Doubtless the art of bulletin reading, regardless of the stations style, form and composition of its bulletins, is one held by only a limited proportion of the newsroom. But if people are to be employed as bulletin readers, in the same way individuals are employed as continuity announcers (as they do at BBC Wales, for instance), do they need to be journalists at all? Isn’t this just one step removed from a time, only a few decades ago, when it was actors that read the news? Several authors (whose names predictably and conveniently escape me) have heralded that time when those voices on the radio did finally become proper journalists, people who knew about what they were talking enough to mean it, in a way an actor never could?

This dilemma, if it could be framed as such, for radio stations local and national, is one that comes down to style over substance. It’s almost certainly determined by what the audience wants. But the next time you listen to your radio news, listen to the reader and ponder: does he or she really know about this story? And do I even care?

Setting the tone

The interview was not the problem, certainly judging from responses on Twitter it seems most people heard the PM avoiding questions and regurgitating his well-rehearsed lines for the election, which was an entirely accurate reflection of the interview. It was not this I took issue with however.

What concerned me was the way in which Humphrys went about taking Brown to task. The tone of the interview was apparent from the outset. It was angry, hostile and impatient. Whilst he did engage Brown in debate over issues that needed to be discussed, and did make his point well in undermining Brown’s various claims to have stewarded the British economy well despite the global financial crisis, Humphrys still managed to sound petulant.

Listening to Jon talk to Bob Crowe last week, I did get the sense of Humphrys seeming more relaxed than his interviewee, and as such coming across as the more reasonable and the one trying to engage in constructive debate rather than a petty argument. But the Brown interview this morning was markedly different. The PM sounded calm, even if he was being evasive, and Humphrys’ continual interruptions only served to make the listener hostile as well.

Making the point

The idea that the characters being interviewed are always trying to hide something (though probably a safe bet in the PM’s case) is outdated, and gives the listener the impression that the interviewees are attempting to deceive. Of course this is a generalisation, and when this is in fact the case, it can be effective.

But there are great instances where a softer approach serves the purpose better. Nicky Campbell’s interview with Brown last year comes to mind, in which he just asked him why he seemed so much more unhappier than when they had previously last talked.

The Paxman/Humphrys mould of journalist is one that’s easy to admire – knowledgable, fearless and standing up for the rights of the viewers/listeners who want to hear what the interviewees have to say. But the hostility of the interviewer can often breed hostility in the audience, and this in turn can lead to further disrespect of people who often don’t deserve it.

Politicians in 2010 are a hated bunch, and they have themselves to blame for much of that. But if the public are going to regain a trust in our system of government as much as the people who run it, then the office that they hold needs to be respected as much as it is scrutinised.

A valid approach or a slur on the internet?

The aspects that stand out are threefold:

1. Those that put these barriers to website entry up doubtlessly accept that it will hit audiences hard, knocking down viewing figures from the millions to perhaps only the tens of thousands. This is what some have portrayed as the ‘madness’ of the scheme – losing all those unique users and, as a result, the reach of the brand. But as those in charge of making this move are clearly already aware of this, the debate then is about the number this is going to be reduced to. Assuming that advertising revenue doesn’t change (and it’s entirely possible that it will given that a smaller for more focussed audience will provide a niche audience easier for advertisers to target – see the FT, WSJ) then surely even one person paying to view a page will represent more income from the website then 30 million viewing it for free? Anyone who argues that a move to put up a barrier would decrease the number of people coming to a page is stating the obvious.
2. It would be foolish also to think though that nobody will choose to pay for the news. Whilst audiences will surely take a massive hit in the immediate aftermath of the erection of a paywall, the small initial figure will begin to grow once people feel that they are missing out on things their friends might be reading. Whilst paywalls inhibit the sharing on content generally, if two friends are sharing an article which takes your interest, as a consumer you may well be inclined to pay for it merely to be part of this process. This situation is a while away though.
3. The further business based nuance is how an initial £1 rate could be further lowered and seem more reasonable at a later date. The introduction of any charge when content has previously been available for free will seem large. Next year though when the Time reduces this charge from £1 to 80p, people will feel they are getting more of a bargain.

The truth is, as a journalist who has grown up with the idea of free content, it seems abhorrent to me that I might have to pay for something that has always been there for nothing. As a student it seems unlikely that I will consume content on the Times website now as a result, but I am not the one being targeted or expected to pay for the content.

Guardian readers commenting on the linked article above are, needless to say, expectant of a rise in visitors to http://www.guardian.co.uk, and determined not to give Rupert Murdoch a penny. As one commenter points out, “Paying for information on the ‘net might wash with some older readers, but I don’t think anyone under the age of 30 would even consider it.”

It would seem that this is more or less what Rupert is banking on.

Dr Anthony Seldon

Being change?

Seldon last rumination was that we should ‘be the change we want to see in the world,’ and to an extent he is right. But what good does telling the viewer this really do? Whilst much of the blame for the current state of bureaucratic Britain, broken and deflated may be attributable to the actions of politicians (in particular as a result of the MPs expenses scandal), it remains undeniable that the Britain that they govern today is one which our politicians have responded to.

Seldon explains that politicians – in particular Thatcher and Blair -gave us those things that we wanted; nay needed as electorates at the time. But the contrast with the bureaucracy that a primary school head teacher had to contend with was stark, and shocking, as it was meant to. But where have the decisions made by politicians that brought in rules that caused such people to fill out endless forms come from?

Changing media

The media have to take much responsibility for this state of affairs. Endless stories about anti-social behaviour, gender inequality, injustices big and small as well as scientific studies telling us all sorts of things have become prevalent in the media. These stories fit news values well, allowing the paper or the broadcasting outlet to tell people new things that will shock them and give them something to talk about. Rarely are these stories deliberately exaggerated, and often the media is accused of blowing things out of proportion unjustly. However equally the whole industry can be found to be at fault in cases such as the reporting of the MMR vaccine report by Andrew Wakefield. Balance and the desire of media to avoid accusations of bias are strong impetuses to report things in a certain way.

These observations are of course rudimentary and generalised. But the point is that the media determine the news agenda. They shape public opinion, and cause politicians to be more cautious in their approach to speaking their mind. Speeches are rarely off the cuff, but rather checked and rechecked to ensure they are ‘on message’ and in tune with the rest of the party. Andrew Marr suggests this is down to the readership being more interested in sleaze and scandal than the boring monotony of politics. And this may be true. But it remains totally unclear to what extent the media respond to what their consumers want, and to what extent the consumers consume what they are given.

But as far as the next General Election is concerned, the media should be the ones calling for Change, in everything. And the louder that call, the more chance there is that politicians actually pay attention are start giving us a real alternative.

Is this change enough?

Brooker’s stinging rebuke of the way that reports follow tried and tested methods such as “fading to monochrome” made me feel a little foolish, since as a j-student I constantly find myself attempting – conciously or otherwise – to emulate such devices in order to confer legitimacy on pieces and make them look more professional. But then thinking about it, it struck me that criticised or not, these are legitimate ways of communicating the news.

What are we communicating?

During voice training last month with Roger Price, the most valuable lesson I came away with was that as a broadcast journalist, news packages and readings should be thought of as conversations. In reading the news, the script should be thought of as if explaining to the listener a complicated set of instructions (I was asked to read out the manual to a powerdrill and make it sound interesting) and he advised me to read children’s books aloud. And it would seem logical that TV packages are the same. Fundamentally what broadcast journalists are trying to do is communicate news to the audience, and surely if certain techniques work better than others, then these are justified in their usage, regardless of whether it becomes cliché to use them.

In making our TV news bulletin on Tuesday as part of an assessed convergence news week here at Bournemouth, we had a problem with the pictures (this is also available on the Bourne Free website).

What comes first, the pictures or the story?

On this day we had 4 team members, none of whom had cars, and about 3 hours in which to shoot and edit a 2 minute bulletin of local news. Getting out onto location from university and back again was a small issue, and as far as upsots were concerned we more or less disregarded them. Nevertheless, we were still presented with the challenge of stories tht were not visually great. The statement from Dorset police was one in particular that we wanted to use, but for which we had no pictures. As a result, we used what might be considered standard way of visualising a statement – by writing it on screen in a relatively interesting frame in front of a policeman, in this case one from Bournemouth. Brooker refers to “a standard news report visual language… immediately recognisable to anyone,” and it would certainly appear that in this case that was relevant.

Yet the format of both the story and the report were conducive to this being the most appropriate means. On the one hand a TV producer could argue that as broadcast journalists, the medium should come first: TV stories are chosen for their visual appeal, and as broadcast journalists we are taught to write to pictures. But in this case we decided that despite the fact that we had no real footage for the piece, we would run it anyway. The graphic type was clearly not our idea, indeed Brooker uses them himself (see 4:43 in the video at the top).

Are TV news reports unique in their approach then?

Brooker isolates how the established visual language begins with an establishing shot before the reporter approaches the camera and poses a question to the viewer. This approach to telling the story of a news report is not unique to news though. As John Haydon points out in his post on ‘Creating Capitivating Blog Posts,’ both readers and viewers want to engage in what they are watching/reading. And there are methods which are accepted as being more useful than others. Mindy McAdam’s had an excellent illustration of wht flash graphics can add to stories, in particular online.

In the age of social media, multi-platform integration and media convergence is what j-school students are currently being taught is where we need to be. And as such, originality is right up there at the top of the list for skills we should be expanding. But years of industry practice have also given us much in the way of lessons in how to appeal to audiences.

I should also add that I thought Charlie’s ‘news report’ was actually made very well.

*wry sign off*

Too harsh? Perhaps, but having not seen the movie this might be a little more generous then it would otherwise have been.

If only the Lady had really vanished

(Poole Lighthouse) As a self-confessed theatre virgin, the thought of a live performance of a Hitchcock-approved story was something that whetted my appetite. Unfortunately it never lived up to such dizzying heights of expectation.

The programme proudly boasted in its notes that Hitchcock “found the story with its perfect sense of comedy and suspense simply irresistible.” Having not seen the movie he subsequently made, it is difficult to appreciate exactly what he saw in this outside the title, which does indeed sound exciting.

Such brutish lamentations should not be aimed at the cast though. Comedy and suspense are difficult themes to mix, and the difficulty was manifest in this performance, with it never seeming clear whether the audience were supposed to laugh or gasp. The cast were clearly well-rehearsed, and fitted well into the characters. However the characters themselves lacked a great degree of depth; the opening scenes of the play were far too long, and it was a good while before the train on which the plot pivoted even appeared.

Whilst the opening exchanges between the multi-lingual waiter (played well by Terry Molloy) relaxed the half-full audience, the comedy failed to generate more than a giggle from those willing to indulge the effort of those putting on the play.

The plot centres around the disappearance of Miss Froy (Jane Evers), and given the title of the play it might seem that this would be a moment to make much of. Yet it took a great many moments to actually realise the lady had vanished as I instead found myself concentrating on who precisely Iris (Penelope Rawlins) reminded me of – Georgina from Enid Blyton’s Famous Five. The audience never really bought into Iris’ conviction, and was rather given the impression that Miss Froy was actually hiding in the wardrobe.

Further surprises at the plot came with the appearance of Nazis, and with the two English characters Charters (Clive Flint) and Caldicott (Andrew Bone) incessantly talking (without real depth, it should be added) about cricket, the stereotypes were tired and worn, with little effort put into bringing them to life. Some may tell you that this play works for its classic caricatures, but there was nothing tongue-in-cheek about the performance.

Marsh was the editor who put famously put Andrew Gilligan on air in May 2003 when he accused the government of probably knowing “that the 45 minute figure was wrong even before it decided to put it in”.

In discussing some of the editorial issues in the run up to this event, he raised an important question for journalists in general, but for j-students in particular who are trying to learn the trade: what exactly is the meaning of ‘off the record’?

Where am I ‘off the record’?

The term has no specific meaning here in the UK, unlike in the States where the term is pinned down more concretely, although even there there is ambiguity.

Journoworld offers a good (albeit brief) understanding of what is meant, and the issues involved in deciding what is and isn’t off the record.

Generally speaking there is a considerably blurred line between ‘off the record’ and ‘on deep background,’ and this can really affect stories. Sources can divulge information to journalists thinking something is on background – and presumably unattributable – and then find themselves cited in a publication. Journoworld uses Samantha Power (former member of staff in Barack Obama’s campaign team) as an example of confusion reigning, although in this particular instance it seems to have stemmed from the source thinking that a hastily added “that was off the record” comment after a statement will preclude its publication.

Clearly if a source does not want something published, then agreeing the terms of the conversation before sharing information is much clearer ground to stand on, both ethically and legally. But what about when the terms of the conversation are agreed upon, and they offer you something juicy?

Breaking the rules?

In outlining the scenario yesterday, Kevin gave the group the scenario in which he lunched with both an Mi6 chief and former cabinet minister Clare Short. In both instances the sources were careful to stipulate that the conversations would be off the record, but then proceeded to give Kevin information that it would clearly be highly desirable to publish. Here there was a couple of thoughts that we discussed:

1. Why was the source divulging the information at all? If he or she didn’t want the information given out to be widely known, then plainly they wouldn’t discuss it at all, in particular to a journalist. There are of course instances where a source wishes to remain anonymous for personal reasons, but nevertheless wants the information to be published. Yet there are also numerous instances where sources can ‘double bluff’ and use things apparently said off the record to forward their own agenda.
2. The source may be helping you by divulging the information, but when does it become such a big story that the ‘off the record’ agreement can justifiably be broken? In the conversations with Clare Short and Sir Richard Dearlove, it seemed they were telling Marsh things they fully expected to be published, but they said they were ‘off the record’ to give the impression they did not want them to be known.

The importance of trust with sources

Make no mistake, sources are by definition where stories for journalists come from, and as most big job listings explain, a good contacts book is a prerequisite for any job. And journalists generally have a good reputation for protecting their sources, which is now recognised by law in Section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act (1981) after Bill Goodwin refused to divulge his sources in the face of a court order.

Yet in an increasingly questionable modern ethical climate, with the stereotyped press officer in the Malcolm Tucker mould now ringing true with many journalists, journalists should be prepared to push things if need be.

Which, by the way, is off the record.

I edited the first newsday on January 20^th, and was determined to ensure that the timing of this was not what let us down. As a group the day was mad a little more difficult by the fact that 3 of our team did not turn up. Whilst this meant that each of us had to take on more work, it also resulted in one less bulletin. This initially seemed like a blessing given that it should have given us more time to secure original clips, write the stories well and ensure good practice for the later bulletin as well as give us time to generate ideas for the afternoon podcast. Yet it eventually meant that as a group we let our foot off the pedal a little, and as such were rushing at the lat minute again. These might seem like rudimentary lessons to learn at a late stage in a Masters course, but nonetheless they are important ones and doubtlessly better to make at this stage.

The stories for the bulletin seemed fairly straightforward that day, given the large fire overnight at a warehouse in Springbourne. On reflection the tone was a little formal for the younger audience of Talbot, but the stories themselves were very local, and as such of high interest to this audience. The first bulletin attempted to work in a degree of live segments, which I considered important since the fire was recent and the cause still unknown. The warehouse actually belonged to a charity, and as such the voicebanks had raised the prospect of arson being the cause. This question did raise the news value of the story, but intimating that it might have been caused by arson was not sure legal ground on which to stand the story, and consequently we opted to instead report the facts. This decision was made easier by the fact that it was the first bulletin, and the angle on the story could be moved on in the next broadcast. It might have been better to have a fire service representative talking live, but instead we had to use Akin Solanke as a reporter over the phone. This has been done before (though the idea came from television broadcasts) on the BBC, where reporters in places such as the Middle East tend to report on bad phone lines. The effect that was desired was a sense of urgency in the report, which would put the listener in the location, and give a sense of real time to the report. The Heart bulletin for that morning targeted the same audience and put the fire top of the running order as well, which corroborated our decision to put the story top.

In moving the story forward we didn’t adopt a new opening line, which in hindsight was a questionable choice given that the story already had another angle which would have increased its news value. As the bulletin was longer we used a package with Akin actually at the location. This approach is slightly more in tune with BBC Solent than with Heart, who generally use clips to punctuate their bulletins. The package approach did add credibility to the story, and this raised the news value as well. Contrasting this approach to that for the other station (South Coast) which targeted an older and geographically wider audience, it might be suggested that using a package allowed us to keep the story high in the running order where it might not otherwise have been. The top story during the newsday on February 3^rd was the dementia report, which lent itself more easily to further exploration across the bulletins, though again the opening line of the story did not change between 12.30 and 13.30, which for this particular audience would decrease the news value and perhaps for listeners catching both bulletins would seem as if nothing new had been learnt, which in this case was not true. What had moved the agenda here forward was finding a new voice to add to the debate, in this case that of Hampshire Council. The issue I encountered here was an unwillingness on the part of the council to be recorded. As I ran out of time it became clear that I would not get a clip for this, and as such I was forced to add a sentence in the script outlining their position. This worked well enough, and in a discussion after the bulletin, we agreed that balance can be added to a story over two bulletins, though only really if they come consecutively. The Today programme on BBC Radio 4 sets the agenda for much of the broadcasting news of the day, and as such often opinions and aspects to stories will often be balanced out during the programme, or even later in the day. Because the BBC is a larger corporation, news stories can be covered across mediums, channels and time, which has its own pitfalls, but allows a greater degree of flexibility in approaching the issue of balance.

The podcast in the afternoon was an entirely different form of broadcasting however, and required an immediate and different approach As Editor on the first newsday, I had borne in mind this when looking at the stories for the day, and wanted a debate polarised and easy to discuss. The No Excuses campaign was newsworthy on that day as it was only two days after the launching of the campaign, and drivers across the county were beginning to notice the debate. The news value in this sense is slightly different to the bulletin insofar as the podcast was a discussion the utilised the fact that the audience would already be aware of the issue. Young drivers are typically those most at risk of accidents as well according to statistics, so it seemed a good choice. The sources we found for the debate represented distinct approaches to the issue, and the order in which they were used gave the discussion structure, without it being too rigid. The presentation style of it was most certainly more relaxed, and allows the listener to engage with not only the topic being discussed, but also those discussing it. The newsday on Febraury 3^rd failed to introduce the speakers, and as such sounded a little more confusing.

My own package during the previous newsday was poorly thought out, given that I settled on attempting to cover a story unsuitable for someone without a car. The result of these efforts was a rushed package with no sound and no script sent up at the last minute, and resulted in my having to, as a presenter, make the script up off the top of my head. As a result this time I was actually managed a little by my group in that they ensured my package was sent up with 15 minutes to spare, which was a much better deadline. Whilst the implication of this might be that I couldn’t manage the deadlines for these pieces, I did attempt to adapt to this the second time around. This latter package (embedded below) saw me attempt to secure the camera shots early enough that I would have time for editing. I was also more careful with the selection of the story, opting this time for one more based on footage easier to obtain and choosing a national story that I could take a local angle on.

This particular package was one for which the idea largely came from the coverage of the story by the BBC. Figures relating to the number of people claiming job seekers allowance (JSA) made for a good story to adapt locally, and an examination of the data released by the Office for National Statistics provided local material on which I could base a story. Given that most of the footage for this story would be basic GVs of the outside of Job Centres, I thought the best way to illustrate the figures – which are generally quite dull – was with a GFX, which the BBC generally does quite well (particularly on Newsnight, although these obviously tend to be longer pieces which we didn’t have time for). These worked quite well, and did illustrate the point. The weakness in the package itself though was the lack of credibility. I could only manage a telephone interview with a source of authority, in this case Poole Economic Development Manager Adrian Trevitt. The figures did give a basis for an interesting debate, given that Bournemouth had claimed the number unemployed in the borough had gone down. However the time constraints yet again prohibited this. Where this could perhaps have been overcome would have resulted from an awareness of the figures impending release prior to the newsday, which would have allowed interviews to be set up. I’m not sure whether there was any pre-warning of these figures being released, but in other cases there are, and there are ways of finding these figures faster (e.g. RSS feeds, for which I have now subscribed at the ONS website). Generally though the package worked well within the bulletin, which it eventually led, and would most certainly have appealed to the audience for the later programme (particularly as it was on at a time that would have been convenient for those watching daytime television.

I did discuss with Alex Moorhouse whether we should be showing peoples faces in shots of the job centre. He was the one who captured the footage on the camera since he was in the area and offered to bring it back for me. There was a long shot of a woman exiting the centre, and whilst she was wearing sunglasses, we did debate whether it was an invasion of privacy to show this. Whilst she was coming out and we had the defence of justification in using it, it seemed that we didn’t need to use it and couldn’t justify it as being in the public interest.

The bulletin more generally seemed to be good. It’s difficult to contrast such output with professional broadcasting since there is obviously some disparity between the levels of skill. I had some work experience at ITV Anglia in September, and it was apparent that they produced the output twice daily. Our lack of experience showed through some of the camera shots being poorer, and the consistency of the report quality as well. The story choices for the day had a good consistency and added a degree of pace to the bulletin, but the length of some stories slowed them down. The lack of library footage is clearly a hindrance in producing bulletins on the day, and the earlier lunchtime bulletin on January 27th was doubtlessly slowed down by the need to procure all the footage. In this particular case it would have been better to avoid making packages at all, and use all the footage as oovs, particularly with two presenters making the bulletin seem more in depth than it would otherwise with one (although the BBC manages this perfectly well). The stories were chosen well for TV, and had a high news value for the particular day, but the type of news programme was perhaps not considered as well, though this I believe could largely be put down to experience.