DYNAMIC PAGE -- HIGHEST POSSIBLE CLASSIFICATION IS
TOP SECRET // SI / TK // REL TO USA AUS CAN GBR NZL
(U) Write Right: Breaking an Old Reporter's Heart
FROM:
National Cryptologic School (E92)
Run Date: 09/25/2006
(U) This month's Write Right column has a special guest columnist,
.
(U) As the SIGINT Reporting (RPTG) Curriculum Manager and the
Lead Instructor for RPTG 3222 (SIGINT Analysis, and Report
Writing), I get to know many of NSA's young reporters. In talking
with them, I have learned something that is breaking my heart.
Many of them are telling me that they hope they never have to do
another reporting tour. They say they hate reporting.
(U) If it were only one or two folks, I could just attribute it to
whininess or oversensitivity. Unfortunately, it is more than just a
few. When I ask them why, almost to a person I get this answer:
their editor.
(U) The last thing I want to do is attack editors (especially since
they probably write well and will make time to attack me back!). I
understand the stresses that go with the job: long hours, many
reports to be written and not enough reporters to write them. But
addressing this issue should benefit both editors and writers, and
thus the mission.
(U) Editors who inspire complaints fall into two groups. The
first is the one who provides no feedback at all. The reporter has
no idea what they did right or wrong. The editor corrects any
errors, even doing some rewriting, and sends it on its way. I don't
know if such editors don't know how to talk to and mentor
reporters or if the operational "need for speed" means the reporter
gets forgotten in the process.
(U) Whatever the reason, this is not helping young reporters, who,
I have learned, crave feedback. They do not get offended when
you correct them as long as you do it in a constructive manner.
They want human interaction; tell them something. My first
reporting trainer would hand back my reports with nothing written
on them and say, "I know you can do better." This was very
frustrating, because I didn't know where the improvement was
needed. Did I get anything right? What specifically did I do wrong?
How was I to know?
(U) The other type of problem editor is the one who just hands
back a report bleeding red ink and never offers any
encouragement. This editor may talk about what was wrong, but
once again, the reporter has no idea what they did right. In class I
like to provide what is called "optimistic feedback." Does that mean
I only blow sunshine at students? Nope. I am more than happy to
point out what they do wrong, but I also put their errors into
context and tell them what they are doing right. We must provide
some encouragement if we want them to be the future and replace
us someday.
SERIES:
(U) Write Right '06
1. Write Right : Grab
Bag
2. Write Right :
Frequently Asked
Question: Where Do
I Go for Help With
USSID SP0018
Issues?
3. Write Right : The
Style Manual vs.
USSID 300 -- er,
USSID CR1400
4. Write Right : The
Paperless Society
5. Write Right : Is That
Collateral, or Is It a
Comment?
6. Write Right : What's
a URS Center?
7. Write Right : Caveat
Scrutator (Or, 'But I
Saw It on the
Internet!')
8. Write Right : Seven
Things Not To Do in a
SIGINT Report
9. Write Right :
Breaking an Old
Reporter's Heart
10. Write Right : Where
Does It Say I Can't?
11. Write Right : Urban
Myths of SIGINT: 'I
Can Just Mark It
ORCON'
12. Write Right : Loaded
Words: Don't
Politicize Reports
(U) Solving the problem requires us to look at what qualifies
someone to be an editor. Is being a good reporter enough? If
getting a well-written and accurate report out in a timely manner is
the only goal, it may or may not. If we expect them to be mentors,
and to raise the standards of their workcenter's reports, it most
definitely isn't. As one good editor says, "the goal should be to help
them to write reports that don't need editing." How much training
do we give folks specifically in editing, which includes how to
provide feedback? Thankfully, the Reporting Board is working on a
much-needed senior reporter's class which will focus heavily
on editing.
(U) This is only half the solution, however; the other half is buy-in
from management , from top to bottom. Such experts, whether
you call them editors or senior reporters, will be ineffective despite
their job title and qualifications if supervisors and managers do not
recognize their expertise, authority and contributions to the
mission.
(U) How many reporters earned their positions as editors,
dedicated themselves to the position, and then were told during
their promotion feedback, "sorry, you are just a reporter"? Some
editors even tell us that the feedback they get consists of "you
need to write more reports, not just edit." This mind-set trivializes
what they do and certainly doesn't inspire anyone to want or keep
the position. Not rewarding the star editors ultimately affects the
training and feedback our young reporters receive. Worse, the
bean-counting mentality represents a detriment to the mission in
more ways than one. Something to think about.
(U) Editors should groom the reporters of the future, not send
them running from the field. In the words of Benjamin Disraeli, "
The greatest good you can do for another is not just to show your
riches, but to reveal to him his own. " Do this, and maybe we can
develop a generation of folks who love reporting.
(U//FOUO) Do you agree with the author's views? Do you have a
solution to propose? Please post your comments on the SID today
blog .
"(U//FOUO) SIDtoday articles may not be republished or reposted outside NSANet
without the consent of S0121 (DL sid comms)."
DYNAMIC PAGE -- HIGHEST POSSIBLE CLASSIFICATION IS
TOP SECRET // SI / TK // REL TO USA AUS CAN GBR NZL
DERIVED FROM: NSA/CSSM 1-52, DATED 08 JAN 2007 DECLASSIFY ON: 20320108