My New York Times reporter is Maggie Haberman, a White House correspondent that covers the ins and out of the Trump administration.
Haberman writes all of her stories in a factual and straightforward tone; there is no room in her writing for creativity or storytelling. She writes formally and concisely.
Haberman also includes a lot of background on what she mentions in her stories. She makes sure to give detail and account of events, people, and positions in government. Haberman meticulously outlines the history and adds links in all of her online stories.
However, the problem that I am having with her writing is she works very closely with other correspondents. It is challenging to find articles that are written by her singularly so that I can determine what her work and the other journalists are.
The leads she does write are always direct news leads and get straight to the news at hand flowing into the rest of the story and supplying context along the way.
Haberman ends her stories most often with the most recent anecdote about where and how the people in her story are, setting a scene for whatever she will write about them tomorrow.
Her niche for detail and description and context are beneficial for me, especially since I am a writer who sometimes forgets her audience. I have a negative tendency to assume that people know what I am talking about at all times in my writing, which is not the case.
Secondly, I can learn from her use of quotes. She lets people tell the news story for her. She doesn’t need to add any unnecessary phrases that give an opinion; she makes her sources do that. I always feel like I need to steer the reader in a direction or make sure they understand my point, but good journalism does that on its own.
Credit…Gabriella Demczuk for The New York Times