The news of a bomb blast at an overseas army barracks sent shockwaves through a small town where five of the soldiers lived. One of died.

A reporter, working for the local newspaper, was sent out to knock on the door of the soldier who was killed. This is called ‘doorstepping’ in newsgathering.

The newspaper’s news editor, driven by the need for a compelling local angle, wanted a photograph of the soldier and quotes from his grieving family.

The reporter arrived at the family home to find the curtains closed. Residents in neighbouring houses had also closed their curtains in a communal show of sympathy and respect.

As the reporter knocked on the door he heard whispering inside. He knocked again, the whispering stopped. All was still. It was clear the family was inside, but it was also clear that family members didn’t want to answer the door.

The reporter called the news editor to explain the situation. The response was firm: “Keep trying, we need a photograph and a quote”.

The reporter was told to “stay there until you get something”. Although he understood the news value of persisting he also felt uncomfortable intruding on a family in mourning.

Driven by the news editor’s instructions the reporter went back to the house. As he arrived a woman at the house next door stopped him and pleaded that he leave the family alone “they’ve suffered enough”, he was told.

The reporter was caught in a painful ethical bind:

• The pressure to perform: He didn’t want to let his news editor down and was afraid that if he didn’t get a photo and a quote another reporter would and he would be seen to have failed at his job.
• The moral imperative: He recognised the profound grief of the family and the inherent violation of their privacy and didn’t want to intrude.
• Afraid of confrontation: He didn’t want an unpleasant confrontation with family members.

Faced with this conflict, the reporter made a compromise. He called the news editor, falsely claiming that the family had left and that he had just missed them. The news editor then instructed the reporter to interview neighbours, which he did, obtaining valuable information and a photograph. He also scribbled a note of condolence with his name and phone number on then posted it through the door. While this resulted in a story for the newspaper and left the grieving family undisturbed, the reporter had resorted to dishonesty.

Did the reporter do the right thing? And, if not, what should he have done?

Suggested right action:

The ethically sound course of action would have been for the reporter to:

1. Communicate honestly: He should have told the news editor about the  neighbour’s plea and shared his own ethical concerns about intruding on the grieving family.
2. Alternative action: He should have explained that he had left a handwritten note with his contact details inviting the family to get in touch if they felt able to talk to him.
3. Advocate for sensitivity: He could have suggested other alternatives such as publishing a respectful tribute to the soldier based on information from friends and community members, rather than pushing for a direct, intrusive interview with the bereaved family.
4. Stand firm on ethical principles: If the news editor insisted on intrusive tactics, the reporter should have respectfully but firmly reiterated his ethical objections, even if it meant risking his job.
5. Seek alternative angles: The reporter could have explored the wider impact on the community, or the life of the soldier through his friends and colleagues.

Summary:

The reporter’s decision to lie, while it achieved the immediate goal of protecting the grieving family, compromised his integrity. It also set a dangerous precedent, suggesting that dishonesty is acceptable when faced with ethical dilemmas.

What should have happened is that the news editor should have taken into account the reporter’s concerns, and the paper should have shown respect for the grieving family. A story that focused on the life of the soldier, and the impact on the community would have been a better way to report the story.

Journalism has a responsibility to report the truth, but it also has a responsibility to act with compassion and respect. In the pursuit of a story, ethical principles should never be sacrificed.

When analysing a “doorstepping” scenario, it’s crucial to understand that it’s a practice laden with ethical and practical complexities. It’s not simply about gathering information; it’s about the power dynamics inherent in approaching someone at their private residence. This act inherently disrupts an individual’s sense of security and control, and therefore requires a high level of consideration.

• Ethical considerations:
  • The balance between the public’s right to know and an individual’s right to privacy is paramount. Doorstepping can easily cross the line into harassment, especially when dealing with vulnerable individuals or sensitive topics.
  • The potential for misrepresentation or manipulation is significant. The way questions are phrased, the tone of the interaction, and the editing of any resulting footage can all influence public perception in ways that may be unfair or inaccurate.
  • The psychological impact on the person being doorstepped must be considered. Unexpected confrontation at one’s home can cause significant distress, regardless of the individual’s perceived culpability.
• Practical implications:
  • The effectiveness of doorstepping as an information-gathering technique is debatable. While it can yield dramatic footage or sound bites, it often results in defensive or evasive responses.
  • The legal implications of doorstepping vary depending on jurisdiction and the specific circumstances. Issues such as trespass, harassment, and defamation can arise.
  • The rise of social media and rapid information sharing has changed how these interactions are perceived. Now, any interaction can be recorded by the doorstepped person and distributed to a large audience. This adds another layer of complexity to the action.
• Contextual nuances:
  • The legitimacy of doorstepping often depends on the context. Is it being used to hold powerful figures accountable, or to sensationalise a private matter?
  • The behaviour of the individual conducting the doorstepping is critical. Respectful and professional conduct can mitigate some of the ethical concerns, while aggressive or intrusive behaviour exacerbates them.
  • The public perception of the person being doorstepped plays a large role in how the action is viewed. A person viewed as already being in the wrong, will receive less public sympathy than a person viewed as an innocent party.

In essence, analysing a doorstepping scenario requires a nuanced understanding of the ethical, practical, and contextual factors at play. It’s a practice that should be approached with extreme caution and a deep respect for individual rights.

In the real-life case on which this scenario is based the family responded to the reporter’s handwritten note, invited him to visit, and shared photographs and memories of the deceased, which resulted in an exclusive feature for the local newspaper.

The post Doorstepping – scenario first appeared on Media Helping Media.

In this scenario we look at a situation where an editor faces breaking protocol because of the strength of a story.

As one of the editors of a government radio news service in a developing democracy you receive information of an imminent threat of famine in a rural area of the country.

You are told that, unless immediate action is taken by the government and the international community, thousands of people are likely to die in the next few months.

You know that the government is aware of the situation but would rather not publicise the threatened famine in the hope that it passes unnoticed, as it has often done in the past.

In a recent visit to the famine-threatened region you saw thousands of tonnes of grain being readied for export to foreign markets by remote merchants.

Your research uncovered that these same merchants are known to have financed the mechanised farming of grain in the famine-threatened region.

The grain they harvest, you discovered, is largely intended for export to countries which are known to provide financial aid to your national government.

As you consider what to do, a written press release arrives on your desk from a commissioner of the famine-threatened region, pleading for immediate assistance.

The press release was sent to you specifically in the hope that you would broadcast the information.

You suspect that if you seek clearance from “above” to publish the information your request will either be refused, delayed, or will possibly disappear altogether.

As a result, the available grain will likely be exported and the famine will possibly take its toll.

If you allow the information to be broadcast, and point out the availability of the grain destined for export out of the region, it may shame the government into doing something, such as putting an embargo on the exportation of the grain from the region.

However, broadcasting the information could put your job at risk.

What do you do?

1. Refer the matter up to senior editors and government officials and try to persuade them that broadcasting the information is in the public interest and that, as a news outlet serving a community at risk, you have a duty of care to share what you know.
2. Broadcast the information without ‘referring up’ because you fear you will be blocked, and you consider it is more important to save lives than save your career.
3. Don’t broadcast, but instead pass the information on to a foreign correspondent or foreign media outlet which you trust in the hope that they will circulate the information.
4. Ignore the story, aware that this is probably happening in many other countries and whatever you do will make no difference.

Conclusion

How a journalist responds to such a situation will differ from country to country and culture to culture. There is no easy answer here. However, in the scenario set out above the journalist decided on option 2.

They went ahead and broadcast the information they had without ‘referring up’ because they feared they would be blocked, and they considered it to be more important to save lives than save their career.

After the information had been broadcast they received a stern telling off, but kept their job.

And as a result of the information being broadcast on the government radio channel the authorities announced an embargo on the exportation of grain until enough was available for the hungry in the region.

All the scenarios on Media Helping Media are based on actual events.

In summary

The scenario tests the boundaries of journalistic ethics in a developing democracy. An editor of a government radio news service receives information about an imminent threat of famine in a rural area. The government is aware of the situation but prefers not to publicise it. The editor discovers that thousands of tonnes of grain are being readied for export by merchants who financed mechanised farming in the famine-threatened region. A press release arrives from a commissioner of the region, pleading for immediate assistance and hoping the editor will broadcast the information. The editor suspects that seeking clearance to publish the information will result in it being blocked or delayed, leading to the famine taking its toll. Prioritising saving lives over their career, the editor decides to broadcast the information without approval. As a result, the authorities announced an embargo on the exportation of grain.

This scenario presents a complex ethical dilemma, deeply rooted in the tension between journalistic integrity, government accountability, and humanitarian urgency. Let’s dissect the situation and explore its implications:

Deepening the analysis:

• Power dynamics and corruption:

• The scenario highlights the potential for corruption and self-preservation within developing democracies. The government’s desire to suppress information to avoid scrutiny suggests a lack of transparency and accountability.
• The connection between the grain merchants, the government’s foreign aid sources, and the intended export market implies a network of vested interests that prioritise profit over human life. This reveals a systemic problem that extends beyond a simple news story.

• The role of the media in developing democracies:

• In fragile democracies, the media often plays a crucial role in holding power to account. This scenario tests the limits of that role.
• The editor’s decision to bypass protocol underscores the potential for government-controlled media to act as a voice for the marginalised, even at great personal risk.
• The fact that the commissioner sent the press release directly to the editor shows that some members of the government system are willing to use the media to do the right thing.

• Ethical considerations:

• The editor faces a classic ethical dilemma: duty to inform versus duty to obey.
• The principle of “do no harm” is central to this situation. By suppressing the information, the editor risks contributing to the suffering of thousands. However, by broadcasting the information, they risk jeopardising their career and potentially destabilising the government.
• The concept of journalistic objectivity is also tested. While the editor must strive for accuracy, they cannot remain neutral in the face of a humanitarian crisis. The need to act as a voice for the voiceless overrides the traditional notion of detached observation.

• The impact of global connections:

• The involvement of foreign aid and export markets underscores the interconnectedness of global issues.
• The actions of international actors can have a profound impact on local populations, particularly in developing countries.
• This situation shows how the global economy can negatively affect local populations.

• The importance of local knowledge:

• The editor’s previous trip to the affected area, and the research they undertook, were vital in understanding the situation. This highlights the importance of journalists getting out into the field, and not just relying on press releases.

• The fragility of “success”:

• While the editor kept their job, and the embargo was placed on the grain, this does not mean that the underlying problems have been solved. The same situation could easily occur again.

Analysing the options:

• Referral up:

• This option is the most conventional, but it carries the risk of inaction. The editor’s suspicion that the request would be blocked is likely well-founded.
• This choice displays the editors attempt to follow the correct procedures.

• Broadcast without approval:

• This option is the most courageous, but it also carries the greatest risk. It requires the editor to prioritise human life over their career.
• This option shows that sometimes, direct action is needed.

• Passing information to foreign media:

• This option is a compromise, but it relies on the willingness of foreign media to act. It also potentially absolves the local media of its responsibility.
• This option shows an attempt to get the information out, without taking the full risk.

• Ignoring the story:

• This option is the most unethical. It represents a failure of journalistic duty and a betrayal of the public trust.
• This option shows the danger of apathy.

Conclusion:

This scenario serves as a powerful reminder of the ethical challenges faced by journalists in developing democracies. It highlights the importance of courage, integrity, and a commitment to serving the public interest. The editor’s decision to broadcast the information, despite the risks, is a testament to the power of journalism to make a difference. However, it also underscores the need for systemic change to ensure that such acts of bravery are not necessary.

The post Testing boundaries – scenario first appeared on Media Helping Media.

You are a reporter working on a local newspaper. The editor asks you to write an article about a local business that offers a service which is available for a paid-for subscription.

The editor explains that the piece promoting the business’s product is not an advertorial, but is a case of “working together with a local success story in a way that is mutually beneficial”.

You set to work on the piece and create an article which is then published in print and online.

A reader contacts you after the piece is published to tell you that a similar service is being offered by a non-commercial community project run by volunteers and which is totally free-of-charge.

You thank them for alerting you to the free service, and tell them that you have since been working on a second piece about the paid-for service, with an article due to be published in a couple of days.

The reader suggests you add a line about the free service saying that “In these times when people are struggling with the cost of living it might be nice to let your readers know that there is a similar service completely free-of-charge”.

What should you do?

A: Ignore the new information that you have received and publish without mentioning the free service because you feel you can’t mention every service that exists in the area or take attention away from the paid-for service whose coverage is “mutually beneficial”.

B: Rework the article to include the information you have just been given because thorough and comprehensive journalism means that you should include all relevant information that could help enhance the knowledge of your audience about the topic you are covering.

C: Plan a third piece about the free service to be published at a later date.

Suggested action

We would recommend option B if print and online deadlines allow (and of course online articles can always be updated).

You have been alerted to relevant information by a member of the public. It is information that is absent from your report and which could be of valuable to your audience.

As a journalist you have a responsibility to inform the public debate so that the audience can make educated choices.

Your job is to gather facts, test them, then present them to the audience so they can assess their value.

Because of that, you should be sharing all relevant information that could help those who read your journalism.

Withholding information, for whatever reason, should be done for solid editorial reasons only, such as the likelihood to offend, cause harm, or mislead. For more on offence please see our ethics section and the article about offence and journalism.

In this case the reporter should refer up to their editor, explain that new information has come to light which is relevant to the piece being produced, and discuss how to incorporate what you have learnt in a clear and concise way that is of benefit to those who consume the news your media house produces.

You should never knowingly publish an incomplete news report unless it is part of a series of investigations which, in their totality, present all the facts to the audience.

This scenario presents a classic ethical dilemma faced by journalists: balancing the interests of a source (in this case, a business with a “mutually beneficial” relationship), the expectations of an editor, and the core responsibility to inform the public accurately and comprehensively. Let’s delve deeper into the complexities at play:

1. The “mutually beneficial” relationship and its implications:
   • Potential bias:
     • The editor’s phrasing, “working together with a local success story in a way that is mutually beneficial,” raises red flags. It suggests a potential blurring of lines between journalism and public relations. This kind of arrangement can compromise journalistic objectivity, as the reporter may feel pressured to present a favorable narrative.
     • This relationship could create a conflict of interest. The journalist might feel compelled to prioritise the business’s interests over the public’s right to know about alternative options.
   • Trust and credibility:
     • Readers are increasingly discerning. They can detect when a story feels like an advertisement in disguise. If the article lacks balance and omits crucial information, it can damage the newspaper’s credibility and erode public trust.
     • The reader that contacted the journalist, is showing that trust is placed in the journalist to report fairly.
2. The significance of the reader’s tip:
   • Public service journalism:
     • The reader’s information highlights the essence of public service journalism: providing information that empowers citizens to make informed decisions. In a time of economic hardship, knowing about a free alternative is particularly valuable.
     • The reader is acting as a “citizen journalist” helping to provide important information.
   • Completeness and accuracy:
     • A truly comprehensive report should include all relevant information, even if it challenges the initial narrative. Omitting the free service creates an incomplete picture, potentially misleading readers.
   • Ethical obligation:
     • Journalists have an ethical obligation to seek the truth and report it fairly. This includes acknowledging and addressing new information that comes to light, even if it requires revising a previously published article.
3. Analysing the Options:
   • Option A (Ignore the new information):
     • This option is ethically indefensible. It prioritises the “mutually beneficial” relationship over the public’s right to know.
     • It betrays the core principles of journalism and risks damaging the newspaper’s reputation.
   • Option B (Rework the article):
     • This is the most ethical and responsible course of action. It demonstrates a commitment to accuracy, fairness, and public service.
     • It acknowledges the importance of providing readers with complete and relevant information.
     • It shows that the journalist is willing to adapt to new information.
   • Option C (Plan a third piece):
     • While this option might seem like a compromise, it delays the dissemination of crucial information.
     • It also raises questions about why the information was not included in the original article or the follow up article.
     • This choice could be seen as an attempt to control the flow of information, rather than providing it promptly.
4. The importance of editorial oversight:
   • Transparency and accountability:
     • The reporter should immediately inform the editor about the new information and discuss how to incorporate it into the article.
     • This demonstrates transparency and accountability.
   • Ethical decision-making:
     • The editor should support the reporter’s decision to include the information, even if it means revising the article.
     • This reinforces the newspaper’s commitment to ethical journalism.
   • Policy and guidelines:
     • The newspaper should have clear ethical guidelines regarding conflicts of interest and the handling of new information.

In conclusion: The journalist’s primary responsibility is to the public. Option B, reworking the article to include the free service, is the only ethically sound choice. It upholds the principles of accuracy, fairness, and public service, and reinforces the credibility of the news organisation. The “mutually beneficial” relationship with the business should not be prioritised over the public’s right to know.

The post Withholding information – scenario first appeared on Media Helping Media.

In this scenario we look at what a journalist should do with off-the-record information when it relates to a major news event.

Should they agree to conditions being placed on the information’s use? Should they ignore any conditions and do the story anyway? Or should they use what they have been told as background information and dig further?

Try our scenario and decide what you would do in the circumstances.

Dealing with off-the-record information

You are working as a reporter on a local radio station, which is situated in the city centre close to the police headquarters.

Journalists and police officers are often found mixing in the local pub after their shifts have finished.

In the city where you work the journalists have a lot of dealings with the police. Many are on first-name terms, having crossed paths in the course of their work.

The pub is a good place for journalists to pick up leads and background information.

You are having a beer with a couple of journalist pals, when two police officers you know join you for a drink. They, too, have just finished the late shift.

As you chat, one of the officers tells you that, earlier in the evening, vice squad officers working undercover in the city’s red-light district say they saw a prominent public figure driving his car slowly down a street which is well known for kerb-crawling.

Later they say the found the same car parked in a side street. When they checked, they found the man in the back seat with a woman. The woman wasn’t his partner.

The officer tells you that the man was given a caution, and says the police were “taking it no further”.

He names the man, describes the circumstances in some detail, but then says the story is “off the record”, and that it mustn’t get out.

He says a surveillance operation is continuing, and tells the journalists not to mention it to anyone else.

What should you do? The following are three options. There will be many more, but in this module we are looking at the following three.

Option 1 – run with the story

This has the makings of a lead story. The off-the-record status of the information has no legal bearing; you haven’t signed anything. If the officer gets into trouble that’s his problem.

You have the name of the man, you have the location of the incident, the time it took place, you have a description of the car, and details of what vice squad officers saw when they shone their light in the vehicle.

You have enough for a 30-second voice report for the next bulletin. You should tell the newsdesk you have a new lead, head back to the newsroom, and get working on it as soon as you can.

Option 2 – keep your mouth shut

You should respect the informal off-the-record arrangement you have with your contact in the local police.

The officer has given you the details only because he trusted you. He has told you that the story “mustn’t get out”.

If you break this confidence it will damage a productive relationship, which might take years to repair.

You need to preserve the close relationship your news organisation has with the authorities.

So you should agree not to mention the incident, not even to your news editor, but to consider it valuable background information related to an on-going investigation.

Option 3 – refer up and investigate further

You should call your news editor and share the information, making it clear that the officer had told you that he was speaking off the record after he revealed the details.

There is still so much missing from the story. Apart from the chat in the pub with the officer, you have nothing else to go on. You have one source only.

You and your news editor need to discuss the significance of the information. Together you will need to assess the public interest aspects of what has happened.

You will also need to consider why the police officer was willing to share the information.

Then you need to decide whether the alleged incident requires further investigation.

At this stage you should certainly not consider putting anything out on air.

Off-the-record briefings

Off-the-record briefings are common in journalism. They can be useful in helping journalists research background information, and they can provide context about the issues reporters are investigating.

But such briefings can also put a journalist in an awkward position.

It’s possible an off-the-record briefing is given because the person sharing the information wants the journalist to research the matter for a variety of unknown reasons. In that case the journalist might be being used by the information provider.

It could be that the person sharing the information is afraid it will get out and is trying to pre-empt the situation by sharing a version of events in the hope that the journalist will be content with what has been shared and distracted from a bigger story.

Or it might be that the journalist has simply witnessed some loose talk, that the person sharing the information has realised they made a mistake in sharing it, and they are trying to recover the situation by saying what they shared was off the record.

A lot depends on the circumstances.

Some off-the-record chats will take place formally, others will be chance meetings with contacts who have information to share. Most will involve information providers who don’t want to go on the record for having shared it.

Specialist correspondents and beat reporters often depend on receiving confidential information from their contacts as a valuable part of their research.

Most media organisations will have a policy regarding off-the-record briefings. Some will accept them, others will feel that they compromise their ability to seek out facts and tie them to a controlled version of events.

You need to know your employer’s stance on the issue. This should have been made clear when you joined the company and during your training.

This scenario is not about a briefing with a specialist in a particular subject, it’s a chat with a casual contact in a pub late at night.

How would you deal with the situation? Let’s look at the three options set out above.

Option 1 – run with the story

If you follow option 1, you would be broadcasting information which hadn’t been checked.

It’s late at night, the officer who told you about the incident had heard it second-hand from the vice squad.

What they told him was a colourful, off-the-cuff description of what they said they had seen. It was not an official report.

There is nobody to quote. You have simply been given a tip-off that something has happened. A man found with a prostitute has been given a caution. That is all.

If you write a 30-second voice report at this point, you will be at risk of defamation of character, based on unsubstantiated information. That is not journalism.

Option 2 – keep your mouth shut

In this option, the reporter is keen to preserve the cosy relationship they have with the local police.

The reporter knows that if they report what was said in the pub, the police might not open up to them in the future. That could damage future newsgathering efforts.

The reporter is quite content to let the police officer rule on what they can or can’t do with the information. But, in doing so the reporter has allowed the line between information-sharing and editorial control to be crossed.

That is not a healthy position.

Option 3 – refer up and investigate further

This is the preferred course of action.

You have been given background information, which you and your news editor now need to consider.

By applying the public interest test you will be able to assess what to do next, and how much effort should be put into further research, if any.

It could be that the man in question has been outspoken in the past about the need to clean up the sex industry in the city. Perhaps he’s been campaigning about sex trafficking.

If so, there might well be a public interest justification for further investigation.

You might consider putting a file together on the prominent public figure who is alleged to have been cautioned so that you are ready if and when the news finally breaks.

Such a file would be accessed by your online team, too, and probably contain a biography, videos and photographs of the man in public life as well as other background material.

But as for writing a piece for the next bulletin – no, there is nothing to report.

Not only because the information was shared off the record, but also because you don’t have any independent sources offering verified facts that have been double-checked to ensure that the information you broadcast is accurate, fair, and in the public interest.

This scenario dives deep into the complex ethical dilemmas journalists face when dealing with off-the-record information, especially in the context of potentially explosive news. Here’s a deeper analysis:

Core conflict:

• The crux of the issue lies in the tension between journalistic duty to inform the public and the ethical obligation to respect confidentiality and source relationships.
• It highlights the power dynamics inherent in information sharing, where sources may attempt to manipulate or control the narrative.

Analysis of the Options:

• Option 1 (Run with the story):
  • This option represents a purely sensationalist approach, prioritising speed and impact over accuracy and fairness.
  • It disregards the potential for misinformation and the devastating consequences of defamation.
  • This approach is highly risky, and damages the credibility of the journalist and news outlet.
  • It also disregards the very important aspect of the information being second hand, and not from the people who actually witnessed the event.

• Option 2 (Keep silent):
  • While preserving source relationships is crucial, this option demonstrates an excessive deference to authority.
  • It risks suppressing information that may be in the public interest.
  • It blurs the lines between journalistic independence and complicity.
  • By letting the police officer dictate what can and cannot be done with information, the journalist is giving up their editorial control.

• Option 3 (Refer up and investigate):
  • This option represents the most responsible and ethical approach.
  • It acknowledges the importance of verification, contextualisation, and public interest assessment.
  • It emphasises the collaborative nature of journalism, involving editors and other professionals in the decision-making process.
  • It shows the reporter is thinking about the “why” the information was given.
  • It allows for the gathering of more information, and the ability to verify the story.

Deeper considerations:

• Public interest vs. personal conduct:
  • The scenario raises the question of when a public figure’s private conduct becomes a matter of public concern.
  • Factors such as the individual’s position of power, their public pronouncements, and the potential for hypocrisy must be considered.
• Source motivation:
  • Understanding why a source is providing information is essential.
  • Is it a genuine attempt to expose wrongdoing, or is it driven by personal animosity or political agendas?
  • The scenario highlights how the source may be trying to “pre-empt” a story.
• The nature of “off-the-record”:
  • The scenario underscores the ambiguity and potential for abuse of off-the-record agreements.
  • Clear and consistent policies regarding off-the-record information are crucial for journalistic integrity.
  • The text makes it clear that just because someone says information is “off the record” does not mean that it is, legally.
• Defamation and legal risks:
  • The text highlights the very real legal risks involved in publishing unverified information.
  • It is vital that journalist understand the laws surrounding defamation.
• The importance of multiple sources:
  • The text makes it very clear that one source is not enough.
  • Journalists should always seek at least two independent sources.

In essence, this scenario serves as a valuable case study for exploring the ethical complexities of journalism in the digital age, where the pressure to break news quickly often clashes with the fundamental principles of accuracy, fairness, and responsibility.

The post Off-the-record chat – scenario first appeared on Media Helping Media.

How should a reporter respond when someone uses emotional pressure and threats to try to stop them doing their job?

Every case will be different, but in this scenario we look at a situation where a reporter is begged not to cover a story, and then threatened with violence if they publish. What would you do in the circumstances?

Fair and accurate reporting of proceedings

You are a reporter working for the local newspaper in a small town.

One of the daily tasks is to cover the local courts.

The brief is to go along, read the daily case sheet, select those that you have either been told to look out for or which stand out as being particularly newsworthy, and then attend the hearings.

You will have learnt the rules for court reporting in the country you work in during your journalism training, and you will know what can and what can’t be reported under certain circumstances.

On this particular day you select three cases to cover.

One is a follow-up hearing to a case that your newspaper is already covering. The other two are new cases which you sense are likely to produce a few lines of copy (copy is the word used in the newspaper business for the text you submit to the news editor for approval).

Of those two, one turns out to be particularly newsworthy.

You take your seat in the press gallery along with reporters from other media outlets.

You have a clear view of proceedings, and of the pubic gallery where those with an interest in the case sit.

As you leave the court a woman, who you had seen in the public gallery, approaches you.

She is agitated and begs you not to write a news report about the case.

She says the incident her adult son has been charged with was “a set-up”, that he is innocent, and that if you publish the story it will “ruin his life”.

She tells you his wife has recently given birth and he needs his job to keep his family housed and fed.

If the story runs in the local newspaper, she says, “he will be finished”.

By this point the woman is becoming emotional.

A group of people has gathered around you both.

A man steps forward and prods you in the chest with his finger saying, “Don’t forget, we know where you live.” He then pushes you and you fall back against the wall banging your head in the process. Your colleagues from the other media outlets witness the scene.

What should you do?

1: You should listen to the concerns of the woman and, having been told about the negative impact your report might have, agree not to write about what you heard in court. You are working in a small town, it’s one of those places where everyone knows everyone, your by-line will be on the piece, and it will be much easier for all concerned if you just forget the hearing took place.

2: You should jot down what the woman is saying and question her more about her son’s family, the new baby, where he works, what he does, how he spends his leisure time. This is a great newsgathering opportunity, and she is giving you loads of quotes. The added excitement about you being prodded and threatened all adds to the piece. You could weave in what was said in court with what was said outside. You are already thinking up headlines to suggest to the subeditor: “Reporter assaulted leaving courthouse”, “Local man faces ruin if found guilty”. Try to take a picture of the woman if you can.

3: You should explain to the woman that it’s your duty to report back to your editor on what happened in the court. Tell her that you will report only that which is allowed under the court reporting rules, and that it’s up to your editor to decide whether the article will be published or not. If she has any issues with that she should take it up with the newspaper.

Which is the right approach?

Nobody likes to read bad news about themselves or their families in the local newspaper, so it’s not unusual for court reporters and newspaper editors to come under pressure from those who feel that the publication of information could have a damaging impact on their lives.

When I was a local newspaper reporter such pressure was common.

But your job is to produce a fair and accurate report of proceedings, within the rules set down by the courts.

The task you had been set by your editor that morning was to attend the court, read through the charge lists, select which hearings to cover, cover them, then report back.

It was not to discuss with relatives of any of the accused how reporting the facts as set out during the court proceedings might affect the lives of their loved ones.

I suggest option three is the right response. As a reporter you need to retain your integrity by dealing with situations in a fair and accurate manner. You must not be pulled or persuaded by interested parties.

The text presents a situation where a local newspaper reporter, tasked with covering court proceedings, is confronted by the mother of a defendant. The mother pleads with the reporter not to publish the story, citing devastating consequences for her son and family. This emotional appeal escalates into a physical threat from a man in the group, including a direct threat of violence. The text then presents three possible responses for the reporter and argues that the correct one is to firmly but politely explain the reporter’s duty to report the facts of the court proceedings, adhering to legal guidelines, and to refer the person to the editor for further concerns.

• Ethical dilemma:
  • This scenario highlights the classic conflict between journalistic duty and human empathy. Reporters are tasked with informing the public, but they are also human beings who can be affected by the emotional appeals of those they cover.
  • The mother’s plea is designed to tug at the reporter’s heartstrings, creating a sense of guilt and responsibility.
  • The threat of violence adds a layer of danger and intimidation.
• Importance of objectivity:
  • The text correctly emphasises the need for objectivity and adherence to journalistic ethics.
  • Giving in to emotional pressure or threats undermines the integrity of the news and the public’s right to know.
  • The reporter’s job is to report the facts, not to make judgments about the consequences.
• Legal considerations:
  • Court proceedings are generally matters of public record.
  • Reporters have a legal right to report on what happens in open court, within the bounds of legal restrictions.
  • The threat of violence is a criminal act and should be treated as such.
• Safety and security:
  • The physical threat highlights the potential dangers faced by journalists, especially at the local level.
  • The reporter’s safety should be a priority.

Adding value:

Here’s how we can add value to this analysis:

• Prioritise safety:
  • The most immediate concern is the reporter’s safety. After the assault, the reporter should:
    • Report the assault and threats to the police immediately.
    • Inform their editor and news organisation.
    • Seek medical attention if necessary.
    • Document the incident thoroughly.
• Reinforce journalistic principles:
  • While option three is the most appropriate, it’s essential to emphasise the importance of professionalism and empathy.
  • The reporter should explain their duty calmly and respectfully, while also acknowledging the mother’s concerns.
  • It is possible to be firm and kind at the same time.
• News organisation support:
  • News organisations have a responsibility to support their reporters in these situations.
  • This includes:
    • Providing legal counsel.
    • Offering security measures.
    • Providing emotional support.
    • Publishing a statement of support for the reporter, and reaffirming the newspapers commitment to accurate reporting.
• Dealing with threats:
  • Threats should never be taken lightly.
  • News organisations should have protocols in place for dealing with threats and harassment.
  • This might involve:
    • Increasing security measures.
    • Working with law enforcement.
    • Providing training for reporters on how to handle threatening situations.
• Context and nuance:
  • While the core of the story needs to be told, consideration can be given to how it is worded.
  • For instance, instead of sensationalising the story, a reporter can focus on the facts of the case and the legal proceedings.
  • It is also worth noting that the story itself may cause the persons life to be ruined, not the reporter. The reporter is simply reporting the facts of a legal proceeding.
• Importance of record keeping:
  • Keeping accurate records of the threats, and the encounter is very important. This can be used in any legal proceedings that may occur.

In conclusion, this scenario underscores the challenges and responsibilities of local journalism. By prioritising safety, upholding ethical principles, and providing adequate support, news organisations can help their reporters navigate these difficult situations.

The post Emotional pressure – scenario first appeared on Media Helping Media.

In this scenario a reporter embedded with the military and closely monitored on an official visit to a war zone wanders off and discovers a story the army wouldn’t want him to tell.

You are a reporter in a city with a large army base. The anniversary of the end of a military invasion is approaching.

Tensions still exist between the two countries involved. A political resolution has still to be reached. No-fly zones are in force.

A battalion, based in the city where you work, has been sent to the country to begin a year-long tour of duty.

The army invites selected media representatives from your city to spend a week in the country under the protection of the battalion.

You are chosen as a radio reporter. You will be accompanied by three other journalists. One from a local weekly newspaper, another from the city’s daily newspaper, and a freelance reporter from a news agency which supplies the national newspapers.

The four of you are to be embedded for the trip, meaning that all of your activities will, supposedly, be organised and monitored by your military hosts.

As part of the deal you have to agree to a code of conduct, set out by the army’s media office.

You are told that you are not to operate outside of the framework of the trip – which is set out for you in terms of where you should go and who you should talk to.

You are issued with military clothing appropriate to the conditions in which you will be working.

Throughout the trip you are closely chaperoned by army media officers who arrange helicopter trips over the battle zones, set up interviews with senior military figures, and help arrange visits to a satellite communications vessel so that you can file your regular reports.

The four journalists spend the week in close proximity. They are not allowed out of their minders’ sight.

The journalists talk among themselves a lot. They discuss what they will be filing, and what storylines they will be covering.

Because they are all being exposed to the same information, there is little difference in what they file. The usual editorial tensions of working closely with competitors appear not to exist.

The group is well aware that this is little more than a public relations stunt by the military, but all four are keen to take part in order to experience travelling to a war zone.

Towards the end of the week, you and the other three journalists are told you are being taken on a trip to a remote settlement where an estimated 70 soldiers had died during the fighting.

You are shown a battlefield and told that the army engineers have been carrying out an extensive operation to remove what they say are live booby traps – explosive devices attached to corpses – so that local farmers can return to the land.

As you approach, there is a loud explosion. The army minders are distracted. The group of four reporters is separated.

Close by, half a dozen locals have gathered, presumably attracted by the noise of the helicopters when you landed in the area.

Two of the four reporters take the chance to talk to them. You are one of them, the other is the freelance news agency reporter.

One local resident tells you more about the booby traps. He says they have to deal with them on a daily basis. Livestock is being killed. Parts of their land are no-go areas. Another backs the claims. You turn your tape recorder on.

They say they are angry that not enough has been done to protect the local community. They claim that yours is the first visit by the army to the area since the end of the war.

The freelance news agency reporter takes notes. You have the interview on tape.

You return to base. The army minders arrange a meeting with all four journalists during which they set out what can and cannot be reported from the scene. Neither you nor the freelance reporter mention your conversation with the local residents.

The minders inform the group that there will be a trip to the satellite communications vessel later that evening. All four reporters start to write.

You suspect that the freelance news agency reporter will be filing a report about the conversation with the local residents. You fear that he will have a scoop and you will appear to have missed the story.

You need to consider, in the light of what you have seen and heard – and the debriefing meeting with the minders – what you will transmit.

What do you report?

1. The trip you are on has been arranged and paid for by the military, and you had agreed to a code of conduct before taking part. You should report only what you have been told by the military. You were not expected to be exposed to unauthorised sources. And you have no way to verify what local community members said, which could be untrue.
2. You should request another meeting with the minders and your fellow journalists and tell the group that you chatted to the locals while they were distracted by the explosion, summarise what the local farmers told you, play your recorded interview to the group, and ask the army minders for a comment.
3. You should write two reports. One covering the day’s events in line with the rules you agreed to before taking part in the trip, the other covering the conversation with the locals. You should file both, and leave it up to your editor to make the final decision on what angle to broadcast.

Verifying conflicting information

In this case the reporter took the second option. He realised that the locals had offered another perspective on the booby trap clearance, and it needed to be checked. He couldn’t ignore it. He also felt that he should invite the army to comment on what he had witnessed.

Being open and honest with the group about what he had seen also removed the fear that the freelance reporter might break the rules to get a scoop that would then make it seem as though the others had missed the story.

In the event he discovered that both versions of the story were true. The army engineers had been involved in removing booby-trapped corpses for some months, but had only that week started to clear the area which the journalists were visiting. So the locals were telling the truth that this was the first visit to their area, but the army was also telling the truth that the operation had been going on for months – although not necessarily in the area visited by the journalists.

So, had the journalists reported the comments of the locals without checking they would have been correct geographically in terms of a small area, but wrong operationally in terms of a larger task being undertaken by military engineers.

In this scenario the reporter also referred up to his line manager when filing to ensure that his decisions, taken at the scene, were supported by a senior editorial figure.

This text presents a classic ethical dilemma faced by journalists embedded with military forces: balancing access and information with journalistic integrity and the public’s right to know.

• Controlled narrative: The military is clearly attempting to control the narrative through embedded journalists, limiting their access and dictating what they can see and report.
• Ethical conflict: The reporter faces a conflict between adhering to the agreed-upon code of conduct and reporting potentially crucial information that contradicts the official narrative.
• Competing interests: The desire to maintain access, avoid professional embarrassment, and serve the public interest all pull the reporter in different directions.
• cChallenges: The reporter faces the challenge of verifying information from potentially biased sources (both the military and the locals).
• Importance of collaboration/transparency: The text highlights the importance of open communication with fellow journalists and editors to navigate complex situations.
• Nuance of truth: The final resolution shows that both sides of the story can be true, but in a very nuanced way.
• Ethical framework: This scenario highlights the importance of having a robust ethical framework for journalists operating in conflict zones. This framework should prioritise truth-telling, verification, and transparency, even when faced with pressure from powerful sources.
• Importance of context: The resolution of the story emphasises the importance of providing context. Simply reporting one side of the story without the other would have been misleading. Journalists must strive to provide a complete and accurate picture.
• The role of independent journalism: This scenario underscores the vital role of independent journalism in holding powerful institutions accountable. Even in controlled environments, journalists can uncover important information and provide a voice to marginalised communities.
• Risk assessment: Reporters must constantly assess the risks and benefits of their actions. In this case, the reporter weighed the risk of losing access against the potential benefit of uncovering a significant story.
• Editorial support: The fact that the reporter referred to his editor, shows the importance of editorial support. Editors are there to support their reporters in the field, and offer guidance.
• The power of recorded evidence: The fact that the reporter had the interview on tape, provided him with a valuable tool that could be used to prove the validity of the locals claims.
• The power of observation: The reporter observed the locals, and their reactions to the explosion. This observation gave him the opportunity to find the story.

Summary:

A radio reporter embedded with the military in a war zone discovers conflicting information about booby-trap clearance from local residents. Despite agreeing to a code of conduct and being closely monitored, the reporter must decide whether to report the locals’ claims, potentially contradicting the military’s official narrative and risking his access. The reporter ultimately chooses to gather all the information, present it transparently to his colleagues and superiors, and seek further verification, leading to a nuanced understanding of the situation. This shows the importance of verification and transparency.

The post Transparency and full disclosure – scenario first appeared on Media Helping Media.

In this scenario a naive reporter’s early success with a government minister leads to an ethical dilemma when a ‘favour’ is demanded in return.

A young journalist is appointed as a parliamentary reporter for a public service broadcaster in a Western democracy.

He is assigned to cover a specific region of the country. His job is to get to know his area’s MPs (members of parliament) and to cover their activities.

Keen to make an impression, he draws up a list of all the politicians on his new patch. His region has several constituencies where the sitting MP is a senior government minister.

A national story breaks. The minister in charge of the department concerned is on the reporter’s list. The journalist makes contact.

The minister, a Secretary of State in the department at the centre of the story, invites the reporter round to his private rooms in the parliament building. He has, so far, been refusing to be interviewed on the topic.

They have a chat, the reporter explains that he has taken over the patch and that he wanted to get to know all his MPs.

The minister seems friendly. He offers the reporter a cup of tea. They appear to get on well. The MP’s assistant is hovering in the background.

Towards the end of the chat the reporter asks the politician whether he would agree to a short recorded interview on the developing story. He says yes.

An audio clip from the interview makes national news. After it is broadcast, the reporter’s boss praises him for his work; it’s a good start in the new job.

Three months later the minister’s assistant calls to tell the reporter that the minister has a story for him. The reporter is excited. It sounds like he could be in line for another scoop.

He’s invited to visit the MP’s office again. When he turns up he’s handed a piece of paper. He reads what seems like nothing more than a public relations plug for the minister; the reporter fails to see the story.

He questions whether there is anything newsworthy to report. The minister seems surprised, and replies that he had done him a favour with a quote three months earlier and now it’s his turn to return the favour and report what the minister wants.

The reporter had no idea that the minister would want to call in a favour after giving a quote.

The minister’s assistant talks to the reporter as he leaves and suggests that it might not be as easy for her to arrange a meeting in the future if the reporter fails to cover the story the minister wants publicised.

What should the reporter do?

a) Do the story the way the minister wants. The reporter will be covering the region for some time, and he does not want to fall out with one of the most senior politicians on his patch – doing so could mean that he will miss out on quotes in the future when he might need them.

b) Ignore the request, knowing that he is under no obligation to cover the story. He might have been naive in the way he approached the first meeting with the minister, but he didn’t do any deals to get the first interview.

The suggested approach

Political interviewing should never be a matter of returning assumed favours.

Journalists should never do deals to get information or interviews. There will always be a price to pay if they do.

In this case the journalist reported the matter to his line manager who also failed to see the news story in the issue the minister wanted to publicise. And, even if he had, it would have been wrong for the story to be covered on the understanding that it was because a favour was being returned.

Interestingly, deciding not to cover what was a PR stunt didn’t disadvantage the reporter when it came to requesting future interviews. The politician was clearly trying to exploit the situation.

Summing up

A young parliamentary reporter, eager to impress, secures a crucial interview with a senior minister by establishing rapport. However, months later, the minister attempts to leverage this initial interview into a reciprocal favour, demanding positive coverage of a non-newsworthy public relations (PR) piece, implicitly threatening future access if the reporter refuses. The reporter, realising the minister’s attempt to manipulate him, consults his manager. They decide to reject the request, upholding journalistic integrity and demonstrating that ethical reporting doesn’t preclude future access.

Analysis

• The setup: A young, ambitious journalist gains early success by securing a crucial interview with a senior government minister. This success stems from the journalist’s proactive approach and the minister’s willingness to engage.
• The ethical trap: The minister later attempts to leverage this initial interaction, demanding favourable coverage of a non-newsworthy PR piece as a “returned favour.” This creates an ethical dilemma for the journalist, who feels pressured to comply to maintain access and avoid jeopardising his career.
• The core issue: The scenario highlights the potential for political figures to exploit the naivety and ambition of journalists, attempting to blur the lines between professional interaction and quid pro quo arrangements.
• The resolution: The suggested approach rightly emphasises journalistic integrity. The reporter should refuse to comply with the minister’s demand, and the line manager should support this decision. The outcome demonstrates that ethical journalism doesn’t necessarily lead to professional disadvantage.

1. Understanding the power dynamics:
   • This scenario reveals the subtle power dynamics at play between politicians and journalists. Ministers often control access to information, creating a potential for manipulation.
   • It underscores the importance of journalists maintaining independence and avoiding situations that could compromise their objectivity.
2. The importance of clear boundaries:
   • The reporter’s initial friendly approach, while well-intentioned, may have contributed to the minister’s perception of a reciprocal relationship.
   • Journalists must establish clear professional boundaries from the outset, ensuring that interactions are based on mutual respect and the pursuit of accurate information, not personal favours.
3. The value of editorial support:
   • The line manager’s support is crucial in reinforcing ethical standards and protecting journalists from undue pressure.
   • Strong editorial leadership is essential for maintaining journalistic integrity and ensuring that news coverage is not influenced by political agendas.
4. Long-term vs. short-term gains:
   • The temptation to comply with the minister’s request might offer short-term benefits, such as continued access.
   • However, compromising journalistic ethics can damage credibility and lead to long-term professional consequences.
   • The long term benefit of keeping ones integrity is far greater than the short term gain of a story.
5. Recognising manipulation:
   • The ministers assistant using language that implies a loss of access, is a form of manipulation. Recognising this is a key skill for a journalist.
6. Building a robust network:
   • While this minister was trying to manipulate the reporter, by maintaining a professional and ethical stance, the reporter has shown that they can not be manipulated. This builds a reputation of integrity, and in the long run will help the reporter build a robust network of reliable sources.

Key takeaway:

This scenario serves as a cautionary tale for aspiring journalists, emphasising the importance of ethical awareness, professional boundaries, and editorial support. It highlights the need to prioritise journalistic integrity over short-term gains and to recognise and resist attempts at manipulation.

Related training modules

How to interview politicians

Journalists and politicians

Integrity and journalism

The post Returning favours – scenario first appeared on Media Helping Media.

In this scenario a journalist lets their own emotional assumptions colour their news judgement resulting in misinformation.

A young radio reporter is coming to the end of his first month on the job. He’s just been approved to drive the radio station’s news car, which means he can now go out on stories and broadcast live from the scene. He’s very excited.

He looks out of the newsroom window and sees a thick plume of smoke rising from the east of the city centre. He alerts the news editor who agrees he should take the radio car, get as close to the scene as possible, and report live into the next bulletin at 4pm.

The reporter arrives at the scene at 3:50pm. He parks behind two fire engines at the corner of a building which is ablaze.

The reporter has 10 minutes before he has to go live into the bulletin. He tries to find someone for a comment, but all the firefighters are busy trying to control the flames, while the police are trying to control the crowd.

However, one of the engineers operating the fire engine pump will talk. When asked whether there are any casualties, he says “Not that we know of, but there are still people in the building.”

The reporter sees a group of people carrying items out of the burning tenements. He presumes they are trying to salvage what they can from the flames.

He lives in a similar part of the city and in similar accommodation. He feels sorry for them.

At that point he decides on the top line for his live report – that people are still in the building trying to salvage what possessions they can.

He hasn’t even considered that he could be at a crime scene where looters are stealing items as residents flee their burning homes.

He raises the radio car mast. The vehicle is new. It has the radio station’s logo plastered all over it in red, white, and blue. The reporter can see the car is attracting attention.

A group of men, some with their faces covered, gather round the vehicle. Three police officers approach and try to block their way.

By now the reporter is sitting in the radio car ready to broadcast. It’s one minute to the 4pm bulletin.

He leaves all four windows half-open to try to capture the sound effects of the chaos outside.

The 4pm news jingle starts to play.

The news reader announces that there is a major fire at a city centre tenement block. He then says, “We are now going live to our reporter on the scene.”

The light on the reporter’s microphone goes green. He’s live. He starts his report…

“The fire has now spread to four floors of this five-storey building. Dozens of firefighters are trying to contain the blaze. Residents are still in the building. Many are trying to salvage what they can from their burning homes. Working together they’re stacking their possessions on the street.”

One of the police officers, who had been protecting the radio car while the reporter was broadcasting, bangs on the window and shouts, “They’re looting, you’ve got to move, it’s not safe here.”

Emotions and assumptions take over

What we have here is a situation where an inexperienced reporter, faced with a breaking news story, is expected to report live from the scene with little knowledge of what is really going on.

That is a common situation.

But the reporter has been carried away with the excitement of the event, and, in the absence of any credible information, and with no time for proper news-gathering or fact-checking, relies solely on his own emotions and assumptions.

And that is not good.

The fact that he lived in a similar inner-city area meant that he was unable to be objective; he immediately assumed those gathering possessions were similar to his own neighbours.

His emotions were high when he thought they were salvaging what they could. He made a false assumption and that polluted his report.

The story he had built in his mind from the moment he arrived at the scene was wrong. Not only was it wrong, but it was missing the importance of the event.

He was witnessing rioting and looting, not local residents working together to salvage what they could from their burning homes.

In such situations reporters must detach themselves from events, broadcast what they see, and avoid any assumptions.

If they are unable to find out what is actually going on from a reliable source, they should offer a situation report about what they can see in front of them.

There was enough eye-witness material to fill a 30-second report without adding guesswork.

Guesswork, assumptions, and emotionally charged observations are not part of breaking news reporting.

The report should have been limited to describing the flames, the smoke, the number of fire engines, the size of the crowd, and the number of police at the scene.

The reporter’s mistake was letting his imagination take over.

He was broadcasting false information to the station’s listeners.

This was before social media, but in today’s age of Facebook and Twitter, such an error could lead to a rapid spread of misinformation which would take on a life of its own as raw emotion and ill-informed reaction is added.

Lessons from this scenario

• A breaking news reporter’s job is to describe what is happening at the scene, you are not there to interpret without evidence. If you have facts that are sourced and verified, you should include them.
• It doesn’t matter what you think might happen next. Guesswork about the future has absolutely no value.
• You must avoid all assumptions when compiling a report. Assumptions are fine when you are trying to work out what the story is during the research stage, but they then must be verified or discarded during the fact-checking process – they have no place in live situation reports.
• Adjectives and adverbs have little value in live breaking news reporting. The facts are strong enough on their own. The audience doesn’t need your subjective take on things, or your own personal value judgements.

This scenario vividly illustrates the dangers of emotional bias and unchecked assumptions in journalism, particularly in the fast-paced environment of breaking news.

Core problems:

• Emotional bias:
  • The reporter’s personal experience living in a similar area clouded his judgment. He empathised too strongly, leading him to project his own feelings onto the situation.
  • This emotional connection prevented him from objectively assessing the scene.
• Premature assumptions:
  • He jumped to conclusions about the people removing items from the building, assuming they were salvaging possessions rather than looting.
  • This assumption was based on his emotional bias, not on factual observation or verification.
• Lack of fact-checking:
  • He failed to gather sufficient information from reliable sources. He relied on a brief, ambiguous statement from a fire engineer and his own assumptions.
  • He did not consider alternative explanations for what he was witnessing.
• Prioritising narrative over accuracy:
  • He constructed a narrative in his mind and then forced the facts to fit it, rather than letting the facts dictate the story.
  • He was more concerned with creating a dramatic story, than telling the truth.
• Failure to report what he saw:
  • Instead of simply describing the scene, he interpreted it, and incorrectly.

Key takeaways:

• The importance of objectivity:
  • Reporters must strive to maintain objectivity, especially in emotionally charged situations.
  • Personal experiences and feelings should not influence news judgment.
  • Journalists need to examine their own unconscious bias.
• The necessity of verification:
  • Assumptions must be rigorously checked and verified before being reported as fact.
  • Multiple sources should be consulted to ensure accuracy.
  • Fact-checking is essential.
• Descriptive reporting:
  • In breaking news, especially when information is limited, descriptive reporting is crucial. Focus on what you can see and hear, without adding subjective interpretations.
  • “Just the facts” is a powerful tool.
• The dangers of misinformation:
  • Misinformation can spread rapidly, especially in today’s digital age.
  • Reporters have a responsibility to be accurate and avoid contributing to the spread of false information.
• The power of words:
  • Using adjectives and adverbs add subjective opinion. In breaking news, the facts alone carry the weight of the story.
• The pressure of live reporting:
  • Live reporting is a high-pressure environment, but it does not excuse inaccurate reporting.
  • Reporters must be trained to handle these situations responsibly.
• Ethical considerations:
  • The reporter’s actions had ethical implications, potentially endangering the safety of himself and others, and misrepresenting the situation to the public.
  • Journalistic ethics are essential.

In essence, this scenario serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of journalistic integrity, objectivity, and accuracy. It highlights the need for reporters to prioritize factual reporting over emotional narratives, especially in the chaotic and fast-paced world of breaking news.

Related articles

Accuracy – scenario

Accuracy in journalism

Photojournalism and ethics

The post Emotional assumptions – scenario first appeared on Media Helping Media.

In this scenario we look at how a journalist should act when they witness a tragedy unfolding and have to decide whether to help, or to stand by and report.

The scenario also looks at how senior editorial managers could, and probably should, support their journalists working in difficult conditions.

Becoming part of the story

Imagine you are a local radio news reporter working in a city whose football team has qualified for the 1985 European Cup final (later renamed the Champions League).

Your editor holds a planning meeting a month before the game. Three sports reporters are sent to provide commentary and gather interviews, while you are assigned to cover the news angles.

The brief is to travel with the fans, stay with them in the city where the match is being played, mingle with them at all times, and file regular reports on the atmosphere before, during and after the game.

You are also asked to gather enough material in order to produce a half-hour documentary to be broadcast in the station’s news and current affairs programme a week after the game.

You arrive in the European capital, where the game is being staged, a day early to soak up the atmosphere.

On the morning of the game, the fans invite you to join in a football match with the opposition fans in the street close to the stadium. The fans are enjoying themselves.

You record some of the atmosphere and a short piece for your programme. Mobile phones were not common in 1985 so you need to find a telephone box to send a 40-second news report on the build-up to the match.

You find a phone, dismantle the mouthpiece, attach two crocodile clips to the wires, and plug in your Uher reel-to-reel recorder to transmit your material.

At 4pm the police usher the fans into the stadium – more than three hours before the kick-off.

It’s cramped, the stadium is in a poor state. The concrete terracing is crumbling. The barriers are unsafe.

The fans become bored. Fireworks are thrown. They start to taunt each other either side of a thin wire fence separating the two sets of supporters. It starts to buckle under the pressure.

The police move in. Some in the crowd try to escape, others surge forward. The fence collapses, then a wall. Fans are crushed under the weight of the concrete. You hear screaming.

Many fans are trying to exit the terracing as more police arrive. You pass the wall which has fallen. Fans from both teams are trying to dig people out of the rubble. Some beckon to you to help them.

What should you do?

1. Help those who are trying to rescue the injured fans.
2. Try to capture some of the noise for your programme and record a situation report.
3. Keep moving, you need to find a telephone box in order to contact the news desk.

Suggested response

Reporters are often caught up in events. Most of the time we are just witnesses to incidents which we observe and report.

Occasionally, what we are seeing could be a matter of life and death. We have to make a decision, sometimes split-second, on whether it’s more important to report on the news, or whether we can offer assistance and help save lives.

It might be possible to do both, but sometimes the journalist becomes part of the story, making reporting difficult. In those cases their news priorities might have to come second.

Of course, each case has to be judged on its merits. In this particular case the reporter decided that his immediate job was to assisted fans and later paramedics in the rescue operation (and got hit with batons by police who misunderstood his motives).

He knew that his colleagues in the commentary box would be able to report on the unfolding scenes below them (which they did), and that the newsdesk would be supplied with updates – if not the first-hand experiences he was going through.

He was aware that the nearest telephone box was about 800m away but that riot police were already blocking the exits and that it wouldn’t be easy to get to a phone to file a report.

And he also knew that he might get reprimanded for not finding a way to file a live report about what was happening. But in that moment he had to decide.

He was still able to file a report three hours later about what he had witnessed that day (the only eye-witness account of what happened on the terraces to be broadcast), and he was still able to complete his documentary.

But he wasn’t first with the news, despite being the closest journalist to the tragedy that was unfolding.

Sadly, 39 people died that day; 600 were injured, including the reporter.

Reaction

In the scenario set out above, the reporter’s actions were appreciated by his managers both locally and nationally. Not once was he reprimanded for his failure to update the newsdesk.

Three messages of support are embedded below.

These are important, and a reminder for today’s senior editorial managers, because they show that those who manage the news understand the decisions reporters have to make, and the issues they often face, during the course of their newsgathering.

The text above presents a real-life scenario where a radio journalist covering a 1985 European Cup final finds himself witnessing a deadly stadium disaster. He must decide whether to prioritise reporting the unfolding tragedy or assisting in rescue efforts. The text highlights the ethical dilemma faced by journalists in such situations, emphasising the importance of human life over the immediate pursuit of a story. It also underscores the crucial role of editorial managers in supporting journalists who make difficult decisions in traumatic circumstances.

Analysis:

• Ethical dilemma:
  • The core of the scenario is the conflict between a journalist’s duty to report and their moral obligation to help those in need. This is a classic ethical dilemma that journalists face in various contexts.
  • The text correctly points out that sometimes, “the journalist becomes part of the story,” blurring the lines between observer and participant.
• Context of 1985:
  • The 1985 setting is crucial. The lack of mobile phones and instant communication tools significantly impacted the journalist’s ability to report quickly. This highlights how technological advancements have changed the landscape of news reporting.
  • The condition of the stadium, and the police actions are also important to note, and are very much a product of that era.
• Importance of editorial support:
  • The text emphasises the significance of supportive editorial management. The positive reactions from the journalist’s managers demonstrate the importance of understanding and empathy in news organisations.
  • This is a very important point, as reporters that work in traumatic situations can suffer from PTSD, and other mental health issues.
• Humanity vs. “the scoop”:
  • The journalist’s decision to prioritise helping over immediate reporting underscores the value of human life. It serves as a reminder that “getting the scoop” should never come at the expense of ethical considerations.
  • The fact that he was still able to file a report later, and to finish his documentary, shows that doing the right thing, does not always mean losing the story.
• The impact of trauma:
  • The text briefly mentions the journalist being injured. However, it’s essential to acknowledge the potential for psychological trauma in such situations. Journalists who witness traumatic events can experience PTSD, anxiety, and other mental health issues.
  • News organisations have a responsibility to provide support and resources to journalists who work in dangerous or traumatic environments.
• The evolving role of journalism:
  • In the age of social media and citizen journalism, the lines between observer and reporter are increasingly blurred. This scenario raises questions about the evolving role of journalists and their responsibilities in a digital age.
  • With the rise of “fake news” the importance of professional journalists, that are able to report accurately, clearly, and ethically is more important than ever.
• Lessons for modern newsrooms:
  • This scenario offers valuable lessons for modern newsrooms. It highlights the need for clear ethical guidelines, comprehensive training, and robust support systems for journalists.
  • It is also a reminder that news managers should value the human element of journalism and prioritise the well-being of their staff.
• The importance of eye witness accounts:
  • The fact that the reporter was the only eye witness to give a account of what happened on the terraces, shows the importance of having reporters on the ground.

In essence, this text serves as a powerful reminder that journalism is not just about reporting facts; it’s about upholding ethical principles and recognising the humanity of those involved in the stories we tell.

The post Covering a tragedy – scenario first appeared on Media Helping Media.

In this scenario we look at a situation where a journalist is faced with breaking the law in order to gather essential information for informing the public debate.

You are a radio reporter in a maritime city where shipbuilding is a major source of employment and wealth.

The local shipyard has announced 800 job losses on top of 800 announced a few months earlier.

In an effort to save their jobs, 37 workers decide to occupy a gas accommodation platform and a frigate, which are moored in the river adjacent to the shipyard.

Their protest has been going on for almost 14 weeks. Police and pickets surround the gates of the yard and the ramps leading to the occupied vessels.

For more than three months local media has received news releases and statements from the shipyard management, politicians, and from the union representing the occupying workers – but nobody has heard directly from the workers taking the action.

The only contact with them is via handwritten notes which are smuggled off one of the vessels, the gas accommodation platform, by messengers who, under the cover of darkness, dodge the police lines and use ropes to swing over barbed fencing and across the water between the accommodation platform and the shore, and then scramble aboard with the help of the occupying workers.

One morning, speaking live on your radio station, the union representative claims that management has turned off the water supply in an effort to end the occupation.

The representative says conditions on the occupied accommodation platform are bad and that some of the occupying workers are unwell. Their families express concern on your radio station’s morning phone-in. Many are distressed.

You have been reporting events since the start, and one obvious angle not yet covered is what life is like on the occupied platform. You have heard second-hand, but feel it’s important that you see for yourself the living conditions of the striking workers so that you can report the situation accurately.

Your news editor agrees, and it’s decided that you should try to board and interview the men. You know you will be trespassing, and could face legal action, but you go ahead anyway.

You meet union representatives on the quay next to the rig at 2am and, with the help of a rope thrown down by the occupying workers, scramble aboard. You are carrying a small transmitter called a ‘Cubi’ (these are the days before mobile phones were common). You also carry a tape recorder.

For the next few hours you talk to the occupying workers and record interviews. At 11:30am you broadcast live in the mid-morning news and current affairs programme including interviews you had recorded earlier.

After broadcasting your report, your radio station receives a phone call from the shipyard’s management threatening legal action unless you leave the platform immediately. The following day a letter from their lawyers warns against any further attempt to gain access to the vessel and interview the occupying workers.

Questions

• Is it ever right to defy the law in order to gain access to information?
• Should the radio station apologise to the shipyard management for the trespass?
• Should the radio station continue to use the material gathered during the trespass?
• Or should the radio station management instruct reporters to leave the story alone for fear of the shipyard taking legal action?
• Does the editorial motivation to get the whole story replace your duty of care to those whose words you broadcast?
• Is trespassing in order to talk to those occupying the vessel in the public interest?

Suggested responses

As journalists we will frequently face obstacles when news-gathering.

Public relations and communications officers will always be happy to feed you the side of the story that suits their needs. This is their job.

However, it is not always that easy to explore, understand, and articulate those elements of the story that are hidden behind legal barriers.

And, without all the facts, it’s difficult to relay a complete version of events to your audience.

Journalists need to be able to paint the fullest picture possible of what is really happening, without putting themselves, or those they are interviewing, in harm’s way.

In this particular case the decision to trespass in order to talk to the occupying workers face-to-face, and to see first-hand the conditions they were living under, was taken on editorial grounds after careful consideration by senior editorial staff.

Together, they decided the risk of arrest for trespass was worth taking in return for hearing a perspective on a major local news story that, for 14 weeks, had not been told.

One major consideration was whether scrambling on to the occupied rig to hear from the occupying workers was in the public interest.

So it’s important always to refer up to your line manager in all cases where you feel you need to take actions that could be legally dangerous.

Your line manager will need to decide whether the information you hope to gather is in the public interest, and your organisation’s legal team will assess the risk to you and to the company.

Summing up

This text describes a situation where a local shipyard’s significant job losses have led to a 14-week occupation of a gas accommodation platform and frigate by 37 workers. The workers are protesting the job losses, but their voices have been largely unheard, with communication limited to smuggled handwritten notes. A radio reporter, aware of the lack of direct information and concerned about the workers’ well-being (especially after allegations of the water supply being cut off), decides to board the occupied platform to interview them and report on their living conditions. This action, while potentially illegal trespass, is deemed necessary by the reporter and their editor to provide a complete and accurate account of the situation to the public. The text then raises ethical questions about defying the law for information, the station’s responsibility, and the balance between editorial drive and duty of care.

This scenario presents a classic ethical dilemma faced by journalists: the conflict between upholding the law and fulfilling the public’s right to know.

Key elements:

• Public Interest:
  • The shipyard’s job losses have a significant impact on the community, creating a strong public interest in understanding the situation.
  • The workers’ occupation, their conditions, and the alleged management actions all contribute to this public interest.
• Lack of direct information:
  • For months, the public has received information from limited sources (management, politicians, unions).
  • The perspectives of the occupying workforce – the heart of the story – remains unheard.
• Humanitarian concerns:
  • The workers’ alleged lack of water and deteriorating health raise serious humanitarian concerns.
  • These are important considerations which, unless checked cannot be confirmed.
• Journalistic duty:
  • The reporter feels a strong obligation to provide accurate and firsthand information about the workers’ living conditions.
  • This is a local story involving local residents being covered by a local reporter working for a local radio station. The journalist’s role is to inform that audience with accurate and reliable information.
• Legal risk:
  • The reporter and the radio station are aware that boarding the occupied platform constitutes trespassing and could lead to legal action.
  • It is a decision not taken lightly and is the result of the reporter having first ‘referred up’ to ensure that senior editors approved of the action.
• The power of first hand reporting:
  • The first hand reporting allows the public to make a more informed decision.

Analysis:

• The scenario highlights the limitations of relying solely on official sources or press releases. Sometimes, journalists must take risks to uncover the truth and provide a balanced perspective.
• The reporter’s decision to board the platform, while legally questionable, is driven by a desire to fulfil the core journalistic function of informing the public.
• The use of a hidden transmitter and tape recorder emphasises the need for journalists to be resourceful and innovative in gathering information.
• The reaction from the shipyard management shows the tension between the press and powerful organisations.
• The fact that the information was broadcast live, shows the urgency of the situation.
• The use of the radio phone in by the families, shows the power of the radio medium to give a voice to those who would not normally have one.

Issues:

• Ethical considerations:
  • This scenario forces us to consider the ethical boundaries of journalism.
  • Is it ever justifiable to break the law in the pursuit of truth?
  • How does one balance the public’s right to know with legal obligations?
• The importance of unbiased reporting:
  • The scenario underscores the importance of seeking out diverse perspectives and avoiding reliance on biased (or one-sided) sources.
  • Multiple perspectives are important when covering any news story.
• The role of journalism in holding power accountable:
  • By exposing the workers’ living conditions and the alleged management actions, the reporter is acting as a watchdog, holding those in power accountable.
  • This is a fundamental role of journalism.
• The power of radio:
  • In a time before wide spread mobile phone usage, radio was a powerful tool in getting information out to the public.

This scenario presents a complex ethical and legal dilemma faced by a journalist. The reporter’s decision to break the law is driven by a strong sense of public duty and a desire to provide accurate and firsthand information. The scenario highlights the importance of unbiased reporting, the ethical considerations involved in journalism, and the role of the media in holding power accountable. It also shows the power of radio as a medium for communicating information quickly and efficiently.

The post Trespass and journalism – scenario first appeared on Media Helping Media.