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.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Thursday, September 20, 2007
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'.
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'.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
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
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
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
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
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?
Journalism issue of accuracy
The link below is about a contestant on Australian Idol.
I read this article not long after having read the chapter in our text about accurately reporting information.
So I found it relevant that in the fifth paragraph from the bottom, the contestant's name is incorrectly spelt...
I just thought I would add this to my Journalism blog as a point of interest, and to reiterate the importance of accuracy when reporting a story.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=291181
I read this article not long after having read the chapter in our text about accurately reporting information.
So I found it relevant that in the fifth paragraph from the bottom, the contestant's name is incorrectly spelt...
I just thought I would add this to my Journalism blog as a point of interest, and to reiterate the importance of accuracy when reporting a story.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=291181
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Chapter 9 - Interviewing, a core skill and Kell's say
1. It would depend on the angle I chose to write the story on.
If I use President George Bush as an example, a direct and accurate quote but embarrassing to him is what the public have come to expect.
President Bush is constantly quoted as having said something ridiculous, which in turn provides entertainment for readers! An inexact quote making Bush appear more eloquent would have readers confused - they wouldn't be used to it.
Click hereLink
for an example of something ridiculous said by Bush
And it seems journalists enjoy publishing his mistakes, capitalising on the fact he isn't exactly the most popular world figure at the moment. The media always seem on hand to publish any of his verbal errors, which is obviously beneficial to them. I think they will miss him when he is no longer president!
In my own opinion however, I do not think quotes should be manipulated.
Even if a quote is grammatically incorrect, it would probably fit in with the story. But I understand that too would depend on the angle of the story.
Conley and Lamble do mention that the best interviewers understand and empathise with all sorts of people.
For example low economic areas are not always as well versed as other people. So if crime happened in that area and someone was quoted as saying something which may not necessarily make sense, it could well still fit in with the story.
I'm not sure if that's a clear example, but I wanted to give the example while still being politically correct and non-stereotypical!
Or if a tourist is quoted, but their English is obviously not as fluent, I think readers enjoy the different spin tourists have on particular words/phrases.
Ultimately, I think it boils down to the story you are writing as well as the source you are quoting.
2. Perhaps that would depend on the form of intimidation used! I personally have nothing against it if it means the exposure of information benefits the public. But it must be remembered that professionalism should always be administered above any other interview method. I don't know if I would necessarily, or deliberately, set out to intimidate an interviewee - I think I would feel slightly guilty than if I had sourced the information in a professional, honest and trustworthy manner. But then again, we are talking about journalism...!
A story of relevance, and proximity, to Newcastle would be the exposure of Swansea political member, Milton Orkopolous.
Mr Orkopolous was exposed for providing teenagers with drugs and money in exchange for sex. That is one story I believe should be exposed and I would have nothing against the way in which the information was discovered. I do however feel for Mr Okopolous's family, they are victims of another kind in this instance.
I do think it really depends on the information being exposed as well as how high profiled the source is. Obviously the higher their profile, the more newsworthy the exposure becomes. If Joe Blo from the corner store was exposed for overcharging the local kids when they bought lollies, I don't think the public would be as concerned as if a well known local identity was abusing children. Overcharging the kids is not right, but I personally don't feel it would be as big a news story as something more highly profiled.
Above all, interviewers should not feel intimidated by interviewees and vice versa but if the intimidation is conducted subtly, perhaps the interviewer/interviewee can get away with it. I'm not a good liar, or very subtle, so I think I will just stick to being straight forward!
3. If the source falls for such tactics, then I don't see the problem!
However, I do believe professionalism again needs to be maintained at all times.
If a bit of harmless flirting, and nothing more, can result in obtaining information, then so be it.
If the flirting, or 'personal chemistry' crosses a line, that is when problems arise. In such a situation, I would feel it is the journalist who would come under more scrutiny than the source.
The source could in fact expose the journalist and their credibility will be questioned. Have all the interviews that journalist has ever conducted been 'above board'? Maybe the journalist deliberately targeted a vulnerable source to gain the information and that is plain wrong.
I believe professionalism is the key to sourcing accurate information.
4. As mentioned above, I believe the credibility of the journalist is at stake if they become too close to a source and it becomes public knowledge.
I don't think it's not fair to judge though. People have affairs every day of the week, why should this instance be any different? It simply comes down to professionalism. I must admit I am unsure of the ethical practices surrounding this kind of circumstance, but if we look at the medical industry for example, their careers can be at stake if they become too close to their patients. I guess the same should apply to journalists.
Depending on who the journalist becomes too close to, some people may believe the journalist has made their career based on being "too close" to their sources.
But should there be a responsibility on the interviewee to maintain their professionalism? After all, it takes two to tango!
5. I would have to say George W Bush is the most inarticulate public figure in the news!
I feel no sorrow for him because he is the president of the USA. Not only should he have his own degree of vocabulary and eloquence, but i'm sure most of the time his speeches are scripted and therefore he would have his PR people doing most of the work!
If I interviewed Bush and he made a grammatical error in his quote, I would definitely not correct it. I think it would be more newsworthy if his mistakes were published - the general public find it quite amusing that he is so inarticulate.
KELL'S SAY
I have used my answer in question 1 as "Kell's say" for this blog.
If I use President George Bush as an example, a direct and accurate quote but embarrassing to him is what the public have come to expect.
President Bush is constantly quoted as having said something ridiculous, which in turn provides entertainment for readers! An inexact quote making Bush appear more eloquent would have readers confused - they wouldn't be used to it.
Click here
for an example of something ridiculous said by Bush
And it seems journalists enjoy publishing his mistakes, capitalising on the fact he isn't exactly the most popular world figure at the moment. The media always seem on hand to publish any of his verbal errors, which is obviously beneficial to them. I think they will miss him when he is no longer president!
In my own opinion however, I do not think quotes should be manipulated.
Even if a quote is grammatically incorrect, it would probably fit in with the story. But I understand that too would depend on the angle of the story.
Conley and Lamble do mention that the best interviewers understand and empathise with all sorts of people.
For example low economic areas are not always as well versed as other people. So if crime happened in that area and someone was quoted as saying something which may not necessarily make sense, it could well still fit in with the story.
I'm not sure if that's a clear example, but I wanted to give the example while still being politically correct and non-stereotypical!
Or if a tourist is quoted, but their English is obviously not as fluent, I think readers enjoy the different spin tourists have on particular words/phrases.
Ultimately, I think it boils down to the story you are writing as well as the source you are quoting.
2. Perhaps that would depend on the form of intimidation used! I personally have nothing against it if it means the exposure of information benefits the public. But it must be remembered that professionalism should always be administered above any other interview method. I don't know if I would necessarily, or deliberately, set out to intimidate an interviewee - I think I would feel slightly guilty than if I had sourced the information in a professional, honest and trustworthy manner. But then again, we are talking about journalism...!
A story of relevance, and proximity, to Newcastle would be the exposure of Swansea political member, Milton Orkopolous.
Mr Orkopolous was exposed for providing teenagers with drugs and money in exchange for sex. That is one story I believe should be exposed and I would have nothing against the way in which the information was discovered. I do however feel for Mr Okopolous's family, they are victims of another kind in this instance.
I do think it really depends on the information being exposed as well as how high profiled the source is. Obviously the higher their profile, the more newsworthy the exposure becomes. If Joe Blo from the corner store was exposed for overcharging the local kids when they bought lollies, I don't think the public would be as concerned as if a well known local identity was abusing children. Overcharging the kids is not right, but I personally don't feel it would be as big a news story as something more highly profiled.
Above all, interviewers should not feel intimidated by interviewees and vice versa but if the intimidation is conducted subtly, perhaps the interviewer/interviewee can get away with it. I'm not a good liar, or very subtle, so I think I will just stick to being straight forward!
3. If the source falls for such tactics, then I don't see the problem!
However, I do believe professionalism again needs to be maintained at all times.
If a bit of harmless flirting, and nothing more, can result in obtaining information, then so be it.
If the flirting, or 'personal chemistry' crosses a line, that is when problems arise. In such a situation, I would feel it is the journalist who would come under more scrutiny than the source.
The source could in fact expose the journalist and their credibility will be questioned. Have all the interviews that journalist has ever conducted been 'above board'? Maybe the journalist deliberately targeted a vulnerable source to gain the information and that is plain wrong.
I believe professionalism is the key to sourcing accurate information.
4. As mentioned above, I believe the credibility of the journalist is at stake if they become too close to a source and it becomes public knowledge.
I don't think it's not fair to judge though. People have affairs every day of the week, why should this instance be any different? It simply comes down to professionalism. I must admit I am unsure of the ethical practices surrounding this kind of circumstance, but if we look at the medical industry for example, their careers can be at stake if they become too close to their patients. I guess the same should apply to journalists.
Depending on who the journalist becomes too close to, some people may believe the journalist has made their career based on being "too close" to their sources.
But should there be a responsibility on the interviewee to maintain their professionalism? After all, it takes two to tango!
5. I would have to say George W Bush is the most inarticulate public figure in the news!
I feel no sorrow for him because he is the president of the USA. Not only should he have his own degree of vocabulary and eloquence, but i'm sure most of the time his speeches are scripted and therefore he would have his PR people doing most of the work!
If I interviewed Bush and he made a grammatical error in his quote, I would definitely not correct it. I think it would be more newsworthy if his mistakes were published - the general public find it quite amusing that he is so inarticulate.
KELL'S SAY
I have used my answer in question 1 as "Kell's say" for this blog.
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Chapter 8 - Small path, big story and Kell's say
1. If the story I was covering was of interest to me, I would prefer thoroughly researching every avenue in order to provide an accurate and well researched article - even if it means pressurised deadlines.
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)