Who Are We?

When writing a story, the subject is everything. Every good news story revolves around a person doing something that will affect others, one way or the other.

The reporter has the enviable and unnerving task of putting the subject of their story in context for the people who will read, view, or listen to it. It is enviable, because documenting and sharing what is happening gives the reporter a hand in writing the first draft of history; it is unnerving, because the subject only gets one first impression with the reporter’s audience.

I have been a reporter for at least five years; depending on how one judges a reporter’s career, I’ve been one since I was in college. I’ve written dry pieces about local rural government, excited articles about prison breaks and manhunts, fun features about local charities and community events, and serious stories about people trying to raise awareness.

When I joined the Social Journalism program, I admit that I had some trepidations. I was hoping that the program would teach me how to cultivate trust in a community, both for sources and as an audience. My focus is primary of the journalist as a chronicler, a scribe documenting the activities of their rulers — the only difference being that a traditional scribe only followed the works of a monarch and their few ministers of note, while a reporter owes their loyalty to the sovereign public.

The idea of branching out into community service is an intriguing proposal — why would someone do what we do if they were not interested in helping people? (Those journalists who are more interested in fame and fortune aren’t fit to call themselves “journalists” — maybe “spectacle chasers.”)

Yet trying to mix the two gives me pause at times. Can a journalist center a cause without compromising their ability to question? Does it seem right to insert yourself into the story by giving direct aid, even if your actions never make it onto the page? Do you wind up trusting a few trusted sources within the community at the risk of tunnel vision, or try to cast a wide net within that community, without diluting your efforts from the differing points-of-view you find there?

Fortunately, I’m not treading new ground. There are people who doing this kind of work right now — social journalism, engaged journalism, solutions-focused journalism — who are leading by example and sharing their experience with up-and-coming students, like myself, at the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism at CUNY.

Jesse Hardman from the Listening Post Collective spoke with my Social Journalism Community Engagement class earlier this week. He shared his experiences covering Central American migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border, and the experiences they face trying to get through the immigration system of both nations. He spoke about making contact with both migrants and officials at a Tijuana shelter, trying to meet people where they were before they were chased out of the public eye.

Hardman and his colleagues took the time to ask those at the shelter what they were looking for, what they needed: a lawyer who knew immigration law, a way to check policy as it was being implemented, etc. — along with how they were already tracking down what they could.

The Listening Post Collective eventually managed to create a WhatsApp group for their various sources to remain in touch with them and each other to share information; the LPC also assisted them in crafting a newsletter and podcast to gather and distribute information.

With so much focus on immigration coming from the perspective of Americans already living in the U.S., highlighting the immigrant’s point-of-view is a worthy goal to ensure that something is not getting lost in the first draft of history. And being asked to help provide additional information to those seeking it is no violation of trust that I can see.

Hardman spoke about other assignments later in the class, going into communities that were a bit more permanent and taking the time to get to know people on a much calmer basis. Yet those assignments too had their challenges — such figuring out who spoke with the most authentic voice.

My thanks to classmate Skanda Kadirgamar for asking a question about divisions within a community — that question gave me the best quote of the session when Hardman replied.

“That’s the hardest thing I’ve encountered…especially when you are not from that community.”

There is no easy answer for that situation. While it is important to have reporters from a variety of backgrounds and identities — to ensure that no one’s cultural or geographic background is left out of that first draft — all reporters need to have the ability to step back and recognize that no one becomes an expert in anything over a day. There is no substitute for being in the community, listening to people on their own terms, and giving their point-of-view the weight it deserves.

I would only add one thing to Hardman’s statement: it does not get easier covering divisions within a community when you are a member of that community. You may know who the movers and shakers are — you may know them personally — but you will also know who the biggest dissenters are. Whether you agree with them or not, their perspective will always touch your own and guide you down a particular path for any story you write about them.

That is why, whether doing a traditional news story or an engaged journalism project, a reporter should never assume anything, never substitute their own point-of-view for any seeming gaps from the subject’s point-of-view. When looking into a community, the looming question will always be:

Who are “we?”