I, for one, have a lot of questions about reporting and even more than when I first started working on Assignment Zero. We've all read about journalists and can - at least I can - easily imagine ourselves traipsing around, tracking down potential sources, noting important facts in our notebook, and wrapping up the big story on a late night. It feels intuitive, immediate. None of those actions seem to require doing much more than what we've always done - to observe, piece things together, and tell the story.
That was true until I actually joined one of our Assignment Zero teams. I've got a passion for crime. I love to read about it and, even more, love the idea of being a detective. So, I joined the 'crowdsourced crimefighting team.' Robin, our team leader, introduced me to the group and then asked me what I'd like to research. Whoah. My mind began by with association... crime -> 24 -> CIA = .... what?. And then crowdsourced crime -> Perverted Justice -> something I'm sure someone else is surely already looking at -> I should find another program like Perverted Justice -> "What is the point of looking at another program? What am I trying to figure out here?" And then I realized one of the uniquenesses of journalism. You begin by looking before you've got an answer. I'm used to looking when I want to know something, when I'm following a lead in my own life. This is different.
Not only is it a radical departure from how I usually work, it's also amplified by the nature of our project. We have to look deeply into the pieces and then, once we begin pulling them together, we'll be able to start the story. Once I'm finished with my research piece, there's no guarantee that we - as a group - will be that much closer to piecing together the story. There are many pieces and many people, but one big story. To get there, we have to be individually patient and collectively ruthless in our pursuit. Not an easy call.
What does that process really look like? Well, for starters it means that we all take up a piece and do our best. We take back what we've got to the editor and we discuss what we've learned with them. Maybe we just post the research, maybe we turn it into a writing piece. The editors are talking amongst themselves on their blogs, discussing what we're learning about the paths of crowdsourced journalism, crime, politics, business, you name it. As our collective understanding grows, we begin to refine. We identify topics to look into more. We decide to drop others. What does that look like? It means that we archive parts of the Assignment Desk and build out new sections. It means that we publish research and then move on. It means that we assign some new writing pieces and interviews.
As you can see, the process begins to look more anarchic by the second. Looking back, I'm sure it's not. When we're done, we should be able to explain why we made the decisions we did, but going forward, it's not clear what's coming next. Is that bad? No. We shouldn't want it any other way. Why? Because to do so would be to draw assumptions into our work that we don't want. We don't know the story yet and that is a good thing.
Why do I share this? Well, I admit I'm not one for patience when it comes to wanting answers and I've just realized there is no other way.
