Fair exchange?

Of all the media fellows, my placement is distinctly non-scientific. Whilst the other fellows are writing about biomarkers and arguing about Darwin, I’m ringing profs up about learning and teaching, academic misconduct or postgraduate funding. This is fine, it suits me well, I’m comfortable reporting on all of these topics and I’ve got something to say. If asked. It's not the journo's job to opine, so I've heard.

However, the scheme is run by the British Science Association, for reasons of improving understanding between scientists and the media – necessarily so, as Zoe Corbyn reports in today’s THE. But whilst the academy and the media do have their spats, there’s not the same pressure for empathy that there is when public health, climate change or natural disaster are involved.

I guess the Times Higher wants to expand its links with academics and institutions, and by having one of its readership guest for a couple of weeks, they get some feedback on how the magazine is received, but can that really be it?

Two weeks free labour? Someone to train for no long-term gain? Supplier of contacts or a woman on the ground? I’m not yet sure why the THE buy into the scheme.

I’m enjoying it and learning lots, but my placement just seems slightly besides the Association’s aims. I’ll keep you posted in case of enlightenment.

Comment is free

The Times Higher’s comments section is open access. You can just leave a message right there using whatever name you like. Unsurprisingly, this system will not last due to online crazies, posters having arguments with themselves / patting themselves on the back, and the antics of general irritants. That and the ubiquitous spambots, peddling Uggboots on the site each night.

But one of the nice things about free comment is the speed and volume of discussion you get. Working here also gives me the pleasure of seeing live comments about comments. The staff respond to regular supporters like old friends (which I’m sure they are – one of my calls was greeted today by a professor offering ‘anything for the Times Higher’), but also get a bit antsy when academics leave criticisms about patchy articles, unadorned graphs and uncited research. Although people here know much more than us about HE policy and have an impressive knack of conjuring up names and numbers of previously unreachable managers and politicians, they are still high-speed hacks, with an eye on the big picture. And when dealing with academics brought up on fine detail, it’s no surprise that people get upset now and again.

Think, call, write, repeat.

Over the last few days I’ve fallen into a regular rhythm of coming up with stories (or having them suggested to me), researching the issue online, contacting a couple of people who can explain things and provide quotes, then consolidating all this into short and sweet news pieces.

I then file my copy the news editor, who makes minor changes and tells me it’s worked well, and then it’s gone. Gone forth to the hinterland of the subs, who do something mysterious to it. Then it may or may not end up in the magazine.

So that’s it. The process seems remarkably straightforward. I say this quietly since I’ll probably fall flat on my face over the next few days as I have no doubt underestimated what really happens.

I’ve filed 3 pieces in 4 days which seems a pretty pedestrian pace, although apparently I have a lot on my plate. I’m hoping to learn a bit more about the typical workload when I go for lunch with one of the reporters tomorrow.

I guess I’m viewing all this through the comparative lens of my time at BlueSci, where copy was edited, then second edited, and then proofread. It took ages and incurred many a heated row on logic, clarity and Oxford commas. I’m eternally grateful to BlueSci for providing a training ground in all aspects of magazine publishing, but also a little bit sad that it took away my magazine virginity and I’m sitting here at the Times Higher a bit less bushy-tailed than I might have been.

So yep, if truth be told I’ve been a bit bored. Not so much with the stuff I’m doing, but with the prospect of repeating this cycle for the next fortnight. Grasshopper wants to be a tiger, and is maybe a teensy bit jealous of her friends at the dailies or in broadcasting.

Tomorrow I’ll have a scout around some of the agencies such as the Science Media Centre to see if there are any press briefings going on. This will a) show me what a press briefing is ahead of the Science Festival where apparently I will be spending many hours attending such things and b) get me out of the office and fulfilling my preconceived fantasy of being a superbusy hack zipping around London on the trail of some breaking story.

In other news, I have learned to use shorter paragraphs.

Day 2: Quick pitches and long interviews

I sent five pitches to John for news/opinion pieces. He liked two of them and gave me feedback on why another might not work (too similar to a recent cover story). Not bad going for a rookie.

Three separate people have today reminded me of the importance of the Hook – the newsworthy peg on which the whole story hangs and on which the reader’s attention depends. As an academic, so used to giving lengthy contextualisation of topics, it feels weird to cut straight to the chase, giving the background only if absolutely necessary. The piece I submitted yesterday came back to me with recommendations for brutal editing: the final paragraph was apparently the most interesting so the whole piece had to be reversed and rejigged.

New ideas for today are an opinion piece on attitudes to mixed-level teaching in the UK and the US. The idea came from a friend of mine, so I’ll set up an interview with her, if that’s not too weird. Paul also liked my idea for a piece on blogging academics, so I’ll be spending a lot (more) time in the blogosphere.

I was also sent a paper from a Higher Education journal on the experience of female postgraduates –an issue close to my heart. The paper didn’t really say anything new to me, so I’m creating a piece around the issues common to studying mothers and part-time students in general. Spoke to a very helpful academic in Derby this afternoon who’d researched the part-time student experience, and thank the god of technology, I could actually get some direct quotes this time thanks to a recording device which I’ve now attached to my phone. Transcribing will take a little longer than shorthand, but in the absence of the latter, it’s my only option. Crucially, it will let me actually listen to what I’m being told rather than burning holes in the notepad with illegible scrawl.

Speaking of weirdness of interviewing friends and colleagues, I spoke to an anthropologist today who I got in touch with via personal connections. She gave me lots and lots of detail about her research experiences in Africa. Fascinating stuff, if a little off-topic at times (the scope of relevance becomes much narrower when you only have 350 words to play with). As I was on my bestest most politest behaviour, I felt I couldn’t cut her off, so the interview was about 15 minutes longer than it might have been, but I got plenty of useful stuff, and the Dictaphone together with my timing notes will let me cut straight to the chase when it comes to writing the story.

The pressure barometer in the office noticeably rose as Friday drew to a close and deadlines approached. Most of the pieces are filed to the editor today, meaning that many of the permanent staff had long evenings ahead. The perk of being the new girl..

Day 1: Joining Up

Swooping glass doors, three gliding lifts and a well-stocked kitchen. I have gone up in the world.

The Times Higher editorial team shares its vast office with the Times Educational Supplement staff (confusingly, neither of which are Murdoch-affiliated), and is made up of a number of staff reporters. Forgive the vagueness, the precise number seems to keep changing, though I think that’s just me trying to get my bearings. Friendly bunch, forgot their names as soon as I was told them. Thank God for the staff lists at the front of the magazine.

I spent the first part of the day looking through today’s issue, and brainstormed potential ideas which would fit with the THE’s remit and style. I’d read the magazine lots before, but the structure was a lot more meaningful now I could put faces to names and desk islands to sections. All the writing happens in one area, then subediting and production in a different part of the office near to a notice board which houses the growing page layout as print deadline approaches on Tuesdays. Press day is Thursday, meaning that anything that happens on a Wednesday, like the Comprehensive Spending Review due in October, has to wait until the following week. There was a quiet buzz in the office – not quite the Thick of It, but certainly more interactive than my PhD room.

Throughout the day I picked up valuable tips on the THE:

1. The international angle is always a good one.
2. The THE’s North American equivalent takes itself very seriously but can afford to with a team of 40 staff.
3. I should be careful what I wish for in terms of the pacey workload I’m seeking
4. Tea is free-flowing.
5. Cutting copy down takes almost as long as writing the thing in the first place (sounds familiar).
6. Not knowing what you’re writing about is a common if not the default state to be in.

I was introduced to Paul, the Science and Research reporter, and to the Research Intelligence section of the magazine. As a researcher, this was a good place to start, and Paul had a few ideas for me to get started on: a piece on archiving in anthropology as a follow-up to a recent article in Anthropology Today; a new collaboration between UK and Indian Universities heralded by the passing of a bill in the Indian Parliament allowing UK universities to set up annexes there, and a rather dull and complicated report on the direction of support for researchers after Roberts funding comes to an end next April. After reading the material, I emailed academics to set up phone interviews, and read some more, and worked on my own ideas for pieces. Paul encouraged me to pitch any ideas to the editor and deputy editor.

The final of the three assigned pieces took up most of my afternoon. I somehow blagged my way through a phone interview with a Research Policy Manager in Loughborough on the Roberts issue, lubricated by a glass of champagne to celebrate the TES’s rise in circulation figures (applause!). Then bemoaning my lack of shorthand (which wiggled at me from everyone else's notebooks), I pieced material from the interview together into a brief news story. Paul emphasised that if there wasn’t a story that jumped out, don’t be scared of canning it, but I wanted to have a stab, so I squeezed out 200 slow stubborn words. We’ll see what happens to that tomorrow. A very tricky first piece.

In more engaging news, I have arranged to talk to an Oxford anthropologist (and friend’s mum) tomorrow about multimedia archiving, which should add another voice to the author of the piece in AT. When India wakes up I’m also hoping to set up an exchange with one of the collaborators on the UK/India project.

First impressions are of a pretty relaxed approach to journalism. Principled, experienced and professional for sure, but perhaps due to the weekly news cycle, there was no shouting for copy or heads on the line. Yet.