Observational Reporting as Oral History

The newspaper journalist and the oral historian are involved in compiling information that relies on the preparation of questions for witnesses to events, the accuracy of witness testimony, and the interpretations of what the witnesses experienced. According to Donald Ritchie, part of the definition of oral history is the spoken memories and commentaries of historical significance through recorded interviews. Although Ritchie elaborates on the differences between oral history and journalism, this part of the definition creates room for co-existence.' The similarities are even greater when studying what media scholars define as the direct observation or impressionistic story. Instead of the standard interviews with experts, the use of direct quotations, and background material on the topic, the observation story relies more on the impressions of the journalist at the scene. This type of writing does not exclude direct quotations, but relies on experience and professional training; it is often more personal in that the pronoun forms are often in the first and second person. The published impressionistic story and the transcripts of oral history interviews share similarities. Direct observation stories are not primary news accounts, but what media scholars label as sidebars or secondary/soft feature stories, which supplement the formal stories; these stories reflect a genuine effort to capture the atmosphere or essential reality of the situation without regard to the reporter's conscious biases.2

Art · Colloquialism · Journalism · Literature · Media studies · Narrative · Newspaper · Oral history · Political science · Sociology · Witness · History · Law · Oral History, Memory, Narrative Analysis · Psychology

• A shared authority

  Michael H Frisch•A shared authority•1990

  Add to list