Scrap the PowerPoints and the euphemisms. It's time for journalists to tell a new, more powerful story: the truth.
By
Roy Peter ClarkManagers of news organizations are forced more often these
days to tell the Big Lie.
It goes something like this: "By making these changes, we think the Daily Blank will be a better
paper. It will be leaner, more
efficient, and will focus more on what our local readers say they need." In other words, they are going to lay off or
buy out some of their best people to meet profit margins. The Big Lie is that this will make for a
better paper.
But what if the manager said something like this: "I'm not going to lie to you. These cuts are devastating. I don't
think they'll make us a better paper -- and neither do you. But this is not the
first time the Daily Blank has faced adversity.
It's only been three years since the day Hurricane Xena hit the
coast. Do you remember that day? When we had no power or light? How some of us spent three days here at the
paper living on bottled water and what we could get from the candy
machines? How we had to manage our jobs
and worry about our loved ones threatened by the storm? And what did we do against all that
adversity? We put out the best newspaper
in the state. Some of us helped deliver
them to readers from the trunks of our cars.
Don't tell me we can't meet this new crisis head on."
I got this idea from a 2003 essay I just read from the
Harvard Business Review. It is titled "Storytelling That Moves People" and transcribes a conversation with
screenwriting coach Robert McKee. The
Review describes McKee as "the world's best known and most respected
screenwriting lecturer" whose students have written or directed hundreds of hit
films. But here's what's most
interesting: McKee coaches business
leaders on how to tell more powerful stories about their companies.
Truthful stories, not candy-coated, soporific PowerPoint presentations about the 10 ways the company will become twice as good after
firing half the staff.
McKee argues that company leaders are better off telling
stories, but only if they can learn what a real story requires:
Essentially, a story expresses how and why life
changes. It begins with a situation in
which life is relatively in balance: You
come to work day after day, week after week, and everything's fine. You expect it will go on that way. But then there's an event -- in screenwriting
we call it the 'inciting incident' -- that throws life out of balance. You get a new job, or the boss dies of a
heart attack, or a big customer threatens to leave. The story goes on to describe how, in an
effort to restore balance, the protagonist's subjective expectations crash into
an uncooperative objective reality.
Think for a moment of how many journalists' expectations of
what a good career should look like have crashed into a wall of diminishing resources
and technological change.
"A good storyteller," argues McKee, "describes what it's like
to deal with these opposing forces, calling on the protagonist to dig deeper,
work with scarce resources, make difficult decisions, take action despite
risks, and ultimately discover the truth."
I think it was Kurt Vonnegut who said that if you want to
write a good story, create an interesting and likable character, and then spend
the next 300 pages doing terrible things to him. Think Harry Potter.
Now think of all the inciting incidents that have shaken the
stability of the news business: layoffs,
buyouts, cutbacks, declining circulation, loss of classified advertising,
increase in the cost of paper, the sale and dismemberment of Knight Ridder,
Murdoch lurking in the wings of The Wall Street Journal, the loss of prestige and threats to
credibility, and on and on and on.
What do we do with all that bad news? If we followed McKee's advice, we'd start
telling each other and the world outside stories of how good journalists did great
work against all odds.
I once heard James Carey, the late scholar of journalism and
culture, draw this analogy between journalism and psychiatry (I quote him from memory): "When you go to a psychiatrist, he asks you
to tell him a story. And he listens
carefully to that story trying to hear the parts of the story that may be
making you sick. His job is to help you
tell another story about yourself, a story that will keep you well."
Then he turned to journalism: "The stories journalists are telling about
themselves these days are stories about degeneration and decay. Journalists need some new stories that will
make them well, stories about hope and aspiration."
Readers don't pay for the news. That's a big problem....