4/29- Chris Stone Summary, Aaron Roy (Michael Northup)

Discussion Leader: Michael Northrop
Speaker: Christopher Stone
Note taker: Aaron Roy

The first point Michael brought up for discussion was the fact that when Christopher Stone applied for the position at S.I. he thought he was one of 1600 applicants when in reality he was one of 16, Does this perception that large companies have a way larger number of applicants worry you or prevent you from pursuing opportunities?

Emily thought people do shy away from big names but in this worsening economy more people apply to more jobs regardless, while another student voiced that while people may shy from the big names, others apply anyways for “kicks and giggles” so to speak. They also added that applying a bigger named company with a larger pool of applicants could be helpful because possibly down the road they could remember your original application and give you an edge in a future attempt at employment.

Christine added that it was hard to understand the situation Stone faced when applying because we did not know all the facts but then Professor Dufresne intervened saying that connections at a larger place, the whole “who you know “ factor plays a part also in landing a spot at these big name companies. Besides luck also being a factor, the professor also added that Stone’s first job was a hiring by someone who knew his family, but then from there his own hard work landed him at S.I.

Michael then redirected the discussion by posing the question; would anyone consider going into investigative reporting?

A student began the discussion by saying yes, they would definitely consider a career in it as investigative reporters uncover what the general public is unable to find or see for themselves.
Aaron then said that although it was be interesting to do, the reality with this economy is that it’s hard to become an investigative reporter anymore as resources are scarce at companies.
Michael then again posed a question to the class; In 10 years will newspapers be able to field and finance stories like the A-Rod one put out in S.I.?

Pat said that yes, big papers will still provide quality investigative pieces, and that presently papers are facing some of their toughest times but they are still producing big stories.
Alyssa said that hopefully papers are still around, and that investigative reporting will still occur, but within a budget, big stories will have to be covered by bigger market papers, and smaller papers will miss some content as realistically they cannot afford to cover it.

Eli then responded that it depends on the individual reporter, if the reporter can afford to provide his personal time to pursuing these deeper pieces then yes they will still gain coverage.

Professor Dufresne then interjected with a question to the class; why do people not want to investigative report anymore?
Pat responded by saying that reporters, such as past speaker Deb Barry, have to use their own money to cover stories sometimes, and at places like S.I. where stone works its more affordable and easier to be a investigative reporter because it’s their business to cover these more demanding pieces.

Joe then said that it’s harder to become an investigative journalist in that you really have to know what you’re doing and be more aware of your surroundings. An investigative reporter faces more roadblocks, thus a more experienced journalist is necessary to be successful at uncovering these pieces. Joe then said that as journalists become more comfortable in the field, a switch to investigative reporter is a bit easier as a transition. He ended with saying people do not want to become investigative reporters at first because it’s difficult to just start there.

Professor Dufresne then added to the discussion by saying that the New England Center of Investigative Reporting contacted him about using students and media partner such as N.P.R. to establish a feeder program for journalistic training in investigative reporting skills. “Investigative reporting is like a cult,” said professor Dufresne. He then went on to add that it’s hard for people to do at first, but for those with a gut feeling for uncovering issues, it provides them with a chance to get involved.

Michael then directed the discussion towards the point; can anyone do investigative reporting or do you need intrinsic ability?

Alyssa responded that it depends on the personality and that you have to not mind nagging people and being confrontational. You need to be “slightly rude” and like any job investigative reporting is a question of how much effort you’re willing to put in.

Pat added that an investigative reporter cannot be shy and that they cannot lose sight of their story as the more important goal and has to be able to ignore whatever someone else might think of them.

Michael again took hold of the discussion and asked the class, is journalism becoming more conversational as feedback and interaction are now parts of multiple instances of media?
Amy replied that the feedback keeps reporters more accountable as people can reply and add their own takes on stories, but that there is also a downfall in that it makes reporters need tougher skin as people’s responses to your work could induce emotion and influence future writing.

Alyssa closed the discussion with the point that she enjoys providing positive feedback on journalists who are doing a good job, and also that negative feedback could possibly spur a poor performing journalist into putting more work into their craft.

The mains points from the take away cards focused on Christopher Stone’s optimistic approach to the future of journalism. His concept that news will be still be important but the way it’s delivered in the main thing that will change, was mentioned in multiple people’s cards. Another point that sparked peoples interest was Stone’s mention of sports reporters being well read in other subject matters, whether it is a subscription to Harper’s Weekly, or the New Yorker. The take away cards also mentioned that Stone’s discussion on confidential vs. anonymous sources was something of new topic to multiple students in the class.