Journalism Tips 35. Why every reporter should know their history.

In order to interview and write intelligently every decent reporter should be able to rely on some residual historical knowledge of their own. While Wikipedia may solve many of the problems while sitting in the office it is very little use while in the middle of an interview.
Similarly if you don't know what to ask Wikipedia for you are never going to find it. For example if there is a dustman's (or as they are know doubt called now a peripatetic disposable environmental logistical transition officer) strike and you know nothing of the Winter of Discontent than you won't be looking for it and more importantly you won't feature it in your story.
Some years ago I spoke to a reader while on a local newspaper and he complained: "The problem is that most local reporters are just thick. The editors are usually alright - but even then sometimes..."
It is not my view. Although given the paper I was working on at the time I could see how he may have reached that conclusion.
As a general rule of thumb I'd say it is worth having a detailed understanding of the recent (five years) events), reasonable background on the past 100 years and a decent amount of knowledge on overall British history.
You see, unlike science - people will expect you to know something about the past. (Scientists are a far more understanding mob than most people and they know the chances are that the day you flunked your GCSE chemistry was the last day you ever looked under a microscope. A little tip when interviewing anyone esp scientists about their work wait for them to finish their explanation before picking up your pen and then asking if they could put it into layman's terms for the readers...you understand the concept, of course, but you feel their words would be so much better. (This usually works until the day that someone responds that they WERE using layman's terms and your general ignorance is revealed)).
So why is history important? The chances are if you are working on locals you will have to cover the usual fare of anniversaries these are usually dull and uninspiring reads generally brought about by a complete lack of interest on the behalf of the reporter to the subject matter. By knowing of the events we can better understand the person's role in them and contextualise it within our story.
Again this is not about having a detailed history - we are still writing a story - but a general over view that stops us looking ignorant. It is a surefire way to lose the respect of the interviewee..alternatively a little knowledge can go a long way.

For a readable overview of British history it's worth reading This Sceptred Isle which romps through the 20th Century...there are also CDs and, no doubt, downloads.

15. If in doubt use a search engine – cross reference websites to make sure a “fact” is right to avoid Wanky Balls disasters

Now don't get me wrong the Internet is lovely and all that. Occasionally - when not being used to browse the Mulberry website, cats in hats or porn - it can actually be helpful.

In fact, as we've already seen you really do need to use it but that is not to say you shouldn't be wary of the errr facts.

If in doubt cross-reference any facts - actually even if you're not in any doubt cross-reference anyway.

Otherwise this might just happen...a Wanky Balls disaster (Pic taken from Laurel Papworth's blog).

I mean that's obvious, right? Surely you have to wonder why they thought the admission of the words "Wanky Balls" was in some way appropriate but honestly, you might think commonsense would come into it.

Evidently not.

To date there are 3,960 - no sorry now this has been published 3,961 - references to it on Google. Mostly berating lazy journalists - and for what? A picture caption.

And they are not alone. Papers are littered with errors culled from the Internet and, in all honesty, newspaper cuts as well.

One mistake can become enshrined in newspaper law forever. Perhaps not so bad for the actress who remains perpetually 30 but not really good for the industry.

(Btw it's always worth asking in celebrity interviews what is the most ridiculous thing they've read about themselves - I once did half an interview with Arthur Smith (not available online) based around this premise.)

So by all means use Wikipedia it is a good and useful source of information...but it is not a primary source of information.

And while we are on the subject don't forget to use books (but you may just want to cross-ref them as well).