Double the fun with two lots of textbook chapter readings! Be prepared to be enlightened about the world of journalism with the core skill of interviewing and Computer Assisted Reporting (CAR).
But first, as usual, it's time for everyone's favourite segment...
J. JONAH JAMESON QUOTE OF THE WEEK:
"What, is he shy? If we can get a picture of Julia Roberts in a thong, we can certainly get a picture of this weirdo!"
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. Which would you choose: a direct quotation that is accurate but unclear and embarrassing to the speaker, or one that is clear but is inexact and makes the speaker appear more eloquent than he or she really is?
The public is more concerned with receiving a message which is clear rather than something that is 100% accurate but hard to understand, so I'm going to have to go with the clear, inexact quotation. Accuracy is highly important in this situation, and it is the journalist's job to deliver this to the readership. In this case, I believe that readership ease takes priority. Plus, who am I to say how eloquent the interviewee is based on one direct quotation? It is instrumental in this situation to give your source a fair treatment to ensure a positive, mutual relationship is maintained, whilst at the same time satisfying your newspaper readership.
2. Is it ever justified for a journalist to intimidate a source with a threat of 'public exposure' to get important public information?
Yes, indeed! I believe that journalists should adhere to their job in endeavouring to serve the public to the best of their ability in getting the news out there, even if that means constantly probing for information, which would be hard to achieve via conventional research methods. Still, there is no need to dig so deep for information unless it is of high public interest! (Mainly because there is a great deal of effort and time involved in the information gathering process, especially interviewing people face to face!)
3. Is it a reasonable strategy for a journalist - male or female - to use 'personal chemistry' to get information from sources when there is public interest at stake?
This depends on the nature of the story's subject and how much the information is in the public interest! I suppose if other methods of extrapolating information are not working, then I see no problem in attempting to use these alternative methods such as 'personal chemistry' - when it all comes down to it, the relationship between the interviewer and interviewee can have unintentional chemical and physical components, even in the most formal and professional situations - it's just human nature!.
4. What potential dangers could come back to haunt a journalist who gets too close to a source?
To name a few:
- Significantly damaged reputation
- Decreased readership/viewership of a media organisation's various publications
- Losses of trust and respect in the journalism profession/field of work employers, fellow work colleagues, family and the general public
-Loss of job, family breakdowns etc
- Similar repercussions for the source's career, relationships, personal and public life
- Possible legal action for defamation charges and non-professional behaviour
5. Who is the most inarticulate, word-mangling public figure regularly in the news at present? Should you feel sorry for them and clean up their direct quotes or let them stew in their own frying pan?
That's easy. It'd have to be this man:
Quote: "Is our children learning?"
Quote: "They have mis-underestimated us"
Quote: "I'm the master of low expectations" (The Daily Miracle Ch 9, p. 205)
In Bush's case, since he is the President of the United States, there shouldn't be a reason to clean up his direct quotes, as one would assume that the leader of one of the most powerful nations on earth would be an articulate, well-spoken individual. But, sadly for Mr. Bush, this is not the case.
I feel some sympathy for him because of his lack of public speaking skills and therefore I would feel compelled to adjust minor grammatical errors, however if the quotes are anything like the aforementioned, they must be left untouched as to expose his somewhat 'unintelligence' for the good of public interest.
JOURNALISM ISSUE DISCUSSION:
Now, why is interviewing such a core skill? From reading Chapter 9 of The Daily Miracle, I gather that it is an essential skill that every journalist will have to use at various points in their careers. It's inevitable. I learnt that the key elements for a successful interview are:
-Good research/knowledge accumulation
-Listen intently
- Follow up any info that the interviewee gives ASAP with a related question
The Daily Miracle (Ch 9) provides a nice, concise quote on the interview as an information-gathering tool:
"The challenge is in ensuring fact, not prejudice, shapes the resulting story" (Ch 9. Interviewing, a core skill).
Securing the interview, it seems, can be hard, as the interviewee may have a hectic schedule to adhere to, and scarcely finds time to talk to the media. Any old excuses are fired at the reporter for why they may be unavailable, and it is the job of the journalist to be persistent in contacting them to arrange a suitable time for an interview. A journalist should ALWAYS have a backup plan in case an intended interviewee has failed to respond or return a call such as trying to reach them via alternative contact methods such as email or fax, try a third party such as friends, family or work colleagues, or even in exceptional circumstances of public interest, 'door stop' the interviewee. According to The Daily Miracle, it is more difficult to avoid people in person.
And another important thing. Appearances are not deceiving. It should not matter what a person looks like or how they dress, but it frequently does. People react consciously or subconsciously to all kinds of signals (Ch 9. p. 189). The expectation is that a journalist will blend into any crowd.
Although to me, the key to a successful interview was all in the section about non-verbal clues: i.e. body language. A journalist must learn to read the signs given by an interviewee, as they provide valuable hints as to if the information they are giving is valid, and whether the reporter needs to ask for any clarification or probe further for more in-depth analysis from the subject.
A good example of body language playing an important part in an interview is the recent Andrew Johns drug exposure, where Phil Gould interviewed Johns on Channel Nine's NRL Footy Show. John's body language gives both the interviewer an insight into Johns' own feelings on the subject, as well as assisting in what question(s) should be asked next. The audience can also identify certain emotions just by observing Johns' body language. The links for Part One & Two of the interview from You Tube are below:
Andrew Johns Ecstasy Interview - Part 1 of 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF6wpyu4Vq4&mode=related&search=
Andrew Johns Ecstasy Interview - Part 2 of 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOJfZMUkx-4&mode=related&search=
COMPUTER ASSISTED REPORTING (CAR) Chapter 15.
The Discussion Questions for this chapter are very long-winded and complex, so to make life easier, I'll just refer you to The Daily Miracle, p. 368.
1. From my interview with The Newcastle Herald Journalist Ben Smee, he gave me some fantastic advice and told me to gain some experience in a small newspaper as you are given more responsibilities and gain skills you will use for your entire journalism career. Plus, it is a different experience living away from a predominately metro area, so I'd take that job versus the insecure, 6-month only city contract.
2. I would first question why it needs to be email and attempt to negotiate (a fairly empty cause when it comes to politicians). Then if she still persisted on using email, I would probably just end up going ahead with it, because having some factual information at all is better than having none for public interest. Sometimes you just have to accept sources won't always co-operate in the way you want them to every time. That's the reality of journalism and media.
3. Whilst plagiarism is a serious issue, it is hardly worth dobbing on someone and jeopardising their entire career, possibly putting a massive dent in future employment prospects and significantly affects their family and social life. I would keep it to myself at first, then approach my colleague at a suitable time and place and have a discussion with them about why they felt the need to plagiarise (all non-threatening of course!). Then perhaps if they know someone found them out, they won't do it again. I'd maybe even monitor their stories over time just to check and make sure that the stories they are producing are their own work. I'd only ever take the matter to the boss if:
a) It was a major, influential story of huge public interest, which has the potential to reach and affect many people (in my view)
b) He or she was a repeat offender, and my help couldn't go any further in assisting their dishonest journalism
4. However good information this unknown contact has, is it really worth risking my life to find out what he knows? How do I know he is not a criminal himself? I don't. And as the old journalism mantra goes, when in doubt, leave it out. 2am, alone at a bank of a river? Sounds very suspicious to me, like something out of a horror film before the murderer brutally kills me and dumps me in the nearby river. Dying for the cause of a good story that will never be published? No thankyou!
5. Like any web based material, check the referencing for source accuracy. If any of the quotes cannot be traced to a reliable source, "if in doubt, leave it out".
Well, you are probably sick of my opinions on discussion questions by now, so in the words of the coolest kid ever, Ferris Bueller:
Are you still here? It's over. Go home............GO!
No comments:
Post a Comment