Work of a trainee newspaper journalist

Published work from placement at Media Wales, March-April 2010

Read more

WHEN news of the earthquake in Haiti broke across the media outlets in the United Kingdom late in the evening on January 12, Emily Purser, a journalism student at City University, London, was heading into Sky News to begin a night shift placement.

Communication with the Caribbean island, the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, was severely hampered, with the landline and mobile phones lines cut off. As part of the production team for the Sunrise programme at 6am fronted by Eamonn Holmes, since the regular means of contacting Haiti were disabled, Emily could have struggled to help gather news immediately from the ground.

But, she turned to the social networking and microblogging site Twitter. Monitoring the hashtags (topic trends) relating to Haiti, she followed the sources of some photographs posted there to Carel Pedre, a popular Haitian television and radio host. She spoke to him via Google Chat, and then used Skype (a computer application that allows users to speak over the internet) to put him on air.

As this case study shows, the transfer of newsgathering skills from traditional journalism methods to the internet is increasingly a feature of the newsroom. But how much trust can a viewer have in a television news report or a newspaper article which uses social media as its sources?

I concede that many criticisms levied against using social media as a newsgathering tool for journalists are legitimate concerns. Can you corroborate sources and confirm their accuracy? How do you assess the context? I do not accept, however, that consequently this need be to the detriment of quality journalism. Good journalism practice can and should still apply online.

The Hutton Inquiry highlighted many issues in journalism’s customs and practices. One question under examination in this case was: can you rely on a single source when making a serious allegation? Broadcaster Andrew Marr wrote: “Many of the reporters slouched at the back of the courtroom…wondered how their own practices would stand up to that kind of examination.” Even as the BBC’s political editor until 2005, he admitted he did it all the time.

Perhaps it should not be ‘new tool, familiar rules’. Newspapers and journalists repeatedly fail in surveys of trust to rank very highly in the public’s esteem. Hutton did nothing to help the cause. Are traditional journalism rules too familiar? Were these rules applied as prudently as was required during reporting?

It seems readers already think differently about online news. According to a TNS  ‘Digital World, Digital Life’ survey, almost twice as many respondents rated online news ‘highly trusted’ compared to newspapers.

Another survey conducted by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in 2008 found newspapers fare worse than TV news journalists. 46% trust in television news, while 36% and 10% trust broadsheet and tabloid journalists respectively.

The newspaper industry is suffering from the competition of the Web. Referring to the findings of a Government Communications Review Group setup by Tony Blair and Alistair Campbell, Charles Reiss, former political editor of the Evening Standard, said: “The fact that your readers don’t believe more than 1 word in 10 of what you write is hardly a circulation booster. We simply have to try as hard a possible to tell the truth. Truth breeds trust.”

I do not accept, however, using the internet as a scapegoat for the newspaper slump. They were declining long before online news took-off. In fact, I would say newspapers have to embrace what the internet offers. The level of activity in this area seems to be encouragingly high.

Cision, an American-based media intelligence company, surveyed over 12,000 journalists and editors in the US in March last year on their use of online sources. They found “more than 90 percent using it [the Web] as their primary tool overall in editing and reporting.”

Indeed, media organisations working in the UK are embracing the potential of social media. On January 1, Alex Gubbay became BBC News’s first social media editor, and the Associated Press revealed this month they have appointed Laura McCullough to be social networks and news engagement manager.

The rise of social networking sites, blogs, and chat rooms present exciting avenues for journalists to engage with their audience directly, and to an extent that they have not previously been able to.

Ian Hargreaves, Strategic Communications Director for the Foreign & Commonwealth Office and Professor of Journalism at Cardiff School of Journalism, said about news: “People will gather around, it’s an absolute fundamental to human society.”

Roy Greenslade wrote in the Guardian that those newspapers which will survive in the media age will have shifted from a host of professional journalists, to a newsroom which operates in collaboration with the amateur journalist. That could be the person who blogs about their locality, or an individual tweeting from a grief-stricken corner of the world. For media organisations to encourage their reporters to establish a conversation with their audience can only enhance their reputation for and ability to produce quality journalism.

The collaboration between old and new practices has the potential it would seem to improve trust in organised media. Tim Luckurst, a professor of journalism at the University of Kent, recently wrote: “The internet makes real the relationship of trust between reporter and consumer that was previously asserted but only occasionally tested. This is good for honest journalism.”

2009 was the year that Twitter bypassed puberty and grew up. The Iranian Elections, reaction to Michael Jackson’s death, and the violence in western China played out on Twitter. At times, Twitter became as familiar on the BBC news broadcasts as Fiona Bruce and Huw Edwards. In the case of Iran, it was an invaluable tool for reporters to discover what was happening on the ground, particularly after the Iranian Government had expelled the BBC’s Tehran correspondent Jon Leyne.

The BBC seems to be approaching the appointment with caution, since the post is initially only contracted for an initial 12 months. Indeed, Luckhurst warns that even as “consumers become comfortable with online technology…it will not automatically make journalism better.” He says the responsibility to ensure this depends on the successful adaptation of media models, and with it the survival and transfer of professional journalism values. This is key.

The same scrutiny and verification skills that reporters have traditionally practised (even if it is absent at times in Westminster reporting) must apply to online newsgathering . If not, public trust in online news could start to crumble too.

It is not surprising that behind the BBC and CNN, Google is the third most trusted news brand. Mark Byford, Deputy Director General and Head of BBC Journalism said: “it would be a major moment in the history of journalism if an aggregator was to become the most trusted news brand.” It would be momentous, be perhaps not necessarily a bad thing.

Peter Preston, former editor of the Guardian, said: “The future is misty and in some ways utterly miasmic.” The democratisation of news is undoubtedly changing the nature of journalism. Yes, there will still be the place for original investigation and reporting. And it may be journalism without newspapers as we know them today.

As Emily Purser proved, however, her resourcefulness and journalistic instinct not only got a scoop for Eamonn Holmes to deliver on the Sunrise programme, it demonstrated the digital revolution need not sound the death knell for good journalism.

Previous entries in this series…1st and 2nd posts

FOR the first operation, three of us were to be freelance journalists who voiced the concerns of local civvies (civilians – in fact, squaddies from the nearby army barracks) to the troops stationed at their base.

As we approached the barbed-wire fences a soldier shouted down from his lookout position. We stopped, conscious several automatic weapons were pointing in our direction, and shouted we were British journalists and wanted to talk to their commander.

After a few minutes, we were beckoned towards the green shelter (pictured) and told to raise our clothing to show we did not have any explosives attached to our bodies. Satisfied we were not going to pose a threat we were allowed onto the FOB (forward operating base). Patted down, and declining to answer any of our questions, we were ushered into the building, passed lines of ammunition and guns, and marines preparing to head out, and into a far corner where we were told wait.

Before long the sound of automatic weapons could be heard and marines quickly ran passed us prepped and ready to engage the enemy (again, army squaddies). “Can you tell us what’s going on?”, we asked. “Get back”, we were told. A soldier being stretchered in by four marines was brought in. “How is he? What are the extent of his injuries?”, we asked.”Just stay there please, and we’ll talk to you once this is over.”

We quickly realised we would not receive any information from the marines of while the attack continued. We knew of course their priority was to stop the enemy and attend to their injured comrade; not to deal with questions from freelancers who they had pulled in to the safety of the base.  But we were craving information and would persist with our questions until we got it.

When the firing ceased, and the base had been secured, we had our chance to ask questions and get the facts. Three casualties, who sustained injuries as a result of small arms fire from eight to ten enemy firing on the base. Marines are now clearing an area for the injured men to be helicoptered out. Story secured.

Our involvement in this operation revealed to us that journalists can not presume to have the trust and co-operation of the troops. A relationship needs to be built between the journalist and soldier. Major Andrew Ferguson said:

“Troops are generally a bit suspicious of journalists. [Journalists] need to work with the military because they are looking after you.”

Debriefing the marines from Charlie Commando afterward, Major Ferguson said it was necessary for them to know how to deal with the media, who will increasingly be a presence on the ground in war zones. He said:

“Working with journalists is here to stay in liberal democracies, but there needs to be give and take on each side.”

Many of the marines I spoke to later in the day revealed they had experienced having journalists embedded with them. They said it was an extra responsibility they could do without, but strikingly pragmatic said they just get on with the job.

When reports from the front line in Afghanistan continually reveal the dangers our soldiers face, I could not help but think, is it worth burdening our troops with the added responsibility of having to protect journalists while engaging the enemy?

Previous entry in series…1st post

WHEN THE crowds turned out in Wootten Bassett last month to repatriate the bodies of Territorial Army Rifleman Andrew Fentiman, 23, of 7th Battalion The Rifles, and Corporal Loren Marlton-Thomas, 28, of 33 Engineer Regiment, there was an added poignancy. It was the 100th time this Wiltshire market town had turned out to welcome home our fallen soldiers.

But while we can be filled with emotion and grief for the loss the families and friends of these servicemen and women, our experience is greatly detached. Even as we near a decade at war – in Afghanistan and Iraq – few people will have a tangible link to the military.

Perhaps we sat on a grandad’s knee as a child as they recounted stories about their experience of military service. Or through a relative or friend who may have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, or the Falklands or Balkans. But I would guess the majority of us will never have met a soldier. Before my recent experience with the Royal Marines, I was in that category. Max Hastings said in his book Going to the Wars, soldiers can seem like “creatures from another planet”.

The closest most people will come to the military is through the press; the news reports of British soldiers being killed in Afghanistan. But even then, despite the reporting sent back from the front line, as the journalist crouches down behind a makeshift parapet in the company of troops, and we hear bullets flying overhead, detail about events can sometimes be hard to find.

We hear very little detail about the operation or patrol when a soldier is killed. A newspaper or broadcast may report simply that they were killed in a gun battle or by an IED.

The BBC News article which first reported the death of Rifleman Andrew Fentiman said he “died after coming under fire while on a foot patrol near Sangin in central Helmand province“. Later in the day, a revised article limited its description of events to “Rifleman Fentiman was shot on foot patrol near Sangin, central Helmand“. The rest of the article focused on a blog Rifleman Fentiman had posted at the start of November in which he said they were waiting for new body armour and helmets.

Questions about soldiers being provided with adequate body armour have, legitimately, been the subject of much media scrutiny. But, nowhere in these two articles is the reader informed with any detail what task Rifleman Fentiman was engaged on. Simply that he was on “foot patrol”.

Lecturers at the Cardiff School of Journalism have been emphasising to fellow students and I the importance of building up the word picture for the reader. Constructing an image of an event so your reader can picture it in their mind. After reading the BBC’s article, I could not picture the situation. The Times reported in a similar fashion, that he had been shot while on foot patrol, though printed more of the blog in which Rifleman Fentiman himself gave a picture of the situation as he saw it. So too the Daily Mail, Mirror, Independent, The Sun, Guardian, Sky News.

As far as I can see, it was only The Telegraph which dug a little deeper into the MoD’s press release to tell the reader:

“Rifleman Fentiman was shot while on a foot patrol designed to keep insurgents at bay and reassure the local population.”

Finally a reporter – Aislinn Laing – had considered it important to tell the reader the purpose of the patrol.

From an office in London, over 3,500 miles from Afghanistan, obtaining precise details about the nature of a patrol  – its purpose, aims, success in a wider context – is no easy task. And as I discovered, it can be difficult for journalists even on the front line to obtain information.

Reporting from the Front Line series continues

Series continues…3rd post