The sweet science of teaching brevity and sensitivity

Steve Buttry, a Director of Tailored Programs at API, shares some of the lessons he learned after attending API's first "Train the Trainer " seminar. This article was originally sent to a list-serv of seminar attendees.

I've increased the use and effectiveness of participation exercises in every workshop I've presented since "Train the Trainer." Three changes that have been particularly effective:

1. A few weeks before "Train the Trainer," a colleague on the "Newscoach" list-serv asked if anyone knew of effective ways to simulate interviews in workshop exercises. I gave a negative answer saying that the exercises I had seen were too contrived, that you can't simulate interviews in an exercise. Well, after "Train the Trainer" I felt challenged to come up with an effective interviewing exercise (Alan Weiss challenged us in "Train the Trainer" to improve by 1 percent per day). By a coincidence of timing, my next workshop outside our newsroom involved interviewing. It was "Getting Personal," which discusses how to get people to talk about difficult intimate issues such as abuse, addiction, sexuality, death and the like. I consider it one of my best workshops, so my initial inclination was to leave it alone. On the other hand, I frequently speak in workshops about the importance of challenging yourself to improve even your best work.

As I introduced the workshop, I passed out index cards. I asked each person to write on the card a few words describing something in her personal or professional life that she might discuss in an interview, but that she would feel uncomfortable discussing. I stressed not to write deep, dark secrets you wouldn't reveal to an interviewer, but something that would make you uncomfortable.

Then I went on with the points that I normally present in the workshop, condensing them somewhat to make time for the exercise. About halfway through our hour-long session, I told them to pair off and each person would give his card to his partner and they would interview each other about this uncomfortable topic. I gave them two minutes each way (I think I would try three minutes next time). The buzz in the room was pretty strong. They certainly didn't taper off in two minutes.

I asked them what they learned about interviewing in the brief time they had. I really liked the discussion afterward. They noted the importance of setting (this setting was not good). They noted that it's best not to dive right into the difficult subject, as I made them do. They also noted that a compassionate interviewer makes it easier to talk about a difficult subject. They noted the importance of being a good listener. They noted that people really are willing to talk about these uncomfortable subjects if you ask them and listen to their answers.

We wrapped up that discussion in time for my closing, which takes 10-15 minutes. I didn't get to cover a few points that I usually cover in that workshop. But I cover them in the handout and I think the trade-off strengthened the workshop.

2. I cringed when Alan told how worthless he thought PowerPoint was, and found little relief when Anne Miller (the other "Train the Trainer" faculty member) defended PowerPoint, because she criticized wordy presentations.

Two of my most popular workshops used wordy PowerPoint presentations. But they have to be wordy. I show wordy passages (all leads in the workshop on leads) from the host newspaper, then we discuss how to tighten, then I show the tightened "after" version.

After talking and corresponding with Anne and stealing some ideas from John Hatcher (until recently the trainer extraordinaire at the Center for Community Journalism) and Mike Schwartz (newsroom training manager for Cox Newspapers), I revised the workshop considerably for a presentation last week at the Times of Northwest Indiana. I did just a few examples the way I used to, with PowerPoint, showing the wordy "before", then discussing, then showing the tighter "after". First I was talking about leads. I showed some suitcase leads (writer tries to stuff everything into the lead), then suggested a new metaphor for leads: a g-string (brief and enticing). That gets a laugh and then I show some g-string leads, also from their paper.

After those examples, I left the PowerPoint, still using the LCD projector but with Word for four live-editing exercises. In the first live-editing exercise I showed a suitcase lead (37 words, as I recall). I broke the workshop up into groups of 3-4 and gave them 3-4 minutes for each group to come up with a tighter lead. Then I asked someone to read me a lead. I typed it on the screen (in case you try this, consider yourself warned that you might make a lot more typos when people are watching; gives you a chance to use some self-deprecating humor). Then I asked if anyone had a better lead. I got two takers and typed theirs on the screen. Then we voted and I awarded candy to the team that came up with the winner. Then we did it three times with other passages. They were tightening the wordy passage, rather than just coming up with another lead. By the end, every group was reading their passages, enjoying the competition and writing tight passages. (I gave out the remaining candy when the workshop was over, so no one got stiffed.) As with the interviewing exercise, I didn't cover as much ground, but I think I covered ground more effectively.

3. I have talked before in storytelling workshops about the importance of using your senses. I usually have moved over it quickly and concentrated more on other points. In a couple workshops in June and July, I introduced a sensory exercise that has been effective. I distribute small paper cups and plastic spoons at a break. Then when I get to this point in the workshop, I pass around a few small cartons of ice cream.

I give participants two minutes to write as much as they can about the sensory experience of eating the ice cream. Then I have a few read their passages. Then I acknowledge that taste might not be the sense you're going to use the most in most stories (the first workshop where I used this was for sports writers). So I have them spend three minutes writing a sensory passage about the experience of being at the last sporting event they attended (in the non-sports workshop, I had them write about a sensory experience in the past 24 hours). Again, I had a few read their passages and (in the sports workshop) I asked if they are doing that good a job in their stories of helping the reader understand the experience of being at the event. Both times I've heard strong positive feedback (hey, even if the exercise flops, they'll like the ice cream).