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.