 2) Your audience may be interested in your queste. Sometimes the story of how you got the story is as interesting as the story itself. In that case you may want to integrate your adventures into the main story or publish them as a separate story: The Making of.
Step 9: PRESENT your story So far we have talked about just one story. But while you worked on this story in the Masterfile you probably saw opportunities for another story and another. Now that the digging is done, answer these questions: Can I produce more stories based on this investigation? Should I present the story in smaller pieces? Independent stories Creating as many stories as possible based on one investigation is a clever thing to do, not only for freelance reporters who try to enhance their modest income (they get hardly ever paid for their research efforts), but also for news editors who want to make up for the time and money invested in a research project. In step 3 you have made a choice. What were your options back then? See if you can do one or two of these things: Change audience Problems tend to affect different groups of people. See if you can make the story appealing to an other audience by changing accents. Change perspective If you have told the first story from the perspective of the victims, can you now tell one from the culprits point of view? Change places Can you show another aspect or example of the same problem, maybe from another place? Change times If you have concentrated on the effects of a problem in your first story, try now to zoom in on the causes (past), and in a third story on the possible solutions (future).
If you manage to present your research results in a series, you will achieve more impact: you keep the subject longer on the agenda, more readers, viewers or listeners will learn about it and your competition will have difficulty to steal the story or even to keep up. Side-stories Typically investigative stories are so rich, that you can lift out some of the contents and present them in separate stories, without hurting the main piece. Moreover, the main story may become more powerful when it is relieved from the burden of so many characters, facts, figures, dates etc. Some of these side-stories can be put in a box, next to the main story, but others also can have a life of their own, as an independent story. We have identified fifteeen stories that can be produced at the side of a big piece. And four more services (other than stories) that can be presented/sold separately. See if you can produce: News Squeeze a news story out of your main story and present it as a scoop. Many websites have no space for lengthy stories. But they may opt for the summary in the form of a news article. Make sure that they put a link under the article to your own website and other websites that published the main story. The making of If you kept a diary (see previous step), you can use it to write a story about how you discovered the news. You can publish this as a separate story: The making of... or as a so called nerd box next to the main story. In the nerd box you can also add links to: - documents - websites - interview transcripts Pay extra attention to tips and comments you received from readers and (secret) sources: it is a way of saying Thank you! Tell the readers also what you do not know, and what you could not find: that enhances your credibility. The making of-story also helps to explain your inquiries to an audience of fellow journalists (at conferences, in magazines) or to the jury of a press award.
History All subjects have a history. Reporters typically present that history in their main story. But a history or a timeline can be an independent story too! Make a list of events. Pay special attention to: - The publication of laws, rules, agreements and plans - Problems, conflicts, complaints, penalties, sanctions and law suits People like reading histories, because of their simple, chronological structure and the context they provide for recent events. A history is a good example of so called Explanatory Journalism: reporting with no other point than explaining complex matters. Track record A special form of history is the track record: Make a separate list of problems and conflicts that you encounter. Summing up court cases, or complaints, or penalties gives a strong signal about the severity of the subject and adds significance to your main story. Cast of characters History is made by people. Who are the players and how do they work together? Create a Who is who?, in the form of: - portraits of key players in de story - short biographies - a social network map A social network analyses reveils who is the most powerfull, who is the real culprit. Or it shows how many perpetrators (secretly) work together to achieve a goal. A social network map can be published and sold independent from the main story. It is a great tool to play around with, especially on the web, where users can click on separate characters to show their relationships. The social network map also shows who is probably interested in your stories; who the stakeholders are. Uncovering networks is also a form of market analysis!
Money Follow the money! Create a money trail for instance in an infographic. Show who gets how much. Explain the importance of money for the climax of your story, both as a motor and as a motive. And quote a financial expert who explains the sums and transactions. Figures Highlight important numbers and measurers (of objects) in a nerd box. Some people grap figures quicker than words. But fairly all people like to learn numbers or measures, especially if they are stunning. Facts Copy the most important facts of your investigation and present them separately. Like in a Factsheet, a Did you know?-box or a lexicon (The ABC of...). The list of facts presents a fair summary of the investigation. Great to catch readers who are in a hurry. Technique Explain important technical manoeuvres and machines. Most people are interested in technique when it is simply explained. Comparison Much forgotten, but fairly easy to do: make a list of differences between cities, regions, countries, organisations, groups or companies. We live in a small world. It is silly not to look around and try to learn from others. A story How do the neighbours cope? is surely a bestseller. And you can get most of the material for that story for free if you cooperate across borders with fellow journalists. Share expertise and efforts. You are no competitors, since you sell the stories in your own countries! Personal experience Undergo the experience and report what it feels like. The experience will fill you with more ideas, than when you only relay on the experiences of others. Tell your audience what it was like, in a box or in an independent story.
Solution Investigate alternatives. Ask people who have seriously thought about possible solutions. And portray people who cleverly found ways to circumvent the obstacles and pitfalls. Inspire your audience. Make it part of the solution and not (only) of the problem! It will love you for it! This hopefully contributes to a greater self-confidence of your audience: we can make a difference! We believe that the goal of investigative journalism is not solely to report about problems, but also to contribute to solutions whenever possible. If you are an optimist, tell your audience that you are, and why. Optimists have a bigger audience than cynics or pessimists. You can help your audience further, by adding boxes with: - A list of good examples/best practices - Tips (does and donts) - Resources for self-study - A forum (for exchanging ideas) - Service buttons: Get involved! Join, Donate, etc. Challenge the user to get into action! Note that you can present a story from three perspectives: 1. What others have done (in the main story); 2. What you have done (in The Making of... and the personal experience story); 3. What your audience can do (in the solution) Opinion Write an opinion piece, based on your findings. Follow up The goal of investigative reporting is to provoke change. So make sure that those responsible take action upon your story. Ask for their reactions first. And then follow them on their heels: show their actions or motives to do nothing. Promise your audience that it will hear the latest plans for change from you first. Visuals Use video, photography, infographics, cartoons and other illustrations to
bring your story across. Work together (from the start of the investigation) with photographers and graphic artists. Data Create a database of the data you have collected and make this available to your audience on a website. Give them opportunity to construct their own stories, to look up details to their own interest. Services as result of an investigation Advise Maybe a target group is interested in an advise, written in a report rather than in an news article or story. Lecture Since youre one of the experts now and maybe the only expert without ties to a money pot you can act with confidence on conferences as speaker or panell member. Make sure they pay you for your pain- stakingly collected knowledge! Youre a professional, not a token from the local rack! Performance Mark Thomas in the United Kingdom shows effectivily how serious investigations can be presented in the form of stand-up comedy. Exhibition In The Netherlands there is a freelance reporter who investigates alongside a befriended photographer. Once the investigation is done, the photographs that did not appear in the book are shown on an exhibition in a museum or gallery.
Appendix: MASTERFILE FORM
SUBJECT
SUMMARY
HYPOTHESIS
STRUCTURE (CLIMAXES)
SCENE 1:
Character
Setting
Previous events
Action & Goal
Conflict or Surprise
Decission & Struggle
Climax
Resolution
SOURCE MAP
People
Documents
REFERENCES
DIARY
SIDE-STORIES
News The making of History Track record Cast of characters Money Figures Facts Technique Comparison Personal experience Solution Opinion Follow up Visuals Data
SCENE 2: Etc

Nine Steps From Idea To Story 5

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Nine Steps From Idea To Story 5

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Nine Steps from Idea to Story

Finding, Structuring, Investigating, Writing and Presenting Original Stories

Illustration 1: Source Tree

Illustration 2: Source Map

Who takes the initiative?

Who supports it?

Who gets better?

Who gets hurt?

Who saw it happen?

Who studied it?

Appendix: MASTERFILE FORM

Action & Goal

Decission & Struggle

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi