You call that reporting? That's just the questions, not the story.
We just watched the local ABC News programs "special investigative report" about a spate of marriages that took place in Harrison, New York. Apparently five times as many marriages as usual in the space of a month, and all of them men with middle eastern names and women from New York City, and in the months just before September 2001. Sounds fascinating, doesn't it? We heard the teasers several times in the top of the newscast, and stayed for the story. When they finally got there, however, we were horribly disappointed. Jim Hoffer, the investigative reporter, didn't tell us what was going on or why. So I just sent him a little expressing my disappointment, and decided to share it with you.
I was a reporter (well, I still am, but I'm working in a far more limited field these days). As a reporter, his story wasn't finished. And as an editor, not only wasn't it finished, but it wasn't even started. Had he presented that report to me as an editor, I would have said "Okay, great. These are some fascinating questions. Now go out and find the answers; that's your story." But what we got was just the initial questions. I felt my time had been wasted, waiting for that story and then watching it.
The letter:
Dear Mr. Hoffer,
My wife and I just watched your report on the spate of marriages of middle eastern men in Harrison, New York, in April 2001. She's disappointed; I'm appalled.
I watched your entire report, and was very impressed with how you tied in a "convicted terrorist" who used a similar scam with the several hundred marriages on which you reported (but which apparently had absolutely no connection with the terrorist in question). And your on-air wrap-up, where the anchor expressed surprise that such scams are still possible: "I thought the government clamped down on such things after 9/11." But your report explicitly stated that the questionable marriages took place in April 2001, five months before 9/11.
So, having watched several teasers for the story at the top of the news, and then watched the entire report, I have to ask: what did you report on? What did you uncover? Did you learn anything, or were you simply talking about something that happened eight and a half years ago, hoping to raise some ire among your more clueless viewers?
You tracked down two women you claim were married in this scam, both of whom denied having been part of it. You got a surprising interview with the mayor of Harrison (I have no idea why she would have agreed to it, so in that respect, you impressed me). You seem to have the makings of a very interesting story, but then you just threw it away to make us say, "Gosh, wow, something's happening." Was this just the introduction to a longer story, when you'll tell us you actually tracked down some of the people who participated, or when you'll tell us the FBI said "Back off, this is something secret we're doing." Or was it just another "Here's a reason to be afraid," and leave us hanging?
Who were the women who participated? Were they real people? Did they get paid for it? Where are the men who were married? Why weren't the women charged with bigamy (since you've now discovered several of them were married twice, did you pass that information along to the proper authorities)? Oh, and by the way: why now? Eight and a half years after the fact. Who was the tip-off that got you started on this seemingly stale, but possibly interesting, story? Don't just tell us why you're interested; give us the resolution.
Best wishes,
Ian Randal Strock
Editor, SFScope.com
Former reporter, The Daily Free Press
I was a reporter (well, I still am, but I'm working in a far more limited field these days). As a reporter, his story wasn't finished. And as an editor, not only wasn't it finished, but it wasn't even started. Had he presented that report to me as an editor, I would have said "Okay, great. These are some fascinating questions. Now go out and find the answers; that's your story." But what we got was just the initial questions. I felt my time had been wasted, waiting for that story and then watching it.
The letter:
Dear Mr. Hoffer,
My wife and I just watched your report on the spate of marriages of middle eastern men in Harrison, New York, in April 2001. She's disappointed; I'm appalled.
I watched your entire report, and was very impressed with how you tied in a "convicted terrorist" who used a similar scam with the several hundred marriages on which you reported (but which apparently had absolutely no connection with the terrorist in question). And your on-air wrap-up, where the anchor expressed surprise that such scams are still possible: "I thought the government clamped down on such things after 9/11." But your report explicitly stated that the questionable marriages took place in April 2001, five months before 9/11.
So, having watched several teasers for the story at the top of the news, and then watched the entire report, I have to ask: what did you report on? What did you uncover? Did you learn anything, or were you simply talking about something that happened eight and a half years ago, hoping to raise some ire among your more clueless viewers?
You tracked down two women you claim were married in this scam, both of whom denied having been part of it. You got a surprising interview with the mayor of Harrison (I have no idea why she would have agreed to it, so in that respect, you impressed me). You seem to have the makings of a very interesting story, but then you just threw it away to make us say, "Gosh, wow, something's happening." Was this just the introduction to a longer story, when you'll tell us you actually tracked down some of the people who participated, or when you'll tell us the FBI said "Back off, this is something secret we're doing." Or was it just another "Here's a reason to be afraid," and leave us hanging?
Who were the women who participated? Were they real people? Did they get paid for it? Where are the men who were married? Why weren't the women charged with bigamy (since you've now discovered several of them were married twice, did you pass that information along to the proper authorities)? Oh, and by the way: why now? Eight and a half years after the fact. Who was the tip-off that got you started on this seemingly stale, but possibly interesting, story? Don't just tell us why you're interested; give us the resolution.
Best wishes,
Ian Randal Strock
Editor, SFScope.com
Former reporter, The Daily Free Press