Writing a feature

The process of writing a feature about using blogs as marketing tools for publication in New Media Age magazine:

• Blogging the writing process
• From idea to pitch to commission
• Research & planning
• Interview methods
• Interviews
• Planning & writing
• Editing
• Submission
• Afterthoughts

Technorati Tags: journalism, blogs, upyourbudget, advertising, marketing

Comments

[Neil Baker]

Graham,

Interesting piece. I'm a writer too and would have used exactly the same process as you, so learnt nothing in a "how-to" sense from your posts, yet I read them all. For me, it's a reminder of how readers (i.e. me) can enjoy seeing their own experience reflected in an article. You don't always have to tell them something new.

[Raspberry Sour]

I'm surprised your editor was open to the whole blogging-the-process idea. Most editors I've worked with are very cautious about what's released to the public, especially given all the cutting, fact-checking, etc., that goes on behind the scenes. I know my publication would never release an unedited copy, even after publication date, because of potential libel suits and other problems. I'm curious whether your eds asked to first see the completed article before agreeing to let you post it?

Interesting topic and post. I'm glad to see a food blog venturing off into other areas (particularly journalism and media)- I don't have much time for other blog reading once I get through all the food blogs plus the rest of my life.

Cheers, Raspberry Sour

[pieman]

Thanks Neil. It's interesting working as a freelance, with no others I know living in the same town, I've sometimes wondered whether I do things radically different to anyone else. You're the second journo to write to me saying you do things the same way. Good. I'm not a freak :)

Raspberry sour, you're clearly coming from a US perspective... ;) I told the ed. i was doing this, I told all the inteviewees I was doing this. That's enough for me. The Ed. said, "I’m planning to run it in the issue coming out on 2nd Feb so please hold off running your coverage until after that. If you want to link across to the NMA site alongside the posts that would be great too." Would a US Editor allow that? Does a US Editor own your research, interviews etc.?

The US press is so up it's own arse (sorry, ass) with all this stuff, I don't know how they get anything published. And when they do, it's so sterile, no pazzaz, so little ooomph, lacking grunt...

Is there a UK publication with a fact checking dept.?? Not that I know of. I don't really get the concept anyway. Since when was fact checking not in the journo's job description? Barmy.

Jeff Jarvis hit the nail on the head (yet again) the other week when discussing the excellent Ricky Gervais podcasts put out by the mostly excellent Guardian newspaper,

"Could you imagine The New York Times doing this? I can’t. Any American paper or news organization would fret over brand and credibility: “Well, who’s fact-checking and copy-editing this monkey news?”
http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/01/11/1005/

Alors, as I've said elsewhere, this wouldn't work with every story. And I certainly have no intention of doing this with every story... Cripes. no way. This is just an experiment, I'm not sure it's gonna do anything.

However, what is doing something is blogging ideas, just sentences, things I'm working on, pitches, ideas etc. Just doing that and using Technorati, Typepad categories, del.icio.us is luring contacts, sources, people in the know. The moblog piece I'm working on looks set to go down a very different path to the one I envisioned for it because I blogged a sentence about it, tagged it etc.

The blogging journos piece was commissioned (I suspect) because I linked to the audio interview I'd already done in my pitch. I don't know if the Ed. listened to that interview (probably not, it's nearly 40mins and I wouldn't listen to it unless I had to) but sticking it on the blog definitely did not do any harm and took me minutes to do... it's a no brainer as far as I'm concerned. Little effort, some possible reward. Like fishing. But. it's not gonna replace trad. ways of researching etc.. Just an interesting addition that's all.

[robyn]

I like this, hope you'll keep it up even if abbreviated. As for US publications and their fact-checking ... recently finished a class where we were advised to keep good notes and lists of sources for EVERYTHING related to an article, even if the particular topic never makes it to submitted text let alone printed page. Ugh.

[Raspberry Sour]

Hi Graham, thanks for the response. I'm actually in Canada, but it's turning into same shit, different pile (of course, we'd have to undergo a nat'l personality shift first though; still too meekly Canadian and busy playing nice for things to get really interesting, media-wise). Unfortunately, it's surprising the types of sources writers pull out of the proverbial arse, especially with the internet, which only get caught in the checking process. But I'm at a magazine, so the legalities are different (as far as I know, for a newspaper, the liability is with the reporter, while at a magazine, it's with the magazine). Plus, I find things get changed in the editing which then cascade back into factual errors. At mags that fact-check, the point is generally to keep it separate from the writing process. So, if it's a good writer, then fact checking just helps them clean up the little errors we all make, etc. And if it's a bad writer, then fact checking works against them, but does up the credibility of the publication. I've had to pull articles during the fact checking that would have been libelous (and I mean in a full-of-lies sort of way, not a sue-happy-readership sort of way). So it goes both ways.

If you're interested, the Columbia Review of Journalism just ran an email exchange between an aggrieved source and the New Yorker. Basically, who owns facts that have moved into the public domain. A bit stuffy and ego-driven, but some interesting issues.

Sorry for blathering, and I'm looking forward to reading more of the journalism posts. Although I will happily continue drooling over food too.

[pieman]

Robyn - for that Bon Appetit article (which I didn't even write) I had my proverbial ass fact checked off. At the last minute they were freaking out that one photo of your typical salt, pepper, lemon combo had 'something brown in it', what the hell was it? Jeeezzzz... Go to the kitchen and mix salt and pepper in a bowl and se for your self... Anyway, yes, Nth American publications - very much arse facing.

Raspberry Sour, sorry to slur you as an American. But, yes, I would agree Canadians kinda follow suit with the Americans - although the Globe & Mail were always great whenever I dealt with them , long time ago now...

You're quite right of course - it does cut both ways - just seems to be very much a stateside thing, sueing, call in the lawyers, anal retention. There are limits...

I am very interested in the Columbia Review thing, have you gotta link? And keep blathering, good to hear a mag editors side. Very good.

[Raspberry Sour]

Hi Graham, yup, limits there always are. I think though with this latest fraud fracas there'll be a ripple effect (or at least I hope so; the book is still selling even if not as quickly). And, if I may insert one more for the fact-checking side, it also ensures readers can trust the content. Mostly though, the process depends on the fact checker- a good checker will always come out with happy sources, and a grateful writer and editor. But that takes a lot of work. And like all those who toil for the forces of anal retentiveness, sometimes we go a little overboard ;)

The Columbia Review link is: http://www.cjr.org/issues/2006/1/lettertoeditor.asp

It's a bit long, but the New Yorker handled themselves nicely in all their grand New Yorker-ness. They're not really obligated to the letter writer, except in that they should have plugged her book a lot better and at least run the name. Most publications I've worked with always try to plug their writers and staff whenever possible.

[pieman]

But, can we really trust the content?? Jason Blair, Judy Miller are two howlers that spring to mind and there are others and that's just the NYTimes. I'm assuming the Times has a very retentive fact checking dept.?

Thanks for the NYorker link, will digest when I have a spare week.. You wee right, 'tis lenghty.