Does anybody really know what time it is? Does anybody really care about time?

So here I am, Tuesday morning, splayed out on the hot griddle of July, and performing one of my most frequent tasks as a journalist-in-training: waiting. Andy’s got me calling the Health Department and the Chester County Hospital to get a few comments on the heat situation for a possible article, because other than that, nothing’s come in yet today. I’ve done some research on the current weather conditions and when the heat advisory will end. I’ve written my interview questions. And now the fate of my effort hangs on the balance of whether anyone decides they can spare five minutes and pick up a phone.

In a way, I’d kind of anticipated this before I ever arrived on the scene at The Daily Local. I come from a small town with a single local newspaper that serves the area, and having been interviewed for/connected to enough people and events that were featured in the publication at some point, I know journalists’ stories often rely on the ordinary citizens taking time out of their work schedule to contribute to theirs. However, I was not prepared for the extent of how often people just will not call you back at all. It’s bad enough when they call back after a story’s ideal deadline has passed, or when they call back and decline giving comments because they don’t want their friends/neighbors/the random roving Jehovah’s Witness to judge them based on their statements. But when you call repeatedly, leave a message, and receive nothing in return, it’s rather brutal.

Then, this past weekend, I read the book Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs by Chuck Klosterman. I highly recommend it for any journalist (or anyone with a sense of humor or who can read, really) because of one chapter in particular entitled “All I Know is What I Read in the Papers”. In this section, Klosterman, who was a journalist in Fargo, ND, before working for the Akron Beacon Journal and eventually the NY Times and The Washington Post, discusses how much of the industry is reliant entirely on chance rather than agenda. You can read some of the chapter here on Google Books (http://books.google.com/books?id=8bvFIHE0u4kC&pg=PA203&lpg=PA203&dq=klosterman+All+I+Know+Is+What+I+Read+in+the+Papers&source=bl&ots=KNx2gbPi-F&sig=I-xEC9AuLTq3evqpZF-he0FzdWE&hl=en&ei=rkwzTIrfBYWErAe06OX2Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=klosterman%20All%20I%20Know%20Is%20What%20I%20Read%20in%20the%20Papers&f=false) though as usual, they cut out every other page to keep you from really enjoying yourself. Regardless, he makes some really interesting statements, and for those of you who don’t want to make the jump, here’s an excerpt:



"DON’T WORRY ABOUT AGENDAS. WORRY ABOUT CIRCUMSTANCE."
by Chuck Klosterman
"This is- indisputably and inarguably- the biggest misconception people make about the media. Everybody seems to be concerned that journalists are constantly trying to slip their own political and philosophical beliefs into what they cover. This virtually never happens. And I am not being naïve when I say this; it really doesn’t happen. There are thousands of things that affect the accuracy of news stories, but the feelings of the actual reporter are almost never one of them. The single most important impact of any story if far less sinister: Mostly, it all comes down to (a) who the journalist has called, and (b) which of those people happens to call back first.

Are media outlets controlled by massive, conservative corporations? Well, of course they are. Massive corporations own everything. Are most individual members of the media politically liberal? Absolutely. If talented writers honestly thought the world didn’t need to be changed, they’d take jobs in advertising that are half as difficult and three times as lucrative. So- in theory- all the long-standing conspiracies about media motives are true. But- in practice- they’re basically irrelevant… (the page cuts off here)

Since journalism is founded on the premise that reality can only be shown through other people’s statements, reporters are constantly placing phone calls to multiple sources with the hope that all of them (or at least one of them) will give the obligatory quotes the writers can turn into a narrative. That’s why the first person who happens to return a reporter’s phone message dictates whatever becomes the “final truth” of any story. Very often, the twenty-four-second-shot clock simply runs out before anyone else can be reached; consequently, that one returned phone call is all the info the journalist can use. And even when everyone else does call back before deadline, the template has already been set by whoever got their first; from then on, every question the reporter asks will be colored by whatever was learned from the initial source. Is this bad? Yes. Does it sometimes lead to a twisted version of what really happened? Yes. But it’s not an agenda. It’s timing."

Anyway, if anyone wants to borrow the book from me, feel free, because it’s extremely interesting, even when you don’t agree with his views. Also, Audrey, he also includes in this chapter a section on how all sports writers end up hating sports, which made me think of you.

But it’s time for me to stop blogging and get back to working. My contact from the Chester County Hospital just returned my call on the excessive heat article… to tell me that she’ll have someone more qualified to answer my questions call me back sometime later today. Gotta love it.

- Miranda