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