Email interviews - no longer taboo? Well...

SACRAMENTO, Calif. Ambrosia Cafe - Today was a backgrounding and researching day, a time most freelance writers abhor because they don't get paid for it. But in my case, because of the deal I cut, I get a certain amount of latitude in this regard - and I am taking it.

And in a backgrounding and researching conversation over tea, I learned from a veteran PR person that she frequently gets requests for email interviews now, but only grants them to people who she knows well. Put me in that category after our tea. But as a timesaver, email questions (and responses) are fantastic. And even better, you can pull the quotes directly and there's little chance your source will ever come back and bite your ankles and say - 'Hey! I didn't say that.'

But this is precisely why some sources might prefer the telephone to answer questions. Tape record the conversation, you say? Not in California, unless you tell the person you are taping them. I don't know if it's a misdemeanor or a felony, but you can get in hot water.

Other states have the same law. Ask Linda Tripp about it if you see her at some day spa.

OP-ED IDEA FOR TODAY - In San Francisco, today is 'Biking to Work Day,' a celebration of the two-wheel contrivance that many urban dwellers prefer to the automobile. The Op-Ed would be to use the SF event as a springboard for looking at biking to work in your community, and what the benefits (no gasoline costs) and drawbacks (getting hit by a school bus) would be. Lots of easy sources and lots of statistics and any bike shop owner in town would love to talk about it. Plus, you could email the national bike associations and do an interview.

The link for the San Francisco Chronicle story about 'Biking to Work Day':

Bike To Work

Surviving tough stories, and just dumb luck

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - After the stories I wrote in the last two days, a piece about a lawsuit to block an initiative would seem to be a piece of cake. But there's word you should never use when referencing any writing. I do so here, very advisedly, to make the point.

The word? Easy.

Every time I say that word, the whole thing goes to hell so fast I can't focus. So in an hour or so, when the attorneys make their way into their offices with their lattes, I will call to check, doublecheck and then call back again to write a 300-word lawsuit story that has to be bulletproof and be full of case citings.

The budget story I labored over for hours yesterday passed muster and my learning curve was straight up before it was over, a wild ride that gave me that tinge of a headache you get from reading the agate type in the sports section. But the best part was stumbling onto a news nugget in casual conversation with one of the sources - something I had missed entirely about costs going up for poor people. And it was a scoop - something no other news organization seems to have spotted. I can be smug in the next few weeks when they do and write stories.

The dumb luck is because I had finished the piece and was just doublechecking a couple of minor facts when I found out the major policy shift had been approved (but not announced) and so my lukewarm story turned hot, and my new editors were likely impressed with my journalistic tenacity.

In other words, I fell into it. Pretty easy.

Oops.

OP-ED OF THE DAY - Congress is looking into nuclear power again. I know, I know... But considering what happened in the past (Three Mile Island, Chernobyl) a recap with the costs we're are still paying for the nuclear power experiments of the 60s and 70s would be interesting. These will meet with some resistance for placement from newspaper editors. The old editors still aren't convinced nuclear power was a problem and the young ones don't have a clue what you might be talking about. But just focus on the cost factors: how much are paying now to clean up the plants - and to store all that nuclear waste. It's a lot, amigos.

Write what you know, or find good experts

The old adage 'write what you know' is very true. There's nothing like trying to write something fact-based without the facts. Worse, writing a fact-based piece without understanding the facts enough to explain them to someone.

Take the California state budget - please! (That's a variation of an old vaudeville line, uttered by countless numbers of stage comedians 'Take my wife - please.')

I have written hundreds of budget stories in my journalistic life, so it seemed like doing a piece on one small corner of the California budget would be more of the same.

Not.

The state budget is as complex as that of a small country. No, make that a large country. I think I would have been as comfortable writing about the budget of Bolivia or Venezuela. So after drafting the piece, I did what all writers should do when the article is technical like this - I asked a knowledgeable colleague to take look at it before I sent it to the editors. It's a strategy I pound into the heads of my students at the university: Have someone read your work before you turn it in. The whole idea is producing good work, publishable work.

And the experts? I find that there are plenty of people to talk with you about things like budgets and policies and schools and, and, and... The people (or programs) about whom you are writing want you to be accurate.

But it is painful to get there sometimes.

OP-ED IDEA FOR THE DAY - The California Nurses Association has been traveling around the nation talking about how it was able to get the staffing level changed at California hospitals - something nurses around the country are very interested in. Many states have unionized nurses but it seems like the CNA is trying to make a national union - which would have a LOT more clout. The reaction has been negative from hospitals (no duh!) but an op-ed could look at other national models, AFL-CIO, etc. from the past and how they were formed to solve specific problems (regardless of what you think about unions today).

Paying the price for a really rookie error

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Maybe I been running too much and think I'm suddenly 30 again, but I made a rookie error Friday that made Sunday (and today) into a writing nightmare.

I attended a hearing (about which editors are waiting right now for a story) but left before it was over, naively (hence the rookie error) thinking I could talk with the big kahunas running it later in the day to get the policy implications and outcome. Then I went to the event in which the governor unveiled his budget revisions and I thought I understood what I needed to write and had the information (rookie error two, it seems). But the big kahunas disappeared Friday afternoon leaving a whole in my story the size of Crater Lake. And the budget, Jaysus, I can't even talk about it...

So this morning I'm waiting for the various folks to show up at their offices so I can quiz them, pound out the 500 or so words for each story and get my butt downtown to the courthouse for a trial, the basis for a third story (due Wednesday). It's all pretty standard reporting stress, but I got just a little too comfortable with that press pass hanging around my neck, forgetting that whenever you write, you stick your neck waaaay out there.

What hurts most is I know better - and even teach my students not to do what I did Friday. Another story for the classroom this fall, I suppose.

(Originally posted on From Where I Sit)

OP-ED IDEA OF THE DAY - In Rohnert Park, Calif. a girls rugby match got out of control in melee of parents, referees and eventually police. As we enter Little League summer, an op-ed about local problems in the past, coupled with what sports entities are doing might be very interesting column material.

Here's the link to the story about Rohnert Park:

Rohnert Park brawl

Use a tape recorder, don't take a chance

SACRAMENTO - I have preached to a generation of students - never use a tape recorder because when you need it most it will fail. I have tons of anecdotal evidence to back up my point.

But now, I'm about to use a recorder, digital to be sure, but a recorder.

What changed my mind? Sitting in a room full of journalists who all have recorders of one kind or another whose quotes will be exactly what was said, not a sort-of, 'the gist of it all,' that was the standard for years. No, you go to hear the governor speak and you better have exactly what he said, and not be off by a pronoun. Or think about a hearing where you are there with a gaggle of reporters - all of whom have fancy recorders and are getting every word. Of course part of my lecture about not using recorders is so obvious when I attend big events - these folks take only the most sketchy notes and have to listen to the entire meeting, speech or press conference again to write their stories.

But that is another story.

OP-ED for the day - How about that Mayor of Spokane, Washington? A straight, anti-gay Republican turns out to be, well, gay. So, where does this work into an op-ed? Lots of possibilities, many of which deal with public officials and their secrets. How about an op-ed about the lack of privacy our public officials have now? How about adding in the new chips that people are implanting in animals? Or the chips that are going into cell phones so people can see where you are all the time? Check the Federal Trade Commission and see what it thinks about privacy regulations on new technologies. HINT: Not much.