Some declare it to be impossible, that we are inevitably creatures of our own age and environment, seeing the world through the filters of a particular time and culture. In this sense only God is truly objective. But broadcasters must be concerned with truth- even when quite different perceptions and beliefs are held to be true. Objectivity here means recounting these truths accurately and within their own context, even when they conflict with our own personal values. The difficulty is that professional news judgments must, in the end, rely on personal decisions. This is why the question of individual motivation is so important: why do I wish to cover this story in this way? – to tell the truth, or to make a point?
In the case of the BBC, the basis of news and current affairs broadcasting has always been-and still is- first, to separate for the listener the reporting of events (news) from the discussion of issues and comment (current affairs), and second, to give both sides of an argument. This is best achieved from the position of being independent of both. Of course there are journalists who see broadcasting as a means of indulging their own attempts at public manipulation, just as there are governments which see news purely in terms of propaganda for their own cause. But people sheltered from unpalatable truths cannot decide, and cannot grow. Of course no government wants, for example, to publicize corruption in high places, but suppose it is there and the broadcasters know that, should it not be investigated and exposed? The political history of the last 200 years shows that if the media does not do it, eventually the people will. Arising from the broadcaster’s privileged position as the custodian of this form of public debate, the role of a radio service, even one under government or commercial control, is to allow expression to the various components of controversy but not to engage itself in the argument nor to lend its support to a particular view. I For example, where news is written by a government office, there is always the emphasis on supporting its own achievements – ‘The government has performed another miracle today. . .’ However, objectivity requires a news channel always to distance itself, even slightly, from its sources. This is better as- ‘The government says it has performed another miracle today. . .’ The difficulty stems from the fact that many governments of new nations see their essential task as nation building, so they believe they have to say how good everything is. Their broadcasting is not about challenging the mediocre or wrong, so you can’t publish anything detrimental if you want to keep your job. Nevertheless ways should be found of expressing truth so that broadcasting is fully credible.
What the producer must not do is to introduce a partiality as a result of his own conscious but undisclosed personal convictions and motivation, even for the best of reasons. He must avoid decisions based on his own religious, political or commercial views since this is putting himself before his listener. The impartiality of chairmanship is an ideal to which the producer must adhere; any bias will seriously damage his credibility for honest reporting. Yet in a world when one man’s ‘terrorist’ is another man’s ‘freedom fighter’, the very language we use in imparting the facts is itself a matter of dispute and allegiance. In this example one learns to use other, more neutral, words like ‘guerrilla’, and ‘gunman’.
Objectivity becomes more difficult and more crucial as society becomes less ordered in its deliberations and more torn with its own divisions. This is something which many countries have witnessed in recent years. The crumbling of an established code of behavior alters the precepts for making decisions – it may be possible to act impartially in a discussion on, say, the permissive society, but the rest of the station’s output is likely to indicate clearly the broadcaster’s viewpoint. What is the meaning of impartiality when covering a complex industrial dispute involving official and unofficial representatives, breakaway groups, vocally militant individuals and separate employers’ and government views and solutions?
Even more difficult situations are those such as Northern Ireland where there has been a ‘limited’ civil war. Do we give equal time for those who would uproot society – for those who oppose the rule of law? These are not easy questions since there is a limit to the extent to which anyone may be impartial. When one’s own country is involved in armed conflict it is probably not possible or even desirable to be neutral- but one must, as far as possible, remain truthful. While society may be divided and changing in its regard for what is right and wrong, it is less so in its more fundamental approach to good and evil. No public medium of communication can function properly and without critical dissent unless society is agreed within itself on what is lawful and unlawful. It is possible to be impartial in a peaceful discussion on attempts to bring about changes in the existing law, but such impartiality is not possible in reporting attempts to overthrow it by force. One can be objective in reporting the activities of the man with the gun, but not in deciding whether to propagate his views.
A former Director General of the BBC, Sir Hugh Greene, said in the 1960s, ‘I do not mean to imply that a broadcasting system should be neutral in clear issues of right and wrong, even though it should be between Right and Left. I should not for a moment admit that a man who wanted to speak in favor of racial intolerance has the same rights as a man who wanted to condemn it. There are some questions on which one should not be impartial.’
There are those who disagree that race relations is a proper area for showing partiality just as there are those who oppose the underlying acceptance of the Christian faith as a basis for conducting public affairs. This is not an abstract or purely academic issue; it is one which constantly faces the individual producer. He must decide whether it is in the public interest to give voice to those who would challenge the very system of democracy which enables him to provide that freedom of expression. On the one hand, to give them a wider currency may be interpreted as a form of public endorsement, on the other, to expose those for what they are may result in their total censure. What is important is the maintenance of the freedom to exercise that choice, and ultimately to be accountable for it to an elected authority. Sir Geoffrey Cox, former Chief Executive of ITN (Independent Television News), has said of the broadcaster’s function: ‘It is not his duty, or his right, to editorialize on the question of democracy, to advocate its virtues or attack its detractors. But he has a firm duty to see that society is not endangered either because it is inadequately informed, or because the crucial issues of the day have not been so probed and debated as to establish their truth. A good broadcast news service is essential to the functioning of democracy. It is as necessary to the political health of society as a good water supply is to its physical health.’
Democracy cannot, be exercised within a society unless its individual members are given a choice on which to make their own moral, political, and social decisions. That choice does not exist unless the alternatives are presented in an atmosphere of free discussion. This in turn cannot exist without freedom – under the law -of the press and broadcasting. The key to objectivity lies in the avoidance of secret motivation and the broadcaster’s willingness to be part of the total freedom of discussion to know that even his editorial judgment, the very basis of his programme making, is open to challenge. Keep the listener informed about what you are doing and why you are doing it – that is the public interest.
News values
From all the events and stories of the day how does the broadcaster decide what to include in the news bulletin? A decision to cover, or not to cover, a particular story may itself be construed as bias. The producer’s initial selection of an item on the basis of it being worthy of coverage is often referred to as ‘the media’s agenda-setting function’. The extent to which a producer allows his own judgments to select the items for broadcast is a subject for much debate. People will discuss what they hear on the radio and are less likely to be concerned with topics not already given wide currency. So is a radio station’s judgment as to what is significant worth having? If so, the process of selection, the reasons for rejection, and the weight accorded to each story (treatment, bulletin order and duration) are matters which deserve the utmost care.
There is sufficient evidence to support the significance of the primacy and regency effects in communication. This means that items presented at the beginning of a bulletin have greater influence than those coming later – also that the final statements exert an inordinate bearing on the total impact – probably because they are more easily recalled. These principles are made much use of in debates and trials but clearly apply also to bulletins, interviews, and discussions. Who speaks first and who is allowed the last word is often a matter of some contention.
The broadcaster’s power to select the issues to be debated-and their order of presentation -represents a considerable responsibility. Yet given a list of news stories a group of editors will each arrive at broadly similar running orders for a news bulletin designed for a particular audience. Are there any objective criteria on this matter of news values?
The first consideration is to produce a news package suited to the style of the programme in which is it broadcast, answering the question, ‘What will my kind .listener be interested in?’ A five-minute bulletin can be a world view of twenty items, superficial but wide ranging; or it can be a more detailed coverage of four or five major stories. Both have their place, the first to set the scene at the beginning of the day, the second to highlight and update the development of certain stories as the day proceeds. The important point is that the shape and style of a bulletin should be matters of design and not of chance. Unlike a newspaper with its ability to vary the type size, radio can only emphasize the importance of a subject by its placing and treatment. A typical five-minute bulletin may consist of eight or nine items, the first two or three stories dealt with at one minute’s length, the remainder decreasing to thirty seconds each or less. The point was made earlier that compared with a newspaper this represents a very severe limitation on total coverage.
Having decided the number and the length of items, the news producer has to select what is important as opposed to what is of passing interest. When short of time it is easier to gain the interest of the listener with an item on the latest scandal than with one on the state of the economy. The second item is more significant for everyone in the long term, but requires more contextual information. The producer must not be put off by such difficulties, for it is the temptation of the easy option which leads to some justification in the charge that ‘the media tends to trivialize’. An effect of the policy that news must always be available at a moment’s notice is that stories of long- term significance do not find a place in the bulletin. It is after all easier to report the blowing up of n aircraft than the development of one.
A second criterion for selection is to favor items to do with people rather than things. The threat of an industrial dispute affecting hundreds of jobs will rate higher than a world record price paid for a painting. ‘How could this event affect my listener?’ is a reasonable question to ask. For the listener to a local station in Britain, fifty deaths following an outbreak of typhoid in Hong Kong would be probably regarded with less significance than a road accident in his own area in which no one was hurt. But should it? Particularly in local radio there is a tendency to run a story because of its association with mayhem and disaster rather than its relevance. A preoccupation with house fires and traffic accidents, otherwise referred to as ‘ambulance chasing’, is to be discouraged.
News values resolve themselves into what is of interest to, or affects, the listener. Essentially they are determined by what is:
- Important – events and decisions that affect the world, the nation, the community, and therefore me.
- Contentious – an election, war, court case, where the outcome is yet unknown. . Dramatic-the size of the disaster, accident, earthquake, storm, robbery geographically near – the closer it is, the smaller it needs to be to affect me.
- Culturally relevant – I may feel connected to even a distant incident if I have something in common with it.
- Immediate – events rather than trends.
- Novel- the unusual or coincidental as they affect people.
On a different scale, sport can be all of these. News has been called ‘The Mirror of Society’. But mirrors reflect the whole picture, and news certainly does not do that. Radio news is highly selective, by definition it is to do with the unusual and abnormal but the basis of news selection must not be whether a story arouses curiosity or is spectacular, but whether it is significant and relevant. This certainly does not mean adopting a loftily worthy approach-dullness is the enemy of interest-it is to find the right point of human contact in a story. This may mean translating an obscure but important event into the listener’s own understanding. A sharp change in the money markets will be readily understood by the specialist, but radio news must enable its significance to be appreciated by the man in the street. The job of news is not to shock but to inform. A broadcasting service will be judged as much by what it omits as what it includes.
Investigative Reporting
The investigation of private conduct and organizational practice – and malpractice – is an important part of media activity. Newspapers have long regarded themselves as watchdogs, keeping an eye particularly on those in positions of public trust. The role of The Washington Post in the Watergate expose is a well-documented example. Radio too recognizes that it is not enough to wait for every news story to break of its own accord – some, of genuine public concern, are protected from exposure simply because of the vested interests which work to ensure that the truth never gets out. It is therefore sometimes necessary to allocate newsroom effort to the process of research enquiry into a situation which is not yet established fact. The story may never materialize because insufficient fact comes to light. This will involve the station in some loss through unproductive effort, but it is nothing like the loss which will be suffered if the newsroom proceeds to broadcast a story of accusations which turn out to be false.
Government departments or commercial businesses involved in underhand dealings; public officials or others with power engaged in questionable financial practice; the rich and famous called to account for their sexual immorality; these are the most common areas of investigation. But who is to say what is underhand, questionable, or immoral? While it may be possible to remain impartial in the reporting of news fact, the expose inevitably carries with it an assessment of a situation against certain norms of behavior. Such values are seldom purely objective. An investigation into the payment of a bribe in order to secure a contract may provoke a public scandal in one part of the world while in another it is simply the way in which business is conducted. In other words, investigation requires judgments of some malpractice – of right and wrong. The reporter must therefore be correct on two counts – that the facts as reported stand up to later scrutiny, and that his or her own judgments as to the morality of the issue is subsequently endorsed by the listener, that is by Society.
To enable the reporter’s own values to remain largely outside the investigation, the most fruitful approach is often to use the stated values of the organization or person being investigated as the basis of the judgment made. Thus, a body claiming to have been democratically elected but which subsequently was shown to have manipulated the polls lays itself open to criticism by its own standards. The same is true of governments which, while happy to be signatories of agreements on the treatment of prisoners, also allow their armed forces to practice beatings and torture; or business firms which promise refunds in the event of customer complaint but which some- how always find a loophole to evade this particular responsibility. The radio station may have to represent the listener in cases of personal unfairness, or pursue the greater interests of society in the face of public corruption. But the broadcaster must be right. This takes patience, hard, wearying research, and the ability to distinguish relevant fact from a smokescreen of detail.
Occasionally, outside pressure will be brought to bring the enquiry to a halt. This may be the signal that someone is getting uncomfortable and that the effort is beginning to bear results. It is surprising how often malpractice breeds dissatisfaction. Once the fact of an investigation becomes known a person with a grudge is likely to provide anonymous information. Such ‘leaks’ and tip-offs of course need to be checked and treated with the utmost caution. A story that is told too soon will fall apart as surely as one that is wrong. Further, a station must resist the temptation to get so involved with a story that it falls prey to the same malpractice although perhaps on a much smaller scale – as it is attempting to expose. So does it pay for information? Does it go in for surreptitious recording, of phone calls, for instance? Does it jeopardize its own integrity by giving false information or staging events in the hope of laying a trap for others? Investigative reporters should not work alone, but in twos or threes-to argue through the methods, develop theories, and assess results. They will be wise to stay in close contact with their management-whose backing and continuing financial support is crucial.
When it works, the effects are immediate and considerable. The reputation gained by the programme and station are incalculable. A ‘scoop’ puts competitors nowhere. The public at large wants wrongs put right. People respect a moral order, especially for others, and in the end prefer justice to expediency.
Campaigning Journalism
Programmers, and their station or network, cease to be objective or impartial when they wholeheartedly promote a particular course of action. The extent to which any such bias will threaten the credibility of the station as a whole depends on the proportion of the audience which will already agree with the action proposed. Thus a local station which advocates a by-pass for its town, or wants to raise money for handicapped children, is unlikely to create opposition among its listeners Even if the newsroom originates the campaign, the standing of the normal bulletin material will probably remain unaffected If, however, the station is advocating action on a more contentious issue – non-smoking in all public places, the introduction of random breath checks as a deterrent to drunken drivers, or mandatory blood sampling to detect carriers of the AIDS virus – then the station must expect opposition, some of which will criticize any story on the subject which the station carries.
In general, campaigning is best kept away from the newsroom. The news editor should be allowed to pursue the professional reporting of daily factual truth without being involved in considerations of what other people – governments, councils, advertisers or radio managements – want reported, or unreported. This at least minimizes the danger of one programmer’s editorial policy jeopardizing news credibility. Voices associated with news almost always run some risk when they appear in another broadcasting context. Journalists who lend weight to a particular view, however worthy, .easily damage their reputation as dispassionate observers.
A producer wanting to promote a cause must obviously seek the backing of his management and be aware of the possible effect of any campaign on other programmed, especially news. Partiality of view in itself may become counter-productive to the very issue it is supposed to promote. Political causes are the most extreme, and produce the greatest cynicism . . . ‘but then you would say that, wouldn’t you’.
The News Reporting Function
The reporter out on the street and the sub-editor at his desk are the people who make the decisions about news. Their concern is accuracy, intelligibility, legality, impartiality and good taste. Before looking at the key principles it is important to say something about one of the more difficult aspects of the job.
Most of the work is relatively straightforward; some of it is routine. Chronicling events and the reasons for them requires much rewriting of other people’s copy received by a multitude of means. It entails hours spent on the phone checking sources, and days out on location recording interviews and filing reports. It is during these times away from the newsroom, when the reporter is on his own, that he is required to have a sense of self-sufficiency an apparent self-confidence, not always felt to tackle the unknown and sometimes dangerous situation.
Civil Disturbance or War Reporting
Tragedy should be reported in a somber manner-the broad- caster always remaining sensitive to how the listener will react. Reporting on a riot or commentating from a battle zone it is the reporter’s task to report, not to get involved. It is sensible therefore always to get local advice on conditions and as far as possible to stay outside a disturbance, rather than try to work from inside the melee. It is then possible to see and assess what is happening as the situation develops. Under these conditions the reporter should remain as inconspicuous as possible and not add to or inflame the situation by his or her presence.
The primary ambience in a crisis is likely to be one of confusion. Asking for an official view tends to produce either optimistic hopes or worst fears, so any comment of this kind should be accurately attributed, or at least referred to as ‘unconfirmed’. Analysis and interpretation of an event takes two forms – the pressures and causes which led up to it, and the implications and consequences likely to stem from it. Unless the reporter is very familiar with the situation it is best to leave reasons and forecasts to a later stage, and probably to others. On the spot, there is no room for speculation: the story should be told simply on the basis of what the reporter sees and hears.
In actual hostilities an accredited war reporter will be required to wear a flak jacket or other protective clothing – the military do not like to be held responsible unnecessarily for their own civilian casualties. It will be necessary to liaise closely with the officer in charge and to accept limits sometimes on what can be said. Facts may have to be withheld in the interests of a specific operation, for example the size and intent of troop movements, or the names and identities of people involved in a kidnapping or police siege. This is for fairly obvious tactical reasons and it is generally permissible to say that reporting restrictions are in force. One of the most memorable reports to come out of the Falkland Islands conflict arose from just such a situation. Brian Hanrahan reporting from the deck of the British aircraft carrier ‘Hermes’:
At dawn our Sea Harriers took off, each carrying three one- thousand pound bombs. They wheeled in the sky before heading for the islands, at that stage just ninety miles away. Some of the planes went to reate more havoc at Stanley, the others to a small airstrip called Goose Green near Darwin, 120 miles to the west. There they found and bombed a number of grounded aircraft mixed in with decoys. At Stanley the planes went in low, in wave’s just seconds apart. They glimpsed the bomb craters left by the Vulcan and left behind them more fire and destruction. The pilots said there’d been smoke and dust everywhere punctuated by the flash of explosions. They faced a barrage of return fire, heavy but apparently ineffective. I’m not allowed to say how many planes joined the raid, but I counted them all out and I counted them all back. Their pilots were unhurt, cheerful and jubilant, giving thumbs-up signs. One plane had a single bullet-hole through the tail it’s already been repaired. (Courtesy BBC News)
Expressed in a cool unexcited tone, it is worth noting the shortness of the sentences and ordinariness of the words used. It is not necessary to use extravagant language to be memorable. See also the section on live commentary.
Working in conditions of physical danger, a basic knowledge of first aid is valuable. Several organizations equip their staff reporting from areas of potential risk with a medical pack containing essentials such as sterile syringes, needles and intravenous fluid. Psychological as well as bodily safety remains important and reporters faced with violence, and the mutilated dead and dying – whether it be the result of a distant war, or a domestic train crash – can suffer trauma for some time after- wards as a result of their experiences. The sometimes harrowing effects of news work should not be underestimated and the opportunity always provided for suitable counseling.
Accuracy
A reporter’s first duty is to get the facts right. Names, initials, titles, times, places, financial figures, percentages, the sequence of events – all must be accurate. Nothing should be broadcast without the facts being double checked, not by hearsay or suggestion but by thorough reliability. ‘Return to the source’ is a useful maxim. If it is not possible to check the fact itself, at least attribute the source declaring it to be a fact. Under pressure from a tight deadline, it is tempting to allow the shortage of time to serve as an excuse for lack of verification. But such is the way of the slipshod to their ultimate discredit. Even in a competitive situation, the listener’s right to be correctly in- formed stands above the broadcaster’s desire to be first. The radio medium, after all, offers sufficient flexibility to allow opportunity for continuing intermittent follow-up. Indeed, it is ideally suited to the running story.
Sometimes accuracy by itself is not enough. With statistics the story may be not in their telling but in their interpretation. For instance, according to the traffic accident figures the safest age group of motorbike users is the ‘over 80s’ -not one was injured last year! So a story concerning a 20 per cent increase in the radioactivity level of cows’ milk over two years may be perfectly true, but is it significant? How has it varied at other times? Was the level two years ago unusually low? Were the measurements on precisely the same basis? And so on. Statistical claims need care.
Accuracy is required too in the sounds which accompany a report. The reporter working in radio knows how atmosphere is conveyed by ‘actuality’ the noise of a building site, the shouts of a demonstration. It is important in achieving impact and establishing credibility to use these sounds, but not to make them ‘bigger’ than they really are. How fair is it then to add atmospheric music to an interview recorded in an otherwise silent cafe? It may be typical of the cafe’s music (and it is useful in covering the edits) – but is it honest and real? Is it right to add small-arms fire to a report from a battle area? Typically it is there, it was just that the guns happened to be silent when I was recording. In other words does the piece have to be reality, or to convey reality? The moment you edit you destroy real-time accuracy. It is a question of motive. The accurate reporter, as opposed to a merely sensationalist one, will need a great deal of judgments if he is to excite and interest, but not mislead.
The basic structure for the news interviewer is first to get the facts, then to establish the reasons or cause lying behind them, and finally to arrive at their implication and likely resultant action. These three areas are simply past, present, and future – ‘What’s happened? Why do you think this is? What will you do next?’ At another level, a news story is to do with the personal motives for decision and action, and it is these which have to be exposed, and if need be challenged with accurate facts or authoritative opinion quoted from elsewhere.
Intelligibility
Conveying immediate meaning with clarity and brevity is a task which requires refinement of thought and a facility with words. The first requisite is to understand the story so that it can be told without recourse to scientific, commercial, legal, governmental or social gobbledygook which so often surrounds the official giving of information. A reporter determined to show that he is at home with such technicalities through their frequent application has little use as a communicator. He must be the translator of jargon not its disseminator.
In recognizing where to start he must have an insight into how much the listener already knows and how ideas are expressed in everyday speech. In being understood, the reporter’s second requirement is therefore knowledge of the audience – it is unwise to deal only with colleagues and professional sources for he will find himself subconsciously broadcasting only to them.
If the audience is distant rather than local he must from time to time travel among them, or at the very least set up whatever means of feedback is possible.
The third element in telling a story is that it should be logically expressed. This means that it should be chronological and sequential- cause comes before effect:
Not:
A reduction in the permitted level of cigarette advertising is recommended in a Department of Health report out today. In a report out today the Department of Health recommends a reduction in the permitted level of cigarette advertising.
But:
The key to intelligibility therefore is in the reporter’s own understanding of the story, of the listener, and of the language of communication.
Putting these three aspects together the news writer’s job is to tell the story as he understands it, putting it in a logical sequence, answering for the listener questions such as: ‘What has happened?’ ‘When and where did it happen?’ ‘Who was involved?’ ‘How did it happen and why?’
The first technique is to ensure that of these six basic questions, at least three are answered in the first sentence:
- The Chancellor of the Exchequer told Parliament this afternoon that he would be raising income tax by an average of 4 per cent in the autumn. (who, where, when, what, when)
- Eight people were killed and over sixty seriously injured when two trains collided just outside Amritsar in northern India in the early hours of this morning. (what, where, when)
The second and subsequent sentences should continue to answer these questions:
- He said it would be applied only to the upper tax bands and would not affect the basic rate. In answer to an Opposition question he said this was necessary to reduce the Government deficit. (how, who, why)
- The crowded overnight express from Delhi was derailed and overturned by a local freight train as it left a siding near Amritsar Railway workers and police are still taking the injured from the wreckage and it is feared that the death toll may rise. (how, what)
A fault commonly heard on the air, is that of the misplaced participle. ‘The Prime Minister will have to defend the agreement he signed, in the House of Commons.’
Without the comma this sounds as though we are talking about an agreement he signed in the House of Commons. But no, the story means ‘The Prime Minister will have to defend in the House of Commons the agreement he signed.’ This error is frequently made in references to time. ‘He said there was no case to answer last July.’ When what was actually meant was ‘He said last July there was no case to answer.’ And another, following a report of child abuse by a nanny. ‘There was a demand to register all nannies with Local Councils.’ But what, you might ask, about nannies who are not with Local Councils? It would be better as ‘There was a demand for all nannies to be registered with Local Councils. ‘Radio requires intelligibility to be immediate and unambiguous.
Legality
To stay within the law demands knowledge of the legal process and of the constraints which the law imposes on anyone, individual or radio station, to say what they like. In Britain no one, for example, is allowed to pre-judge a case, to interfere with a trial, influence a jury or anticipate the findings. Thus there are considerable restrictions on what can be reported while a matter is subjudice. To exceed the defined limits is to run the very severe risk of being held in contempt of court – an offence which is viewed with the utmost seriousness since it may threaten the law’s own credibility.
Under present British law the outline of what is permissible in reporting a crime falls under four distinct stages:
- Before an arrest is made it is permissible to give the facts of the crime but the description of a death as ‘murder’ should only be used if the police have made a statement to that effect. Witnesses to the crime may be interviewed but they must not attempt to describe the identity of anyone they saw or speculate on the motive.
- After an arrest is made, or if a warrant for arrest is issued, the case is said to be ‘active’. This continues while the trial is in progress and it is not permissible to report on committal proceedings in a magistrate’s court, other than by giving the names and addresses of the parties involved, the names of counsel and solicitors, the offence with which the defendant is charged, and the decision of the court. The reporting of subsequent proceedings in the higher court is permitted but no comment is allowed. The matter ceases to be ‘active’ on sentence or acquittal.
- Responsible comment is permissible after the conviction and sentence is announced, so long as the judge is not criticized for the severity or otherwise of the sentence, and there is no allegation of bias or prejudice.
- If an appeal is lodged, the matter again becomes subjudice. No comment or speculation is allowed and only factual court reports should be broadcast.
Complications can arise if the police are too enthusiastic in saying that ‘they have caught the person responsible’. This is for the court to decide and broadcasters should not collude with police in pre-judging a case. There are special rules which apply to the reporting of the juvenile and matrimonial courts. The key question throughout is whether what is broadcast is likely to help or hinder the police in their investigation or undermine the authority of the judicial process.
Such matters are the stock in trade of the journalist, and producers unacquainted with the courts are advised to proceed carefully and to seek expert advice.
The second great area of the law of which all programme makers must be aware is that of libel. The broadcaster enjoys no special rights over the individual and is not entitled to say anything which would ‘expose a person to hatred, ridicule or contempt, cause him to be shunned or avoided, or tend to injure him in his office, profession or trade’. To be upheld, a libel can only be committed against a clearly identifiable individual or group. In civil law, it is not possible to defame the dead. The most damaging accusation that can be brought against a broadcaster standing under the threat of a libel action is that he acted out of malice. This is not an unknown hazard for the investigative journalist working, for example, on a story about the possibility of corruption or dubious practice involving well-known public figures. The broadcaster’s complete real defence against a charge of libel is that what he said was true, and that this can be proved to the satisfaction of a jury. Again, we have the absolute necessity of checking the facts and using words with a precision which precludes a possibly deliberate misconstruction.
A second defence is that of ‘fair comment’. This means that the views expressed were honestly held and made in good faith without malice. This attaches particularly to book reviews, or the critical appraisal of plays and films, but may also apply to comments made about politicians or other public figures. Such a defence also has to show that the remarks are based on demonstrable facts not misinformation.
To repeat a libellous statement made by someone else is no defence unless that person enjoys ‘absolute privilege’, as in a court of law or in parliament. Even so, reports of such proceedings have to be fair as well as accurate and if the statement made turns out to be wrong and an apology or correction is issued, this too is bound to be reported. A defence of ‘qualified privilege’ is available to reports of other public proceedings such as local authority council meetings, official tribunals, company annual general meetings open to the public, and other meetings to do with matters of public concern. The same defence may be used in relation a fair and accurate report of a public notice or statement issued officially by the police, a government department or local authority. Where no ‘privilege’ exists, the broadcaster is as guilty as the actual perpetrator of the libel. Producers and presenters of the phone- in should be constantly on their guard for the caller who complains of shoddy workmanship, professional incompetence, or worse, on the part of an identifiable individual. An immediate reference by the presenter to the fact that ‘well, that’s only your view’ may be regarded as a mitigation of the offence, but the broadcaster can nevertheless be held to have published the libel.
The law also impinges directly on the broadcaster in matters concerning ‘official’ secrets, elections, consumer programmers, sex discrimination, race relations, gaming and lotteries, reporting from foreign courts, and copyright.
The individual producer should remain aware of the major legal pitfalls and must have a reliable source of legal advice. Without it he is likely, scammer or later, to need the services of a good defence lawyer.
Impartiality and Fairness
The reporter does not select ‘victims’ and hound them – he does not ignore those whose views he dislikes, pursue vendettas, nor have favorites. He or she does not promote the policies of sectarian interests and resists the persuasions of those seeking free publicity. He is fair. Having no editorial opinion of his own, he seeks to tell the news without making moral judgments about it. He is the servant of his listener. Broadcasting is a general dissemination and no view is likely to be universally accepted. ‘Good news’ of lower trade tariffs for importers is bad news for home manufacturers struggling against competition. ‘Good news’ of another sunny day is bad news for farmers anxiously waiting for rain. The key is a careful watch on the adjectives, both in value and in size. Superlatives may have impact but are they fair? News may report an industrial dispute but what right does the reporter have to describe it as ‘a serious industrial dispute’? On what grounds may he refer to a company’s ‘poor record’, or a medical research team’s ‘dramatic breakthrough’? Words such as ‘major’, ‘crucial’, and ‘special’ are too often used simply to convince people that the news is important. Much better to leave the qualifying adjectives to the actual participants and for the news editor to let the facts speak for themselves
Reporters are occasionally concerned that they may not be able to be totally objective since they have received certain inbuilt values from their upbringing and education. While it may be true that broadcasting has more of its fair share of people from middle-class families and with a college education, any imbalance or restriction which results is the problem not of the reporter but the editor in chief. The reporter need not be unduly concerned with his own unconscious motivations of back- ground and experience, except to recognize that others may not share them. However, he must be aware of, and subdue, any conscious desire he may have to persuade others to think the same way. It is sensible to ensure that any significantly large ethnic group in the community is represented in the broadcasting staff.
Unlike the junior newspaper journalist where every last adjective and comma can be checked before publication, the broadcast reporter is frequently in front of the microphone on his own. To help guard against the temptation to insert his own views, reporters should not be recruited straight from school, but have as wide and varied a background as possible and preferably bring to the job some experience of work outside broadcasting.
Good Taste
As with all broadcasting, news programmed have a responsibility to abide by the generally accepted standards of what listeners would regard as ‘good taste’. There are two areas which can create special problems giving offence and causing distress.
In avoiding needless offence there must first be a professional care in the choice of words. People are particularly sensitive, and rightly so, about descriptions of themselves. The word ‘immigrant’ means someone who entered a country from elsewhere, yet it tends to be applied quite incorrectly to people whose parents or even grandparents were immigrants. Human labels pertaining to race, religion or political affiliations must be used with especial care and never as social shorthand to convey anything other than their literal meaning. Examples are ‘black’, ‘coloured’, ‘muslim’, ‘guerrilla’, ‘southern’, ‘jewish’, ‘communist’, etc. – used loosely as adjectives they tend to be more dangerous than as specific nouns.
The matter of giving offence must be considered in the reporting of sexual and other crimes. News is not to be suppressed on moral or social grounds but the desire to shock must be subordinate to the need to inform. The journalist must find a form of words which when spoken will provide the facts without causing embarrassment, for example in homes where children are listening. With print, parents may divert their children from the unsavory and squalid, in radio an immediate general care must be exercised at the studio end. A useful guideline is for the broadcaster to consider how he would actually express the news to someone in his local supermarket, with other people gathered round.
More difficult is the assessment of what is good taste in the broadcasting of ‘live’ or recorded actuality. Reporting an angry demonstration or industrial dispute when tempers are frayed is likely to result in the broadcasting of ‘bad’ language. What should be permitted? Should it be edited out of the recording? To what extent should it be deliberately used to indicate the strength of feeling aroused? There are no set answers, the context of the event and the situation of the listener are both’ pertinent to what is acceptable. However, in using such material as news, the broadcaster must ensure that his motive is really to inform and not simply to sensationalise. It may be ‘good copy’, but does it genuinely help the listener in his understanding of the subject? If so it may be valid but the listener retains the right to react as he or she feels appropriate to the broadcaster’s decision.
News of an accident can cause undue distress. It is necessary only to mention the words’ air crash’ to cause immediate anxiety among the friends and relatives of anyone who boarded a plane in the previous 24 hours. The broadcaster’s responsibility is to contain the alarm to the smallest possible group by identifying the time and location of the accident, the airline, flight number, departure point and destination of the aircraft concerned. The item will go on to give details of the damage and the possibility of survivors, but by then the great majority of air travelers will be outside the scope of the story. In the case of accidents involving casualties, for example a bus crash, it is helpful for listeners to know to which hospital the injured have been taken or to have a telephone number where they can obtain further information. The names of those killed or injured should not normally be broadcast until it is known that the next of-kin have been informed.
A small but not unimportant point in bulletin compilation is the need to watch for the unintended and possibly unfortunate association of individual items. It could appear altogether too callous to follow a murder item with a report on ‘a new deal for butchers’. Common sense and an awareness of the listener’s sensitivities will normally meet the requirements of good taste but it is precisely in a multi-source and time-constrained process, which news represents, that the niceties tend to be overlooked.
Style Book
One of the editor’s jobs is to maintain the collection of rules, guidelines, procedures and precedents which forms the basis of the newsroom’s day-to-day policy. It is the result of the practical experience of a particular news operation and the wishes of an individual editor. The style book is not a static thing but is altered and added to as new situations arise. A large organization will issue guidelines centrally which its local or affiliate stations can augment.
Sections on policy will clarify the law relating to defamation and contempt of court. It will define the procedure to be followed, for example, in the event of bomb warnings (whether or not they are hoax calls), private kidnapping, requests for a news black-out, the death of heads of state, observance of embargoes, national and local elections, the naming of sources, and so on.
The book sets out the station’s Mission or Purpose Statement and the role of news within that. It will indicate the required format for bulletins, the sign-on and sign-off procedures, the headline style, correct pronunciation of known pitfalls, and the policy regarding corrections, apologies and the right or opportunity of reply. It will list on-station safety regulations, as well as provide advice on proper forms of address. Above all there will be countless corrections of previous errors of grammar and syntax – from the use of collective nouns to the use of the word ‘newsflash’.
The newcomer to a newsroom can expect to be given the style book on arrival and told to ‘learn it’.
Radio News Today
Thus if there is anyone area which radio must support and strengthen in order to hold its own in the growing electronic competition, it is in the field of news.
Rock and roll sells the kids. Carefully programmed music and informational programs can sell to the adults. A reputation for ethical, carefully written, thoughtfully presented, balanced news can do more to hold a quality image than any other one ingredient. With the advent of the easily portable tape recorder and the acquisition of “beeper” recording equipment by every radio station, there was a boom in coverage of news stories by radio staffs. However, because of the death of true reportorial talent, not only has the caliber of radio news coverage been dropping in the past few years, but quantity also.
The program director or station manager should be able to see the value in a careful, probing interview of a personage who has something to say, if the newsman is smart enough to bring it out. In order to do so, however, he has to be a dedicated newsman—not interested in presenting just a “show”, but interested also in stimulating his interviewee to answer questions for the purpose of informing his listeners.
News is not, cannot, must not be contrived, distorted, and changed to any degree from its inherent, factual, informational integrity for the sake of showmanship”. It must not, cannot ethically, be made funny when it is inherently tragic. It cannot be made “human interest” whatever that may be, if it is general interest. It cannot be made clean and light and happy if it is dirty, deep and bitter-if it is. If one tries—with gimmicks, gadgets; and inflections—to make it what it is not, then one is a liar. That one is despicable and not deserving of the title of newsman. A competent broadcast newsman has to go to the scene, inter- view, expertly, write skillfully, voice fluently—all under pressure’ the newspaper reporter has never experienced. And, because he can be instantly identified by his interviewees and his listeners as the one man in between, he has to take the brunt: of all the criticism which may be stimulated by any worthwhile story. To a good newsman there can be but one religion—it is the creed of accuracy and unswerving dedication to the ideal of complete news coverage of every newsworthy person and event in your city. One thing will drive him away. Meddling in that creed in the name of “showmanship”—one of the nastiest words to a newsman that was ever coined. There is another thing, which can drive him away. That is being pushed constantly to do more than he can possibly accomplish properly. What does a good, minimum metropolitan news department need in the way of manpower and equipment? A news director—one with experience, ambition, consistency and imagination—and one man inside and two outside for each shift covered.
Fairness
It is often argued that it is not possible to be completely objective. This may be true. Everyone has certain biases and prejudices, but reporters must learn to leave out their personal feelings when they start writing or delivering news. Objectivity for a journalist really means “fairness”; it means honestly giving both sides of an argument, controversy, or debate.
Reporters can tell when their report on a controversial issue has been successful: both sides of the issue accuse them of being partial to the other.
Staying Well Informed
Reporters cannot function well unless they are well informed. Being well informed does not just mean having a good education, it means taking the time to know what’s going on around you. Journalists must constantly add new material to their knowledge. One of the best ways to stay well informed is to read.
