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.