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.