It’s essential for journalists to maintain precision in their use of language, especially when dealing with words that sound or look similar but which carry different meanings.

Journalists not only have to be accurate with their facts, they also need to be clear in their writing. Using the wrong words can confuse the audience and lead to the spread of misinformation.

In his article, The Power of Words, John Allen listed 26 combinations of words that sound or look the similar but have a different meaning, spelling, or both. These words are called ‘homophones’. We have taken John’s list and expanded it to 110 words by referencing several sources which we have included below.

We then fed the list into Google Gemini AI with the prompt to order the words alphabetically as well as adding a sentence to each grouping explaining the meaning of the words. The team at MHM then went through the list, checked the text and revised where necessary.

We hope you find the list helpful. It’s likely we will add to it as new combinations come to light.

• Abuse/Misuse: Abuse is to treat badly; misuse is to use incorrectly.
• Affect/Effect: Affect is to influence; effect is a result.
• Aggravate/Annoy: Aggravate is to worsen; annoy is to irritate.
• Amend/Emend: Amend is to modify; emend is to correct text.
• Amiable/Amicable: Amiable is friendly; amicable is characterised by friendliness.
• Anticipate/Expect: Anticipate is to foresee and act; expect is to believe something will happen.
• Appraise/Apprise: Appraise is to assess value; apprise is to inform.
• Assent/Agree: Assent is to concur formally; agree is to have the same opinion.
• Assumption/Presumption: Assumption is something taken for granted; presumption is an arrogant supposition.
• Assure/Ensure/Insure: Assure is to remove doubt; ensure is to make certain; insure is to protect against risk.
• Aural/Oral: Aural relates to hearing; oral relates to speaking.
• Beside/Besides: Beside means next to; besides means in addition to.
• Biannual/Biennial: Biannual occurs twice a year; biennial occurs every two years.
• Born/Borne: Born is brought into life; borne is carried.
• Breach/Breech: Breach is a violation; breech is the rear part of a firearm or lower rear part of the body.
• Broach/Brooch: Broach is to introduce a topic; brooch is an ornamental pin.
• Can/May: Can indicates ability; may indicates permission.
• Captivate/Capture: Captivate is to attract and hold attention; capture is to seize.
• Censor/Sensor: Censor is to suppress content; sensor is a device that detects.
• Childish/Childlike: Childish is immature; childlike is innocent.
• Chord/Cord: Chord is a musical combination; cord is a thin rope.
• Cite/Sight/Site: Cite is to quote; sight is the ability to see; site is a location.
• Collude/Conspire: Collude is to cooperate secretly; conspire is to plan secretly.
• Common/Mutual: Common is shared; mutual is reciprocal.
• Complement/Compliment: Complement completes or enhances; compliment expresses praise.
• Compose/Comprise: Compose is to create; comprise is to consist of.
• Compulsive/Compulsory: Compulsive is driven by an irresistible urge; compulsory is required by law.
• Comprise/Consist: Comprise is to include or contain; consist is to be made up of.
• Continual/Continuous: Continual occurs repeatedly; continuous occurs without interruption.
• Credible/Credulous: Credible is believable; credulous is gullible.
• Defective/Deficient: Defective has a flaw; deficient lacks something.
• Definite/Definitive: Definite is certain; definitive is conclusive.
• Dependent/Dependant: Dependent is an adjective meaning relying on; dependant is a noun meaning a person who relies on another.
• Desert/Dessert: Desert is a dry area; dessert is a sweet course.
• Diagnosis/Prognosis: Diagnosis is identification of an illness; prognosis is a prediction of its course.
• Discreet/Discrete: Discreet means tactful; discrete means separate.
• Disinterested/Uninterested: Disinterested means impartial; uninterested means not interested.
• Distinctive/Distinguished: Distinctive is characteristic; distinguished is renowned.
• Draft/Draught: Draft is a preliminary version; draught is a current of air or a drink.
• Dual/Duel: Dual means having two parts; duel is a contest between two people.
• Economic/Economical: Economic relates to the economy; economical is thrifty.
• Emotional/Emotive: Emotional relates to emotions; emotive arouses emotions.
• Emigrate/Immigrate: Emigrate is to leave a country; immigrate is to enter a country.
• Empathy/Sympathy: Empathy is understanding feelings; sympathy is feeling pity.
• Emulate/Imitate: Emulate is to strive to equal; imitate is to copy.
• Epidemic/Pandemic: Epidemic is a widespread disease; pandemic is a global epidemic.
• Equable/Equitable: Equable is steady or even; equitable is fair.
• Exhausted/Exhaustive: Exhausted is tired; exhaustive is thorough.
• Fair/Fare: Fair means just or light-coloured; fare is a cost or food.
• Farther/Further: Farther refers to physical distance; further refers to metaphorical distance.
• Fewer/Less: Fewer refers to countable items; less refers to uncountable items.
• Flounder/Founder: Flounder is to struggle; founder is to fail or sink.
• Flout/Flaunt: Flout is to disregard; flaunt is to show off.
• Forbear/Forebear: Forbear is to refrain; forebear is an ancestor.
• Forego/Forgo: Forego is to precede; forgo is to abstain from.
• Fortuitous/Fortunate: Fortuitous is accidental; fortunate is lucky.
• Grand/Grandiose: Grand is impressive; grandiose is exaggeratedly impressive.
• Hang/Hung: Hang is to suspend; hung is the past participle of hang.
• Heroin/Heroine: Heroin is an opiate; heroine is a female hero.
• Hoard/Horde: Hoard is to accumulate; horde is a large group.
• Imaginary/Imaginative: Imaginary is unreal; imaginative is creative.
• Imply/Infer: Imply is to suggest; infer is to deduce.
• Innovation/Invention: Innovation is a new method; invention is a new device.
• Innuendo/Insinuation: Innuendo is an indirect suggestion; insinuation is a subtle hint.
• Inflammable/Inflammatory: Inflammable is capable of catching fire; inflammatory causes inflammation or arouses anger.
• Its/It’s: Its is a possessive pronoun; it’s is a contraction of “it is.”
• Junction/Juncture: Junction is a point of intersection; juncture is a point in time.
• Knell/Knoll: Knell is a sound of a bell; knoll is a small hill.
• Lama/Llama: Lama is a Buddhist teacher; llama is a South American animal.
• Latitude/Longitude: Latitude is distance north or south; longitude is distance east or west.
• Lay/Lie: Lay is to place something; lie is to recline.
• Livid/Lurid: Livid is furiously angry; lurid is shockingly vivid.
• Loose/Lose: Loose is not tight; lose is to misplace.
• Loathe/Loath/Loth: Loathe means to hate; loath/loth means unwilling.
• Luxuriant/Luxurious: Luxuriant means abundant; luxurious means opulent.
• Macho/Manly: Macho is aggressively masculine; manly is having traditionally masculine qualities.
• Majority/Most of: Majority is more than half; most of is the greater part.
• Masterful/Masterly: Masterful is domineering; masterly is very skilled.
• May/Might: May indicates possibility or permission; might indicates possibility or past possibility.
• Medical/Medicinal: Medical relates to medicine; medicinal has healing properties.
• Metal/Mettle: Metal is a substance; mettle is courage.
• Meter/Metre: Meter is a measuring device; metre is a unit of length.
• More Than/Over: More than is for quantities; over is for spatial relationships.
• Naked/Nude: Naked is without clothes; nude is unclothed for artistic purposes.
• Negligent/Negligible: Negligent is careless; negligible is insignificant.
• Niceness/Nicety: Niceness is pleasantness; nicety is a fine detail.
• Objective/Subjective: Objective is unbiased; subjective is based on personal feelings.
• Official/Officious: Official is authorised; officious is overly assertive.
• Ordinance/Ordnance: Ordinance is a law; ordnance is military weapons.
• Peddle/Pedal: Peddle is to sell; pedal is to operate a lever with the foot.
• Perpetrate/Perpetuate: Perpetrate is to commit a crime; perpetuate is to cause to continue.
• Phenomenon/Phenomenal: Phenomenon is an observable fact; phenomenal is extraordinary.
• Pitiful/Pathetic: Pitiful evokes pity; pathetic evokes contempt or pity.
• Populous/Populist: Populous is densely populated; populist appeals to ordinary people.
• Precipitate/Precipitous: Precipitate is to cause to happen suddenly; precipitous is steep or sudden.
• Prevaricate/Procrastinate: Prevaricate is to avoid telling the truth; procrastinate is to delay.
• Quash/Squash: Quash is to suppress; squash is to crush.
• Respective/Irrespective: Respective relates to each individually; irrespective means regardless.
• Restive/Restless: Restive is uneasy or impatient; restless is unable to relax.
• Shall/Will: Shall is used for future with “I” and “we” or to express obligation; will is used for future with other subjects or to express intention.
• Should/Would: Should indicates obligation or expectation; would indicates a conditional or habitual action.
• Simple/Simplistic: Simple is easy or basic; simplistic is overly simplified.
• Stationary/Stationery: Stationary means not moving; stationery is writing materials.
• Suggestible/Suggestive: Suggestible is easily influenced; suggestive implies something indirectly.
• Temerity/Timidity: Temerity is excessive boldness; timidity is lack of courage.
• That/Which: That is used for restrictive clauses; which is used for non-restrictive clauses.
• Tortuous/Torturous: Tortuous is winding or complex; torturous involves severe pain.
• Underlie/Underlay: Underlie is to be the basis of; underlay is to place something under.
• Valuable/Invaluable: Valuable has great worth; invaluable is priceless.
• Who/Whom: Who is a subject pronoun; whom is an object pronoun.
• Who’s/Whose: Who’s is a contraction of “who is”; whose is a possessive pronoun.

Our list is by no means a complete list of homophones but it includes many words commonly misused in journalism. If you want to browse through almost 450 examples you might want to visit Singularis.

Sources used

• Collins English Dictionary and Thesaurus
• The Guide To Better English – Gooden
• The Longman Guide To English Usage – Greenbaum/Whitcut
• The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage – Burchfield
• The Simple Subs Book – Sellers
• A Journalist’s Guide To The Use of English – Bottomley/Loftus

The post Frequently confused words first appeared on Media Helping Media.

It’s based on an article ‘Why editorial ethics are important‘ which we suggest trainers read before adapting the lesson plan for your own purposes.

Learning objective

Students will evaluate editorial decisions by applying ethical guidelines to various journalistic scenarios. They will identify potential ethical challenges and propose solutions to ensure integrity and fairness in reporting.

• Student-facing objective: By the end of this lesson the student will be able to assess editorial choices using ethical standards and suggest ways to handle ethical dilemmas in journalism.
• Standards: Students will learn how to navigate some of the ethical challenges they might face as they go about their work.

Learning activities

Warm-up

Begin with a brief discussion on the concept of bias in newsgathering and media production. Ask students to think about a news story they’ve recently encountered. Prompt them with questions:

• What was the main message of the story?
• Did the story seem to favour a particular viewpoint?
• Were multiple perspectives presented?

Encourage students to share their thoughts with a partner. After a few minutes, ask volunteers to share insights with the class. This will activate prior knowledge and set the stage for exploring editorial ethics.

Direct instruction

1. Conceptual understanding: Introduce the core principles of editorial ethics. Discuss key concepts such as accuracy, impartiality, and integrity. Use real-world examples to illustrate these principles. For instance, present a case where a journalist faced an ethical dilemma, such as whether to publish sensitive information. Ask students to identify the ethical considerations involved.
2. Procedural skills and fluency: Explain the process of evaluating a news story for ethical compliance. Break down the steps:
   • Identify the journalistic purpose.
   • Assess the inclusion of diverse perspectives.
   • Evaluate the thoroughness and fairness of the reporting.
3. Asking critical questions: Provide a sample news article (without revealing its source) and guide students through these steps, prompting them to ask critical questions about the article’s content and approach.
4. Application: Present a hypothetical scenario where students must make editorial decisions. For example, a story about a local protest with conflicting reports from different sources. Ask students to:
   • Determine which sources to trust and why.
   • Decide how to present the story to ensure fairness and accuracy.
   • Consider the potential consequences of their editorial choices.
5. Group discussion: Facilitate a class discussion on the decisions made and the ethical implications, encouraging students to justify their choices based on the principles discussed.

Guided practice

Think, Pair, Share: Guide students through a structured discussion to apply ethical guidelines to a real-world scenario.

• Think: Present a brief news article with potential ethical issues. Ask students to individually identify and note any ethical challenges they observe, considering questions like: What is the journalistic purpose? Are diverse perspectives included? Is the reporting thorough and fair?
• Pair: Have students pair up to discuss their observations. Encourage them to compare notes and refine their understanding of the ethical issues present in the article.
• Share: Facilitate a class-wide discussion where pairs share their findings. Encourage students to articulate their reasoning and propose solutions to the ethical challenges identified.
• Connect: As a class, connect the discussion back to the core principles of editorial ethics. Highlight how the students’ observations align with or challenge these principles.
• Reflect: Conclude with a reflection on how applying ethical guidelines can impact journalistic integrity and public trust. Encourage students to consider how they might handle similar ethical dilemmas in their future work.

Independent practice

• Provide students with a set of brief news scenarios, each containing potential ethical dilemmas.
• Ask students to individually analyse each scenario, applying the ethical guidelines discussed in class.
• Instruct them to identify the ethical challenges, propose solutions, and justify their decisions based on the principles of editorial ethics.
• Encourage students to document their thought process and conclusions for each scenario.
• Circulate to observe and support students as needed, ensuring they are engaging critically with the material.

Assignment

Ask students these questions:

1. What is one ethical guideline you applied today, and how did it influence your decision-making?
2. Can you identify a potential consequence of not following editorial ethics in journalism?
3. What’s one question you still have from today’s lesson?

Suggested answers:

1. Suggested answer to Question 1: I applied the guideline of ensuring diverse perspectives, which helped me present a balanced view in the scenario.
2. Suggested answer to Question 2: Not following editorial ethics can lead to biased reporting, which may mislead the public and damage trust in journalism.

Teacher resources

Differentiation guide

• Advanced learners: Encourage deeper analysis by having them explore complex ethical dilemmas in journalism, such as conflicts of interest or the balance between public interest and privacy. Suggest they research real-world cases where editorial ethics were challenged and present their findings to the class.
• Striving learners: Simplify scenarios and focus on one or two key ethical principles at a time. Provide structured guidance and examples to help them identify ethical challenges. Use visual aids or graphic organisers to help them map out their thought process and ethical considerations.
• Recommended reading: This lesson plan is based on an article ‘Why editorial ethics are important‘ which we suggest you read before adapting the lesson for your own purposes.

Notable definitions

• Editorial ethics: A set of principles guiding journalists to ensure their work is fair, accurate, and impartial, avoiding bias and maintaining integrity in reporting.
• Impartiality: The practice of reporting news without favoritism or bias, ensuring all relevant perspectives are considered and presented fairly.
• Integrity: Upholding honesty and moral principles in journalism, ensuring that reporting is truthful, transparent, and free from conflicts of interest.

Required materials

• Sample news articles with potential ethical issues
• Printed copies of ethical guidelines for reference
• Whiteboard and markers for class discussions
• Projector for displaying case studies and scenarios
• Notebooks or digital devices for student reflections and notes

Lesson summary

• Warm-up
• Direct instruction
• Guided practice
• Independent practice
• Assignment

The free teaching tools at the Khan Academy were used in the production of this lesson plan.

The post Lesson: Editorial Ethics first appeared on Media Helping Media.

This module provides an in-depth exploration of editorial ethics in journalism, designed for students pursuing careers in media.

It covers core principles such as accuracy, fairness, integrity, impartiality, and respect for privacy, while addressing contemporary challenges like unconscious bias and the ethical considerations of causing offence.

By integrating practical exercises, case studies, and interactive discussions, this module aims to equip students with the critical thinking skills necessary to navigate the complex ethical landscape of modern journalism.

The module, which can be adapted for local requirements, incorporates practical exercises and real-world examples to equip students with the foundational knowledge needed for a career in journalism.

It is released under the terms of the Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 licence so that educational institutions can make use of the material free-of-charge.

Target Audience: Journalism students (undergraduate and postgraduate)

Course outline

Learning objectives:

• Understand and apply core principles of journalistic ethics.
• Recognise and mitigate the impact of unconscious bias in reporting.
• Evaluate and resolve ethical dilemmas in various journalistic contexts.
• Develop strategies for ensuring accuracy, fairness, and integrity in media content.
• Comprehend the legal and ethical implications of privacy and offence in journalism.
• Improve critical thinking and decision-making skills in ethical situations.

Module content:

• Week 1: Introduction to editorial ethics and its importance
  • What are editorial ethics?
  • Why are they crucial in modern journalism?
  • The role of ethics in maintaining public trust.
  • Introduction to key ethical frameworks.
  • Resource: Why editorial ethics are important
• Week 2: Accuracy and integrity
  • The importance of fact-checking and verification.
  • Maintaining integrity in reporting.
  • Avoiding plagiarism and fabrication.
  • Resource: Accuracy in journalism
  • Resource: Integrity and journalism
  • Resource: Lesson: Accuracy in journalism
  • Resource: Lesson: Integrity in journalism
• Week 3: Fairness and impartiality
  • Presenting unbiased perspectives.
  • Giving all parties a fair hearing.
  • Distinguishing between opinion and factual reporting.
  • Resource: Fairness in journalism
  • Resource: Lesson: Fairness in journalism
  • Resource: Lesson: Impartiality in journalism
• Week 4: Respecting privacy
  • Balancing the public’s right to know with individual privacy.
  • Ethical considerations in reporting on sensitive topics.
  • Legal implications of privacy violations.
  • Resource: Respecting privacy as a journalist
  • Resource: Lesson: Respecting privacy as a journalist
• Week 5: Offence and journalism
  • The ethical considerations of causing offence.
  • Balancing freedom of expression with social responsibility.
  • Contextualising potentially offensive content.
  • Resource: Offence and journalism
  • Resource: Lesson: Offence and journalism
• Week 6: Unconscious bias
  • Identifying and understanding unconscious bias.
  • Strategies for mitigating bias in reporting.
  • Promoting inclusive and representative journalism.
  • Resource: Unconscious bias and its impact on journalism
  • Resource: Lesson: Unconscious bias and its impact on journalism
• Week 7: Ethical decision-making and case studies
  • Applying ethical frameworks to real-world scenarios.
  • Analysing complex ethical dilemmas.
  • Group discussions and debates on ethical issues.
  • Resource: Is your journalism ethical?
• Week 8: Review and assessment
  • Review of key ethical principles.
  • Assessment (e.g., essay, presentation, or ethical scenario analysis).
  • Discussion of ongoing ethical challenges in journalism.

Suggested timetable:

• Weekly schedule (3-hour sessions):
  • 1 hour: Lecture/presentation (introducing concepts and theories).
  • 1 hour: Interactive discussion/case study analysis (applying concepts to real-world examples).
  • 1 hour: Practical exercise/group activity (developing skills and critical thinking).
• Example weekly breakdown:
  • Week 1:
    • Lecture: Introduction to editorial ethics.
    • Discussion: The importance of ethics in current media.
    • Activity: Analysing ethical codes from different news organisations.
  • Week 4:
    • Lecture: Privacy and journalism.
    • Discussion: Case studies on privacy violations.
    • Activity: Writing a report while considering privacy.
  • Week 6:
    • Lecture: Unconscious bias and journalism.
    • Discussion: Identifying bias in news reports.
    • Activity: Rewriting biased articles to be more inclusive.

Assessment:

• Class participation and engagement (20%)
• Case study analysis and presentations (30%)
• Final essay or ethical scenario analysis (50%)

Teaching Methods:

• Lectures and presentations.
• Interactive discussions and debates.
• Case study analysis.
• Group activities and practical exercises.
• Guest speakers (e.g., experienced journalists, media lawyers).
• Online quizzes.

Resources:

• All links provided above.
• Additional readings on media ethics and journalism.
• Ethical codes from professional journalism organisations.

Summary:

• This journalism training module focuses on equipping students with a strong foundation in editorial ethics, essential for responsible and trustworthy reporting.
• It delves into core principles like accuracy, fairness, and integrity, emphasising their critical role in maintaining public trust.
• Students will learn to navigate ethical dilemmas, understand the importance of respecting privacy, and recognise the impact of unconscious bias in their work.
• Through case studies, discussions, and practical exercises, they will develop the skills to make sound ethical decisions in various journalistic contexts.
• The course also addresses contemporary challenges, such as the ethical considerations of causing offence and the evolving landscape of digital media.
• It aims to foster critical thinking and promote a deep understanding of the journalist’s responsibility to the public.
• By exploring real-world scenarios and engaging with ethical frameworks, students will be prepared to uphold the highest standards of journalism, ensuring their reporting is accurate, unbiased, and respectful.

The post Module: Editorial Ethics first appeared on Media Helping Media.

We recommend trainers read the article ‘Clarity is as important as accuracy‘ which is published on Media Helping Media before adapting the lesson plan for their own purposes.

Learning objective

Students will evaluate the clarity of journalistic writing by identifying and revising unclear language. They will apply principles of clear writing to ensure both accuracy and reader comprehension in news articles.

• Student-facing objective: By the end of this lesson the student will be able to spot unclear language in news articles and make their writing clearer while maintaining accuracy.
• Standards: Journalism students will learn that clarity is as important as accuracy.

Learning activities

Warm-up

Present students with two short news excerpts. One is clear and concise, the other is verbose and unclear. Ask students to read both silently and then discuss with a partner which excerpt they found easier to understand and why. Encourage them to focus on specific language choices that contributed to clarity or confusion. After a few minutes, facilitate a brief class discussion to highlight their observations. This primes students to think critically about clarity in journalism.

Direct instruction

Introduce clarity principles: Begin by explaining the importance of clarity in journalism. Discuss how clarity ensures reader comprehension and maintains accuracy. Highlight Orwell’s six rules for clear writing, emphasising the avoidance of clichés, jargon, and unnecessary words. Use real-world examples to illustrate these points, such as comparing a clear news headline with a convoluted one.

Analyse examples: Present students with a news article containing unclear language. As a class, identify specific instances where clarity is lacking. Discuss why these choices hinder understanding and how they could be improved. Encourage students to suggest revisions, focusing on simplifying language and restructuring sentences for clarity.

Revise for clarity: Provide students with a short, unclear news excerpt. Instruct them to rewrite the excerpt, applying the principles discussed. Emphasise the use of active voice, short words, and straightforward language. Afterward, select a few students to share their revisions with the class, discussing the changes made and their impact on clarity.

Guided practice

Conduct a Think, Pair, Share activity to reinforce clarity principles:

• Think: Present students with a short, unclear news excerpt. Ask them to individually identify unclear language and note potential revisions for clarity.
• Pair: Have students pair up to discuss their findings and proposed revisions. Encourage them to explain their reasoning and consider their partner’s suggestions.
• Share: Facilitate a class discussion where pairs share their insights and revisions. Highlight effective strategies for improving clarity. Use this opportunity to address any misconceptions.
• Class feedback: Provide feedback on the shared revisions, emphasising the application of clarity principles. Encourage students to reflect on how these principles enhance reader comprehension.
• Revisit principles: Conclude by revisiting Orwell’s six rules and other clarity principles. Reinforce their importance in journalistic writing.

Independent practice

• Provide students with a news article containing unclear language. Ask them to identify and revise unclear sections, applying clarity principles.
• Direct students to a related exercise for additional practice.
• Circulate to observe and support students as needed.

Assignment

Ask students to answer these questions:

• What is one principle of clarity in journalism that you applied today?
• How does clarity in writing affect reader comprehension?
• What’s one question you still have from today’s lesson?

Here are some suggested answers:

Suggested answer to Question 1: Avoiding jargon and using straightforward language.

Suggested answer to Question 2: Clarity ensures that readers can easily understand the information being presented, which maintains accuracy and engagement.

Teacher resources

Differentiation guide

• Advanced learners: Encourage them to explore complex articles with technical jargon. Challenge them to translate these into clear, accessible language while maintaining accuracy. Suggest they analyse the impact of clarity on reader engagement and comprehension in different contexts.
• Striving learners: Provide additional examples of unclear language and clear revisions. Use guided questions to help them identify unclear elements. Offer sentence starters or templates to support their revisions. Pair them with peers for collaborative practice to build confidence.
• Background reading: We recommend trainers read the article ‘For journalists, clarity is as important as accuracy‘ before adapting the lesson plan for their own purposes.

Notable definitions

Clarity: The quality of being easily understood, free from ambiguity, and straightforward in expression. In journalism, clarity ensures that the audience comprehends the information accurately and efficiently.

Jargon: Specialised or technical language used by a particular group, often difficult for outsiders to understand. In journalism, avoiding jargon is crucial to maintain clarity and accessibility for a broad audience.

Active voice: A grammatical structure where the subject performs the action expressed by the verb. Using active voice in journalism enhances clarity by making sentences more direct and easier to understand.

Required materials

• News articles with unclear language for analysis and revision
• Copies of Orwell’s six rules for clear writing
• Writing materials (paper, pens)
• Access to computers or tablets for digital editing (optional)

Lesson summary

• Warm-up
• Direct instruction
• Guided practice
• Assignment

The free teaching tools at the Khan Academy were used in the production of this lesson plan.

Related article

Clarity is as important as accuracy

The post Lesson: Clarity first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Learning objective

Students will evaluate news articles to assess the fairness of reporting by examining multiple perspectives and verifying facts. They will also critique the language and tone used to ensure accurate representation of the facts.

• Student-facing objective: By the end of this lesson the student will be able to check if all sides of a story are covered and make sure the language used is fair and accurate.
• Standards: After this lesson a student will understand the importance of exploring all sides of an issue and reporting their findings accurately.

Learning activities

Warm-up

• Begin with a brief discussion on the concept of fairness. Ask students to think about a time when they felt a story or report was unfair or one-sided. Encourage them to share examples without naming specific media outlets.
• Next, present a simple, hypothetical news headline on the board. Ask students to brainstorm different perspectives that might be included in a fair report on the topic.
• Conclude by asking students to consider why it’s important to include multiple perspectives in journalism. This primes them for the lesson’s focus on fairness and balanced reporting.

Direct instruction

• Introduce main concepts: Explain the importance of fairness in journalism. Discuss how journalists must explore all sides of an issue and report findings accurately. Highlight the responsibility to avoid personal bias and ensure language and tone do not misrepresent facts. Use real-world examples, such as a recent news story, to illustrate these points.
• Analyse a news article: Provide students with a news article. Guide them through identifying potential bias and assessing the fairness of the reporting. Ask them to consider if all relevant perspectives are included and if the language used is neutral. Use questions like: “What perspectives are missing?” and “How does the language influence the reader’s perception?”
• Discuss right of reply and editorial independence: Explain the concept of the right of reply and its importance in fair reporting. Discuss editorial independence and the need to maintain control over content. Use a hypothetical scenario where a journalist must decide whether to include a response from a controversial figure. Encourage students to think critically about the ethical implications and the balance between public interest and fairness.

Guided practice

Think, Pair, Share: Guide students through a structured activity to practice identifying bias and assessing fairness in journalism.

• Think: Provide students with a short news article. Ask them to individually read and note any potential bias, missing perspectives, or language that may misrepresent facts.
• Pair: Have students pair up to discuss their findings. Encourage them to compare notes and identify any additional biases or perspectives they may have missed individually.
• Share: Facilitate a class discussion where pairs share their insights. Encourage students to articulate how they identified bias and assessed fairness. Highlight diverse viewpoints and ensure all students understand the importance of multiple perspectives.
• Reflect: Ask students to reflect on how their understanding of fairness in journalism has evolved through this activity. Encourage them to consider how they might apply these skills in evaluating future news articles.
• Feedback: Provide feedback on their analysis, focusing on their ability to identify bias and assess fairness. Reinforce the importance of these skills in responsible journalism.

Independent practice

• Article analysis: Assign students a news article to read independently. Instruct them to identify any unfairness, missing perspectives, or language that may misrepresent facts. Provide a worksheet with guiding questions to support their analysis.
• Reflection: Ask students to write a brief reflection on how the article could be improved for fairness. Encourage them to suggest additional perspectives or changes in language that would enhance the article’s balance.
• Peer review: Pair students to exchange their analyses and reflections. Have them provide constructive feedback to each other, focusing on the identification of bias and suggestions for improvement.

Circulate to observe and support students as needed.

Assignment

Ask students to answer these questions:

1. How can a journalist ensure they are being fair when reporting a story?
2. Why is it important to include multiple perspectives in a news article?
3. What’s one question you still have from today’s lesson?

Here are some suggested answers:

• Suggested answer to Question 1: A journalist can ensure fairness by exploring all sides of an issue, verifying facts, and using neutral language.
• Suggested answer to Question 2: Including multiple perspectives ensures a balanced view and helps prevent bias, providing a more accurate representation of the facts.

Teacher resources

Differentiation guide

• Advanced learners: Encourage deeper analysis by having students compare multiple articles on the same topic from different sources. Ask them to evaluate the consistency of perspectives and language across these articles. Challenge them to identify subtle biases and discuss the potential impact on public perception.
• Striving learners: Simplify the task by providing a checklist of common biases and perspectives to look for in an article. Pair them with peers for collaborative analysis, allowing them to learn from others’ insights. Offer sentence starters to help them articulate their thoughts during discussions.
• Background reading: We recommend trainers read the article Fairness in journalism which is published on Media Helping Media before adapting this lesson plan for their own purposes.

Notable definitions

Fairness: Fairness in journalism is the concept of reporting news without bias or prejudice. It involves presenting all sides of an issue and reporting the facts accurately. Journalists should be objective and impartial, and they should not let their personal feelings or beliefs influence their reporting.

Bias: A tendency to present information in a way that reflects a particular perspective or preference, potentially leading to unfair or unbalanced reporting.

Right of reply: The opportunity given to individuals or groups to respond to allegations or criticisms made against them in a news report, ensuring fairness and balance.

Editorial independence: The freedom of journalists to report news without undue influence from external parties, allowing them to maintain objectivity and integrity in their reporting.

Required materials

• Copies of a news article for analysis
• Whiteboard and markers
• Worksheet with guiding questions for article analysis
• Access to computers or tablets (optional, for online article access)
• Reflection and peer review templates

Lesson summary

• Warm-up
• Direct instruction
• Guided practice
• Independent practice
• Assignment

The free teaching tools at the Khan Academy were used as a basis for converting the original article into a lesson plan.

Related article

Fairness in journalism

The post Lesson: Fairness in Journalism first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Learning objective

Students will evaluate news reports for accuracy by identifying factual errors and verifying sources. They will also apply techniques to ensure transparency and reliability in their own reporting.

• Student-facing objective: By the end of this lesson students will be able to spot mistakes in news stories, check facts, and make sure their own reports are clear and trustworthy.
• Standards: Helping journalists to produce accurate news reports.

Learning activities

Warm-up

Notice and wonder: Display a short, factual news headline and a brief social media post about the same event. Ask students, “What do you notice? What do you think?” Give them a few minutes to discuss with a partner. Then have several students share their observations and questions. Record these for all to see. Guide the conversation towards noticing differences in detail, tone, and source reliability, setting the stage for evaluating news accuracy.

Direct instruction

• Conceptual understanding: Begin with a discussion on the importance of accuracy in journalism. Present a real-world example of a news story that was later corrected due to inaccuracies. Ask students to identify the potential consequences of the initial errors. Highlight the role of accuracy in maintaining public trust and the ethical responsibilities of journalists.
• Procedural skills and fluency: Introduce the process of fact-checking. Provide a step-by-step guide on how journalists verify information, including:
  • Identifying and using first-hand sources.
  • Double-checking facts and figures.
  • Validating information with multiple independent sources.
  • Attributing information to credible sources when verification is incomplete.
  • Keeping notes as a record of your fact-checking, in case this is later challenged.
  • Hypothetical example

Use a hypothetical news story then walk through the fact-checking process, pausing to allow students to suggest verification methods.

Application: Present a brief, fictional news report containing deliberate inaccuracies. Divide students into small groups and task them with identifying errors and suggesting corrections. Encourage them to apply the fact-checking techniques discussed. Afterward, facilitate a class discussion to review findings and reinforce the importance of accuracy and transparency in journalism.

Guided practice

Think, Pair, Share: Distribute a short news article with potential inaccuracies.

• Think: Individually, students read the article and note any factual errors or unclear information.
• Pair: Students pair up to discuss their findings, focusing on discrepancies and potential corrections.
• Share: Pairs share their insights with the class. Facilitate a discussion on the importance of verifying facts and the impact of inaccuracies.
• Clarify: As a class, clarify any misunderstandings and correct the article collectively.
• Reflect: Conclude with a reflection on how this exercise enhances their ability to produce accurate news reports.

Independent practice

• Provide students with a set of brief news excerpts, each containing potential inaccuracies or unverified claims.
• Instruct students to work individually to identify and correct these inaccuracies using fact-checking techniques.
• Encourage students to document their process, noting sources used for verification and any challenges faced.
• Direct students to practice a related exercise by placing placeholders where they should link to said exercise.
• Circulate throughout the class to observe students as they work and provide support as needed.

Assignment

Ask students to answer these questions:

1. What is one technique you learned today for verifying the accuracy of a news report
2. Why is it important for journalists to attribute information to credible sources?
3. What’s one question you still have from today’s lesson?

Here are some suggested answers:

• Suggested answer to Question 1: Double-checking facts with multiple independent sources.
• Suggested answer to Question 2: It ensures transparency and helps maintain public trust in the news report.

Teacher resources

Differentiation guide

• Advanced learners: Encourage deeper analysis by asking them to evaluate the impact of inaccuracies on public perception and trust. Assign a research task to explore historical cases where journalistic errors had significant consequences. Challenge them to propose strategies for improving accuracy in journalism.
• Striving learners: Simplify tasks by providing a checklist for fact-checking steps. Pair them with peers for collaborative work to build confidence. Use visual aids to illustrate the fact-checking process. Offer additional practice with guided examples to reinforce understanding.
• Background reading: This lesson plan is based on the article ‘Accuracy in journalism‘ which is published on Media Helping Media. We suggest you read the article before adapting the lesson outline for your own purposes.

Notable definitions

• Accuracy: The quality of being correct and precise. In journalism, it refers to the careful verification of facts and information before publication to ensure truthfulness and reliability.
• Fact-checking: The process of verifying information in a news report to confirm its truthfulness and accurate. This involves cross-referencing with reliable sources and evidence.
• Attribution: The act of crediting a source for information used in a news report. It is essential for transparency and helps maintain the credibility of the report.

Required materials

• Notebooks for note-taking and recording observations.
• Printed copies of news articles and excerpts for analysis.
• Access to computers or tablets for online fact-checking.
• Highlighters for marking potential inaccuracies in texts.
• Whiteboard and markers for class discussions and recording observations.
• Projector for displaying news headlines and social media posts.

Lesson summary

• Warm-up
• Direct instruction
• Guided practice
• Independent practice
• Assignment

The free teaching tools at the Khan Academy were used as a basis for converting the original article into a lesson plan.

Related article

Accuracy in journalism

The post Lesson: Accuracy In Journalism first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Journalists can sometimes present an inaccurate or false version of events by trying too hard to ‘balance’ a story or incorrectly treating elements of a story as being roughly equal.

This article looks at ways of avoiding two errors, applying ‘false equivalence’ and ‘false balance’, which are both about making inaccurate comparisons.

False equivalence is when you say that two or more things are the same, when in fact they are significantly different.

An example of false equivalence is to state that “politicians are all the same”. They are not. They might have similarities and some common attributes but that does not mean they are the same.

False balance is when a report suggests that two sides in a dispute have equally valid arguments, when in fact the evidence weighs heavily in favour of one side.

An example of false balance is the treatment of the climate change debate. Scientists come down heavily in favour of the proposition that human beings are causing, or at least helping to cause, global warming. A tiny minority, perhaps as low as three per cent, disagree, and it is false to represent the dispute as evenly-matched.

Ironically, many cases of false balance happen because the journalist is trying to avoid being biased.

When reporting a controversy, quite properly the journalist does not want to take sides.  But sometimes it is necessary to show that one side’s arguments and evidence are much more persuasive than the other side’s.

An example here is Donald Trump’s often-repeated claim that he won the 2020 US Presidential election. He has failed to produce any evidence to support that claim and has lost numerous court battles challenging the result. So it is false to present his claim as a viable argument.

False equivalence and false balance can both be used deliberately to mislead people. They are often used in misinformation and disinformation campaigns. Or they can be examples of lazy thinking by the journalist.

Either way, they are inaccurate and care must be taken to avoid using them. In order to avoid using false equivalence and false balance keep the following in mind:

• Justify: When you are tempted to say that two or more things are equal, ask yourself if you can justify the statement.
• Explain: If the comparison is likely to be controversial, explain why you think it is valid.
• Validate: Do not accept or repeat other people’s statements of equivalency, without testing their validity.
• Reflect: When covering a dispute, make sure you reflect accurately all sides of the argument.  If some of the arguments are questionable, explain why.

It’s important to keep in mind that it is not biased to expose deficiencies in an argument, as long as you subject all sides to the same level of scrutiny.

Questions

1. What is false equivalence, and how does it differ from false balance in journalism?
2. Provide an example of false equivalence mentioned in the text.
3. Explain why false balance can be misleading in journalistic reporting.
4. How might a journalist unintentionally create false balance when reporting on a controversy?
5. Discuss the potential consequences of using false equivalence and false balance in media.
6. Why is it important for journalists to test the validity of statements of equivalency?
7. How can journalists ensure they are accurately reflecting all sides of an argument in their reporting?
8. Analyse the role of bias in the context of false balance and false equivalence. How can journalists avoid it?
9. Evaluate the statement: “It’s important to keep in mind that it is not biased to expose deficiencies in an argument, as long as you subject all sides to the same level of scrutiny.” What does this imply about journalistic integrity?
10. Synthesise the strategies mentioned in the text to avoid false equivalence and false balance. How can these strategies improve the quality of journalism?

Answers

1. False equivalence is when two or more things are presented as the same, despite significant differences. False balance occurs when a report suggests that two sides in a dispute have equally valid arguments, even when evidence heavily favors one side.
2. An example of false equivalence is the statement “politicians are all the same,” which overlooks their differences.
3. False balance can mislead by suggesting that both sides of an argument have equal merit, even when evidence strongly supports one side over the other.
4. A journalist might unintentionally create false balance by trying to avoid bias and presenting both sides equally, even when one side lacks substantial evidence.
5. Using false equivalence and false balance can mislead audiences, contribute to misinformation, and undermine trust in journalism.
6. Testing the validity of statements of equivalency is crucial to avoid spreading misinformation and to ensure accurate reporting.
7. Journalists can ensure accuracy by thoroughly investigating all sides, presenting evidence, and explaining why some arguments may be more credible than others.
8. Bias can arise when journalists fail to critically evaluate the evidence for each side. Avoiding bias involves scrutinising all arguments equally and presenting evidence-based conclusions.
9. This statement implies that journalistic integrity involves critically evaluating all arguments and presenting evidence-based conclusions, rather than striving for artificial balance.
10. Strategies to avoid false equivalence and false balance include justifying comparisons, explaining controversial comparisons, and scrutinising all sides equally. These strategies enhance journalistic accuracy and credibility.

Lesson plan for trainers

If you are a trainer of journalists we have a free lesson plan: False equivalence and false balance which you can download and adapt for your own purposes.

Take a look at these other modules on Media Helping Media to help you keep your journalism up to the highest standards.

Unconscious bias and its impact on journalism

Impartiality in journalism

Accuracy in journalism

The post False equivalence and false balance 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.