Week 10: Chapter 11, 'Reporting for duty'.

Reading: Chapter 11 - Reporting for duty in The Daily Miracle: An introduction to journalism / David Conley & Stephen Lamble. Melbourne, Victoria. Oxford University Press, 2006. 3rd ed.

Like last weeks post, the questions for this week are like small novels and I really couldn't be bothered typing them out. My wrists hurt.

• If the story is legitimate and the chief is telling you that you have to write the story, then I think you have to write the story. You should also probably tell the chief of the police officers threats and possibly write a story about that, you may have to change from the rounds after, but at least you keep your integrity and keep your job. Probably write some pretty neat little articles along the way too.

• Forget the story and the get the woman some help. It's such a trivial matter that a stolen pair of stockings pales in significance to the death of a mentally unstable woman.

• Report the case in all it's full and juicey details. Plus the offers for sex, a holiday or money. It would make a good, shitty story. Celebrities revel in this sort of stuff.

• Publish an article on the jurors revelations. It would be an important story for the public to know and letting off a murderer for money is not cool. Not cool at all.
  

Week 9: Chapter 10, 'The story factory'.

Reading: Chapter 10 - The story factory in The Daily Miracle: An introduction to journalism / David Conley & Stephen Lamble. Melbourne, Victoria. Oxford University Press, 2006. 3rd ed.

I've been typing the questions out from the list at the end of each weeks chapter, but this week the questions are really long so I've chosen not to.

• Quite a conundrum this question is, a pickle even. As a journalist, you don't want to burn your bridges by going against the wishes of a source. But you also want to write cutting edge, news breaking stories. If there is knowledge that another outlet has the story, it might be a good idea to against the source, and against the idea of writing the story in two days for convenience sake to get the breaking story. It's a matter of making sure you're not doing too much damage to your source by breaking the story early.

• I'd drop the story. It's just how I'm inclined. I'd write the story and go to the restaurant and inform the staff and management of my knowledge of what's happening and tell them they need to shape up, if they don't within a certain time, I run the story. You can't destroy 120 jobs over a problem that has potential to be fixed quickly.
  

• The guy's pissed and theres a chance he's not actually a solicitor. I would consult the paper's lawyer immediately with all the details of the call and pretty much do what he tells me to do. He's a lawyer!

• I'm sticking with the editor. Don't bite the hand that feeds. For this story anyway. I will break the next Watergate in a few years. Shaun C. Burgess and Matthew A. Murray = Newcastle's Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward.
  

Week 8: Chapter 9, 'Interviewing, a core skill'.

Reading: Chapter 9 - Interviewing, a core skill in The Daily Miracle: An introduction to journalism / David Conley & Stephen Lamble. Melbourne, Victoria. Oxford University Press, 2006. 3rd ed.

• Which would you choose: a direct quotation that is accurate but unclear and embarrassing to the speaker, or one that is clear but is inexact and makes the speaker appear more eloquent than he or she really is?

Both quotes clearly have things wrong with them, but I would use the direct quote that is inaccurate and embarrassing. If it is direct, the journalist is only recite something that has been directly stated, it is not up to the journalist to sort out somebody else's inaccuracies.

• Is it ever justified for a journalist to intimidate a source with 'public exposure' to important public information?

I don't think it is ever justified and it is morally and ethically wrong to intimidate a source to get information, although I'm sure it is done on an almost daily basis.

• Is it a reasonable strategy for a journalist - male or female - to use 'personal chemistry' to get information from sources when there is public interest at stake?

It's not a reasonable strategy to use sex appeal to gain information from a source. The problem with using sex appeal to gain information is that there is always a chance of it ruining any integrity that a story reveals as the personal chemistry used to obtain the information can always be called into question by people questioning whether the information is legitimate or not.

• What potential dangers could come back to haunt a journalist who gets too close to a source?

As above, the entire story could be ruined by the journalist getting to close with the source. Everyone will question if the information is legitimate as it came from the journo being so close to the source.
If a journalist becomes very close to the source, the legitimacy could also be questioned in that the source may give the journalist false information just to please them.

• Who is the most inarticulate, word mangling public figure in the news at present? Should you feel sorry for them and fix up their quotes or let them burn?

Sarah Palin, this says it all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrzXLYA_e6E