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.
No comments:
Post a Comment