What is the editor’s role in elevating the journalism? We pose that question to mid-level editors who attend Poynter Leadership seminars.
We want the participants to see the influence they have to build better journalism, day-by-day, as well as project-by-project. We want that for you as a leader, too. So I’m sharing a case study and some leadership tips that came from it.
In a recent Leadership seminar, we examined an important project published three years ago at The Arizona Republic. I chose the project because I was the paper’s executive editor at the time the story was developed and know what happened well. The project made a difference. It likely saved some lives.
Reporters did the important work. Editors helped it happen — and that is an important lesson for both to share. First, though, the story.
The story background
Maureen West, a Republic reporter with good sources at the state health department, got word of a state agency investigation with national implications.
Seven people had drowned and 72 were injured at Lake Powell on the border of Arizona and Utah. The state was looking at houseboat design in those casualties.
In continuing reports, Maureen and reporter Judd Slivka followed up with further enterprise on houseboat design and the state health department’s pursuit of its theory that deadly carbon monoxide gas collected in air space under the swimmer’s platform. Any swimmer hanging around that area of the houseboat risked being overcome by the undetectable fumes.
At first, reactions of the houseboat industry and others were dismissive. But Maureen, Judd, and their editors at the time — metro editor Kristin Gilger and team leader Nicole Carroll — persisted. Their huddles produced the story that finally nailed the significance for readers, Congress, and the houseboat industry; they captured the critical human element that had remained unexplored behind the statistics.
The idea develops
The idea was to profile victims, a seemingly obvious step. But the team took the idea to the next level. They decided to profile the most recent victims: two young brothers, Dillon and Logan Dixey, of Parker, Colo., ages 11 and 8. Their family, along with another Colorado family, had made houseboating at Lake Powell a regular getaway.
The brothers’ drownings were also the alarm that created the resolve at the health agency to investigate all the drownings for links to carbon monoxide poisoning.
“The Last Swim,” the story of that awful night, was beginning to take form. How the story would be written was the next question. Narrative was a natural choice.
The voice would be authoritative and attribution limited. The story would be told in real-time to put the reader on the houseboat, with the families, starting with action created when rescuers arrived at the scene.
The reporters tracked every detail possible:
- The brothers’ joy in swimming off the boat
- The families and their day of fun
- The two brothers swimming at nightfall
- A third brother’s alarm: one of his brothers is thrashing in the water
- Then, the disappearance of both swimmers
- Minute by minute, hour by hour, the trauma, the search
All the while parents, brother and friends wait. They cannot leave, not without seeing the brothers back in the boat.
When rescuers finally arrive, they are efficient, aided by quick scientific reads of currents and other data. Readers share the heartbreak as rescuers recover bodies of Dillon and Logan.
Journalism that connects readers to the issues
Until “The Last Swim,” stories focused on news developments and the investigation into houseboat design. This narrative added perspective from people at the heart of the issue. Readers called and e-mailed in response to what they had read. Action by safety regulators and the houseboat industry began to move along more swiftly.
When a story makes a difference and reporters do their best work, it is important to examine how editors affected the process. So I interviewed Judd about it.
How editors fostered success
Editors had encouraged Judd to experiment with his writing on previous assignments. When editors and reporters trust each other, it can take the fear out of trying new approaches.
Judd said Kristin and Nicole were significant to the success of the coverage, because:
- Their front-end planning was extensive and constructive.
- They enjoyed good relationships that made communication easy.
- They were good sounding boards when the reporters needed it.
- They were generous with encouragement.
- Their questions and perspectives contributed to the overall work.
- They stood back during the writing to let the reporters immerse themselves.
- They encouraged risk-taking with the writing.
In the end, the final edit was a breeze, Judd said. There were no surprises. The well-laid plan had produced the story all expected.
“The Last Swim” was a complex undertaking. The editors’ contributions of encouragement, front-end planning, trust, listening, and coaching apply to any situation or any discipline in the newsroom. Scale of the project doesn’t matter. Regular and clear communication does.
Here are questions to help you think about how you lead the journalism:
- How clear is the overall journalistic mission?
- Where do ideas come from?
- How are stories nurtured?
- Are new ideas welcome?
- Whose voices are heard?
- Are individuals valued for teamwork, initiative?
- Is your newsroom finding new and better ways to work?
- Is there energy in the newsroom — a sense of the possible?
- How do you tap the passion of individuals?
Test yourself and your newsroom on the answers to the questions. Talk about stories that worked well and what happened behind the scenes that made a difference. Learn from what didn’t go well. Learn what it takes to be a leader of great journalism.
Do you have examples of what it takes to elevate the journalism? Share them in our discussion area, or e-mail them to me privately.
