
Even its logo was a narrative. This weekend’s Nieman conference (full name: “Telling True Stories in Turbulent Times: Nieman Narrative Conference 2009”) represented itself in its promotional materials through an image rendered in text. And the message of said image wasn’t subtle: the awkward interplay between the solidity (the stolidity, even) of “telling true stories” and the relative chaos of the rumbled, jumbled “turbulent times” suggests the contentious relationship between journalism and its current cultural moment. Narrative journalism is rooted in ground that is anything but solid. And under threat from our T-U-R-B-U-L-E-N-T TIMES.
The textual imagery at play here—the simultaneous polarity and connectivity between our stories and our times—makes an apt analogy for a conference that was both a receptacle for and an antidote to the tension between the two. The conference’s decidedly upbeat tone seemed to suggest, alternately, genuine optimism (emergent models of journalism offer new opportunities “to delight” audiences, “to make them love us in ways that our old models prevented,” said Joshua Benton, director of the Nieman Journalism Lab) and the reflexive self-defensiveness of a beleaguered institution. “The business model is broken. You are not broken,” the Pulitzer-winning Cleveland Plain Dealer columnist Connie Schultz declared in the conference’s opening keynote.
One wonders whether a similar assurance was offered at “Conducting Yourself: Locomotive Operators Convention 1909.”
The conference’s from-adversity-to-the-stars sensibility emphasized the cultivation of craft itself as an adversity-tackling vehicle. Narrative is journalism’s future as well as its past, Schultz told the crowd, because it provides context and background and insight—the details, large and small, that foster empathy. “People will always want and need to know,” she said, “that they’re not alone in their suffering and hope.”
It’s hard to argue with that; one principle that nearly everyone who cares about journalism—from the most ardent Webvangelist to the most hardboiled city editor—agrees on is that narrative is key to good journalism. Compelling, evocative storytelling will endure. For the simple reason that we need it to.
The question provoked this weekend is how narrative will continue to inform us and our information itself. How storytelling will evolve. How narrative authority will expand or (could Foucault have been right?) contract under the influence of a medium that is toppling our assumptions about what an author actually is.
Which is a roundabout way (sorry—I missed the “Structuring Your Story” panel, alas, which I’m sure advised its attendees of the virtues of both brevity and precision) of saying that the Nieman conference left me—as, really, the best of such gatherings do—with more questions than answers. (I should interrupt myself here to clarify that the conference’s embarrassment of intellectual riches, and its relatively short time span, meant that several—usually five or six— breakout panels took place during a single time slot, forcing participants to choose one among them; my experience was, in that sense, limited. So have your grains of salt at the ready: my sense of the conference overall—and my assessment of it—is highly subjective.) The basic question is the same one that so many in journalism are grappling with right now: basically, whence narrative? Are the standards for good narrative transcendent and therefore inviolable, or do they—must they—evolve with the times? Is good narrative a goal in itself, or is it a means to the more nebulous journalistic ends of informing, engaging, connecting, etc.?
This weekend’s panels, in regards to that last one, were split. Among the expected shout-outs to “the power of the story” and the like—celebrations of narrative that verged, at times, on fetishizing it (narrative compels! narrative informs! narrative is The Whole Damn Point!)—were treatments of new forms of storytelling on the Web: leveraging its power to employ cinematic techniques to still photography; using its immense archival capabilities to record the lives of ordinary people; employing the people formerly known as “audience” to inform and shape and tell stories.

I've been to several Nieman narrative conferences and found them individually uneven and of varying quality from year to year. That's to say: Yes, even the best of the conferences included a fair amount of precious blather about the beatifying qualities of ... narrative. So I understand what seems to be Ms. Garber's general dissatisfaction with the lofty tone of some of the conference.
But from this story, I haven't a clue what happened at the conference this time around or what her problems with it actually are. I'm sure there could and should have been some panel discussions on how new business models or multimedia methods might better support narrative journalism.
But there is plenty of good narrative work going on in magazines, books (particularly; it's almost a golden age of nonfiction narrative book publishing), television (Frontline, anyone?), the Web (mediastorm.org, if you haven't seen it), film and even the better newspapers (yes, even now). I always thought the idea of this conference was to help sophisticated writers and editors teach and learn (almost always) very specific techniques for finding and telling stories that readers will love.
This piece, on the other hand, offers up a heaping serving of vague criticism, the meaning of which I could only guess wildly at. I haven't a clue to what the Web providing “a new openness to the kinds of things that we can deem journalistically acceptable” means. And the notion that journalists -- and, one supposes, other humans -- need in these days of the Internets to "refram[e] our assumptions about narrative" after the last several thousand years of framing it in the first place is certainly a diverting one.
It'd be nice to know what that reframing might entail. Perhaps we'll be shooting all the characters, burying narrative drive and burning Tolstoi out back?
I'm sorry. I just can't find the point to this story, hard as I look. And I was looking; I couldn't get free for the conference this year and really wanted a good account of its goings-on.
I
#1 Posted by John Mecklin, CJR on Mon 23 Mar 2009 at 07:53 PM
Dear journalists-narrators!
I found this site just by chance, looking for other kind of info.The only thing I would like to suggest is the strange:) coincidence\resonanse between the title of the conference and the name of the river which flows on the other semisphere:),in Eastern Europe -- in Belarus and Lithuania,-- N(i)eman! At the beginning of AD era Ptolemey on his maps called\marked this river CRONON
#2 Posted by Svetlana, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 05:05 AM
Maybe skip the narrative conference and head down to a basic writing class -- this story is unfocused, pointless and completely impenetrable.
#3 Posted by Paper Boy, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 11:39 AM
Wonder if anyone ouched upon science in sci-fi, as pointed out by Dustin Hoffman.
Is there any need to be accurate in sci-fi....someone fantasized in his /her wild imagination about going to the moon to make the moon-walk possible....
#4 Posted by Kamal, CJR on Tue 31 Mar 2009 at 04:35 AM