The I of the storm: Do journalists lose public trust when they write too many first-person pieces?

When journalists channel their articles via their own experiences do they lose public trust, asks Peter Sands

AS A TRAINEE reporter, I was once told to write about council houses. I diligently set about my research. How many properties did the council own, what type, how old, was it intending to acquire more, what did tenants pay, how long was the waiting list and what was the repairs policy? I interviewed the housing officer and two families.

One family were at the end of their tether, blaming the damp for their son’s chronic asthma. I wrote it up for a spread. The case studies were used as a sidebar. If I were that reporter today, I know the sidebar would be the main story and the disgruntled family the angle: “Damp hell is killing our son.”

Since those days, 40 years ago, the use of the first-person in journalism, once restricted to travel features and magazines, has exploded. Headlines that read “Woman buried her husband under the patio” would now say “Why I buried my Stan under the patio”.

This style of reporting has many supporters, but there is also a nervousness. Good journalism requires balance, research, impartiality and verification, none of which is necessary in a first-person article. South African writer Eve Fairbanks, in The Washington Post, expresses the concerns of many, saying: “These kind of confessional articles long constituted the barbarians lurking around the gates of traditional newspaper culture.”

But with CNN, Buzzfeed and The New York Times all recently seeking more first-person stories, Fairbanks reckons the barbarians “are now in the citadel”.

So, is traditional journalism, already under threat from politicians, the courts, lack of finance and apathy, also being undermined by one-sided, opinionated and often unsubstantiated first-person pieces?

I asked leading UK media figures for their views on two types of first-person reporting. One style, loved by magazines, is when a journalist writes the story as if the interviewee were telling it. We regularly see it on the newsstands and online: “My mum walked in as dad was raping me”; “My son, 12, plotted to kill his baby sister”… that sort of thing.

Alan Geere, who has edited newspapers around the globe, appreciates the appeal of such headlines but has concerns. He said: “This casual use of the first person is dramatic, maybe even sensationalist, but definitely engaging. The copy is then written in the first person, but penned by a journalist after interviewing the subject.”

It isn’t just the lifestyle magazines that write like this. Geere said: “A Life in the Day is still a must-read in The Sunday Times magazine after more than 40 years. It is exactly the same format as the magazines: journalist interviews person, writes up piece in their voice. It is a deliciously simple format.”

So what’s the problem?

“There is little transparency, save for a tagline acknowledging this was not written by the person in question,” he said. “The reader is encouraged to believe it is their words, but there is no guarantee.”

Magazines also offer cash for stories. “Sell us your story and you could earn up to £2,000”, reads one website. Can we believe nobody has over-larded their version of events for the promise of easy money?

As Geere said: “The introduction of substantial sums of money may lead to a casual acquaintance with the truth.”

There is no doubt, though, that first-person headlines can draw in readers. About 15 years ago, Trinity Mirror regional newspapers introduced an initiative called Don’t Just Tell It, Sell it! which encouraged journalists to think about grabbing the readers’ attention. A former magazine editor ran workshops, and one of the key lessons was first-person “talker” headlines.

Neil Benson, the editorial director at the time, said: “I can’t think of a specific example where a first-person piece would be inappropriate, although I’m sure there would be occasions when you wouldn’t use it. Like all the weapons in the journalist’s armoury, you should use them sparingly. I don’t view first-person stories any differently to any other form. Whether it’s first-person or a traditional piece, it’s still the job of the reporter to provide balance.”

The other style of first-person reporting is where journalists tell their own story. Writing about personal experiences doesn’t involve expensive travel costs or extra research and the results can be fantastic. Who could forget Lynn Barber’s piece headlined “I took an asylum seeker into my home”? Written at the height of the migration crisis, and published in The Times, it offered a nuts-and-bolts account of trying to do something to help, by taking in a stranger, and an unfortunate outcome.

Copies of UK newspapers on sale in London, 2012. Does a move towards more first-person stories, such as these headlines, undermine other reporting?

CREDIT: Andrew Winning/Reuters

Graham Dudman, former head of news at The Sun and now deputy managing editor at News Associates journalism training school, believes major news events are perfect for a first-person piece. “One of the best I was involved in was on 9/11 when The Sun’s New York correspondent, Brian Flynn, wrote a piece describing how he felt and what he saw as the Twin Towers collapsed in front of him. His brilliant description of the unimaginable horror and how it affected him as he stood on a Manhattan sidewalk took the reader into the heart of the story.”

But even when journalists tell their own stories it has its pitfalls. Media consultant and former newspaper editor David Kernek believes one is the temptation not to let the truth stand in the way of a good story.

“There’s no shortage of reporters who have paid a price – their job – for letting their imaginations get the best of them,” he said.

“In the States, NBC reporter Brian Williams was accused of embellishing a report during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He said he’d been in a helicopter that had been hit by a missile. He wasn’t; the one in front of his was hit. Williams was later accused of fabricating or embellishing 11 more stories during the previous decade.”

Despite the concerns, Peter Barron, former editor of The Northern Echo, is an avid supporter.

“I absolutely think there should be room in papers for first-person pieces as part of the mix,” he said. “Papers need personality and many are in danger of losing it, with tighter resources preventing reporters getting out of the office. Of course we need balance, but we also need character and colour. Why should it be a threat to balanced reporting if it’s part of the mix?”

He added: “The key is the quality of the writing. First-person pieces can be dreadful in the wrong hands. Done well, they enrich a paper.”

Dudman also sounds a warning about pieces with the dreaded ‘I’ word, saying: “If a reporter litters their piece with a plague of ‘I this…’ and ‘I that.’ the reader will think ‘I don’t care…’.”

First-person pieces can be quick and inexpensive; you don’t have to leave the office; and, when done properly, readers love them. They are certainly here to stay. So are they really a threat to traditional journalism, forcing out the balanced, impartial, fact-based and researched article? Are the barbarians already in the citadel?

A quick review of the UK nationals suggests not. A look at a week’s worth of titles shows the first-person piece currently remains a sidebar, a feature alongside the news story, or a follow-up feature spread. But as budgets continue to tighten, newsrooms will need to stay vigilant and ensure that the first-person stays a small and valuable part of the mix. and not the main ingredient.