Chapter 5 of our text, "The lead: will the reader follow" discusses the importance of an introduction to a story.
If you were to pursue a story from a unique angle, which meant spending more time writing and pressurised deadlines, I believe it would be worth it. I am not saying the intro will have more impact just because you have spent more time on research, but if you caught onto a specific detail of a story, through a press conference for example, you should be motivated and determined to dig deeper.
And have it published ASAP!
However, if the story you had to cover was of little interest, or the journalist felt it wasn't of high newsworthiness quality, I would simply do what was required to have a story published.
Ultimately, I would hope to be writing for an organisation who produce stories I am interested in writing. I'm happy putting in the hard yards as long as it's appreciated.
2. Now here's a difficult and tricky situation.
I would be willing to undertake unpaid work, but with regards to personal risk involved in covering a story on corruption, it would depend on the extent of risk I was putting myself in. Especially if the risk extended to include my family.
Veronica Guerin immediately comes to mind in this case. Veronica sought to uncover corruption in Ireland. In the process she was physically assaulted, received death threats and put not only her own life in danger, but that of her husband and young son. She ultimately paid with her life.
There are few careers which employees are willing to risk their lives - of course army officers, police and possibly ambulance officers are obvious exceptions.
The issues I would consider before accepting to cover an investigative/corruption type of story are who would benefit from the story and would the story do more harm than good. If the story was merely to increase profits for my employer, I think my own ethics would override the need for a story. However if the story was to uncover serious corruption which has affected many people, than I would definitely consider writing the story.
In my own opinion, this is an area where sensibility needs to override the need for profit or sensationalised material. For example, I would love to one day travel to Africa and expose corruption, especially if it affects kids. Even if it meant I was risking my life, I would probably still consider it for that kind of story. I believe issues of humanity outweigh any other kind - but that is simply my own opinion. However if the story was exposing the fact Joe Blogs has been selling pirated CDs all around the world, I probably wouldn't find that too serious to report on!
3. Yes I would work as a unit. Just because it's your best question doesn't mean the other reporters will know it was your best question. You may be reporting on a story from a completely different angle to the other reporters, so they might not even realise how important that question was to you.
And they are in the same boat in this case. Those reporters will each have their own "best question" which, if working as a unit, they have now exposed to you. I believe it's important to gather as much information as you can as quickly as you can, and if it means giving up one question, then I think I would be willing to do so.
Or if I was clever enough, perhaps I could reword the question or angle it so my "best" question can still be asked later on. That way, I would have worked as part of a unit but still leave myself with the opportunity to use my question after the conference.
At the end of the day, no journalist will have exactly the same story. The way it's written, the quotes used and the angle you take will all be unique to each other. This gives readers a more open view of a story and a story written from different perspectives. I guess that could lead into a discussion on when it's appropriate for journalists to use their own opinion and ideas in a story....
4. The government have ownership of information, but if people didn't have some ownership we wouldn't need to have Freedom of Information legislation. Would we?!
The government hold information, but they are not going to let information go public if it incriminates them in any way. The public would react straight away! For example, if someone from within the government departments exposed corruption on petrol prices, it would create obvious uproar by the general public. As Conley and Lamble say "whistleblowers are valuable news sources" (p.177). It is noted they are usually unhappy government employees.
For this reason I think it's a catch-22 situation. If the public had access to government documents which, to any degree however small, suggested any wrongdoing the public would have obvious reason to be angry. So the government use their FoI legislation to prevent documents being easily available to the public.
Therefore, governments physically own information but it's because the public would cause problems if the information was exposed that the public therefore own the government - to a certain extent..?!
5. I would decide which one to attend based firstly on the publication I was writing for, and secondly on which story was most interesting to me and I thought would be most informative/interesting to the readers.
There would be no point being employed by the Sydney Morning Herald, but writing a column on "Are you a player?" - which would be more suited to a publication such as Cleo or Cosmo! And vice versa - Cleo and Cosmo are probably not as interested in a story on world politics.
This is simply a case of writing for your publication and their readership. Even if the story might seem boring, journalists have an obligation to write on issues specific to their publication.
Consideration might also be given to the people involved in the proceedings. Although a story might seem boring, will the people involved make it interesting? Can you find out something from these people other journalists might miss?
I do believe though that if two stories are equally relevant to the publication, then it would come down to which story you would find most interesting to write about.
KELL'S SAY
My say for this blog centres around Mark Davis and his journalism of "no-go" zones.
I had not intended on studying journalism at Uni. However after being taught by a passionate teacher, in addition to interviewing and writing about one man's tormented past and how he is now helping youth my interest in journalism has definitely increased.
As such, I decided that if I did become a journalist I would ideally like to report on the "no-go" type of stories because I think they make for interesting and informative news reporting.
My ultimate goal is to work for the Cancer Council, organising fundraising events or securing sponsorship. But I have since been considering writing stories about cancer patients, their families, their lives etc etc.
I don't want to be a journalist who reports on the car crash on a major highway, killing four people and injuring another three. I'd love to write about the lives of other people.
Back to Mark Davis, and he thoroughly deserves his Walkley Awards. He is a one-man band journalist/video journalist who travels and works alone. He travelled to Afghanistan, Melanesia and Asia on his own.
He really is an inspiration to upcoming journalists who would like to follow in his footsteps and report on the risky, no-go type of stories.
Good on him!
No comments:
Post a Comment