This document is downloaded from DR‑NTU (https://dr.ntu.edu.sg) Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

Interpretative journalism

Masterton, Murray.

1995

Masterton, M. (1995). Interpretative journalism. In Workshop on Editorial Management for Women Journalists: Singapore, May 24‑31, 1995. Singapore: Asian Media Information and Communication Centre. https://hdl.handle.net/10356/92351

Downloaded on 30 Sep 2021 08:33:15 SGT ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Nanyang Technological University Library

Interpretative Journalism

By

Murray Masterton

Paper No. 9 ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Nanyang Technological University Library

1 Editorial Management for Women Journalists Saturday, May 27, 1400-1530 by Murray Masterton

Interpretive Journalism

Interpretive journalism is one of the most misinterpreted terms in journalism jargon. The very fact that it is a jargon word means it is one we can wisely avoid. It is also wise for those without a lot of experience to avoid interpretive journalism itself.

Interpretive journalism: what is it and what is it supposed to be? Regrettably these are often two different things and the variance between the two differs according to the country, the culture, the type of newspaper and the personality of the journalist.

What is it supposed to be? Interpretive journalism is any report or feature which as well as giving the facts of an event or situation offers an interpretation or interpretations which expand on why the event or situation occurred and what will be the result in the immediate and longer-term future. It may also offer excuses, forecasts, explanations, opinions from one or more informed and relevant sources. In this it is a useful and valuable aspect of news journalism.

What it is, all too often, is a report or feature which does not have all the facts, and sometimes not even the essential onesjjut tells readers at length the reporter's views on what has happened, why, and what will happen next. Such interpretation is often uninformed and unreliable, and such journalism worthless and misleading. It should never be written in the first place, and when it is it should not get past the sub-editors because it risks both a law suit and damage to the paper's credibility.

Interpretive reporting flourishes in India's ultra-free press, where journalists are encouraged by a traditional discursive style to express their own opinions freely. This is acceptable as long as the facts of the story are accurate and complete, so there is an opportunity for the reader to form his or her own opinion, and where the reporter's opinion is clearly labelled. Too often neither qualification is there. India's best newspapers are now curbing what they consider excessively personal journalism. They recognise that interpretation is essential in today's complex journalism world, so there is plenty of interpretation printed, but how it is done is an example to journalists elsewhere.

Before examining how it is, or should be, done, first ask why interpretive journalism exists at all. Is it just another newspaper reaction to the intrusion of television into the news arena? This may be so where television audiences are growing and newspaper circulations are not, but this is not the case in Asia, or not yet. Editors can be excused for thinking that their staff can do just as well as the expressions of personal opinion which too often boom out of the television. Doubling the error does not make things right.

Reporters on small newspapers try to imitate their metropolitan colleagues and try to tell their readers what the news means and where it will lead. This is good only as long as the reporters have the experience and ability to interpret effectively and honestly. ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Nanyang Technological University Library

2 There is no doubt that interpretation is needed, on television as well as in newspapers, though newspapers can do it better. The affairs of the world have become so complex and varied that no newspaper can cover them all, or even try to do so. Nor can readers expect to understand everything they read in their newspapers unless an intelligent reporter can make the significance of the facts more clear. The question is not whether or not interpretation is needed, but how well it is being done.

There are some stories in which the facts speak for themselves and no interpretation is necessary: road accidents, sporting events, almost any factual account over which there is no difference of opinion. There are just as many others where today's facts, even with the help of background, do not adequately explain the happening or situation enough to make it clearly intelligible to the average reader.

Until your editor gives specific permission for you to offer your own interpretations, reporters are obliged to seek the opinions and interpretations of others and to attribute them. This is the original, the most honest and still the safest type of interpretation. It preserves clearly the difference between fact and opinion, between what has happened and the reasons, excuses, apologies, forecasts and any other related opinions.

To present an honest interpretation, the reporter concerned has to ask a variety of relevant people for expert or informed opinions and collate these as "interpretation". Even for reporters already allowed to writejheir own interpretations, this collation from others is sometimes the only way to do an honest job. No reporter has the expertise to provide interpretation himself or herself over a wide area. The golden rules for facts should be even more rigid in interpretation — if you don't know, check; if you're still in doubt, leave it out.

In real life many major reporting areas require reports to include some interpretation. This includes Parliamentary reporting and the reports of rounds-persons who cover government departments. It includes state and civic politics as well as most of the regular specialised reporting beats (or rounds).

It is difficult to write a substantial report without interpretation creeping in, no matter how hard the reporter tries. It is technically possible, but it is exhaustively slow to make sure there is no authorial intrusion, and the end result is usually not worth such effort. In any case, changes in the world and the reporting of it mean it is now accepted that a reporter will give more than just the bare facts when reporting what happened in Parliament today. Good journalism demands total clarity, and that means interpretation is usually obligatory.

An example of interpretive reporting, in this case fictitious but based on a real example in Pakistan. The long-awaited Trans-Migration Bill was approved in Parliament today by a narrow majority and only because the Opposition alliance which set out to oppose it failed to hold together. Reporting what happened is easy enough, but the reporter also had to make clear what it meant to the readers.

In this case there were two main areas for interpretation, social and political: ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Nanyang Technological University Library

3 a) what does this Bill mean to the average citizen who reads the paper? who and how many will be affected by this? how will it affect people's right and opportunity to travel? how will if affect people moving from one place to another to live? what will the effect be on the national economy? b) why did the Opposition alliance fail to hold together? what does this mean for the parties or individuals involved? what does it mean for the stability of the government in future?

Any good Parliamentary reporter will be able to state as fact what the Bill is about, what it does and who will be affected by it. It is hardly interpretation to say how many people will be affected, though there could be differences of opinion about how severely.

But interpretation is necessary when explaning rights, privileges and opportunities. By asking civil lawyers, social scientists and transport experts the reporter can gather attributable opinions on the effects of the Bill, and those yet to earn the right to interpret for themselves are expected to do it this way. For the experienced Parliamentary reporter, who has gathered and learned from other people's opinions and knowledge over a period of year, it is quicker and easier to interpret using that accumulated experience as a data bank.

While that knowledge is certainty — in other words while what the reporter knows is provable fact — it is true interpretation. Explaining how rights and privileges will be affected can not be done by a collection of factual statements, so there will be room for someone to challenge any statement made as untrue. If this can happen what has been written is opinion, and it is much wiser to use the word "may" instead of "will", and to admit that it is the reporter's opinion.

It is definitely in the region of opinion when the reporter, no matter how knowledgeable, tries to explain what will happen in the political arena. What happened is easy. That's fact. Why it happened is not too difficult, since most of that is fact, too. But what will happen is speculation, and political speculation has a reliability factor below weather forecasting or picking a winner at the racetrack.

When you embark on this type of interpretive writing only history can tell whether what you say is right. Your remembered level of accuracy is your measure of success as an interpretive reporter.

Look through today's newspaper to find examples of interpretive reporting and see whether the reporter has interpreted honestly or whether what he or she says is in the area of unsupported personal opinion.

Interpretive reporting, whether it is other than the basic reporting and attribution of relevant and expert opinions, appears in two principal forms; Inclusive and Sequential. ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Nanyang Technological University Library

4

Inclusive interpretation means the interpretation is written in with the facts. There is no "here-are-the-facts" report as such, though if the report is an adequate one all the facts will be there and should be untainted by the reporter's interpretation or opinions. This type of report is usually quicker to write than a facts first-interpretation follows report, but it is also more open to abuse.

This is interpretation for those who have editorial blessing to interpret, because for the average reader it is difficult to determine where the facts end and the reporter's interpretation, which may be no more than his opinion, begins. The better the report is written, the clearer the divide will be, but even so interpretation is often accepted by readers as fact. This is one of the reasons critics claim newspapers are not as honest and factual as they once were. They are seen to be leading or directing public opinion through interpretive reporting.

Sequential interpretation is the other classification. It has several forms and some newspapers use them to clearly differentiate between what is fact and what is opinion. All forms call for clear separation and labelling.

The New York Times does so: it puts a break (usually a cut-off rule) between the factual report and the interpretation. It also publishes a series of columnists, under their own names, so they are free to express their own opinions and interpretations, but the public knows whose opinions they are. Columnists quickly earn a reputation as a progressive or a conservative, a liberal or ^reactionary, and win their dedicated supporters accordingly.

The Washington Post's Op.ed (which means Open editorial) page is famous. It makes room for anyone to express their opinion on almost anything. Everything must carry a by-line, so the readers know whose opinion or interpretation it is. The newspaper allows its by-line reporters to interpret, but makes sure in the writing that the public can tell where the facts end and the interpretation begins.

The Age, in Melbourne, insisted for some years that reports with interpretations have both a by-line and a separate sub-head which said either "Interpretation" or "Explanation" or "Opinion". This portion carried any and all explanatory material offered by the reporter. That which was the attributed opinion of a relevant expert was included in the main portion of the report. Regrettably this is no longer the case, probably because of the repetitive tedium such headlining imposed on page make-up.

The Straits Times chooses to label major interpretive reports "News Analysis" but does not always make clear whose analysis it is. It is not sufficient for the name of the agency which supplied the analysis to appear at the head or foot. There is no guarantee it was not written by an office boy. It needs a name, and if it is coming from such a distance that the name is not well known in Singapore, or wherever else the report is published, then there should be justification for the validity of the views expressed. The report should outline the qualifications or background of the writer, or the interpretation is without credibility. ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Nanyang Technological University Library

5 Newspaper allow more latitude with interpretation where it is so visibly separated from the factual part of the information. Also, it carries the author's name. This means that if the interpretation turns out to be nothing more than reporter opinion the editor and newspaper can disown it if they choose.

Where the interpretation is by straight reporting of what other people think and say, then it can be reported as fact. It is interpretive reporting but the interpretation is not by the reporter. Newspapers who can afford the extra reporters still insist that this is the way it should be done, supported by by-lined columnists and feature articles.

"Rules" for interpretation?

Are there any? Yes, there certainly are, as long as you are serious about recognising that interpretation means more than expressing an opinion. Earlier I mentioned that if a statement could be challenged it is probably not provable fact. Facts should be provable — this seems to be a definition of a factual statement — though it is now accepted that there are many truths, according to upbringing, education and many other social or societal reasons. This means the veracity of what reporters consider facts is under increasing challenge. This is not the main problem with interpretive reporting, or any reporting for that matter. If the reported facts can be supported by verifiable evidence, that is good enough.

This means you should attribute any, "facts" for which the information came from other than personal experience, even from a trusted source. Thus "Police say that... Health Department statistics show..." and so on. The reporter can even go so far to protect the reporting as to write "The Parliamentary record for the day shows..." or "The minutes of the meeting read..." This is carrying what should be factual reporting to what seem ridiculous lengths, but it may be necessary if you are to follow with some interpretation, or include some in the otherwise factual report.

So much for the factual part, what about the interpretation? The first rule is not to confuse the two. Anyone who sets out to write an interpretive report must start by asking two question sof everything that goes onto paper:

1) is this a provable fact which I can include in the report as "what happened", or does it need some form of attribution to support it as fact? In other words, is it a fact I can prove myself or do I have to rely on someone else?

2) If it is not provable fact is it interpretation or is it opinion? There is a difference.

Your principle task as an interpretive reporter is to interpret, which means explain to your audience that the facts mean or will mean to them, not to persuade them to your own opinion on what they mean and what might happen. In theory this means you should be able to support every statement or projection by direct reference to facts which are equally provable to those in the original report. There are instances in which this is possible, but like "objectivity" factual justification remains the goal of anyone who attempts interpretive journalism. ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Nanyang Technological University Library

6 If the job is done well, no member of the audience will challenge what you say as interpretation. If you are challenged repeatedly, even by those with known and dedicated opinions, it means you are not interpreting well.

Keeping personal opinion out is, and must remain, the aim of anyone who is asked to interpret the news they write. Managements and interpreters alike know how difficult it is to achieve and acknowledge the risk of opinion sneaking in. Both know it will happen, even if neither intends it that way. As with objectivity, aiming to do your best to achieve it is as much as any professional can do.

The effects of other media

The influence of television has already been mentioned, but only marginally. To what extent does interpretive reporting occur in the broadcast media? This differs from country to country because of differences in the laws governing broadcasting, and also with the intensity with which those laws are policed by the governments which control the licences. This much is the same the world over.

Interpretation, especially loose interpretation, is more difficult to control on radio than in print, and even more difficult on television, because in both cases the material is presented verbally. Certainly the journalist who prepares and writes the news item may be disciplined to keep personal interpretatioji out of what he writes. But the newsreader is a human being and his or her personal interpretation or opinion of the facts can be evident in the voice reading the written words. It is not supposed to happen, but sometimes it does.

It is even more difficult in television, where the reader is seen as well as heard. A raised eyebrow can add or detract from the credibility of what is said or seen. This still excludes the personal interpretations which can occur in the editing of television news videotaped pictures.

Interpretation, rarely attributed, is even more rife in the current affairs and social issue programmes, where more of the preparation is done by non-journalists than is the case in news bulletins. It is a truism that it is impossible to make a television programme about a social issue which runs for more than one minute without the biases of the producer becoming apparent. It occurs in the editing of the pictures, the matching of the script wording, the selected quotes, the sequence of the backgrounding.

When such material is done well, whether it is news or more feature-like material, it has a strong and immediate effect on the audience. Research around the world shows that television is the most immediately effective medium at moving people's emotions and also their opinions. Print is reputed to have a more considered and long-lasting effect, but the drama of television prompts print journalists to emulate its methods to increase their own impact on the reading audience.

Television reporters who appear personally when presenting their reports slip into interpretation all the time, intentionally or otherwise, because people express their ATTENTION: The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Nanyang Technological University Library

7 personal opinions when they speak, and as people speak is the way television like to present all its informational material. It is more effective that way.

This is not the only way in which television influences print journalism, but it is a worrying one. The fact that broadcasters can work faster than newspapers in telling people what happened in their community or their world has obliged the newspapers to cover events in greater depth — it has forced them into more and more interpretation. They can't match television (or radio) as initial breakers of news, but they can surpass either of them in reporting it intelligently and in making it understandable.

This will always remain the case while newspapers do their job properly and television, as a news medium, does not. Television may be the greatest news medium yet devised, but it has never yet been used properly, by journalism standards, and because of economic and audience necessities it probably never will.

So it is left to newspapers to explain the news of the world to its people, and this means interpreting it. In this respect, interpretation is just as important as accuracy or any other attribute of news reporting. And the ultimate aim of both facts and interpretation is clarity.