I like the unexpected turns that reporting takes.
Sometimes, I'll identify the key players in a story, only to write a story that hardly attributes them at all. People who seem like they'll be crucial to the story turn out to be unquotable. Experts never call back. A shot in the dark call for a quick verification on a minor detail offers a new perspective that adds an entire section to the story.
Constant flexibility is crucial and necessary.
Last Friday, I prepared for an interview I had with a national allergist for about two hours. Most of it was background and the rest was question crafting. The public relations coordinator for National Jewish Hospital told me I had an hour. I planned accordingly. I had so many questions I needed to verify and didn't want to rely on the Internet.
I called just a few moments after noon here and 11 a.m. in Denver. He was in with a patient. He would call back. I waited for 20 minutes, hoping I'd be able to cram all my questions in. I felt confident I could if I hurried.
About 12:25, he called back. I introduced myself, told him about the story and told him I had about 20 questions. He said okay hesitantly. I launched into my questions, starting with the background and planned to hit the technical stuff after we got going. Two question in, he said he had two minutes left.
I felt flat, realizing I shouldn't have hoped for so much. I should have diversified my portfolio of national sources. I asked one last question, trying to prioritize 15 questions into one in a matter of moments.
We hung up and I felt disappointed, insulted. My skin has grown thick enough in this industry to not take it too personally. I just felt isolated from the topic. Where was my spirit guide? Where was the person who would explain the intricacies to me? Why hadn't I been able to identify that person? I had been planning on that interview since Tuesday.
I learned a valuable lesson. National experts are important, but perhaps best reserved for that highly technical question: the one that can only be answered by someone in their position. The other background-y questions should be reserved for the local nurse or doctor.
I called a nurse in Columbia on Monday. She spent 30 minutes with me, patiently explaining while she read charts and ushered patients in and out. I know this because I could hear her and because once she admitted to reading to charts.
Health care workers are slammed. At the top level, they hardly have a moment. They are triple booked. While I was bummed to not be prioritized, it's hardly surprising. Just a couple hundred, maybe a few thousand will see my article. I'm not the AP. Perhaps experts like him should be reserved for the bigger media dogs.
I'm glad I tried my hand. I won't give up. I'll try again. Next time, I'll prepare the same. But instead of having one list of questions, I'll have two: one for the 5 minute interview and one for the interview that actually turns out to be an hour.
After all, he's a sample size of one. It's certainly not enough to generalize to all doctors of his standing.
Sometimes, I'll identify the key players in a story, only to write a story that hardly attributes them at all. People who seem like they'll be crucial to the story turn out to be unquotable. Experts never call back. A shot in the dark call for a quick verification on a minor detail offers a new perspective that adds an entire section to the story.
Constant flexibility is crucial and necessary.
Last Friday, I prepared for an interview I had with a national allergist for about two hours. Most of it was background and the rest was question crafting. The public relations coordinator for National Jewish Hospital told me I had an hour. I planned accordingly. I had so many questions I needed to verify and didn't want to rely on the Internet.
I called just a few moments after noon here and 11 a.m. in Denver. He was in with a patient. He would call back. I waited for 20 minutes, hoping I'd be able to cram all my questions in. I felt confident I could if I hurried.
About 12:25, he called back. I introduced myself, told him about the story and told him I had about 20 questions. He said okay hesitantly. I launched into my questions, starting with the background and planned to hit the technical stuff after we got going. Two question in, he said he had two minutes left.
I felt flat, realizing I shouldn't have hoped for so much. I should have diversified my portfolio of national sources. I asked one last question, trying to prioritize 15 questions into one in a matter of moments.
We hung up and I felt disappointed, insulted. My skin has grown thick enough in this industry to not take it too personally. I just felt isolated from the topic. Where was my spirit guide? Where was the person who would explain the intricacies to me? Why hadn't I been able to identify that person? I had been planning on that interview since Tuesday.
I learned a valuable lesson. National experts are important, but perhaps best reserved for that highly technical question: the one that can only be answered by someone in their position. The other background-y questions should be reserved for the local nurse or doctor.
I called a nurse in Columbia on Monday. She spent 30 minutes with me, patiently explaining while she read charts and ushered patients in and out. I know this because I could hear her and because once she admitted to reading to charts.
Health care workers are slammed. At the top level, they hardly have a moment. They are triple booked. While I was bummed to not be prioritized, it's hardly surprising. Just a couple hundred, maybe a few thousand will see my article. I'm not the AP. Perhaps experts like him should be reserved for the bigger media dogs.
I'm glad I tried my hand. I won't give up. I'll try again. Next time, I'll prepare the same. But instead of having one list of questions, I'll have two: one for the 5 minute interview and one for the interview that actually turns out to be an hour.
After all, he's a sample size of one. It's certainly not enough to generalize to all doctors of his standing.
No comments:
Post a Comment