Hersey's Hiroshima

Our latest journalism assignment was to read Hiroshima, John Hersey’s classic piece still read in high schools around the world, more than 64 years after it was written.

The piece was first published in the Aug. 31, 1946 issue of New Yorker. It was the first and last piece to take up the whole issue of the New Yorker. The piece was extremely well-received. According to the article “Hersey and History”, published in the July 31, 1995 issue of the New Yorker, the magazine sold out within hours and newspapers everywhere published sections of the book in their editorials. ABC even had the piece read aloud over national radio across four successive evenings.

The article was quickly made into a book, as requests for reprints poured into the magazine. The Book of the Month Club sent free copies of the book to its members. By 1995, more than 3.5 million copies had been sold. It’s still on bookstore shelves today - the latest issue was reprinted in 1989 in North America.

The book was criticized by some. It was released as the Cold War was heating up, and some felt because it was so sympathetic to the victims, it was inherently critical of the possible use of nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union. Other criticized its dry, journalistic style.

I remember reading the book when I was in school, but I don’t remember much of it, nor do I remember my reaction to reading it the first time.

But this time, I was very engrossed in the book. It impacted me emotionally and made the devastation of the atomic bombings in the Second World War seem more than just history. It humanized these important historical events, grounding me and making me realize how lucky I am and how unlucky others have been.




What worked

What surprised me the most was how Hersey’s objective, reportorial style was able to evoke such emotion in me, the reader. I think this become a major strength of the book.

Hersey doesn’t try to overdo it. He reports the facts, and because of the horrific circumstances (melting eyeballs, skin peeling off peoples’ arms, death and destruction everywhere), the facts are all that is needed.

The understated style defends the book against possible critics who would say Hersey empathizes too much with the reader. But he does not embellish. He does not tell us how horrible a tragedy this was. He just reports what happened, and there’s no arguing with the truth.

What journalists can learn

Therefore I think journalists can learn a lot about style from this book. Hersey’s sentences are all very clear. The book is not difficult to read. Because the reader isn’t struggling through the book, the horror of the story comes through uninhibited.

Another style point — journalists can also learn how to effectively fuse story-telling narrative with reportage. Hersey tells his story through six Hiroshima citizens whose lives were devastated by the bombs. Telling the story through these people keeps the piece from ending up a boring historical account of dates, facts and details. Hersey incorporates those dates, facts and details into six gripping narratives, pulling the reader along through the days following the bombing.



Criticisms

I really have very few criticisms of this piece.

Perhaps what I would like to have seen in the book were some pictures. I think it would have enhanced the reality of the story without taking anything away from the writing. I couldn’t find a reason as to why pictures weren’t published in the New Yorker edition devoted entirely to the piece.

I think they would have helped capture readers’ interest and help them picture the devastation. If I were the editor of the New Yorker and had those images available to me, I would have used them – not necessarily images of the main characters themselves because I think it helps to keep them as symbolic representations, but definitely images of the devastation on a broader scale.

I recently watched a documentary called "Getting Away with Murder" about the investigation into the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

While I think the television documentary and the non-fiction written piece both work well to get across facts, and while both made me emotionally invested in the stories (either out of anger form the TV doc or sadness from Hersey’s piece), I do think the book was missing some context without visual images — context that the television non-fiction medium always provides through video and pictures.

Watching the documentary put me in Lebanon. I got a feel for the climate and how the people lived. While I have seen photos and video from Hiroshima, having them with me in the book while I was reading would have helped me visualize the scenarios in my head.

What is missing

The American point-of-view is missing from Hiroshima, but I’m glad it is. At the time of its release, Americans had heard plenty of the American point-of-view on the bombings. It would have tainted the book for those of us reading it more than 50 years later.

Plus, to those six people, and others in Hiroshima, did it matter to them when the bomb was dropped?

To conclude

I am not a big history buff. I don’t like reading history textbooks or sitting through lectures on World War II. But I do like well-told stories about people. And that is what Hiroshima provides.

(Images from longitudebooks.com fromthevaultradio.org and nowfroth.blogspot.com)

Large-scale editing

Over the past month, I've been working on editing the novella I wrote for my Independent Professional Project (IPP). It has been an arduous undertaking.

At first, I was very bitter about the editing process. My thought process? I just wrote an 80-page book? Isn't that good enough?

But once I read through Chris Petty's comments on the full draft and read through it myself, I realized my themes could be much stronger with a little more extra work.

And then I realized I needed to be more careful about tense.

And point-of-view.

And conversational flow.

And showing things rather than telling them.

And character descriptions.

And the list goes on.

The most effective way to look for those things is to do them one at a time, so it looks like I'll be reading my book quite a few more times before Christmas.

So it better be good. There's nothing I hate more than reading a bad book.

Upwards from FIPPA

I received a little bit of inspiration for my FIPPA assignment while watching CBC's The National tonight.



A long portion of a documentary by CBC's Washington correspondent Neil Macdonald about the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri and the investigation into his death was featured. I think it, along with its presentation on the CBC website, exemplifies good investigative journalism.

Macdonald exposes holes in the UN that have led to the delay of arrests that should be made based on substantial evidence collected by some hard working people (once police officer, in particular, who was murdered for his work).

What Macdonald did is what every journalist should strive to do. It's nice to have reminders like this once in a while as we slog through CreComm on our quest.

(Photo from reuters.com)

Editing a Royal Relationship

The Royal family announced the engagement of Prince William to Kate Middleton today. But the official announcement came about a month after the actual engagement (Wills proposed in October while the two were on vacation in Kenya). Which got me thinking about how carefully the Royal family edits Royal relationships.



While the palace tries to keep the media from intruding on the lives of Royals and their friends/significant others with good reason — everyone remembers what happened with Diana — at what point can public figures be private?

When they are out in public, are they fair game for photogs looking to snap that pic or get that footage that could be worth millions to satisfy the curiosity of Royal onlookers? (Which I admit, somewhat ashamedly, I am — I love that CBC runs Royal documentaries almost every night over the Christmas holidays!).



I watched a clip of the couple's photocall today, where pictures snapped constantly as the press asked questions like 'how did he propose?', 'tell us about the ring'. But after about five or six questions, the Royal couple was ushered back into their private room. The public had seen enough.

The palace has acknowledged that the media has been fairly good at respecting the wishes that William and Harry have privacy as they grow up. But now that the biggest wedding of the century approaches, it will be interesting to watch how the palace releases information about the upcoming nuptials and how much Kate and William wedding info us Royal watchers will be given.

But what I want to know is will the wedding be televised?


(Images from mirror.co.uk and cbc.ca)

Reviewing Reflections

Over the past two weeks, I've forayed into a new kind of writing - book reviewing.

I wrote a literary review for my Canadian Literature class on Ken Finkleman's Noah's Turn and a more popular review of Portia de Rossi's memoir Unbearable Lightness for the Book section of the Winnipeg Free Press.

Things I learned:

1. I love reviewing because it gives me an excuse to read.

I love reading novels, but often feel to guilty to do during the school year.

2. A literary review is different than a popular review.

As Morley Walker, editor of the Free Press book section, told me, 98% of the people who read the review in the paper will never read the book, so you have to give them the highlights. Therefore, the review is a lot of summary and picking out some of the book's highlights.

For a literary review, it is assumed that your audience has read the book, so I skipped the summary and went straight into the criticism.

3. Reviewing fiction is different than reviewing non-fiction.

It's hard to critique the events of a non-fiction story as they (should be) true to life. Instead, you have to focus on the selection of events, pace of the story and telling of the events.

4. I hope to do more reviewing in the future.

I love talking to people about books, especially books I've read and that I like. Reviewing is just another way to do that. If I like the book, I almost feel it's my own personal mission to convince others they should, too.

(Image from bearcave.com)

Libel abound!

For an editing print and online media class, I've been looking for examples of potentially libellous material online.

What I was surprised about, but perhaps I'm a bit naive, was how many charges and convictions of slander and libel are in the news in the past month or two.



Just yesterday, Real Madrid strike Cristiano Ronaldo was awarded libel from the British paper, the Daily Telegraph. The paper published an article in 2008 alleging Ronaldo put a serious ankle injury at risk to go drinking and dancing at an L.A. nightclub. Ronaldo's lawyer said the story was fabricated - he was at the nightclub, but not dancing or drinking.

CNN reported yesterday that Amanda Know, the American student convicted of murdering her British roommate in Italy last year, is going to have to stand trial again for slander. Knox alleged that Italian police mistreated her while she was in custody. Her parents will also stand trial for repeating her allegations.

On Canadian soil, in September, a website operator, John Kelly was charged with four counts of publishing libellous statements for comments he published on his website accusing a couple Calgary police officers, who Kelly named, of perjury, corruption and obstruction of justice.

All of these examples are important reminders to us as bloggers that we need to be aware of what we are writing and be careful of defamation, something that I know never crosses my mind when I'm blogging.

Can journalists have a work-life balance?

As I think more about my future as a journalist and read more of the Globe and Mail's feature on work-life balance, I can't keep from worrying about whether I will be able to be successful in my professional and personal life.

Maybe a little background will help explain my paranoia.

I grew up Killarney - a town of 2,500 people where barely anything is open past suppertime. My parents are both teachers. My dad full time, my mom part time. Whenever my siblings and I were home, they were home. We had weekends off together, summer holidays off together and Christmas holidays off together. But I didn't realize I was lucky.

I have always known journalists work odd hours, but I got my first reality check a couple weeks ago when I agreed to work for the Brandon Sun over Christmas holidays. I worked there this summer and loved it. It's great experience and I need the money.

But when I say work over Christmas, I mean over Christmas. I work Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, Boxing Day, New Year's Eve and New Year's Day.

Not the ideal hours, but something I know I need to get used to. I think my mom's a little crushed, but she'll get over it. And I really don't mind this year. I'll miss spending the day with my family, but things change, and I'm old enough now to accept it. I also realize a lot of other professionals work over Christmas - nurses, doctors, cops, etc.

But how long am I going to want to work odd hours and holidays? And will it be enough to pull me out of the profession and perhaps, (choke), over to the dark side of PR?

It's something I'll have to get used to and see how well I can tolerate it. And I'll get my first opportunity this Christmas.

Editing time

On the bus this morning, I was reading an article in the Globe and Mail titled,"Hoping to get sick in order to rest". It got me thinking about one of the major things we edit in our lives - our time.

For many of us, our time is valuable and when we are forced to time manage (our events, our work, our family time, our friend time, we are essentially editing our lives to the time we have.

The Globe and Mail article, part of the their Canada: Time to Lead. Eight discussions we need to have series. The article is the personal confessions of 11 business professionals regarding their work-life balance. It really struck me.

Here is one of the confessions.

SUSAN WITTEVEEN, TORONTO

Managing director of a bank. Married. Three kids.

In my life right now, I have a “village” of support. I have my mother-in-law. I have a dedicated assistant; I expect her to read my mind and she is really getting quite good at it. And I have my nanny Pia.

Pia and I have been raising my kids together for five years. She works about 12 hours day – 6:50 a.m. to around 7 p.m. – plus often overtime during the week. We try not to have her on weekends to give her a break from us. We try.

I always say to people when they decide to hire a nanny: Be honest with respect to your needs. Are you hiring a nanny for the “kids” or do you need a nanny for the “household” (code for the mommy and daddy need nannying too)?

Pia helps close the wide gaps in my domestic interest and abilities. She seldom complains and when she does gives us a blast – we really, really deserve it.

I consciously chose to spend money on what matters most, so we have a nanny instead of sending the kids to private schools.

The hard truth is that the juggle doesn’t always work. I am a multitasker. That’s out of vogue right now. But that is what I do. I have been known to mix “business with pleasure” and as a result have had my kids too close during important conference calls and have inadvertently yelled into the phone, “Don't wrestle her like that ... she’s a baby and you are choking her to death!”

But I’m glad I work outside the home, even if during the outrageously busy times at the office, or when all three kids get sick at the same time, I question that choice.

The article really hit home with me because one of my biggest anxieties regarding my hopes of having a successful journalism career is the amount of time it will require. In my life, I hope to edit in enough time to not only just have a family, but to be able to devote the time it would require to have a well-functioning family. I don't want to end up like Susan (quoted above), but am sad that that may mean sacrificing the career I want.

But we can choose to edit our time however we want, and if I'm not happy with my editing, luckily, there's always the opportunity to change it.

I love journalism

It took me a relatively long time to choose journalism as a career path.

I thought about it in high school. For a career assignment, I made a nice poster board featuring a rather large picture of Peter Mansbridge in the middle. I also interviewed a local Killarney Guide reporter to get the scoop on what reporters do everyday.

But there were parts that didn't appeal to me. I was fairly shy, so I was nervous about talking to people that might not want to talk to me. And I wasn't crazy about the hours. I wasn't convinced.

So I went to Brandon University and got an arts degree in English and philosophy. I loved university and was sad when my four years were over. I was even more sad when I found out there aren't many jobs for people with English degrees!

So I took a year off and thought about my options. Journalism was still in the back of my mind. I watched the news and subscribed to the Brandon Sun and I was addicted to documentaries (still am).

As I thought about possible careers that matched my strengths, I dismissed many because I didn't think they would keep me interested enough. I loved university because I was always learning something new and I wanted that in a career.

So I applied for CreComm and decided to try journalism, hoping that it would give me a chance to keep learning.

And I'm so pleased with the results.

In completing school assignments and throughout my ten week stint with the Brandon Sun this summer, I realized that journalists have to become instant experts.

One day I'd be assigned a story about a new online childcare registry that hopes to solve the province's daycare space shortages. Then the next day I'd be writing about a textbook rental program at the U of W. And the next day I'd be writing about an MS patient traveling to Poland to receive a controversial surgery.

It's not always thrilling, but you learn something new!

In the past week, I've done radio live hits from an election, a print story about a murder trial and edited a TV story about the city bringing in maple trees to replace dying elms.

No, the hours aren't ideal. And you have to do some tough interviews. And getting information from the government? Not easy.

But I love to learn. And journalism gives me the perfect opportunity. I feel so lucky to have found a career I love.

(Image from zazzle.com)