The Fundamental Questions

Chapter 7  ("El espíritu del reportaje", page 111 ) ISBN: 978-84-475-3119-6.

Introductory note on the flow diagram

The questions I always ask myself before giving the green light to a topic are those in the flow diagram below. As language is consecutive we are obliged to put them in order but any one of them could be the first question.

The first thing we have to think about as journalists is creating news, because if a report creates news it is doubly interesting; it will have repercussions in other programmes and other areas of the media. Not all news can be converted into a report of reasonable length but news is the essential raw material for news services.

Afterwards we will see what comes out, if it is a short news item or a report or debate, but this is already of merit because it is not easy to detect new news items so we already have something of value. I agree that every news item should be new per se but all of us know that a good part of the news consists of variations of a few old and redundant bits of information. If, in the course of our research, we have sniffed out a news item the best advice is to reorient the report to give the news the visibility it deserves.

Often, although we haven’t created news we know that it will become news at some point. Daily news programmes look for excuses or hangers to justify showing a report (because there is a congress, a world day etc) but in spaces reserved for reports this has little importance; it is a topic because the programme says so.

So if we start with a known news item.../

Do we include a new point of view?

Can we amplify or enrich the information?

As a reporter gains a taste for audiovisual narrative he runs the risk of giving less importance to journalism because he believes that the main contribution lies in the treatment. Big mistake. For sure there is something new compared with what we thought we knew a few hours earlier. Nothing is changeless, new information or new witnesses can always appear. If he doesn’t look for them nobody in his team will do it for him. The answer to at least one of the two initial questions always has to be yes.

Things are not really important news until they are on the telly.

If you get the first film footage of something covered in other branches of the media – then go ahead. The contribution of images is an important element. A photo in the paper is not the same as a sequence. We must not forget that TV is the most important social reference known, in other words, please go on.

A clause that guarantees a safe bet for a report is a positive answer to this question:

Does it contain Conflict?

If the topic contains conflict then we are doing well, as we have seen, life revolves around continual resolution of conflicts which generate more contradictions. If we know how to detect them and isolate them then we will see beyond initial appearances.

The same way that Diogenes looked for the man with the lamp, you should look for conflict. It is the quickest way to build a story because once we have understood the conflict and identified the parties everything falls into place automatically. Things come out by themselves; you just have to follow the process. A conflict must have a protagonist with a particular desire or objective and to reach it he will come up against some definite circumstances, some difficulties; usually caused by other living beings - the antagonists. Sometimes the difficulties are the result of forces of nature and the protagonist experiences the conflict within himself but he finally triumphs or gives in to the unutterable.

All conflicts evolve in a usually long process and resolve one way or another, or at least they leave the situation open. A changing situation is a sure source of sequences. If the chosen topic generates images and actions, then so much the better; we will have a machine that runs itself. Another advantage of conflict is that if you know how to put salt in the wound then people will speak up clearly; they will want to be heard and they will want us to understand their reasons. Even the most obtuse of us speak clearly when something hurts. Debate arises between the two parts, if we do our job well the viewer also gets involved in the debate.

If we are not generating news and neither do we see conflict we have to ask ourselves:

Are we doing something new?

Sometimes routine clouds our view and we don’t have our contribution clear. You don’t have to look far, it is sufficient to structure and properly document some information that is being badly explained. If the value is fundamentally educational or it is spreading the word, we are closer to a documentary than a report. My experience makes me distrust anyone who says they don’t need to bring anything new to a topic because the impact will lie in the treatment they give it. I’ll only accept this from professionals with a solid track record . The writer’s kitchen is not possible without good raw materials and wide experience. When choosing topics don’t put the emphasis on the treatment; concentrate on getting the prime fillets and you can worry later about the condiments. If is obvious that if the topic is not news, doesn’t have conflict or an original aesthetic or publicity value something is missing. It is well worth reconsidering everything and, if you can’t find convincing answers, don’t hesitate to discard the topic. Don’t take a single step without a clear topic there is no type of urgency that can justify it.

Now comes a question that might seem blindingly obvious but nevertheless is very important.