Below are three excellent free training resources designed to help newsrooms “learn about the opportunities” and “support and grow all aspects of a news operation” by embracing AI.

They also include “writing guidelines for the role of AI in the newsroom.” The material has been produced by the AP, the LSE, and NiemanLab.

According to the AP, its course is “based on findings from AP’s research with local U.S. newsrooms and is designed for local news journalists and managers at all levels.”

The AP guide is designed to “Get your newsroom ready to incorporate technologies that include artificial intelligence to support and grow all aspects of your news operation.”

View the AP course.

In the first video in the AP’s course (link above), Jim Kennedy talks about how AP uses AI for “streamlining workflows and freeing journalists to focus on higher-order work” by “removing the grunt work that bogged down the news process every day”. Jim mentions how with some data-heavy journalism, such as sports stats and company financial results, content production increased tenfold.

The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) course is “a guide designed to help news organisations learn about the opportunities offered by AI to support their journalism”.

The LSE says its guide will help news organisation decide how to embrace AI journalism “to make your work more efficient and serve your audiences better”.

View the LSE’s guide.

The NiemanLab has produced “Writing guidelines for the role of AI in the newsroom.” It says the material sets out “the importance of meaningful human involvement and supervision in the use of AI, including through additional editing and factchecking of outputs before publication”.

View the NiemanLab suggested guidelines.

For more background on the development of AI and how it impacts news, you might want to view David Caswell’s presentation on “Generative AI and Automation of Media”.

David Caswell is the founder of StoryFlow Ltd., an innovation consultancy focused on AI workflows in news production. He was formerly an Executive Product Manager at BBC News Labs, focused on AI-based new product initiatives. He previously led product management for machine learning at Tribune Publishing and the Los Angeles Times, and was Director of Product Management for Automated Content Understanding at Yahoo!. David has also researched and published extensively on computational, structured and automated forms of journalism, including as a Fellow at the Reynolds Journalism Institute at the Missouri School of Journalism.

The post The role of AI in the newsroom first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Журналістика, PR чи пропаганда?

Якщо контент, який ви виробляєте, просуває певний порядок денний, розкручує якусь лінію, підіграє якійсь частині суспільства, беззастережно підтримує певну ініціативу, містить маніпуляцію задля того, щоб досягти потрібного результату, або має бажану мету – ви, можливо, створюєте піар-матеріал або навіть пропаганду.

Справжня журналістика базується на застосуванні суворої редакційної етики до всього, що ми робимо, щоб ми могли досліджувати питання, які найбільше впливають на життя нашої аудиторії.

Тож чи пройде ваш журналістський матеріал цей тест? Візьміть до уваги наступні питання, щоб побачити, чи відповідає етиці ваша журналістська робота.

Вісім питань для роздумів

1: Якою є ваша журналістська мета  і чого ви намагаєтеся досягнути, роблячи цей матеріал?

2: Яка ваша особиста мотивація? Чи маєте ви корисливі інтереси як наслідок цього матеріалу?

3: Чи включили ви різні точки зору та різноманітні ідеї, щоб ваш журналістський твір був ретельно підготованим та інформативним?

4: Чи зігнорували ви будь-які елементи, які могли б послабити історію, яку ви пишете?

5: Чи взяли ви до уваги, якими є мотиви тих людей, у яких ви берете інтерв’ю?

6 Чи всі ваші питання чесні, чи вони можуть бути маніпулятивними чи наводити на певні відповіді?

7: Якими є коротко- та довгострокові наслідки історії, яку ви пишете?

8: Чи використовуєте ви інтерв’ю з тими, кого ви обрали, для того, щоб посилити вашу статтю, не беручи до уваги можливу шкоду, якої вони можуть зазнати після того, як історія буде опублікована?

9: Чи здатні ви виправдати ваші редакційні рішення перед вашими колегами, перед тими, кого ви вирішили проінтерв’ювати, та перед аудиторією?

10: Чи є ваш журналістський твір оригінальним, точним і чесним, та чи базується він на якісних джерелах?

Сім правил для того, щоб зробити все правильно 

1: Тримайте очі широко розплющеними – шукайте правду і пишіть про неї настільки повно, наскільки це можливо.

2: Дійте самостійно – не будьте зобов’язані нікому, не просіть про послуги і не шукайте прихильності.

3: Зведіть до мінімуму потенційну шкоду: захищайте ваші джерела, поважайте приватність, розумійте можливі наслідки.

4: Оцінюйте всі факти: не ігноруйте неприємні або такі, шо суперечать вашій гіпотезі. 

5: Шукайте незалежні джерела: не слідуйте за зграєю, знаходьте свіжі голоси і погляди. 

6: Ретельно перевіряйте надійність інформації:  Thoroughly check the validity of information – не приймайте нічого за чисту монету та переконайтеся, що ви дослідили та можете обгрунтувати використання кожного факту.

7: Будьте обережні з суб’єктивними маніпуляціями – не піддавайтеся тим, хто хоче, щоб ви надавали новинам позитивного забарвлення.

Сім підходів до роботи

1:Будьте чесними, справедливими та сміливими під час збору та викладення інформації

2: Дайте право голосу тим, хто його не має, ​​уважно перевіряйте та аналізуйте дії виконавчої влади та переконайтеся, що ваша журналістика притягує до відповідальності можновладців.

3: Ретельно зберігайте ту роль, яку відіграють незалежні ЗМІ у відкритому суспільстві.

4: Шукайте та поширюйте протилежні думки – особливо ті, які можна почути рідко.

5: Уникайте асоціацій чи активностей, які б могли скомпрометувати вашу здатність публікувати правду. 

6: Завжди беріть до уваги, як ваша журналістська діяльність може вплинути на життя тих, хто фігурує у вашому матеріалі. 

7: Ставтеся до всіх з повагою, а не як до засобу досягнення своєї журналістської мети.

Дванадцять правил точності 

1: Весь матеріал має базуватися на якісних джерелах

2: Він має базуватися на на обґрунтованих доказах.

3: Всі факти, про які ви пишете, мають бути перевіреними. 

4: Ваш матеріал має бути написаний чіткою, зрозумілою мовою.

5: Уникайте поширення необґрунтованих припущень, чуток та пліток. 

6: Точність важливіша за швидкість. Ніколи не поспішайте з новиною, щоб бути першими. Краще бути другими, але правими, аніж першими, але неправими.

7: Переконайтеся, що ви завжди зважуєте всі відповідні факти та інформацію, щоб дійти до правди

8: Якщо питання суперечливе, ви мусите завжди включати всі точки зору, які його стосуються, щоб ваш матеріал не був однобоким. 

9: Збирайте матеріал з перших рук, де це можливо.

10: Переконайтеся, що ви перечитуєте все, що пишете.

11: Перевірте достовірність документальних свідчень та цифрових матеріалів.

12: Підтверджуйте всі заяви та звинувачення.

Шість міркувань щодо неупередженості та різноманітності думок

1: Завжди старайтеся відображати широкий спектр думок. 

2: Завжди будьте готові досліджувати протилежні погляди.

3: Ніколи не ігноруйте жодних важливих напрямків думки чи недостатньо представлених груп

4: Використовуйте вашу творчу свободу для того, щоб виготовляти контент на будь-яку тему, в будь-якій точці дискусії, якщо для цього є серйозні редакційні причини. 

5: Переконайтеся, що ви уникли упередженості або порушили баланс думок стосовно всіх проблем, а понадто – суперечливих.

6: Іноді вам потрібно буде висвітлювати  теми, які можуть бути образливими для багатьох людей. Ви маєте бути певні, що явний суспільний інтерес переважає над можливою образою.

Іноді вам потрібно буде висвітлювати  теми, які можуть бути образливими для багатьох людей. Ви маєте бути певні, що явний суспільний інтерес переважає над можливою образою.

Сім критеріїв того, чи становлять новини  суспільний інтерес

1: Викриття або розкриття злочину.

2: Висвітлення кричущої антисоціальної поведінки, корупції чи беззаконня.

3: Викриття значущої некомпетентності або недбальства.

4: Розкриття інформації, яка дозволяє людям ухвалювати більш обґрунтовані рішення щодо суспільно важливих питань.

5: Захист здоров’я та безпеки населення.

6: Запобігання введенню громадськості в оману.

7: Захист питань свободи слова.

Справедливість

Будьте відкритими, чесними та відвертими у спілкуванні з фігурантами вашого матеріалу, якщо тільки однозначний суспільний інтерес не вимагає вчинити інакше. У випадку висунення обвинувачень,відповідним особам або організаціям зазвичай має бути надано право на відповідь.

Приватність 

Для реалізації ваших прав на свободу вираження поглядів та інформації важливо, щоб в основі вашої діяльності була повага до приватності особи та справедливе ставлення до неї під час розслідування та встановлення фактів, розкриття яких відповідає суспільним інтересам.

Чесність 

Завжди залишайтеся незалежними від інтересів держави та різних сторін. Ніколи не підтримуйте та не створюйте враження, що підтримуєте будь-які організації, продукти, заходи чи послуги.

Джерела

Приймайте інформацію з будь-якого джерела, але знайте, що вам доведеться вирішувати особисто, яку інформацію варто враховувати, а яку ні. Джерела слід завжди перевіряти, особливо коли мова йде про джерела, що до яких ви звертаєтеся вперше і які не використовувалися ніколи раніше. Важливо захищати джерела, які не хочуть бути названими.

Оригінал цього навчального модуля опубліковано на англомовній версії Media Helping Media. Переклад українською Ніни Кур’яти.

The post Чи етична ваша журналістика? first appeared on Media Helping Media.

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.

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

Small news organisations, eager to offer their audience a wider choice of news, can now take advantage of a free international wires service currently syndicating in 90 languages.

Open Newswire is a feed of news, current affairs, and magazine articles written by professional journalists from around the world which editors can republish in their own news organisation’s output – subject to the conditions of various Creative Commons licences or similar public domain guidelines.

Benefits

There are several benefits for news organisations who use the service and those who contribute to the service.

• Small newsrooms can enhance their content offering and attract more page views with quality content for no charge.
• Newsrooms can reach a wider audience when their content is syndicated.
• If a news organisation, big or small, publishes content under certain Creative Commons or Public Domain licences (which require a link back to the original source) it has the potential benefit of return traffic.

How it works

A continuously updated list of news feeds can be filtered by language so that editors can browse through stories relevant to their audience.

They then select the story to copy taste, and, if they feel the article would be beneficial to their audience they can publish the piece in their own newsroom content management system so that it has the look and feel of the rest of their output.

Alongside each item in the feed is a link to the various licence conditions. All the editor needs to do is check those conditions and comply. Once those conditions are met the editor is free to publish.

Creative Commons and public domain

Some Creative Commons licences might allow the article to be edited, others might not. This is usually indicated by the letters ND (No Derivatives), which means you can use the content but are not allowed to alter it. Others might include the letters BY (who it is by) which means you must attribute the original creator of the work. Some articles have other conditions – which are all set out alongside the particular news story so that editors can be sure they comply with the terms and conditions.

The Open Newswire blog has a helpful page explaining what the different licences mean. There is also a link to easy to follow rules about the attribution of photographs.

Open Newswire is non-commercial and entirely self-funded by Australian journalist Zac Crellin – who posts updates on Mastodon and Twitter. He says the goal is not about making money, but about sharing content in order to “help small newsrooms all over the world that can’t afford a subscription” to the main news aggregators.

The post Content sharing for the benefit of all first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Journalism is about far more than simply gathering information and passing it on. An essential part of the editorial process is to examine everything we are told to make sure it is factual, and then add context so that any facts that are uncovered are considered alongside existing knowledge.

The author skyfishgoo wrote in a piece about critical thinking that “science and journalism both seek to put facts in context so they become useful to others”. He goes on to say that “science dictates that when a claim is made it is subject to critical review”.

Giving content “a bit of a scrub”

Put simply, he says that all of us have a responsibility to give every new piece of information that comes our way “a bit of a scrub” before passing it on to others.

This is particularly important in terms of producing original journalism and then broadcasting or publishing that material and sharing it on social media.

Once a piece of journalism is in the public domain it will be referenced, quoted, and possibly plagiarised as it becomes part of the global conversation. If that piece of journalism is untrue, then lasting damage will have been done.

But let’s first agree what is meant by the word ‘fact’.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a fact is something that is “known or proved to be true”. It is also “information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article”. In legal terms, a fact is “the truth about events as opposed to interpretation”.

And that last definition is interesting, because journalists ‘interpret’ events by adding context – but more on that later. For now, let’s refer to facts that have not yet been fully tested as ‘claims’.

Here are a few tests that should be applied to information that a journalist receives from someone who ‘claims’ that what they are passing on is factual.

The first three tests are about source verification and fact-checking, the fourth is about adding context.

1: Is the source credible?

• What do we know about the source?
• What is their motive for sharing the information?
• Could the source have an agenda about which we are not aware?

To Do: Research the background of the source, their connections, any previous record of sharing information.

2: Has it happened?

• Could there be a simple explanation?
• Has your source been misled? If so, by whom?
• Is there a history of such an event taking place?

To Do: Research the chronology of events. Check your own news organisations archive. Search the web.

3: Where is the evidence?

• Is the information available elsewhere?
• What is the evidence to support the claim?
• Has that evidence been tested?

To Do: Seek out a second, independent and trusted source.

4: What is the context?

• What are the implications if the claims are true?
• How many people are affected and how?
• Gather data and statistics for comparison purposes.

To Do: Paint the bigger picture, understand the importance of the event in relation to other news stories.

Those of you who are new to journalism might want to print out the following checklist and put it on the wall in your newsroom as a reminder.

If the results of your research make you feel uneasy you might want to drop the story. However, even a false claim, presented as fact, but, on investigation, found to be untrue, could still be a story. It could point to a political, commercial, or social conflict that might require investigation.

Never rule out a possible news story because the initial evidence presented proves to be shaky.

Now let’s look at point four ‘the context’ more closely.

Adding context

One dictionary definition of ‘context’ is: “the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood.”

That word, ‘understood’, is important.

The role of a journalist is to enhance understanding. We do that by surrounding proven facts with data, statistics, history, and circumstances that, together, help paint a fuller picture of what has happened.

Think of it this way.

Imagine you are at home watching a series on TV. It’s the final episode of six. Just as the programme is reaching the conclusion there is a knock at the door. It’s a friend you haven’t seen for some time. You welcome them in.

As they walk through the door there is a scream from the lounge. One of the characters in the TV series has discovered the gruesome remains of a body. Your guest is shocked, but fascinated.

You offer to turn the TV off so you can chat, but they are so intrigued by what they saw on the screen that they ask you whether they could watch the programme with you, particularly as it’s reaching its conclusion. They want to know what happens next.

So you pause the programme, put the kettle on, make a cup of tea, and tell your guest about what has happened so far.

You explain who the characters are, what has taken place in previous episodes, how the situation has developed, the relationships between the characters, what clues you have picked up along the way, and how the plot has thickened to reach the point where your guest heard the scream.

And explaining the background proves to be important because your friend thought you must be watching a murder mystery, when, in fact, the series you were watching was a documentary about archeology. The scream was from an archeologist who had unexpectedly found mummified remains. It was not a modern-day crime thriller.

Now your guest has the context, so you can watch the end of the final episode together, with your guest informed about the background to the story and better able to understand events.

The same is true with journalism.

A colleague who was working as an intake editor on a news desk remembers receiving a call from an off-duty reporter who had just passed an overturned red double decker bus on  a London street. People were wandering around with blood pouring from wounds. Two camera crews were mobilised, but before they’d even left the building the reporter discovered that it was a film crew making a movie. The story had changed once the reporter had checked his facts and explored the context.

I made a similar mistake when reporting on a fire at an inner city block of flats in Liverpool. I reported live into the 4pm news bulletin saying that residents were trying to salvage what they could from their burning homes. I was wrong. Had I checked my facts, not made assumptions, and taken time to establish the context of events I would have discovered that I was witnessing rioting and looting. You can read about that experience and the lessons learnt here.

The challenge all journalists face is not just to report the news but to also set out the background to an event as well as all related events in order to help the audience understand the elements of a story which they might otherwise find hard to comprehend – or even reach the wrong conclusion.

Perhaps it involves researching and setting out the chronology of events that have led to the current breaking news story. These can be presented as related stories.

You might need to research the backgrounds of the characters involved as you look for any social connections to anyone else involved. These can be presented as profiles.

Essentially, what you are doing is gathering as much information as possible in order to put together the most detailed, in-depth, and informative account of what has happened.

All this illustrates that journalism helps people make sense of the world – not just what’s happening, but why it’s happening. Stories that raise questions without even attempting to address those questions are weak stories.

• A bridge has collapsed. Why?
• A racing driver stops his car while leading the race. Why?
• A politician resigns. Why?

A news story without context can never be completely understood. A news source that is not verified can never be completely trusted. A claim, left unchecked, might not necessarily be a fact. And a news story without fact-checking and context could add more to the cacophony of confusion than to the enhancement of understanding.

If you found this interesting and, perhaps, helpful, you might want to check our other, related training modules.

Accuracy in journalism
The basics of fact-checking
How to identify and deal with fake news
Dealing with disinformation and misinformation
Unconscious bias and its impact on journalism

The post Fact-checking and adding context first appeared on Media Helping Media.

In his training module “Adopting the ‘big story’ approach”, Bob Eggington wrote that, although planning is critically important in the news business there are some things you can’t plan. “Big stories happen out of the blue. And when they do you have to spring into action immediately,” he wrote.

Some media organisations have a system for assessing what defines a big breaking news story.

Such a system can help editors decide how much editorial focus should be allocated to the coverage. You can find out more about this system by reading our module on how to create a story weighting system.

A big story might be a recurring story (such as seasonal flooding or earthquakes) or one-off, unexpected events (such as public disorder or industrial disputes) where there is significant local, regional, national, and international impact.

When a big story breaks the following editorial considerations should be assessed.

The first three points in this list apply to all stories, both big and small. Points four to 12 apply to a big story.

While immediate response reporters and crews focus on points 1-3, you might want to assign producers and researchers to look at points 4-12 in depth, if appropriate and if those resources exist.

1. The story: This is fairly straightforward and is applied to all stories both big and small. We need to ask the basic journalistic questions of what, why, when, how, where and who.
2. The facts: Again, this is common to all news coverage. Every detail must be examined, tested and proven to be accurate by confirming with at least two independent sources, except those filed by your own reporters or others you trust.
3. Those affected: Personal accounts of how the story impacts on the lives of those involved is an essential element to all news coverage.
4. The data: Where it comes from and whether it can be trusted.
5. Responsibility: Who or what was responsible, and why did it go wrong?
6. The promises: Made in the past and previous measures taken.
7. The impact: Now and in the future.
8. The consequences: Changes in lifestyle for some and what happens to those who can’t change.
9. Accountability: Who knew and what preventative action could have been taken?
10. The future: What changes need to take place?
11. The follow up: Set a follow up date. Three or six months. List questions to ask.
12. Engaging the audience: Public and expert debate to dig deeper and seek answers.

The list above, which is explored further in our module “Story development, ensuring all angles are covered” can’t be applied to every story; newsrooms don’t have the resources for that.

But if you apply the story weighting system for breaking news you will be better placed to decide what is a general news story and what is a big story.

Exploring all the editorial angles of a news story is only one part of the coverage.

If your news organisation has introduced a converged newsroom approach, which is always helpful, then allocating shared resources and setting out roles and responsibilities when a big story breaks is so much easier.

Summary

• A media organisation needs to have a system for dealing with a big breaking news story in order to fully inform the public debate.
• That system must set out the editorial, technical, and human resources requirements.
• A converged newsroom, with centralised command-and-control, with a multimedia newsgathering operation along with a shared planning unit will help streamline such a system.

The post Editorial considerations when a ‘big story’ breaks first appeared on Media Helping Media.

A media organisation must always remain alert to changing audience demand and behaviour. This involves continually examining what is produced to ensure that it is relevant to those who consume it. It’s easy to lose your audience if you are not adapting in order to hold their attention.

Part of this process might involve revising the current editorial process and/or creating new products to try to both retain the existing audience and attract new listeners, viewers, and readers. Such a process, done properly, can lead to increased audience engagement and loyalty.

But how can media managers be sure they are creating the right products? And what are the steps they need to take? The launch of any media product, whether it’s a new radio or TV programme, a special edition for a newspaper, or a website, needs meticulous research, planning, and, above all, justification.

In this article, the first in a three-part series, we look first at the basics of managing such a project before moving on to a how-to guide setting out what to do if you are planning a relaunch or a new product, and then look at an example of how to set up a new TV programme was successfully launched.

The following principles should be applied by all broadcasters and publishers involved in the process of creating new output. It’s best to make a checklist setting out all the questions that need to be answered. That checklist can be broken down into four areas:

• Defining the target audience.
• Setting out the unique editorial proposition.
• Assessing the cost.
• Calculating the return.

Let’s look at those four areas in more detail.

1: Define and get to know your target audience

The first question to ask is “Who is it for?”.

You are about to devote considerable time and effort in order to create something new, so you need to know whether anyone will want what you are about to produce.

This is where you need to ensure that what you are creating matches the requirements of your audience.

Our training module about “The value of thorough research for a media business” sets out the steps a media business needs to consider when establishing its position in the local media market.

And then you need to understand the audience you aim to reach with the new product. Our training module “Identifying the target audience and its information needs” will take you through this process.

2: Set out a clear and unique editorial proposition

The second question is “What are you offering?”.

Before you start you need to set out what is unique about what you are about to produce. How will it be different from what the competitors are producing? Why would anyone want to listen to your radio station, watch your TV programme, read your magazine, or visit your website?

This is about offering something different; something that not only doesn’t currently exist, but also something that is so unique, fresh and relevant that it sets your media organisation apart from the rest.

Perhaps your differential is in terms of topics covered, the way you treat news, the user engagement and interactivity you offer, the editorial and ethical values you hold dear, your focus on fact-checking, the diversity of voices you include.

Our training module “Establishing a market differential with original journalism”, sets out a way to do this. After reading that module you are ready for step three in the process.

3: Calculate the cost in terms of money and resources

Next your media business needs to know whether it can afford to pay for the new content idea.

The first question to consider is whether you can do it with existing resources. Is there a way of reorganising how you currently do things in order to be able to produce more or different content without having to hire extra staff and equipment?

You will need to look at your current production processes. In my experience, many new products can be created from existing resources if media managers are prepared to take a fresh look at how news is produced.

Our training module “Creating a converged news operation”, sets out some simple steps that will enable a news organisation to introduce efficiencies which will improve the quantity and quality of output.

This usually involves introducing new workflows and changes to what staff currently do. Our training module “Convergence, workflows, rolls and responsibilities”, shows how this can be implemented.

I have introduced successfully convergence models in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, SE Europe, and the CIS. In every case duplication of effort has been eliminated and productivity has been increased – and all from existing resources.

Once you have taken a fresh look at how your newsroom works, and you know more how you can exploit existing resources for maximum gain, you are ready to move on to the next step.

4: Understand the sources of revenue

The final point is about how to make money from the new programme, edition, or website. You need to know which advertisers / sponsors will want to be associated with what you are creating?

And, although I have listed this as point four, it would make sense to start thinking about this at the start of the process during the audience identification stage.

Our training module “How to develop a media sales strategy” sets out some simple steps which, if followed, should help you monetise the new product, cover your costs, and enable you to start thinking about how to expand your media business further.

In the second article in this series, Bob Eggington sets out a “How-to of media project management” listing the practical steps required. The third article, also written by Bob, looks at “A practical example of media project management”, in which he shares a case-study of a programme he has implemented.

The post Basics of project development for a media organisation first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Briefings, background information, and editorial control

What should a journalist do with off-the-record information? Should they agree to conditions being placed on its 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.

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

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.

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

The post Dealing with emotional pressure in journalism – scenario first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Taking part in an organised media trip

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.

Related training modules

Accuracy in journalism

For journalists, clarity is as important as accuracy

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