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
No comments:
Post a Comment