Categories
Home Life

On taking notes

In an article recently for The New Yorker, the writer John McPhee describes some of his experiences over the course of more than 50 years of interviewing people, including Special Agent Ronald Rawalt, a mineralogist from the FBI whose work in Mexico solved the murder of an American drug agent there; the actor Richard Burton, who “interviewed himself,” according to McPhee; and Alan Hume, M.D., a surgeon in Maine who “talked clearly, rapidly, volubly, and technically.”

McPhee has some advice for anyone who makes a living that involves recording what other people say. “Whatever you do, don’t rely on memory,” he writes. “Don’t imagine that you will be able to remember in the evening what people said during the day.” Good point, in my experience, as limited as it may be compared with McPhee’s. Even when I’m not on deadline, I make it a practice to read my notes the same day I’ve interviewed someone, as a way to reflect on what he or she told me, to identify gaps in my understanding and to decipher the scrawl that I tend to produce when I’m scribbling.

Lots of people take notes but journalists may be the only ones for whom writing down what other people tell us is the work itself. In December I met Bohlale Ratefane, a woman who works the lost luggage counter for South African Airways at Johannesburg’s Tambo airport. Ratefane wrote notes to herself in a black notebook with a worn cover while juggling both a BlackBerry and a smartphone. She wrote in the notebook seemingly at random, back and forth among the pages, but the system must have made sense to her because she found the entry she needed every time. She worked the notebooks and phones to perfection in pursuit of her prey, which included suitcases and passports that had become separated from their owners.

Recently I came across a story that I wrote two autumns go, during a football game between Columbia and Dartmouth that I had gone to cover for a class at journalism school. The draft had been piled among a series of notes that I’ve carried with me since then as I’ve traveled from New York City to South Africa and back.

About midway through the fourth quarter on that Saturday in October, I wandered over to the Big Green’s side of the stands, where I met Elliott Olshansky. I had sought out Olshansky because he and a cluster of fans cheered for Dartmouth on nearly every play. As it happened, Olshansky graduated from Dartmouth in 2004 and aspired to be a writer and an entrepreneur. “I’m in this weird limbo between where I am and where I want to be,” he told me.

I liked his comment and used it in my first draft of the story. My professor also liked the comment but suggested that I discard it nonetheless. “It doesn’t really advance your central point,” he wrote in tracked changes through the middle of the paragraph. My professor was right about the quote. The story was tighter without it.

Still, I’m glad I’ve preserved that first draft of the story long enough to read Olshansky’s comment anew. That’s because the in-between state that Olshansky described himself as occupying has become a home of sorts to me. I’ve recently returned to New York from South Africa to work on a project that combines my training in law and journalism. But I also look forward in August to returning to South Africa, where there are stories that I want to report and write, and where my partner lives and works.

When I met Olshansky he had recently published an e-book about the rules of dating from a guy’s perspective. “Guy-lit,” according to Olshansky, who also was pursuing an MBA at Fordham. Aspiring entrepreneur and writer – that was where Olshansky stood as we parted on that sunny afternoon, when I did not yet realize his observation might one day resonate with me.

Writing in my notebook what Olshansky said and discovering the quote anew 18 months later underscores for me another reason one writes things down in the first place. Mostly we take notes to remember, but the notes that we take also help us to see things in new ways. Our drafts may be a means to an end, but they become a part of us too.

 

Categories
Law

In a world rife with opinions, some limits apply

There is a scene in “Annie Hall” in which Woody Allen’s character has had enough of a stranger behind him in line at the movie theater who opines to a companion about the work of Marshall McLuhan, the theorist who coined the phrase “the medium is the message.”

“I happen to have Mr. McLuhan right here,” Allen, exasperated, says to the stranger before escorting McLuhan himself  from the wings to address the man directly. “I heard what you were saying,” McLuhan tells him. “You know nothing of my work.”

As satisfying as the smackdown may be, knowing something about the thing one aims to deliver an opinion on doesn’t seem to check the instinct of pundits in a society that has a plentitude of them. “When uncertainty abounds, pundits strive to differentiate themselves from their peers,” James Surowiecki writes in the latest issue of “The New Yorker” in a column that examines the punditry that has accompanied the mystery of Malaysia Air Flight 370 and the push to explain what might have caused the plane’s disappearance.

Surowiecki cites research by the Penn psychologist Philip Tetlock, who found, according to Surowiecki, “that experts who claimed to be more certain are more in demand in the media, even though they were less likely to be correct.

One of the things I love about being a reporter is having license to ask questions, including being able to ask someone who offers an opinion about their basis for it.

I’ve been thinking of that recently while reviewing the Federal Rules of Evidence, which address directly the qualifications of experts whose testimony a party proposes to introduce in court. Before someone whom a party presents as an expert can deliver her opinion, the law wants to know the person’s qualifications and the connection between her expertise and the opinion she is being asked to render. The law, like Woody Allen’s character in “Annie Hall,” does not suffer opinions lightly.

In general, a party to a lawsuit who offers the testimony of an expert may do so provided the following the party satisfies the following conditions:

• The subject must be one for which scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge would help a judge or jury understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue. That means the opinion must be relevant and the methodology underlying the opinion must be reliable.

• The witness must be qualified as an expert by her knowledge, skill, experience, training or education.

• The expert must possess reasonable certainty regarding her opinion.

• The opinion must be supported by a sufficient factual basis, based on: facts the expert knows through observation, facts made known to the expert at trial (e.g., through a hypothetical question) or facts that the expert may not know personally but have been supplied to her by experts outside the courtroom, such as reports of nurses, technicians or consultants.

Though the above rules govern the presentation of expert testimony in U.S. courts, most states have some version of the rules that track, with exceptions, the federal rules, which place reponsibility for showing that testimony meets the requirements for admissibility on the party that aims to use the testimony.

That’s not to suggest that laypeople who testify cannot offer opinions. However if a witness is not testifying as an expert, his opinion is limited to one that is rationally based on his perception, helps the judge or jury gain a clearer understanding of his testimony and is not based on scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge, according to the federal rules.

On Twitter and Facebook one encounters the abbreviation “IMHO,” which stands for “In my humble opinion.” The disclaimer applies in the case of this writer, whose opinions are his own.

Still, I admire the law’s insistence that opinions, whether humble or haughty, rest on a foundation. In other words, know what you’re talking about. At least if you’re in earshot. But especially if you’re in court.