Imagine the scene. You are a journalist covering a story on your own. You need someone to bounce ideas off in order to make sure you cover all angles. But nobody is available. So you turn to AI.

Would the results be any good? Would AI come up with the quality of editorial brainstorming that colleagues back in the newsroom could offer? Media Helping Media (MHM) put Gemini, Google’s AI conversation tool, to the test.

Gemini’s responses, and my follow-up questions (in large bold headings) are reproduced below. After each answer from Gemini I asked it to expand on points it had made in the previous answer. The conversation took place in September 2024.

I started by creating a fictitious scenario. I told Gemini AI that I am a journalist covering a protest at a refugee camp where asylum seekers are demonstrating about delays in their claims being processed.

I then asked AI the following questions. The answers were immediate. Gemini’s responses are unedited other than to change them from American English to English English  (MHM’s preferred house style).

MHM: Apart from reporting on the demonstration, what other related news angles should I cover?

Gemini AI: Here are some additional news angles you could consider covering, beyond the immediate demonstration:

Human Interest Stories:

• Individual Refugee Stories: Interview refugees about their personal journeys, hardships, and hopes.
• Community Impact: Explore how the refugee camp is affecting the local community, including potential tensions or positive interactions.

Policy and Government Response:

• Processing Delays: Investigate the reasons for the delays in processing asylum claims, including any bureaucratic hurdles or political pressures.
• Government Response: Examine the government’s response to the protest and any potential changes to asylum policies or procedures.
• International Comparisons: Compare the situation in the UK with other countries that have similar refugee populations.

Living Conditions in the Camp:

• Basic Needs: Assess whether refugees have access to adequate food, shelter, healthcare, and education.
• Security Concerns: Report on any safety issues or concerns within the camp, such as crime or violence.

Legal and Ethical Issues:

• Human Rights: Examine whether the treatment of refugees aligns with international human rights standards.
• Legal Challenges: Explore any legal challenges refugees or their representatives are pursuing to expedite the processing of their claims.

Economic Impact:

• Job Market: Investigate the potential economic impact of refugees on the local job market, both positive and negative.
• Integration Efforts: Report on government or NGO initiatives to help refugees integrate into the local community.

By exploring these additional angles, you can provide a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the situation at the refugee camp and its broader implications.

MHM: Could you expand on the ‘Human Interest Stories’ angle please?

Gemini AI: Human interest stories can provide a powerful and personal lens through which to understand the experiences of refugees. Here are some specific avenues you could explore:

Individual Refugee Narratives:

• Personal Journeys: Delve into the individual experiences of refugees, from their home countries to their escape and arrival at the camp.
• Challenges and Hopes: Focus on the specific challenges refugees face, such as language barriers, cultural differences, or separation from loved ones. Also, explore their hopes and dreams for the future.
• Coping Mechanisms: Understand how refugees are coping with the stress and trauma of their experiences.

Community Building:

• Social Networks: Explore how refugees are forming social networks and communities within the camp.
• Cultural Exchange: Highlight instances of cultural exchange or collaboration between refugees from different backgrounds.
• Support Systems: Identify any support systems or networks that are helping refugees to navigate their new environment.

Children and Families:

• Education: Focus on the educational needs of refugee children and any challenges they may face in accessing education.
• Family Dynamics: Explore how families are coping with the challenges of displacement and the uncertainty of their future.
• Child Protection: Address any concerns related to child protection or exploitation within the refugee camp.

Inspiring Stories:

• Overcoming Adversity: Share stories of refugees who have overcome significant challenges and achieved positive outcomes.
• Acts of Kindness: Highlight instances of kindness, compassion, or resilience within the refugee community.

By focusing on these human interest angles, you can help to humanise the refugee experience and foster empathy and understanding among your audience.

MHM: Could you expand on the ‘Policy and Government Response’ angle please?

Gemini AI: When exploring the policy and government response angle, consider these key areas:

Asylum Policy:

• Current Regulations: Examine the specific regulations governing asylum claims in the UK, including eligibility criteria, processing procedures, and potential grounds for refusal.
• Policy Changes: Investigate any recent or proposed changes to asylum policy, and their potential impact on refugees.
• International Comparisons: Compare UK asylum policies with those of other European countries or countries with similar refugee populations.

Government Response to the Protest:

• Official Statements: Analyse official statements from government officials regarding the protest and their commitment to addressing the concerns of refugees.
• Actions Taken: Evaluate any specific actions taken by the government in response to the protest, such as increased staffing for asylum processing or improved living conditions in refugee camps.
• Public Perception: Assess public opinion on the government’s response to the protest and any potential political pressure.

Bureaucratic Hurdles:

• Processing Delays: Investigate the specific reasons for delays in processing asylum claims, including any bureaucratic bottlenecks or administrative inefficiencies.
• Backlogs: Assess the extent of any backlogs in the asylum system and the government’s efforts to address them.
• Resource Allocation: Examine the allocation of resources to asylum processing and whether there is sufficient funding to meet the demand.

Ethical Considerations:

• Human Rights Standards: Evaluate whether the government’s response to the protest and its asylum policies align with international human rights standards.
• Compassionate Treatment: Consider whether the government is demonstrating compassion and respect for the rights of refugees.

By exploring these aspects, you can provide a comprehensive analysis of the government’s role in shaping the experiences of refugees and the effectiveness of its policies in addressing their needs.

MHM: Could you expand on the ‘Living Conditions in the Camp’ angle please?

Gemini AI: When exploring the living conditions in the refugee camp, consider these key areas:

Basic Needs:

• Shelter: Assess the quality and adequacy of the housing provided to refugees, including any issues with sanitation, safety, or privacy.
• Food: Evaluate the availability, quality, and quantity of food provided to refugees, and any concerns about nutritional deficiencies.
• Healthcare: Examine the accessibility, quality, and adequacy of healthcare services within the camp, including mental health support.
• Education: Assess the availability and quality of educational opportunities for refugee children and adults, including language classes and vocational training.

Safety and Security:

• Crime: Investigate any incidents of crime or violence within the camp, including theft, assault, or sexual harassment.
• Security Measures: Evaluate the effectiveness of security measures in place to protect refugees, such as fencing, surveillance, and patrolling.
• Vulnerable Groups: Identify any particularly vulnerable groups within the camp, such as women, children, or individuals with disabilities, and assess their specific needs and challenges.

Sanitation and Hygiene:

• Waste Management: Examine the systems in place for waste management and disposal, and any concerns about sanitation or hygiene.
• Water Supply: Assess the quality and availability of potable water, and any issues with water scarcity or contamination.
• Hygiene Facilities: Evaluate the adequacy of sanitation facilities, such as toilets, showers, and laundry facilities.

Community Infrastructure:

• Recreational Facilities: Explore the availability of recreational facilities, such as playgrounds, sports fields, or community centres.
• Community Spaces: Assess the availability of community spaces for refugees to gather, socialise, and participate in cultural activities.
• Services: Identify any essential services available within the camp, such as shops, post offices, or transportation options.

By exploring these aspects, you can provide a comprehensive picture of the living conditions faced by refugees within the camp and identify any areas where improvements are needed.

MHM: Could you expand on the ‘Legal and Ethical Issues’ angle please?

Gemini AI: When exploring the legal and ethical issues surrounding refugee camps, consider these key areas:

Human Rights:

• International Law: Examine how the treatment of refugees aligns with international human rights law, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Refugee Convention.
• Fundamental Rights: Assess whether refugees are enjoying their fundamental rights, including the rights to life, liberty, security of person, and freedom from discrimination.
• Detention: If refugees are detained, examine the legality and conditions of their detention, ensuring they comply with international standards.

Legal Challenges:

• Asylum Claims: Investigate any legal challenges refugees or their representatives are pursuing to expedite the processing of their asylum claims or to challenge denials.
• Access to Justice: Assess whether refugees have adequate access to legal assistance and representation in pursuing their rights.
• Due Process: Ensure that refugees are afforded due process in all legal proceedings, including the right to a fair hearing and the right to appeal decisions.

Ethical Considerations:

• Compassion and Respect: Evaluate whether refugees are being treated with compassion and respect, regardless of their circumstances.
• Vulnerable Groups: Identify any particularly vulnerable groups within the camp, such as women, children, or individuals with disabilities, and assess whether their specific needs and rights are being adequately protected.
• Accountability: Examine the mechanisms in place for ensuring accountability for any human rights violations or abuses that may occur within the camp.

By exploring these aspects, you can provide a comprehensive analysis of the legal and ethical framework governing the treatment of refugees and identify any areas where improvements are needed.

MHM: Could you expand on the ‘Economic Impact’ angle please?

Gemini AI: When exploring the economic impact of refugee camps, consider these key areas:

Local Economy:

• Job Market: Analyse the potential impact of refugees on the local job market, both positive and negative. This may include their potential to fill labour shortages or compete for jobs with local residents.
• Consumer Spending: Assess the potential economic benefits of refugees as consumers, including their spending on goods and services within the local community.
• Entrepreneurship: Identify any entrepreneurial activities or businesses launched by refugees within the camp or the surrounding area.

Government Services:

• Cost of Services: Evaluate the costs to the government of providing services to refugees, such as housing, healthcare, and education.
• Resource Allocation: Assess whether the government is allocating sufficient resources to support refugees and mitigate any negative economic impacts.
• Long-Term Costs: Consider the potential long-term economic costs associated with refugee resettlement, including the costs of integration and social services.

Integration Efforts:

• Language Training: Examine the availability and effectiveness of language training programs to help refugees learn the local language and improve their employability.
• Vocational Training: Assess the availability and quality of vocational training programs to equip refugees with the skills needed to find employment.
• Integration Initiatives: Evaluate the effectiveness of government or NGO initiatives to help refugees integrate into the local community and participate fully in economic life.

By exploring these aspects, you can provide a comprehensive analysis of the economic implications of refugee camps and identify any potential opportunities or challenges associated with refugee resettlement.

MHM: Are there any other related news angles that you have not mentioned that would add value to the story and better inform the audience?

Gemini AI: Here are some more potential news angles that could add value to your story:

Health and Well-being:

• Mental Health: Explore the mental health challenges faced by refugees, including PTSD, depression, and anxiety.
• Physical Health: Assess the physical health of refugees, including any common illnesses or health conditions.
• Access to Healthcare: Examine the availability and quality of healthcare services within the camp, and any barriers to access.

Education and Skills Development:

• Educational Opportunities: Investigate the educational opportunities available to refugee children and adults, including formal schooling and vocational training.
• Language Barriers: Explore the challenges faced by refugees in learning the local language and accessing education.
• Skills Development: Identify any programs or initiatives aimed at developing the skills and employability of refugees.

Cultural and Social Integration:

• Cultural Preservation: Explore how refugees are preserving their cultural heritage and traditions within the camp.
• Intercultural Dialogue: Examine opportunities for intercultural dialogue and exchange between refugees and the local community.
• Social Integration: Assess the challenges and opportunities for refugees to integrate into the local society and build social connections.

Media Representation:

• Media Portrayal: Examine how refugees are portrayed in the media, and any stereotypes or misconceptions that may exist.
• Media Access: Assess the access of refugees to information and media outlets, and any challenges they may face in accessing accurate and unbiased information.

Future Prospects:

• Resettlement: Explore the prospects for refugees to be resettled to a third country and the challenges associated with this process.
• Self-Reliance: Examine any initiatives or programs aimed at empowering refugees to become self-reliant and contribute to their own well-being.
• Long-Term Goals: Explore the long-term goals and aspirations of refugees for their future, including their hopes for their children and their communities.

By exploring these additional angles, you can provide a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the situation at the refugee camp and its broader implications.

MHM’s conclusion

AI can offer real-time editorial brainstorming for the solo journalist who needs to bounce ideas around in order to explore all possible story angles. It does this in an instant, enabling the journalist to focus their news-gathering efforts on areas that will enhance their news reporting.

The post Using AI for story development first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Introducing a converged news operation is rarely easy. Those trying to introduce changes in workflows, roles and responsibilities are often met with resistance.

Media Helping Media received a request from a national newspaper in the Caribbean for advice about introducing newsroom convergence.

The person who contacted us had met resistance to change from senior newspaper staff who feared that convergence would threaten their jobs, strip their newspaper of resources,  and weaken its impact.

What they had failed to grasp is that newsroom convergence is an essential editorial and business strategy. It involves the creation of a ‘content factory’ delivering news to whatever device/format the audience uses in order to receive their news.

The following is the advice we shared, which was followed and implemented.

The challenge of converging news operations

Merging different news platforms (print, TV, online, and all digital and social outlets) into a single, unified operation, known as “convergence,” is an essential process for the survival of a media business. However it is often faces significant resistance.

Why resistance occurs:

• Fear of change: Existing departments, especially the dominant ones, often view convergence as a distraction or a threat to their established workflows and roles.
• Lack of senior leadership buy-in: Without strong support from top editors and managers, convergence efforts can be met with negativity or half-hearted attempts.

How to overcome resistance and implement convergence:

• Establish clear business imperatives:
  • Senior management must communicate clearly the necessity of convergence for the media organisation’s survival and future success.
  • They need to explain why it’s essential, what it entails, how it will be implemented, and who will be responsible.
  • Convergence should be integrated into a new, well-defined business model with a solid business plan.
• Secure unwavering senior management support:
  • All senior leaders must fully embrace convergence based on its business logic.
  • They must communicate the implementation steps to all staff and address how each department will be affected.
• Address staff concerns:
  • Acknowledge and address staff fears, which may include:
    • Dilution of responsibilities and loss of status.
    • Challenges in managing different publishing cycles (daily/weekly vs. real-time).
    • The need to learn new technologies.
    • Concerns about a potential decline in quality.
• Create a centralised “Content Factory”:
  • Establish a “superdesk” as a central command-and-control area for all news production.
  • Ensure close collaboration between input, production, and output teams.
  • Implement a single, comprehensive news meeting involving representatives from all platforms (print, broadcast, online, social media, etc.).
  • Change the mindset from deadline driven output, to verified information driven output.
• Align objectives and appraisals:
  • Make convergence a core business objective that filters down to departmental, unit, and individual goals.
  • Incorporate convergence performance into staff appraisals.
• Tailor convergence to your specific needs:
  • Recognise that convergence is not a one-size-fits-all solution.
  • Adapt the process to fit your organisation’s location, market, audience, and potential.
• Ask the important questions:
  • Is your media business keeping pace with changing audience behaviour?
  • Are you maximising all content exploitation opportunities?
  • Are you effectively informing public debate across all platforms?

The importance of convergence:

• Convergence is crucial for the survival and future viability of media organisations.
• While staff may have doubts, it’s essential to move forward with a clear and decisive strategy.
• The challenge for media managers is how to articulate that strategy in a way that is convincing, inclusive, positive for the individuals involved, and which assures all that it is the only way to future-proof the media organisation’s business.

Questions

1. What is newsroom convergence, and why is it considered an essential strategy for media businesses?
2. Identify two main reasons why senior newspaper staff might resist newsroom convergence.
3. Describe the role of senior management in successfully implementing convergence in a media organisation.
4. What is a “content factory,” and how does it function within a converged newsroom?
5. Explain how convergence can be tailored to fit the specific needs of a media organisation.
6. Discuss the importance of aligning objectives and appraisals with convergence goals.
7. How can media managers effectively communicate the necessity of convergence to their staff?
8. What are some potential staff concerns regarding convergence, and how can they be addressed?
9. Analyse the impact of convergence on the quality of news production and distribution.
10. Evaluate the statement: “Convergence is crucial for the survival and future viability of media organisations.”

Answers

1. Newsroom convergence is the merging of the news gathering, production and distribution of different news platforms into a single operation. It is essential for media businesses to adapt to changing audience behaviours and maximise content exploitation opportunities.
2. Resistance may occur due to fear of change and lack of senior leadership buy-in.
3. Senior management must clearly communicate the necessity of convergence, integrate it into a business model, and secure support from all leaders.
4. A ‘content factory’ is a centralised ‘command-and-control’ area for news production, ensuring collaboration across platforms and focusing on verified information.
5. Convergence should be adapted to the organisation’s location, market, audience, and potential, recognising it is not a one-size-fits-all solution.
6. Aligning objectives and appraisals ensures that convergence becomes a core business goal, influencing departmental and individual performance.
7. Media managers should articulate a clear, inclusive, and positive strategy that assures staff of convergence’s necessity for future-proofing the business.
8. Staff concerns include dilution of responsibilities and learning new technologies. Addressing these involves acknowledging fears and providing support.
9. Convergence can enhance quality by ensuring consistent, verified information across platforms, though it may also challenge traditional publishing cycles.
10. Convergence is crucial as it allows media organisations to remain competitive and relevant in a rapidly changing media landscape.

Lesson plan for trainers

If you are a trainer of journalists we have a free lesson plan: ‘Newsroom convergence‘ which you are welcome to download and adapt for your own purposes.

We have more resources about convergence, how to introduce it, and the workflows and roles and responsibilities involved.

Creating a converged news operation

Convergence: workflows, roles and responsibilities

The post Convergence: transforming news production first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Журналістика, PR чи пропаганда?

Якщо контент, який ви виробляєте, просуває певний порядок денний, розкручує якусь лінію, підіграє якійсь частині суспільства, беззастережно підтримує певну ініціативу, містить маніпуляцію задля того, щоб досягти потрібного результату, або має бажану мету – ви, можливо, створюєте піар-матеріал або навіть пропаганду.

Справжня журналістика базується на застосуванні суворої редакційної етики до всього, що ми робимо, щоб ми могли досліджувати питання, які найбільше впливають на життя нашої аудиторії.

Тож чи пройде ваш журналістський матеріал цей тест? Візьміть до уваги наступні питання, щоб побачити, чи відповідає етиці ваша журналістська робота.

Вісім питань для роздумів

1: Якою є ваша журналістська мета  і чого ви намагаєтеся досягнути, роблячи цей матеріал?

2: Яка ваша особиста мотивація? Чи маєте ви корисливі інтереси як наслідок цього матеріалу?

3: Чи включили ви різні точки зору та різноманітні ідеї, щоб ваш журналістський твір був ретельно підготованим та інформативним?

4: Чи зігнорували ви будь-які елементи, які могли б послабити історію, яку ви пишете?

5: Чи взяли ви до уваги, якими є мотиви тих людей, у яких ви берете інтерв’ю?

6 Чи всі ваші питання чесні, чи вони можуть бути маніпулятивними чи наводити на певні відповіді?

7: Якими є коротко- та довгострокові наслідки історії, яку ви пишете?

8: Чи використовуєте ви інтерв’ю з тими, кого ви обрали, для того, щоб посилити вашу статтю, не беручи до уваги можливу шкоду, якої вони можуть зазнати після того, як історія буде опублікована?

9: Чи здатні ви виправдати ваші редакційні рішення перед вашими колегами, перед тими, кого ви вирішили проінтерв’ювати, та перед аудиторією?

10: Чи є ваш журналістський твір оригінальним, точним і чесним, та чи базується він на якісних джерелах?

Сім правил для того, щоб зробити все правильно 

1: Тримайте очі широко розплющеними – шукайте правду і пишіть про неї настільки повно, наскільки це можливо.

2: Дійте самостійно – не будьте зобов’язані нікому, не просіть про послуги і не шукайте прихильності.

3: Зведіть до мінімуму потенційну шкоду: захищайте ваші джерела, поважайте приватність, розумійте можливі наслідки.

4: Оцінюйте всі факти: не ігноруйте неприємні або такі, шо суперечать вашій гіпотезі. 

5: Шукайте незалежні джерела: не слідуйте за зграєю, знаходьте свіжі голоси і погляди. 

6: Ретельно перевіряйте надійність інформації:  Thoroughly check the validity of information – не приймайте нічого за чисту монету та переконайтеся, що ви дослідили та можете обгрунтувати використання кожного факту.

7: Будьте обережні з суб’єктивними маніпуляціями – не піддавайтеся тим, хто хоче, щоб ви надавали новинам позитивного забарвлення.

Сім підходів до роботи

1:Будьте чесними, справедливими та сміливими під час збору та викладення інформації

2: Дайте право голосу тим, хто його не має, ​​уважно перевіряйте та аналізуйте дії виконавчої влади та переконайтеся, що ваша журналістика притягує до відповідальності можновладців.

3: Ретельно зберігайте ту роль, яку відіграють незалежні ЗМІ у відкритому суспільстві.

4: Шукайте та поширюйте протилежні думки – особливо ті, які можна почути рідко.

5: Уникайте асоціацій чи активностей, які б могли скомпрометувати вашу здатність публікувати правду. 

6: Завжди беріть до уваги, як ваша журналістська діяльність може вплинути на життя тих, хто фігурує у вашому матеріалі. 

7: Ставтеся до всіх з повагою, а не як до засобу досягнення своєї журналістської мети.

Дванадцять правил точності 

1: Весь матеріал має базуватися на якісних джерелах

2: Він має базуватися на на обґрунтованих доказах.

3: Всі факти, про які ви пишете, мають бути перевіреними. 

4: Ваш матеріал має бути написаний чіткою, зрозумілою мовою.

5: Уникайте поширення необґрунтованих припущень, чуток та пліток. 

6: Точність важливіша за швидкість. Ніколи не поспішайте з новиною, щоб бути першими. Краще бути другими, але правими, аніж першими, але неправими.

7: Переконайтеся, що ви завжди зважуєте всі відповідні факти та інформацію, щоб дійти до правди

8: Якщо питання суперечливе, ви мусите завжди включати всі точки зору, які його стосуються, щоб ваш матеріал не був однобоким. 

9: Збирайте матеріал з перших рук, де це можливо.

10: Переконайтеся, що ви перечитуєте все, що пишете.

11: Перевірте достовірність документальних свідчень та цифрових матеріалів.

12: Підтверджуйте всі заяви та звинувачення.

Шість міркувань щодо неупередженості та різноманітності думок

1: Завжди старайтеся відображати широкий спектр думок. 

2: Завжди будьте готові досліджувати протилежні погляди.

3: Ніколи не ігноруйте жодних важливих напрямків думки чи недостатньо представлених груп

4: Використовуйте вашу творчу свободу для того, щоб виготовляти контент на будь-яку тему, в будь-якій точці дискусії, якщо для цього є серйозні редакційні причини. 

5: Переконайтеся, що ви уникли упередженості або порушили баланс думок стосовно всіх проблем, а понадто – суперечливих.

6: Іноді вам потрібно буде висвітлювати  теми, які можуть бути образливими для багатьох людей. Ви маєте бути певні, що явний суспільний інтерес переважає над можливою образою.

Іноді вам потрібно буде висвітлювати  теми, які можуть бути образливими для багатьох людей. Ви маєте бути певні, що явний суспільний інтерес переважає над можливою образою.

Сім критеріїв того, чи становлять новини  суспільний інтерес

1: Викриття або розкриття злочину.

2: Висвітлення кричущої антисоціальної поведінки, корупції чи беззаконня.

3: Викриття значущої некомпетентності або недбальства.

4: Розкриття інформації, яка дозволяє людям ухвалювати більш обґрунтовані рішення щодо суспільно важливих питань.

5: Захист здоров’я та безпеки населення.

6: Запобігання введенню громадськості в оману.

7: Захист питань свободи слова.

Справедливість

Будьте відкритими, чесними та відвертими у спілкуванні з фігурантами вашого матеріалу, якщо тільки однозначний суспільний інтерес не вимагає вчинити інакше. У випадку висунення обвинувачень,відповідним особам або організаціям зазвичай має бути надано право на відповідь.

Приватність 

Для реалізації ваших прав на свободу вираження поглядів та інформації важливо, щоб в основі вашої діяльності була повага до приватності особи та справедливе ставлення до неї під час розслідування та встановлення фактів, розкриття яких відповідає суспільним інтересам.

Чесність 

Завжди залишайтеся незалежними від інтересів держави та різних сторін. Ніколи не підтримуйте та не створюйте враження, що підтримуєте будь-які організації, продукти, заходи чи послуги.

Джерела

Приймайте інформацію з будь-якого джерела, але знайте, що вам доведеться вирішувати особисто, яку інформацію варто враховувати, а яку ні. Джерела слід завжди перевіряти, особливо коли мова йде про джерела, що до яких ви звертаєтеся вперше і які не використовувалися ніколи раніше. Важливо захищати джерела, які не хочуть бути названими.

Оригінал цього навчального модуля опубліковано на англомовній версії Media Helping Media. Переклад українською Ніни Кур’яти.

The post Чи етична ваша журналістика? first appeared on Media Helping Media.

You are a reporter working on a local newspaper. The editor asks you to write an article about a local business that offers a service which is available for a paid-for subscription.

The editor explains that the piece promoting the business’s product is not an advertorial, but is a case of “working together with a local success story in a way that is mutually beneficial”.

You set to work on the piece and create an article which is then published in print and online.

A reader contacts you after the piece is published to tell you that a similar service is being offered by a non-commercial community project run by volunteers and which is totally free-of-charge.

You thank them for alerting you to the free service, and tell them that you have since been working on a second piece about the paid-for service, with an article due to be published in a couple of days.

The reader suggests you add a line about the free service saying that “In these times when people are struggling with the cost of living it might be nice to let your readers know that there is a similar service completely free-of-charge”.

What should you do?

A: Ignore the new information that you have received and publish without mentioning the free service because you feel you can’t mention every service that exists in the area or take attention away from the paid-for service whose coverage is “mutually beneficial”.

B: Rework the article to include the information you have just been given because thorough and comprehensive journalism means that you should include all relevant information that could help enhance the knowledge of your audience about the topic you are covering.

C: Plan a third piece about the free service to be published at a later date.

Suggested action

We would recommend option B if print and online deadlines allow (and of course online articles can always be updated).

You have been alerted to relevant information by a member of the public. It is information that is absent from your report and which could be of valuable to your audience.

As a journalist you have a responsibility to inform the public debate so that the audience can make educated choices.

Your job is to gather facts, test them, then present them to the audience so they can assess their value.

Because of that, you should be sharing all relevant information that could help those who read your journalism.

Withholding information, for whatever reason, should be done for solid editorial reasons only, such as the likelihood to offend, cause harm, or mislead. For more on offence please see our ethics section and the article about offence and journalism.

In this case the reporter should refer up to their editor, explain that new information has come to light which is relevant to the piece being produced, and discuss how to incorporate what you have learnt in a clear and concise way that is of benefit to those who consume the news your media house produces.

You should never knowingly publish an incomplete news report unless it is part of a series of investigations which, in their totality, present all the facts to the audience.

This scenario presents a classic ethical dilemma faced by journalists: balancing the interests of a source (in this case, a business with a “mutually beneficial” relationship), the expectations of an editor, and the core responsibility to inform the public accurately and comprehensively. Let’s delve deeper into the complexities at play:

1. The “mutually beneficial” relationship and its implications:
   • Potential bias:
     • The editor’s phrasing, “working together with a local success story in a way that is mutually beneficial,” raises red flags. It suggests a potential blurring of lines between journalism and public relations. This kind of arrangement can compromise journalistic objectivity, as the reporter may feel pressured to present a favorable narrative.
     • This relationship could create a conflict of interest. The journalist might feel compelled to prioritise the business’s interests over the public’s right to know about alternative options.
   • Trust and credibility:
     • Readers are increasingly discerning. They can detect when a story feels like an advertisement in disguise. If the article lacks balance and omits crucial information, it can damage the newspaper’s credibility and erode public trust.
     • The reader that contacted the journalist, is showing that trust is placed in the journalist to report fairly.
2. The significance of the reader’s tip:
   • Public service journalism:
     • The reader’s information highlights the essence of public service journalism: providing information that empowers citizens to make informed decisions. In a time of economic hardship, knowing about a free alternative is particularly valuable.
     • The reader is acting as a “citizen journalist” helping to provide important information.
   • Completeness and accuracy:
     • A truly comprehensive report should include all relevant information, even if it challenges the initial narrative. Omitting the free service creates an incomplete picture, potentially misleading readers.
   • Ethical obligation:
     • Journalists have an ethical obligation to seek the truth and report it fairly. This includes acknowledging and addressing new information that comes to light, even if it requires revising a previously published article.
3. Analysing the Options:
   • Option A (Ignore the new information):
     • This option is ethically indefensible. It prioritises the “mutually beneficial” relationship over the public’s right to know.
     • It betrays the core principles of journalism and risks damaging the newspaper’s reputation.
   • Option B (Rework the article):
     • This is the most ethical and responsible course of action. It demonstrates a commitment to accuracy, fairness, and public service.
     • It acknowledges the importance of providing readers with complete and relevant information.
     • It shows that the journalist is willing to adapt to new information.
   • Option C (Plan a third piece):
     • While this option might seem like a compromise, it delays the dissemination of crucial information.
     • It also raises questions about why the information was not included in the original article or the follow up article.
     • This choice could be seen as an attempt to control the flow of information, rather than providing it promptly.
4. The importance of editorial oversight:
   • Transparency and accountability:
     • The reporter should immediately inform the editor about the new information and discuss how to incorporate it into the article.
     • This demonstrates transparency and accountability.
   • Ethical decision-making:
     • The editor should support the reporter’s decision to include the information, even if it means revising the article.
     • This reinforces the newspaper’s commitment to ethical journalism.
   • Policy and guidelines:
     • The newspaper should have clear ethical guidelines regarding conflicts of interest and the handling of new information.

In conclusion: The journalist’s primary responsibility is to the public. Option B, reworking the article to include the free service, is the only ethically sound choice. It upholds the principles of accuracy, fairness, and public service, and reinforces the credibility of the news organisation. The “mutually beneficial” relationship with the business should not be prioritised over the public’s right to know.

The post Withholding information – scenario first appeared on Media Helping Media.

In this article we look at the steps involved in creating a news and current affairs programme based on the needs of the target audience.

Essentially, a radio news and current affairs programme has four main format types. These are:

• The interview
  • This is where the presenter interviews someone in the news. It could be about the main story of the day.
  • If it is the most important story this interview would take place immediately after the main news bulletin.
  • It should be between around five minutes long, although this could be stretched to 10 depending on the seriousness of the topic.
  • There will also be shorter interviews throughout the programme.
• The reporter package
  • A package will be put together by a reporter or correspondent and will include a number of clips of people the journalist has interviewed.
  • A package will typically be about three and a half minutes long and contain three or four clips.
  • Each clip will be about 20 to 30 seconds long. The package can be pre-recorded or live.
• The two-way
  • This is where the presenter interviews a reporter or correspondent covering a story.
  • It is designed to tap into the journalist’s background knowledge of the story being covered and is sometimes used before a main interview.
  • A two-way can vary from between 90 seconds to five minutes depending on the importance of the subject matter.
  • It is different in tone from interviews with outside contributors.
  • When the presenter is interviewing someone from outside on a big story, the tone will often be adversarial, pressing the interviewee on important points.
  • In a two-way with a reporter, the presenter is simply trying to draw out the most important facts in a neutral tone.
• The vox pop
  • This is a mix of clips from members of the public who are giving their reactions/opinions on a news story. This should be no longer than three minutes long.
  • It should contain a variety of perspectives so that the audience can hear diverse opinions.

Structure of a current affairs programme

The main purpose of the show is to cover the news and get reaction to it. So the main ingredients are news bulletins, with interviews and longer reports about the individual news items.

There is more to it than that.

There will also be other information vital to the listener, including weather forecasts and sports news, plus perhaps business news, summaries of what is in the newspapers, programme trails for the rest of the network and so on.

These all need to fit together in a regular pattern, so that with familiarity, the listener gets to understand how the programme works. You can think of this as arranging the furniture of the show.

You will probably want your main news bulletins to happen on the hour, perhaps with summaries on the half hour. These are the first fixed points.

The weather and the sports news should also happen at exactly the same time each morning – just as they appear in the same place every day in a newspaper.

The audience likes predictability in the way the content is presented, so that they know when to tune in for the information in which they are most interested.

When you are happy with your programme structure, the task for the production team every day is to think about how the news stories and interviews fit in.

Running order

Every edition of the show works to a running order. A rough running order is produced at the very first programme meeting and then modified and updated as the day and the night develop.

The following is a rough outline for a two-hour-long radio news and current affairs programme.

Exploiting content for maximum impact

Your production team should include at least one person monitoring the live output being produced by the programme.

This person is looking for newsworthy clips to package for the news summaries on the half hour and the main bulletins on the hour, and to illustrate live studio debates.

Your programme needs to be a breaking news production line, continually delivering original newsworthy clips.

This production role should also share all the breaking news clips from across all output and on all appropriate social media channels.

Creating a programme trailer

In order to attract new listeners, you need to create compelling programme trailers to advertise the material to be broadcast in the following morning’s programme.

This is essential, and has to be factored into the daily work pattern. The trailer must promote the main story of the day; the one in which you are planning to invest most resources.

Creating the sort of trailer that will stop people in their tracks and make them pay attention can help win over new listeners, introduce them to the subject matter to be covered on your programme, and, hopefully, encourage them to spread the word by mouth and social media.

A promo trailer should be around 30 seconds maximum, the shorter the better. You want to grab attention. Give the audience a snippet of what is coming up. You don’t want to give them too much, but just enough that they think “I must tune in tomorrow to hear more about that”.

And you want your trailer to be shareable on social media, so the better it is, the more chance it has of going viral. Ask yourself would you share the trailer with your friends? If not, work on it some more. And keep working on it until you think it has the quality to go viral.

Recipe for a good trailer

So how do you create an attention-grabbing radio trailer? Here are a few suggestions.

Encourage your reporter and producers to always be alert to an audio clip that sets out the scale of the issue, but doesn’t give the solution.

For example, you might be doing a story about the rural economy and how people are struggling to survive.

You will have interviewed farmers and villagers. One might say something along the lines of “I didn’t know how I would survive”. Such a quote will make the audience want to know what happened next. What did the interviewee do to survive? Could it be relevant to the listener’s own predicament?

That clip is less than five seconds long, yet it is likely to resonate with thousands of people in a similar position. Of course your piece will no doubt have examined the issues the farmers and villagers face, and you will probably have covered how they coped. But save that for the programme.

The next trick is to package that clip, and perhaps another, with a carefully crafted text that explains WHY people MUST tune in to your programme in order to learn more.

Calls to action

The wording is important.

You could use ‘calls to action’ where your trailer invites the audience to ‘listen’, ‘take part’, and ‘assess’.

Words that suggest drama work well, such as ‘revealed’, ‘for the first time’, ‘life and death decision’.

But you must remain honest. You are in the business of facts not fiction. Never exaggerate.

Another benefit of trailers is that it could encourage your competition, both broadcast and print, to tune in so they can follow up your story. And that’s a good thing. You want them to be following your lead, you want to be known as the station that sets the news agenda. Because by the time they have heard your news item you will have already moved the topic by inviting guests to respond live on-air.

Because trailers should be part of your daily output, you should probably consider creating a template so that it can be used every day.

Something like:

“In tomorrow’s morning programme we will be looking at (here you can mention up to three items), and we will be talking to xxxx about xxxx (insert short clip here).”

The post Creating a current affairs programme first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Big stories happen out of the blue. And when they do newsrooms have to spring into action immediately.

This scenario was set out by Bob Eggington in “Adopting the ‘big story’ approach”.

Some media organisations have a system for assessing what defines a big breaking news story.

Such a system can help editors decide how much editorial focus should be allocated to the coverage. You can find out more about this system by reading our module on how to create a story weighting system.

A big story might be a recurring story (such as seasonal flooding or earthquakes) or one-off, unexpected events (such as public disorder or industrial disputes) where there is significant local, regional, national, and international impact.

When a big story breaks the following editorial considerations should be assessed.

The first three points in this list apply to all stories, both big and small. Points four to 12 apply to a big story.

While immediate response reporters and crews focus on points 1-3, you might want to assign producers and researchers to look at points 4-12 in depth, if appropriate and if those resources exist.

1. The story: This is fairly straightforward and is applied to all stories both big and small. We need to ask the basic journalistic questions of what, why, when, how, where and who.
2. The facts: Again, this is common to all news coverage. Every detail must be examined, tested and proven to be accurate by confirming with at least two independent sources, except those filed by your own reporters or others you trust.
3. Those affected: Personal accounts of how the story impacts on the lives of those involved is an essential element to all news coverage.
4. The data: Where it comes from and whether it can be trusted.
5. Responsibility: Who or what was responsible, and why did it go wrong?
6. The promises: Made in the past and previous measures taken.
7. The impact: Now and in the future.
8. The consequences: Changes in lifestyle for some and what happens to those who can’t change.
9. Accountability: Who knew and what preventative action could have been taken?
10. The future: What changes need to take place?
11. The follow up: Set a follow up date. Three or six months. List questions to ask.
12. Engaging the audience: Public and expert debate to dig deeper and seek answers.

The list above, which is explored further in our module “Story development, ensuring all angles are covered” can’t be applied to every story; newsrooms don’t have the resources for that.

But if you apply the story weighting system for breaking news you will be better placed to decide what is a general news story and what is a big story.

Exploring all the editorial angles of a news story is only one part of the coverage.

If your news organisation has introduced a converged newsroom approach, which is always helpful, then allocating shared resources and setting out roles and responsibilities when a big story breaks is so much easier.

Summary

• A media organisation needs to have a system for dealing with a big breaking news story in order to fully inform the public debate.
• That system must set out the editorial, technical, and human resources requirements.
• A converged newsroom, with centralised command-and-control, with a multimedia newsgathering operation along with a shared planning unit will help streamline such a system.

Questions

1. What is the primary role of planning in the news business?
2. Describe the challenges that arise when a big story happens unexpectedly.
3. Explain the importance of having a rapid response team in media organisations.
4. What are the key components of a “big story plan”?
5. How should media organisations handle communication during a big story?
6. Discuss the role of the reporter as the “eyes and ears” of the audience in the context of a big story.
7. Analyse the differences between traditional news media and “citizen journalism”.
8. What strategies can be adopted for ensuring accurate and reliable coverage during a big story?
9. Evaluate the significance of the production team’s role in adapting the news product for a big story.
10. Sum up the overall approach to handling a big story highlighting the interplay between planning, reporting, and production.

Answers

1. Planning is crucial for professionalism and good coverage in the news business.
2. Big stories require immediate action, and there is pressure to provide quick, accurate information despite the lack of preparation.
3. Rapid response teams ensure that media organisations can quickly mobilise resources and personnel to cover major incidents effectively.
4. A big story plan involves ambition, organisation, and resource allocation, including people, equipment, and space in the news product.
5. The text suggests using mobile phones, special WhatsApp groups, and backup plans like walkie-talkies for communication.
6. Reporters provide valuable descriptive pieces that serve as the audience’s “eyes and ears” during the early stages of a big story.
7. Traditional news media focuses on clarifying and establishing facts, while “citizen journalism” may lack this level of verification.
8. Strategies include verifying social media content, using background researchers, and maintaining a coordinating figure for information flow.
9. The production team adapts the news product to emphasise the big story’s importance, finding impactful visuals and facts.
10. The approach involves thorough planning, quick and accurate reporting, and effective production to ensure reliable coverage.

The post When a ‘big story’ breaks first appeared on Media Helping Media.

A media organisation must always remain alert to changing audience demand and behaviour. This involves continually examining what is produced to ensure that it is relevant to those who consume it.

There is a danger of losing your audience if you are not adapting in order to hold their attention.

Part of this process might involve revising the current editorial process and/or creating new products to try to both retain the existing audience and attract new listeners, viewers, and readers.

Such a process, done properly, can lead to increased audience engagement and loyalty.

But how can media managers be sure they are creating the right products? And what are the steps they need to take?

Planning a new product

The launch of any media product, whether it’s a new radio or TV programme, a special edition for a newspaper, or a website, needs meticulous research, planning, and, above all, justification.

In this article, the first in a three-part series, we look first at the basics of managing such a project before moving on to a how-to guide setting out what to do if you are planning a relaunch or a new product, and then look at an example of how to set up a new TV programme was successfully launched.

The following principles should be applied by all broadcasters and publishers involved in the process of creating new output. It’s best to make a checklist setting out all the questions that need to be answered. That checklist can be broken down into four areas:

• Defining the target audience.
• Setting out the unique editorial proposition.
• Assessing the cost.
• Calculating the return.

Let’s look at those four areas in more detail.

Define and get to know your target audience

The first question to ask is “Who is it for?”.

You are about to devote considerable time and effort in order to create something new, so you need to know whether anyone will want what you are about to produce.

This is where you need to ensure that what you are creating matches the requirements of your audience.

Our training module about “The value of thorough research for a media business” sets out the steps a media business needs to consider when establishing its position in the local media market.

And then you need to understand the audience you aim to reach with the new product. Our training module “Identifying the target audience and its information needs” will take you through this process.

Set out a clear and unique editorial proposition

The second question is “What are you offering?”.

Before you start you need to set out what is unique about what you are about to produce.

• How will it be different from what the competitors are producing?
• Why would anyone want to listen to your radio station, watch your TV programme, read your magazine, or visit your website?

This is about offering something different; something that not only doesn’t currently exist, but also something that is so unique, fresh and relevant that it sets your media organisation apart from the rest.

Perhaps your differential is in terms of topics covered, the way you treat news, the user engagement and interactivity you offer, the editorial and ethical values you hold dear, your focus on fact-checking, the diversity of voices you include.

Our training module “Establishing a market differential with original journalism”, sets out a way to do this. After reading that module you are ready for step three in the process.

Calculate the cost in terms of money and resources

Next, your media business needs to know whether it can afford to pay for the new content idea.

The first question to consider is whether you can do it with existing resources.

Is there a way of reorganising how you currently do things in order to be able to produce more or different content without having to hire extra staff and equipment?

You will need to look at your current production processes.

In my experience, many new products can be created from existing resources if media managers are prepared to take a fresh look at how news is produced.

Our training module “Creating a converged news operation”, sets out some simple steps that will enable a news organisation to introduce efficiencies which will improve the quantity and quality of output.

This usually involves introducing new workflows and changes to what staff currently do. Our training module “Convergence, workflows, rolls and responsibilities”, shows how this can be implemented.

I have introduced successfully convergence models in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, SE Europe, and the CIS. In every case duplication of effort has been eliminated and productivity has been increased – and all from existing resources.

Once you have taken a fresh look at how your newsroom works, and you know more how you can exploit existing resources for maximum gain, you are ready to move on to the next step.

Understand the sources of revenue

The final point is about how to make money from the new programme, edition, or website. You need to know which advertisers / sponsors will want to be associated with what you are creating?

And, although I have listed this as point four, it would make sense to start thinking about this at the start of the process during the audience identification stage.

Our training module “How to develop a media sales strategy” sets out some simple steps which, if followed, should help you monetise the new product, cover your costs, and enable you to start thinking about how to expand your media business further.

In the second article in this series, Bob Eggington sets out a “How-to of media project management” listing the practical steps required. The third article, also written by Bob, looks at “A practical example of media project management”, in which he shares a case-study of a programme he has implemented.

Lesson plan for trainers

If you are a trainer of journalists we have a free lesson plan: Project management for journalists which you are welcome to download and adapt for your own purposes.

Related articles

The skills of media project management

The media project management process

The post Project management in media first appeared on Media Helping Media.

In this scenario we look at what a journalist should do with off-the-record information when it relates to a major news event.

Should they agree to conditions being placed on the information’s use? Should they ignore any conditions and do the story anyway? Or should they use what they have been told as background information and dig further?

Try our scenario and decide what you would do in the circumstances.

Dealing with off-the-record information

You are working as a reporter on a local radio station, which is situated in the city centre close to the police headquarters.

Journalists and police officers are often found mixing in the local pub after their shifts have finished.

In the city where you work the journalists have a lot of dealings with the police. Many are on first-name terms, having crossed paths in the course of their work.

The pub is a good place for journalists to pick up leads and background information.

You are having a beer with a couple of journalist pals, when two police officers you know join you for a drink. They, too, have just finished the late shift.

As you chat, one of the officers tells you that, earlier in the evening, vice squad officers working undercover in the city’s red-light district say they saw a prominent public figure driving his car slowly down a street which is well known for kerb-crawling.

Later they say the found the same car parked in a side street. When they checked, they found the man in the back seat with a woman. The woman wasn’t his partner.

The officer tells you that the man was given a caution, and says the police were “taking it no further”.

He names the man, describes the circumstances in some detail, but then says the story is “off the record”, and that it mustn’t get out.

He says a surveillance operation is continuing, and tells the journalists not to mention it to anyone else.

What should you do? The following are three options. There will be many more, but in this module we are looking at the following three.

Option 1 – run with the story

This has the makings of a lead story. The off-the-record status of the information has no legal bearing; you haven’t signed anything. If the officer gets into trouble that’s his problem.

You have the name of the man, you have the location of the incident, the time it took place, you have a description of the car, and details of what vice squad officers saw when they shone their light in the vehicle.

You have enough for a 30-second voice report for the next bulletin. You should tell the newsdesk you have a new lead, head back to the newsroom, and get working on it as soon as you can.

Option 2 – keep your mouth shut

You should respect the informal off-the-record arrangement you have with your contact in the local police.

The officer has given you the details only because he trusted you. He has told you that the story “mustn’t get out”.

If you break this confidence it will damage a productive relationship, which might take years to repair.

You need to preserve the close relationship your news organisation has with the authorities.

So you should agree not to mention the incident, not even to your news editor, but to consider it valuable background information related to an on-going investigation.

Option 3 – refer up and investigate further

You should call your news editor and share the information, making it clear that the officer had told you that he was speaking off the record after he revealed the details.

There is still so much missing from the story. Apart from the chat in the pub with the officer, you have nothing else to go on. You have one source only.

You and your news editor need to discuss the significance of the information. Together you will need to assess the public interest aspects of what has happened.

You will also need to consider why the police officer was willing to share the information.

Then you need to decide whether the alleged incident requires further investigation.

At this stage you should certainly not consider putting anything out on air.

Off-the-record briefings

Off-the-record briefings are common in journalism. They can be useful in helping journalists research background information, and they can provide context about the issues reporters are investigating.

But such briefings can also put a journalist in an awkward position.

It’s possible an off-the-record briefing is given because the person sharing the information wants the journalist to research the matter for a variety of unknown reasons. In that case the journalist might be being used by the information provider.

It could be that the person sharing the information is afraid it will get out and is trying to pre-empt the situation by sharing a version of events in the hope that the journalist will be content with what has been shared and distracted from a bigger story.

Or it might be that the journalist has simply witnessed some loose talk, that the person sharing the information has realised they made a mistake in sharing it, and they are trying to recover the situation by saying what they shared was off the record.

A lot depends on the circumstances.

Some off-the-record chats will take place formally, others will be chance meetings with contacts who have information to share. Most will involve information providers who don’t want to go on the record for having shared it.

Specialist correspondents and beat reporters often depend on receiving confidential information from their contacts as a valuable part of their research.

Most media organisations will have a policy regarding off-the-record briefings. Some will accept them, others will feel that they compromise their ability to seek out facts and tie them to a controlled version of events.

You need to know your employer’s stance on the issue. This should have been made clear when you joined the company and during your training.

This scenario is not about a briefing with a specialist in a particular subject, it’s a chat with a casual contact in a pub late at night.

How would you deal with the situation? Let’s look at the three options set out above.

Option 1 – run with the story

If you follow option 1, you would be broadcasting information which hadn’t been checked.

It’s late at night, the officer who told you about the incident had heard it second-hand from the vice squad.

What they told him was a colourful, off-the-cuff description of what they said they had seen. It was not an official report.

There is nobody to quote. You have simply been given a tip-off that something has happened. A man found with a prostitute has been given a caution. That is all.

If you write a 30-second voice report at this point, you will be at risk of defamation of character, based on unsubstantiated information. That is not journalism.

Option 2 – keep your mouth shut

In this option, the reporter is keen to preserve the cosy relationship they have with the local police.

The reporter knows that if they report what was said in the pub, the police might not open up to them in the future. That could damage future newsgathering efforts.

The reporter is quite content to let the police officer rule on what they can or can’t do with the information. But, in doing so the reporter has allowed the line between information-sharing and editorial control to be crossed.

That is not a healthy position.

Option 3 – refer up and investigate further

This is the preferred course of action.

You have been given background information, which you and your news editor now need to consider.

By applying the public interest test you will be able to assess what to do next, and how much effort should be put into further research, if any.

It could be that the man in question has been outspoken in the past about the need to clean up the sex industry in the city. Perhaps he’s been campaigning about sex trafficking.

If so, there might well be a public interest justification for further investigation.

You might consider putting a file together on the prominent public figure who is alleged to have been cautioned so that you are ready if and when the news finally breaks.

Such a file would be accessed by your online team, too, and probably contain a biography, videos and photographs of the man in public life as well as other background material.

But as for writing a piece for the next bulletin – no, there is nothing to report.

Not only because the information was shared off the record, but also because you don’t have any independent sources offering verified facts that have been double-checked to ensure that the information you broadcast is accurate, fair, and in the public interest.

This scenario dives deep into the complex ethical dilemmas journalists face when dealing with off-the-record information, especially in the context of potentially explosive news. Here’s a deeper analysis:

Core conflict:

• The crux of the issue lies in the tension between journalistic duty to inform the public and the ethical obligation to respect confidentiality and source relationships.
• It highlights the power dynamics inherent in information sharing, where sources may attempt to manipulate or control the narrative.

Analysis of the Options:

• Option 1 (Run with the story):
  • This option represents a purely sensationalist approach, prioritising speed and impact over accuracy and fairness.
  • It disregards the potential for misinformation and the devastating consequences of defamation.
  • This approach is highly risky, and damages the credibility of the journalist and news outlet.
  • It also disregards the very important aspect of the information being second hand, and not from the people who actually witnessed the event.

• Option 2 (Keep silent):
  • While preserving source relationships is crucial, this option demonstrates an excessive deference to authority.
  • It risks suppressing information that may be in the public interest.
  • It blurs the lines between journalistic independence and complicity.
  • By letting the police officer dictate what can and cannot be done with information, the journalist is giving up their editorial control.

• Option 3 (Refer up and investigate):
  • This option represents the most responsible and ethical approach.
  • It acknowledges the importance of verification, contextualisation, and public interest assessment.
  • It emphasises the collaborative nature of journalism, involving editors and other professionals in the decision-making process.
  • It shows the reporter is thinking about the “why” the information was given.
  • It allows for the gathering of more information, and the ability to verify the story.

Deeper considerations:

• Public interest vs. personal conduct:
  • The scenario raises the question of when a public figure’s private conduct becomes a matter of public concern.
  • Factors such as the individual’s position of power, their public pronouncements, and the potential for hypocrisy must be considered.
• Source motivation:
  • Understanding why a source is providing information is essential.
  • Is it a genuine attempt to expose wrongdoing, or is it driven by personal animosity or political agendas?
  • The scenario highlights how the source may be trying to “pre-empt” a story.
• The nature of “off-the-record”:
  • The scenario underscores the ambiguity and potential for abuse of off-the-record agreements.
  • Clear and consistent policies regarding off-the-record information are crucial for journalistic integrity.
  • The text makes it clear that just because someone says information is “off the record” does not mean that it is, legally.
• Defamation and legal risks:
  • The text highlights the very real legal risks involved in publishing unverified information.
  • It is vital that journalist understand the laws surrounding defamation.
• The importance of multiple sources:
  • The text makes it very clear that one source is not enough.
  • Journalists should always seek at least two independent sources.

In essence, this scenario serves as a valuable case study for exploring the ethical complexities of journalism in the digital age, where the pressure to break news quickly often clashes with the fundamental principles of accuracy, fairness, and responsibility.

The post Off-the-record chat – scenario first appeared on Media Helping Media.

How should a reporter respond when someone uses emotional pressure and threats to try to stop them doing their job?

Every case will be different, but in this scenario we look at a situation where a reporter is begged not to cover a story, and then threatened with violence if they publish. What would you do in the circumstances?

Fair and accurate reporting of proceedings

You are a reporter working for the local newspaper in a small town.

One of the daily tasks is to cover the local courts.

The brief is to go along, read the daily case sheet, select those that you have either been told to look out for or which stand out as being particularly newsworthy, and then attend the hearings.

You will have learnt the rules for court reporting in the country you work in during your journalism training, and you will know what can and what can’t be reported under certain circumstances.

On this particular day you select three cases to cover.

One is a follow-up hearing to a case that your newspaper is already covering. The other two are new cases which you sense are likely to produce a few lines of copy (copy is the word used in the newspaper business for the text you submit to the news editor for approval).

Of those two, one turns out to be particularly newsworthy.

You take your seat in the press gallery along with reporters from other media outlets.

You have a clear view of proceedings, and of the pubic gallery where those with an interest in the case sit.

As you leave the court a woman, who you had seen in the public gallery, approaches you.

She is agitated and begs you not to write a news report about the case.

She says the incident her adult son has been charged with was “a set-up”, that he is innocent, and that if you publish the story it will “ruin his life”.

She tells you his wife has recently given birth and he needs his job to keep his family housed and fed.

If the story runs in the local newspaper, she says, “he will be finished”.

By this point the woman is becoming emotional.

A group of people has gathered around you both.

A man steps forward and prods you in the chest with his finger saying, “Don’t forget, we know where you live.” He then pushes you and you fall back against the wall banging your head in the process. Your colleagues from the other media outlets witness the scene.

What should you do?

1: You should listen to the concerns of the woman and, having been told about the negative impact your report might have, agree not to write about what you heard in court. You are working in a small town, it’s one of those places where everyone knows everyone, your by-line will be on the piece, and it will be much easier for all concerned if you just forget the hearing took place.

2: You should jot down what the woman is saying and question her more about her son’s family, the new baby, where he works, what he does, how he spends his leisure time. This is a great newsgathering opportunity, and she is giving you loads of quotes. The added excitement about you being prodded and threatened all adds to the piece. You could weave in what was said in court with what was said outside. You are already thinking up headlines to suggest to the subeditor: “Reporter assaulted leaving courthouse”, “Local man faces ruin if found guilty”. Try to take a picture of the woman if you can.

3: You should explain to the woman that it’s your duty to report back to your editor on what happened in the court. Tell her that you will report only that which is allowed under the court reporting rules, and that it’s up to your editor to decide whether the article will be published or not. If she has any issues with that she should take it up with the newspaper.

Which is the right approach?

Nobody likes to read bad news about themselves or their families in the local newspaper, so it’s not unusual for court reporters and newspaper editors to come under pressure from those who feel that the publication of information could have a damaging impact on their lives.

When I was a local newspaper reporter such pressure was common.

But your job is to produce a fair and accurate report of proceedings, within the rules set down by the courts.

The task you had been set by your editor that morning was to attend the court, read through the charge lists, select which hearings to cover, cover them, then report back.

It was not to discuss with relatives of any of the accused how reporting the facts as set out during the court proceedings might affect the lives of their loved ones.

I suggest option three is the right response. As a reporter you need to retain your integrity by dealing with situations in a fair and accurate manner. You must not be pulled or persuaded by interested parties.

The text presents a situation where a local newspaper reporter, tasked with covering court proceedings, is confronted by the mother of a defendant. The mother pleads with the reporter not to publish the story, citing devastating consequences for her son and family. This emotional appeal escalates into a physical threat from a man in the group, including a direct threat of violence. The text then presents three possible responses for the reporter and argues that the correct one is to firmly but politely explain the reporter’s duty to report the facts of the court proceedings, adhering to legal guidelines, and to refer the person to the editor for further concerns.

• Ethical dilemma:
  • This scenario highlights the classic conflict between journalistic duty and human empathy. Reporters are tasked with informing the public, but they are also human beings who can be affected by the emotional appeals of those they cover.
  • The mother’s plea is designed to tug at the reporter’s heartstrings, creating a sense of guilt and responsibility.
  • The threat of violence adds a layer of danger and intimidation.
• Importance of objectivity:
  • The text correctly emphasises the need for objectivity and adherence to journalistic ethics.
  • Giving in to emotional pressure or threats undermines the integrity of the news and the public’s right to know.
  • The reporter’s job is to report the facts, not to make judgments about the consequences.
• Legal considerations:
  • Court proceedings are generally matters of public record.
  • Reporters have a legal right to report on what happens in open court, within the bounds of legal restrictions.
  • The threat of violence is a criminal act and should be treated as such.
• Safety and security:
  • The physical threat highlights the potential dangers faced by journalists, especially at the local level.
  • The reporter’s safety should be a priority.

Adding value:

Here’s how we can add value to this analysis:

• Prioritise safety:
  • The most immediate concern is the reporter’s safety. After the assault, the reporter should:
    • Report the assault and threats to the police immediately.
    • Inform their editor and news organisation.
    • Seek medical attention if necessary.
    • Document the incident thoroughly.
• Reinforce journalistic principles:
  • While option three is the most appropriate, it’s essential to emphasise the importance of professionalism and empathy.
  • The reporter should explain their duty calmly and respectfully, while also acknowledging the mother’s concerns.
  • It is possible to be firm and kind at the same time.
• News organisation support:
  • News organisations have a responsibility to support their reporters in these situations.
  • This includes:
    • Providing legal counsel.
    • Offering security measures.
    • Providing emotional support.
    • Publishing a statement of support for the reporter, and reaffirming the newspapers commitment to accurate reporting.
• Dealing with threats:
  • Threats should never be taken lightly.
  • News organisations should have protocols in place for dealing with threats and harassment.
  • This might involve:
    • Increasing security measures.
    • Working with law enforcement.
    • Providing training for reporters on how to handle threatening situations.
• Context and nuance:
  • While the core of the story needs to be told, consideration can be given to how it is worded.
  • For instance, instead of sensationalising the story, a reporter can focus on the facts of the case and the legal proceedings.
  • It is also worth noting that the story itself may cause the persons life to be ruined, not the reporter. The reporter is simply reporting the facts of a legal proceeding.
• Importance of record keeping:
  • Keeping accurate records of the threats, and the encounter is very important. This can be used in any legal proceedings that may occur.

In conclusion, this scenario underscores the challenges and responsibilities of local journalism. By prioritising safety, upholding ethical principles, and providing adequate support, news organisations can help their reporters navigate these difficult situations.

The post Emotional pressure – scenario first appeared on Media Helping Media.

In this scenario a reporter embedded with the military and closely monitored on an official visit to a war zone wanders off and discovers a story the army wouldn’t want him to tell.

You are a reporter in a city with a large army base. The anniversary of the end of a military invasion is approaching.

Tensions still exist between the two countries involved. A political resolution has still to be reached. No-fly zones are in force.

A battalion, based in the city where you work, has been sent to the country to begin a year-long tour of duty.

The army invites selected media representatives from your city to spend a week in the country under the protection of the battalion.

You are chosen as a radio reporter. You will be accompanied by three other journalists. One from a local weekly newspaper, another from the city’s daily newspaper, and a freelance reporter from a news agency which supplies the national newspapers.

The four of you are to be embedded for the trip, meaning that all of your activities will, supposedly, be organised and monitored by your military hosts.

As part of the deal you have to agree to a code of conduct, set out by the army’s media office.

You are told that you are not to operate outside of the framework of the trip – which is set out for you in terms of where you should go and who you should talk to.

You are issued with military clothing appropriate to the conditions in which you will be working.

Throughout the trip you are closely chaperoned by army media officers who arrange helicopter trips over the battle zones, set up interviews with senior military figures, and help arrange visits to a satellite communications vessel so that you can file your regular reports.

The four journalists spend the week in close proximity. They are not allowed out of their minders’ sight.

The journalists talk among themselves a lot. They discuss what they will be filing, and what storylines they will be covering.

Because they are all being exposed to the same information, there is little difference in what they file. The usual editorial tensions of working closely with competitors appear not to exist.

The group is well aware that this is little more than a public relations stunt by the military, but all four are keen to take part in order to experience travelling to a war zone.

Towards the end of the week, you and the other three journalists are told you are being taken on a trip to a remote settlement where an estimated 70 soldiers had died during the fighting.

You are shown a battlefield and told that the army engineers have been carrying out an extensive operation to remove what they say are live booby traps – explosive devices attached to corpses – so that local farmers can return to the land.

As you approach, there is a loud explosion. The army minders are distracted. The group of four reporters is separated.

Close by, half a dozen locals have gathered, presumably attracted by the noise of the helicopters when you landed in the area.

Two of the four reporters take the chance to talk to them. You are one of them, the other is the freelance news agency reporter.

One local resident tells you more about the booby traps. He says they have to deal with them on a daily basis. Livestock is being killed. Parts of their land are no-go areas. Another backs the claims. You turn your tape recorder on.

They say they are angry that not enough has been done to protect the local community. They claim that yours is the first visit by the army to the area since the end of the war.

The freelance news agency reporter takes notes. You have the interview on tape.

You return to base. The army minders arrange a meeting with all four journalists during which they set out what can and cannot be reported from the scene. Neither you nor the freelance reporter mention your conversation with the local residents.

The minders inform the group that there will be a trip to the satellite communications vessel later that evening. All four reporters start to write.

You suspect that the freelance news agency reporter will be filing a report about the conversation with the local residents. You fear that he will have a scoop and you will appear to have missed the story.

You need to consider, in the light of what you have seen and heard – and the debriefing meeting with the minders – what you will transmit.

What do you report?

1. The trip you are on has been arranged and paid for by the military, and you had agreed to a code of conduct before taking part. You should report only what you have been told by the military. You were not expected to be exposed to unauthorised sources. And you have no way to verify what local community members said, which could be untrue.
2. You should request another meeting with the minders and your fellow journalists and tell the group that you chatted to the locals while they were distracted by the explosion, summarise what the local farmers told you, play your recorded interview to the group, and ask the army minders for a comment.
3. You should write two reports. One covering the day’s events in line with the rules you agreed to before taking part in the trip, the other covering the conversation with the locals. You should file both, and leave it up to your editor to make the final decision on what angle to broadcast.

Verifying conflicting information

In this case the reporter took the second option. He realised that the locals had offered another perspective on the booby trap clearance, and it needed to be checked. He couldn’t ignore it. He also felt that he should invite the army to comment on what he had witnessed.

Being open and honest with the group about what he had seen also removed the fear that the freelance reporter might break the rules to get a scoop that would then make it seem as though the others had missed the story.

In the event he discovered that both versions of the story were true. The army engineers had been involved in removing booby-trapped corpses for some months, but had only that week started to clear the area which the journalists were visiting. So the locals were telling the truth that this was the first visit to their area, but the army was also telling the truth that the operation had been going on for months – although not necessarily in the area visited by the journalists.

So, had the journalists reported the comments of the locals without checking they would have been correct geographically in terms of a small area, but wrong operationally in terms of a larger task being undertaken by military engineers.

In this scenario the reporter also referred up to his line manager when filing to ensure that his decisions, taken at the scene, were supported by a senior editorial figure.

This text presents a classic ethical dilemma faced by journalists embedded with military forces: balancing access and information with journalistic integrity and the public’s right to know.

• Controlled narrative: The military is clearly attempting to control the narrative through embedded journalists, limiting their access and dictating what they can see and report.
• Ethical conflict: The reporter faces a conflict between adhering to the agreed-upon code of conduct and reporting potentially crucial information that contradicts the official narrative.
• Competing interests: The desire to maintain access, avoid professional embarrassment, and serve the public interest all pull the reporter in different directions.
• cChallenges: The reporter faces the challenge of verifying information from potentially biased sources (both the military and the locals).
• Importance of collaboration/transparency: The text highlights the importance of open communication with fellow journalists and editors to navigate complex situations.
• Nuance of truth: The final resolution shows that both sides of the story can be true, but in a very nuanced way.
• Ethical framework: This scenario highlights the importance of having a robust ethical framework for journalists operating in conflict zones. This framework should prioritise truth-telling, verification, and transparency, even when faced with pressure from powerful sources.
• Importance of context: The resolution of the story emphasises the importance of providing context. Simply reporting one side of the story without the other would have been misleading. Journalists must strive to provide a complete and accurate picture.
• The role of independent journalism: This scenario underscores the vital role of independent journalism in holding powerful institutions accountable. Even in controlled environments, journalists can uncover important information and provide a voice to marginalised communities.
• Risk assessment: Reporters must constantly assess the risks and benefits of their actions. In this case, the reporter weighed the risk of losing access against the potential benefit of uncovering a significant story.
• Editorial support: The fact that the reporter referred to his editor, shows the importance of editorial support. Editors are there to support their reporters in the field, and offer guidance.
• The power of recorded evidence: The fact that the reporter had the interview on tape, provided him with a valuable tool that could be used to prove the validity of the locals claims.
• The power of observation: The reporter observed the locals, and their reactions to the explosion. This observation gave him the opportunity to find the story.

Summary:

A radio reporter embedded with the military in a war zone discovers conflicting information about booby-trap clearance from local residents. Despite agreeing to a code of conduct and being closely monitored, the reporter must decide whether to report the locals’ claims, potentially contradicting the military’s official narrative and risking his access. The reporter ultimately chooses to gather all the information, present it transparently to his colleagues and superiors, and seek further verification, leading to a nuanced understanding of the situation. This shows the importance of verification and transparency.

The post Transparency and full disclosure – scenario first appeared on Media Helping Media.