Reporting isn't magic and we don't need to pretend that it is

Colorado has an environmental clean-up problem caused by an indeterminant number of uncapped oil wells that have been abandoned. I say "indeterminant" because there are about 20,000 wells that are producing so little (or nothing) that owners may simply abandon them... and apparently no state agency is tasked with checking on these older wells frequently. Some number of them are leaking harmful gases and chemicals.

I learned about this from the Colorado Sun, an online-only news site that operates as a non-profit dependent upon donations and grants. The paper shared some background on HOW the story was reported, including some information on who did the reporting and how long it took.

Here is a key graf: "The research framed our three-part series that starts at a West Slope community where residents have wrangled with three different drillers in a 10-year span … and ends with a bunch of Rio Blanco County wells whose owner’s registered address has jumped from the Koch Industries campus to a strip mall in Rockwall, Texas, and potentially to a home on the 16th green of the Highlands Ranch Golf Club."

This at least hints at how extensive the research needed to be and how potentially complex the issue is. It's both an "explainer" and clever marketing. After all, who doesn't like going along to solve a mystery? The post, sent to subscribers, adds a bit of transparency to the reporting while offering people a chance to check out the investigation if they missed it last week.

News media transparency is a proven way to build trust between readers and the medium. What do readers want to know (that they normally may not from traditional reporting)? How about who was interviewed and when? Some sources may request anonymity but most will not and most stories are just not that sensitive. If only one person was interviewed for a story, shouldn't readers know that? One source is hardly convincing.

Were reporters "on the scene" or did they interview from afar, perhaps by Zoom or Skype or even an email? Being there adds depth to the reporting and readers will often appreciate the extra effort shown by reporters attending an event or simply spending some time at a scene.

The Denver Post sent a similar email to subscribers this week, this time on a three-part series on regional transportation. Here is an extended excerpt:

Reporter Jon Murray began thinking about this project in early 2020 but set it aside as the pandemic took hold. Two years and upended commuting patterns only made matters worse for the agency. As Jon reported, RTD has millions of dollars of backlogged maintenance, a shortage of workers, and does not expect to restore all its reduced service for five years. Trains, so dependent on hauling commuters downtown, have been especially slow to recover.

Jon spent three months researching this project, gathering documents, and talking to experts, riders and people at RTD to understand the root causes of the agency’s financial difficulty.

"RTD at a Crossroads" may not be our most read stories of the year but they speak perfectly to our mission to help Coloradans better understand their public institutions.

I was struck by the last graf, which led to a gentle request for financial support to continue reporting like that on RTD. Sometimes we publish what is important even if it is not "click bait" material. Sometimes we just have to be OK with more limited readership.

The message provided another chance to check out the series through an embedded link, but it also gave readers a quick glimpse into the process of reporting and what themes were explored in the investigation.

People like to feel they have been granted special access, special privileges.

The student press should do much more in educating readers about our process and about how reporting is done. Most students don't give the actual act of reporting much thought. No one does.

Until we invite them along.