Learning to be a researcher

Last January, when I set out to write a thesis, I was initially interested in media effects, framing, and disparities (from a social justice perspective). I had studied media advocacy in mass media seminar, but I knew that media advocacy was more of an intentional tactic public health folks use to change community norms and less an organic decision that journalists make. I wanted to study the small, everyday decisions journalists have to consider when writing stories and what effects those decisions have on audiences. This desire took me to my main theory of study: framing. I dug through the available framing literature and found it was filled with interesting research questions and studies.

Many of the framing studies I found in the literature included content analyses. I steered away from this design for my own thesis because I knew I wanted to take a more active role in the process. I also viewed the coding part of content analyses as tedious and liked the control experiments give to researchers. I was drawn to the experience of learning how to manipulate something, then controlling for variation, collecting data from human subjects, and analyzing it. I am, however, very grateful to the researchers who took the time to look at how health articles were framed and to those researchers who took the time to interview health journalists about their internal processes. I see now that the content analyses and qualitative interviews are important for developing research questions and learning about next steps. The best researcher would probably employ a combination of these approaches and use both qualitative and quantitative research methods to answer their research questions.

It took months for me to understand how framing theory should guide my literature review and my research questions. I also had a hard time conceptualizing the constructs and how the post-test questions combine into a (hopefully) reliable measure. In fact, l didn’t understand how to create a measure until after I ran my experiment. I thought blame could ask about individual and societal blame, and it was only after I was creating my summary scores that I realized individual and societal blame were separate measures. I worked to remedy this by making different combinations of questions into indices. Unfortunately, I had to use individual questions for two of my measures: societal blame and societal responsibility.

The first experiment I proposed had three independent variables and was far too complex for a first-time experimenter. Brian Houston, who graciously agreed to serve as my external committee member and quantitative methodologist, helped me simplify the design. He challenged me to identify just two independent variables and assured me the process would be complex enough. A few weeks of mental grappling ensued. It was hard to commit. I enjoyed thinking about all the options but settling on a health topic, a frame and a disparity felt so narrowing. The grand ideas were dissolving, and I was left with just a few specifics. It felt like the findings would not be useful enough. But making these decisions also meant getting closer to gathering data. So, I pushed forward. After speaking with my mentors (Katherine Reed, Jeanne Abbott and Kim Walsh-Childers), I chose diabetes as my health topic. It is a pervasive condition with serious physical and economic costs for individuals and society. I also got closer to designing the experiment, with much assistance from Brian. We settled on a 2x2 factorial design between-subjects experiment. My manipulations would be frame: individual and societal and disparity: presence and absence. I chose economics for my disparity. Race disparities are common in the literature, but they are also polarizing. I decided to circumvent race and talk instead about something directly affected by racial disparities: money. The inclusion of a disparity would give me space to talk about the economic cost and economic struggles of a central character.

Once the design was settled, I met with my committee to present the proposal. The meeting itself was helpful. I was nervous, and too stressed from working too many nights and not getting time away between semesters. I was unable to take a step back and effectively edit, so the suggestions from my committee were very welcome. Brian wasn’t able to come because I didn’t send a reminder in time, and I hadn't thought about using an Outlook calendar invitation. I was disappointed but learned a valuable lesson about how to reserve a busy professor's time.

This summer involved a lot of logistics and email exchanges. I waded into Qualtrics and learned how to set up the articles and then randomize them. At times, I was frustrated that I didn’t have more quantitative mentors who could help me. I reached out to a prominent health communication scholar, Glen Cameron, who is based at Missouri, but alas, he didn't have time to help. I pushed forward, knowing that mistakes are part of the process. Guides are crucial, but learning how to be a researcher also means pushing through unfamiliar territory. So I pushed. I worked on the articles. I fought with the technology. I checked off boxes of the many forms required of a master's thesis. By mid-June, with my move to DC looming, I put the research on hold and focused on packing up my life in Columbia. I was nostalgic and proud of all I'd learned. Journalism school was a fantastic choice, and I felt lucky to have called the J-school my home for the past two years.

Once the move to DC was semi-complete, I turned on the heat again. I put in an IRB application and started researching Amazon Mechanical Turk. I read a lot of discussion threads and how-tos for MTurk and got a handle on that world. I also heard back from Betty Jo at Mizzou's IRB office. I got the green light to run my experiment and returned to Qualtrics to edit my articles and the post-test questionnaire. I called the IT department to ask about Qualtrics access and was relieved to learn I had a 30-day grace period. I ran my post-test questionnaire by one of the statisticians at the National Cancer Institute. He graciously assisted. I could tell he was nervous about getting wrapped into a master’s level project, so I again turned inward. I could only get so much advice before I had to just dive in.

I reviewed everything four times and hit run on the MTurk experiment around 5 p.m. on a Thursday in August. The data came flooding in nearly instantly. By Friday morning, I had collected 200 responses. I reviewed them, paying close attention to time spent. The average time on the experiment was about 11 minutes. I rejected people who seemed to complete it too quickly. This turned out to only be one person. I put the experiment back onto the market and collected that last response by Friday afternoon. I approved everyone. Then I waited.

And waited. A week passed. I had a large spreadsheet worth of data from 200 people. I didn’t really know what to do next. I knew I needed to clean the data and then analyze it. But I hadn’t used SPSS since the winter of 2014. About a week later, a coworker asked me how the data analysis was going. It wasn’t. We set an appointment to review data cleaning and analysis for the next day, and I started to dig in.

I found the data cleaning process meditative. It involves creating new columns when needed, running demographic analyses on participants and reviewing the manipulation checks to make sure they worked. After that process, I was able to fix my methodology. I reorganized that section and filled in the holes where the descriptive statistics needed to be. 

My next phase was digging into the data itself. I read tutorials on analysis of variance (ANOVA) and reviewed 2x2 factorial design. I also asked another coworker how she would look for main effects and interactions. I ran tests and stared at the charts. Then I slowly began working through the findings to find meaning in the numbers. 

The results showed that my manipulations (frame and disparity) had a significant impact on readers and that one manipulation was not dependent upon the other. Framing and the inclusion of a disparity had an impact on how readers assigned blame and responsibility to the individual and the government. And the influence was in the direction I had hypothesized. Participants who read an individually oriented article were more likely to assign blame to the individual, while the societally focused article found the opposite. The same was true for responsibility and government solutions: people who read individually oriented articles were more likely to put responsibility on the individual than society or the government and vice versa.

I spent several evenings and weekends staring at data and trying to figure out what it meant and how it could apply to journalists. At first, I struggled to understand the difference between a main effect and an interaction and how to represent my findings in a paper. I am very grateful to Jennifer Taber and Chan Thai at the National Cancer Institute for taking time out of their busy research schedules to mentor me through my roadblocks. I have a much stronger grasp of social science research now that I have run an experiment of my own.

Even though I have a limited scope of real-world journalism, I still feel confident with my discussion and my conclusion. The everyday health journalist most likely uses a combination of the frames and source types I used in my thesis. My manipulations were very pronounced so that I could see the effects clearly. An actual article would probably resemble a mixture of the four articles I produced for this experiment. A newsroom would certainly create something much less "experiment acceptable." But that is the real world. So, I am only able to extrapolate so far. I think it is worth noting though that framing and the inclusion of an economic disparity did have a significant impact on where readers of articles on diabetes placed blame, responsibility and government responsibility. It is a reality I will remember when I have the opportunity to start reporting again (fingers crossed!).

Self-care tips from the Dart Center

I just read through the self-care tips from the Dart Center, and I really like them. I think we should print a few copies off and paste them around the newsroom. They would probably do some good in any newsroom in America, or the world, for that matter. I especially like the on-the-job tips. I also really like that they are directed at news media personnel and not just reporters or photographers. Trauma can affect everyone, including copy editors.

A few days last summer when I was on the copy desk, we had an AP wire story about a violent homicide. I don't remember the details of the story at this point. But I do remember that the reporter included some grotesque and graphic details. I read through the article and felt a little sick. I mentioned it to Margaux, and she said when she worked for the Chicago Tribune a few summers back, she often edited multiple homicide stories a night. She said it took a toll on her and that she felt apprehensive about working as a copy editor in larger markets.

I bring this up because we never actually talked about the issue of editing traumatic stories in my copy editing class. We also haven't really discussed it too much in our trauma class. The reporters, photographers and videographers are all witnessing the primary trauma or the immediate aftermath. And the editors go through the story with the reporter. But the copy editor is in a unique position. Copy editors are abstractly aware of stories coming off the wire or the budget, but don't often consider the content until it's right in front of them. They edit at night once the reporters and news editors have left for the day, so they are more disconnected from the production of the content. They also edit several stories in a row, one or many of which could contain difficult content.

The way we managed the stress of reading difficult stories or seeing difficult photos last year was just to talk about it on the desk with each other. The nice part of the copy desk is that it is a unit. It works very collaboratively. In my opinion, the copy desk is actually one of the more collaborative experiences I've had in the newsroom in terms of the constant communication about the workflow. I would often build galleries on deadline with another person and even co-edit stories on pages right before deadline. It's akin to co-reporting. So, I think there is a built-in community to deal with the aftermath of trauma. But I still think it's worth noting that anyone in the newsroom — page designers, headline writers, copy editors — can experience some tough stuff. So, breaks, discussions, assessments and knowing your limits are important for everyone. I think understanding how trauma affects people could definitely be discussed more in the news editing courses, at least at one or two of the lectures throughout the semester. It'll help inform the editing on the desk and help keep the editors emotionally healthy.

P.S. I've been thinking about this topic all weekend in the aftermath of the Nepal earthquake. Media folks around the world are looking at some difficult images and reporting some harrowing details about people being crushed, homes being leveled and health care workers attempting to treat more than 5,000 injured people. It's a disturbing story and one that needs to be told, but everything I've read since yesterday has been tough to stomach.

Ebola coverage (week 13)

Daniel Berehulak, a photographer based in New Delhi, won a Pulitzer for feature photography last week for his coverage of Ebola. He worked for the New York Times as a freelancer for about four months. I really enjoyed the articles in the New York Times and The Guardian about his award because of what he says about why he did the work and why he stayed so long in the epicenter. He remained in Monrovia for 67 days without taking a break. Despite his own internal fears, he could not pull himself away from what was happening in the streets. Treatment centers were overflowing with people and the collection teams couldn't pick up the bodies fast enough. He was based in Monrovia and traveled out to other regions to document the lives of the health center staff, the burial teams, the survivors, the victims and even the father of the first person thought to have died of Ebola. The whole world was frightened of this disease, he said. He was also shocked that more media organizations didn't step up to send staff.

He told the Guardian that Ebola scares the hell out of him because it preys on our humanity and our caregivers. The people who came to the aid of the ill were the ones who got sick next. But he said it was the strength and resilience of the people he witnessed that kept him going. I love that the Times article closes with a discussion about resilience.

In addition to a photography award, the New York Times staff also won a Pulitzer for international reporting on Ebola. As I scrolled through some of the coverage, I remembered where I was when I first read these articles. Most were written last fall in the throes of the epidemic. Some were written earlier and some more recently.

I noticed one article in the list that I never saw back in October. The article is about a container of medical supplies worth $140,000 that had not been cleared by the Sierra Leonean government for two months. Health care workers were dying of Ebola and often working without protective gloves or gowns and these supplies were just sitting near the dock waiting to be unloaded while government officials bickered about protocol. It's a great investigative story about systems not working. It explains that supplies are available but were not sent to the right place at the right time because of corruption, confusion and lack of coordination. It reminded me of the chaos following Hurricane Katrina. Health care workers all over the country, including in Oregon, wanted to go to Louisiana to help, but in the first few hours and days, were told that their health licenses would not be valid across state lines. The bureaucratic red tape prevented people from going to help. I think stories like this one are immensely important in identifying issues and the systemic problems. I wonder if I didn't see it initially because the narratives about people dying were getting more attention from readers, including me. 

Ebola coverage (week 12)

Vice reporter Kayla Ruble did an in-depth story about the vaccine trials in Liberia. I've been following this reporter because she's been working on post-epidemic stories about Ebola for about a month. The article is called "The End of Ebola: Inside the Race to Finish Vaccine Trials in Liberia," and it published yesterday.

I really liked it because it addresses the challenges the vaccine industry is facing now that Ebola cases are waning. It's difficult to determine the success rate of a vaccine if there are no cases to test it again. It's a great problem to have public-health wise, but not a good problem to have if you're working to develop a successful vaccine.

Ruble spoke with a vaccine trial participant about his experience. She led and ended with him, but the majority of her story pulled from interviews with Stephen Kennedy, a Liberian-born American-trained doctor who is working as the country's research coordinator. She also included information from a bioethics fellow at Princeton and one of the other vaccine coordinators. I thought her background on hemorrhagic fever outbreaks in Africa was great. There have been 26 outbreaks since 1976 and the name Ebola comes from the Ebola River in northern Democratic Republic of Congo. I haven't seen background like that in an article in months. I think the overall, background and context such as this has been lacking from Ebola stories.

I think she did adopt the language of health workers and few times: "human vector," "efficacy" and "NGO" veer toward jargon and probably either need to be ditched for simpler language or explained. I also found some style errors and typos, so from a copy editing perspective, I think this article could have been cleaned up a little more stateside. However, the reporting itself is solid. Her voice is clear and authoritative and it has a good news value because it addresses the issue of vaccines and hemorrhagic fever.

(The comments at the end of her story are essentially spam, and don't really add much to the conversation.)

A second story of note this week is that the CDC has changed its guidelines regarding sex and Ebola. It previously recommended that survivors wait three months for unprotected sex, but changed that recommendation on Sunday to indefinitely. It found that semen was still present in a survivor nearly 75 days after researchers had ever seen it present. This article includes links to the CDC's guidelines and quotes from a CDC researcher and a WHO official. It also included the voice of a Liberian doctor who also survived Ebola. The article was well-written and officially sourced. It also links over to an April 16 article about why the virus survives so much longer in the testes in men and the placenta in pregnant women. I like that this earlier article addresses the complications with recommending condoms indefinitely. The quote from a WHO official is great: "People have sex lives. Sexual activity should not be restricted beyond the point when there is unlikely to be a risk, as the virus should eventually disappear." Public health officials obviously have a dilemma on their hands, so I look forward to more reporting on this topic. It's more in the realm of HIV at this point, which the reporter addresses in the article. The ending is almost unbelievable. A Sierra Leonean woman died of Ebola recently, and her husband said that officials came to collect semen. He refused saying he is impotent, so they came back with a laptop and played pornographic videos while they tried to stimulate him manually with soap. A female worker also undressed him and also removed some of her clothing. Wow. What a story. I burst out laughing when I read it because it's so preposterous, but it's also so humiliating if it's true. It's a bit of a he said/she said, so I'm not sure the truth will ever emerge, but it's definitely a detail worth reporting. It shows just how crazy some of this "data collection" can be.

An article in Time, titled "Everything to know about Ebola and Sexual Intercourse," uses a Q&A story form to talk about sex, semen and Ebola. It includes information about the CDC guidelines and then walks through the questions "you're too squeamish to ask." I like this approach because it holds my attention, explains more complicated medical information about the difference between blood and semen and talks about how the CDC is providing the couple with condoms indefinitely. The question that it doesn't answer is: Is the CDC distributing condoms throughout West Africa to Ebola survivors? And if so, what are the roll-out plans for this distribution process. It was a good episodic piece about the change in guidelines, but it was short and left out some of my lingering questions.

(None of these articles has comments.)

Covering a traumatic event in real time

Last Wednesday evening was quiet. It was almost too quiet. I edited a couple of stories and by 8 p.m., I had nothing else coming in and nothing in the queues. Django was behaving itself, and the scanner just hummed quietly with the occasional status check breaking through the static. Timoshanae Wellmaker walked breathlessly into the newsroom around 8:30 p.m. with an unbudgeted story. I was grateful for the copy and excited to have something to do. We tweaked and re-tweaked and sent the story along.

It was only 9:30 p.m.

I checked my inbox and saw a release from the Columbia PD. Four hours earlier a man slid into a woman's car while she shopped at Moser's and attacked her when she returned from buying groceries. She fought him off, and the man was still at large. The GA reporter had signed out a few hours earlier, so I printed off the release and immediately began writing. We posted the story as quickly as we could, but it still took about an hour to get it through the queues.

I started packing up and nervously wondered if they'd caught the guy. I felt apprehensive about biking over to Aaron's with an armed man still running around Columbia. The CPD Twitter page kept adding updates about the guy, but they all kept repeating what was in the release. I hung around.

At 11 p.m. decided to head home. But looking back, I don't think I actually thought I was leaving. I sensed something strange in the air. Then the phone rang.

Carolyn Heger told me she'd heard shots fired in the Hitt Street garage. She dropped to the ground and once it was over, she called me. I told her to start reporting from the apartment. I sent her phone numbers for the CPD. She called several times, but no one picked up. She tweeted some pictures and watched the scene unfold. She saw more than a dozen cop cars. Her boyfriend saw a body. Maybe two. We heard over the scanner that there had been a shooting with a baby involved. Everything was chaotic. At first, I assumed the worst. This man might have shot someone. He could still be on the loose. Our night news editor went downstairs with one of the sports editors to make sure the doors to Lee Hills were locked. One of the doors was open.

Carolyn called back. The scene seemed safe, so she was going down to the garage to talk to the police and if she could find them, some witnesses. A copy editor named Ethan Colbert put on a yellow media vest and got a reporter's notebook from our print news editor. I felt nervous sending him out, but the news editors didn't stop him, so I didn't say anything. I still wonder if I should have.

Carolyn called again to say she had talked with some witnesses and a few people who went to rescue their car from the garage. I told her Ethan was headed over to help. I asked her to keep calling the police. We received an alert from the MU police saying that the suspect from an earlier armed robbery had been killed. But they did not confirm the identity of the suspect. We all felt less nervous now. It appeared the man wasn't still at large. We put up a burst, and I started a story file.

Ethan called. He was going to cross the tape. Photographers came in and began uploading photos. Carolyn returned and started furiously typing. She'd gathered several witness accounts. Then something sad and strange happened. She received word that a few of her sorority sisters had been talking with Adair when he'd been shot. She asked me if she should call them. I paused. My immediate response was "yes, of course, let's call them to get that eye witness account." My second thought was a flashback of a semester's worth of learning from my reporting on traumatic events course. I paused and told Carolyn that we probably shouldn't call. The story was shocking enough, and I didn't want to hurt those girls. We quickly talked through it and agreed to leave them out. Looking back, I think we made a good choice. Carolyn took off and Ethan came in to write the top.

Their reporting blended perfectly into a story. It was seamless. We wrote a print version and then spent more time writing a more detailed online story. I don't have many recollections of time from that night. I know Carolyn left around midnight and I got to sleep around 3:30 a.m., but it is hard to remember everything that happened before and after those time stamps.

I do remember that everything felt collaborative. We didn't have time for anything except the work. We were hyper-focused on getting the information, verifying it and meeting the deadline. I noticed that my memories from that night are different from other memories of events not involving so much stress. Like we learned in class, some of the memories are super sharp and others are not in focus at all. I didn't feel hunger. I don't remember going to the bathroom. My normal human urges were paused. The next day I was wired. I could feel that my body was still on high alert.

I talked through the experience with some of the editors and that helped. I read the stories and the updates. I talked a lot with Aaron. I still have a lot of questions. My sense is that Mark Adair was a violent and brutal man, but I still believe the system failed him. Did he deserve to be shot to death in the Hitt Street garage Wednesday night? I don't think so. Why was this man who was so obviously a threat to society simply released into the world and then so quickly able to obtain a gun and threaten people? I'd like to see some Act 2 stories about this shooting. I'd like to learn more about who this man was and what the ramifications of the events of that night are. I'd really love to read a story about the woman who fought this guy off or how the women who were talking with him are coping with that traumatic experience. I'd also like to read more about the process people go through when they leave prison and receive parole. How often do people in similar situations completely lose control? This story seems like fertile ground for Act 2 and 3 reporting.

Interview with an Ebola survivor and analysis of his coverage (week 11)

I emailed Ashoka Mukpo yesterday afternoon in a last ditch effort to connect with an Ebola survivor. And this time he wrote back with his telephone number! Talking with him was incredible. He has a lot to share, and I could have happily talked with him for hours about his experience. He was kind enough to give me a half an hour and I am certain some of the lessons he passed on will stay with me for some time.

Mukpo is originally from Rhode Island, but he doesn't strongly identify with that place. He's currently living in London and is focusing on his recovery. He has spent the past couple years living in Liberia. He focused on worker's rights, particularly surrounding the mining industry. He freelanced for media organizations as well. He contributes to Vice News, Africa is a Country and others. When the epidemic raged back last summer, he returned to help raise awareness of the virus. He is most proud of a piece called "To live and die with Ebola in Liberia," which ran in Africa is a Country. The article digs into some of the economic and political underpinnings of the crisis. He addresses the quarantine in West Point and why many of the residents living in that slum distrust the government and the aid workers. He critiques the corruption and provides an inside view of why the government itself is fueling the distrust. He uses a thematic frame and includes great contextual and historical information. He is able to write with authority because he understands the issue. Unfortunately, comments are not a feature on this blog, so I'm not sure how people reacted to it. But it does have hundreds of shares on social media. My own response to this article is admiration. He offered an inner-sanctum view of the situation, which I didn't often read in the Western media. I didn't see this piece when it came out and I didn't find it through search either. This article shows that searching out African-based media outlets is a good idea because it offers viewpoints that might not be included in the Western media.

Mukpo also covered Ebola for Vice, Al Jazeera and the Washington Post. He wrote three opinion pieces for Al Jazeera from August through December and called for more international assistance. Many in Liberia knew the epidemic was worsening, but international leaders acted too late, he said.

His most recent article for Al Jazeera, published today, is called "Survivor guilt: Former Ebola patients struggle with virus' legacy." This article addresses the depression, lingering physical effects of Ebola, such as eye problems and joint pain, and the financial hardships that result from losing the breadwinner. Many people have been stigmatized and are left out of the aid programs meant to help them, he reported. This is a later Act 2 piece about survivors and where they are now. One survivor said when he found out he had survived, he was not happy. He was alone. He had no reason to survive. This article was difficult to read. I admit I teared up at one point. The woman who lost her child and her parents reminded me a little of Sonali Deraniyagala. There's a picture of woman in the article holding up pictures of her mom and her dad, and it's really hard to look at. Readjusting to this new reality must be hell for her.

Mukpo's writing is heartbreaking and real. I hope he continues writing Act 2 stories and slowly begins to move to Act 3. We need more stories like this one that reminds people that Ebola is not over. The trauma of the crisis last fall continues for thousands.

Ebola song

I found this amazing song yesterday as I was Googling Ebola. Liberia's Ministry of Health worked with musicians to release songs that educated people about Ebola. The lyrics cover how the virus is passed, how people can protect themselves and the chorus repeats that Ebola is here and is real. It tells people to avoid body contact, avoid traditional burial practices and to wear protective equipment when burying a body. It emphasizes that there is no treatment. It says Ebola cannot spread through air or water but can pass through direct contact with blood, saliva, urine, stool, sweat or semen of an infected person or an infected animal. I think it's a brilliant public health tactic. Music is such an integral part of life every culture, so it's a great medium for getting the message out.

'A Rape on Campus' report

There is a lot to learn from the foibles of "A Rape on Campus." The first is that I need to strengthen my internal antenna. I swallowed the article whole and never stopped to question its veracity. I never stopped to think that it is a single-source story. Of course, verification could have occurred in the background without being explicitly stated, but transparency is always better. I was surprised to read that Erdely never got the name of the lifeguard. I was shocked actually. Moving forward with such a story seems like it should require full cooperation from the source. Anything less than that does that person a disservice. If she were really that fearful of retribution, why was she willing to go on the record will a name-brand national magazine? It's probably easy for me to be critical since I'm looking in the rearview..but still. 

Personally, I believe too many exceptions were made. I kept wondering where the tough-ass editor was. Why was Erdely never pushed harder? Why didn't she push herself harder? She was working full-time on this story for months. I think a lesson here is to never get so distracted by the other reporting as to neglect the verification process. That's the most important part, and the reporter needed to keep her eye on the ball. I'll never forget what Liz Brixey told me on one of my first days ACEing. It doesn't matter if the story is beautifully written and organized. If there is a factual error, it destroys the rest of the story. Priority number one is getting it right. Liz is right. Erdely lost sight of this vital truth. It is a beautifully crafted story. It's stunning. But it's wrong. It's fiction.

The other part of the report that I found surprising is that Jackie never asked Erdely not to talk with her three friends. Erdely absolutely should have talked with them. She should have been less concerned with losing her source and more concerned with the reporting. If she lost the source, fine, that wasn't even the point of the story, according to the editor. She had plenty of other rape stories, which are all shocking.

Again, it's probably easy for me to critique since I have 20/20 vision on this. I wonder how I would have reacted in this situation. I would like to think I'd have a more critical view. But the subject matter is so taboo. I do commend the Rolling Stone for taking on such a tough topic. But with great power comes great responsibility. The Stone took on this story, so in my opinion, they took on that responsibility of being one of the first to tackle this. I hope the next outlet to take on sexual assault does a better job.

Also, I wonder what's so wrong with highlighting the "normal" rape story? Everyone loved Jackie's story because it was dramatic. But rape is horrifying in its many forms. It's also complicated and messy and not often so clearly good vs. evil, though those elements certainly exist. The next story should tackle the less dramatic, more common rape story. That would be a more effective way to educate people about what is actually happening on college campuses.

covering suicide

I loved every moment of our discussion about suicide today. It was tough but necessary. I learned that framing and word choice in suicide reporting is crucial. Copycat suicide is real, so Act 1 articles demand careful consideration. But as the 10th-leading cause of death in the U.S., the media is not doing enough to address this saddening and maddening public health issue. More Act 2 and 3 stories are needed. Alternatives are available to people and this reality needs to be stressed more and more often in media accounts. I honestly can't remember the last time I read an Act 2 or 3 suicide article in  a national outlet. Of course, the story about the German pilot and Robin Williams both made headlines for days. But the story about parents mourning a child or children grieving a parent or friends saying goodbye to a friend 2, 5, 10 years on has been absent.

Watching my own aunt and uncle deal with the monumental loss of their son has been brutal. He took his life more than 15 years ago, and to them, it still seems like yesterday. I appreciated talking about how we won't often get to the why. I've been asking why about my cousin for a decade and a half.

And I didn't even consider admitting that I would never know. I always thought I would find out, somehow, miraculously why he did it. I once asked a woman who specialized in conversing with spirits to ask him. Looking back, she essentially told me to stop asking that question. But I didn't take a hint.

I guess the more proactive approach is to acknowledge the loss and work on preventing another loss. It actually seems kind of simple. But it means that I have to address the loss and give myself permission to move on without full understanding. I have to gain closure another way. Information will not provide that closure. Another key takeaway for me is to acknowledge that the stigma has kept most of my family from moving on. This is something that we didn't talk about today. But it is very real. My family knows it is healthy to talk about suicide, but none of us seem to know how. We ask "why," but it seems more rhetorical at times. Perhaps we ask an unknowable question on purpose because then we don't have to deal with the reality. Maybe I'm overthinking this or being too philosophical. Maybe I should have achieved closure years ago. But another side of me realizes that this sadness lingers because this story is not done. There is probably still more to learn from Justin Goldner, my brilliant, witty and sharp-tongued cousin. I hope his story can inform my reporting and editing in a positive way. I think he would like that.

Planning for the survivor interview

This week, I received two telephone numbers for Ebola survivors in Liberia. One connection came through a photographer and another through the IOM office in Monrovia. I'm planning to call each of them tomorrow morning. Hopefully, at least one of them is willing to speak with me. The process of finding a survivor has been trickier than I anticipated.

I contacted a dozen or so reporters who are based in and out of West Africa (mostly through Twitter and email), but I only heard back from two of them. One forwarded my request to at least two American survivors. I think I was blind copied because he said he wasn't at liberty to share email addresses. But Ashoka Mukpo and Nancy Writebol both wrote to me (!).

I'd love to interview them and have been corresponding, but I'm not sure these leads will convert into interviews in time. It's tricky on many fronts. I remember how difficult it was to reach people when I lived in Turkmenistan. The Internet does not travel around in your pocket. It is not a necessary part of existence. It is a luxury item that few can afford and even fewer think about. I had to travel at least 45 minutes to get an Internet cafe. On a 110-degree day, the trip alone was a lot to ask, especially if I had already been to work and needed to wash laundry or cook dinner or attend a wedding. The Internet might or might not have had an Internet connection at the time I arrived. Well, you get the point. I understand the challenges and am hoping for the best.

Here goes.

Miranda rights warning

Thank you so much for taking the time to talk with me about your experience as an Ebola survivor. I am in awe of your strength and your openness to sharing your story. I am going to ask you questions about your physical, emotional, psychological and spiritual health. It's possible that these questions will take you back to difficult moments of struggle and loss. I will also ask you to delve into your grief so that I can better understand how to interview Ebola survivors in the future. With the information you provide me today, I will develop a toolkit for reporters who are covering Ebola. I hope that these guidelines will help the media industry become more sensitive and less sensational. I will not include your name in the materials and will only share this interview with my professor. If you feel uncomfortable with any of the questions I'm asking you, just let me know. I don't want this interview to be traumatic. We can skip over or amend any questions that might be difficult for you. If you decide that you don't want to continue with the interview any longer, just let me know. Your participation is completely voluntary. You are also welcome to invite a family member or friend to be present for the interview.

What I would add if this interview were going to lead to an article: 

I'd also like to take a moment to talk about how I will confirm information you tell me. Part of being a reporter requires that I verify and vet accounts and facts. I have to be sure everything in the article is accurate. It is important for both of us that I tell the story well and that I tell it right. I might ask you to help put me in touch with people or ask you how you know certain things. I am not doubting you. I am working to ensure that I tell the best possible story. The reporting process takes time. I will respect your time, but I also need to be up front with you about the reality of the process. I will ask you for assistance from time to time and will ask for additional information. Editors might also call you as we get closer to the deadline. Additionally, if I ever use a term you are unfamiliar with, please let me know, and I will explain it.

I am honored to have the opportunity to hear your story. Thank you for trusting me with it. Shall we begin?

the survivor interview

People contacted for Ebola survivor interview:

Ahmed Jallanzo - photojournalist/fixer in Monrovia

John Poole and Sami Yenigun - NPR producers (http://www.npr.org/blogs/goatsandsoda/2015/02/27/389308249/a-10-hour-ride-a-welcome-with-cola-nuts-a-sad-yet-hopeful-new-normal)

Sheri Fink - NYT

Debbie Doty - Medical Teams International

Dr. Kent Brantly - Samaritan's Purse (via FB)

Doctors Without Borders PR team

Umaru Fofana - Sierra Leonian Journalist, https://twitter.com/UmaruFofana

Clair McDougall - NYT reporter in Liberia

Kayla Ruble - Vice News

Ajani Shakanova - friend

Samwar Fallah - https://twitter.com/samzato?lang=en

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/30/health/how-ebola-roared-back.html?_r=0#

Ebola coverage (week 10)

I'm seeing more post-epidemic coverage stories now that the number of Ebola cases is slowing in Western Africa.

Vice News reporter Kayla Ruble wrote a good Act 2 piece about a young woman's life post-Ebola. The woman lost 19 family members, including her husband to Ebola and now has to rely on selling food at a market stall to feed herself and nine children (some hers, some the children of family members). It was interesting to read that men are not only the breadwinner of the immediate family, but also of the extended family. The thematic-leaning frame of this article is a strength. She does follow a central character, but draws from context and stats. The article flows well and includes good context. Her word choice is appropriate and not too sensational. The comments at the bottom of the article were actually kind of offensive, and I'm surprised Vice News allows them to be posted seemingly unchecked. My own reaction to this story is that I'm impressed. I imagined each step Ruble took to report it as I read it. In my opinion, she did a great job with the article. She found an interesting angle, took her own pictures and reported it from Liberia.

Last Wednesday, the New York Times ran an opinion piece by Bill Gates titled "How to fight the next epidemic." His analysis of the global response to the Ebola epidemic is well-reasoned and scary as hell. He writes, "The problem isn’t so much that the system didn’t work well enough. The problem is that we hardly have a system at all." He poses the tough realities that many people seem afraid to consider. What if Ebola were airborne? The fear that pulsed through the American public last fall was essentially unjustified because the fear didn't match the reality. What happens when a disease as deadly as Ebola spreads on droplets through the air like the Spanish flu, Gates asks? Some 50 million died as a result of that strain of influenza. The world is much more mobile today than it was back then. What would a pandemic like that look like today? His critique of the slow response seems justified. Doctors Without Borders is to be commended, but it's a nonprofit. Why should it carry the burden of epidemic on its shoulders, Gates asks? I think his word choice is cutting and intentionally so. He's disappointed with the failure of the response and fearful of a stronger virus during the next round. It's an opinion piece, so the frame is personal and opinion-based. I was surprised to see that no one has posted a comment about this opinion piece. I usually see hundreds of comments on NYT articles.


The other article I read this past week was about the rise in violence against women in Ebola-struck nations. This is another Act 2 article about a unique challenge that Ebola poses: The virus can spread through semen, so people must wait months before having unprotected sex. Julia Duncan Cassell, the minister of gender and development in Liberia, said, "Some men were not respecting the recovery protocol that Ebola survivors should observe and were infecting their spouses and female partners through unprotected sex." The result is a rise in sexual assault in the country. I haven't seen this issue reported anywhere else in the media, so I thought this article from Reuters was noteworthy. The spread of Ebola through semen appears to be confirmed this week. A woman tested positive and her only contact was with her boyfriend who is a survivor. The article also discussed the fact that more women have been infected with Ebola since they tend to be the caretakers. The frame is thematic, because it draws a public health angle, rather than a specific anecdote about gender-based violence. It relies on experts, though, and doesn't have any voices from women. I think it would be stronger with the expert voices as well as a story about a local woman's experience. I didn't see any comments posted.

Reminder to self, focus on: frequency, framing, word choice, social response and my reaction to the coverage.

Reading response to Wave (week 10)

Sonali Deraniyagala's words ripped me away from my reality for two days. I couldn't stop reading her story. I kept thinking that what happened to her was worst-case scenario, then she addressed that exact sentiment about halfway through her book. She wrote, "I am the unthinkable situation that people cannot bear to contemplate." Exactly. "This wild statistical outlier ... luckless mother that I am."

She somehow emerged from the wave that day, and has been using words to work through her grief. Her book is an incredible gift to the world. As a journalist, I'm really grateful that she wrote it. As a person, I'm even more grateful. The assumptions we make on a daily basis can be like knives to a grieving person. It's hard to sum up my takeaways, but in order to put into words how I feel about this book, I'll try.

• Nature can be cruel.
• The timing of events can be senseless.
• Events in life have no explanation. Blame and regret breed pain.
• Overcoming grief is a lifelong process.
• Friend networks can and do help, but the internal processes are what makes life livable again. 
• Writing is an incredibly cathartic process.
• Memories, though painful, can be an important part of the healing process.

God, even now reading back through lines I underlined, I see tear-stained pages, and my eyes well up again. It's really hard to write a blog response in just a few paragraphs about such a monumental life experience. Deraniyagala experienced something in a moment that few people ever have to face in an entire lifetime.

Her book is incredibly brave. She wrote through her grief and was brave enough to gift her words to the world. Thank you seems a paltry response. You have changed my world seems cliche. You have given me a new lens with with to view grief would be more accurate. Journalists need to read this book because, like she said, most of us would rather not even contemplate what happened to her. But we have to so that we won't sound like the assuming woman on the plane or the colleague or the couple at dinner. I don't think I'll ever see a single person at a restaurant the same way again. It really floored me that one of the reasons she didn't tell people was because she didn't want to hurt them. Of course, another reason was that because acknowledging the truth would make it more real and she used denial as a defense mechanism for a long time.

I can't begin to tell my own story to a stranger, so how could I begin to think I know anything about someone else's life? Life is long and complex and filled with so many experiences. Deraniyagala has let me inside an experience I've never heard about before. Hers. Of course I heard echoes of Angela Anderson's story in Deraniyagala's — the untouched rooms, the memories that reinforce what was real before that fateful day, the letting go of what will never be. But they were quite different, too. As I get older and hear more and more stories, I am struck at the diversity in our stories and equally important, the diversity in our reactions to what happens to us.

There is not one response to overwhelming grief. Deraniyagala's account of the wave is a perfect example of this. It's also a great example of how difficult it is to know what happening when you are caught up in the middle of something. She didn't even see the wave hit her family. She saw the terror on her husband's face and was immediately washed away. She sought out pictures of the Japanese tsunami with fascination because it offered a glimpse into what she lived through. I remember reading that the protests in the Arab Spring were similar. People didn't know what was happening on the ground level because they couldn't get a bird's eye view.

I think it's beautiful that time creates the space needed to heal. Deraniyagala will always have her memories. For a long time, they were too painful to sift through, but with time, she found she was able to return to them for healing, understanding and remembering.

Ebola coverage (week 9)

I just got an email back from a Liberian photojournalist who covered Ebola when it hit Liberia. Laura Welfringer interviewed him for Global Journalist last semester and produced Photo essay: Capturing the Ebola outbreak. I asked him if he could help put me in touch with an Ebola survivor. He said he can assist. I think it'll be incredible to speak with someone firsthand. I hope the interview comes through.

The coverage is interesting this week. For the first time ever, the U.S. has more cases Ebola cases than Liberia. Liberia hasn't recorded any cases since March 5. But Sierra Leone and Guinea are each reporting about 60 cases a week, according to the World Health Organization. The American health worker was infected while treating patients in Sierra Leone and was transferred to the National Institutes of Health on Friday. He is currently in critical condition. I like the information in this article, but I'm not sure I like the way it's framed. It's definitely eye-catching. Yes, the U.S. does have more patients at the moment than Liberia. But for months, Liberia had hundreds of cases a week. Liberia experienced 9,000 cases of Ebola compared with a handful of Americans who have been flown home to receive the best possible care. This is not an equal opportunity disease. It kills people who do not have access to care. Instead of focusing on the one person who is in critical condition, what about focusing on the dozens of others in Sierra Leone and Guinea who are still dying? The proximity news angle is relevant here. It's news because it's an American and because that American risked his life to help others. I do think that's noble. But I guess I'd like to see more rebuilding stories out of Liberia and more coverage of what people in Sierra Leone and Guinea are doing to quell the epidemic.

I really enjoyed this article from the Daily Beast about a 16-year-old Ebola orphan from Sierra Leone. The girl and her two brothers are receiving assistance from Street Child UK, an NGO working to support the Ebola orphans in their communities. The article mentioned James Kassage Arinaitwe's article "Ebola orphans in Africa do not need saviours." I really liked Arinaitwe's article and blogged about it when I read it late February. His premise is that when media organizations highlight an individual, others wonder why they were not chosen. Adopting children from tough situations makes the situation tougher for those left behind. So the idea of Street Child UK is that orphans will be supported in their own communities so they can stay there, go to school and maintain some semblance of normalcy. I like this article because it's honest, yet hopeful. It talks about an individual person, but does not frame her as a helpless victim. She is rebuilding. Her father protected his children by quarantining himself and as a result, saved their lives. The reporter also gathered great detail even though she interviewed through a translator and it looks like at times over the phone. I like it because it takes Arinaitwe's criticism into account, while still drawing on the power of the individual narrative.

Reading response - Week 9

Since I read chapter 7 in Anthony Feinstein's book about how 9/11 affected the media, I've been thinking about my own experience with that tragedy. I was a sophomore in college and living in Tacoma. I first heard about the plane crashing into the World Trade Center from my roommate. She often got up earlier than I did and would go for a long bike ride, come back, shower and then get ready for the school. That's when I would usually roll out of bed. On that morning, I remember she rushed in and turned on the TV. I sleepily asked her to turn it off and her response felt urgent and even panicked. She said something like, "Trace, look what's happening." That got me up. I looked over at the screen of the small TV and saw the tower burning. I wasn't wearing my glasses, but I could still see the flames. The broadcaster's voice was shocked. The image seemed surreal. After that, I don't have any other memories of 9/11. I'm not sure why. I know that I continued to watch and read the coverage. But the event itself did not jar my reality like it did for some people. It was a tragedy. It was terrible. But for me, it was really far away and I didn't know anyone involved. Like the many tragedies I'd read about in the 90s, Rwanda, Bosnia, the first Iraq war, it was sad. But unlike Rwanda, Bosnia and and even to some extent Iraq, the event itself did not involve nearly as many deaths. In Rwanda alone, between half a million and a million people were killed. I know that it is never fair to compare tragedies, but I wonder if the scale had some effect on me. It could be that I was young and unconnected from it. If the same tragedy befell New York today, I might have a much different take.

In terms of Feinstein's research, 9/11 hit at an interesting time. He was already researching war journalists and this event gave him the chance to research domestic journalists who had essentially become war reporters. He wrote that when lives are violently taken, it is difficult for people to grapple with because there is "no victim hierarchy." He also wrote that the shock and revulsion of the viewer lies on a sliding scale. Perhaps the event didn't hit high on the scale because I was thinking in terms of global events, but other Americans were thinking in terms of New York events or American disasters. In that case, it would be hard to find a recent event that killed that many Americans on American soil. The one significant difference between the war journalists and the domestic journalists who covered 9/11 was that the domestic journalists had higher hypervigilance scores. They were jumpier. My guess is that the war journalists just got used to the shelling and the constant sound of guns in the background, while the domestic journalists replayed the same event over and over again, but experienced it just once, so they didn't have a chance to get used to it. Or perhaps it's something else entirely. He explains that the domestic journalists had to re-watch the coverage again and again as they reported it in the following months, but war journalists are assaulted with war every day as well. So, it would be interesting to ask Feinstein what he thinks attributed to the increased hypervigilance of the domestic reporters. 

Ebola coverage (week 8)

I've lost count of the weeks that I've been monitoring Ebola coverage, but it has definitely been long enough to say I can notice trends and see similar frames emerging. This week, I read articles about the next Ebola hotspots, the immune response Ebola triggers, the lawsuit Nina Pham brought against Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas, how the U.S. could have better handled the Ebola panic, Liberia releasing its last Ebola patient on March 5, and how Thomas Duncan's nephew perceived the media coverage about his uncle.

In the Vox article, Josephus Weeks recounted his family's experience with the coverage of his uncle's illness. I love this article because it uses an inner-sanctum source. Weeks says he and his family members hated seeing Duncan's photo everywhere. "I wanted to say, 'Please stop showing his picture,'" Weeks says. That green shirt. I applaud Vox for seeking out Duncan's family for this interview. As a reader, I now understand the anguish I could only assumed they went through. It's also mind-blowing to me that Duncan still hasn't been buried. Where is his body? I'd love to see some coverage about this.

The other inner-sanctum sourced article I really loved this week was about Nina Pham's lawsuit against Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas. Pham says she was charged with caring for Duncan and the extent of her training was reading a few printouts about Ebola. That's insane. I was shocked to read how ill-prepared that hospital was and how inappropriately it responded. This lawsuit is going to teach staff the hard way about the importance of ramping up training and infrastructure. It was a good story, but I think that follow-ups are needed. What is the hospital doing now to train staff to manage Ebola or other outbreaks. This issue is not confined to this one hospital; it was just the one hospital that had to manage it without much warning. I'd like to see some national reporting on protocols, training and drills. Are hospitals working toward a better model of care or if someone else shows up with Ebola in Virginia, for example, will we have the same outcome.

The framing of stories continues to be monitoring-based. When someone from the West is tested for Ebola, it's typically reported. When someone from the West tests positive, it's also tracked. The coverage on Africa continues to look at progress. Liberia's borders are open and the country's last case in several weeks was discharged from the hospital. Overall, I think the coverage is pretty good. I have a sense of the situation in West Africa and how health care volunteers are affected. I do think the coverage of volunteers is slightly overplayed, but I'm sure it's helpful for people considering going to see that the risks are real. Again, more inner-sanctum stories with interviews from people who have been directly involved will be great. I look forward to more rebuilding stories. I think the media definitely needs to produce more of those.

Reading responses - Week 8

When I sat down to read Marie Colvin's Private War, I expected to meet a woman I couldn't really relate to. I thought she'd be taking one extreme risk after another and making decisions I just couldn't understand. Instead I traveled through a story that sounded believable. Complex, human and real.

Her experience in Sri Lanka was especially resonant for me. I traveled there in 2009 just a few months after one of the many truces over the years was called. Buses in Colombo were regularly bombed to draw attention to the violence in the north, and whenever I stepped on board, my heart would skip a beat. I never traveled farther north than Anuradapura. I never went to Tamil Tiger country. Our NGO operated there, and I had heard the horror stories. Mass graves, butchered children, genocide. I was sickened one night when I heard that Doctors Without Borders had sounded the alarm bell about what was happening in the north of the country and the government's response was to kick them out. I was stunned. We talked for hours about how our NGO couldn't follow suit. We had to keep our mouths shut so we could keep working. I argued with the country director about how maybe we wouldn't have so much work to do if the killings were halted. That was the beginning, even though I didn't recognize it at the time, of me stepping away from aid work and into journalism. I got sick of hearing about so many injustices and not being allowed to reveal them to supporters, donors, the public.

Marie existed to tell those stories. She had the right idea and got into the work for all the right reasons. But as time passed, the horrors caught up to her. I wonder what would have happened had one of those miscarriages turned out a different way? Would she have been like Kelly McEvers and had a crisis about her life decisions, backed away and examined what she was doing?

Marie Brenner did such a fantastic job of including details and describing Colvin's life. I loved reading about Colvin's childhood. The tension between her and her father was visceral. It definitely makes you want to sort out any lingering family grudges immediately.

The other aspect of her life I actually wanted to know more about were her relationships and her alcoholism. She tended to pick men who cheated. Why? And why alcohol? Did she love the escape? Was alcohol the same exercise as wading into war for her? Did it give her that same high? I suppose now it's impossible to know. But worth asking.

The details Brenner did provide were stunning. Reading the story made me feel, at least for awhile, that I knew Colvin. I agree that she needed more supportive editors. She needed rest. But I wonder if her attraction to destructive things would have ever lessened, even with more support. Perhaps she would have been miserable living a quieter existence. Perhaps she always knew that quiet life she talked about with Flaye would never materialize. Maybe that was the fantasy she promised herself, all the while knowing it was reporting that she wanted.

Ebola coverage reactions (week 7)

Coverage on Ebola this week included the usual suspects: the call for more assistance, rates of infected people, schools and borders opening in Liberia.

It also included some unusual suspects. Craig Spencer, the NYC doctor who contracted Ebola in Guinea, wrote a piece about his experience as an Ebola caretaker turned patient for the New England Journal of Medicine. Naomi Campbell held an Ebola Fundraiser in which she auctioned off her old clothes and donated the money to the Ebola fight. The Guardian questioned whether this sort of activity helps or hurts Africans. Al Jazeera ran an opinion piece from a man who believes aid and adoption agencies hurt communities more than they help them. He said the article in the New York Times about an orphan named "Sweetie" would prompt couples to try to adopt Ebola orphans, but that type of thinking only perpetuates the stereotype of the helpless African victim. Communities need to be empowered to raise their own orphans through strengthened education programs and public health centers. Swooping in and rescuing a victim does not help a community.

I've been monitoring Ebola coverage with a daily Google Alert, and his week, after about a month of reading those alerts, I was able to identify outlier coverage. I'm going to focus on this coverage because I think it adds an element of complexity to the coverage. In his article for the New England Journal of Medicine, Spencer berated the media and the politicians. He wrote that the media, rather than informing the public, inflamed fears with "flashy headlines." They "fabricated stories about my personal life and the threat I posed to public health, abdicating their responsibility for informing public opinion and influencing public policy," he wrote.

According to Spencer, the media failed in its duty to inform and educate the public about Ebola. I think it's interesting that he included influencing public policy as part of the media's duties. Is that part of our job to influence policy? I suppose if policies are flawed, good reporting will bring that to light and change them. So question is: What is the media supposed to communicate about Ebola? It seems in this case, our job was to quell fears, not prompt them. As gatekeepers, we should have made the story less about Spencer and more about the thousands of people who have Ebola in Africa. But it seems the proximity news value got in our way. Spencer asserts that the media should have quelled fear through public health-focused reporting. I wonder what the national conversation would have been had the media done that.

The other two articles are fascinating because the authors point out the way we frame Africa in our everyday thinking. Africans as victims. Africans as dispossessed and unfortunate. Africans need saving. These are all tropes that we need to actively resist, as Sommers et. al. pointed our in our reading last week. I think James Kassaga Arinaitwe brings up a fascinating human reaction that we don't consider when we use anecdotal leads: People will be compelled to help the main character. Stories like the one about Sweetie uses an orphan to show the plight of thousands of orphaned children. One natural response is the desire to help. But Arinaitwe argues that adopting Sweetie does not help. It introduces the possibility for corruption and leaves other orphans feeling bad about themselves because they were not chosen. He asserts that strengthening communities and mobilizing them to care for their own orphans is more powerful than adoption or any other type of aid. The way we write stories affects the way people act. It's good remember this. It doesn't necessarily mean we need to write stories differently. Bringing awareness to a new group of orphans is good. The story starts the conversation. It is the community's job to act appropriately.

Why do we cover war? (week 7)

In 2012, NPR correspondent Kelly McEvers turned the microphone on herself and asked some good questions of her profession. Why do people go into war zones? It turns out, reporting from a conflict zone is not just about shining a light into a dark place. Reporting is also about the challenge, the thrill, the escape and the story.

I thought the honesty in McEvers' piece was both intense and refreshing. Journalists do what they do because they have a calling. But answering the call comes with costs. Leaving behind a family is selfish. Watching people die is traumatic. Grieving fellow journalists means holding a mirror up to your own life and the risks you are taking. Dying with children exacts an emotional cost on that child's life. They may never forgive you for choosing to tell that story over being with them.

I like to think that journalism as a profession is held in high regard in our country. It is a service profession like teaching and medicine. Sadly, I'm not sure the average American thinks about journalism that way anymore even though they ought to. War correspondents, in my mind, are public servants in extreme situations. I believe they are taking chances to bear witness and potentially alter the outcome of a grisly situation. This is what I have always thought.

But there's more to the situation than just what meets the eye. It's like the aid world. It's not just about bringing hope to people who have been through famine or drought or disease. After five years in the aid world, I saw that there is an inherently selfish element in the act of this international service. It turns out, this same element of selfishness also exists for war correspondents. I believe that service is usually the original motivator, but soon other secondary elements emerge. Higher levels of dopamine, thrills, clarity of thought in chaos and awards for brave work all keep a war journalist coming back. But does that discount the work? Absolutely not. It is just as valuable. To say that we make decisions for completely unselfish reasons runs counter to human evolution and thinking. I joined the Peace Corps as much to serve my country as to challenge myself and to say that I have done something that matters. The decision was also about me. Any choice, however service-oriented, possesses some level of selfish motivation.

It's why people always write on their college applications: I went to change the world and when I came back, I realized it was me who was changed. It almost sounds cliche at this point. It's as if we are self-conscious about our own internal motivations. We shouldn't be. The complexity certainly grows when children or spouses are involved.

To me, the most interesting question in all of this analysis of motivation is: What if all the witness bearing in the world does nothing to stop the evil? What does the work mean? Whom did it help? Where does all that haunting trauma go to live?

Does the story matter?

I think that it does. Maybe I'm a die hard journalist and will go to my grave protecting the sanctity of the story, despite the risks involved in getting it. Maybe there are stories that are not worth dying for. I think it is up to the individual person to decide the risk. What McEvers concludes is not that people should stop going, but rather that they should stop deluding themselves that they are somehow protected. Having a press pass does not offer an invisible cloak of protection. The press are just as vulnerable as the rest of us, and at this point in our history, perhaps even more so. Why?

Because the story does matter.

It may not move mountains or stop the shelling. But I believe that being heard is what validates our existence. That's why we tell each other stories. That's why we love good storytelling. When I lived in Turkmenistan with a family who only spoke Turkmen, what I missed most at night was sitting around the family room telling stories. God knows I tried to share them with my intermediate-level Turkmen. I muddled through without much satisfaction. The weekends were the time when I would get together with five or six other Americans in my region to drink beers and tell stories. That's the time I loved most. The rest of the week was really just about working, communicating basic needs and self-reflection.

Ebola story on resilience (week 6)

This multimedia piece from NPR: Life After Ebola is beautiful act two story. I love the interview with the psychologist about how communities define and develop resilience. It's fantastic to see that the media is taking the opportunity to cover Ebola post-epidemic. The piece addresses the sorrow and the loss felt in the village. People are traumatized and the recovery will take time. It felt really honest and authentic and using audio interviews of the people's own voices is really powerful. The photos are stunning. It's effective because it gives me a sense of what people are doing now, how they are rebuilding and how they are processing their grief. Unfortunately, many are in survival mode so it will take even longer to process the emotional pain. 

Ebola coverage - Week 6

I interviewed Lenny Bernstein, a health blogger at the "Washington Post," yesterday about his experience covering Ebola. It was insightful, and I learned a lot. To prepare, I read several of his articles and looked at the accompanying photographs. He traveled with Michel du Cille twice last fall, so I also read an article du Cille's wrote about covering the epidemic. I noticed that because I had seen the photos and read the coverage already it was easier to imagine the stories as he told them. Usually in interviews, you have to imagine a lot yourself. But because I had seen so much for what he saw, it helped me to immediately visualize his experience. I guess that's the sign of good reporting and writing.

I thought for my blog this week, I would take a look back and analyze the coverage Bernstein wrote for the Post.

Interestingly, Bernstein said his post "Reporting on Ebola first rule is you don't touch anyone," received much more coverage than he would have liked. He stressed that the situation needed and still needs to focus on Liberians, not the journalists.

His other articles include Why you're not going to get Ebola in the U.S., Out of control: How the world's health organizations failed to stop the Ebola disaster, With Ebola crippling the health system, Liberians die of routine medical problems and Surviving Ebola. (There are dozens more, too.)

Overall, the coverage is gripping. I got a sense that Bernstein wanted action from governments and NGOs. There is desperation in the tone. He told me that he did feel the stories needed to be told so that our government would act. He said the media woke the world to the Ebola epidemic and prompted the response. I sensed his urgency in his writing.

The frequency of his posts was fantastic. He had a lot of material and then was able to sift through it and produce a lot of copy quickly.

His frame tended to focus on the dire situation and the need for more resources. Many of the stories were heartbreaking. He also broke away from the people with Ebola and focused on people who had other health needs. It wasn't a story he had planned to write, but once he got to Liberia, he said it was painfully obvious that it needed to be written. I also liked how his articles varied in their purpose. Some were in-depth looks at individual lives and others offered an analysis of how the epidemic spread so rapidly. Within the articles he had a nice balance of expert and non-expert sources.

The social response to the work was equally emotional. People projected their own experiences onto people with Ebola. There was lots of controversy in the comments section. People were clearly stirred up and thinking about Ebola. Unfortunately, many of the responses were too hysterical and extreme. One comment read: "As the winter flu season develops, hospitals will be overwhelmed by panicking people with fever and headache and some cases of Ebola will be misdiagnosed. Health care workers will be infected. Too late, the US will ban flights from Africa. Then again too late, the US will ban all international air travel." What the hell? Strong words and not what happened. 

I really enjoyed reading these articles. Most of the coverage I read on Ebola came from the "New York Times" (trying to make that subscription pay off!). So it was really interesting to read news from the Post and get a sense of the differences in tone, style and writing. I'm not sure I've read enough to make an assessment, but I did notice some differences. I think the post might lean toward being more conversational. The graphics have a different feel as well.

Reading response - Week 6

I grew up surrounded by white people and learned without every discussing it that race was a dangerous topic. I saw that it was taboo and could get you into trouble.

So I just lumped it in with religion and politics, and I decided early on that discussions of race were better left alone. Unaddressed and unacknowledged.

Fast forward a few decades and I found myself living in New York City. The experience taught me that my thinking was a defense mechanism and a cop out. The only way to root around and discover my biases was to talk about them. I was ill-equipped for the discussions I would have because I'd never learned to have them. But at 30, I decided it was time.

I learned a lot that year. Acknowledging my own racial biases was actually pretty painful. There were moments when people would call me out publicly and my face would flush. But most of my learning came slowly. Friends would bring up observations in conversation or recommend I read articles or certain books.

Most of those conversations were helpful, but they were anecdotal. Living and working with Prospero allowed me to walk around and experience the world as a black man in America does. He was my best friend that year and we were hardly ever apart. What I learned is that being a black in our country is exhausting. The racism is subtle, but sometimes not. People would follow us around stores and one time a security guy asked to see his receipt just seconds after he bought something. Even with a master's degree it was difficult for him to get job interviews, while our white friends got jobs seemingly instantly. It made me mad and it made me sad and made me realize that these conversations are crucial. Our country is at a breaking point, which is exactly how I would characterize the Ferguson response.

But the reason for this is that talking about race is multi-level tough. The first layer involves acknowledging your own racism. Then you have to build up the vocabulary and a contextual understanding. Then while you're talking about it you have to be able to handle feedback, which probably brings up even more issues you didn't notice. And then there's the anger people have about it when you bring it up. You have to address that, too. I think the response wouldn't be so pronounced if we had a more socially acceptable way to talk about race, rather than just avoiding it out of fear.

So I guess this is my really long way of saying I'm glad we read "Race and Media Coverage of Hurricane Katrina: Analysis, Implications, and Future Research Questions." It's an important piece of research and I'm curious what kind of response it got.

My hunch is that before the media can talk about racial biases in reporting on a structural and professional level, we need to begin by looking inward. It takes years, and it can be really humbling. But starting the conversation is the only way to make it better.

The heuristics discussion was most fascinating to me. People are not (sometimes) consciously racist in their language, but the most recognizable construct could be. So they reach for it instinctively. In order to overcome this inbuilt racism, we have to change our default frames. That's why it's hard. It takes both recognition and a change in the way we think. So this research is really helpful because it helps raise awareness and begins the first step of the recognition process.

The Unthinkable conclusion (week 5)

I just saw the questions on the syllabus for "The Unthinkable." I'll add a little amendment to my reading response for this week.

Prompt: How has "The Unthinkable" altered your thinking about yourself? About journalism? What might we do better?

I think the most fascinating part about this book is that people who believe they can will survive. It's all about confidence and willpower. Of course there's always a freak accident. But living through a disaster is possible and your odds are strengthened by preparing — just like training for a race. This kind of optimistic thinking puts the control back in my hands. I am responsible for my survival. It takes work and planning and mental agility, but it's possible.

The wake-up call for me as a journalist is that I need to integrate this knowledge into my reporting. My assumptions will be challenged, but they need to be. I will judge less and extend more grace. I'll put myself in their shoes before making a judgment call.

Journalists need to read this book — both for their own survival as well as building empathy for interviews. The science-y stuff I learned in this book as well as the anecdotal wisdom has changed the way I think about traumatic events. Hopefully, I'll be more understanding and adept with handling interviews and writing stories. And if a traumatic event ever happens to me, instead of being frightened or frozen, hopefully, I will act decisively and wisely.

As the Turkmen say, nesip bolsa and hudah shukur (God willing and with God's blessing). Such talk always commands a knock on wood..

Epidemics coverage - Week 5

I read a lot of Ebola coverage this week. There was an outbreak in fishing village in Sierra Leone, violence broke out in Guinea as children returned to school, researchers from Montana found that the virus can survive for up to seven days in a dead body, Liberian officials reported that $3.1 million in Ebola funds are missing, and the CDC released a report on Dallas' county's response to the Ebola outbreak last fall.

The tone of many of the articles I read included some frustration on the part of experts. It seems doctors and other health care professionals and government officials are concerned that Ebola is becoming less of a pressing issue for people. But, doctors are warning that the disease will continue unless the number of victims drops to zero.

This is my first week using a Google Alert, so I'll get a better sense of the volume soon, but it seems that there are about 10 news articles a day on Ebola. The main players such as the New York Times, NPR and ABC show up, but there are also many smaller outlets running articles on the Montana study, for example.

All of the articles I read this week used an expert frame. The Detroit Free Press picked up an AP video/story that included an interview with a local Red Cross worker. He lamented the fact that local families believe all the rumors and don't trust the experts; however, the reporters did not include any interviews with local families. Many of the articles include sources such as doctors, donors (Paul Allen) and responders (Red Cross, WHO, Liberian government). It would have been nice to have read a story that included a voice of someone who had experienced Ebola first- or second-hand. I did read a lot of stories on the New York Times about the burial teams, children who recovered and families torn apart, but this week didn't see any coverage like that.

The word that really stuck out to me this week was in the New York Times story about the missing $3.1 million in Ebola funding in Liberia. The sentence read: "The country of six million has had almost 11,000 Ebola cases and 3,363 deaths during the epidemic, which has raged in West Africa for nearly a year." I like the use of the word "rage" here. It's strong and effective and characterizes the tenor of the epidemic.

I didn't see much of a social response on the stories this week. Not even the NYT article had a comment.

My own response to these articles is that the epidemic is still a great threat, but the level of panic in the U.S. and around the world seems to have lessened. I wonder how this will affect coverage. I think it'll result in fewer infographics, less in-depth reporting and more stuff on the wire. It also seems like people will rely more on the expert frame, like I saw this week, and that people on the front line will continue advocating for more assistance. They will continue sounding the warning beacons, but the question is: Will people listen? Will they take a proactive or reactive approach and only throw money after it's too late?

Reading reflection - Week 5

I just finished reading "The Unthinkable." I thought it was a really fantastic and thought-provoking book. Amanda Ripley did a great job. I thumbed through the appendices, and they're instructive for learning how the sausage is made. I really appreciated how transparent and verified her reporting was. Since people who live through traumatic situations are not known to have the most reliable recall, she hedged her bets and cross-checked everything using multiple eyewitness accounts, coverage of the event if it was available and follow-up reports.

The chapter on heroism was really well done. She kept it on topic when it might have been really easy to just tell hero stories since people adore the hero narrative. I mean, who doesn't? It's just so damn inspiring and heart-warming to hear about people who save the day. Again, she spoke with researchers who have tried to categorize and dissect the particular traits of heroes. The researchers found that religious conviction, political leaning or economic status are not significant predictors of heroes. But they did find that heroes tend to have strong relationships with their parents, they have friends from different classes and ethnic groups, and they are likely to be empathetic. Heroes also have confidence and an internal locus of control. The bystanders, who are the majority, concentrate "on their own need for survival." This makes since because of natural selection.

I also thought it was really interesting how some of the heroes said they did the "heroic" thing because they didn't want to face the alternative of being a coward. In other words, they couldn't not act. I think this was actually one of my main motivators for joining the Peace Corps. I wanted to join, but I also wanted to do lots of other things such as go to grad school and live in New York City. I chose Peace Corps because I didn't want to be the person who didn't do it. Not that I'm a hero, I just thought it was interesting that my paradigm was similar. When people asked me why I joined, I said on more than one occasion that I didn't want to regret not going. It's a strange reason, but it was true for me.

The story about Roger Olian was gripping because of the way he helped the survivors. He originally jumped in the water to save them, which he indeed did. But he didn't save them in the way he imagined. He never actually reached them. He only got halfway. But the fact that he was trying to help motivated the survivors. It was all in their minds that they were getting rescued. The guy who kept saying he was going to die, did. Again, it's back to the internal locus of control.

I also think it's good that Ripley mentioned the fantasy surrounding our hero narratives. Some of those disaster situations create strange realities, including people getting in the way or wanting to be a hero but making a mistake. It's good to be aware of this type of person in a disaster.

I thought Ripley's conclusion was fantastic. The key takeaway here was that we need to train our minds and our muscles to react a certain way. I actually just practiced rolling out of my bed in the event of a fire and found that it was way more uncomfortable than I remember. When I was a kid we would stop, drop and roll for hours in the backyard. I'm a bit bigger now. Training the hands to not follow the eyes is also really tough. The woman who realized she was driving toward pedestrians made the right choice in seeking training. It also shows that we are not naturals behind the wheel. I had kind of less serious experience with that after a guy rear-ended me at a crosswalk. I had stopped for a pedestrian and got hit. After that, I would always look in my rear-view anxiously expecting a thud. It got kinda of distracting because I was looking for that person instead of focusing on the road ahead. I had to retrain my brain to not expect the outlying situation. Getting rear-ended is not the norm.

Finally, the story about Rick Rescorla was really inspiring, but so sad. He trained the Morgan Stanley staff for years for a disaster and even predicted correctly (twice!) that the World Trade Center would be attacked. He saved so many lives and then ran back into the building to save more when the towers collapsed. I thought about myself in this situation, and I don't think I would have been able to go back into the tower after escaping it. What he did was incredibly brave and completely selfless. 

Epidemics coverage (week 4)

I took a small break this week from Ebola coverage and paid attention to the reporting of the measles outbreak in the U.S. While this outbreak isn't a full-fledged epidemic, I thought it would be useful to read and analyze some of the coverage because it is so close to home.

A New York Times article on Jan. 30 discussed the vaccination debate and included a California pediatrician who has urged parents to vaccinate their children and several parents who have not immunized their children. The headline was "Vaccine critics turn defensive over measles."

The story was reported from California, but included sources in Arizona as well. Some of the words and phrases that jumped out at me in this story were: anti-vaccine moment, public-health crisis, measles anxiety, scares, urging calm, public backlash, and alternatives. These words are compelling and catchy, and I think they will grab readers' attention. Measles is a serious public health threat, so I don't think the language is too strong. However, I would bet that in addition to getting people to think, some of this alarmist-type language and "us vs. them" language might have unsettled some readers.

The article includes many anti-vaccine voices, a doctor (the expert source), but in my opinion, doesn't include enough people who disagree with the anti-vaccine movement. The article included one mother who believes in vaccines for her own children, and is sympathetic to people who choose not to inoculate.

As of Feb. 7, this article has 2,278 comments. I read through a few dozen and found that many people were asking for a more nuanced discussion that included more complexity. The issue is not as black and white as people make it sound, many comments said. Some people were clearly pro-vaccine and used the terrible side effects of diseases such as polio, measles and whooping cough as examples of why people are stupid not to vaccinate. It was a generally respectful comment section, which is how the NYT tends to be, I think.

My own reaction to the article was that it did an excellent job of providing the statistics and explaining how the outbreak happened. It was framed for someone who needs to learn more about the anti-vaccine movement because it included many of those voices. I felt outrage at some of the quotes about how one mother would prefer her daughter miss six months of class to getting the measles vaccine. The infographic about how herd immunity works was also very good.

I also listened to some NPR coverage on the outbreak. One story discussed the situation a 6-year-old boy is facing in California. He is in remission from cancer and can't get the vaccine yet, so his parents are asking people to get vaccinated to protect their son. The other article discusses what lawmakers are doing in California about the low vaccination rates.

Both of these reports had an educational-type frame. They taught people about the vaccination rates, philosophical exemptions and how people are coping with the reality that the herd immunity threshold has not been met.

Generally, I think the frequency of the coverage was appropriate. The only media type I didn't check was broadcast. With more than 100 cases, the outbreak received much less coverage than Ebola did when it came to the U.S., so I think that's interesting. The coverage is also taking a public service- and education-type frame, which is great. It's teaching people about vaccines, coverage and what parents are doing. The word choice veers into alarmist in some cases, but I think that this illustrates the level of fear people have with this public health situation. I'd like more voices from the families who are dealing with measles and from the doctors. What are the long-term ramifications for people who contract measles?