28th October 2007.
I have finished reading all the required chapters. I have over the past week been back and edited most of my entries just to check spelling and grammar etc, hence why the date i completed them and the edited date don’t coincide.
Good bye. Have lots of fun reading.
Gemma.
27/10/07
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?
It depends on how significant the error is. If it opens you up for a large defamation suit then print the story. It is up to you as the editor to contact your lawyer and discuss the legal ramifications. If the lawyer informs you there is no need to do the story as you have met your legal requirements by printing an apology then there is no need to comply with her wish to promote her business.
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 rocks stars, to take out defamation suits against the media? why?
No. Because i don’t believe that just because they are in the public eye they should have less rights about want is printed about them. If the defamation rules were to change i believe they should change for everyone not just one group of public individuals. I came to this conclusion by thinking how would if feel if stories were being written about me, and on top of that being followed by cameras every day. Also then how would this rule be governed and in this i mean who is the one to say someone is more of a public figure than someone else… Would a local celebrity only have these new rights in their local newspaper or all over the country, and world for that matter.
However to contradict myself i do think that there is not enough free speech in Australia and i do believe the defamation rules are too harsh, however i dont think this is the way to go.
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. She lied to me , hence she is an unreliable source. She did not keep her word with me so i why should i keep my word with her. Its a two way street and i thinks its only fair that her identity is revealed, as its not my fault the information i was given was faulty. Especially if it means your paper will beat the defamation case by passing the blame onto her then of course you would reveal her identity. If she is not at fault and there has been an error in communication it is up to the court to decide that, not you.
Thoughts on Chapter 17:
I have learnt to:
This is a defamation checklist from Conley and Lamble.
Below is a link to a defamation site which just explains what defamation is in lamens terms. Its easy to read so if you want to read a little bit more on defamation visit the site.
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/defamation.html
Cartoon from: www.uow.edu.au/…/ documents/defamation.html
October 24th.
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? Hmmm this is a hard one…. It is common for journalists to be constantly engaged in some form of social networking and this is not illegal. As Brown understands, it is legal but still unethical for a journalist to accept gifts from people they are writing about (Conley and Lamble 2006). If I I did indeed end up going to dinner with the source I would make it clear from the start that paying for my dinner would not automatically mean that I will write a favourable report for them nor would I refrain from reporting the facts.
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 that an advertising contract depended upon it. It was the worst trip of you life. What do you do?
Tell the truth. Report the story how it really was. The AJA Code of Ethics supports the notion that journalists should not let the acceptance of a gift, such as a free holiday, undermine their accuracy, fairness or independence. I share this view and would express to the airline that it is wrong for them to threaten me in such a manner. The airline should have known from the begining that they cannot force me, as a journalist, to write a favourable story for them. I have no binding agreement to do so, that I am aware of, and would tell them if they want a nice story they should go spend the money with an advertising agency instead. The textbook says that the Sydney Morning Herald henceforth bans overseas trips paid for by third parties. This would save a lot of trouble!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 pay rise. What do you do?Hmmm once again another tricky question.I guess since the source did not want me to publish a retraction then I would consider writing another story from a different angle that contained the corrected information. Journalists are not technically obliged to print a retraction, correction or apology unless requested to.By writing the new story I am sufficiently acknowledging my mistake and am not necessarily in breach of the AJA Code of Ethics. As the Ethics Review Committee has noted, “Honest mistakes are not breaches. It is possible to be ethical and factually wrong” this information came from Conlet and Lamble.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 reports all such cases. What will you do? Why?
Gosh. Hard question again. This is hard because of the situation the girls has found herself in. Personally, I do not see the need to report her prostitution offence in a regional newspaper. Such a report could be devastating for the reputation of a young woman, and her family, living in a small region of Australia. I would discuss whether there is any public benefit to reporting this story with my editor. I doubt anyone would benefit from the reporting of this story.
Thoughts on chapter 16:
As a journalist i am going to have to make many decisions that may challenge my own personal ethical values. What a feel is right, what my boss thinks is right, what the sources fell is right, may all be completely different things. The words i write can have both bad or good effects on people, and so i feel that all journalist should use and choose their words very carefully. Also journalists should look at the bigger picture, some stories are just not worth causing people pain.
Below is a link to a ethics in Journalism website which goes through many ethical issues in journalism aswel as outlining some of the ethical lapses in the past year. Check it out!
http://www.spj.org/ethics.asp
22 October 2007.
1. What do media companies need to do in relation to convergence before they can expect their journalists to work in converged newsrooms?
On the job training and influencing university cross training structures.
By starting at university level, convergence will become a smoother transition for new journalists. Combined with on-the-job training for current journalists, convergence should not be such a big deal, the world evolves and develops at a rapid pace and change is imminent. The only way to tackle change is with positivity so starting from the ground up is the only answer, by teaching these skills at university cadets will approach convergence with confidence and established journalist should look for the positives of learning new skills and broadening there experience.
2. What would be the likely outcome if someone who just wanted to work as a print journalist, because they were nervous on television, was told by the company they worked for that they must report for television as well as print?
Unless they complied they would likely lose their job. In such a competitive industry versatility is such an important attribute. With convergence now on our doorstep journalism seems to heading down a jack-of-all-trades path, a single journalist now becomes, researcher, reporter, photographer and videographer, so as mentioned above, cross training while at university is key to securing a job.
3. Is journalistic convergence just a trendy fad that will run its course then be forgotten about?
I think it’s here to stay, with media companies now allowed broader ownership licences, convergence is bound to be stronger and it’s growth and development imminent.
At the time of print I don’t believe the laws had been passed in parliament, but now that they have, the Packers and the Murdochs of the world are making their presence felt.
I think media companies will utilise current staffing within their new respective interests, shifting already well-trained journalists and production teams into newly converged areas.
4. What will be the long-term outcome in Australia of relaxed cross-media ownership laws?
The long-term outcome is difficult to gage at this point. With cross media laws already relaxed there doesn’t seem to be too much visible change. I’m sure inside the companies there is change, but it is not obvious at this point to the outside observer.
A number of people are already expressing concerns about the information we already receive as propaganda wielded by a couple of fat-cat families, cross media will no doubt strengthen the control media companies already have in regards to the framing and direction of news information. This is another reason why keeping the ABC under government protection, as I mentioned in the last chapter, is important.
With examples of control over what is printed, heard and seen already known and exposed by programs like Media Watch, I believe tighter control of cross media laws would have resulted in a more diverse information flow.
5. If you had a crystal ball, what would it tell you about the future of radio, television, and the web?
The crystal ball would tell me the web will continue to boom but tighter control over content availability will be an element of the future. I don’t think it will continue to be such a legally and economically free portal of information. I think that news sites will be accessible by subscription only, as there is too much revenue sitting idle in cyberspace at the present time.
I believe radio is here to stay, as is television, but I believe newspapers will change significantly to cater to our information hungry society. More focus will centre on in-depth, feature style; investigative journalism and straight news writing will become something of the past and only seen in online structures.
6. Should the idea of multiskilling be integrated into every course in university journalism studies? Why?
Yes. Media convergence requires it. You can no longer just focus your studies on one element. I think media companies will insist universities integrate these skills, as it will save them large amounts of money on expenditure for on the job training.
As a student you can only benefit from making yourself versatile and thus more attractive to prospective employers.
7. Is society getting to the point where life as we know it could not survive without the Internet and web?
I don’t think we could survive without the Internet anymore. The availability of information and resources is staggering and it would be awful to lose that. It has created an interactive environment where every question you could possibly ask can be answered in a mouse click. You can buy and sell, network and relate, it really is the best invention of this century.
Thoughts on chapter 13:
Although have reservations about just how these companies will benefit from governing such large areas of media interest, I still see convergence as a positive step into the future.
From examples used in the chapter I think it is obvious that news teams can benefit greatly from working together and pooling their ideas. I believe it will contribute to a more accurate flow of information and possibly a better end result, as was shown by the example of the US company which converged.
Of course there are always cons to any pros; there is a possible risk of creating a lack of diversity, which I noted in my question responses. With such a large vested interest you cannot avoid the possibility of lack of balance in reporting. If people are concerned with the ABC being biased, then surely there are the same concerns in regards to PBL and Fairfax.
This chapter enlightened me to how much work is involved with broadcast journalism. I blindly assumed it was for pretty, (well female anyway), TV personalities. I’m actually now considering studying a unit of it while at university. With media convergence gaining speed everyday it seems to be something all students should embrace. I think because we are exposed to such poor examples of current affairs in Australia most people run from broadcast journalism, recognising it as the least credible form of journalism, without taking into consideration all the fine examples of broadcast journalism in Australia.
Within Australia radio seemed to stand out to me as a fantastic example of journalism, we seem to seek out the radio in times of disaster and crisis, with some great stations for news and current affairs, such as ABC radio. After reading the chapter I have a new found respect for radio journalists.
October 7th 2007
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’?
I think the ABC should just be left as it is, under the control of the public. Given that the ABC is already the second most trusted organisation, despite its so-called bias, I don’t think this bias is causing any problems. If the only people worried about bias seems to be the government, and the ordinary Australians don’t seem concerned with it, then why bother changing it?
2. you are a television news director with 2 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’ apperance but has considerable skill and experience. Your present reporting staff consits of four females and one male, none older than 32. Who do you hire, and why?
If I had a hiring choice between a 38yr old experienced female and a 28yr old semi- experienced male, my choice would depend upon what I wanted to add to my present team. Perhaps I need someone to bring maturity and the appearance of authority that audiences can trust. Or perhaps my demographic appeals more to youth and less serious news issues. Without proper context it is difficult to say who I would choose, but in general I would probably go for the older female with the experience as she would be a strong addition to the reporting side of the job. The fact that she is not as telegenic as the male should not be a problem if her material is decent and she projects well on air. I strongly believe that appearance should not be a factor in a firled such as journalism, even if it is on t.v.
3. Given the strengths and weaknesses of each medium, which do you think is the ‘best communicator’ on any given story: radio. t.v, the web or newspaper?
I don’t think that a winner can ever be fairly chosen between which medium is the best: radio, television, web or newspaper. Personally I flout all the mediums with most time devoted to online news. I strongly believe each medium offers something that the other can not provide, and that often the medium chosen by the audience depends on their own personal context, such as leading a busy lifestyle. Thus choosing a news medium is very much a lifestyle choice as well as a preference for which mode of reception to correspond with. That said, I find it unlikely that newspapers will become obsolete and that new media will eradicate older mediums completely.
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?
This coming federal election the media seem focused on allowing a slinging match between Howard and Rudd. There seems alot of he said she said going on. While this is part of the “political battle”, I am more interested in the issues. Apparently Howard is spending ridiculous amounts of money on advertising his campaign, but I’m not getting clear messages. All I really see is a concentration of Workchoices ads that quite frankly are B grade and aren’t fooling any of those who have been adversly affected. The media should outline issues and policy very distinctly, particulalry in the lead up to a federal election so that people are making educated decisions on who they will vote for.
I also have this memory from the last election of a radio advertisiment that was going around about a candidate which said something along the lines of..’in 1992 ‘his’ fish and chip shop went bankrupt’… this was inregards to whom ever the ad was against, and all i can remember thinking is how unnessecary of them to put that in there. They had very much so tried to target personality, and not only did they do a horrible job at it but they completely missed any of the important issues.
October 4th 2007.
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 in 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?
According to Conley and Lamble (2006), a police reporter’s role includes “acting as a watchdog,” of the police’s ‘unofficial’ actions(p. 243). They also state that “official inquiries have proven some police are corrupt” (p.243)
This suggests that the victim’s allegations may be true, and as a police reporter, it is my duty to expose corruption within the force. Also, a journalist’s role includes ensuring public interest is best served which leads me to believe that I would report the alleged incident.
The threat made by the chief-of-staff to be removed from the round did not come into account during making this decision, because in a major newspaper there are 20 or more rounds so chances are I would still have a position of employment.
As for the police officer’s claim, that no-one will speak to me again regardless of who writes the story, Conley and Lamble (2006), state that if this occurs, a meeting can be initiated between the editor and senior police to resolve this issue.
Ultimately, I would choose to follow the wishes of my chief-of-staff over the threat from the police because that way, I have done the right thing by the public and my employer. Also, the problem of not receiving further information from the police lies within the hands of the editor of the paper, not me.
2. A distraught women convicted of stealing a pair of stockings from a store approaches you after her caught case and says that she will commit suicide if you publish anything. Your newspaper has a policy of publishing such cases, but it will never know about this one unless you reveal it. You really believe the women might be suicidal. What do you do? Why?
This is a tough situation. An issue to consider is noted by Conley and Lamble (2006), that if exceptions are made for cases, it is unfair to others. They note, “Newspapers accept the principle of the higher duty to inform the community of legal processes” ( p. 253). Further, if exceptions are made the Editor may receive complaints from the general public and requests for equal treatment. This defeats the purpose of court coverage.
For these reasons, the hypothetical newspaper referred to in the question has a policy of publishing all cases.
With these points aside I fell that the issue of a women stealing a pair of stockings in not necessarily newsworthy, despite not know all the details.
Also, Conley and Lamble (2006) note that “Sometimes defendants who say their lives and reputations will be ruined by publications of their names will make applications to the court” (p.150). Consequently, I would first tell the woman to lodge an application however, if this was denied I would not withhold this information from the chief-of-staff as it would harm my credibility because it is bound to be revealed by other court-reporters. I would discuss the matter with them and decide whether it is worth publishing the story or not.
But on the details I have been given I would definitely not report the story. It does not seem that interesting, and definitely not worth possible suicide.
If the case was of a more serious nature and the same threat applied, there would be no deliberations over whether to report the 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 attended court where the personality is convicted of being 3 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 the case. What will you do? Why?
This question is very simple to answer. Of course I would report the story because regardless of who you are, if you commit a crime as serious as this you will be reported about. I would not take the bribes because obviously, it would be unethical and against the MEAA Code of Ethics. Also, the scenario claims that I am the only journalist in the court room. Of course I would report the story, as I have a scoop!
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 2 jury members have accepted bribes of $100,00 each from 2 corupt high-ranking police officers who have paid the money on condition that the jurors do not return a guilty verdict. What will you do? Why?
According to Conley and Lamble (2006), the deliberations made by a jury cannot be reported during a trial, only after or during the appeal period. In NSW, reporters cannot approach a juror for information and they must not be identified without them giving permission for you to do so.
A positive aspect of this scenario is that a juror has approached me. This means that after the verdict has been reached and the defendant has been acquitted or charged, I would construct a story. I would ensure however, that I did not identify any of the jurors nor approach them for information. I would also inform the police headquarters of the allegations being made towards their force members and give them an opportunity to comment on the situation.
Journalism Issue.
Police reporting: A tiresome job.
Within this chapter I was very disappointed to read about the level of corruption that is identified within the police force in regards to the reporting of stories. I was also made aware of the challenges of police rounds.
Conley and Lamble (2006) identify a journalist’s role as monitoring and reporting on both the official and unofficial actions of police. They state that new police reporters will often spend a shift in a police car to gain an understanding of police roles and how they operate. Nicholls, (as cited in Conley and Lamble 2006) notes that Jack Darmody, a former police reporter in Melbourne and Sydney said crime reporters once maintained close professional and personal contacts with police. These points suggest that there is a relationship that exists between some police reporters and police.
Although these relationships are not as close today, as Nicholls (as cited in Conley and Lamble, 2006) notes that police no longer think that it is healthy to have a great relationship with the media, this chapter still made me realise how difficult it must be to report corruption within the force you are used to associating with on a daily basis.
Furthermore, I did not realise that politicians place pressure on the police to quietly resolve crime-related problems affecting them which can result in the police attempting to silence the media or their sources. Conley and Lamble (2006) state that “given the results of various police inquires, who can say that an individual police officer will not use unreported media knowledge to victimise an honest whistleblower?” (p. 243). I find this suggestion horrifying, as police are meant to be the protectors of our society. The thought of them targeting innocent individuals is very threatening.
At least this chapter provides an answer to combat police enquires for media information with. This is “Sorry, everything we know or can talk about has been published.” (Conley and Lamble, 2006, p.243).
Although interesting, this issue gave me an unwanted insight into the real world of police reporting.
October 1st. Quotes from Chapter 10:
I didn’t really understand this but i thought it was cool. ha ha. Like i mentioned previously my lack of reading=lack of knowledge=lack of understanding….. needs to be improved.
The journalism industry needs to be filled with motivated/driven people. People who love what they do and can do it well. Journalists need to be able to go and get the information and know what they are looking for. Time can not be wasted with ever looming deadlines hanging over ones head.
September 29th 2007
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 is 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’d tell my supervisor about the situation. If the they wanted me to do the story I’d do it as this scenario doesn’t say I’d loose my source if I didn’t wait a day. Also, I wouldn’t want to be for the publication being scooped. In this situation, the urgency of getting the story before rival media outweighs the preferences of the source. This would be different if getting the story out ASAP could be harmful to the source, e.g. loose them their job or put them in danger. I’d also reconsider my actions if getting the story early meant loosing my source.
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 would be one of the people who could be out of work. What will you do? Why?
Firstly, RESEARCH, RESEARCH, RESEARCH! I’d do more research and find out if the PR representative was telling the truth. Even if jobs would be lost, I’d still continue the story, but I’d mention the possibility of job losses in my piece. It is in the public interest to publish this story as restaurants with unsafe food shouldn’t be operating. If the restaurant doesn’t pick up its act then perhaps the negative publicity is deserved (not that the workers deserve to be unemployed). I mean i would feel bad and partly responsible if the resort did close and jobs were lost but, i would feel even worse if someone was to die from food poisoning that i could of prevented. Also it might be what is need to get the resort to lift their game.
3. You are a 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 has 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 press. There is no time to call anyone without delaying the production process. What do you do?
I’d ask the solicitor who he is, who he works for, who the judge is and why the order has been issued. I’d look the solicitor’s firm up in the yellow pages to make sure he and his firm existed. I would also ask if he had any official documentation eg the judges order that he could fax or email to me. However, I think I’d have to leave the defendant’s name out because there wouldn’t be enough time to confirm the solicitor’s claim properly. If in doubt, leave it out.I mean if it did turn out to be a prank call the name can always be published in a follow up story, but it is better to be safe then sorry. Like i already said ‘If in doubt, Leave it out’.
4. You are a junior journalist and you find yourself caught in the middle of an argument between the editor, who wants 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?
I’d think i woulde probebly do what the editor was telling mean to do. If i don’t follow the editors advice i could have my story spiked or possibly be fired. In the end the editor is my boss, not the police reporter, even if the police reporter’s argument is valid.
September 12th 2007
1.What would you choose: a direct quotation that is accurate but unclear and embarrassing to the speaker, or one that is inexact and makes the speaker appear more eloquent than he or she really is?
It’s important for a journalist to be clear and accurate. This question seems to demand a choice of what is the most important. The AJA Code of Ethics cited in the textbook alludes to the importance of honesty, accuracy, fairness and including the essential facts. The issue is if the choice of quote would change the speaker’s original meaning. I’d choose the more eloquent, inexact quote because it is clearer than the embarrassing quote and would convey the speaker’s meaning more accurately.2. Is it ever justified for a journalist to intimidate a source with the threat of ‘public exposure’ to get public information? No, unless the person you’re threatening is in the wrong, i.e. they’re corrupt or have broken the law. Otherwise, it’s and unprofessional, bullying tactic that should be avoided.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?It depends what is meant by “personal chemistry.” It isn’t reasonable to exploit a sexual attraction, but it’s ok to be friendly and charming. It’s important to act professionally, ethically and objectively.
4. What potential dangers could come back to haunt a journalist who gets too close to a source? If a journalist gets too close to a source it could be claimed that they were biased towards their source. A journalist’s objectivity could also be compromised in this situation.
5. Who is the most 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?At present, George Bush seems to be making the most mistakes (eg his “OPEC” and “Austrian troops’ remarks on the weekend). I think his quotes shouldn’t be cleaned up as they show his true character and make him appear more human. If he stuffs up, it shouldn’t be censored. His mistakes are also good entertainment!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba4zYf3du_8
…this link shows George Bush’s APEC “OPEC” mistake…
Thoughts on Chapter 9:
Out of this chapter, I found one particular thing quite interesting. I had no idea that there were different levels of on and off the record. On the record, according to the text, means that everything that is said and supplied by a source can be attributed to that source. Off the record means that the person cannot be quoted under any circumstances. It was the ‘grey area’ that I did not know existed. ‘On background’ means that information cannot be named but it can be generally sourced as a reliable source, for example, a Senior Liberal Party figure. On deep-background means that the reporter may use information but without any kind of attribution.
