The darker side of journalism

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ari/ / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Everyone knows the well publicised rewards that come with pursuing a career in journalism. The chance to see your name up in lights, being the first to break a story and making high profile celebrities face the music in interviews are just some of the ones which attracted me to study it at undergraduate level.

But it is not all glitz and glamour as a recent article reminded me.

The Committee to Protect Journalists revealed that 68 journalists were killed in 2009, making it the highest yearly tally since the CPJ started detailing records of journalist deaths.

The previous worst stood at 67 in 2007 when the violence in Iraq was at its peak and media deaths were common.

The record toll this year was driven mainly by the election-related slaughter of more than 30 media workers in the Philippine province of Maguindanao. This is the single deadliest event for the press in CPJ history.

The Philippines, Somalia and Pakistan were identified as amongst some of the most dangerous places, accounting for over 50 media deaths.

The full report can be found here

The dreaded interviews

One of the most nerve wracking and seemingly unconquerable fears I faced as a first year Journalism student was the prospect of face-to-face interviews.

Not being an overly confident person the prospect of sitting down with a seemingly unwilling interviewee to ask them questions that they have probably been asked dozens of times was about as appealing as sticking a needle in my eye.

As this was one of my biggest fears about undertaking a undergraduate degree, I have put a lot of time and effort into attempting to improve my interview skills and I have managed to pick up some useful tips along the way.

1. Do your homework!

As a reporter you will usually have time to prepare for an interview as the News Editor will tell you about it beforehand. It is essential to use this time well to read up on your interviewee and ready any past articles/stories about them. There is nothing worse than the dreaded realisation you have to attempt to ask questions to someone you know nothing about. You don’t want to stumble through the interview making the source think you don’t understand the topic.

2. When setting up the interview don't leave the interviewee in the dark about what you want to ask

Providing them with some details before the interview will give the interviewee a chance to think about some of the questions you might ask and gather relevant information they think you might need for your story.

3. Prepare a few questions beforehand

Interviews (especially ones with people who like nothing more than to talk about themselves) have a tendency to drift away from the topic you want to talk about. This is why it is important to have some questions pre-prepared and while it is important to keep your interviewee talking, having a question you can ask to get the interview back on track is important.

From my experience I realise that you don't have to rigorously stick to your original questions and asking follow up questions will relax your interviewee and show you are actually listening to what they have to say.

4. Think of your readership

It is essential to consider what you want to get from the interview and what will the reader/listener/viewer want to know about the topic. It is equally important to remember what would be of particular interest to your audience.

Understanding these tips greatly helped me when it came to heading out and talking to people in order to get the information I needed. Hopefully I can keep on furthering my learning and before long I could be interviewing interesting characters such as this lady.

Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp0Q3UJHrkU

Criminal Cases in the Crown Courts

When reading up on the Crown Courts in the new edition of McNae's Law for Journalists;

http://www.amazon.co.uk/McNaes-Essential-Journalists-David-Banks/dp/0199556458/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255010671&sr=8-1



I found one section on reporting on majority verdicts particularly interesting.

In Crown Court, a judge will initially advise a jury to arrive at a unanimous verdict on each charge however if the jury had 'retired' for at least two hours and ten minutes and has failed to reach a verdict, then the judge will rule that a majority verdict is acceptable for each charge.

Now if a defendant is convicted by a majority then it is unproblematic for the media to refer to the fact that it was by a majority decision. This is because it indicates that one or two people didn't agree with the guilty verdict, and to report this is regarded as fair to the defendant.

However the problems lie in regards to reporting when a defendant is acquitted by a majority vote. It is regarded as 'undesirable' to publish the fact that it was by a majority verdict as it indicated at least one member of the jury believed the defendant to be guilty.

If reported, such an suggestion leaves a stain on the defendant's character even though he or she was cleared of the charge.

This could prove to trip up many journalists who believe they were reporting a seemingly innocuous truth so it is definetely something to watch out for.