By Daniel Gutman
Journalist, Clarín
Buenos Aires, Argentina

"Why don't you go back to your notes and see if you have more quotes from common people to add to this story?" With two or three more, or two or three less words, I was asked that question many times by the editors of The Kansas City Star.

This experience, plus the reading of some other American newspapers, enabled me to realize in a few weeks that the trend of having opinions of common men and women in almost every story is one of the main differences between the American newspapers and the ones in my country, Argentina.

"In a democracy it's important to talk to many sources from throughout the community. Not only authorities, but also people who are representative of their communities. And the minorities should be included as well, to make sure the diversity of our communities is reflected in the stories," says Randall Smith, City Editor at The Star.

"Part of our job as journalists is to report what all segments of the society think about the decisions made by the government, the industry, the labor or the health care. And the only way to truly reflect in the newspaper how those decisions impact on the common people is precisely to interview the common people," he says.

"That way you may find problems about an issue that perhaps you were not aware of, and even the people who make the decisions were not aware of," Smith says.

The idea enables American newspapers to give their readers an angle of the story which Argentinean newspapers generally lack. On the other side, the danger of "abusing" this technique is to believe that the opinions of a handful of people put together shape a mirror which reflects the feelings of the society about a certain issue.

One of The Star's reporters asked me to help him interview common people about their thoughts on the presidential candidates, Al Gore and George W. Bush. I went to work, then I gave the quotes I got to this reporter, and the big surprise came when I saw the story in the newspaper. The headline, if my memory is accurate, was: "What Missourians think about Gore, Bush."

I believe that, if what the newspaper is looking for is society's feedback on a certain issue, the tool to be used should be a survey, done by scientific means.

The use of the interviews to common people should be restricted, as a wonderful way to cover those sides of a story that are usually forgotten. That is what Smith suggests, "If the governor of the state decides to shut down a meat packing plant which employs thousand of workers in a small town, I would like my reporters not only to interview the governor and the workers who lose their jobs, I want to know as well what the impact of the decision is on the cafes and the car-dealership in that small town," says the city editor at The Star.

"We encourage our staff to stay in touch constantly with average people, who are wonderful sources of stories," Smith says. "Several years ago, one of our interns met a nun, who told her some poor people hadn't been able to pay their gas bills and had the heating shut off by the company. Those people were living in shelters during the winter. We did a story about that and the company, under large public pressure, eventually had to reverse its policy and resume the service," he says.

With my experience as a Friendly Fellow, I became aware that many journalists in my country are too far from the average people. And, it's true, they are missing a wonderful source of stories. What is also true is that the impact on the common people of the decisions made by the authorities should be only a part on a story. Listening to common people shouldn't shadow other aspects equally important to the mission of newspapers which are to disclose those things that authorities want to hide, to explain in a clear way the meaning of the events that happen in the society and to report the newsworthy facts as soon as they take place.