The Hearken Experiment

Using Hearken was probably the most informative exercise we did to truly understand, to “get” what we mean in Social Journalism when we talk about listening to the community. Initially, I thought, “I got it, I already do this.” Making documentaries is as much about listening as it is about directing. There is always the expectation when making a film that you’re going to learn new things that are going to change the story you set out to tell. It’s almost assumed that the film in your written proposal is not going to be your finished product. Hopefully, it’ll be close.

So, I came into the Hearken exercise believing that I’m already a listener. Almost immediately, I was proven wrong, at least in terms of what the Hearken module is designed to do. When coming up with my first set of prompts, I didn’t even notice that I was still asking the questions. I was still thinking that my goal was to get people to share their opinions about things I already deemed important or relevant. But that’s not what we’re doing here. We’re asking the audience to tell us what THEY want to know. So, back to the drawing board.

My second pass was much better. Unfortunately, Hearken doesn’t archive old questions, so I no longer have it, but I think it was something like:

“Please share your questions about the gun violence debate in America.”

I thought this was inviting and gave just enough direction to encourage a response. It is supposed to be a “prompt,” after all.

Now the challenge was to find somewhere to post it. For me, this was the biggest challenge of the Hearken experiment. News organizations are the ideal platform for Hearken — they already already have an audience, and the infrastructure to integrate Hearken into their engagement and outreach efforts. As an individual without even a website, certainly not one with an audience, I was at a loss for how to engage the community with this online tool. All I had was social media, so I tried that.

I posted on Facebook and got absolutely no questions. Nothing. Finally, I had face-to-face conversations with people, explained to them what I was doing, and asked them for questions. Repealing the Second Amendment came up in one of those conversations. That was a provocative and controversial topic and I chose to pursue it further. I posted the Hearken link on Facebook again, this time expanding the question to include the Second Amendment:

“Please share your questions here about the 2nd Amendment, repeal, gun control/gun violence, etc. Confidential and your info won’t be shared. Thanks!”

I thought giving more options (repeal, gun control, gun violence) would encourage more responses, again, “prompting” readers to riff off of any one of these ideas, and I thought that adding a note about confidentiality would encourage anyone who was reticent because they were unfamiliar with Hearken and concerned about who might be collecting their information. Finally, I tagged selected Facebook friends who I thought would be interested in having the conversation, who were inquisitive and enjoyed participating in thought-provoking exchanges. This was my most successful Hearken attempt, and interesting, more pointed and thoughtful questions started getting posted.

Despite the challenges, the Hearken experiment did produce a valuable outcome. Getting questions from the community transformed my article. It forced me to go deeper. My first draft could be described as an account of the pro-repeal argument, but my final draft took me into a deeper examination of the interpretation of the Second Amendment. It disrupted assumptions.

I think if we take another pass at using Hearken, I would look into partnering with CUNY J-School’s NYCity News Service website. Not having a home-base or platform was a real hindrance. I don’t frequent the NYCity News Service website so I don’t know much about their following/audience, but it could be a good place to start.