Reporting guidelines for Latin Trade
Interviews are key
Interviews drive stories for Latin Trade; otherwise, it's rewarmed analysis I could do from here. Send me a short list of your interview targets. Knowing that, we can suggest interviews that might not have occurred to you as you report. Also, it gets our photo people moving faster.
You need the CEO (failing that, his designated officer who speaks for the company). I realize they're going to tell you no. Keep at 'em. Give them reasons to say yes by being available. Your company will likely give you a lower-ranking exec at first, but push for the top. Call, send faxes, build up contacts with their top PR people inside. Eventually, you'll get your 15 minutes or so with the boss. Then, you're off to the races, since pretty much everyone else (customers, suppliers, competitors, whoever...) will be on board in a second. Here's an idea: Pitch them on a plant tour or something that shows you're willing to spend time walking around the joint. Talk to mid-level people off the record if you can. Make clear what your story focus is (without promising anything and certainly not allowing them access to your story prior to publication) and they'll be more likely to buy in. A story about acquisitions or their strategy abroad they'll understand. Just saying, "Oh, get me the interview and I'll decide later" will make them skittish, and understandably so. If you hit a total wall, continue the contact and focus on another target.
Unless the CEO has some edict from the lawyers to shut up for some unrelated reason, a lawsuit or whatever, he'll eventually cave and give you some time. Remember, these people live on airplanes. If they tell you he or she is unavailable for a month, it's probably true. Don't give up, just refocus on another target and come back to it. Another possibility is they might be in a quiet period or about to release numbers. If they give you a flat no, ask why. If the reason has to do with something that will end sooner than later, tell them you can wait. It'll be worth it. Meanwhile, you can get the ball rolling at three, four or five other major companies and then just harvest them when they come around. And don't assume they won't talk to you. At the weirdest times, companies will suddenly want a chance to speak their piece in print. Some companies are more cognizant than others about the value of exposure in Latin Trade. If they seem unconvinced, talk about our circ (nearly 100K, 80K+ paid) and reach (top Brazilian, Mexican and multinational execs regularly agree to interviews). Whatever their motivation for speaking will be clear when you get there, but it's not your problem. You got in, that's all that matters.
Sources should be balanced
Talk to participants (executives, suppliers, customers, partners, regulators, investors) not observers (academics, pols, analysts, professional commentators of any type -- more on avoiding analysts here). If your story is going to raise a certain point -- a company has been hurt by a competitor, some member of the board is a loose cannon -- we have to get them on the record or take such pains to do so we can legitimately say, "Sr. Fulano declined to comment." I have no problem saying you're ugly as I long as I say you're ugly to your face. We do not publish charges without offering the company or individual space in the same story to respond. We do not publish off-the-record interviews except in extreme circumstances (life in danger). We have this policy for the same reason the parks service does not want you to feed bears: They'll come to expect it, and then we have trouble. It's tough, but that's journalism.
Information gathered at press conferences should be identified so, as in "Slim told reporters Tuesday...." Likewise, one-on-one or exclusive interviews with big fish get played up big, too, as in "In an exclusive interview with Latin Trade, Slim said...."
Always rely on primary source material. Information cribbed from local media is verboten (errors, slant, false reporting and outright propaganda is the risk) and reusing wire stories is also verboten (usually, the problem here is errors). Find out. Call the company. Get the press release. Read the financial filings. Be a reporter. Parrots I do not need.
Target your sources first
In terms of length, it depends on how many interviews you nail and, to a greater extent, the newsworthiness of the story. In a monthly with our lag time, that often means to what degree we can move the story forward three months after it's news. In a single page story (650 words max) there is probably room for three interviews. In a double pager, our section maximum (1200 words max), I can usually squeeze in five or six quoted sources. You can certainly talk to as many people as you need to understand the issues, but that's about how many of them will end up speaking in the story, and I have found that for some interviewees it turns out to be an issue. They expect to be quoted, weirdly enough (I have seen resumes where people list the magazines that have quoted them). The longer story needs more oomph, obviously, so if you have Slim on the record, that's big. Clearly, if you talk to a board member or the CFO, you're nearly there. Add a competitor, a regulator and a customer or two, and you're golden.
"Write what it's worth"
At least that's what one of the editors back at The Miami Herald used to tell us. Some writers have a hard time cutting their work. That's what editors do. If you want to send 800 words because you think it's complete, I'll run 650. On the other hand, it will seem like the same 800 words since I will much more clearly see on a fresh read what's repetitive and can go. You won't notice a difference. What's more, you end up with a screamin', good-reading, by-lined clip, which at this stage is what you should be after most. In large part, that's how you'll get your next job: great clips. As the editor, I drift into the background in these matters, but then that's the gig. I get rewarded for putting great stories together in convincing packages and leading reporting. It's a different goal.
Numbers drive the visuals
Latin Trade stories usually cry out for charts. If you run into any crunchable data in your reporting, please advise. We have a great research director, but some subjects are simply too inside for her to track all the time.
Reselling your work
We cannot and do not publish material that has appeared anywhere else. You can certainly recycle notes from other work, but not quotes or whole swathes of a story. We have a fairly liberal policy on reselling, meaning you can try to convince any non-competitive media to buy a story AFTER our publication date has passed, not before, assuming it is 1) not identical and 2) does not appear in the pages of our competitors, AmericaEconomia, Latin Finance, Latin CEO, Economist, FT, Poder, WSJ, and two or three others I can't think of right now but will be obvious if you think about it. If Latin execs read it, sell it somewhere else, basically. A lot of Web sites might be interested in buying your ex-LT piece, but beware turning it over prior to our pub date. I have seen our stories on Web sites weeks before we get into print. I chose not to work again with those writers.
Ethics
There are a lot of journalism ethics statements. The New York Times (sic) has one 53 pages long. Mine is simple, both for sources and for your interaction with me:
"Say what you do, do what you say."
Sources will respond most effectively and comfortably if they understand what you plan to say about them and then follow through. If you don't explain, or worse, write something else, they'll have every right to complain, and it's to me they'll be complaining. Mind you, that's NOT the same as delivering detailed interview questions in advance, allowing sources to edit copy or otherwise handing over the story to the company (which you should not do at all). If you need advice on how to manage their expectations, case by case, just ask.
I will be most happy if you explain what you plan to deliver, and then deliver same. Stories change during reporting. I understand that. Just keep an open line and make clear what you are doing and why. Most probably, I can help you focus your ideas if things get slippery. See here for a more specific primer on ethics standards as generally practiced.
Some unsolicited advice
I've been there as a freelancer (four years in Chile, Business Week, Newsweek, blahblahblah), so here's my view: Cents per word is meaningless. My most lucrative contract while in Chile was with Latin Trade. Why? Because the editing process was relatively quick and they assigned me, on average, two stories a month. As long as I filed a complete story, I usually had one quick question round and a readback and I could move on to the next assignment, which is the key to succeeding in freelance: File and move on. Some mags paid more, but I got one story a month out of them or less, and the editing was endless. I was doing some media consulting stuff, and I had to figure out what my time was worth once. I did a spreadsheet breakdown and I found that all of my clients paid me exactly the same money in terms of time (which, coincidentally, helped me turn down certain new clients based on their time/reward offers).
Most of the writers who write for me repeatedly do the same. They report completely, and they work hard to develop sources and to turn in a complete file. Some of them are not great writers, but they are thorough reporters (although great writers are certainly welcome!). Transitions I can fix. Logic flow I can fix. Line editing I can do. Reporting on hard-to-reach sources inside your country I cannot do from here. Focus on the idea and who you need to reach, and you'll do well.
Interviews drive stories for Latin Trade; otherwise, it's rewarmed analysis I could do from here. Send me a short list of your interview targets. Knowing that, we can suggest interviews that might not have occurred to you as you report. Also, it gets our photo people moving faster.
You need the CEO (failing that, his designated officer who speaks for the company). I realize they're going to tell you no. Keep at 'em. Give them reasons to say yes by being available. Your company will likely give you a lower-ranking exec at first, but push for the top. Call, send faxes, build up contacts with their top PR people inside. Eventually, you'll get your 15 minutes or so with the boss. Then, you're off to the races, since pretty much everyone else (customers, suppliers, competitors, whoever...) will be on board in a second. Here's an idea: Pitch them on a plant tour or something that shows you're willing to spend time walking around the joint. Talk to mid-level people off the record if you can. Make clear what your story focus is (without promising anything and certainly not allowing them access to your story prior to publication) and they'll be more likely to buy in. A story about acquisitions or their strategy abroad they'll understand. Just saying, "Oh, get me the interview and I'll decide later" will make them skittish, and understandably so. If you hit a total wall, continue the contact and focus on another target.
Unless the CEO has some edict from the lawyers to shut up for some unrelated reason, a lawsuit or whatever, he'll eventually cave and give you some time. Remember, these people live on airplanes. If they tell you he or she is unavailable for a month, it's probably true. Don't give up, just refocus on another target and come back to it. Another possibility is they might be in a quiet period or about to release numbers. If they give you a flat no, ask why. If the reason has to do with something that will end sooner than later, tell them you can wait. It'll be worth it. Meanwhile, you can get the ball rolling at three, four or five other major companies and then just harvest them when they come around. And don't assume they won't talk to you. At the weirdest times, companies will suddenly want a chance to speak their piece in print. Some companies are more cognizant than others about the value of exposure in Latin Trade. If they seem unconvinced, talk about our circ (nearly 100K, 80K+ paid) and reach (top Brazilian, Mexican and multinational execs regularly agree to interviews). Whatever their motivation for speaking will be clear when you get there, but it's not your problem. You got in, that's all that matters.
Sources should be balanced
Talk to participants (executives, suppliers, customers, partners, regulators, investors) not observers (academics, pols, analysts, professional commentators of any type -- more on avoiding analysts here). If your story is going to raise a certain point -- a company has been hurt by a competitor, some member of the board is a loose cannon -- we have to get them on the record or take such pains to do so we can legitimately say, "Sr. Fulano declined to comment." I have no problem saying you're ugly as I long as I say you're ugly to your face. We do not publish charges without offering the company or individual space in the same story to respond. We do not publish off-the-record interviews except in extreme circumstances (life in danger). We have this policy for the same reason the parks service does not want you to feed bears: They'll come to expect it, and then we have trouble. It's tough, but that's journalism.
Information gathered at press conferences should be identified so, as in "Slim told reporters Tuesday...." Likewise, one-on-one or exclusive interviews with big fish get played up big, too, as in "In an exclusive interview with Latin Trade, Slim said...."
Always rely on primary source material. Information cribbed from local media is verboten (errors, slant, false reporting and outright propaganda is the risk) and reusing wire stories is also verboten (usually, the problem here is errors). Find out. Call the company. Get the press release. Read the financial filings. Be a reporter. Parrots I do not need.
Target your sources first
In terms of length, it depends on how many interviews you nail and, to a greater extent, the newsworthiness of the story. In a monthly with our lag time, that often means to what degree we can move the story forward three months after it's news. In a single page story (650 words max) there is probably room for three interviews. In a double pager, our section maximum (1200 words max), I can usually squeeze in five or six quoted sources. You can certainly talk to as many people as you need to understand the issues, but that's about how many of them will end up speaking in the story, and I have found that for some interviewees it turns out to be an issue. They expect to be quoted, weirdly enough (I have seen resumes where people list the magazines that have quoted them). The longer story needs more oomph, obviously, so if you have Slim on the record, that's big. Clearly, if you talk to a board member or the CFO, you're nearly there. Add a competitor, a regulator and a customer or two, and you're golden.
"Write what it's worth"
At least that's what one of the editors back at The Miami Herald used to tell us. Some writers have a hard time cutting their work. That's what editors do. If you want to send 800 words because you think it's complete, I'll run 650. On the other hand, it will seem like the same 800 words since I will much more clearly see on a fresh read what's repetitive and can go. You won't notice a difference. What's more, you end up with a screamin', good-reading, by-lined clip, which at this stage is what you should be after most. In large part, that's how you'll get your next job: great clips. As the editor, I drift into the background in these matters, but then that's the gig. I get rewarded for putting great stories together in convincing packages and leading reporting. It's a different goal.
Numbers drive the visuals
Latin Trade stories usually cry out for charts. If you run into any crunchable data in your reporting, please advise. We have a great research director, but some subjects are simply too inside for her to track all the time.
Reselling your work
We cannot and do not publish material that has appeared anywhere else. You can certainly recycle notes from other work, but not quotes or whole swathes of a story. We have a fairly liberal policy on reselling, meaning you can try to convince any non-competitive media to buy a story AFTER our publication date has passed, not before, assuming it is 1) not identical and 2) does not appear in the pages of our competitors, AmericaEconomia, Latin Finance, Latin CEO, Economist, FT, Poder, WSJ, and two or three others I can't think of right now but will be obvious if you think about it. If Latin execs read it, sell it somewhere else, basically. A lot of Web sites might be interested in buying your ex-LT piece, but beware turning it over prior to our pub date. I have seen our stories on Web sites weeks before we get into print. I chose not to work again with those writers.
Ethics
There are a lot of journalism ethics statements. The New York Times (sic) has one 53 pages long. Mine is simple, both for sources and for your interaction with me:
"Say what you do, do what you say."
Sources will respond most effectively and comfortably if they understand what you plan to say about them and then follow through. If you don't explain, or worse, write something else, they'll have every right to complain, and it's to me they'll be complaining. Mind you, that's NOT the same as delivering detailed interview questions in advance, allowing sources to edit copy or otherwise handing over the story to the company (which you should not do at all). If you need advice on how to manage their expectations, case by case, just ask.
I will be most happy if you explain what you plan to deliver, and then deliver same. Stories change during reporting. I understand that. Just keep an open line and make clear what you are doing and why. Most probably, I can help you focus your ideas if things get slippery. See here for a more specific primer on ethics standards as generally practiced.
Some unsolicited advice
I've been there as a freelancer (four years in Chile, Business Week, Newsweek, blahblahblah), so here's my view: Cents per word is meaningless. My most lucrative contract while in Chile was with Latin Trade. Why? Because the editing process was relatively quick and they assigned me, on average, two stories a month. As long as I filed a complete story, I usually had one quick question round and a readback and I could move on to the next assignment, which is the key to succeeding in freelance: File and move on. Some mags paid more, but I got one story a month out of them or less, and the editing was endless. I was doing some media consulting stuff, and I had to figure out what my time was worth once. I did a spreadsheet breakdown and I found that all of my clients paid me exactly the same money in terms of time (which, coincidentally, helped me turn down certain new clients based on their time/reward offers).
Most of the writers who write for me repeatedly do the same. They report completely, and they work hard to develop sources and to turn in a complete file. Some of them are not great writers, but they are thorough reporters (although great writers are certainly welcome!). Transitions I can fix. Logic flow I can fix. Line editing I can do. Reporting on hard-to-reach sources inside your country I cannot do from here. Focus on the idea and who you need to reach, and you'll do well.
posted by Greg Brown at 10:27 AM
0 Comments:
<< Home