More on journalism and writing. This time the subject is voice. Specifically, when do you use your own?

The issue occurred to me while reading a piece by New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait. Discussing the coverage of Donald Trump, the Michigan Daily-trained journalist writes:

Another Axios piece from last month toggles between putting the innocent explanation in the mouths of Trump officials and putting it in the reporter’s own voice. “A number of people who’ve discussed election meddling with Trump, including current senior administration officials, say his brain can’t process that collusion and cyberattacks are two different things,” reports one story. A few lines down, the same story asserts, “Ego prevents him acknowledging the possibility that any external action could have interfered with his glorious victory.”

Chait puts his finger on something essential about journalistic style. It is easy to swap between your voice and a source’s, and very important not to get sloppy about it.

Each statement in an article, whether reported, editorial or analytical, has two essential elements: The information asserted and its source. Based on these two elements the reader decides how to interpret your work.

Source is the subject from which you took a given assertion. This is the reader’s chance to decide how credible they find your reporting. For example, in a piece about global warming you might make clear that one quote comes from a climatologist holding a PhD, while attributing another to the failed insurance salesman holding a snowball.

In Chait’s example the quoted article first attributes Trump’s state of mind to “senior administration officials.” The reader can now make a decision about credibility. Does the anonymity bother them? Do they think “senior administration officials” have insight into the President’s state of mind? Or would the reader prefer a personal friend? Do they want this information coming secondhand or they prefer a quote from the President himself?

The reader is well equipped to answer these questions as long as they get the right information.

Then there is making an assertion in your own voice.

Everything in an article not attributed elsewhere is written in your own voice. Again, drawing from our case example, it’s the difference between the Axios journalist writing that “numerous officials have said that Trump can’t process this distinction” and the journalist writing “Trump can’t process this distinction.”

In the former statement, the article says this is what numerous officials believe to be true. In the latter statement, the article says that this is true. This is an critical distinction.

You present every statement made in your own voice as accurate, precise and complete.

When writing in your own voice you are saying that you’ve done the research and found the assertion true to all professional standards of reliability. That’s a high bar. Indeed, outlets which can still afford to pay for old-school reporting insist on no fewer than three good sources for each reported statement of fact. That’s their professional standard of reliability.

It’s very easy to make the mistake of quoting a source, then segueing to discussing their claim as objectively true. It’s not unreasonable even if bad practice. You quoted that source because you found them reliable. There’s a good chance that you may indeed believe that they got it right.

Yet by transitioning a statement from their voice to yours you have moved from saying “here is what this person says” to reporting “this is so.” You have staked your credibility on the assertion.

That doesn’t mean never make this transition. Sometimes you intend to do precisely that.

It just means be incredibly careful before doing so. Without attribution you’ve put those words in your own mouth. That is the job. It just requires great care.

Latest posts by Eric (see all)