Writing a News Analysis
By Dick Polman
Polman, who now teaches writing at the University of Pennsylvania, was for many years the national politics analyst for The Philadelphia Inquirer, and his blog continues to appear in that newspaper.
I view "news analysis" as essentially synonymous with "explanatory journalism."
In recent years, as the information revolution has exploded, there has been much debate over what the proper role of a newspaper should be. Citizens at this turn of the century often get the basic news not just from television and radio, but from the Internet. By the time morning newspapers get a crack at what happened, hours have passed. Clearly, newspapers still have a responsibility to lay out the facts as well as possible – indeed, they can still do this far more comprehensively than the other information outlets – but I believe that it also behooves them to give readers something more.
And that brings us to "news analysis." Newspapers can provide a valuable service not just by laying out facts, but by trying to make some sense of what those facts mean in a larger context, perhaps with some historical perspective. Or, at the very least, a lot more nuance than can be found in a just-the-facts-ma'am format.
That is what I often try to do. And I am a firm believer that analysis pieces should be labeled for the reader, to minimize confusion. I start from the premise that an analysis piece is not designed to render an opinion on what's right or wrong. That is the job of the editorial
page writer. That is also typically the job of a columnist who has cultivated a consistent voice and point of view. I'm just trying to look at events and understand what they might mean. Sometimes I'm just trying to connect the dots between events in some way that may enlighten people.
Clearly, however, I am rendering some judgments, and that does involve a certain amount of subjective thought. In that sense, "news analysis" is far different from a straight news story. I write those as well sometimes, and I try to maintain a firewall between the two formats. In straight news, I try to be as deadpan as possible, in providing the basic information on who,
what, when, and where. It's the "why" element that gets extra attention in a news analysis.
It should come as no surprise that some readers often see these distinctions as fundamentally bogus – typically, in those situations where they disagree with what they read. If readers disagree with my interpretation of events on a given day, they will charge that I am "biased." If readers agree, they will applaud me on being "objective."
I reject both those labels, because news analysis – if done well – occupies the space somewhere in between. It is interpretive judgment, without a self-interested point of view. And it cannot be done well unless it is backed up by original reporting (interviews with knowledgeable
sources) and a lot of research (from other printed work, often including books). The assessments that I make must be grounded in the material that I cover. The judgments that I make must arise from the research.
This is basically inductive reasoning; by contrast, deductive reasoning starts with a fixed point of view and assembles the argument to reinforce that point of view. It's important, in my way of working, for readers to see, in the story itself, the fruits of my research. If I am articulating a perspective, I want the reader to see the ways that I have backed it up.
When analysis pieces are done well, it should be impossible for the reader to detect a vested point of view. I try to allow the facts and interviews to dictate my ultimate interpretation – which means that, in a polarizing election such as the Bush-Gore contest, I might appear to be
casting the Republicans in a favorable light one day, and the Democrats favorably the next day. In fact, the highest goal of a news analysis writer is to be told by readers (as I often was in 2000) that they couldn't tell where I really stood.
In response, I would share with them a song lyric by the rock group Steeley Dan: "Let's take it where it goes." That's the gist of this kind of work: letting the material take you where it should go.
It is probably difficult for many readers to understand how a journalist can suspend all personal biases, and walk the tightrope described above. But it is very possible. It is really a matter of professional training, and personal compartmentalization. I have personal opinions like everybody else, but when I sit down to write, I can honestly believe that I couldn't care less who wins the election at hand. And there is something else that helps as well – the knowledge, accrued through many years of this kind of work, that in politics there are no fixed good guys and bad guys. One's certitudes about good and evil tend to evaporate over time.
Having said all that, this kind of format is not an exact science. It requires writers with a lot of experience and a strong understanding of sources. Whom you decide to interview, and how you judge what they say, is very important. Rule number one, in any kind of reporting, is to remember that most people have a motive for talking. It is worthless, for example, to call a Republican or Democratic activist in an election year, and expect that person to say anything that isn't predictably partisan.
But there are knowledgeable people who are one step removed from the partisan process, who are willing to be honest. The key is finding and cultivating those people.
None of these safeguards, however, will ever protect an analysis writer from public criticism. There will always be charges of bias. There will always be e-mail messages from readers who assume that what I write on a given day is merely the latest plank of a personal agenda. In response, here is one last attempt at an explanation:
A news analysis writer is a lot like an emergency-room doctor. There is a patient on the table in front of him. The patient could be a thief or a saint, but it doesn't matter to the doctor, because if the doctor is to perform professionally, he or she will suspend personal feelings and take the case wherever it needs to go.