The first thing which any junior journalist should do is to report it to their editor. It will be for the editor to decide what to do. He or she will need to resist the employer as far as possible, pointing out the dangers of failing to report the news fully and fairly. The main danger is that readers or listeners who already know of the event which is being suppressed, realise that it is not being reported and so lose confidence in the newspaper, radio or television station involved.
This may, in the long run, result in more serious problems for ministers than some short-term embarrassment, and may do more long-term damage to your organisation's finances than the loss of one advertiser. The truth is, though, that your power to resist pressure from your employer is limited.
You can only do your best, and accept that the rest is beyond your control.
- Fanning the flames: reporting on terror in the networked age.
- Related articles.
- Read PDF Journalistic Pressures (Short Story);
Both government-owned and commercial news media may face pressure from authority - the government, the police, customs, or some other branch of authority. Governments can threaten, or make, laws to force all news media to be licensed. This would give them power to grant licences only to those news organisations which please the government.
III. Headline writing process: news, features
Even the threat to introduce such legislation may be enough to frighten journalists, and to make them afraid of criticising the government too much. The best way to resist such pressure is to stimulate public debate on the issue of media licensing. As with any proposed legislation, the news media should encourage public debate before it comes in, so that leaders have the opportunity to judge public opinion.
If society generally is opposed to licensing of all news media, then a democratically-elected government will think very seriously before introducing such a thing. On the other hand, if society wants news media to be licensed by government, then it is something which journalists will just have to accept, however much they may disagree with it. Other forms of authority may bring pressure to bear on you in less official ways.
Police may attempt to confiscate your camera when you are taking photographs which the police do not like; or they may deny you access to a court room or a public meeting; or they may order you not to report certain things. Junior journalists should always report such incidents to their editor. The editor will best resist this kind of pressure by knowing precisely what he is allowed to do, and what he is not allowed to do. If he knows that the police are acting outside their powers, he can politely approach a very senior police officer, or even the Police Minister, and report the incident.
They can then handle it. If the police act outside their powers and no action is taken, even though it has been reported, then the editor can publicise the fact in a major news story. It is wise, though, to try to sort out such problems quietly first, since in this way future relations may be more positive. Many people think they can avoid bad publicity by threatening journalists with violence, or with legal action.
Such threats should always be resisted unless you are advised by a lawyer that you are legally in the wrong. Junior journalists should always report any threat which they have received to their editor. If the threat was a threat of violence, then the editor should seriously consider informing the police. It is usually a criminal offence to threaten violence against somebody, and journalists are protected by such a law as much as anybody else. If the threat is of legal action, then the editor's response will depend upon the facts of the case.
- A MURDER IN EDEN!
- Media Feel Pressure as Divisions Widen on the Role of Journalists in South Africa | NGO Pulse.
- Sensor Networks: Where Theory Meets Practice (Signals and Communication Technology);
- UCL facilities?
- Behind-the-scenes in a newsroom.
The editor should know the law well enough to judge whether or not to take the threat seriously. If he suspects that there may be grounds for legal action, he should consult a lawyer. Then, if he finds that he or his reporter is in the wrong, of course he should immediately set things right.
Testy Team Abe Pressures Media in Japan | The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus
If, however, he finds that there is no basis for legal action, then he and his reporter can happily ignore the empty threat. Journalists do not usually earn big money. You may therefore be vulnerable to bribery - somebody offering money or goods or services in return for a favourable story being written, or an unfavourable story being ignored. To accept a bribe is dishonest. Your honesty is like virginity - it can only be lost once. Once you have accepted a bribe, you can never again be trusted as a professional person. Journalists who are offered bribes will usually be offered them in private.
This is so that the person attempting the bribe can later deny that it ever happened. If this happens, you should immediately invite somebody else into the room, and then ask the briber to repeat their offer. They are unlikely to do so but, if they do, you will have a witness.
Commercial companies sometimes try to buy journalists' friendship by giving them small presents or by giving them the opportunity to travel at the company's expense sometimes called freebies. Often this travel is legitimate. An airline which is introducing a new route to and from your country may well offer you a free seat on the first flight.
- Playing with Tigers 2?
- Join Kobo & start eReading today.
- PCI Bus Demystified (Demystifying Technology Series)!
- Country Profile for India.
You will then have the opportunity to write from first-hand experience about the service and about the destination. If the airline is confident that its service is good, and that the destination is interesting, they will be satisfied that whatever you write will be good publicity for them. As long as it is understood that you are free to write whatever you like, without the company that provides the free travel having any influence, such an arrangement is acceptable.
However, if you are offered a ticket in return for writing "something nice" about the company, this is not acceptable. Poor newspapers, radio and television stations may be grateful for charity to top up inadequate travel budgets, but they should never be so poor that they sell their professional honour.
In any case, such offers should never be accepted or negotiated by a junior journalist. Only the editor should do so, and any offers must be referred to the editor. The editor can judge whether or not the terms of the offer are acceptable. Gifts are a difficult area. Small gifts, such as a tie or a bottle of whisky, may be acceptable, but the gift should not be so big as to buy your loyalty.
The golden rule for each journalist is whether they would care very much if the company decided not to offer another gift like this in the future. If you do not care whether they offer you such a gift again, then you have not been bought. If you deeply desire another similar gift, you are in danger; remove the temptation by telling the company not to send any more. The former editor of the Hindustan Times , Khushwant Singh, once said that he would accept a bottle of whisky from anybody, because he would still feel free to criticise them; but he would not accept a case 12 bottles of whisky, because he was afraid that might influence the way he did his job.
In any case, all gifts, however small, should be declared to your editor. If your editor considers that any gift is too large or too generous to be accepted, you will have to return it, politely but firmly. People need to know that you and your news organisation have moral and ethical standards, and are prepared to live by them. Sometimes, executives in companies or government departments will devote a lot of time and energy to making you into their friend.
We look for coherence, which is tidy — and natural. The problem is that, in a time of high conflict, coherence is bad journalism, bordering on malpractice. In the midst of conflict, our audiences are profoundly uncomfortable, and they want to feel better. We soothe ourselves with the knowledge that all Republicans are racist rednecks — or all Democrats are precious snowflakes who hate America.
Complexity counters this craving, restoring the cracks and inconsistencies that had been air-brushed out of the picture. Right now, half of Democrats and Republicans see members of the opposing party as not just ill-informed but actually frightening , according to the Pew Research Center. Republicans think Democrats are much more liberal than they actually are — and vice versa. If part of our job is to accurately portray different points of view in ways people can understand, we are failing.
Despite the post-election angst over Facebook, nearly six in ten American adults say their most important source of election information was not digital news feeds, but old-fashioned TV news. In reality, explicitly racist beliefs crisscross party boundaries. No party or person is without bias. There is a business case for complexity, too. And many do. Many Americans have tuned out of the news, demoralized by the sniping, depressed by the hopelessness.
What would happen if they one day stumbled upon a different kind of story — one that intrigued them instead of terrifying them? Meanwhile, as online news sites continue to struggle to make ends meet with clickbait headlines and ad revenue, more outlets are turning to subscribers to help fund their reporting. That means they have to shift from a one-night stand business model to a long-term relationship with readers — which has to be based on something deeper than cats and Trump tweets.
Her opening question — how President Trump is doing in his job so far — got low marks. Then came the first answer Winfrey got — from Tom:.
https://europeschool.com.ua/profiles/xocadah/newez-contactos-mujeres.php Every single day. But, at the same time, his actions speak louder than words. Love it. Hearing this, Winfrey turned, without comment, to the woman next to Tom to solicit her polar opposite opinion. Both mediators jumped all over Winfrey for failing to respond to Tom. It was a perfect opportunity, said Cobb. In the first minute, Winfrey could have set a tone for complexity. Which would have been more accurate and more interesting. Most of us have more than one story, and so did Tom.