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'.