1. You are a reporter and an important source invites you to dinner. The source says it is the only way you will get the information you need and insists on paying. Based on past practice, your newspaper will refuse to reimburse your costs. What do you do?
We compromise – I go to dinner but I pay for my own food. As it is mostly ‘meeting halfway’ the person may agree. If not… I would probably let them pay and get the information, sorry!
2. While the travel editor was on sick leave, you took a two-week trip to Spain, courtesy of a major airline. During the trip, the airline insisted that the resulting story be positive, and demanded the right to vet and change your copy, saying an advertising contract depended upon it. It was the worst trip of your life. What do you do?
Mention all the positives that aren’t lies. If there aren’t any, I’d look back into the history of the airline and maybe refer back to some positive stories or reports about their quality of service. I wouldn’t directly associate my opinion with those comments, but would include them to the airline happy. I would include a couple of negatives, interspersing them with the positives and if possible taking the spotlight off the airline overall with more focus on the weather, a specific flight attendant, etc.
3. A reliable source tells you of an error in your story, which has been published in this morning’s paper. This means that you must notify the editor and compose a correction for publication. But the source is not concerned about the error and insists that this not be done. Instead they want you to write another small story, based on a new angle. Your admission of error will cost you a payrise. What do you do?
It would pain me greatly… but I would have to notify the editor. The risk of it getting out regardless of what the source says would be far worse in terms of ever getting a payrise than admitting it on the day of publication.
4. You are the court reporter on a major regional newspaper. A teenager convicted of a prostitution offence approaches you. She is beside herself with emotion and says that if you write the story her parents will disown her, her friends will shun her, and worst of all, her partner – who is terminally ill, who she is supporting financially and emotionally in the last days of his life, and who thinks she works in a bank – will not be able to handle finding out how she really earns her money. Your newspaper normally always reports such cases. What will you do? Why?
I will report it. There is never a good time to report a story like that in any case. It will never be something the person wants made public, this story should not be given special treatment.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Online News and Perils of Defamation
Chapter 13, Online News: journalism’s strands converge
1. What do media companies need to do in relation to convergence before they can expect their journalists to work in converged news rooms?
Similar to process involved at the $US2.5million Ifra Newsplex, journalists should be trained and provided with the expertise necessary to work across multiple media environments.
2. What would be the likely outcome if someone who just wanted to work as a print journalist, because they would be nervous on television, was told by the company they worked for that they must report for television as well as print?
There are obviously several possibilities, but if they were to keep their job they would likely have to undertaken moderate training if they felt unable to pick it up themselves.
3. Is journalistic convergence just a trendy fad that will run its course then be forgotten about?
The notion of journalism convergence will always be an option, however I feel it may be avoided in the meantime until technological developments allow it to become more practical and efficient. In the mean time it is only appropriate in limited circumstances.
4. What will be the long-term outcome in Australia of relaxed cross-media ownership laws?
They will be less competition, fewer opposing voices and consequently a biased and limited collection of news and information within the country.
5. If you had a crystal ball, what would it tell you about the future of radio, television, and the web?
Television and radio will always be present in one way or another, however radio may sink into the background as music video clips become the new norm. The web is so becoming so broad and dynamic, it is already merging both television (VNR’s, Youtube) and radio (podcasts) into the one medium. Consequently, I feel TV and radio will always exist… however the lines may be blurred as to where it stops being the ‘web’ and it becomes its own media format.
6. Should the idea of multiskilling be integrated into every course in university journalism studies? Why?
Yes, because as Conley and Lamble (2006) explain, “journalism students who can become confident working across two or more different media platforms will dramatically increase their chances of finding employment and building a solid career.”
7. Is society getting to a point where life as we know it could not survive without the Internet and web?
‘Life as we know it’, definitely. Life however, I doubt it.
Chapter 17: Perils of Defamation
1. You are a newspaper editor. One of your reporters has made an honest mistake that defamed someone. You publish an apology. The person defamed is not satisfied and wants you to print a full page feature story promoting her business or she will sue. What will you do?
If she wants a story demand that she collects the information and puts it together herself. Makes a full page story with little work, aside from touching up her obvious bias. Certainly works better than being sued.
2. Would you support a ‘public figure’ defence for the media that would sharply limit the rights of public figures, ranging from premiers to cricketers and rock stars, to take out defamation suits against the media? Why?
No. Although it would make life easier as a journalist in the short term, out publications would eventually lose all credibility as they published anything without a second thought.
3. You have promised a confidential source that you will not identify her. However, you discover that what she told you is untrue. Your newspaper is sued for defamation. You try to contact the person but she has vanished. Do you reveal her identity in court? Why?
Yes I would reveal her identity. There is no fear of burning the bridge of trust we shared as a source-journalist relationship if she already did that herself. I wouldn’t want her as a source anymore so it wouldn’t phase me.
1. What do media companies need to do in relation to convergence before they can expect their journalists to work in converged news rooms?
Similar to process involved at the $US2.5million Ifra Newsplex, journalists should be trained and provided with the expertise necessary to work across multiple media environments.
2. What would be the likely outcome if someone who just wanted to work as a print journalist, because they would be nervous on television, was told by the company they worked for that they must report for television as well as print?
There are obviously several possibilities, but if they were to keep their job they would likely have to undertaken moderate training if they felt unable to pick it up themselves.
3. Is journalistic convergence just a trendy fad that will run its course then be forgotten about?
The notion of journalism convergence will always be an option, however I feel it may be avoided in the meantime until technological developments allow it to become more practical and efficient. In the mean time it is only appropriate in limited circumstances.
4. What will be the long-term outcome in Australia of relaxed cross-media ownership laws?
They will be less competition, fewer opposing voices and consequently a biased and limited collection of news and information within the country.
5. If you had a crystal ball, what would it tell you about the future of radio, television, and the web?
Television and radio will always be present in one way or another, however radio may sink into the background as music video clips become the new norm. The web is so becoming so broad and dynamic, it is already merging both television (VNR’s, Youtube) and radio (podcasts) into the one medium. Consequently, I feel TV and radio will always exist… however the lines may be blurred as to where it stops being the ‘web’ and it becomes its own media format.
6. Should the idea of multiskilling be integrated into every course in university journalism studies? Why?
Yes, because as Conley and Lamble (2006) explain, “journalism students who can become confident working across two or more different media platforms will dramatically increase their chances of finding employment and building a solid career.”
7. Is society getting to a point where life as we know it could not survive without the Internet and web?
‘Life as we know it’, definitely. Life however, I doubt it.
Chapter 17: Perils of Defamation
1. You are a newspaper editor. One of your reporters has made an honest mistake that defamed someone. You publish an apology. The person defamed is not satisfied and wants you to print a full page feature story promoting her business or she will sue. What will you do?
If she wants a story demand that she collects the information and puts it together herself. Makes a full page story with little work, aside from touching up her obvious bias. Certainly works better than being sued.
2. Would you support a ‘public figure’ defence for the media that would sharply limit the rights of public figures, ranging from premiers to cricketers and rock stars, to take out defamation suits against the media? Why?
No. Although it would make life easier as a journalist in the short term, out publications would eventually lose all credibility as they published anything without a second thought.
3. You have promised a confidential source that you will not identify her. However, you discover that what she told you is untrue. Your newspaper is sued for defamation. You try to contact the person but she has vanished. Do you reveal her identity in court? Why?
Yes I would reveal her identity. There is no fear of burning the bridge of trust we shared as a source-journalist relationship if she already did that herself. I wouldn’t want her as a source anymore so it wouldn’t phase me.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Broadcast Journalism: The World’s Town Crier
1. Do you think the ABC should be privatised? What impact might this have on broadcast journalism? If you disagree, could the government funding process be made less ‘political’?
No, I don't think the ABC should be privatised. The other networks wouldn't like it and the ABC would lose its reputation. The funding process could be less political but despite its political nature I think it remains relatively balanced.
2. You are a television news director with two strong job applications. One is from a ‘telegenic’ male, 28, with reasonable skill and experience. The other is from a female, 38. She is of ‘average’ appearance but has considerable skill and experience. Your present reporting staff consists of four females and one male, none older than 32. Who do you hire, and why?
Reasonable and considerable a slightly ambiguous words, but I suppose the female would have more skill and experience. I would hire the female. We already have a male who can appeal and report for that particular demographic, yet we have no one over the age of 32. That and the fact she has more skill and experience, I would hire her.
3. Given the strengths and weaknesses of each medium, which do you think is the ‘best communicator’ on any given story: radio, television, the web, or newspapers?
It would depend on the story, but I suppose overall I would say Television. It’s easily accessible, reliable, and consistent. With the addition of VNRs however, the web is quickly catching up.
4. During the last federal election campaign do you think the broadcast media focused more on issues or personalities? What could have been done better?
Personalities. There was so much on the problems with Mark Latham and his relationship with Labour, in addition to the tension between John Howard and Peter Costello. It would have been better if they were less tabloid and focused more on the policies and ideas.
No, I don't think the ABC should be privatised. The other networks wouldn't like it and the ABC would lose its reputation. The funding process could be less political but despite its political nature I think it remains relatively balanced.
2. You are a television news director with two strong job applications. One is from a ‘telegenic’ male, 28, with reasonable skill and experience. The other is from a female, 38. She is of ‘average’ appearance but has considerable skill and experience. Your present reporting staff consists of four females and one male, none older than 32. Who do you hire, and why?
Reasonable and considerable a slightly ambiguous words, but I suppose the female would have more skill and experience. I would hire the female. We already have a male who can appeal and report for that particular demographic, yet we have no one over the age of 32. That and the fact she has more skill and experience, I would hire her.
3. Given the strengths and weaknesses of each medium, which do you think is the ‘best communicator’ on any given story: radio, television, the web, or newspapers?
It would depend on the story, but I suppose overall I would say Television. It’s easily accessible, reliable, and consistent. With the addition of VNRs however, the web is quickly catching up.
4. During the last federal election campaign do you think the broadcast media focused more on issues or personalities? What could have been done better?
Personalities. There was so much on the problems with Mark Latham and his relationship with Labour, in addition to the tension between John Howard and Peter Costello. It would have been better if they were less tabloid and focused more on the policies and ideas.
Reporting For Duty
1. You are a police reporter for a major city newspaper. A young man who seems credible tells you that he has been bashed by an off-duty police officer. He has witnesses and a medical report. A police officer tells you that no one will speak to you again if the newspaper runs anything, regardless of who writes it. The chief-of-staff says that if you do not write the story you will be removed from the round. What do you do?
I would publish the story. I would highly doubt the officer is right when he tells me no one will speak to me anymore. I would imagine people would be more likely to isolate the officer who brutally bashed somebody, than the person who reported it. Perhaps that is naïve but regardless I would rather stay on the round and be unpopular.
2. A distraught woman convicted of stealing a pair of stockings from a store approaches you after her court case and says that she will commit suicide if you publish anything. Your newspaper has a policy of publishing all such cases, but it will never know about this one unless you reveal it. You really believe the woman might be suicidal. What do you do? Why?
I would be very sceptical of the woman being suicidal, but seeing as the question tells me I’m not and I believe her, in that case I would not publish it. There is no way any article is more valuable than someone’s life, let alone a stocking theft story.
3. A very famous and very attractive personality gets hopelessly drunk at a party, causes chaos, and on the way home is picked up for drink-driving. You get a tip from a police contact and attend court where the personality is convicted of being three times over the limit, fined, and disqualified from driving. You are the only journalist in court. The personality later phones you and begs you not to write the story because it will ruin their career. They are so desperate they offer everything from sex to money and a free holiday if you do not report on the case. What will you do? Why?
It all brutal honesty, it would depend how much money they offered. If it meant more than the career pathways I could achieve through publishing this story, I would take the money. If not, I would publish the story.
4. Although it is against the law, a juror in a high-profile murder trial approaches you and says there will be a hung jury in the case because two jury members have accepted bribes of $100,000 each from two corrupt high-ranking police officers who have paid money on condition that the jurors do not return a guilty verdict. What will you do? Why?
I would report it. It’s not my fault the juror broke the law by revealing such information to me. It certainly has several of the news values as well.
I would publish the story. I would highly doubt the officer is right when he tells me no one will speak to me anymore. I would imagine people would be more likely to isolate the officer who brutally bashed somebody, than the person who reported it. Perhaps that is naïve but regardless I would rather stay on the round and be unpopular.
2. A distraught woman convicted of stealing a pair of stockings from a store approaches you after her court case and says that she will commit suicide if you publish anything. Your newspaper has a policy of publishing all such cases, but it will never know about this one unless you reveal it. You really believe the woman might be suicidal. What do you do? Why?
I would be very sceptical of the woman being suicidal, but seeing as the question tells me I’m not and I believe her, in that case I would not publish it. There is no way any article is more valuable than someone’s life, let alone a stocking theft story.
3. A very famous and very attractive personality gets hopelessly drunk at a party, causes chaos, and on the way home is picked up for drink-driving. You get a tip from a police contact and attend court where the personality is convicted of being three times over the limit, fined, and disqualified from driving. You are the only journalist in court. The personality later phones you and begs you not to write the story because it will ruin their career. They are so desperate they offer everything from sex to money and a free holiday if you do not report on the case. What will you do? Why?
It all brutal honesty, it would depend how much money they offered. If it meant more than the career pathways I could achieve through publishing this story, I would take the money. If not, I would publish the story.
4. Although it is against the law, a juror in a high-profile murder trial approaches you and says there will be a hung jury in the case because two jury members have accepted bribes of $100,000 each from two corrupt high-ranking police officers who have paid money on condition that the jurors do not return a guilty verdict. What will you do? Why?
I would report it. It’s not my fault the juror broke the law by revealing such information to me. It certainly has several of the news values as well.
The Story Factory
1. A confidential source has tipped you off about what could be the story of the year, but they would prefer you to wait a day to write it. The source admits that another media outlet might have it too. You feel you need at least two days on it to do a good job. But it’s been a slow news day, and if you tell the chief-of-staff, you will be expected to write it to the best of your ability today. What do you do?
I wouldn’t tell the chief-of-staff. If it would take two days to do a decent job I definitely wouldn’t try and publish it that day, it would be tomorrow at the earliest. Yes another media outlet might have it too and may publish that very day, but if the story requires two days to do satisfactorily I would rather have a brilliant piece on the story of the year, than breaking news with limited facts and no real story.
Two days can be an awful long time in the media world for some news items, for others two days is nothing. For something that could be the ‘story of the year’, I would imagine it would still be a hot topic two days later. In fact, the breaking news two days earlier could help stir interest, resulting in even better readership when your story is published.
I’m not sure if I would wait the whole two days earlier. The source only asked me to wait a day, so depending on the news item and my access to information I would try and get it done in one day instead of two.
I know it is important to have trust from the chief-of-staff, but if I came to them the next day with a fabulous story on the story of the year, they would be grateful to have it even if another media outlet broke with the initial news the day before. I’m sure he would understand my respect for the sources wishes, especially as a ‘story of the year’ type story is usually ongoing and therefore we may need the source in the future.
2. After a tip from an inside source you work on an article about filth in the kitchen of a major resort which has allegedly resulted in several guests and staff becoming ill. In the final stages of preparing your article you seek comment from the resort’s manager, who is hostile and refuses to comment. A short time later you receive a phone call from a leading public relations practitioner who tells you that the resort has been losing money and any bad publicity would force it to close with the loss of 120 jobs. Your source is one of the people who could be out of work. What will you do? Why?
I would publish the story. When the manager refused to comment he forfeited his right to explain and/or defend himself, and he if he valued his customers returning and the staff valued their jobs they should have maintained higher standards of hygiene. It would be unfortunate to burn the source, but seeing as they would be out of a job I don’t see how they could be in a position for me to use them as a source for a story again, and consequently I would feel fairly safe burning that bridge.
3. You are the late sub-editor for a daily newspaper. It is nearly 10pm. A man who identifies himself as a solicitor rings and says that a judge issued an order, after the journalist departed, prohibiting publication of a defendant’s name. He sounds drunk. The story, with the defendant’s name, is on the front page, which is about to be sent to the press. There is no time to call anyone without delaying the production process. What do you do?
During the phone call I would ask for details of the solicitor, for verification of his identity and his position. Name, clients, etc. If he failed to provide any I would inform him then and there that we are unable to alter the articles on such requests unless we are informed with adequate evidence that such an order has in fact been issued.
4. You are a junior journalist and you find yourself caught in the middle of an argument between the editor, who wants you to take one angle on a crime story, and the police rounds reporter who says the editor does not understand the full implications of the story and you should take a totally different angle. What will you do? Why?
Well it’s hard to answer without knowing the story, but I would compromise with the way I wrote as best I could to please all, but where there is no room for change I would cater for the police. They are a valuable source I would not want to burn, not to mention they are aware of the severity of the situation despite it possibly making a less interesting story. The only exception I can think of is if disobeying the editor would cost me my job. Better have a job with burned bridges than no job at all. The editor should respect the police’s advice as the editor takes legal responsibility for what a newspaper prints.
I wouldn’t tell the chief-of-staff. If it would take two days to do a decent job I definitely wouldn’t try and publish it that day, it would be tomorrow at the earliest. Yes another media outlet might have it too and may publish that very day, but if the story requires two days to do satisfactorily I would rather have a brilliant piece on the story of the year, than breaking news with limited facts and no real story.
Two days can be an awful long time in the media world for some news items, for others two days is nothing. For something that could be the ‘story of the year’, I would imagine it would still be a hot topic two days later. In fact, the breaking news two days earlier could help stir interest, resulting in even better readership when your story is published.
I’m not sure if I would wait the whole two days earlier. The source only asked me to wait a day, so depending on the news item and my access to information I would try and get it done in one day instead of two.
I know it is important to have trust from the chief-of-staff, but if I came to them the next day with a fabulous story on the story of the year, they would be grateful to have it even if another media outlet broke with the initial news the day before. I’m sure he would understand my respect for the sources wishes, especially as a ‘story of the year’ type story is usually ongoing and therefore we may need the source in the future.
2. After a tip from an inside source you work on an article about filth in the kitchen of a major resort which has allegedly resulted in several guests and staff becoming ill. In the final stages of preparing your article you seek comment from the resort’s manager, who is hostile and refuses to comment. A short time later you receive a phone call from a leading public relations practitioner who tells you that the resort has been losing money and any bad publicity would force it to close with the loss of 120 jobs. Your source is one of the people who could be out of work. What will you do? Why?
I would publish the story. When the manager refused to comment he forfeited his right to explain and/or defend himself, and he if he valued his customers returning and the staff valued their jobs they should have maintained higher standards of hygiene. It would be unfortunate to burn the source, but seeing as they would be out of a job I don’t see how they could be in a position for me to use them as a source for a story again, and consequently I would feel fairly safe burning that bridge.
3. You are the late sub-editor for a daily newspaper. It is nearly 10pm. A man who identifies himself as a solicitor rings and says that a judge issued an order, after the journalist departed, prohibiting publication of a defendant’s name. He sounds drunk. The story, with the defendant’s name, is on the front page, which is about to be sent to the press. There is no time to call anyone without delaying the production process. What do you do?
During the phone call I would ask for details of the solicitor, for verification of his identity and his position. Name, clients, etc. If he failed to provide any I would inform him then and there that we are unable to alter the articles on such requests unless we are informed with adequate evidence that such an order has in fact been issued.
4. You are a junior journalist and you find yourself caught in the middle of an argument between the editor, who wants you to take one angle on a crime story, and the police rounds reporter who says the editor does not understand the full implications of the story and you should take a totally different angle. What will you do? Why?
Well it’s hard to answer without knowing the story, but I would compromise with the way I wrote as best I could to please all, but where there is no room for change I would cater for the police. They are a valuable source I would not want to burn, not to mention they are aware of the severity of the situation despite it possibly making a less interesting story. The only exception I can think of is if disobeying the editor would cost me my job. Better have a job with burned bridges than no job at all. The editor should respect the police’s advice as the editor takes legal responsibility for what a newspaper prints.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Interviewing and Computer Assisted Reporting
Chapter 9:
1. Which would you choose: a direct quotation that is accurate but unclear and embarrassing to the speaker, or one that is clear but is inexact and makes the speaker appear more eloquent than he or she really is?
Well it would depend on my agenda, and whether I wanted the speaker to appear eloquent or not. Generally however, I would choose the unclear but accurate quote and try paraphrasing or focusing on particular parts of the sentence to help convey the message.
2. Is it ever justified for a journalist to intimidate a source with a threat of ‘public exposure’ to get important public information?
Yes, especially if they were bluffing.
3. Is it a reasonable strategy for a journalist – male or female – to use ‘personal chemistry’ to get information from sources when there is public interest at stake.
Obviously there are instances where it is reasonable and when it isn’t. In principle I find it reasonable, but there are guidelines that should not be crossed.
4. What potential dangers could come back to haunt a journalist who gets too close to a source?
If the journalist sells them out and reveals information the source wanted secret, or if they write with extreme bias.
5. Who is the more inarticulate, word-mangling public figure regularly in the news at present? Should you feel sorry for them and clean up their direct quotes or let them stew in their own frying pan.
George W. Bush. Let him stew!
Chapter 14:
1. Read the cover story of last weekend’s edition of The Weekend Australian Magazine. Discuss the introduction, the intro sentence, and the writing style. Was there a justifier? Did the closer tie back to the introduction?
The intro sentence immediately established the article as a feature article as opposed to hard breaking news. The closer didn't really tie in with the introduction at all, and I did feel the writer gave a clear justified purpose for writing the story, however it occured more within the second sentence.
2. Should newspapers give more prominence to feature stories? Is promoting good writing a way to increase newspaper sales, or do you think people are too busy or too interested in hard news to really care.
It would have to depend on the newspapers target audience, but generally there could be more feature article content. However in terms of prominence, I don’t think features articles should ever be given front page over hard breaking news. They belong later on in the publication.
3. Should newspapers be expected to limit cheap ‘imported’ features about Hollywood stars and foreign royalty to make room for Australian writers and subjects? Or should the guiding factor be perceived to market forces?
Obviously it would depend on the publication, but I think the subject and content should go according to what the audience desires. If they are patriotic and want local news given special prominence, then so be it. If not, then not. I don’t feel that Australia should be included more just for the sake of it, unless the publication is actually intending to be representative of national news.
4. Would you like to be a full-time feature writer? Why or why not?
Yes, because I’ve always preferred subjective writing to objective.
5. How does being a feature writer differ from being a columnist?
A columnist usually has a consistent theme or topic for each edition, and is also more often focused on the opinions of the writer as opposed to a human interest story.
1. Which would you choose: a direct quotation that is accurate but unclear and embarrassing to the speaker, or one that is clear but is inexact and makes the speaker appear more eloquent than he or she really is?
Well it would depend on my agenda, and whether I wanted the speaker to appear eloquent or not. Generally however, I would choose the unclear but accurate quote and try paraphrasing or focusing on particular parts of the sentence to help convey the message.
2. Is it ever justified for a journalist to intimidate a source with a threat of ‘public exposure’ to get important public information?
Yes, especially if they were bluffing.
3. Is it a reasonable strategy for a journalist – male or female – to use ‘personal chemistry’ to get information from sources when there is public interest at stake.
Obviously there are instances where it is reasonable and when it isn’t. In principle I find it reasonable, but there are guidelines that should not be crossed.
4. What potential dangers could come back to haunt a journalist who gets too close to a source?
If the journalist sells them out and reveals information the source wanted secret, or if they write with extreme bias.
5. Who is the more inarticulate, word-mangling public figure regularly in the news at present? Should you feel sorry for them and clean up their direct quotes or let them stew in their own frying pan.
George W. Bush. Let him stew!
Chapter 14:
1. Read the cover story of last weekend’s edition of The Weekend Australian Magazine. Discuss the introduction, the intro sentence, and the writing style. Was there a justifier? Did the closer tie back to the introduction?
The intro sentence immediately established the article as a feature article as opposed to hard breaking news. The closer didn't really tie in with the introduction at all, and I did feel the writer gave a clear justified purpose for writing the story, however it occured more within the second sentence.
2. Should newspapers give more prominence to feature stories? Is promoting good writing a way to increase newspaper sales, or do you think people are too busy or too interested in hard news to really care.
It would have to depend on the newspapers target audience, but generally there could be more feature article content. However in terms of prominence, I don’t think features articles should ever be given front page over hard breaking news. They belong later on in the publication.
3. Should newspapers be expected to limit cheap ‘imported’ features about Hollywood stars and foreign royalty to make room for Australian writers and subjects? Or should the guiding factor be perceived to market forces?
Obviously it would depend on the publication, but I think the subject and content should go according to what the audience desires. If they are patriotic and want local news given special prominence, then so be it. If not, then not. I don’t feel that Australia should be included more just for the sake of it, unless the publication is actually intending to be representative of national news.
4. Would you like to be a full-time feature writer? Why or why not?
Yes, because I’ve always preferred subjective writing to objective.
5. How does being a feature writer differ from being a columnist?
A columnist usually has a consistent theme or topic for each edition, and is also more often focused on the opinions of the writer as opposed to a human interest story.
Small Path, Big Story
1. Which type of story would you rather do and why?
a) a ‘paper chase’ conducted entirely by computer and telephone that takes half the time it would have taken if you had left the office?
b) A ‘paper chase’ involving visits to half a dozen government offices and in-person interviews that puts you under extreme deadline pressure?
I feel obligated to say b), but in all honesty I am definitely and a) man.
2. Would you be willing to pursue a corruption investigation or an investigation into organised crime if it included many unpaid hours of extra work and personal risk?
It depends where I was in my career. At this stage, yes, because I would have a lot to gain from successfully completing that article/investigation. If I was where I wanted to stay, the extra work and risk probably wouldn’t be worth it for me.
3. Would you be willing to act together as a unit with competing reporters at a media conference in an effort to get maximum information if it meant giving up your best question, which you had intended to ask privately after the conference?
No. If my question was so good, chances are I would get adequate information either way, and better have good information no one else has than good information everybody has.
4. Who really owns government-held information: the government or the people? Why?
The government owns it to mediate to the people, because there must be guidelines for what is public information and what is not. As the government is responsible for determining that, it is appropriate that they are in charge of the information.
5. If you were assigned to report on the proceedings of a conference and you had to choose between attending different sessions being conducted at the same time, how would you decide which to attend?
If one were being televised or I had contacts in one who would share information, that would mean I could afford to miss it and therefore attend the other. Also, if it were a conference with question and comment time, I may choose a session with less people to better my chances of getting my question out there.
a) a ‘paper chase’ conducted entirely by computer and telephone that takes half the time it would have taken if you had left the office?
b) A ‘paper chase’ involving visits to half a dozen government offices and in-person interviews that puts you under extreme deadline pressure?
I feel obligated to say b), but in all honesty I am definitely and a) man.
2. Would you be willing to pursue a corruption investigation or an investigation into organised crime if it included many unpaid hours of extra work and personal risk?
It depends where I was in my career. At this stage, yes, because I would have a lot to gain from successfully completing that article/investigation. If I was where I wanted to stay, the extra work and risk probably wouldn’t be worth it for me.
3. Would you be willing to act together as a unit with competing reporters at a media conference in an effort to get maximum information if it meant giving up your best question, which you had intended to ask privately after the conference?
No. If my question was so good, chances are I would get adequate information either way, and better have good information no one else has than good information everybody has.
4. Who really owns government-held information: the government or the people? Why?
The government owns it to mediate to the people, because there must be guidelines for what is public information and what is not. As the government is responsible for determining that, it is appropriate that they are in charge of the information.
5. If you were assigned to report on the proceedings of a conference and you had to choose between attending different sessions being conducted at the same time, how would you decide which to attend?
If one were being televised or I had contacts in one who would share information, that would mean I could afford to miss it and therefore attend the other. Also, if it were a conference with question and comment time, I may choose a session with less people to better my chances of getting my question out there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)