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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you do?

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are a reporter working on a newspaper in a coastal resort where there are plans to build a new leisure centre on the site of an old hotel complex dating back to Victorian times.

You sense that something is wrong when a local politician becomes an outspoken champion for the proposal, despite widespread opposition from environmental campaigners, historians, and residents. The politician says the development will be good for business and for the fortunes of the town.

While investigating the story you find that the politician has close business connections with the owner of the hotel who submitted the planning application and the developer who has had the building plans drawn up. It’s also emerged that the politician has links with a betting firm that plans to open a casino on the new leisure site.

Three years ago, when the Victorian hotel was extended, you accepted an invitation to attend the opening. There was a buffet and free bar. The party went on late into the night. The owner generously offered free accommodation. The next day you wrote a story for the newspaper which carried the headline “Victorian hotel given new lease of life”.

Now, three years on, as soon as you start to ask questions about the proposed new development, both the hotel owner and the politician remind you that you were quite happy to enjoy the hotel’s hospitality in the past and that surely you owe them a favour.

They ask you what it would look like if they let it be known that you were a journalist who liked to accept free gifts from local businesses.

They hand you a news release they have prepared along with some exclusive artist impressions of the proposed development and suggest you reproduce the material unchanged.

What do you do? Do you:

1. Talk to your editor, admit that you accepted hospitality at the opening event three years ago and leave it to your editor to decide how the story is covered.
2. Drop the investigative part of the story in order to protect yourself and your newspaper in the hope that by keeping quiet and not asking awkward questions your earlier involvement will not be revealed.
3. Take the news release and images from the businessman and publish the story the way they want it presented.

Suggested action

You should talk to your editor and admit that you had accepted hospitality from people who are now part of your investigation and that they have warned you not to explore the story any further. Share the information you have with your editor, set out the links you have uncovered, and enlist their support for continuing with your piece.

The only way to resolve such issues is by being honest and transparent in all your dealings and then learning that accepting what some might consider to be favours could compromise your work as a journalist.

Why this is the right answer

There is a saying that there is no such thing as a free lunch. This means that when you are given something free of charge, people often expect a favour in return.

For a journalist, this is particularly difficult. However, we are all learning and you will certainly not make the same mistake again.

You must talk to your editor, tell him or her all the facts, be totally honest, and move on.

Your newspaper owes it to its readers to tell the truth, and the story must be investigated, even if it proves embarrassing to you.

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

Related training modules

Is your journalism ethical?

Integrity and journalism

The post Journalistic ethics – scenario first appeared on Media Helping Media.

When should journalists offer a right of reply? All the time, sometimes, never? Try our ethical scenario and add your comments.

You are the editor of a morning radio news and current affairs programme. The news bulletin is leading on reports of a sharp rise in unemployment figures.

At 07.10 you have a politician on the programme being interviewed about the jobless totals. She blames restrictive union laws which, she says, mean that firms find it harder to hire staff without conditions. She quotes numbers, which one of the reporters from the newsroom picks up on.

When the item ends you receive two phone calls. One is from the organisation representing businesses saying that the minister got it wrong and that you are misleading the audience by repeating her claims. The other is from a union leader who claims to have data refuting the minister’s point.

A news reporter has already prepared a piece for the news summary at 7.30, including an audio clip of what the minister said on your programme.

What do you do? Do you:

1. pull the 07.30 bulletin piece until you can check it out more thoroughly.
2. stick with your script and broadcast without changing a thing.
3. take a note of the comments from the employers’ organisation and the union leader and add them at the end of the report as a back announcement.
4. leave the piece as it is, offer both the business and union representatives the chance to have their say immediately after the bulletin at 07.30, and make a back announcement after the minister’s claims saying that you will have the views of business and the unions immediately after the bulletin.
5. a mix of some of the above.

Suggested answer: Perhaps 5) is the best solution being a mix of 3) and 4). That would mean leaving the piece that has been prepared for the 7.30 news summary as it is, but mention that the minister’s claims have been challenged by business and union leaders. Offer both the business and union representatives the chance to have their say immediately after the bulletin at 07.30, or as soon as is practical, and make a back announcement after the bulletin piece containing the minister’s claims saying that you will have the views of business and the unions later in the programme.

Why is a mix of c) and d) the recommended answer

It’s all about right of reply, including alternative points of view, fairness and accuracy – here are some of the main points to consider.

Right of reply

It’s important that we strive to be impartial in our news and current affairs coverage. However, we must never assume that our guests have the same objective. They probably won’t.

Politicians, academics and other contributors who we invite to take part in our output will probably have a particular line they want to present. It’s unlikely to be a neutral contribution. The producer will have invited them to take part in the programme because they knew they had something newsworthy to say.

Ideally, current affairs and news producers will established what line the guest is likely to take and, if the comments are controversial, the producer will have lined up someone prepared to respond.

Our job is to reflect all sides of a story if possible. That’s a tough challenge, because it’s unlikely we will know the full extent of the impact of a story on all those affected, but we should, during our production meeting and editorial brainstorming, try to reflect as wide a range of views as possible. And we should always be open to including more when relevant.

So the onus is on us, the news team, to ensure that an item is accurate and fair. It’s good that quotes made on air are challenged. And it’s part of our job to consider any challenges, weigh up the points being made, and reflect or invite others to reflect, that disagreement.

Controversial subject might cover politics, religion, sexual practices, human relationships and financial dealings. In all cases, we must ensure as wide a range of views and perspectives are considered.

Fair, accurate, objective and impartial

This is not about providing balance. Balance can be an overused word in journalism. Life isn’t balanced, so we should not strive to achieve balance in our news and current affairs output. News and current affairs should reflect life as it is. Striving to achieve balance can make a mockery of a news report. Rather we should strive to be fair, accurate, objective and impartial. Sometimes that is not possible in a single item. In that case we must plan follow up coverage and offer clear verbal signposts so that the audience knows that other views will be included and when.

Personal views offering one side of a story can often encourage healthy debate. This is especially true when the contribution enhances the understanding of the audience and opens minds to new perspectives.

Alternative view points

So it is our responsibility as journalists to find alternative points of view within the same programme strand, within the next bulletin, or in subsequent output. In all cases we must :

• retain a respect for factual accuracy
• fairly represent opposing viewpoints
• provide an opportunity to reply
• ensure that a sufficiently broad range of views and perspectives is included
• ensure these are broadcast in similar output, measure and time of day
• and produce an overview piece that is fair, accurate and informative.

You don’t need to have all view points reflected in a single news item as long as there is fair representation of all views as the story develops.

The post Right of reply – scenario first appeared on Media Helping Media.

You are attending the aftermath of a fire that has damaged two houses. The residents are trying to gather all they can outside the smouldering premises as fire fighters douse the flames.

Emergency services staff refuse to answer any of your questions saying they are too busy to talk and that you should contact their HQ for the latest updates.

You notice a woman who is clearly traumatised by the incident. She is screaming and rambling. You go over to her and she tells you how she has lost everything, is now homeless and doesn’t know what to do. She is clearly confused and not making much sense, but you film her.

As you finish your filming a fire officer and a paramedic urge you not to use the footage saying the woman’s child is unaccounted for. They tell you she is too distressed to be interviewed. They also suggest that it’s unlikely the child will have survived.

However you already have a dramatic interview – although the woman didn’t mention a missing child – and there is a bulletin looming. You are keen to use the material you have. What do you do? Do you:

1. acknowledge the concerns of the emergency services staff and say you will take them into consideration but run the interview anyway.
2. realise the woman was traumatised and respect her grief and confusion by deciding not to use the footage but mention that you have been told by firefighters that there is a missing person still unaccounted for.
3. use the material because you now have a much bigger developing story on your hands and what appeared to be just a house fire where people were concerned about losing their home and possessions could now be a story about a dead child.
4. try to find the woman again in order to clarify whether her child is missing or not and ask her permission to carry out another interview for the bulletin.
5. report that emergency services are searching for a missing child and use the earlier interview with the woman in context, explaining that it was carried out earlier before information that there could have been a loss of life had been released.

Suggested action

In this situation you do not have informed consent to run the interview. The woman was clearly traumatised and the advice of the medical professional is that the woman is too distressed to be interviewed again. However you do have new information that a child has not been accounted for. You should resist the temptation of running the interview with the woman but instead provide an update on the latest information from the firefighters – including the fact that they are still searching for missing people – and use background footage to illustrate the piece.

The post Informed consent – scenario first appeared on Media Helping Media.

The circumstances and background

You have been sent to cover an incident at a border crossing following reports that a large group of asylum seekers is trying to gain entry to a neighbouring country.

It’s reported that shots have been fired and some people have been killed.

You arrive and see a child sitting by the roadside crying.

You think it’s been abandoned and take a picture. It’s a wonderful shot.

You call your news editor and prepare to send the image back to the newsroom.

The news editor is excited; pictures like this win awards.

As soon as you have sent the image, the child’s mother appears and picks the child up. It stops crying.

It seems the child’s grief was caused, mainly, by being separated from its mother.

Once it saw its mother it seemed to be happy – despite the chaos surrounding it.

The mother shouts at you for taking a photograph, and wanders off into the crowd with her child.

What should you do?

1. Pretend the incident with the mother never happened. You have already alerted the news desk. They want to use the image. The mother will probably never know and is unlikely to take action, and you could end up winning a journalism award for the picture.
2. Talk to your news editor, explain the situation but recommend that the image is used anyway because, although it’s not accurate, it does show the misery and suffering at the border crossing.
3. Look for another shot more representative of the story even though it may be less powerful.

Suggested action

The best course of action would be to look for another shot more representative of the story even though it may be less powerful.

Why option 3 the right answer

It’s all about accuracy and reporting honestly from a situation.

• Don’t just go for the shocking, sad and emotionally-charged images without finding out whether they really reflect the scene you are witnessing; to do so may be exploiting the victims and failing to uncover the true cause of the distress.
• Be sure that what you photograph accurately reflects the true situation and is not a distortion of reality; on the other hand, never ignore the one-off that could reveal an aspect of neglect or harm that has so far gone unnoticed.
• Never stage-manage a shoot to hype up the story; your job is to report through images what has actually happened.

Related training modules

Accuracy in journalism

Photojournalism and ethics

Transparency and full disclosure – scenario

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

The post Photo journalism – scenario first appeared on Media Helping Media.

There has been a strike at a steel works.

The union claims all its 100,000 members were out on strike, but the employer says 50% turned up for work and defied the picket line.

You were reporting from the main gates of the steel plant all day and you didn’t see anyone crossing the picket line.

You witnessed the mass meeting after which all those taking part left and walked away from the steel works.

You didn’t see any action inside the factory grounds; it was clearly at a standstill with nobody but security staff on site.

So, the company says half the staff have defied the strike action, but the trades union says all its members were on strike.

How do you report the situation?

Do you:

1. Accept the union’s line and say that there was a 100% turn out for the strike.
2. Accept the company’s line and say that 50% defied the strike call.
3. Offer both versions and keep quiet about what you saw because it contradicts what has been said and could confuse the audience.
4. Offer both versions, admit you can’t confirm which is right or wrong, but describe what you saw in detail.

Suggested action

It would probably be best to go with option 4 and offer both versions, admit you can’t confirm which is right or wrong, but describe what you saw in detail.

Why option four?

As a reporter all you can do is report what you have seen and what you have been told.

You can attribute comments to those who made them, and add your own eye witness account of events.

You should say what the union leaders and the steel plant owners say happened – it is not your role to edit their claims.

However you also have a responsibility to describe what you saw happening around you.

In this case you could report that all the workers you saw moved away from the plant after the mass meeting, and that all you could see behind the factory gates were a few security guards patrolling the premises.

You should not directly contradict either of the claims made by the opposing sides in the dispute.

And you should not report in such a way that suggests one side or the other is attempting to mislead the public.

However, by setting out the facts as accurately as possible you will be doing your job as a reporter, even if it is obvious that the versions offered by the management and union leaders can’t both be true.

To sum up, your journalism must be:

• well-sourced
• supported by strong evidence
• examined and tested
• clear and unambiguous.

Related training modules

Accuracy in journalism

Fairness in journalism

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

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