Cover the Planet

By David Poulson

In my early reporting days Ralph - a good friend and photographer with whom I often worked - often hassled me whenever I made out a photo assignment for him.

“How would you like it if I took a picture and assigned you to write a story to go with it,” he’d sneer. It irked me mostly because I knew he was right. Ralph had tons more journalism experience - heck he had at least 30 years on me at the time - and certainly knew news. What was I doing telling him what to shoot?

As a consequence I quickly learned to use the wisdom of photographers who possess it. Not only could they tip me to great stories I was otherwise oblivious to, their art often launched even my most pedestrian prose onto the front page.

That’s no great insight. Savvy reporters quickly learn this.

But how do you apply this lesson in the digital age? A good example is this story written by Jeff Gillies for GreatLakesEcho.org. It’s about the annual spring runoff that shifts tons of soil into the Great Lakes, an event exacerbated by intensive farming and loss of vegetative cover.

It happens every year. What makes it news now?

In this case, it’s the accompanying satellite images Jeff used to illustrate the story. The image of muddied water visible from space had been posted on an environmental listserv. Its existence is precisely what triggered the story.

What’s more, Jeff used another satellite image to drive the story home. It shows the algae blooms triggered later in the summer by the presence of the excessive nutrient load delivered in the spring.

I’ve written before about using satellite images to enhance stories.

This is an example of how they can produce story ideas.

By David Poulson

Today on the GreatLakesEcho.org we posted a link to a story about a new test to determine if water is safe for swimming.

This story noted that traditional E. coli tests are a crude instrument that sometimes cause beaches to be needlessly closed. The new test, and others that may yet to be developed, gives a more precise indicator of a particular problem, according to the story.

The story prompted some pointed criticism from a faculty member someone who works in the faculty of forestry at Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, Ontario. You can read it at the bottom of the page.

That’s a great thing about social media. Readers with varied expertise can vet a story quickly. I would argue that this criticism added significant context, information, correction to this story.

But I’m wondering what our proper response should be. You could say that we are better informing the public. We’re furthering the distribution - remember, we didn’t write this, we’re just pointing to it - of a story while adding valuable reader-provided expert context.

You could also argue that we’re furthering the distribution of a story that - if this criticism is accurate - fails to measure up to our own standards of accuracy. Perhaps it is impinging on our own credibility - particularly among readers who fail to understand that we both write stories and point to the stories of others.

Perhaps the best response is to pull the story.

Our response is further complicated by scant resources. We can hardly vet every comment or story.

Is it enough to leave that to the readers?