Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

How do journalists prepare to cover unfamiliar fields?

+1
−0

When journalists get an assignment to interview someone in an industry they aren’t familiar with, or write on a new topic, how do they familiarise with context-specific vocabulary?

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/28352. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

0 comment threads

1 answer

+1
−0

It really isn't possible to bone up on the vocabulary of a field in a few hours. The vocabulary of a field exists to express experiences, distinctions, and idea that are unique to that field. In other words, its vocabulary is tied to its history and community, and you can't bone up on those things in a few hours.

Two things seem to work as well as you can expect them to (this is based more on observing the results rather than the process, since my journalism career was brief). One is to find an expert in the field who is adept at explaining things in terms the public can understand. This is why networks like CNN have their stable of pet scientists that they trot out whenever they need some newsworthy scientific event explained to the public.

The other is for a journalist to devote their career to reporting on a particular field, so that they actually do have the time to bone up on the ideas and the vocabulary of the field and the background to understand and explain new developments when they arise.

In other words, you need someone, either the subject or the journalist, to have one foot on both sides of the divide. If you are not already the journalist with one foot on both sides, your best bet would be to look for an interview subject who has. Devoting you research time to finding that person, rather than trying to become an overnight expert, might be a better use of your time.

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

0 comment threads

Sign up to answer this question »