Sunday, September 9, 2007
Error -New posting failed
Blogger.com ERROR! POST FAILED TO LOADWaiting...Waiting...Please contact system administrator 9/9/07
Posted by James T Daye at 6:12 PM 0 comments
New post 2.blogger
Please wait while text is loading...
Posted by James T Daye at 6:11 PM 0 comments
new post 1.blogger
Please wait while text is loading...
Posted by James T Daye at 6:10 PM 0 comments
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Ch 10
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Error -New posting failed
Blogger.com ERROR! POST FAILED TO LOADWaiting...Waiting...Please contact system administrator 9/9/07
Posted by James T Daye at 6:12 PM 0 comments
New post 2.blogger
Please wait while text is loading...
Posted by James T Daye at 6:11 PM 0 comments
Chapter 11
The best approach is to run the story and suggest a headline like "Police Stonewall in bashing case" to expose the threat the officer made to you. This then primes the audience and your employer for the retaliation if it follows, and gives an explanation that preempts the punishment. Running the story is not a betrayal to the sources at the station, a paper is entitled to cover both sides of issues. While it is vital to pursue good relationships with sources, they should never be allowed to dictate terms to journalists, especially not regarding content. Agreements and promises are fine to keep people happy, but that does not extend to obeying threats of a blackout if a possibly explosive story is followed as it should be.
The other good reason not to obey the officer's threat is the same as stated above. If the station does retaliate by cutting your paper "out of the loop", then the problem becomes a problem between your whole paper and the station, you are not to blame, you had a superior give you orders. If you obey the officer, then the dispute suddenly is between you and your chief of staff.
Therefore, if you face removal from the round anyway, it becomes perfect that you publish the story because then at least your superiors will be satisfied, and they can hardly force you into the position of losing contacts at the station, and then keep you on with no contacts.
Think about it, it's no good keeping your contacts at the station if you get removed from the round anyway, what's the use of that? Better to run the story and take your chances, if you do lose the round this way, it will be for acting maturely enough to withstand an outsider's threat and be loyal enough to obey a superior. Better to lose the round for loyalty than disloyalty. It's the chief of staff you have to keep working with, not the police station.
2. In this case it again comes down to personal power and weakness. I cannot deny here that I have seen another student's blog entry, where she said there is no harm in simply giving the woman a sympathetic angle, thus keeping the story but also not attacking the woman if she is in a vulnerable state. I think that was a good suggestion this other student made, to say "what sort of society is it where a woman is charged with simply stealing a pair of stockings?"
Anyway, in this case I would not run the story as I originally intended. The reason is that anyone talking like that should be viewed with caution.
compared to the resort story, there is no harm done to the public if the story is not kept as is, second there may be great harm if you ignore her. Therefore, proceed with caution, and remember that it might not be worth it to stringently enforce the rule on this occasion.
3. People do not lose their career for drink driving; they lose their license. The story is worth reporting, the offer of bribes may have been an emotional overreaction done out of fear/anxiety, and maybe you should just report what you can prove, which is the conviction. It is not the end of the world to treat celebrities like everybody else, they may not like it, but they do not deserve special treatment. However, you must stringently warn the person that if they continue to offer improper inducements, you will be forced to report it. You must make absolutely clear that you never considered accepting the bribes.
4. Although employers want independent journalists, this story is far too heavy to proceed without advice from your superiors and their lawyers. You may unwittingly commit contempt of court, defamation, perverting the course of justice or any number of offenses against the proper workings of the trial, even by simply talking to the juror. You could get sued by the police or fined by the court. The best answer is to immediately cease any contact with the juror until you know where you stand legally. You may also be forced to report the accusations whether you want to or not.
Posted by James T Daye at 6:10 PM 0 comments
Error -New posting failed
Blogger.com ERROR! POST FAILED TO LOADWaiting...Waiting...Please contact system administrator 9/9/07
Posted by James T Daye at 6:12 PM 0 comments
New post 2.blogger
Please wait while text is loading...
Posted by James T Daye at 6:11 PM 0 comments
Chapter 11
The best approach is to run the story and suggest a headline like "Police Stonewall in bashing case" to expose the threat the officer made to you. This then primes the audience and your employer for the retaliation if it follows, and gives an explanation that preempts the punishment. Running the story is not a betrayal to the sources at the station, a paper is entitled to cover both sides of issues. While it is vital to pursue good relationships with sources, they should never be allowed to dictate terms to journalists, especially not regarding content. Agreements and promises are fine to keep people happy, but that does not extend to obeying threats of a blackout if a possibly explosive story is followed as it should be.
The other good reason not to obey the officer's threat is the same as stated above. If the station does retaliate by cutting your paper "out of the loop", then the problem becomes a problem between your whole paper and the station, you are not to blame, you had a superior give you orders. If you obey the officer, then the dispute suddenly is between you and your chief of staff.
Therefore, if you face removal from the round anyway, it becomes perfect that you publish the story because then at least your superiors will be satisfied, and they can hardly force you into the position of losing contacts at the station, and then keep you on with no contacts.
Think about it, it's no good keeping your contacts at the station if you get removed from the round anyway, what's the use of that? Better to run the story and take your chances, if you do lose the round this way, it will be for acting maturely enough to withstand an outsider's threat and be loyal enough to obey a superior. Better to lose the round for loyalty than disloyalty. It's the chief of staff you have to keep working with, not the police station.
2. In this case it again comes down to personal power and weakness. I cannot deny here that I have seen another student's blog entry, where she said there is no harm in simply giving the woman a sympathetic angle, thus keeping the story but also not attacking the woman if she is in a vulnerable state. I think that was a good suggestion this other student made, to say "what sort of society is it where a woman is charged with simply stealing a pair of stockings?"
Anyway, in this case I would not run the story as I originally intended. The reason is that anyone talking like that should be viewed with caution.
compared to the resort story, there is no harm done to the public if the story is not kept as is, second there may be great harm if you ignore her. Therefore, proceed with caution, and remember that it might not be worth it to stringently enforce the rule on this occasion.
3. People do not lose their career for drink driving; they lose their license. The story is worth reporting, the offer of bribes may have been an emotional overreaction done out of fear/anxiety, and maybe you should just report what you can prove, which is the conviction. It is not the end of the world to treat celebrities like everybody else, they may not like it, but they do not deserve special treatment. However, you must stringently warn the person that if they continue to offer improper inducements, you will be forced to report it. You must make absolutely clear that you never considered accepting the bribes.
4. Although employers want independent journalists, this story is far too heavy to proceed without advice from your superiors and their lawyers. You may unwittingly commit contempt of court, defamation, perverting the course of justice or any number of offenses against the proper workings of the trial, even by simply talking to the juror. You could get sued by the police or fined by the court. The best answer is to immediately cease any contact with the juror until you know where you stand legally. You may also be forced to report the accusations whether you want to or not.
Posted by James T Daye at 6:10 PM 0 comments
Chpps 9 & 14 & 10
Chapter 10
1. You have to weigh up the value of the relationship [seems quite valuable if they canprovide the story of the year] and the potential damage done by going against the wishes of the source,
against the value of getting the story done well. Maybe the source has a very good reason to ask you to wait, maybe only they will know until the prescribed day, and if you go early they will be exposed as the source because no one else could have known. Sources are important. Sometimes a journalist, if they want kudos and success must be prepared to endure slow days while working secretly on the big story. You cannot always get your best work done with a chief of staff hounding you for speed. However, if you miss the chance to break the story and the chief of staff discovers you squandered the chance, there will be equal ramifications. The best advice is to explain the importance of the source, protect them, and go ahead with the story in spite of everybody. The behaviour may seem inexplicatble at the time, but the payoff will be happy bosses, a safe source, and a great story. Sometimes you must accept that pursuing a great story in the right way you cannot always get officially sanctioned methods. There will be explanations to give if it comes out that you sat on the story for a day, but it might be more important to prevent alienating and losing the source. If the rival paper also knows then it is too late, to beat them you must go against your source, it is probably better to just do the best story you can and release it as instructed. But if the rival paper blows your sources paper, it doesn't matter how good you were to the source, they will probably lose their privileged access anyway, so you must decide how likely that option is also.
2. Sorry, but public health is more important than employment. It is not the job of newspapers to protect bad management. Possibly the money loss and bad hygeine are both the result of the resort being poorly run. If the illnesses is serious, the story should run. Also, how can you be sure that the call was not just a smart approach to avoid bad coverage. If journalists listened to and obeyed every sob story that sought to suppress stories, there wouldn't be any news to write about. Unfortunately, a badly run business often faces job losses anyway, if they also cannot protect public safety, it is not tthe employees fault, but a problem of bad management. People can get other jobs, but what if someone due to their ignorance ate there and got seriously ill or even died. One failed business should not outweigh a story that is in the interest of the wider public.
3. The source is unreliable and you cannot be sure they are telling the truth. One late night phone call from an intoxicated individual is not adequate notice of a court order. Continue to print the story, because there are legitimate grounds to disregard the advice.
4. As Machiavelli said, if it is unavoidable, it is better to stay on the side of your superiors. It is easier that way and although it may be wrong, it is best for the rounds reporter to be left to remonstrate with the editor, rather than the editor with you. Or you could offer one as the main angle on the story, with a reference to the other way in which it may be viewed.
Posted by James T Daye at 6:12 PM 0 comments
Chapter 14
1
2Hard news and good writing are not incompatible. feature writing receives the coverage it deserves, present but not prominent. The fact is, the audience and market for feature writing of all sorts is limited compared to news writing, this is nothing to be ashamed of, it is simply a fact that in a short time there is little appetite for long stories. Feature writing responds well to good conditions, weekends and holiday periods, and afternoons. weekday mornings are the undisputed territory of pithy, pragmatic news writing. Also, I feel that good writing cannot really increase newspaper sales, you cannot promote "good writing" to customers as the drawcard [could you imagine that on the placard? Sydney Morning Herald exclusive: Good writing], feature writing must jump through the same hoops as news, promoting content, what it can boast is the subject matter, not the style. The style is an added bonus, for the satisfaction of a writer who need not vie with news stories for their readers, they appeal to the sedate tea sipping Sunday morning reader, or three o'clock break. For the reader, it is an added bonus after you havealrerady bought the paper and read the news, "good writing" is like the icing, but you don't get that unless you have already decided to eat the cake.
3. Yes, as with television, there should be restrictions placed upon cheap, prefabricated stories by media conglomerates. Not only because wthe media is a special industry, it's not like agriculture where tariffs hurt third world famers, it needs protection in order to give locals a chance to work and use their skills, in the case of the media, we are a weaker player, we need protection. Not only that, a newspaper without enough local content is nothing more than a glorified photocopier, if it's making money, it needs to do it's own job properly. It is also good for Australian culture to do our own feature stories, and not get sucked in to the pap hole that is royal and Hollywood "reporting". Market forces is just code for saying "it's cheaper and easier". If market forces ruled the world, Australians would all be on Thai wages, now I don't even want the Thais to be exploited like that, so I don't want Australians to be either.
4. No, I would not like to be a full time feature writer because in the jobs that are desirable there is too much competition for such a limited market. The second reason is that everybody should have some balance in their work, many do some feature writing to support themselves , for smaller publications, but restricting yourself to just that sort of work means you miss out on some of the best parts of journalism, interest, importance, relevance. Full time you immediately exclude yourself from all the other good aspects of non feature writing. Anyway, my primary interest is politics, or crime writing. They are just not very compatible, although nice feature articles on notorious criminals like Roger Rogerson and Chopper Read are always interesting.
5. Being a feature writer is different because the style is so different. Often the people in the stories are the same as the subject matter of columnists, but there is no inverted pyramid to adhere to, there is an expectation of the unorthodox, pressure to sustain a personable style of writing. That does not suit everyone. Columnists are taught to be comprehensive, avoid triviality, focus on what is relevant to matters at hand. A columnist, no matter how much spacethey get, is trained to seek out the angle that sparks debate and interest, even controversy. There is not much scope for that in feature writing.
Posted by James T Daye at 6:11 PM 0 comments
Chapter 9
1. It depends on the profile of the speaker. If the prime minister gave an inexact quote that made him look eloquent, well, nobody wants that because we always see politicians doing slick evasions in the face of probing questions. That doesn't serve anybody. Everybody has seen during this election campaign, that gaffs and "stuff ups" are much more newsworthy than rehearsed lines because they break up the monotony and catch out the spin meisters. Everybody enjoys seeing Kevin Rudd and John Howard make mistakes about tax thresholds and interest rates, because they get it right everyday, but only once in a while does a foot in mouth epidemic shatter their suave exterior.
If the speaker was a bereaved family member commenting on a tragic death of their relative, well, accuracy isn't everything, sometimes a sympathetic human angle is more important than making a big deal out of small slip ups by little people. The simple formula is, if Joe Bloggs is trying to make a point and gets tongue tied, just give him a second chance, nobody cares if he is given a little chance to get his words out right, if John Howard or Kevin Rudd slip up, it is healthy and appropriate to make some mileage out of it. It's more newsworthy.
2. Many of these questions depend on the relative power and influence of the individual. As above, big public figures are mostly thick skinned enough to accept criticism and even the best threats a journalist can muster. The guiding rule should be, was it in the interest of getting a story, and was it necessary. Threatening a private individual with exposure of their personal affairs would almost always be unprofessional conduct, even in some criminal cases, if the journalist has more power than the individual. It can create situations where the private citizen feels truly intimidated and maybe they will do something unexpected, they cannot be held to the same standards as public figures. Some even commit suicide. Even some public figures try that, so a private citizen is never prepared for a threat that may seem like coercion or blackmail.
On the other hand, a journalist should be entitled to say to a major public figure "Look, if you do not give a proper explanation here, I will go to print with this story, with or without your input."
This would be appropriate for matters of public interest, but not private affairs that do not concern public life.
Also, it must be for the story, and not for other reasons. Looking at the exchange between Caroline Overington and George Newhouse, it is doubtful that her threats to ambush him and catch him at a bad moment were truly necessary to her reporting, especially in the light of her other unprofessional comments in the whole matter. Such behaviour should be restricted to individuals who could handle it, only on matters of public importance, and only to get a proper story, and not to alter statements or gain an improper advantage in any other matter, or to pursue a vendetta as it seems Ms. Overington has done.
3. Personal chemistry can be vague. Attraction, friendship, company, even just a shared sense of humour can go a long way to putting a source at ease and making them more comfortable to release information. In such a business, people are often the victims of manipulation or taking advantage in these ways, some accept it, others feel used. These facts are simple and harmless, it is still the case that many men and women would feel instinctively less guarded around members of the opposite sex, or perhaps the sex they are attracted to. It is no coincidence that many males have unwittingly given up information over long boozy lunches that they most ikely would not have given to another man. These facts are simple and harmless, it is still the case that many men and women would feel instinctively less guarded around members of the opposite sex, or perhaps the sex they are attracted to.
Anything beyond the above mentioned techniques a journalist would pursue at their own risk;
not only could such behaviour degenerate into a sordid "personality clash" but among readers and even employers it could be easily thought that a journalist lost their perspective and credibility by getting too close to a source, whether they go on to treat them in a hostile or sympathetic manner.
4. As mentioned above, people could infer for themselves that a journalist might have become emotionally interested [in a bad way], or financially implicated with a source, or romantically involved. Then they would face a loss of prestige and descend from the position of objective reporter to "warring party". Getting too close at any stage, in any way, then tends to colour their reporting, it does not matter if they then go on to write in a disparaging, gushing or neutral manner about that source, people could not from that point onwards, confidently discount the theory that they personally had something at stake in the story ever again.
5. The most word mangling public figure in Australia is Brendan Nelson, he is always jumping the gun with bizarre theories and misguided conjecture. He really is responsible for the vast majority of counterproductive quotes the Government has had to deal with.
Posted by James T Daye at 6:10 PM 0 comments
1. You have to weigh up the value of the relationship [seems quite valuable if they canprovide the story of the year] and the potential damage done by going against the wishes of the source,
against the value of getting the story done well. Maybe the source has a very good reason to ask you to wait, maybe only they will know until the prescribed day, and if you go early they will be exposed as the source because no one else could have known. Sources are important. Sometimes a journalist, if they want kudos and success must be prepared to endure slow days while working secretly on the big story. You cannot always get your best work done with a chief of staff hounding you for speed. However, if you miss the chance to break the story and the chief of staff discovers you squandered the chance, there will be equal ramifications. The best advice is to explain the importance of the source, protect them, and go ahead with the story in spite of everybody. The behaviour may seem inexplicatble at the time, but the payoff will be happy bosses, a safe source, and a great story. Sometimes you must accept that pursuing a great story in the right way you cannot always get officially sanctioned methods. There will be explanations to give if it comes out that you sat on the story for a day, but it might be more important to prevent alienating and losing the source. If the rival paper also knows then it is too late, to beat them you must go against your source, it is probably better to just do the best story you can and release it as instructed. But if the rival paper blows your sources paper, it doesn't matter how good you were to the source, they will probably lose their privileged access anyway, so you must decide how likely that option is also.
2. Sorry, but public health is more important than employment. It is not the job of newspapers to protect bad management. Possibly the money loss and bad hygeine are both the result of the resort being poorly run. If the illnesses is serious, the story should run. Also, how can you be sure that the call was not just a smart approach to avoid bad coverage. If journalists listened to and obeyed every sob story that sought to suppress stories, there wouldn't be any news to write about. Unfortunately, a badly run business often faces job losses anyway, if they also cannot protect public safety, it is not tthe employees fault, but a problem of bad management. People can get other jobs, but what if someone due to their ignorance ate there and got seriously ill or even died. One failed business should not outweigh a story that is in the interest of the wider public.
3. The source is unreliable and you cannot be sure they are telling the truth. One late night phone call from an intoxicated individual is not adequate notice of a court order. Continue to print the story, because there are legitimate grounds to disregard the advice.
4. As Machiavelli said, if it is unavoidable, it is better to stay on the side of your superiors. It is easier that way and although it may be wrong, it is best for the rounds reporter to be left to remonstrate with the editor, rather than the editor with you. Or you could offer one as the main angle on the story, with a reference to the other way in which it may be viewed.
Posted by James T Daye at 6:12 PM 0 comments
Chapter 14
1
2Hard news and good writing are not incompatible. feature writing receives the coverage it deserves, present but not prominent. The fact is, the audience and market for feature writing of all sorts is limited compared to news writing, this is nothing to be ashamed of, it is simply a fact that in a short time there is little appetite for long stories. Feature writing responds well to good conditions, weekends and holiday periods, and afternoons. weekday mornings are the undisputed territory of pithy, pragmatic news writing. Also, I feel that good writing cannot really increase newspaper sales, you cannot promote "good writing" to customers as the drawcard [could you imagine that on the placard? Sydney Morning Herald exclusive: Good writing], feature writing must jump through the same hoops as news, promoting content, what it can boast is the subject matter, not the style. The style is an added bonus, for the satisfaction of a writer who need not vie with news stories for their readers, they appeal to the sedate tea sipping Sunday morning reader, or three o'clock break. For the reader, it is an added bonus after you havealrerady bought the paper and read the news, "good writing" is like the icing, but you don't get that unless you have already decided to eat the cake.
3. Yes, as with television, there should be restrictions placed upon cheap, prefabricated stories by media conglomerates. Not only because wthe media is a special industry, it's not like agriculture where tariffs hurt third world famers, it needs protection in order to give locals a chance to work and use their skills, in the case of the media, we are a weaker player, we need protection. Not only that, a newspaper without enough local content is nothing more than a glorified photocopier, if it's making money, it needs to do it's own job properly. It is also good for Australian culture to do our own feature stories, and not get sucked in to the pap hole that is royal and Hollywood "reporting". Market forces is just code for saying "it's cheaper and easier". If market forces ruled the world, Australians would all be on Thai wages, now I don't even want the Thais to be exploited like that, so I don't want Australians to be either.
4. No, I would not like to be a full time feature writer because in the jobs that are desirable there is too much competition for such a limited market. The second reason is that everybody should have some balance in their work, many do some feature writing to support themselves , for smaller publications, but restricting yourself to just that sort of work means you miss out on some of the best parts of journalism, interest, importance, relevance. Full time you immediately exclude yourself from all the other good aspects of non feature writing. Anyway, my primary interest is politics, or crime writing. They are just not very compatible, although nice feature articles on notorious criminals like Roger Rogerson and Chopper Read are always interesting.
5. Being a feature writer is different because the style is so different. Often the people in the stories are the same as the subject matter of columnists, but there is no inverted pyramid to adhere to, there is an expectation of the unorthodox, pressure to sustain a personable style of writing. That does not suit everyone. Columnists are taught to be comprehensive, avoid triviality, focus on what is relevant to matters at hand. A columnist, no matter how much spacethey get, is trained to seek out the angle that sparks debate and interest, even controversy. There is not much scope for that in feature writing.
Posted by James T Daye at 6:11 PM 0 comments
Chapter 9
1. It depends on the profile of the speaker. If the prime minister gave an inexact quote that made him look eloquent, well, nobody wants that because we always see politicians doing slick evasions in the face of probing questions. That doesn't serve anybody. Everybody has seen during this election campaign, that gaffs and "stuff ups" are much more newsworthy than rehearsed lines because they break up the monotony and catch out the spin meisters. Everybody enjoys seeing Kevin Rudd and John Howard make mistakes about tax thresholds and interest rates, because they get it right everyday, but only once in a while does a foot in mouth epidemic shatter their suave exterior.
If the speaker was a bereaved family member commenting on a tragic death of their relative, well, accuracy isn't everything, sometimes a sympathetic human angle is more important than making a big deal out of small slip ups by little people. The simple formula is, if Joe Bloggs is trying to make a point and gets tongue tied, just give him a second chance, nobody cares if he is given a little chance to get his words out right, if John Howard or Kevin Rudd slip up, it is healthy and appropriate to make some mileage out of it. It's more newsworthy.
2. Many of these questions depend on the relative power and influence of the individual. As above, big public figures are mostly thick skinned enough to accept criticism and even the best threats a journalist can muster. The guiding rule should be, was it in the interest of getting a story, and was it necessary. Threatening a private individual with exposure of their personal affairs would almost always be unprofessional conduct, even in some criminal cases, if the journalist has more power than the individual. It can create situations where the private citizen feels truly intimidated and maybe they will do something unexpected, they cannot be held to the same standards as public figures. Some even commit suicide. Even some public figures try that, so a private citizen is never prepared for a threat that may seem like coercion or blackmail.
On the other hand, a journalist should be entitled to say to a major public figure "Look, if you do not give a proper explanation here, I will go to print with this story, with or without your input."
This would be appropriate for matters of public interest, but not private affairs that do not concern public life.
Also, it must be for the story, and not for other reasons. Looking at the exchange between Caroline Overington and George Newhouse, it is doubtful that her threats to ambush him and catch him at a bad moment were truly necessary to her reporting, especially in the light of her other unprofessional comments in the whole matter. Such behaviour should be restricted to individuals who could handle it, only on matters of public importance, and only to get a proper story, and not to alter statements or gain an improper advantage in any other matter, or to pursue a vendetta as it seems Ms. Overington has done.
3. Personal chemistry can be vague. Attraction, friendship, company, even just a shared sense of humour can go a long way to putting a source at ease and making them more comfortable to release information. In such a business, people are often the victims of manipulation or taking advantage in these ways, some accept it, others feel used. These facts are simple and harmless, it is still the case that many men and women would feel instinctively less guarded around members of the opposite sex, or perhaps the sex they are attracted to. It is no coincidence that many males have unwittingly given up information over long boozy lunches that they most ikely would not have given to another man. These facts are simple and harmless, it is still the case that many men and women would feel instinctively less guarded around members of the opposite sex, or perhaps the sex they are attracted to.
Anything beyond the above mentioned techniques a journalist would pursue at their own risk;
not only could such behaviour degenerate into a sordid "personality clash" but among readers and even employers it could be easily thought that a journalist lost their perspective and credibility by getting too close to a source, whether they go on to treat them in a hostile or sympathetic manner.
4. As mentioned above, people could infer for themselves that a journalist might have become emotionally interested [in a bad way], or financially implicated with a source, or romantically involved. Then they would face a loss of prestige and descend from the position of objective reporter to "warring party". Getting too close at any stage, in any way, then tends to colour their reporting, it does not matter if they then go on to write in a disparaging, gushing or neutral manner about that source, people could not from that point onwards, confidently discount the theory that they personally had something at stake in the story ever again.
5. The most word mangling public figure in Australia is Brendan Nelson, he is always jumping the gun with bizarre theories and misguided conjecture. He really is responsible for the vast majority of counterproductive quotes the Government has had to deal with.
Posted by James T Daye at 6:10 PM 0 comments
Friday, August 17, 2007
Chapter 8
1 Is this a trick question? Story "a" is the obvious choice. It allows the same scope for interviews and in depth coverage, and stock photos can be used of the main players in the story, and photos of actual affidavits can be faxed or printed out for use as evidence or in photos [hard to believe, but photos of documents are often used in such stories, or particular lines are highlighted and photographed. Also, even buildings, boring as they are, they to are used in photos next to stories, like parliament house, or corporate headquarters, or council buildings] why create pressure for yourself unnecessarily? The only advantage of going in person is candid photos, but these can be arranged while the writer is engaged in the office. These days there is very little need to take the time intensive option of personally attending various locations as it is not only a waste of time, but can be costly and labour intensive too.
2. Yes, if the story was interesting enough. Many great stories were half done on the journalists own time. It can also provide its own rewards, if done for the right reasons. A perfect example is people like Brian Toohey or Marianne Wilkinson or Wendy Bacon, journalists who at some stage devoted themselves at no small cost to cover vitally important topics of police corruption and its role in organised crime in NSW in the early eighties. These were brave people, who put in the effort to achieve great things, including meaningful reform. Many were personally threatened, called at home and at work, there were even some instances of attempted attacks on journalists in this state. Indeed, Juanita Neilsen was a publisher herself who disappeared when investigating corrupt deals among developers and public officials. People devote themselves to such investigation because it's worth it, at a personal level and for society, and often makes compelling, absolutely great stories. But it must be interesting and persuasive enough to pursue, because many journalists have also devoted themselves to campaigns that degenerated into vendettas or "bleep fights" with other prominent individuals. [The journalist Bob Bottom is one example of a person who may have gone overboard in terms of activism and jumping on the bandwagon of organised crime reporting. Some say he was just a show pony].
3. Again, yes. Sometimes particular topics are just too important to split down company lines, there are several examples. Michael Brissenden and two other journalists from other organisations cooperated to expose the Costello "off the record comments" as a way to back each other up, and the ABC is cooperating with several other news groups in a "right to know" coalition regarding freedom of information restrictions, so although that is not about a "story" as such it proves that cooperation is sometimes necessary, important to achieve something better than just a personal "scoop". People would have seen some press conferences where journalists have worked together despite having different employers, when they feel it is vital to the public interest that they do so. By "giving up" the best question, I assume this means revealing it to others, still, journalists have done more than that. Some even show each other evidence if they feel that doing so they can cooperate to piece together disparate facts into a coherent picture.
This is very risky, but sometimes pays off. It must be remembered though, journalism is a cut throat business, and many journalists will steal your story, and they don't even need your help!
So, only take such risks with people who have integrity and can be trusted, and only if the situation really requires it. This is rarely the case, but if it is necessary to cooperate, there is no real harm in losing one advantage in order to achieve some collective gain.
4 The people own government held information. Governments are given the gift of power by voters, not by heavenly mandate. Certainly governments should be allowed to discuss some policy without fear that every suggestion made could be later used against them, governments should be entitled to privately entertain or canvass their options. It is better for democracy if not all policy suggestions are all made public immediately. However, statistical data, official policy and factual documents held by the government are always the property of the people, who have a right to know what is done in their name. I did my presentation about this. There are a list of exempted items, such as those affecting diplomacy, federal state relations, personal details of citizens and legal or medical or other privileged material, or some financial affairs or transactions of the crown, or national security and defense. They are all exempted. But if the government was to cut veteran's pensions, as was exposed by two convicted journalists from Melbourne, or if Welfare to Work is hurting people with disabilities, or if Workchoices is having some known impact on employment or wage patterns, the people of our country are entitled to know what the government knows. The government has the tools of information gathering, and the instrument of policy and regulation, these are privileges that are not the exclusive and private right of current governments. Freedom of information protocol, despite the platitudes of ministers and the friendly sounding names of legislation like "Open Government bill 2000" has been utterly corrupted at all levels of Australian government, but especially the federal level.
The public are treated like a docile pet that does not need to know, indeed it is claimed it is not in the public interest that we know of the effects of Workchoices. That is why several news groups including Fairfax, the ABC and others have joined a coalition to raise awareness of the restrictions placed on official documents to which the public should be granted access. The people are the sole sovereign democratic power, we do not live in a dictatorship we own the information, governments are just temporary custodians, they have no right to delay or deny or prevent access to knowledge of what they do, as all their action is granted to them by the people.
5 The best way to decide is to first choose what the major angle of interest is that the story holds. Then decide who are the main players in the story. Then simply see which session has the major players, and which session covers the topics that are most prominent and current/timely in the minds of the audience. Then simply choose the session that offers the best overlap, avoid the major players discussing petty or boring matters, and avoid the good topics being discussed by unknowns or people irrelevant to the readers. The best overlap is to find the most prominent people discussing topics of importance or interest.
If all else fails, just do the old Jana Wendt trick, and make the famous national figures appear ridiculous with photos of them falling asleep, accompanied by a brief humorous article explaining how boring the whole conference was.
2. Yes, if the story was interesting enough. Many great stories were half done on the journalists own time. It can also provide its own rewards, if done for the right reasons. A perfect example is people like Brian Toohey or Marianne Wilkinson or Wendy Bacon, journalists who at some stage devoted themselves at no small cost to cover vitally important topics of police corruption and its role in organised crime in NSW in the early eighties. These were brave people, who put in the effort to achieve great things, including meaningful reform. Many were personally threatened, called at home and at work, there were even some instances of attempted attacks on journalists in this state. Indeed, Juanita Neilsen was a publisher herself who disappeared when investigating corrupt deals among developers and public officials. People devote themselves to such investigation because it's worth it, at a personal level and for society, and often makes compelling, absolutely great stories. But it must be interesting and persuasive enough to pursue, because many journalists have also devoted themselves to campaigns that degenerated into vendettas or "bleep fights" with other prominent individuals. [The journalist Bob Bottom is one example of a person who may have gone overboard in terms of activism and jumping on the bandwagon of organised crime reporting. Some say he was just a show pony].
3. Again, yes. Sometimes particular topics are just too important to split down company lines, there are several examples. Michael Brissenden and two other journalists from other organisations cooperated to expose the Costello "off the record comments" as a way to back each other up, and the ABC is cooperating with several other news groups in a "right to know" coalition regarding freedom of information restrictions, so although that is not about a "story" as such it proves that cooperation is sometimes necessary, important to achieve something better than just a personal "scoop". People would have seen some press conferences where journalists have worked together despite having different employers, when they feel it is vital to the public interest that they do so. By "giving up" the best question, I assume this means revealing it to others, still, journalists have done more than that. Some even show each other evidence if they feel that doing so they can cooperate to piece together disparate facts into a coherent picture.
This is very risky, but sometimes pays off. It must be remembered though, journalism is a cut throat business, and many journalists will steal your story, and they don't even need your help!
So, only take such risks with people who have integrity and can be trusted, and only if the situation really requires it. This is rarely the case, but if it is necessary to cooperate, there is no real harm in losing one advantage in order to achieve some collective gain.
4 The people own government held information. Governments are given the gift of power by voters, not by heavenly mandate. Certainly governments should be allowed to discuss some policy without fear that every suggestion made could be later used against them, governments should be entitled to privately entertain or canvass their options. It is better for democracy if not all policy suggestions are all made public immediately. However, statistical data, official policy and factual documents held by the government are always the property of the people, who have a right to know what is done in their name. I did my presentation about this. There are a list of exempted items, such as those affecting diplomacy, federal state relations, personal details of citizens and legal or medical or other privileged material, or some financial affairs or transactions of the crown, or national security and defense. They are all exempted. But if the government was to cut veteran's pensions, as was exposed by two convicted journalists from Melbourne, or if Welfare to Work is hurting people with disabilities, or if Workchoices is having some known impact on employment or wage patterns, the people of our country are entitled to know what the government knows. The government has the tools of information gathering, and the instrument of policy and regulation, these are privileges that are not the exclusive and private right of current governments. Freedom of information protocol, despite the platitudes of ministers and the friendly sounding names of legislation like "Open Government bill 2000" has been utterly corrupted at all levels of Australian government, but especially the federal level.
The public are treated like a docile pet that does not need to know, indeed it is claimed it is not in the public interest that we know of the effects of Workchoices. That is why several news groups including Fairfax, the ABC and others have joined a coalition to raise awareness of the restrictions placed on official documents to which the public should be granted access. The people are the sole sovereign democratic power, we do not live in a dictatorship we own the information, governments are just temporary custodians, they have no right to delay or deny or prevent access to knowledge of what they do, as all their action is granted to them by the people.
5 The best way to decide is to first choose what the major angle of interest is that the story holds. Then decide who are the main players in the story. Then simply see which session has the major players, and which session covers the topics that are most prominent and current/timely in the minds of the audience. Then simply choose the session that offers the best overlap, avoid the major players discussing petty or boring matters, and avoid the good topics being discussed by unknowns or people irrelevant to the readers. The best overlap is to find the most prominent people discussing topics of importance or interest.
If all else fails, just do the old Jana Wendt trick, and make the famous national figures appear ridiculous with photos of them falling asleep, accompanied by a brief humorous article explaining how boring the whole conference was.
Chapter 7
1.High school graduates probably represent a good median between dumbing down and unnecessary complexity. There is no real need to go beyond this, today's HSC is more than enough to equip people to read about everyday life. The language of a bright and well educated high school graduate is also superior to the murky caveat laden Gareth Evans style of communication. At the high school graduate level, every necessary word is already available for any story in a newspaper, anything beyond that is tolerable, maybe for subjects that demand subtlety, but in most cases not needed. Also, people who have not attained such a level of education still have a very good chance of reading such a level, and finding it useful and enjoyable. Journalism is not a competition to use the longest or most obscure words, it is a job where people try to get the highest possible number of readers, and then to give them the news they want. So first it must be accessible, then it must be readable. That means, direct, easy to understand, and with enough flow and rhythm to entertain and keep people reading. Readers should not have to consult dictionaries to get the point.
2 Putting your own thoughts into stories is a privilege, it is a gift of editors to certain writers. Most stories need very little to no opinion on the part of the author, they need to use their mind in planning the story, think about how to phrase things better, get sources and quotes. This process should dominate their time to the point that almost no room is left for personal opinions. Political and opinion writers are awarded the entitlement to voice their opinion on the subjects of their choice, but their job is different from that of a reporter. A reporter's real job is to get out facts to readers, their time should be spent doing this as best they can. It depends upon your job, what management expects of you and the individual story. Even a seasoned reporter would not need to inject much opinion in a story about bushfires, and similarly a rookie would be failing in their job if they did not give their reading of election prospects in the event that they are assigned to a story about opinion polls. A journalist must respond to the situation, bushfires are not a matter of opinion, but complex and contested stories often require the journalist to give a summary of how they see it. It is not always a matter of seniority, but mainly who is given a particular story. Of course, editors prefer trusted and respected proven journalists to cover topics where opinion is unavoidable, as nobody would want a hothead making sweeping comments about controversial issues. A reporter earns their right to give an opinion, and so they are given stories where opinion is needed.
3. Yes I believe it does matter that we are losing some of our own phrases and using some borrowed from other cultures. It is important because words like "al-oo-minum and nu-kul-ar"
are not real words, they don't exist. Now, while those particular words are not used much here instead of our own, these patterns start small and eventually overwhelm local languages. A reporter would be incomprehensible to most Australians if they wrote, "This geezer left his gaff and ate a bap as he walked up the high street like a right bobby dazzler" -it's insane. That was English as some speak it in England, a style nobody seeks to emulate. It is not because any language or style is superior to any other, it is just that people should use the language that is natural to them, it may seem illogical, but mostly it is just to achieve uniformity and regularity.
If people are left to mix and match, don't put "u" in the word humour or colour, or use "z" instead of "s" the problem then becomes general, and children will say "Why write "they're" or "their" if "there" will do? Why write meat instead of meet? People should understand that good spelling and grammar reflects and encourages good thought. If children cannot understand grammatical distinctions, how can they comprehend logical distinctions? Such things could not even be explained to them if the faculty of language is undernourished. Our thoughts can only be conveyed to each other at the level of our language. Each country has their own style for their own reasons, but just as mixing metric and decimal makes a mess, so too does fuzzy and ill defined language weaken thought generally.
A global language is emerging on the internet and in SMS messages. It is contracted and simplified and makes non english speakers almost level with native english speakers at a rudimentary level. It is useful to bridge the gaps between cultures, but limiting or resigning oneself to this mode of expression as the norm would be a terrible mistake.
4 Some journalists have a serious commitment to accuracy. Some call themselves journalists but they are more interested in pleasing their boss and getting a promotion than accurate reporting [Honestly, look at many Nes journalists, they just "tow the line" as expected]. Newspapers have a serious commitment to profits. They do what is needed to retain their readers. For broadsheets, this means that accuracy is demanded and mostly delivered, with tabloids sensationalism is in demand and accuracy is often ignored. Nevertheless, many newspapers still refuse to correct mistakes even when those mistakes are brought to their attention by people who may be hurt or aggrieved by them. Newspapers commit to accuracy as far as it is important to their credibility. If they will not losers readers by being inaccurate, they will continue making baseless claims. This is true of magazines, "glamour/celebrity" magazines,
they fulfill a separate purpose to write gossip and rumours, the more gossip and rumours, the more they sell. Online, newspapers publish and behave differently from what they put in print. Again it is a simple issue of readership. If one audience demands fact, analysis and thorough investigation, it will be delivered to them. If online readers want photos, jokes and scandals, they are also catered to. Accuracy per se is not the major concern of management. If it is required, it will be adhered to for the most part.
5 To be realistic, sometimes serious mistakes are made, but they are the factual equivalent of a "typo". If nobody complains, to be quite honest, I think a journalist would be wasting their time to ask that it be corrected just to satisfy their own conscience. Newspapers do not like to run corrections, many will do so under duress but even that does not work for some. There are many reasons to resist printing corrections, the annoyance, the loss of prestige, and not least the waste of space for something else. If nobody complaints, you may assume that it was such a gross error that people automatically ignored it as they would a "typo", or despite being a serious mistake it may have been harmless and not important to people. Either way, the choice is to run a correction, thus drawing attention to the mistake, but satisfying your own conscience and proving that as a newspaper, you are observant and stringent about accuracy, or wait until a complaint is made and then correct but risk appearing on Media Watch for ignoring it in the first place [it may also make it look like you didn't know what was going on until someone else had to point it out for you]. If it is painless cheap and easy, run the correction. If it's all a big unnecessary fuss, then don't worry, wait and if there is no complaint just ignore it and put things straight in the next story on the subject, thus correcting the error and avoiding a correction. If there is a complaint, run the correction [the only negative there is that a reader beat you to it].
2 Putting your own thoughts into stories is a privilege, it is a gift of editors to certain writers. Most stories need very little to no opinion on the part of the author, they need to use their mind in planning the story, think about how to phrase things better, get sources and quotes. This process should dominate their time to the point that almost no room is left for personal opinions. Political and opinion writers are awarded the entitlement to voice their opinion on the subjects of their choice, but their job is different from that of a reporter. A reporter's real job is to get out facts to readers, their time should be spent doing this as best they can. It depends upon your job, what management expects of you and the individual story. Even a seasoned reporter would not need to inject much opinion in a story about bushfires, and similarly a rookie would be failing in their job if they did not give their reading of election prospects in the event that they are assigned to a story about opinion polls. A journalist must respond to the situation, bushfires are not a matter of opinion, but complex and contested stories often require the journalist to give a summary of how they see it. It is not always a matter of seniority, but mainly who is given a particular story. Of course, editors prefer trusted and respected proven journalists to cover topics where opinion is unavoidable, as nobody would want a hothead making sweeping comments about controversial issues. A reporter earns their right to give an opinion, and so they are given stories where opinion is needed.
3. Yes I believe it does matter that we are losing some of our own phrases and using some borrowed from other cultures. It is important because words like "al-oo-minum and nu-kul-ar"
are not real words, they don't exist. Now, while those particular words are not used much here instead of our own, these patterns start small and eventually overwhelm local languages. A reporter would be incomprehensible to most Australians if they wrote, "This geezer left his gaff and ate a bap as he walked up the high street like a right bobby dazzler" -it's insane. That was English as some speak it in England, a style nobody seeks to emulate. It is not because any language or style is superior to any other, it is just that people should use the language that is natural to them, it may seem illogical, but mostly it is just to achieve uniformity and regularity.
If people are left to mix and match, don't put "u" in the word humour or colour, or use "z" instead of "s" the problem then becomes general, and children will say "Why write "they're" or "their" if "there" will do? Why write meat instead of meet? People should understand that good spelling and grammar reflects and encourages good thought. If children cannot understand grammatical distinctions, how can they comprehend logical distinctions? Such things could not even be explained to them if the faculty of language is undernourished. Our thoughts can only be conveyed to each other at the level of our language. Each country has their own style for their own reasons, but just as mixing metric and decimal makes a mess, so too does fuzzy and ill defined language weaken thought generally.
A global language is emerging on the internet and in SMS messages. It is contracted and simplified and makes non english speakers almost level with native english speakers at a rudimentary level. It is useful to bridge the gaps between cultures, but limiting or resigning oneself to this mode of expression as the norm would be a terrible mistake.
4 Some journalists have a serious commitment to accuracy. Some call themselves journalists but they are more interested in pleasing their boss and getting a promotion than accurate reporting [Honestly, look at many Nes journalists, they just "tow the line" as expected]. Newspapers have a serious commitment to profits. They do what is needed to retain their readers. For broadsheets, this means that accuracy is demanded and mostly delivered, with tabloids sensationalism is in demand and accuracy is often ignored. Nevertheless, many newspapers still refuse to correct mistakes even when those mistakes are brought to their attention by people who may be hurt or aggrieved by them. Newspapers commit to accuracy as far as it is important to their credibility. If they will not losers readers by being inaccurate, they will continue making baseless claims. This is true of magazines, "glamour/celebrity" magazines,
they fulfill a separate purpose to write gossip and rumours, the more gossip and rumours, the more they sell. Online, newspapers publish and behave differently from what they put in print. Again it is a simple issue of readership. If one audience demands fact, analysis and thorough investigation, it will be delivered to them. If online readers want photos, jokes and scandals, they are also catered to. Accuracy per se is not the major concern of management. If it is required, it will be adhered to for the most part.
5 To be realistic, sometimes serious mistakes are made, but they are the factual equivalent of a "typo". If nobody complains, to be quite honest, I think a journalist would be wasting their time to ask that it be corrected just to satisfy their own conscience. Newspapers do not like to run corrections, many will do so under duress but even that does not work for some. There are many reasons to resist printing corrections, the annoyance, the loss of prestige, and not least the waste of space for something else. If nobody complaints, you may assume that it was such a gross error that people automatically ignored it as they would a "typo", or despite being a serious mistake it may have been harmless and not important to people. Either way, the choice is to run a correction, thus drawing attention to the mistake, but satisfying your own conscience and proving that as a newspaper, you are observant and stringent about accuracy, or wait until a complaint is made and then correct but risk appearing on Media Watch for ignoring it in the first place [it may also make it look like you didn't know what was going on until someone else had to point it out for you]. If it is painless cheap and easy, run the correction. If it's all a big unnecessary fuss, then don't worry, wait and if there is no complaint just ignore it and put things straight in the next story on the subject, thus correcting the error and avoiding a correction. If there is a complaint, run the correction [the only negative there is that a reader beat you to it].
Chap 6
1. Sources cannot dictate how stories are written, so if possible refuse to include to comment. If they refuse to participate without the comment's inclusion, then either sacrifice the source or include it with personal commentary that it may be incorrect [if you can't prove it's incorrect, you cannot say so, but nevertheless, if you know it to be false, you should not be obliged to include it]. In any event, a reporter must strive to prevent a comment they know to be wrong from being presented as fact, and if it is, people must be made aware of the journalist's concerns.
Balance is a crucial issue. Now of course most topics are far too complex to just say "this is popular opinion, I will brook no dissent," however there is also no legitimate argument to say that balance is more important than truth. Today multiculturalism is accepted, and racism is offensive. According to the ludicrous theory of balance at all costs, there should always be equal time and space given to the neo nazis as there is to normal people. This is unacceptable. Should cigarette companies be given equal chance to eternally rebut anti cancer experts who tell us for a fact that smoking causes cancer. If a reporter interviews fifty people on the street, and forty five people oppose a nuclear plant being built locally, should the reporter condense all the responses to one for and one against. Is that balance, or skewing arguments and results to make it look like both sides balance out?
This is a vital question. Balance is not the be all and end all of reporting. If balance really is the most desirable attribute of good reporting, that would mean, in every debate, the lunatic fringe must be given equal airtime against popular consensus. Everyone has the right to have their opinions heard, and the right to reply to comments by others, but that right should extend to the minimum required to explain their stated position. Nobody would argue that even offensive people do not have the right to their own opinions or comments, but in journalism that should mean a person receives only what is required to logically set out their argument. It should not mean that if the majority of people oppose racism that every minute advocating multiculturalism, or presenting it in a positive light, entitles others to an equal amount of vilification or hateful comments just because they hold an opposing position.
This whole topic is very important. I believe that for too long, society has been subjected to the prejudices of special interest groups who masquerade as the 'other side' of debates, when in fact, looking at poll results and vox populi, they may indeed be by far an insignificant minority compared to popular opinion. They receive equal airtime supposedly in the 'in the interests of balanced journalism' but may in fact be endlessly dredging up tired subjects that the vast majority of people have no particular problem with. So while there may still be people who wish to outlaw homosexuality, return to the white Australia policy or pursue any number of obscure
demands, it is my firm belief that balance in journalism should be understood as accurately representing the balance of popular opinion -not banning unpopular thought, but also
not forced to constantly portray the views of the vast majority alongside marginal lobby groups and call that balance. Yes, free speech should prevail, free thought and free speech, but the amount of opinion coverage that is broadcast or printed should be based on how common that opinion happens to be. [Facts are a different matter, no matter how unpopular it may be, if a person can provide compelling evidence in some debate, it should be given all the prominence a reporter feels necessary. The arguments above are simply about opinions, just unsubstantiated opinion should receive coverage based on how representative it is of majority opinion, but 'facts'
as in evidence of some sort, should not be edited out even if they are unpopular]
2. No, a story should not be withheld because it may provide one example of unbalanced content. Balance refers to an overall intention and effect over time. One unbalanced story can be counteracted in future, what is more important is that the pattern is evenhanded, and if it is fact or opinion, if it is true and enlightens the public regarding some issue it is worthy of inclusion.
Most issues are not so clear cut that a journalist can speak of consensus, so indeed some opposing sources and different angles lend variety and interest to a reporter's work. There is no harm in some stories giving a particular side of a story preference, as long as the other side receives fair treatment within a reasonable time. The only harm is when obvious bias clouds a reporter's judgment and they include unbalanced content regularly in a definite predictable pattern.
3 The story should be started early, but include space to allow for further developments so that the story is not out of date by the time it is printed. The people to interview are those who can give some explanation of what might happen next, and how long it may take. This may include the firefighters coordinating the effort, the building management, or even concerned family members, or even people who escaped the fire. The best approach is to start early and get as much possible information on background, what are the theories as to how the fire started. This fulfills a major expectation that although newspapers are limited to one report per day, and risk being old news, the expectation is that they provide more background and explanation, which is an advantage newspapers have over more high speed media. Also, the story should be kept flexible, include options, write that the situation is unpredictable, emphasise the state of the fire at the time of writing the story. People can accept the limitations of any medium if the journalist acknowledges those limitations, the story can still be valid even if events change between writing and printing. Play to the strengths of written news, quotes and human angles, and information that cannot fit into a thirty second bulletin.
4. The inverted pyramid makes the most sense economically, in an economy of time and space.
It gives readers the best options to scan and get to the news they want, whether quickly glancing through one story, or over several. For reporters it is also efficient, as important facts can be preserved even when stories need shortening [as the end can be shortened which is a very simple way to crop a story, yet the integrity of the article is preserved], it speeds up the placement of facts within the structure of a story, and of course makes it easier to decide what should fit in the story in the first place. It is an efficient technique for both producers and consumers of news.
Balance is a crucial issue. Now of course most topics are far too complex to just say "this is popular opinion, I will brook no dissent," however there is also no legitimate argument to say that balance is more important than truth. Today multiculturalism is accepted, and racism is offensive. According to the ludicrous theory of balance at all costs, there should always be equal time and space given to the neo nazis as there is to normal people. This is unacceptable. Should cigarette companies be given equal chance to eternally rebut anti cancer experts who tell us for a fact that smoking causes cancer. If a reporter interviews fifty people on the street, and forty five people oppose a nuclear plant being built locally, should the reporter condense all the responses to one for and one against. Is that balance, or skewing arguments and results to make it look like both sides balance out?
This is a vital question. Balance is not the be all and end all of reporting. If balance really is the most desirable attribute of good reporting, that would mean, in every debate, the lunatic fringe must be given equal airtime against popular consensus. Everyone has the right to have their opinions heard, and the right to reply to comments by others, but that right should extend to the minimum required to explain their stated position. Nobody would argue that even offensive people do not have the right to their own opinions or comments, but in journalism that should mean a person receives only what is required to logically set out their argument. It should not mean that if the majority of people oppose racism that every minute advocating multiculturalism, or presenting it in a positive light, entitles others to an equal amount of vilification or hateful comments just because they hold an opposing position.
This whole topic is very important. I believe that for too long, society has been subjected to the prejudices of special interest groups who masquerade as the 'other side' of debates, when in fact, looking at poll results and vox populi, they may indeed be by far an insignificant minority compared to popular opinion. They receive equal airtime supposedly in the 'in the interests of balanced journalism' but may in fact be endlessly dredging up tired subjects that the vast majority of people have no particular problem with. So while there may still be people who wish to outlaw homosexuality, return to the white Australia policy or pursue any number of obscure
demands, it is my firm belief that balance in journalism should be understood as accurately representing the balance of popular opinion -not banning unpopular thought, but also
not forced to constantly portray the views of the vast majority alongside marginal lobby groups and call that balance. Yes, free speech should prevail, free thought and free speech, but the amount of opinion coverage that is broadcast or printed should be based on how common that opinion happens to be. [Facts are a different matter, no matter how unpopular it may be, if a person can provide compelling evidence in some debate, it should be given all the prominence a reporter feels necessary. The arguments above are simply about opinions, just unsubstantiated opinion should receive coverage based on how representative it is of majority opinion, but 'facts'
as in evidence of some sort, should not be edited out even if they are unpopular]
2. No, a story should not be withheld because it may provide one example of unbalanced content. Balance refers to an overall intention and effect over time. One unbalanced story can be counteracted in future, what is more important is that the pattern is evenhanded, and if it is fact or opinion, if it is true and enlightens the public regarding some issue it is worthy of inclusion.
Most issues are not so clear cut that a journalist can speak of consensus, so indeed some opposing sources and different angles lend variety and interest to a reporter's work. There is no harm in some stories giving a particular side of a story preference, as long as the other side receives fair treatment within a reasonable time. The only harm is when obvious bias clouds a reporter's judgment and they include unbalanced content regularly in a definite predictable pattern.
3 The story should be started early, but include space to allow for further developments so that the story is not out of date by the time it is printed. The people to interview are those who can give some explanation of what might happen next, and how long it may take. This may include the firefighters coordinating the effort, the building management, or even concerned family members, or even people who escaped the fire. The best approach is to start early and get as much possible information on background, what are the theories as to how the fire started. This fulfills a major expectation that although newspapers are limited to one report per day, and risk being old news, the expectation is that they provide more background and explanation, which is an advantage newspapers have over more high speed media. Also, the story should be kept flexible, include options, write that the situation is unpredictable, emphasise the state of the fire at the time of writing the story. People can accept the limitations of any medium if the journalist acknowledges those limitations, the story can still be valid even if events change between writing and printing. Play to the strengths of written news, quotes and human angles, and information that cannot fit into a thirty second bulletin.
4. The inverted pyramid makes the most sense economically, in an economy of time and space.
It gives readers the best options to scan and get to the news they want, whether quickly glancing through one story, or over several. For reporters it is also efficient, as important facts can be preserved even when stories need shortening [as the end can be shortened which is a very simple way to crop a story, yet the integrity of the article is preserved], it speeds up the placement of facts within the structure of a story, and of course makes it easier to decide what should fit in the story in the first place. It is an efficient technique for both producers and consumers of news.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Week 5 A sad prospect.
1.I read mostly the first few pages, and column 8 [in the 'Stay in Touch' section] along with some letters and caricatures. This is because I find the minor stories most interesting as they have the least opinion, especially the stories about crimes. As Joe Friday would say, crime stories can be relied upon to provide 'Just the facts, ma'am'. They also provide an entertainment value, people are interested in the ingenious schemes developed by criminals to avoid detection, or enthralled by damning daily updates from inquests and trials. National political stories are very interesting, but international stories are extremely unreliable unless provided by overseas correspondents, Reuters or AP etc. International stories written in Astralia are just cluttered with secondhand analysis from pseudo experts and assumptions by journalists who are not in the target country. Even local political stories are very biased by opinion unless they rely upon a mixture of polling, comparison of numbers/estimates, vox populi, and the opinions of "experts" from both sides of a debate. The best source of this mixture is often the letters themselves, not opinion writers. Many times the author of a letter will write in with facts that explode the prevailing cant, or with pithy rebukes to illogical statements by politicians. Letters are also ideal for concisely pointing out how some arguments are completely hypocritical or inconsistent. They are also more honest than many journalists, because they are open about their bias and preferences, while many professionals [sadly the majority of News employees] strive to sway public opinion but will not admit their own prejudice. Column 8 again is a source of simple entertainment, and an outlet for readers to interact with the paper on more lighthearted subjects.
2. I spend much more time watching television than reading newspapers. I read a lot all day but not much of the newspaper. This is difficult to explain. It is not easy to get a paper on the way to the train, in bigger areas it would be easy, most provide papers at the station, but not in the boondocks where I live. Throughout the day I have no time to read in the library, and by evening at home I am not in the mood. Also, to be honest, television, especially Insight and Lateline, are world class in providing a forum for debate of political matters, my primary interst in any news consumption. Then Media Watch and Insiders cover the whole week, one in the media and the other in politics, and can be quite comprehensive and efficient at compressing a whole week long election year news cycle. Any media must provide a forum for debate, not just unargued commentary. Looking at lateline it allows politicians to debate each other, Insiders allows journalists to debate politics, Insight allows for normal voters to debate their concerns with each other and politicians, and Media watch debates the media as a whole singlehandedly.
The newspapers, to get more readers would need to allow for more difference of opinion among writers, and force individual writers to cover data and polls even if they do not support their own opinions. So, basically, more interviews, more tables of comparison, more quotes from politicians and anything that deepens and enriches the feature stories. Feature stories on their own, or the grand narrative style arguments of Piers Ackerman and Miranda devine, where they fabricate little potted histories of an issue to bolster their own assumptions, are the style MOST GUARANTEED TO BORE AND ANNOY READERS. Nobody wants the history or parameters of a debate to be dictated to them by sycophantic converts to a political cause. Nobody. Long opinion pieces simply make a paper flat and bland. The Australian fancies itself as a bastion of deep analysis and evenhanded thrashing out of issues. It is actually a home for the longwinded and self inflating to pass themselves off as authorities. Everybody wants more interaction, more diversity, and yes, deep data, specific data, mature and unemotional weighing up of facts, but not people giving contrived far fetched self justification and passing that off as deep analysis.
3. The fact is, if the story was serious enough, not only would a trick intro be unnecessary, it would possibly appear inappropriate. If a trick intro is being considered, possibly it is for the very reason that the story is so bland it needs 'spicing up', not in an irrelevant way, but just enough to gain reader interest in the split second of decision. So, one could proceed with the intro, but bear in mind it will completely change the tenor of the article. Probably not a bad idea though, because stopping to think what other intro the story may have, it would be even weaker than the story itself, so unlikely to be undermined by an irreverent intro, if anything, it would be enhanced. The worst ase scenario is that it would be so unappealing that nobody decides to read it at all, it does not sound so weighty or hard hitting that there will be an outcry if it was not treated with the utmost gravity. If it is such a serious story, it would probably not even be desirable to use a trick intro anyway.
4. There are many options depending on the problem. If the story is too cluttered with facts to summarise easily, one may be forced to oversimplify the most interesting angle or leave it inconclusive, but with just enough info to spur the reader on. It is not always possible to properly set the scene for a whole story, or give a synopsis in the intro. Start with an intro to a part of the story thought to be most interesting or with the broadest appeal. Then just give the other elements as a bonus. Also, get colleagues to compete for the best first line. Just remember, it is better to just open with one angle to the story that gives you the best chances, there is no law that says you must reveal all in an intro, or capture every possible point of interest, indeed that may lead to an overstretch which actually puts people off who might otherwise have read it. Nobody likes to be cheated,but who is upset by getting a bonus that was not advertised? Only promise what you can deliver, but do not be afraid to deliver more than you promise.
5. Sub editors see such interference as part of their job, so there is no point trying to get exceptional treatment. Confronting people or trying to retain absolute creative control of everything you do, even after it has left your desk do is impossible. A first year communications student has no idea of the power structures in a newspaper beyond what they are taught, but presumably it would be rare to see journalists in control of the process, or complaining about interference. The best approach would be to check for future reference if you can keep intro's that are important to the story. If the sub ed is not amenable to this, then the best approach would be to get your sources to complain, because they can go to another paper if they are not satisfied, while an employee cannot [well, it's tricky]. Make it clear to higher powers that the complaint is not that the sub editor changed the intro, because that would appear too precious, but because the effect was wrong and damaging with sources. If the sources really are upset, they can make themselves plainly heard, they are just as valuable to stories as sub editors are.
Of course some people insist on being difficult and finding fault or changing work just for the sake of it, again, focus only on the occasions when this makes a mess of things, so that you can justify your argument that the sub editor is having a deleterious impact on the stories.
Do not allow it to degenerate into a personality clash.
39% of news consumers mentioned the ABC as their main source of t.v. news, while only 15% relied on SBS for that function. However, intense scrutiny of the ABC in the last decade, for various reasons by such individuals as Brian Harridine, Santo Santoro and Richard Alston along with the withdrawal of Jonestown and controversial board appointments including that of Keith Winshuttle could wear down the national broadcaster's image of freedom from executive interference by a hostile federal government, and lead to SBS overtaking it in terms of independence or at least perceived independence as it could be argued that in the latter case the commercial sponsors have sought less editorial control than the non-commercial ABC.
2. I spend much more time watching television than reading newspapers. I read a lot all day but not much of the newspaper. This is difficult to explain. It is not easy to get a paper on the way to the train, in bigger areas it would be easy, most provide papers at the station, but not in the boondocks where I live. Throughout the day I have no time to read in the library, and by evening at home I am not in the mood. Also, to be honest, television, especially Insight and Lateline, are world class in providing a forum for debate of political matters, my primary interst in any news consumption. Then Media Watch and Insiders cover the whole week, one in the media and the other in politics, and can be quite comprehensive and efficient at compressing a whole week long election year news cycle. Any media must provide a forum for debate, not just unargued commentary. Looking at lateline it allows politicians to debate each other, Insiders allows journalists to debate politics, Insight allows for normal voters to debate their concerns with each other and politicians, and Media watch debates the media as a whole singlehandedly.
The newspapers, to get more readers would need to allow for more difference of opinion among writers, and force individual writers to cover data and polls even if they do not support their own opinions. So, basically, more interviews, more tables of comparison, more quotes from politicians and anything that deepens and enriches the feature stories. Feature stories on their own, or the grand narrative style arguments of Piers Ackerman and Miranda devine, where they fabricate little potted histories of an issue to bolster their own assumptions, are the style MOST GUARANTEED TO BORE AND ANNOY READERS. Nobody wants the history or parameters of a debate to be dictated to them by sycophantic converts to a political cause. Nobody. Long opinion pieces simply make a paper flat and bland. The Australian fancies itself as a bastion of deep analysis and evenhanded thrashing out of issues. It is actually a home for the longwinded and self inflating to pass themselves off as authorities. Everybody wants more interaction, more diversity, and yes, deep data, specific data, mature and unemotional weighing up of facts, but not people giving contrived far fetched self justification and passing that off as deep analysis.
3. The fact is, if the story was serious enough, not only would a trick intro be unnecessary, it would possibly appear inappropriate. If a trick intro is being considered, possibly it is for the very reason that the story is so bland it needs 'spicing up', not in an irrelevant way, but just enough to gain reader interest in the split second of decision. So, one could proceed with the intro, but bear in mind it will completely change the tenor of the article. Probably not a bad idea though, because stopping to think what other intro the story may have, it would be even weaker than the story itself, so unlikely to be undermined by an irreverent intro, if anything, it would be enhanced. The worst ase scenario is that it would be so unappealing that nobody decides to read it at all, it does not sound so weighty or hard hitting that there will be an outcry if it was not treated with the utmost gravity. If it is such a serious story, it would probably not even be desirable to use a trick intro anyway.
4. There are many options depending on the problem. If the story is too cluttered with facts to summarise easily, one may be forced to oversimplify the most interesting angle or leave it inconclusive, but with just enough info to spur the reader on. It is not always possible to properly set the scene for a whole story, or give a synopsis in the intro. Start with an intro to a part of the story thought to be most interesting or with the broadest appeal. Then just give the other elements as a bonus. Also, get colleagues to compete for the best first line. Just remember, it is better to just open with one angle to the story that gives you the best chances, there is no law that says you must reveal all in an intro, or capture every possible point of interest, indeed that may lead to an overstretch which actually puts people off who might otherwise have read it. Nobody likes to be cheated,but who is upset by getting a bonus that was not advertised? Only promise what you can deliver, but do not be afraid to deliver more than you promise.
5. Sub editors see such interference as part of their job, so there is no point trying to get exceptional treatment. Confronting people or trying to retain absolute creative control of everything you do, even after it has left your desk do is impossible. A first year communications student has no idea of the power structures in a newspaper beyond what they are taught, but presumably it would be rare to see journalists in control of the process, or complaining about interference. The best approach would be to check for future reference if you can keep intro's that are important to the story. If the sub ed is not amenable to this, then the best approach would be to get your sources to complain, because they can go to another paper if they are not satisfied, while an employee cannot [well, it's tricky]. Make it clear to higher powers that the complaint is not that the sub editor changed the intro, because that would appear too precious, but because the effect was wrong and damaging with sources. If the sources really are upset, they can make themselves plainly heard, they are just as valuable to stories as sub editors are.
Of course some people insist on being difficult and finding fault or changing work just for the sake of it, again, focus only on the occasions when this makes a mess of things, so that you can justify your argument that the sub editor is having a deleterious impact on the stories.
Do not allow it to degenerate into a personality clash.
39% of news consumers mentioned the ABC as their main source of t.v. news, while only 15% relied on SBS for that function. However, intense scrutiny of the ABC in the last decade, for various reasons by such individuals as Brian Harridine, Santo Santoro and Richard Alston along with the withdrawal of Jonestown and controversial board appointments including that of Keith Winshuttle could wear down the national broadcaster's image of freedom from executive interference by a hostile federal government, and lead to SBS overtaking it in terms of independence or at least perceived independence as it could be argued that in the latter case the commercial sponsors have sought less editorial control than the non-commercial ABC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)