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.