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.

13. Most journalists, esp on locals, aren’t well paid. Don’t take a job then whine about pay. Be good at it and find another

Some things happen by chance. One being that just as I am about to start writing about journalists' pay I read the brilliant Simon Kuper in the FT's Weekend Magazine (I'd suggest it's worth a read but at £3 an edition the FT is probably out of your price bracket...I get to claim it back).

But just in case the link goes down or it gets squirrelled behind a pay-wall this is what your average reporter - and he's talking about nationals not regionals or locals - has to contend with:

In 1947, Winston Churchill wrote a story about an imaginary conversation with his father’s ghost. Churchill tells the ghost that he writes books and journalism. “Ah, a reporter,” the ghost replies. “There is nothing discreditable in that. I myself wrote articles for the Daily Graphic when I went to South Africa. And well I was paid for them. A hundred pounds an article.” Churchill’s father visited South Africa in 1891. If he wrote those articles for certain newspapers today, he would still get £100, or maybe nothing.

If you've read the full article he is wrong about one thing - in locals lots of what you write can make a difference...even that week.

In the UK the average salary is £26,200. If you are earning this or possibly even more - congratulations you must be the editor (perhaps you could be kind enough to suggest this blog to trainees or mention it if you give a talk journalism students).

The fact is you are not going to be earning anything like this. Now I could talk about how unfair it all is...or why you should go on strike, but I'll leave that up to the NUJ (these are practical tips not Never Never Land).

Quite frankly if there were a lot less of you so keen to get into this job my pay would go up because there would be a shortage of reporters - so bugger off.

Since you are hell bent on becoming a reporter - stop complaining. The one sure fire way of getting anything like a decent pay increase is to leave the paper - and if that's to stay in journalism it is to move to a bigger one. Either that or get promoted.

So don't - whatever you do - move to your first paper and think that's it. Keep flexible at least for the first few years (unless you are fabulously wealthy and just slumming it or your partner happens to be).

And don't whine about the pay. If you're not a reporter don't bother becoming one if money will be an issue - you've been told. Even if you become a senior in two/three years time the chances are you'll only be on £20,000 - and probably only £18,500 if you are at the same paper you were a junior at).

Loyalty - quite honestly - doesn't pay. But you are still there to do a job. So do it because the best way to get another job is to have great cuts and know what you are doing. And then you can keep moving up.

Tomorrow: Where and tear....