Chapter 14 - Featuring writing and Kell's say

1. The story related to famous Australians and their childhood homes, which brought back their memories of growing up in that place.
Link

The introduction says: Some grew up in the burbs, some in the bush. When Mike Safe asked well-known Australians about their childhood homes, the memories came flooding back.

Conley and Lamble describe a justifier as a story's reason, or justification, for being published.

This particular story didn't really have any specific reason for publication, in my opinion. It was definitely interesting to read, but news values such as timeliness, impact, prominence, currency or conflict were not evident.

The writing style struck me as a very puff piece of writing.

Liz Ellis was the first Australian interviewed. Of the six paragraphs the story on Ellis, four paragraphs were complete quotes.

However the following stories contained less "puffery".

All articles were interesting to read, which justifies why the news value of human interest is certainly relevant. Proximity, to a small extent, would be evident because it looks at famous Australians.

A quote was used as the very last sentence of the whole published story. It doesn't really have any relevance to the introduction, only that it does illustrate a childhood memory.

However have a more relevant closer would have been a relevant ending.

2. I think it depends on the feature story being published.

In defence of newspapers, I think they already publish sufficient feature stories through the lift-out magazines, particularly in the Sunday papers.

In regards to promoting good writing to increase newspaper sales, or whether people are too busy or too interested in the hard news to care, I think it comes down to time.

Sometimes the hard news can be quite depressing, so I believe reading an uplifting feature story makes for a good change. But often the features stories are quite lengthy. Unless a reader has a particular interest in the story, they won't buy the paper or magazine.

As mentioned on page 316 of the text book "the best feature writing requires a creativity and way with words that cannot be taught". This quote sparked my interest and I will discuss this as part of Kell's say at the end of this blog.

But I do think newspapers should promote their feature stories because as I mentioned earlier, it makes for a nice change from death, war, drugs and crime.

3. From a profit perspective, I think it's important to publish stories the readers will read. Afterall, if they aren't interested in the story, they won't buy the publication.

In addition, I think the soft entertainment news originating from Hollywood is what readers want to read about!

But is that a result of not publishing as many Australian stories?

Whatever the reason, it would be a great idea to limit the Hollywood stories for Australian writers and subjects.

Not only does it provide exposure for the story-teller, it also provides exposure for the journalist writing the story. Perhaps then, Australian feature stories can become prominent in the Hollywood market!

So, of course market forces dominate what is published, but if there was the opportunity to limit the imported stories for Australian writers and subjects, I would definitely be a supporter.

4. Feature writing is definitely an interest of mine.

I really enjoy finding out more about people and their background and current situation, especially those people who have overcome adversity and have made a life for themselves.

This Link
explains what feature writing is and I was interested to read "If you ask the question "how and why" things happen, then you probably like reading feature stories in newspapers and magazines." The quote certainly justifies my own reason for being interested in feature writing

To be able to write about and tell their story to the wider, I feel, would just raise some awareness of much some people really are struggling/have struggled in life.

Writing medical feature stories is also of interest to me. Given I would ideally like to work for the Cancer Council in the future, I would love to write feature stories about new breakthroughs or possible medications etc.

Unlike most traditional news stories, these kinds of issues are about hope, change and awareness. For me to be able to pass that information onto readers would be an unbelievable experience.

5. In my opinion, a columnist publishes stories of opinion more than fact. Feature stories are more often than not, about another person or issue.

Columnists tend to be more of a "my say" type of journalism.

Feature writing are regarded by many as a newspaper's glamour journalists (pg.316). Feature writers have more autonomy about what they can write and how they write it.

Feature writing requires a great deal of creativity to construct a story.

However another difference is editing. A columnist may be less distressed if the story they compiled in less than an hour is edited. On the other hand, a feature writer might be more stressed if their article is edited. This could particularly be the case if the writer has spent days or weeks on a story only to have it edited.

Conley and Lamble also note criticism as a difference between reporters and a feature writer (pg.317).

Ultimately, the biggest difference between a columnist and a feature writer is a columnist is about opinions. Feature writers deal more in creativity.

KELL'S SAY
"the best feature writing requires a creativity and a way with words that cannot be taught"

What a great quote!

Feature writing is a lot about creativity which cannot be taught. However I do believe writing structure can be taught.

Before studying journalism at Uni, I had absolutely no knowledge how the industry of journalism worked. The only pyramid I had any knowledge about was the one in Egypt!

There are also many rules and ethics in regards to journalism. These too can be taught, obviously people are not going to be born with the knowledge of journalism ethics and rules!

Feature writing requires creativity, but I think it also requires a genuine love of writing. Perhaps one comes with the other. Either way, creativity is something you are born with or without.

So ultimately I think the "how to do journalism" can definitely be taught, but I agree that creativity is something which can't be taught.

Chapter 13 - Journalism's strands converge and Kell's say

1. Companies need to train their employees before they can expect them to work in converged news rooms.

Not all journalists would feel comfortable reporting in different methods, so I think it is the responsibility of the employer to provide adequate training in this area.

This is even more so the case if a news room was previously strictly a print news room, or broadcast journalism, and then developed into a converged news room.

For this reason it is important employers make employees feel comfortable reporting in different formats and provide training. This will also provide the journalist with more experience in a range of areas.

2. The likely outcome is that the potential employee would probably not work for company. This issue was pointed out by Haiman, who said "that not every good print journalist possesses the physical attributes television viewers have come to expect from on-air reporters" (pg. 298).

If a reporter is not comfortable with a particular form of medium, I do not think they should be disadvantaged from a potential job opportunity. However if the company specifically advertise for journalists with converged journalism experience, I believe the company have the right to reject applicants who do not fit the criteria.

Media General believe converged journalists produce "better news and better journalism". (pg. 297). While I understand Media General's perspective, that converged journalism offers journalists a broader scope of reporting, I do not think journalists should feel they have to be part of a converged news room. Some journalists may prefer to write print material or cover broadcast journalism. Those journalists shouldn't be disadvantaged because they do not feel comfortable reporting for a different type of medium.

3. I do not think journalistic convergence is a fad, but I do think companies should be aware that convergence doesn't appeal to all journalists.

With new media such as the internet becoming a popular form of media, I think it's important for most organisations to report for the various forms of medium. For example, a womens magazine such as Cleo - the magazine will have print reporters but they will also employee journalists with web journalism experience. However there is no need for broadcast journalism in this instance because the magazine is not published for TV viewing.

Channel 9 program '60 Minutes' on the other hand, have journalists who report for the web and broadcast journalism but not print journalism (ie there is no '60 minutes magazine or newspaper).

As Conley and Lamble state "If consumers like the products journalists create and produce, ratings will follow, and advertisers will jump on the bandwagon" (pg. 313).

4. One of the implications of relaxed cross-media ownership laws would see media organisations not making enough profit from their online operations (pg.312). If organisations can advertise or publish online, free of charge to the consumer, how will the organisations make a profit?

However, as Conley and Lamble mention "advertisers can be persuaded to make the jump to promoting their products on online news sites, there will be money to be made".

Personally, I think it would be a good idea for organisations to perhaps print headlines of stories or a short overview of a story, which would entice consumers to purchase the newspaper or magazine. In this case, the organisations are still utilising the web media form, but could minimise any potential loss of profit.

5. I think the future of web, radio and television is a bright one.

With most people having access to all forms of media, they can all produce stories in various ways. And all three forms of media are of little cost to consumers (other than electricity costs!). I think TV and web journalism are perhaps slightly more appealing because they give consumers a visual aspect to stories/report. Radio does not have the same advantage.

6. I think there should be an option for students to multiskill, but I also think it should only be for students who are interested in multiskilling. I do not think it should be made compulsory for all journalism students.

Some students are only interested in print journalism or broadcast journalism, so I don't think it is necessary for those students to be "multiskilled". However, if other students would like to broaden their journalism skills, then I think offering a multiskilling course would definitely be beneficial for them.

So I definitely think a multiskilling course should be available to journalism students, however I don't think it should be made compulsory for all journalism students to undertake the course.

7. Yes, I think we are.

The internet and web are used world-wide, all day, everyday. Consumers do their banking, check emails, organise holidays, research, and communicate with friends and family all via the web.

With most consumers having access to the web, and it seems people are restricted for time to meet face-to-face with friends, the internet and web are taking over as the most used communicative tool.

If the internet and web were not available, I think life would become much busier. People would have to travel to their local bank to pay bills or transfer money. Employers would have to revert to paying employees by physically going to the bank, students would have to visit their local library to complete school/uni research etc etc.

The internet and web are definitely making life much easier and freeing up consumers' time, but it is my opinion that people are becoming less and less socially interactive because of the internet. The long term effects of that might one day be realised.

KELL'S SAY
My answer in question 7 incorporates Kell's say for this blog.

I really believe the internet is convenient and in most cases user friendly. Newspapers and magazines are available to read on-line, academic journals can be viewed on the net and you can even chat to friends on the internet these days!

I think social interaction is definitely being affected by the net, with the introduction of chat rooms etc. and I don't think that is a good thing at all.

But for the purpose of information searching the internet is certainly a useful tool!

Chapter 12 - Broadcast journalism: the world's town crier, and Kell's say

1. I don't really have an opinion either way because I am not a regular viewer of the ABC station, therefore do not have a full understanding of its programs or their content.

However, from the few times I have watched a program on the ABC and in conjunction with the chapter in the text, I feel the ABC should stay the way it is. Reports appear to have a less 'entertainment' value and more factual, informative approach.

Pages 268 and 269 explain how politically influenced the ABC is, but I think journalism in general is politically influenced. For example, News Limited would more likely be inclined to favour the Liberal Party and their policies opposed to the policies or opinions of the Labour Party.

I do not think any government funded program could be less 'political'. If one political party funded the ABC and the ABC in turn broadcast stories against that party, do you think the government would want to continue funding it?

I think not.

2. I agree with Dagan (2004) in that the key quality is passion.

I also agree that, because TV is a visual medium, beauty could be an important element.

If Sarah O'Hare, or Elle McPherson, were regular news reporters on one TV station, and Cornelia Francis or Rowena Wallace were reporters on a competing channel, which would you tune in to watch? Perhaps women are more inclined to watch the more informative, but I think men might have different reasons for watching a particular station!

Such a similar example was given on page 289, with 'National Nine News political correspondent Laurie Oakes, identified as a journalist whose talent and ability override aesthetics'.

In light of the above, I would hire the 38 year old, despite the high ratio of women to men.

It could be the case that a journalist is quite good looking but is not comfortable in front of the camera or does not have an authoritative voice. All these issues need to be considered when hiring broadcast journalists, not just their physical appearance.

3. Time constraints, space limitations and the need for strict time deadlines are elements which have all been mentioned as restrictions, as well as strengths, between TV, radio, web and print.

But I think the 'best' news medium is television and web because of their ability to include images to support stories. While print medium gives journalists more space in which to write their stories, and can therefore be more descriptive to an extent. often viewing images assists the audience to better understand a story.

As noted on page 277, while print has more room in which to print a story, 'newspapers can't match the warmth and intonations of human voice'.

From a personal perspective, I often need to read stories/articles multiple times before I fully understand them, so I find it easier to comprehend TV news broadcasts.

I was relieved to read on page 277 Conley and Lamble mention retention rates are improved when TV news is expertly presented.

Given broadcast and print journalists share the same news values, and all mediums report each value differently, it is important that journalists relay the story with maximum effort.

4. In my opinion, the last election was probably more issues based. Issues such as GST, Healthcare and petrol prices etc were covered in the media.

However I do feel it is important for the audience/voters to gain an understanding of the personalities of those running in the election. If voters know candidates on a more personal level, it might give voters an insight into the candidate's policies and influence the voters to vote, or perhaps even change their vote, for a particular candidate.

In parallel to this, it is important the media do not focus highly on personality. Just because you might like one candidate more than another does not mean you will like their policies. But if the media present the personality of candidates, it may also have a negative effect on the audience.

For example, images of Kevin Rudd rocking a baby may not appeal to all audiences.

The best way to report on political matters, in my opinion, is to do it fairly and combine both issues and personality when reporting in this area of journalism.

KELL'S SAY
I found the issue of chequebook journalism (pg.272) an interesting topic in this chapter.

To be honest, I'm not sure how I feel about the issue of chequebook journalism.

It is certainly beneficial to the story-teller because they are making money, in some cases lots of it.

And by paying top dollar to a story-teller, the magazine/newspaper can claim to have the 'exclusive' news.

But the problem with chequebook journalism is that readers, and the interviewer, can't be sure the information isn't being enhanced. This could in turn stop the truth from being told.

Journalist Kerry Straight has written about the benefits, or otherwise, of chequebook journalism.
Link

I really am not sure about the issue of chequebook journalism even after having read a couple of stories on the issue. On one hand it's a form of bribery - we'll pay you if you tell us your story'.

On the other hand, how do you know what you're reading is the truth? A company could pay a large sum of money for a story which is completely untrue!

Here is another opinion from Chris McLeod on the issue:
Link

As for Kell's opinion, I think the jury is still out! (But if you pay me top dollar I'm sure I can make something up!)

Chapter 11 - Reporting for Duty and Kell's say

1. "Official inquiries have proven some police are corrupt" (Conley & Lamble, 2006, p.243).

If we take these words into consideration, I would publish the story.

The above quote, as used by Conley and Lamble, is justified by the fact police have threatened not to speak to the newspaper I work for if I publish the story. Think about this hypothetical situation: A young man who seems credible tells you that he has been bashed by a member of the public, no-one of notoriety just another citizen. The story is newsworthy (for the sake of this example!) - what do you do? Personally, I would publish the story.

The point of the hypothetical was it shouldn't matter who does the bashing, it should still be reported. The fact, in the question in our text book, the perpetrator is a police officer should not have any bearing on whether to write the story or not. I understand the newspaper could ultimately be alienated from future police reports, however given I (the journalist) have the support of the chief-of-staff I see no reason why not to publish it.

I also think this would give the paper more credibility and exposure. It would look worse if the paper was found out to have known about the bashing, but succumbed to threats by the police and ultimately not publishing the story.

Conley and Lamble do suggest newspapers who publish stories, such as a police assault, are discriminated against which can motivate a meeting between the editor and senior police.

I personally just believe in reporting the truth.

I understand from reading various chapters in our text, there are ramifications and various issues to consider before publishing a story, but I believe the best stories are the honest stories; no details left out to make the story sound better, or not reporting a story in the first place because it might make someone look bad! Perhaps they should have thought about that first!

Police in this instance can threaten the journalist not to report the assault, but they more than any other group in the community should be aware of the consequences of their actions.

Although it may also be important to remember "reporters rely more on police information than police rely on reporters", as Conley and Lamble quote. This is somewhat different from politicians who understand the "benefits of keeping communication lines open" (Conley & Lamble, 2006, p.244)

2. One of the restrictions on court reporting in Australian jurisdictions says that a magistrate "might agree to suppress the name of an accused, witness or victim. Sometimes defendants who say their lives and reputations will be ruined by publication of their names" (Conley & Lamble, 2006, p. 250).

It is also noted such requests are usually denied.

Given the crime in question was simply a conviction for stealing a pair of stockings, and if I didn't publish the story no-one would know about it, I would probably not publish it. Despite my newspaper's policy to publish all such cases.

If the woman really is suicidal, and of course this could simply be a threat, is it really worth taking the risk over reporting a conviction for stealing some stockings?! Imagine the media frenzy such a story could create! "Convicted stocking thief takes her life after local newspaper unnecessarily revealed her identity". Imagine how guilty I (the journalist) would feel if that situation occurred.

Surely there could be other news stories worth following that day to report on.

3. Report the incident! But I would probably refrain from directly identifying the personality. I would try and subtly write the story so the public knew who I was reporting about, but I would not directly report the name of the personality.

I would not accept any form of bribe, but would include the fact the personality wanted the story concealed and was willing to offer sex to money and a free holiday to do so.

Stories such as this are reported all the time, for example Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton. If the story is somewhat light-hearted, I don't think it would be so bad for the personality in question.

No-one was hurt and it is more just the point of embarrassment for the personality, so if the story was written in a light-hearted way, I don't see the harm in publishing it.

4. As Conley and Lamble quote Lomax, 'the press has a public duty....to inform the public on matters of public interest...'(p.255). I think this case is a matter of public interest and therefore, probably after consultation with my superior, I would report on the corruption as well as report the corruption to relevant authorities. The jurors involved should immediately be expelled from the jury and the police officers involved should be reprimanded.

I do not believe there is any room for corruption in a murder case. How would the victim's family feel, knowing they did not receive a fair trial? Is that fair?

On a personal note, three days ago I learnt that a previous workmate was found hanged in a resort in Indonesia, two days after his wife had given birth to a daughter and just before he was about to start a new job. There are many details that simply don't add up and most of us believe he met with foul play. However we also know Indonesia to be quite a corrupt country and therefore will probably never know if he did indeed meet with foul play. Imagine not knowing the truth. It's hard enough for his friends, how do his family accept it?

Conley and Lamble note that 'media coverage of inquiries on police corruption has undoubtedly affected relationships between police and journalists...' (p.244). So while reporting the corruption may have a detrimental affect in future police reporting, I believe the public has a right to know about the corruption. As does the family of the victim.

KELL'S SAY
May say for this week has been incorporated into question 1.

Chapter 10: The Story Factory and Kell's say

1. If I was a good journalist, I would probably speak to the chief-of-staff and if I have to write it on the day, then so be it.

Based on Conley and Lamble's text, the role of chief-of-staff "involves guarding two main gateways: the first is that through which information flows directly from the public; the second allows an independent flow of information to and from the reporting staff, for whom the chief-of-staff is responsible". This being the case, it appears likely the chief-of-staff might ultimately find out about the so called 'story of the year' anyway, if they are on the ball.

How would they feel if they knew their colleague had refrained from pursuing a story, albeit from a confidential source? And the confidential source didn't say NOT to write it, it was just preferred they wait.

I guess the only other consideration which needs to take place is the fact the organisation to publish the story second, after another organisation has already published the story, runs the risk of appearing to have plagiarised the initial story. This could pose obvious ethical problems.

At the end of the day, I still think the journalist has a responsibility to at least discuss the issue with the chief-of-staff. If they communicate effectively, and the journalist raises the concern that the story could be brilliant if written within two days, then I believe a reasonable compromise could be met.

2. It would be a hard situation to be in, but keeping in mind a reporter should have the public in mind, I think I would publish the story.

Obviously this would be to the detriment of the PR practitioner, whose job it was to persuade me (the journalist) not to publish the story. However as a journalist, it would be my responsibility to make the public aware of any possible harm to them. Conley and Lamble quote Chris Mitchell, who said PR officials "are paid large sums of money to hide the truth from the public". This would be the exact case with this dilemma.

Imagine the truth came out, that the resort guests were falling ill because of kitchen filth and I (the journalist) knew but didn't report anything. To me, that's just unethical. I really would feel sympathetic to those whose jobs are at stake, but at the end of the day, the health of resort guests should be the most important factor to consider.

3. I would still run with the story, but consider removing the defendant's name from the story.

In the text, Conley and Lamble suggest the chief sub-editor can "remove or alter the questionable section of the story." In this case, although the sub-editor cannot be sure of the validity of the caller, I would play it safe and not publish the defendant's name.

If I had published the name, and it turns out the alleged solicitor was legitimate, I could end up feeling responsible for incorrect reporting. This may lead to abusive calls from the public, a complaint to the Australian Press Council, the need for a published apology, or even a defamation writ (as mentioned by Conley and Lamble.

I would weigh up the importance of including the defendant's name, as well as the repercussions of doing so. If it was not a vital part of the story, or it took nothing away from the story, I would feel more comfortable publishing the story. I had no-one to consult, and while I couldn't be sure the solicitor was telling the truth, I would prefer to do the "right" thing.

4. I would be more likely to take the side of the police reporter because I would assume they have more knowledge in the area of crime reporting than the editor would.

With all respect, there is no doubt the editor has reasonable grounds for wanting to take a certain angle, but if the story was more accurate and explored the full implications, I would rather take the police reporter's angle.

Perhaps the editor feels the police reporter's angle would provoke public complaints, which are dealt with by the editor as well as having to explain the angle the newspaper took. The editor also takes legal responsibility for what is printed in the newspaper.

But when dealing with a specific area of the news - sport, politics, business etc, I think a journalist should work more closely with the reporters working in that area. If communication is open between editor and other reporters, hopefully it will make for more accurate and legitimate reporting.

KELL'S SAY
On page 211 of our text, Conley and Lamble recognise that 'a newspaper is only as good as its news gatherers'. I whole-heartedly agree.

If a newspaper's journalists write about irrelevant or boring stories people will not read the stories and eventually stop buying the particular newspaper.

Additionally, it would also depend on whether the journalist has been sent out in the field to report on a specific story. The journalist can certainly make a story interesting, which is the point of Conley and Lamble's quote, but sometimes just stating the facts is just as important.

However I am still a little skeptical when it comes to the stories published in newspapers.

As mentioned in one of my previous blogs, journalism is a business influenced by politics (in the majority of cases).

So perhaps the quote should be 'news gatherers are only as good as the newspaper allows them to be'.

Chapter 15 - Computer Assisted Reporting and Kell's say

1. I would take the online publication based position, despite the six-month contract.

The reason for my decision is that I believe it would give the journalist (me!) experience dealing with CAR related journalism. This would lead to a wider knowledge base for the journalist who is able to understand and conduct further research for a story.

I think it would also make the journalist more aware of what they are writing and the accuracy of their writing.

Information found on the internet/web is not always accurate, so the journalist will need to conduct further research to confirm issues within a story. Rather than just writing a story without CAR, which does not need a great deal of research or checking of information, this way the journalist is aware of the need for their story to be thoroughly researched and accurate.

It might suit the journalist the contract is only for six months - they can get a taste of what is required with CAR journalism and decide for themselves if they would like to continue that line of journalism or if they would prefer more traditional forms. If the journalist performs well in their role, the six month contract may be extended anyway.

2. I would have to decide if the interview is important enough to conduct. If not, I would consider cancelling the interview.

The reason for my decision is that anyone could be replying to my emailed questions/interview, not just my intended interviewee. I have no way of checking this. There is the potential for inaccurate reporting which would ultimately be to the detriment of the journalist, not to mention the journalist's employer.

I would definitely seek to conduct another type of interview - phone or face-to-face, which is not only more personal by seeing how the interviewee reacts to questions, but also provides for a more accurate story with reactive answers as well as being able to note things such as body language.

Although the email interview is a great source because the content is "on paper", I would definitely be very careful in how I structured/angled the story to best exclude myself from any possible defamation or inaccurate reporting.

3. I know this probably isn't ethical, but it would depend on the colleague involved! If it was someone I was close to, I would definitely make them aware of it but would probably refrain from taking it further. Although my employer has the right to be made aware of the plagiarism, I wouldn't like to be the one to dob someone in, who ends up losing their job.

However if it was a colleague I was not so close to or had previous "run-ins" with, then I would be very tempted to take the matter further.

I understand plagiarism is a very serious matter, and I would hate to see any of my colleagues - whether I am close to them or not - lose their job because of my actions. But employees show know the rules of plagiarism before writing a story. And it would amaze me that one of my colleagues would be so ignorant to the issue.

Plagiarism is something students are taught about in high school, let-alone throughout time at University. I understand however, not all journalists are University graduates. In this case, I have no doubt their employer would have made the issue of plagiarism clear throughout employment.

So ultimately, I would make both colleagues aware of the issue but I would keep quiet the fact I know about it. If my employer found out I knew of the plagiarism, I too could lose my job.

4. I would not meet with the unknown person. For starters, it's at 2am in an unpopulated area!

The fact the person has not replied to my email is not exactly helpful either. And I would assume they are checking their emails regularly, especially if they have sent me one requesting to meet.

I would discuss the issue with my employer/fellow colleagues. Perhaps they too have received the same email, which would further justify reasons for not meeting. If the email is being sent to multiple journalists simultaneously, it's obviously not a credible source!

I do not think I would inform the police, despite the person possibly being know to the police, because there appears to be direct threat to myself or my family, but in case the person can visually identify who I am, I would probably be a bit wary for a little while.

If they are on the run from the police, it's clear they have previously broken the law so what might be different this time. If their information was that important, i'm sure there would be a more suitable time and place to meet - definitely not 2am in the morning (although I might be on my way home at that time of the morning!).

5. I would probably decide which website is the most credible and use that quote. But only after I had researched other avenues. Would the quote be in a text book somewhere? Could someone else accurately confirm which quote is correct?

I would be careful not to just add the one I think is right because no doubt I would choose the wrong one and a member of the public would be straight onto it!

Additionally, if the journalist used the incorrect quote which is then used again by another journalist, or even a student/member of the public, the error will continue. This was discussed in Chapter 7 of the Daily Miracle as part of the topic of accuracy.

It's important journalists report accurate information and can also justify their source of information.

Credibility and defamation appear to be common threads throughout journalism. Journalists need to make sure what they are reporting is accurate information and also that they can back up their quotes/opinions with supporting information.

KELL'S SAY
The very first line of this chapter caught my attention: "If I'm not sure of something when I'm checking facts in a story I'm subbing I just do a quick Google search". (Conley & Lamble, pg.346)

I had a bit of a laugh at this because I think it's something everyone can identify with!

The internet has definitely become a learning tool, however I think people need to be aware not everything is correct.

For example, anyone can edit definitions and other information on the on-line dictionary, Wikipedia.

However the internet is not only a fantastic source of information, but it is also a much more convenient tool.

Being able to search information on the net means consumers do not have to drive to their local library for text books. The information is more than likely available from their computer.

Google is a great invention indeed and I often wonder how we ever survived without it! (OK, slightly dramatic..it's like mobile phones!)

So while I do think journalists need to be aware that not everything available on the internet is accurate and factual, it certainly makes research a little easier.



Below is a link to some benefits of google.


Link

Of interest to Kell - Case study about portrayal of suicide in the press

Below is an excerpt taken from a case study in reporting and portrayal of suicide in Australia's metropolitan press (a link to the full article is provided at the bottom of this blog).

The case study discusses media framing, with particular focus on mental health risk and a link between the acne drug Roaccutane and depression.

Various newspapers have been exampled within the case study, focusing on how each paper framed and published relevant teen suicides, allegedly resulting from the use of Roaccutane.

I have also included two points from the conclusion of the case study, which provide information on how journalists should relay/frame mental health issues, and how the stories should provide a balanced view.

That is one area which is of personal interest to me.

I really don't like reading news stories which are obviously one-sided/biased. I understand it's all about politics and business, but it's also very transparent - readers can see straight through a biased article.

Anyway, that's getting a bit off track.

I just found this article to be quite interesting and very relevant given the recent lectures on reporting mental health in the media.

I also used Roaccutane myself, another reason I found this case study interesting.

Hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

Excerpt from case study:

Risk and News Values
Kitzinger (1999) identifies key factors that may impact the way in which risk is constructed in the news media. She says the nature of the risk, the size and time scale, novelty and ‘human face’ of the risk, news values and the internal dynamics of media organisations are all factors that determine what risks the media report. For example, risks that impact a large number of people at one time are more likely to be reported by the media than risks with a cumulative effect. Similarly, unusual risks have been found more attractive to the media than common risks; personal accounts are often favoured over official denials of risk; risk stories tend to be event rather than issue oriented, and positive findings of risk are more newsworthy than no evidence of risk (Kitzinger, 1999, p. 62). Horlick-Jones (2004, p. 112) also suggests that popular news media accounts of failures such as BSE tend to convey to the audience ‘a sense of intimate familiarity with those who have suffered from the tragedy but often without providing a clear sense of the scale of the risk to the wider community’.

The ‘logic’ of ‘risk news’ (Lupton, 1999b, p. 6) is intimately connected to news values, the professional and institutional routines that characterise media organizations, and editors’ perceptions of their audiences. Price et al (1997) identify conflict, human interest and consequence as primary news values. Conflict and blame, in particular, are key criteria in the media’s attention to risk and influence risk reporting. For example, risks are likely to be deemed more newsworthy if they are associated with overt conflict between stakeholders, or if there is a perception of government vested interest or secrecy about the risk, or if there is the ability to blame someone. Journalists also tend to favour sources that have firm opinions, one way or the other, about a given risk (Kitzinger, 1999).

Other factors that impinge on ‘risk reporting’ include the cultural or geographical proximity of the threat to journalists and their perceived audiences and the journalists or editors personal identification with a risk. Institutional factors that may impinge on the media’s reporting of risk include the extent to which other news outlets are covering the risk, the extent to which a risk has already been covered and the potential for ‘story fatigue’ (Kitzinger, 1999). In addition to news values, Kitzinger (1999, p. 65) says it is important to consider ‘how sources operate and how journalists select and assess contributions to a story’. Given that interest group accounts, including experts, are rarely identical to the media coverage of an issue, as Terkildsen et al. (1998, p. 46) argue, ‘alterations in message structure, rhetoric, and source cues are made by the media somewhere along the way’. With so many available angles from which to approach risks, the theory of media framing posits that the media reduce complex information to easily accessible frames.

This paper focuses on the reporting and framing of a Sydney coroner’s court inquest into the suicide death of 14-year-old Vivian Crane in the metropolitan press in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane in October 2004. The paper investigates the interaction between news values and news frames in the reporting and portrayal of the coroner’s findings and identifies some of the ways in which news outlets privileged certain news frames over others and, therefore, presented certain risks to the public at the expense of others.


Roaccutane & Teenage Suicide – an exemplar:

In January 2003, American news – reported in Australia – signalled a possible link between the prescription drug Roaccutane, prescribed for severe cases of teenage acne, and depression and suicide. Sydney’s Daily Telegraph (13 January p 9) in a story headlined, ‘Suicide families blame acne drug: Warning labels ‘inadequate’’ reported that: ‘Families of young suicide victims have linked an acne “miracle” cure to depression’. It also ran another story (p 19) headlined, ‘Shadow over wonder drug’.

On the same day Brisbane’s Courier Mail in a front-page story (pp 1 & 2) headlined, ‘Suicides linked to acne drug’ more dramatically reported that: ‘A “miracle” anti-acne drug has been blamed for a wave of teenage suicides’. It also reported a story (p 2) headlined, ‘Mum says miracle treatment led to son’s death’, about a mother who blamed Roaccutane for her son’s suicide, and a Fact File on Roaccutane. Melbourne’s Herald Sun in a story (p 5) headlined, ‘”Miracle” drug’s darker side’ also reported that Roaccutane had been “blamed for a wave of teenage suicides” and an adjacent story headlined, ‘Son’s state tragic – dad’, about a father who blamed Roaccutane for destroying his son’s life.

All the stories were framed around differences in the labelling of Roaccutane between the US and Australia, and they all privileged the claims of former users of Roaccutane and their families who blame or link the drug to depression and suicide. However, there were some differences in emphasis in these otherwise identical News Limited newspaper stories. The Daily Telegraph did not report that Roaccutane had been blamed for a ‘wave of teenage suicides’ and was more balanced in its presentation of evidence disputing the link between Roaccutane and depression and suicide. In contrast, the Courier Mail story drew more heavily on the claims of former patients and families of people who blame Roaccutane for the suicides of their loved ones. Significantly, the Herald Sun devoted a separate nine-paragraph story to Australian Rules footballer Jason Akermanis’ experiences with the side effects of Roaccutane, along with two photographs of the footballer. In contrast, the Courier Mail and Daily Telegraph only devoted three and four paragraphs respectively to this news angle, which may reflect differences in editor’s perceptions of the news value of celebrity.

A noteworthy omission from all the initial reports linking Roaccutane to the risks of suicide and depression was information for readers about where they could seek mental health services. Also, with the exception of the Courier Mail report, none of the stories provided any factual information about Roaccutane and no positive treatment experiences with the drug were included in any reports.

It was also significant that this story was not covered in the Fairfax press.

More than 18 months later on 21 October 2004, the Sydney Morning Herald reported in a page 3 story on evidence given at the Glebe Coroner’s Court. The headline read: ‘Acne drug may have led to teenager’s depression and suicide, court told’ and the lead reported that:

A prescription drug a 14-year-old girl was taking for her severe acne might have made her depressed and led the above-average student to kill herself, an inquest has been told.

The story reported evidence presented to the coroner from the girl’s parents that she became withdrawn when taking Roaccutane and that they had not been warned of the risks of the drug. The third paragraph reported that US consumer warning labels state the drug ‘may cause depression’. But the fourth paragraph referred to court evidence from Roche Pharmaceuticals that there was no direct evidence linking the drug to depression. Halfway through the story readers learnt that the young girl had been taking the anti-depressant drug, Zoloft. But no mention was made in the story of the continuing controversy about prescribing this drug (and similar Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors or SSRIs) to children and adolescents – a story of major significance in the same paper in 2001-2002 (Blood et al, 2003) and throughout 2003-2004. Significantly, the Sydney Morning Herald story did contain a separate section on ‘Advice for doctors’ about the potential side effects of Roaccutane. But the story did not contain specific advice to readers about depression or where to seek help – something specifically mentioned in the Australian government’s guidelines, Reporting Suicide and Mental Illness (Commonwealth of Australia, 2002).

On the same day, Sydney’s Daily Telegraph covered the story on page 7 with the headline: ‘Acne drug may have killed teen’. The lead said:

A commonly used medication to treat acne may have caused a schoolgirl to take her own life, the Glebe Coroner’s Court heard yesterday.

The reference to Roaccutane as a commonly used medication exaggerated the magnitude of the risk when the drug is only prescribed for severe cases of acne. The second paragraph of this story gave explicit details of the method and scene of suicide – something the Australian government’s guidelines caution against (Commonwealth of Australia, 2002). The primary source of this report was the lawyer for Vivian Crane’s family, who implicated Roaccutane in her depression, suicidal ideas, self-mutilation and suicide. The story did not mention that the deceased young girl had also been prescribed the anti-depressant Zoloft and did not include any advice for readers about depression, or suicidal ideation, or where to seek advice.

In a clear shift from the cautionary tone of this article the Daily Telegraph carried another story on page 11 with the headline, ‘Why did she die – Parents blame acne drug for depression’. The lead reported that: ‘A 14-year-old girl committed suicide because she took a commonly used acne drug, her parents said last night’. The story was framed around the parent’s lack of awareness of the side effects of Roaccutane and their efforts to get help for Vivian are reported as being hampered ‘because they were not aware depression was a side effect of the drug’ (par 6). The story devoted only one paragraph to evidence disputing the link between Roaccutane and depression and suicide. It also failed to mention the psychological effects of acne itself or that Vivian Crane had also been prescribed Zoloft, as the Sydney Morning Herald story did. The exclusion of this information supported the news frame of a direct link between Roaccutane and suicide.

In contrast, the AAP story on the same day (October 21) carried the cautionary headline: ‘Parents should not fear acne drug’, which quoted a statement from Dr John Sullivan, chairman of Severe Cystic Acne Resource (SCAR), who emphasised the link between depression and acne itself. No metropolitan newspapers followed the AAP’s lead and sourced SCAR or the actual statistics of a recent study into the effects of Roaccutane. The following day the Sydney Morning Herald did publish in its Letters column a response from the chairman of SCAR (October 22 p 10), but his comments were not reported in news stories. He argued that media coverage about Roaccutane ‘is likely to be causing additional unnecessary concerns in patients and their families’ and urged people to seek medical advice. He quoted evidence from the US Food and Drug Administration disputing the link between the drug and depression. The dermatologist wrote:

There is evidence, however, that depression is common in young people and that acne itself can cause or increase the risk of depression.

This was one of the few items in newspapers that acknowledged the risks of depression for people with severe acne, over and above the depression and suicide risk of Roaccutane. The Courier Mail also carried a lengthy response from a child and adolescent psychiatrist, written in consultation with a dermatologist, which outlined the positive and negative aspects of using Roaccutane and Zoloft or similar medications.

A week later the coroner handed down her findings of the inquest into the suicide of Vivian Crane. In contrast to the news frames evident in early Coroner’s court stories, AAP reported on the coroner’s verdict on October 28 in a story with the headline:

Common drugs may have contributed to suicide.

Note the plural; it is two drugs, Roaccutane and Zoloft that are named by the Coroner. The lead to the story read:

Two commonly used medications may have aggravated a Sydney schoolgirl’s depression causing her to kill herself, an inquest found today.

The dominant frame posited both Roaccutane and Zoloft as contributors to the girl’s depression but was cautionary – ‘may have aggravated’ the depression leading to the subsequent suicide. The story also reported that the girl’s mother was ‘impressed with the job the coroner has done’. For the most part Australian metropolitan newspapers did not follow this frame set by AAP, nor did they – with one notable exception – discuss depression as a significant risk factor for suicide.

In a separate story, AAP reported (October 28): ‘Mother warns parents against drug that killed her daughter’. This report gave explicit details of the method of suicide. It reported the coroner’s finding that Roaccutane and Zoloft may have contributed to the girl’s depression. But the main theme of the story – supporting the dominant news frame – comprised comments from the girl’s mother outside the court warning other parents of the dangers of Roaccutane: ‘She was a bubbly, full of life, full of fun girl and she became a shutdown, hollowed-out shell of a person with no personality.’ The report downplayed the risk of Zoloft, which the coroner could not rule out as possibly aggravating the girl’s depression, in favour of the more topical Roaccutane. The story was re-issued later by AAP with a corrected headline: ‘Acne drug may have contributed to teen’s death: coroner’.

On the same day (28 October) AAP also reported: ‘Girl’s suicide no reason to stop taking medication: Dr’, which cautioned parents and patients about stopping prescribed medication and quoted a child and family psychiatrist as saying:

I have concerns that for every one of this sort of situation there’s going to be another 10 or 20 kids who suicide because they weren’t prescribed an anti-depressant.

This story was not reported in the metropolitan press.

On October 29 and subsequently the coroner’s verdict and details of this case, including interviews with the girl’s mother, were covered by metropolitan newspapers:

‘Acne drug in “bubbly” girl’s death spiral’ (The Australian, 2004, October 29, p. 2).
‘Acne drug linked to teenager’s hanging’ (Courier Mail, 2004, October 29, p. 3).
‘Acne drug suicide link – coroner’ (Herald Sun, 2004, October 29, p. 26)
‘Diary of a little girl lost in her despair’ (Sydney Morning Herald, 2004, October 29, pp. 1-2)
‘The drug that comes with doctor’s health warning’ (Sydney Morning Herald, 2004, October 29, p. 2).
‘You did wrong by Vivian – Hospital criticised over acne girl’s suicide’ (Daily Telegraph, 2004, October 29, p. 7).
‘When a girl’s mum is the only one listening’ (Daily Telegraph, 2004, October 30, p. 21).

The Australian, the Courier Mail and the Herald Sun - three News Limited newspapers - adopted similar news frames. It was the acne drug that was explicitly linked – not may have contributed – to the girl’s depression and suicide.

Both the Courier Mail and Herald Sun reports, which were based on the AAP report, departed from the cautionary news frame set by AAP of two drugs, Roaccutane and Zoloft, which may have led to the depression and suicide. Both stories repeated the method and scene of suicide in the second paragraph – ‘hanging by a pair of stockings in her wardrobe’, which media reporting guidelines warn against (Commonwealth of Australia, 2002). The Courier Mail story was the only one to provide information to readers about where they could seek help.

The Australian’s report on the coroner’s verdict also implicated Roaccutane, ahead of depression, as the cause of the girl’s suicide, although it did so cautiously. It included a photograph of the distraught parents outside court with the caption: ‘No warning’. It was not until paragraph 7 of this 13-paragraph story that readers learnt of the Coroner’s comments about Zoloft and treatment the girl received at a Sydney Hospital, as possible factors in her depression and suicide. Although the story did not include details of the method of suicide, it also did not include advice for readers about where to find further information or how to access help.

The other News Limited newspaper, the Daily Telegraph, in line with its coverage of Sydney hospitals that month, re-framed the story to emphasise the coroner’s criticisms of Hornsby hospital. The headline read, ‘You did wrong by Vivian: Hospital criticised over acne girl’s suicide’ and the lead referred to the method of her suicide. This story insensitively referred to the schoolgirl, as she was described in earlier stories, as the “acne girl”. It included a photo of Vivian Crane with the caption ‘Sent home …’, to support the hospital ‘blame’ frame. Readers learnt in the third paragraph that an inquest had found that both Roaccutane and Zoloft were ‘contributing factors to the depression which triggered her suicide’. In paragraph 7 readers learnt that it was the ‘on-duty registrar’ at Hornsby hospital who had sent Vivian home after assurances from her that she would not harm herself. The Daily Telegraph made no attempts to contextualise the risks of Roaccutane, compared to the risks of Zoloft and depression itself, as the Sydney Morning Herald did. Instead, it opted for the simplistic hospital ‘blame’ frame, and provided no advice to readers about how to access dermatological or mental health services.

In contrast, the Sydney Morning Herald front-page report headlined, ‘Diary of a little girl lost in her despair’ quoted excerpts from Vivian Crane’s diary. Vivian Crane was not framed as the “acne girl” done wrong by Roaccutane or the Hornsby hospital but the ‘little girl lost in her despair’. This story was framed around her depression and took a cautious approach to the risks of Roaccutane, reporting in paragraph 7 that Vivian’s depression, ‘an inquest found yesterday, might have been caused by the acne drug Roaccutane’. The story reported that Vivian was turned away from Hornsby hospital, despite one doctor judging her to be at risk, and her parents instructed that she should be under 24-hour-supervision. The report said that a child psychiatrist, who had prescribed Vivian the anti-depressant Zoloft, ‘failed to warn Mrs Crane the drug might aggravate her depression, or could be dangerous if stopped suddenly (which Vivian had secretly done).’ The story also reported that Vivian’s dermatologist had taken her off Roaccutane when told of her depression. This story included recommendations for health professionals when prescribing both Roaccutane and SSRI anti-depressants such as Zoloft.

The Sydney Morning Herald also carried another story written by the paper’s medical editor headlined, ‘The drug that comes with doctors’ health warning’, which provided factual information about Roaccutane; the rate of its prescription in Australia, its potential to cause severe birth defects, that it can only be prescribed by dermatologists and immunologists, the possibility of depression as a side effect, and the possibility of a rise in blood pressure. Significantly, this story reported that evidence more conclusively implicated Zoloft in triggering suicidal thoughts in teenagers than Roaccutane. However, no advice was given to readers in either of these stories about where they could seek advice or further information.

The following day (October 30) the AAP ran a story headlined, ‘SSRIs not a cure-all for kids: Professor’, which reported the warnings of a leading expert in suicide prevention about the risks and uncertainties surrounding the prescription of SSRIs to children. It reported that, ‘His warning comes only days after NSW deputy state coroner Dorelle Pinch said the acne treatment Roaccutane, and the anti-depressant Zoloft, may have aggravated 15-year-old Vivian Crane’s depression, which caused her to commit suicide’. It reported that the coroner ‘told the court Zoloft had never been indicated for children or adolescents, and Roaccutane had documented adverse side-effects including depression’.

Rather than pick up this story, the Daily Telegraph followed up the previous day’s story with an interview with the girls’ mother: ‘When a girl’s mum is the only one listening’. This feature-length story was accompanied by a poem by Vivian Crane, next to a large school photograph of her below which is a smaller photograph of her parents outside court. It appealed to the ‘human face’ of risk or ‘human interest’ news value. The primary source was Vivian Crane’s mother and the story was framed around her grief about not knowing the extent of her daughter’s depression while she was alive, as reflected in her poetry. The story pitted a mother’s attempts to help her daughter against the coroner’s criticisms of Hornsby hospital. The blame for Vivian Crane’s death was shifted in this story from the inadequate labelling of the side effects of Roaccutane to flaws in the hospital system itself, but the ‘blame’ frame remained dominant. Professor Ian Hickie, clinical adviser from the national depression initiative Beyondblue, was quoted towards the end of the article as saying this suicide is one example, among many, of “disjunctive care”. But the story did not report any comment from Hickie, or other mental health professionals, about the risks of prescribing Zoloft to children and adolescents, which was a glaring omission in light of the coroner’s comments about Zoloft and AAP reports on the same day warning of these risks.

Conclusion

• Two of the journalistic standards outlined in the MEAA Code of Ethics are to strive for accuracy and to not give distorting emphasis. In this case study the most problematic news framing involved the reframing of the coroner’s findings so as to accentuate the risks of one drug, Roaccutane, over another, Zoloft. Despite the Coroner finding, as cautiously reported by AAP, that both Roaccutane and Zoloft ‘may have’ contributed to the girl’s depression and suicide, News Limited newspapers departed from this frame. This distorted the coroner’s findings, particularly her comments about the risks of prescribing the anti-depressant Zoloft to children, and simplified the complex factors that may have played a role in Vivian Crane’s depression and ultimate suicide.

• It is significant that in reporting the coroner’s findings into this suicide only one news story provided contact information for where people ‘at risk’ are able to seek advice and assistance, despite the fact that many referred to suicide in the headline and reported the method. The provision of such information is one of the recommendations of the Australian government’s guidelines, Reporting Suicide and Mental Illness (Commonwealth of Australia, 2002). Information about the benefits of Roaccutane was also absent from news stories, as was information about alternative non-medical treatments for severe acne and depression. For journalists and editors the exclusion of this information may be of little consequence. But what of readers who were taking Roaccutane or Zoloft? What about readers who were depressed about their acne? What about people who were depressed or feeling suicidal?

LINK: http://live-wirez.gu.edu.au/jea.papers/Holland,%20Blood,%20Pirkis%20and%20Martin.rtf