Chapter 5, Week 5...HIGH FIVE!

First and formost, as promised:

J. Jonah Jameson Quote of the Week:

"No jobs. Freelance! Best thing in the world for a kid your age. If you bring me some more shots of that newspaper selling clown, maybe I'll take him off your hands! But I never said you had a job!"

This week taught me one of the most pivotal aspects of journalism, the importance of intro or "the reporter's handshake". In short, no solid intro, no readership. In this modern world we live in, people have little time to deal with stories that don't deliver the summary of a story in a nutshell.

1. What sections of a newspaper do you read and why?

It all depends what paper I am reading, but the two main papers I read are The Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) and The Newcastle Herald (NH).

In the SMH (I tend to only read the weekend edition), I will read the main news section and the news review to get a brief overview of current affairs, and I enjoy the opinion columns from journalists such as Mike Carlton and The Chaser headlines as a humorous perspective on current events. Occasionally I will read a few of the letters to the editor to see what Joe Citizen has got to say. I also read the 'Good Weekend' magazine insert if there is anything in it that strikes my fancy (especially music, movies, gadgets and high profile personality features) and the Sports section to catchup on the latest NRL action. I used to always read the 'Icon' section which dealt with the latest technology advancements until they moved it to Monday's publication, obviously to increase readership on the 'slow news day' of the week.

For the NH, I will predominately be drawn to the Sports section as the paper caters for its local readership's passion for sport, and therefore it is always featured prominately and covered extensively. Entertainment news is also a reason for reading and finding out about the latest local talent and international news in the industry. Local news articles are also a section in which I pay a great deal of attention to when I get spare time to read it! When my Grandad drops the paper off each afternoon when he is finished with it, that's the best time to consult the day's events according to The Herald!

2. How much time do you spend a day watching television compared with reading? What would encourage you to spend more time reading your local paper?

If it isn't a good espisode of The Simpsons, I'll generally watch the NBN evening news, the 7 o'clock ABC bulletin, and sometimes if I can, I'll watch the 9:30pm SBS world news Australia news to get a broad, sense of global news which isn't covered in the other forms. Compared to reading The Herald, I'd say I watch more T.V, however I do tend to read the paper in the afternoon after uni if it is lying around, or the previous day's paper also makes good reading over breakfast the next morning (and often that cycle seems to be frequent in my newspaper reading). There is nothing particularly wrong with the format or content of the paper, it's just mainly time constraints with other commitments, and, to be quite honest, sitting in front of the telly having the news delivered to you with ease of an evening is a preferred method in obtaining current affairs information, hassle free. Having said this though, I wouldn't mind some increased coverage on new technology, gadgets, gizmos and video games as this is an area which particularly interets me (like SMH's Icon section, now within the inconvenient Monday edition of the paper!) However, as I recently conducted an interview with Herald journalist Ben Smee, I thought that including his viewpoint on the future of print news and the expansion of alternative mediums as a way to obtain news was quite interesting, and in my humble opinion, particularly true.

"I think they are [taking over] to an extent, but newspapers won't die, simply because print breaks about 95% of all big news stories. I think television and radio are under greater threat, as their news relies too much on being timely."

"Print journalists play a much greater role in researching and breaking news and driving the news agenda. Electronic media tends to focus on what happens on the surface, but relies on print to dedicate resources to digging up the big stories."

3. You have the perfect opportunity to write a 'trick intro' that will get most readers at least into your second paragraph. But it would be at the expense of the central news value, which isn't very strong anyway. What will you do?

First off, is it a 'hard news story'? Because if it is, then I'd be sceptical in using this approach as a large number of readers are impatient and irritated easily. Also, is it THAT necessary, especially when it will get most readers at least to the second paragraph? Why not just implement another intro strategy which will be guaranteed a bigger and better audience response, for example the good ol' direct, conservative approach? It might be boring, but gets the job done! I'd only write a 'trick intro' when I was positive that it would work i.e. appropriate to the target audience and section of the paper/style of writing. No further questions.

4. You have done your research and conducted your interviews and have the basis of a great story but the intro just won't gel. What do you do?

If I was me (a journalist in the future) I'd jump into the TARDIS, go back to the time when I was in my first year at uni and re-read that chapter which dealt with effective strategies for writing intros! However this would involve the presence of Dr. Who, and a time machine police box, which I'm quite sure is only located in England, so maybe not!
In this instance, the most effective strategy to combat this writer's block would be the over-the-fence technique, which put simply, is to "think of how you might summarise the material if you were telling a neighbour about the story" (The Daily Miracle, Ch 5: The lead: will the reader follow? p. 117). How would you explain the story verbally in its simplest form to the person over the back fence?
Alternatively, in any medium, the most effective means of communication is to 'tell a story'. A story's essential ingredients should be evident from the beginning (Ch 5: p. 118)
Last, but definitely not least, the golden rule of journalism: keep it short, keep it simple!!! (Ch 5: p. 116)

5. You have written a well-researched story but when it appears in the paper you see that a sub-editor who thought they knew more about the topic than you did has added a new intro which is not only wrong, but ruins the whole article and offends your sources. What should you do?

Declare all out guerrilla warfare in the office building, targeting the sub editor's office. But if recruitment numbers are low, I guess it'll just have to be some good old fashioned negotiating! I'd approach him or her and state my case, and have some material proof that my sources were offended, and the amount of reparations that need to be made. I'd then call my sources, apologise for any offence that may have been caused by this incident. However, that being said, I'm not sure if i'd still have a job if I stood up to my sub-editor like that. It all depends if I have a legitimate case! This is a very tricky, professional ethical situation, and that's about all I can conclude on the matter.

This is Zeej McQueen reporting, for Journalism Junk. Goodnight.