News don’t happen in a vacuum. They are usually a consequence of something or a surprise repeat or part of a new trend. Unless they are entirely frivolous, context tells us why they are important.
This can be like saying that a company has made record profits but not saying that it lost money last year. Instead the article becomes all praise, rather than a look at what it did better or right. Those who know the history will shrug it off as nonsense while those who don’t will go ‘wow’. In other words, the facts don’t reveal the whole truth.
Or it can be like writing about the US presidential elections without referring to the electoral college, or how many Palestinians died on the Gaza strip without mentioning how the Israel-Hamas conflict started.
Closer to home, maybe it’s news about a rowdy meeting with all the drama and spectacle. But there’s nothing about its genesis which could be rooted in some event a long time ago. The reader is left perplexed.
Say, for example, what’s the context for the SimplyGo U-turn? Reference must be made to the public outcry – even if the newsmaker denies it as a cause. Then the denial should also be reported.
More recently, there was the case of the police officer who killed himself. Why was it suddenly mentioned in Parliament although the suicide took place six months ago? Because of the need to tell people if the police workplace is indeed teeming with racists.
Most ‘backgrounding’ can be researched. But simply digging up the past is not enough. The info has to be relevant to the current news and help the reader join the dots. A journalist who has been following a saga is better placed to put in the necessary background to the saga than one who was suddenly parachuted into covering it. Adding background will come more naturally to the seasoned reporter than the newbie. Like a new court reporter covering a case neglecting to say that the charges had been reduced from the original ones.
Knowing the background beforehand will always, always lead to better questions. I recall one press conference with the newsmakers lauding themselves for an achievement but failing to say that this was because the money was made available to them – and them only. They immediately switched subjects.
There is also this thing called the ‘background’ briefing. I am not sure if newsmakers and even journalists know what this means these days. I say so because I actually see the term being used in news articles. This confuses readers: how is a ‘briefing’ different from a press conference then?
Some newsmakers also tend to see briefings as a ‘gagging tool’. That is, the journalist is privy to information that cannot be used, which makes you wonder why they would even go to such briefings. Some newsmakers even complain about the final product not being in keeping with the ‘briefing’.
Here’s something newsmakers should heed: Just as you need not reply to questions, journalists need not believe everything you say, especially when they can’t attribute it to you.
In my past life, background briefings were intended to give journalists a better idea of why something is being done or how it is going to be done. The information cannot be attributed but would be useful when reporting that ‘something’. For example, is a change in certain criminal penalties the result of more such crimes being committed? If so, some background statistics should be trotted out.
Ensuring that backgrounding given can be used to shed light without compromising the source depends on the journalist’s ability to weave in the details with the news. Doing this comes with experience, as well as the ability to discern if the newsmaker is trying to make the journalist see only his point of view.
I have always told reporters that a background briefing doesn’t mean that you can’t negotiate with the newsmakers on portions that can be attributed. This is, and has always been, the failsafe SOP for journalists – transparency and attribution.
Besides picking ‘relevant’ backgrounding, the other issue for the journalist is: how much backgrounding is enough for the reader to grasp the significance of the article? That’s an editorial judgment call, including whether the backgrounding raises more questions!?
I have seen news articles with three paragraphs of news info followed by reams of background that is publicly available. In other words, there was no additional reporting and the piece had to be ‘padded’. You can use ChatGPT or plain old Google to pull out the background. You just need to know the right questions to ask the machine.
Bertha Harian 