Chapter 11

Reporting for duty

1. I would write the story. while the police officer has made a considerable threat in refusing to speak to the journalist in question, his threat would only add to the severity and impact of the story. This story is in the public interest, and therefore it represents a large proportion of the key news values. In addition to this the chief-of-staff would like you to write the article therefore if you don't someone else would, and the police officer would not speak to you anyway, therefore there is little consequence in writing the article. 

2. I would look into the agencies available to help this woman. all threats of suicide must be taken seriously. in addition to this i would still report the story but not use names, and be careful of the descriptions i used.

3. I would report the story. Many of these DUI stories have been reported in recent times, and have not ruined a career. In addition to this there are benefits to reporting the story for example scooping competition newspapers. as you have had contact with the celebrity it may be plausible to get a quote that will balance the article. 

4. i would conduct an investigation into the jurors, but would not make any direct allegations. i may write a small article that states allegations have been made, but would not directly state specific details about any of the jurors. 

Chapter 10

The Story Factor

1. I would not want a rival newspaper to scoop the story, and if it has been a slow news day would jump at the chance to write a feature piece. While the source may have good reason to delay it so that they have time to verify facts – it would be better to write the article, being careful of wording and use “allegedly”. If the story turns out to be partially untrue facts can be clarified in a later edition.


2. The Journalist would have to weigh up the public’s right to know about the resort, and the job security of those involved. Arguably if the resort does have a filthy kitchen and is losing money then there would be limited job security for employees anyway, and therefore I would continue writing the story.

3. I would delay the production process – and edit the person’s names out of the paper. The newspaper would not want to be caught up with breaking judge’s orders as it will have a negative impact on both the journalist and the newspaper.

4. As a junior journalist I would have to follow the editors orders as they are the direct superior and may give the story to another journalist who will write it from there angle, so there is little to lose in doing it this way. I would consider the arguments the police rounds reporter makes and perhaps include them somewhere in the story, if it complimented the editors wishes.

Chapter 9

Interviewing: a core skill

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

I would use a direct quotation in that it has a higher impact in a story. Although the direct quote may be somewhat unclear the story and the rest of the article should clarify what is not represented in the quote. While the quote may be somewhat embarrassing to the speaker it would encompass the state of the speaker at the time, and add significant weight to the article.


2. Is it ever justified for a journalist’s to intimidate a source with a threat of ‘public exposure to get important public information?

Media Mogels who have threatened to negatively expose persons for personal gain is not justified; it is a breach of journalist morals and the code of ethics. In light of this however I believe that journalists can be justified to intimidate a source with a threat of public exposure – if it is in the public’s best interest. If the person is a high profile politician keeping or misleading the public I believe that the journalist should threaten public exposure to expose the actual truth.

3. Is it a reasonable strategy for a journalist – male or female – to use ‘personal chemistry’ to get information from sources when there is public interest at stake?

Personal chemistry is open to debate. If this refers to a journalist simply using connections that they have favourable relations with then I see there is no harm in using the personal chemistry to get the story – this extends to flirting. However if personal chemistry is referring to sleeping with someone to obtain a story I believe this is ethically wrong and going to extreme measures to gain an advantage.


4. What potential dangers could come back to haunt a journalist who gets to close to a source?

If a journalist gets to close to a source, it may impact the journalist’s future or article in a variety of ways. For instance an article may be indivertibly written with a bias opinion, there may be issues with working with the source in the future, and the source may negatively impact the journalists reputation.