I’ve been sitting on the sidelines, noticing all the different stories that have come across my desk from all over the world. When I taught journalism at several Denver schools, I insisted my students look at the trends that are occurring throughout the world in the field of journalism.

On 12 June 2007, out-going Prime Minister Tony Blair made comments that included a tirade against the media. Even though it was directed toward the British media, it could apply to the American media as well. Hardly a mention of his “feral media” speech was mentioned in this country. I’d like to reprint his speech and encourage your comment:

“A free media is a vital part of a free society. You only need to look at where such a free media is absent to know this truth. but it is also part of freedom to be able to comment on the media. It has a complete right to be free. I, like anyone else, have a complete right to speak.

“My principal reflection is not about ‘blaming’ anyone. It is that the relationship between politics, public life and the media is changing as a result of the changing context of communication in which we all operate; no-one is at fault — it is a fact; but it is my view that the effect of this change is seriously adverse to the way public life is conducted; and that we need, at the least, a proper and considered debate about how we manage the future, in which it is in all our interests that the public is properly and accurately informed. They are the priority and they are not well served by the current state of affairs.

“In the analysis I am about to make, I first acknowledge my own complicity. We paid inordinate attention in the early days of New Labour to courting, assuaging, and persuading the media. In our own defence, after 18 years of Opposition and the, at times, ferocious hostility of parts of the media, it was hard to see any alternative. But such an attitude ran the risk of fuelling the trends in communications that I am about to question.

“It is also hard for the public to know the facts, even when subject to the most minute scrutiny, if those facts arise out of issues of profound controversy, as the Hutton Inquiry showed.

“I would only point out that the Hutton Inquiry (along with 3 other inquiries) was a six month investigation in which I as Prime minister and other senior Ministers and officials faced unprecedented public questioning and scrutiny. The verdict was disparaged because it was not the one the critics wanted. but it was an example of being held to account, not avoiding it. But leave that to one side.

“And incidentally in none of this, do I ignore the fact that this relationship has always been fraught. From Stanley Baldwin’s statement about ‘power without responsibility being the prerogative of the harlot through the ages’ back to the often extraordinarily brutal treatment meted out to Gladstone and Disraeli through to Harold Wilson’s complaints of the 60s, the relations between politics and the media are and are by necessity, difficult. It’s as it should be.

“The question is: is it qualitatively and quantitively different today? I think yes. So that’s my starting point.

“Why? Because the objective circumstances in which the world of communications operate today are radically altered.

“The media world — like everything else — is becoming more fragments, more diverse and transformed by technology. The main BBC and ITN bulletins used to have audiences of 8, even 10 million. Today the average is half that. At the same time, there are rolling 24 hour news programmes that cover events as they unfold. In 1982, there were 3 TV stations broadcasting in the UK. Today there are hundreds. In 1995 225 TV shows had audiences of over 15 million. Today it is almost none.

“Newspapers fight for a share of a shrinking market. Many are now read on-line, not the next day. Internet advertising has overtaken newspaper ads. There are roughly 70 million blogs in existence, with around 120,000 being created every day. In particular, younger people will, less and less, get their news from traditional outlets.

“But, in addition, the forms of communication are merging and interchanging. The BBC website is crucial to the modern BBC. Papers have Podcasts and written material on the web. News is becoming increasingly a free good, provided online without charge. Realistically, these trends won’t do anything other than intensify.

“These changes are obvious. But less obvious is their effect. The news schedule is now 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It moves in real time. Papers don’t give you up to date news. That’s already out there. They have to break stories, try to lead the schedules. Or they give a commentary. And it happens with outstanding speed. When I fought the 1997 election — just ten years ago — we took an issue a day. In 2005, we had to have one for the morning, another for the afternoon and by the evening the agenda had already moved on.

“You have to respond to stories also in real time. Frequently the problem is as much assembling the facts as giving them. Make a mistake and you quickly transfer from drama into crisis. In the 1960s the government would sometimes, on a serious issue, have a Cabinet lasting two days. It would be laughable to think you could do that now without the heavens falling in before lunch on the first day.

“Things harden within minutes. I mean you can’t let speculation stay out there for longer than an instant.

“I am going to say something that few people in public life will say, but most know is absolutely true: a vast aspect of our jobs today — outside of the really major decisions, as big as anything else — is coping with the media, its sheer scale, weight and constant hyperactivity. At points, it literally overwhelms. Talk to senior people in virtually any walk of life today — business, military, public service, sport, even charities and voluntary organisations and they will tell you the same. People don’t speak about it because, in the main, they are afraid to. But it is true, nonetheless, and those who have been around long enough, will also say it has changed significantly in the past years.

“The danger is, however, that we then commit the same mistake as the media do with us: it’s the fault of bad people. My point is: it is not the people who have changed; it is the context within which they work.

“We devote reams of space to debating why there is so much cynicism about politics and public life. In this, the politicians are obliged to go into self-flagellation, admitting it is all our fault. Actually not to have a proper press operation nowadays is like asking a batsman to face bodyline bowling without pads or headgear.

“And, believe it or not, most politicians come into public life with a desire to serve and by and large, try to do the right thing not the wrong thing.

“My view is that the real reason for the cynicism is precisely the way politics and the media today interact. We, in the world of politics, because we are worried about saying this, play along with thye notion it is all our fault. So I introduced: first, lobby friefings on the record; then published the minutes; then gave monthly press conferences; then Freedom of Information; then became the first Prime Minister to go to the Select Committee’s Chairman’s session; and so on. None of it to any avail, not because these things aren’t right, but because they don’t deal with the central issue: how politics is reported.

“There is now, again, a debate about why Parliament is not considered more important and as ever, the Government is held to blame. but we haven’t altered any of the lines of accountability between Parliament and the Executive. What has changed is the way Parliament is reported or rather not reported. Tell me how many maiden speeches are listened to; how many excellent second reading speeches or committee speeches are covered. Except when they generate major controversy, they aren’t.

“If you are a backbench MP today, you learn to give a press release first and a good Parliamentary speech second.

“My case, however is: there’s no point in blaming the media. We are both handling the changing nature of communication. The sooner we recognise this, the better because we can then debate a sensible way forward.

“The reality is that as a result of the changing context in which 21st Century communications operates, the media are facing a hugely more intense form of competition than anything they have ever experienced before. They are not the masters of this change but its victims.

“The result is a media that increasingly and to a dangerous degree is driven by ‘impact’. Impact is what matters. It is all that can distinguish, can rise above the clamour, can get noticed. Impact gives competitive edge. Of course the accuracy of a story counts. But it is secondary to impact.

“It is this necessary devotion to impact that is unravelling standards, driving them down, making the diversity of the media not the strength it should be but an impulsion towards sensation above all else.

“Broadsheets today face the same pressures as tabloids; broadcasters increasingly the same pressures as broadsheets. The audience needs to be arrested, held and their emotions engaged. Something that is interesting is less powerful than something that makes you angry or shocked.

“The consequences of this are acute.

“First, scandal or controvery beats ordinary reporting hands down. News is rarely news unless it generates heat as much as or more than light.

“Second, attacking motive is far more potent than attacking judgement. It is not enough for someone to make an error. It has to be venal. Conspiratorial. Watergate was a great piece of journalism but there is a PhD thesis all on it own to examine the consequences for journalism of standing one conspiracy up.

“What creates cynicism is not mistakes; it is allegations of misconduct. But misconduct is what has impact.

“Third, the fear of missing out means today’s media, more than ever before, hunts in a pack. In these modes it is like a feral beast, just tearing people and reputations to bits. No no-one dares miss out.

“Fourth, rather than just report news, even if sensational or controversial, the new technique is commentary on the news being as, if not more important than the news itself. So — for example — there will often be as much interpretation of what a politician is saying as there is coverage of them actually saying it. In the interpretation, what matters is not what they mean; but what they could be taken to mean. This leads to the incredibly frustrating pastime of expending a large amount of energy rebutting claims about the significance of things said, that bears little or no relation to what was intended.

“In turn, this leads to a fifth point: the confusion of news and commentary. Comment is a perfectly respectable part of journalism. But it is supposed to be separate. Opinion and fact should be clearly divisible. The truth is a large part of the media today not merely elides the two but does so now as a matter of course. In other words, this is not exceptional. It is routine.

“The metaphor for this genre of modern journalism is the Independent newspaper. Let me state at the outset it is a well-edited lively paper and is absolutely entitled to print what it wants, how it wants, on the Middle East or anything else. But it was started as an antidote to the idea of journalism as views not news. That was why it was claled the Independent. Today it is avowedly a viewspaper not merely a newspaper.

“The final consequence of all of this is that it is rare today to find balance in the media. Things, people, issues, stories, are all black and white. Life’s usual grey is almsot entirely absent. ‘Some good, some bad’; ‘some things going right, some going wrong’: these are concepts alien to today’s reporting. It’s a triumph or a disaster. A problem is ‘a crisis’. A setback is a policy ‘in tatters’. A criticism, ‘a savage attack’.

“NGOs and pundits know that unless they are prepared to go over the top, they should venture out at all. Talk to any public service leader — especially in the NHS or the field of law and order — and they will tell you not that they mind the criticism, but they become totally demoralised by the completely unbalanced nature of it.

“It is becoming worse? Again, I would say, yes. In my 10 years, I’ve noticed all these elements evolve with ever greater momentum.

“It used to be thought — and I include myself in this — that help was on the horizon. New forms of communciation would provide new outlets to by-pass the increasingly shrill tenor of the traditional media. In fact, the new forms can be even more pernicious, less balanced, more intent on the latest conspiracy theory multiplied by five.

“But here is also the opportunity. At present, we are all being dragged down by the way media and public life interact. Trust in journalsits is not much above that in politicans. There is a market in providing serious, balanced news. There is a desire for impartiality. The way that people get their news may be changing; but the thirst for the news being real news is not.

“The media will fear any retreat from impact will mean diminishing sales. But the opposite is the case.

“They need to re-assert their own selling point: the distinction between news and comment.

“And there is inevitably change on its way.

“The regulatory framework at some point will need revision. The PCC is for traditional newspaper publishing. OFCOM regulate broadcasting, except for the BBC, which largely has its own system of regulation. But under the new European regulations all television steamed over the internet may be covered by OFCOM. As the technology blurs the distinction between papers and television, it becomes increasingly irrational to have different systems of accountability based on technology that no longer can be differentiated in the old way.

“How this is done is an open question and, of course, the distinction between balance requried of broadcasters but not of papers remains valid. But at some point the system is going to change and the importance of accuracy will not diminish, whilst the freedom to comment remains.

“It is sometimes said that the media is accountable daily through the choice of readers and viewers. That is true up to a point. But the reality is that the viewers or readers have no objective yardstick to measure what they are being told. In every other walk of life in our society that exercises power, there are external forms of accountability, not least through the meida itself. So it is true politicians are accountable through the ballot box every few years. But they are also profoundly accountable, daily, through the media, which is why a free press is so important.

“I am not in a position to determine this one way or another. But a way needs to be found. I do believe this relationship between public life and media is now damaged in a manner that requires our capacity to take the right decisions, in the right spirit for our future.

“I’ve made this speech after much hesitation. I know it will be rubbished in certain quarters. But I also know this has needed to be said.”

I don’t know if this is the case just in China or everywhere, but a great number of journalists I interview lately have remarkably poor job hunting skills.

It seems that I’m spending this week – like most weeks — up to my eyeballs in recruitment ads and job applications. This time, we’re hiring for a bookkeeper/office manager and freelance writers and copyeditors for a new online magazine about central and western China.

I’ve been seeing resumes from people with nice academic backgrounds and truly horrible work histories. Sure, there’s always the chance that they’re evil people who can’t keep a steady job because of their hobby of murdering drifters. But I tend to assume the simplest explanation — they don’t know how to job hunt.

This is sad because there are so many books and other resources for job hunters, and it all really boils down to research and networking — two things that reporters should be excellent at.

I understand that the market is saturated and it’s hard to get started, but there are a few things that I look for on a resume and from an applicant that I hardly ever see — and the bad job market can’t possibly be to blame. Among them are:

• Commitment to journalism. Even during stints as a waitress, does the applicant continue to write freelance articles, contribute to professional organizations, take courses, even volunteer as editor of the local library newsletter? Something? Anything? Or do they just give up? I don’t want to hire people who give up easily.
  
• Basic professionalism. Is everything spelled right? Are parallel grammatical structures actually parallel? This is a no-brainer. Why would anyone turn in a journalism resume to an editor before it’s been proof-read?
• Pushyness. If I don’t have a job available or at the right salary, does the applicant negotiate? Maybe there’s something else they can do to prove themselves, or while the right job comes along? I want a reporter who can’t take “no” for an answer. If the reporter is really, really pushy I might even create a job just for her. It’s a tough profession. I want tough people.
  
• Volunteerism. How willing is the applicant to do something that’s not in the job descriptio? I want to see evidence of participation in professional organizations, or taking on extra assignments. If it’s not in the resume, it’s easy enough to demonstrate — offer to help me out with a project. There’s always things I’m working on that I need help with. Even if it doesn’t directly lead to a job, it will certainly lead to good recommendation or referral.

On the other hand — and I hate to admit this — I have a soft spot for applicants with no job-hunting skills. I see someone with a decent educational history and job record but an misprinted resume and ugly shirt and an inability to look me in the eye, and I think, “If I hire this guy, he’ll stick around for a while, because he doesn’t know how to job hunt.”

I’m not proud of this. And I feel guilty, and compensate by helping writers out when I can. I’ve been known to copyedit applicants’ resumes. (Okay, that’s not from guilt — I just can’t stop myself. I even copyedit restaurant menus.)

Freelance writers are even worse. Which is funny, given that they, in effect, are constantly job hunting.

Here’s what I often see from freelancers:

• No website. In this day and age, how can you not have a website? The quickest, cheapest way to do it: get a free blog from Google (Blogger) or Terapad, which are the two services I recommend most often. Blogger, however, is blocked in China – which could either be a good, or a bad thing. Post your bio and your resume in the “about” section, and your clips as blog entries. You can back-date your blog entries, so you can post your clips by when they appeared. Depending on the kind of permission you have from your old editors, you can either post the whole article, or just the first couple of paragraphs and then the link to your original story. You can add a couple of articles a day until you’ve got a nice selection of clips to look at – which brings me to the next point:
  
• Just one clip per pub. Writers often provide a list of publications they write for, plus one clip each from a handful of them, presumably their best clip. I wonder: did the magazine drop them after one story? Were they so hard to work with that the editors never wanted to see them again? More than a nice clip, I want to see evidence that the writer had a long-term, successful relationship with an editor. In the past, when clips had to be copied, editors probably didn’t want to spend their time wading through stories and just wanted to look at a handful of the best ones. Now, I want to see all the clips. Yes, the all the hundreds — or thousands — of stories. Maybe the best ones can be featured in a special section somewhere, but I want to be able to browse. Is the writer consistent? Able to learn new subjects? Have a broad background — or have depth of knowledge in a particular field? These are all good things to know.
• Goofy email address. It costs $10 (or less) per year to register a URL. Gmail will cost your email for you, for free, at that URL. So you don’t need to have a hot_john@spam_host.com account. You can use john@johnsmith.com, and still have Gmail’s great interface. Many small businesses are using it these days to host their corporate email. Freelance writers should, too, or invest in an email hosting service.
  
• No testimonials. Many editors would be happy to give writers a quote testifying to their ability to meet deadlines or to produce usable copy. For some reason, however, most writers never ask. It’s okay to ask. The worst that could happen is that the editor woud say no, and blame corporate policies. I want to help my best freelance writers stay in business, which means that they need a steady flow of work. And if they get too busy to write for me — well, I’m sorry to see them go, but I’m also happy for their success. I bet other editors feel the same way.

Meanwhile, if you’re looking for either freelance or staff work – or a summer intership — look me up. I’m always checking my email.

Signing off in Shanghai,

Maria

A writer working on a piece for high school students just got in touch with me about what’s it’s like to be a foreign correspondent. I love talking to non-journalists about what I do.

I get to say things like, “I write the first draft of history.”

Wow. I must really be important.

I get to talk to world leaders and titans of industyr.

Other journalists know that in practice, our profession is a much needed but vastly under appreciated public utility. Sure, we get to talk to people who are doing great things. But we don’t usually get a chance to do great things ourselves. What’s the old saying? Those who can, do. Those who can’t do, teach. Journalists are probably somewhere closer to the “can’t do” side — which is why, I think, many journalists, when they leave the profession, go into teaching.

We’re always on the sidelines, never in the game.

But anyway, in case you’re interested, here are my answers to her questions:

Q: Please describe the work that foreign correspondents do.

Foreign correspondents do all kinds of work. They cover politics, business, technology, energy, conflicts — every kind of beat imaginable. Some start their careers by working for local English-language publications and cover local news. Many new journalists in Shanghai, for example, write restaurant reviews and lifestyle pieces for local expat magazines.

Q: How dangerous is the work?

Some is dangerous. Some isn’t. Right now, I cover business news in China — not dangerous at all. In the mid-90s, I was in Chechnya and Afghanistan, That was pretty dangerous.

Q: What are the working hours?

It varies for every journalist. Some work during the day, 9 to 5. I typically work 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., then work again in the evenings, from 9 p.m. to midnight. That’s because a lot of my sources — and all of my editors — are in the U.S.

Q: What are the job opportunities for a foreign correspondent? How easy or difficult would it be for a newcomer to break into the field?

It’s getting harder all the time. I help a lot of young guys and gals get started, as do many other foreign bureaus. There’s a lot of turnover with overseas operations. Many people come over and find that they don’t like it very much — the work is too difficult, and too low-paid, and its very difficult to get ahead. Young journalists overseas face all the same challenges as those just starting out back home, plus extra ones: they’re usually in way over their heads at their first jobs here, they have to deal with cultural differences, they have to learn a new language and new customs and be far away from their regular support systems. Some struggle for years and never make it. Others seem to do well right from the start and it can be very disheartening to those who don’t.

Q: Can you estimate the number of foreign correspondents from the US? (and from Canada, if you have any ideas about that)

Sorry, don’t have those numbers.

Q: What income range?

Sorry, don’t have those numbers, but I would guess is very  broad.

Q: What education and training?

From my experience, foreign correspondents come from all sorts of backgrounds. Journalism and English degrees, finance and economics, business, philosophy, languages, math — everything and anything. Many have no training when they start. Success seems to be correlated more to energy and adaptability than to background.

Q: Are there trends happening?

Yes — major newspapers are cutting back on their bureaus, but specialized business publications are adding staff.

Q: Could a person with a disability do this work?

Yes — but in the more modern, handicapped-accessible areas. Unless your disability is something like a reading disability, in which case it won’t impact you much — or, at least, no more than it would anywhere else.

Q: What personality traits increase the chances of succeeding?

You have to be really adaptable. Like different kinds of people. Be willing to try new things. Have a high tolerance for risk. Be willing to work very hard for few rewards, especially at the start.

Q: Is there anything a high school student can do to prepare for the career or to find out if it truly interests them?

You can try traveling overseas in an exchange program or on vacation, and writing about your experiences while abroad for a high school paper or your blog. You can also cover a foreign country without leaving home. For example, you can find an interesting story — such as a local company finding a Chinese partner – and email the people overseas or call them with your questions, and do online research about what they do. I routinely cover foreign countries from outside the country. For example, I cover Japan from China. I wrote about India for years before going there. You can make contacts and build up a story portfolio without ever getting on an airplane.

Q: Who employs foreign correspondents? Are some freelancers?

There are a lot of freelance foreign correspondents. There are two ways to get to be a foreign correspondent — to wait for your newspaper or magazine to send you, or to go overseas by yourself and freelance until you find a job. The most certain way is option two — it guarantees that you get to go overseas.

Q: What do they do when not on assignment overseas?

I don’t know. Probably work their regular jobs.

Q: What role does technology and the Internet play?

It’s fantastic. I can cover so much more than I ever could before the Internet was around. The web — and email — enables me to reach people and companies that I would never be able to find otherwise. It also helps me find employees and new markets.

Q: How do foreign correspondents use mathematics in their work?  Or do they?

I was a math major in college and honestly, all I’ve ever needed was high school math. I need to calculate percentage increases on a regular basis, and that’s it.

Q: How important are communication skills? (Obviously, the job is all about communication skills, but I need a comment regarding the importance).

Communication skills are super important. A communications degree is absolutely useless. You have to be able to connect to people of very different backgrounds and personal styles, express yourself verbally and in print, learn new languages, and, often, speak before groups. These are all great skills to have, and some people are naturally better than others, but all can be improved with practice. Sales training is actually fantastic here — get a telemarketing job, or cold calling job, while in college.

Q: Can you comment on the importance of decision making skills?  By this, I mean are there occasions when foreign correspondents must make good decisions or judgments?  Situations where a bad decision could be tempting,  but could have negative consequences.

Yes, but this is more about common sense, I think, and having good policies in place ahead of time. Like: don’t go for rides in the middle of the dark in war zones with mass murderers. You might get killed. Or it might work out, and you’d have a great story. Unfortunately, you don’t usually know until it’s too late. I recommend that people don’t trust their instincts. Instead, get a good set of guidelines (your media outlet, or the Committee to Protect Journalists has a good set) and follow them blindly. You might miss some opportunities for great stories, but it’s better to be on the safe side. No story is worth it if you’re too dead to file it.

Q: What type of work have you done as a foreign correspondent:?

Business reporting. International politics. War reporting. Cultural reporting. Hell, I’ve even done a restaurant review. Twice!

Q: How long have you done this work?

I started being a foreign correspondent in the early 1990s, in Russia.

Q: What interested you in becoming a foreign correspondent?

I wanted to be Hemingway.

Q: What is the social value of your work?

When I was a war correspondent, I was often the only person reporting on really bad things that were happening — drawing international attention to events. That was really important. Now, I’m covering the single biggest economic transformation the world has ever seen, here in China. Hopefully, other countries will be able to learn form what China is doing. I’m helping chronicle all that.

Q: Could you provide a short anecdote — something interesting or funny or weird or frightening? (Something that would interest students grade 6 through 12.)

Well, Michael Jordan saved my life once. Two colleagues and I were trying to escape from a war zone where we had been taken prisoner by rebels, and two people working with us had already been captured and killed. A friendly police officer smuggled us away from where we were being taken prisoner, drove us close to the front line, and dropped us off. We would have to walk the rest of the way, on foot, right across the main area of the fighting in order to get to safety on the other side. We had been walking for a couple of hours when a truck full of rebel soldiers drove buy — then slowed down and stopped. The soldiers jumped out and motioned with their guns for us to get in the back. We did, and the truck drove on. We thought they were going to drive us to a field headquarters and execute us. Then one of the soldiers asked us where we were from. One guy was from the capital — what the rebels were rebelling against. He couldn’t say anything. Another guy was from Moscow — and Russia was backing the capital against the rebels. I was from the United States, also not on the rebels’ good side. So I said, “I’m from Chicago.” And the soldiers said, “Oh, yeah, we know Chicago. Al Capone, bang, bang!” And I said, “No, that was years ago. Chicago is a nice city now. We have the Chicago Bulls.” And we talked about basketball. They loved Michael Jordan. But this was when Michael Jordan had temporarily quit the team to play golf or baseball or something. “What will the Bulls do without Michael Jordan?” I complained. “He was lead scorer! He was the heart of the team!” The soldiers felt sorry for us and let us go, and dropped us off at the start of a path that led to the other side of the front lines — but around the worst of the fighting. A few hours of walking later, we were safe.

Q: What do you find rewarding about the work?

I feel that I’m doing the most important job on the planet.

Q: What do you find stressful?

Being away from family for long periods of time.

Q: What advice would you offer a student who is considering this field?

Study languages, economics, history, geography, business, technology, or science. Or all of the above. You can take some journalism courses, but really, I don’t look for that when I hire people.

Q: Would do to it all over again if you could?

Absolutely. Except next time, I would avoid those rebels who took me prisoner. But then, those other two guys would have been killed. Oh, wait — I would warn them.

On Sunday, Gene Weingarten of the Washington Post made fun of PasadenaNow‘s plans to outsource local reporting jobs to India in his column, Hack for Hire.

He does it by trying to show how funny it would be if American reporters tried to cover news in India or China.

Of course, American reporters cover news from India and China all the time.

American journalist routinely parachute into foreign countries and write them. They are obviously taking jobs away from locals with much better understanding of local cultures. Sure, they write in terms that people back home can understand, but I would argue that it is much easier to learn to write in terms that Americans can understand than to figure out what’s happening in, say, China or India.

And many American reporters cover the world without ever leaving home.

They pick up the phone and call people, or send emails to them. A few years ago, it would have been impossible to do this — you would literally have to have someone on the ground, going around and knocking on doors.

Today, my reporters complain when their voice mails to Vietnam officials aren’t returned the same day.

I did a story on the Iraqi stock exchange a year or two back. It was when there was still optimism in the country, and there was actual hope for the exchange. I did meet some Iraq Stock Exchange executives while they were on a trip abroad, but I never took them up on their invitation to visit Baghdad. The interviews for the story were conducted by phone and email.

I also wrote about Indian outsourcing for years before I ever actually visited India. But then, what technology journalist hasn’t?

Usually, my conversations with sources in foreign countries are very specific: What do you think about the new regulations? What does your company plan to do next?

Occasionally — very, very rarely — I might ask sources to describe what something looks like. As webcams proliferate, I might soon be able to ask them to pan the camera across their office.

Electronic communication is already good enough for business, technology, and economics stories. With the rise of blogging, it’s even become possible to do remote “man in the street” type interviews with ordinary citizens, by finding them through their blogs.

Sure, Weingarten may do a lousy job with his first attempt at covering local news in India. But if he were to do it, day in and day out, for a few months, he’d probably get pretty good. Sure, he probably won’t learn Tamil in that time, but he will have probably collected the emails and telephone numbers of all the local players, so he can contact them after the meetings and find out the background of what actually happened and what it means.

An Indian reporter covering the US will have a much easier time of it. Indians already grow up with a steady diet of Friends, Hollywood movies, and all our other cultural exports. There’s no language barrier, and public information is usually easily accessible compared to that in other countries.

Then there’s the “hierarchy of majors” effect on US journalism.

Here’s my theory (in case you haven’t heard it yet):

The toughest majors are the math-heavy ones: physics, mathematics, economics, chemistry, engineering. That’s where the preponderance of the smartest students ends up.

Then there are the tough non-math majors: premed, prelaw, the life sciences, government, history. There’s a lot of memorization of facts and understanding of processes.

After that, you’ve got the language majors, comparitative literature, the softer side of the literal arts curriculum. A student might have to read a few books and write a few papers, but it’s neither rocket science nor brain surgery.

Finally, you’ve got the communication majors. I’m not sure what they have to do. I presume they already know how to communicate before they ever get to college. It’s the major of choice for college athletes and men and women going for the Mrs. and Mr. degrees. When I get a job application from a communications major, I better see a second major in economics or government or something — anything! — else.

So, on the one hand, you’ve got an excess of American communications graduates barely able to add two and two and planning to hop over to public relations the minute they get a chance.

And, on the other hand, you have smart, hungry, driven Indians who had to work like crazy to get into college at all.

You do have a problem with quality control. Even in the United States, reporters sometimes slide fake stories through. Oversight is much, much harder when the reporter is on the other side of the planet, especially when the editor isn’t familiar with the story the reporter is covering.

I suggest the following quality control mechanism for overseas reporters (of any nationality):

• Full transcripts — in English – of every interview. If a quote doesn’t have a transcript to back it up, cut it out of the story.
• Full contact info for each source (including email addresses). Routinely email quotes to sources to check for accuracy. (Not the whole story, just their particular quotes.)
• All source materials (using Google translation if they’re in foreign languages). If a fact isn’t backed up by a source material, cut it out of the story. And, of course, if a fact isn’t attributed at all it shouldn’t be in the story in the first place.
  

It is a little bit of a pain to collect all this stuff. We use an online relational database in our office. But the investment in a good document tracking and workflow system is well worth it, in my opinion.

Signing off in Shanghai,

Maria

Last week, we had so many story assignments coming in that we ran out of writers (including our freelancers). Thus no postings from me for a while.

We’ve been running ads for more writers and copyeditors, but it will take time to train people and get them to the point where they actually save us work, not create more work for us to do.

For a new writer, we have to hold their hand through the entire reporting process, help them organize their stories, and then rewrite everything from scratch after they hand them in.

For a new copyeditor, we have to hold their hand through the copyediting process, then re-edit everything they hand in.

We don’t have a choice, of course — there aren’t many experienced business writers out where we are, so training is essential.

I had much the same experienced when I worked in Russia in the early 90s, though back then I was training news reporters, not business writers.

Meanwhile, if anyone wants to get involved and help us out, just drop me a line.

Signing off in Shanghai,

Maria