The Daily Miracle says… Should today’s journalism students be preparing themselves to become some sort of super reporters ready to leap in new directions at a moment’s notice in multi-everything converged newsrooms? Probably not. The truth is that people who feel comfortable working in print should feel every bit as comfortable working in print online as when writing for a newspaper. Those who are comfortable with radio or television should feel comfortable working in audio and video online. While it is likely that there will be some cross-pollination between different media, in future it will be along the lines of television newsrooms providing content for radio news, or of newspaper journalists providing content for text websites. The idea of journalists trying to be all things to all media is a fallacy. It is also something journalists themselves will resist. For example, during April 2000, Fairfax journalists held stop work meetings to protest management requests that they produce both print and online versions of their stories. According to an internal memo circulating to staff, reporters were asked to file for the Fairfax Digital website ‘several paragraphs by phone or by modem , then updating with new developments. Alternatively , reporters could be asked to do a short voice report or commentary’ (quoted in Montgomery 2000, p.13).

While all journalism centers on written news reports, writing for television is different form writing for the web or for print or radio. Another problem is that the web is still such a new medium that there is no established formula for web-based news reporting and publishing. There is also the danger that journalists will simply ‘shovel ‘ the same story ‘from one medium to another without producing content appropriate for the medium’ (Quinn, 2005). An obvious flaw Haiman points to is the fact that not every good print journalist possesses the physical attributes television viewers have come to expect from on-air reporters. A 2004 study by researchers at the University of South Florida and Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis came to the the conclusion that although Media General’s Tampa News Centre was held up worldwide as a model of journalistic convergence across media platforms, convergence had ‘hardly happened in the news centre’ (Huang et al. 2004, p.18). The study found that few cross-platform stories were written by the one journalist. The nearest most journalists were actually getting to convergence was in ‘sharing tips and information across the three media platforms’. The research revealed that : The reporters at the News Centre have done more cross-platform story promoting than reporting for another platform. For those people who believe media convergence to be routine cross-platform reporting , they will be surprised to find media convergence has hardly happened in the News Centre. Newspaper people are still the primary force for reporting for the newspaper. The fact is that what is really driving cross-platform news reporting -as distinct from converged , or cross-media, ownership -is the web. News and Current affairs websites are where print, radio, and television journalism are converging. That is simply because of the widespread introduction of broadband

2. What would be the likely outcome if someone who just wanted to work as a print journalist, because they would be nervous on television, was told by the company they worked for that they must report for television as well as print?

They would probably not turn up or consider another career unless they could get past their fear and learn how to do both. If so, in order to keep their job they would have to try to master the skills in broadcast journalism aswell as print. It would not hurt any journalist to learn every way in which journalism is practised, by becoming multi-skilled it will be easier to get and keep a job, less competition and job satisfaction. It would be a great challenge to learn all such skills but well worth it.

3. Is journalistic convergence just a trendy fad that will run its course then be forgotten about?

It is in ways, but also not in others. Convergence has facilitated the combination of print, audio and graphics to allow for a more comprehensive news service. It won’t be forgotten about because it has been revolutionary in its ability to provide an array of mediums which work together to complement the content, layout and pictures, particularly on the web. The introduction of IPTV will provide a converged platform for journalists to practice their skills on in the future.

No, The ABC was dubbed ‘Aunty’ in the 1960′s after its British counterpart the BBC -which was known by that nickname because it was safe, reliable, predictable and a bit stuffy – the ABC’s beginnings were humble. In 1945, the Federal Government saw news as a key element in the ‘sociallly purposive rationale ‘ for broadcasting , in which the ABC was to assist with national unity at a time of political and social agitation. By 1961 the ABC had set the benchmark for journalistic standards in broadcasting. The ABC regularly faces Commonwealth Government and Opposition accusations of bias and there is often controversy about its funding. In 1996, the then opposition leader, John Howard, refused to debate Prime Minister Paul Keating on the ABC because Kerry O’Brien was to be the moderator. After winning power the Howard government slashed 65 million , or 10 per cent, from the ABC’s budget. This represented the broadcaster’s biggest single cut ever. Concerns about government manipulation of the ABC reached new levels during 2000 following the appointment of Jonathon Shier as the corporation’s managing director. Shier had Liberal Party connections , and Donald McDonald , appointed the ABC’s chairman in July 1996, was regarded as the Prime Minister’s close friend ( Day 2000a, p.6). There has been debate on and off for many years about the possibility of privatising the ABC and about the influence of its staff. Michael Warby, editor of the Australian Institute of Public Affairs publication IPA Review, argued years ago that the ABC should be privatised , dismantled or radically reformed. Describing it as a ‘staff-captured’ organisation, he said he believed that ABC journalists represent an ‘opinion cartel’. The politicisation of appointments to the ABC board has been an issue for the public broadcaster and Australian society. This has an impact on the content output of broadcast journalism, through the concentration and influence of political agenda that has flavoured broadcast content with elements of smearing.

As long as politicians control funding , the ABC probably always will be perceived to be under some form of government pressure. This may be especially true when government’s feel threatened by voters, many of whom watch and listen to public broadcasting. Permitting commercial sponsorship of the ABC might save taxpayers’ money but would also expose the broadcaster to the appearance, if not the reality, of the same financial and ethical dilemmas experienced by commercial media. Therefore, the privatisation of the ABC could create partial news reporting in which both political and editorial bias can be prevalent.

2. You are a television news director with two strong job applications. One is from a ‘telegenic’ male, 28, with reasonable skill and experience. The other is from a female, 38. She is of average appearance but has considerable skill and experience. Your present reporting staff consists of four females and one male, none older than 32. Who do you hire, and why?

I would hire the male who is 28 because it would represent how impartial our news outlet is. With four females and only one male it would be a good idea to balance it out. Even though he has less experience than the 38 year old woman, he can learn and get better with more practice. They key here is, the public interest, fairness and balance.

3.Given the strengths and weaknesses of each medium, which do you think is the best communicator on any given story : radio, television , the web, or newspapers?

The Radio. For many decades the radio has been a nation building, culture rich medium for australian’s and other nations. Radio has broken the world’s most famous and dangerous news stories. It has communicated its message to all people, allowing social awareness and understanding from all ages. It has been iconic of Australian culture and it provides a social cohesion for neighbours who listen together in the backyard to the grand final or listen to Australia’s greatest rock songs but especially to listen to local news. Finding out what happened in your town through the radio news is the most immediate way to know local news, before the TV and the newspaper.

4. During the last federal election campaign do you think the broadcast media focused more on issues or personalities? What could have been done better?

More on personalities. They focused on John Howard facing a losing popularity battle over Mark Latham much the same as they are with Kevin Rudd now, when typically as citizens we need to know what each party’s individual policies are and their previous professional conduct needs to be assessed. The reason why many young people never signed up to vote is because they do not understand all the unnecessary bullshit that goes with politics, personality wars and lies is the parliament’s business. Its time to grow up and be adults, when i have watched parliamentary question time on the ABC to do with election policy i am appalled by the childish behaviour of the bench. I am ashamed to be Australian when i see our elders acting this way, it makes us wonder, how can a government be a good government? By being accountable, self-less and responsible at all times. That election campaign saw the demise of Latham due to personal embarrassment resulting in resignation and a published book about the horrors of politics.

The Broadcast newsroom

Cohler says the television reporter is much more than a ‘mere’ reporter : ‘They must also be on-the-scene producers, directors and logisticians. They must know how to get to the story, how to shoot it, how to write it and how to get it back to transmission point’. The newsroom is deadline driven, expects reporters to contribute their own ideas to the daily news list , and relies on the collective wisdom of conferences and staff interaction to guide the program agenda. A large television or radio newsroom will interface , at various levels , with on-air studios and sets, control rooms, soundproof booth, and editing /production suites in which computers assist in putting soundtracks , pictures, and graphics into digital database and /or on to cassettes. The reporter is expected to remain available to technical staff to advise on editing, including shot sequence, so words and images dovetail into a logical story- telling narrative.

The Daily Miracle says that the Police-reporter relationship can be delicate. If there is no trust, usually their is no relationship, or it is a strained one. Veteran journalists know, on a human level, that it pays to treat people as individuals rather than as a particular class of people. They also understand that police have onerous duties.

Journalist’s cover police on two levels. The most frequent and obvious level is that of official police actions. The second but more difficult level is that of acting as watchdog of their ‘unofficial actions’. Official inquiries have proven some police are corrupt.

Therefore, I would report on the police officer’s transgressions. It is a matter not only of media law and ethics but also the public interest, which is much more important than the police threats. In some cases journalists become too close to police sources who turn out to be corrupt. Because of such conflict between police and journalists, journalists are made to speak with police media units employees who’s duties are to maintain each police person’s reputation in the public in a good light, regardless of indiscretion making it very hard for journalists to report the truth.

The Queensland Police Service (QPS), for example, makes no effort to disguise its media unit’s PR role – that is clear even from its name, ‘The Media and Public Relations Branch’(Striking a balance 2004, p.14). The report also said that:

The degree to which police manage information that becomes public depends on the nature of the information. Sometimes routine information is simply passed through to journalists, while information about events that may negatively affect the public’s opinion of the police is actively filtered (Striking a Balance 2004, p.22).

2. A distraught woman convicted of stealing a pair of stockings from a store approaches you after her court case and says that she will commit suicide if you publish anything. Your newspaper has a policy of publishing all such cases, but it will never know about this one unless you reveal it. You really believe the woman might be suicidal. What do you do and why?

This matter may not be very newsworthy in the first instance. In case it is, perhaps the ‘bizarre’ is the news value.

Media have considerable freedom in reporting crime when there are no suspects and no case pending because the subjudice period has not yet started. A newspaper cannot publish statements that are likely to be contentious in court, but it can print the obvious. No one will dispute the ‘bare facts’ that a robbery occurred or that a woman was killed. The question will be who did it. This means a journalist should be careful in identifying suspects and reporting witnesses’ conflicting claims.

Following an arrest and prior to a court appearance, journalists are limited in what they can report. Police commonly ask witnesses not to speak to the media. A misstatement or incorrect report can haunt police and be noted at a trial.

The only way in which i would not report on the lady and her crime would be if she were to seek a suppression order by a magistrate because she was afraid she would kill herself if the matter were published, in this case, the woman would be handled by the court and i would find out from the court and the police if it would be appropriate to report on her crime even though she threatened suicide. The media can challenge suppression orders too.

3. A very famous and very attractive personality gets hoplessly drunk at a party, causes chaos, and on the way home is picked up for drink driving. You get a tip from police contact and attend court where the personality is convicted of being three times over the legal limit, fined and disqualified from driving. You are the only journalist in court. The personality later phones you and begs you not to write the story because it will ruin their career. They are so desperate they offer you everything from sex to money to a free holiday if you do not report on the case. What do you do? Why?

I would tell the personality that they are shallow to think that any of such offers would be tempting to take up. I would then say that i intend to publish the story as well as what he or she just bribed me. I am sure they would apologise for calling in the first instance and hang up, knowing full well what they are in for, and next time, they might think about their actions.

4. Although it is against the law, a juror in a high-profile murder trial approaches you and says there will be a hung jury in the case because two jury members have accepted bribes of $100, 000 dollars each from two corrupt high-ranking police officers who have paid money on the condition that the jurors do not return a guilty verdict. What will you do and why?

I would report it the incident to a police officer who had no loyalty or dealings with the two high-ranking police officers and start an inquiry into the corruption of jurors by police in a murder trial. The catch 22 here is that jurors cannot be identified in any way without their permission. In Queensland a journalist can be sentenced to jail for seeking disclosure of information about jury deliberations from a present or former juror. Making it very difficult to solve the situation at hand. Further, Reporters are must not identify jurors, contact them during a trial, or reveal their deliberations.

Here is a problem: what can a journalist do if two jurors are corrupt?

The Chief of staff will take into consideration this checklist when deciding in this situation.

1.What are the odds it will be a useable story? apparently 100%

2. Will sources be named and quoted? Yes

3. Will it be worth the effort needed to produce it? Yes, it is of high public interest. Health risks are very newsworthy.

4. Would the journalist be better covering other less time consuming if less news worthy -stories in the time it would take to cover this one? Not really, it depends on the Chief, i would try to persuade him to let me cover this one.

5. How many staff are rostered, how much space is there to fill? Provided it is a slow news day, it could be granted to research it further.

6. Has a similar story been done recently by this or another media outlet? I would check this. So as not to repeat the same type of story.

7. Do other media have the story, or are they likely to get it? Yes

8. Are there legal risks that might persuade the editor to kill the subject? Not really, defamation shouldn’t be a risk unless the resort has not been inspected by the health authority, then it could be too soon to publish their negligence.

9. Is this particular journalist capable of doing it? Yes

10. What about the other stories on the daily idea list that has not yet been assigned? Being a slow news day, other journalists may have time to cover what might be on the daily list while i research the story further.

It is difficult to say exactly what i would do as there is a hierarchy to follow in the newsroom. I would check it with the Chief of staff first and try to negotiate if possible.

2. After a tip from an inside source you work on an article about filth in the kitchen of a major resort which has allegedly resulted in several guests and staff becoming ill. In the final stages of preparing your article you seek comment from the resort’s manager, who is hostile and refuses to comment. A short time later you receive a phone call from a leading public relations practitioner who tells you that the resort has been losing money and any bad publicity would cause it to close with the loss of 120 jobs. Your source is one of the people who could be out of work. What will you do? Why?

I would ask my source if they would mind being mentioned and if they said no, I would not use them as a source and go about looking for more sources. I would not compromise the MEAA’s AJA code of ethics. I would explain to the leading public relations practitioner that if they were willing to leave their job at the resort, many people’s lives could be healthier, regardless of whether 120 jobs will be lost, there would have to be some kind of compensation if they lost their jobs after all it is not really their fault if the premises are unsafe.

3. You are the late sub-editor for a daily newspaper. It is nearly 10pm. A man who identifies himself as a solicitor rings and says that a judge issued an order, after the journalist departed, prohibiting the publication of a defendants name, is on the front page, which is about to be sent to the press. There is no time to call anyone without delaying the production process. What do you do?

I would speak to whomever i could about getting the name removed before printing it, if not we would publish an apology for the mistake on the 2nd left hand page and then contact the journalist who defamed the defendant.

4. You are a junior journalist and you find yourself caught in the middle of an argument between the editor, who wants you to take one angle on a crime story, and the police rounds reporter who says the editor does not understand the full implications of the story and you should take a totally different angle? What will you do? Why?

I would assess the story angle myself and agree with the editor as they have more jurisdiction in that area. If i thought that the police reporter was right i would back them and announce this to the editor, and try to come to a solution.

My interesting Topic: The editorial pecking order

Baker (1980) says many of the 67 journalists interviewed in a ‘gatekeeper’ study indicated they ‘regularly used expressions such as ‘sink or swim’, or “thrown off the deep end”,  “make or break it” to describe their earliest newsroom feelings. The overriding pressure was to get published or broadcast.  Success was finally measured in terms of ” getting a run”. The daily Miracle asserts, ‘ His finding that sociologically, the rookie journalist quickly learns the advantages of being accepted and trusted by the chief-of-staff (who issues assignments) and the sub-editors (who process their stories) is still as true today as it was in the 1980′s – or even the 1890′s!’. With experience the young journalist is invited into the fold.

I have found this assertion true in the experience i have had in the workforce for the last eight years. There is a pecking order in all professions, it is in a trainee’s best interests to show those higher up the ladder that they are capable of becoming like their superior’s through hard work, reliability and dedication, often they want you to be a better worker than they are, only they won’t admit it.  There becomes a family type atmosphere. If one member puts their foot out of line, the others will be quick to find out and put the pressure on that member to perform.

I would not use either as they are both innaccurate, I would ring the source and double check it with them or just ask the question again. It is more important to be fair and accurate than to look after just my interests as a journalist or the interviewee for that matter. It is important to use ‘intuition’ and decide according to the code of ethics and media law.

The News Limited guide to Style: A guide for journalists is unequivocal. Under the heading ‘quotation marks’ it says:

1. Anything between qoutes should be exactly what was said.

2. It is acceptable to tidy up people’s minor grammatical faults.

3. If more work is needed turn it into indirect speech (News Limited 2003, p.137).

The MEAA’s AJA Code of Ethics instructs journalists to : ‘Report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential facts’.

John Hurst and Sally White warn that any ‘tidying’ of quotations has the potential to mislead and must be undertaken with the utmost caution.

2. Is it ever justified for a journalist to intimidate a source with a threat of ‘public exposure’ to get important public information?

No, journalists must respect people’s right to not to comment. Only in the case of politicians and public figures, when they say ‘no comment’ about an important subject for the public interest and it is their duty as a public servant to comment. So in this case, if they were to do so the journalist can say that once they have completed the rest of the research on the matter, they will mention how that politican involved did not comment, which will more often than not cause them to reconsider and comment. Many readers could see ‘no comment’ in a very negative light.

3. Is it a reasonable strategy for a journalist -male or female- to use ‘personal chemistry’ to get information from sources when there is public interest at stake?

Absolutley not. It would be a predjudicial action to take, breaking down a journalist’s integrity and professionalism. This is not the business of hollywood.
4. What potential dangers could come back to haunt a journalist who gets too close to a source?

Defamation action,unprofessionalis and conflicts of interest, a reputation for being biased which is the worse outcome for a journalist as they are meant to be detatched from a source personally and keep their relationship with that source professional only.

5. Who is the most inarticulate , word-mangling public figure regularly in the news at present?

Should you feel sorry for them and clean up their direct quotes or let them stew in their own frying pan?

Probably George W. Bush. Let them stew in their own frying pan. If they are not educated enough to articulate their comments when it comes to such an important role, then it is a matter of the public interest to highlight this when it happens, so that the public knows who can and who can’t do their job properly. Exposing incompetence is important in a changing and better educated world.

My interesting Topic: Here is the transcript of an interview on ABC’s Lateline between Peter Garrett and Tony Jones about the issue of Kyoto and climate change targets. This interview struck me as a very theatrical and entertaining interview, making it difficult to take very seriously with all of the little mind games Tony and Peter played.

Tony Jones talks to Labor environment spokesman Peter Garrett

Print Email

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Broadcast: 26/09/2007

Reporter: Tony Jones

Labor environment spokesman Peter Garrett discusses the drought and climate change with Tony Jones.

Transcript

TONY JONES: Evidence of a link between bushfires, drought and climate change wouldn’t have been lost our guest tonight, Labor’s environment spokesman, Peter Garrett. Thanks for joining us.

PETER GARRETT: Thanks, Tony.

TONY JONES: Are you in any doubt at this that this worst drought in Australian history is largely driven by climate change?

PETER GARRETT: I wouldn’t say that the scientists can say it’s largely driven by climate change. I think what we can say is that it’s exacerbated by climate change.

Drought is a natural climate pattern for us in Australia, no question about that. But hotter days, drier days, and intense heat evaporation rates across the landscape mean the droughts become that much tougher and additionally, as we’ve just seen in your earlier report, we also have flow-on effects with things like the possibility of more intense and far more serious-in-scale bushfires.

TONY JONES: Those who are sceptical about that science, of course, say this is natural variation in our climate that over the past 200 years or more of white settlement we’ve seen droughts and flooding ranges built into one of our greatest poems.

PETER GARRETT: It is built into one of our greatest poems and I’ve listened to the sceptics on the other side of the House but I have to say that the science is very clear.

We saw it the IPCC report. We’re seeing it in the reports that you’ve shown here. No matter what the climate pattern is and what stage it’s at, climate change impacts on Australia mean that in the southern part of the continent it will be hotter and drier. That will be the rule, it won’t be the exception.

That will mean that droughts, the naturally occurring pattern that we have in our climate, will be much more difficult to manage.

TONY JONES: It will also mean that more farming land will become marginal, will it not?

PETER GARRETT: Well it will depend on that particular farming land. But, yes, there will be significant issues for farmers in marginal areas in terms of available moisture.

TONY JONES: So does Labor have a policy on what to do about – an environmental policy – on what to do about marginal and increasingly marginal farming land and whether or not it should continue to be farmed?

PETER GARRETT: Kevin Rudd and Kerry O’Brien, Tony, have already made a significant announcement, a $60 million commitment to look at agricultural adaptation and climate change.

I have got to say we’re in a whole new environment here now, particularly with the intensity of the summer coming on. People really did hope, I think desperately hope, that we would get winter rains, that we would get some decent moisture into the ground and that we would overcome the last six or seven years of toughness that people have experienced.

Now that may not happen. As a consequence the sort of issues you’re referring to me need to be addressed.

What Kevin Rudd said today is that we need as a nation to respond to the seriousness of this crisis, recognising it’s not a place for political footballs to be kicked around the paddock but rather to know that these people also – much as our Pacific neighbours – are pretty much on the front-line of these big changes.

TONY JONES: Is it time for a national audit of our farming lands, to work out which areas will be viable if it does get hotter and hotter as predicted?

PETER GARRETT: Well, it is. One of the disturbing things about this debate is we’re starting from so far back in the field.

We’ve had good climate science in Australia. Our scientists are good, but the Howard Government because it was sceptical, it was in denial, didn’t really do -I don’t think – the concrete, decent and thorough research.

We’ve never had a cost benefit analysis on the impact of climate change on the Australian economy or environment. We just haven’t had it.

And Kevin Rudd and the Labor state Leaders have commissioned Professor Ross Garneau to do that work for Labor. That will inform us when he makes his recommendations next year but it’s frankly a tragedy a) that we’ve had to wait so long and b) that we are still in a sense finding our way on this issue.

TONY JONES: So that work is going to include an audit, is it, of our country, our country’s side, our rural areas and where it should or should not be farmed, or can or cannot be farmed in the future?

PETER GARRETT: Well, it’s not specifically directed to the agriculture impacts. It is directed to the cost benefit impacts.

It’s a little bit like the Sir Nicholas Stern report, the one that was produced by the World Bank economist.

And, of course, what Stern said amongst other things is we have got big market failure with climate change and he also said very clearly that if we actually want to minimise the cost impact in the longer term then we have to act in the near-term.

TONY JONES: Okay. But you indicated earlier a national audit would be a good idea.

PETER GARRETT: We have got a fair amount of information that is accumulated by our natural resource management agencies.

And we have a fair bit of information from the IPCC reports that tell us that the impacts of climate change will be significant, particularly in the southern part of the country in terms of dryness and heat.

What we don’t have is an overall natural picture right now of the national impacts that climate change will have on agricultural lands that you can look at in one central location.

TONY JONES: And we have to have that?

PETER GARRETT: I don’t think there’s any doubt about that.

TONY JONES: Let’s move on, Peter Garrett. Malcolm Turnbull has been working hard to cover virtually every base on the global warming issue.

Are you concerned or happy that he has done that and do you think he’s effectively neutralised this as an election campaign issue?

PETER GARRETT: I don’t agree with you, Tony, surprised that Mr Turnbull has covered every base.

I think what is actually notable about his efforts is that in some ways the Prime Minister still takes the running on climate change. They haven’t really come up with anything concrete in terms of announcements that they’ve made.

TONY JONES: That’s not quite right, is it? I mean he came up with his clean power initiative in this past week. That will be linked to a concrete carbon trading scheme which is now being worked on in detail. The legislation for that has already been passed. There have been very large public investments in new clean coal technology just to name three things.

PETER GARRETT: Tony, his clean energy target and that of the Prime Minister’s was stolen from the states.

It didn’t represent any additional increase in renewable energy investment at all. I mean, it was one of those classic clever Howard Government announcements where you dress something up that’s already happening, repackage it, give yourself the climate change makeover.

I’ve got to say that within a day, the Prime Minister was releasing a paper – again, a dressed-up paper in the past – on climate change abatement and Minister Turnbull was nowhere near to be seen.

Just remember that when the Howard Government came to power, we were meeting our renewable energy needs to the tune of about 10.5 per cent. Eleven and a half years later we’re sitting down around something like 8 per cent.

The Howard Government consistently refused – including when I put questions to them in the Parliament – to support renewable energy at all.

And they were allergic and hostile to targets. Suddenly out of nowhere we get the so-called clean energy target.

It’s a bundling of what the states were already doing and what was sitting in place there. It didn’t represent any additional increase in delivering renewable energy. Frankly it was just a nick on the work the states had already been doing.

TONY JONES: It wasn’t a carbon emissions reduction target as such. We asked Malcolm Turnbull, however, what he expected would be the reduction in carbon emissions from this initiative. He said 6 per cent by 2020 as a rough guesstimate. What would you expect by 2020?

PETER GARRETT: All Malcolm Turnbull is talking about is what the states have already done and it would be approximately in that area. But we need…

TONY JONES: But what would you expect would be the appropriate percentage by 2020?

PETER GARRETT: We want to see a significant increase in the mandatory renewable energy target, which would increase the proportion of the electricity that’s generated from renewable sources.

One of the things that Mr Turnbull and Mr Howard have always done is down-play the capacity of the renewables industry.

Mr Howard said it was something that was marginal. There have been no advocates for it. There have been advocates for nuclear, even though they’ve withdrawn their legislation and we are not going to see it now and people aren’t going to know where 25 nuclear reactors will go.

But they haven’t been positive about the sort of support that Australian industry and including Australian industry that’s gone offshore, the Vestas people that have 130 people to go out of work at the end of the year, global renewables a $5 billion investment that went to the UK, Pacific Hydro, half a billion dollars going to Brazil.

This has been the legacy of the Howard Government’s lack of attention to renewables. And what they did, mate, on Sunday was repackage what the states were already doing and dress it up as their own.

TONY JONES: Okay. Stick to the question for the moment. If that initiative will deliver a 6 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020, what do you say it should deliver? What do you say the initiatives you are going to put together will deliver?

PETER GARRETT: Well, I am not high hypothecate on a figure. What I am going to say is that we think that the mandatory renewable energy target needs to be increased and that we need additional investment in renewables to start reducing emissions and produce the electricity for us.

We also say as a consequence of that, that we need to provide that level of support to our solar industry and we have a $50 million commitment to an Australian solar institute on solar thermal in Newcastle.

TONY JONES: Yes. But no targets. This is the point, isn’t it? Both the Government and the Opposition are locked into this same thing. Let’s wait until after the election to tell the voters what the actual targets are in the medium and short-term. You have a target for 2050, but with all due respect you will probably be dead by then and you certainly won’t be in Government.

PETER GARRETT: That’s true. That long-term target is based on science. Business feedback says that’s a good thing to have in terms of certainty.

We have made it clear that once Professor Garneau has produced his report for us, we will have a good factual basis on which to make decisions about interim targets. I think that’s a sensible way to approach this issue.

TONY JONES: Alright. Let’s look to the Bali meeting in early December which is expected to come up with a post-Kyoto deal for the world to work out what carbon emissions should be and how to deal with this issue for the rest of the world. First of all and briefly, how important do you regard that meeting for the future of the planet? I asked the same question to Alexander Downer last night.

PETER GARRETT: Tony, I think it’s the most important meeting of the international community that will happen in our lifetime. That meeting and the next meeting in Copenhagen in 2008.

The UN Secretary-General has said this is the defining moment for the international community and, importantly, all of those countries that have been involved in this process until now, including the United States, not so much Australia, regrettably, have identified the UN process as the appropriate and proper route for the world to reach a climate change agreement which builds on Kyoto but which really sees us getting to terms with reducing emissions.

TONY JONES: Conceivably an election will have been held by then. Conceivably, you could be in Government. If you are, will you immediately sign Kyoto and go to that meeting as a full protocol partner if you like, a voting partner?

PETER GARRETT: A Rudd-Labor Government would immediately ratify the protocol and go to that meeting with that ratification in train and, Tony, to play a productive and a constructive role and to say that we recognise not only the urgency for our Australian community in terms of farmers, people on the coasts here and the impacts of climate change that we face, but in our region as a whole.

I couldn’t believe listening to Minister Downer on your program last night downplay these climate change risks which are all around us and there for us to see and which the international community really focusing on in terms of dealing seriously with it at Bali.

TONY JONES: To be fair to Mr Downer, let’s look at what he says about that meeting in Bali. He agrees it’s important, vitally important. He also says that Australia will have a crucial role if his Government is in power on December – early December 3 or whatever it is – at that meeting.

And he also says they don’t need, they will, in fact, have a vote at that meeting.

PETER GARRETT: He’s wrong about that. Advice from his own department shows very clearly and the instruments show very clearly that you don’t get to vote unless you ratify the protocol.

Yes, you have observer status, but that’s all. And Terry Timmerman and other observers have always said “why does Australia leave itself out of the capacity to influence negotiations on something as important as this?”

This has always been the weak link in the chain from the Howard Government. Remember, they were going to ratify. They decided not to. They talk about meeting the targets, but they cannot seriously justify the fact that they will go to an international meeting of this importance and not be able to take a vote.

TONY JONES: If you go… because this is one of the fundamental… I am about to get to one of the fundamental differences between – as I perceive it – your view and the Government’s view on this. If you go to this meeting, will you be demanding as the Government would binding targets apply equally to developing countries such as India and China, and to the richer countries?

PETER GARRETT: We don’t accept the view that the Government has put about the right pathway to reduce emissions, Tony.

What they’ve done, somewhat cleverly, but I think in a moral sense repugnantly, is suggest that the burden now must be equally shared between developed and the developing countries. And yet the UN framework convention itself and Kyoto was based on a consensus agreement that the developed countries – the United States, the European countries and Australia – who had taken the benefit of the emissions already in the atmosphere, would take the lead in reducing their emissions. And as a consequence of that, the parties would follow through which were developing countries such as China and others.

TONY JONES: This might be a moral position, but is it a logical position? I mean, India and China will present the worst problem we face along with the United States if they do not start immediately reducing their carbon emissions as many scientist and others have said, the game will be up.

PETER GARRETT: There’s no doubt that the urge and the need to reduce emissions for those countries is an important and critical one.

But the Chinese Premier made it very clear, as have others, that there’s an expectation on the part of developing countries that the developed countries will show good faith and act. And frankly, if you want to be realistic in terms of international politics about the likelihood of getting an agreement that will actually sit in place and do the job that we desperately need it to do, then that original consensus and that understanding that developed countries must take resolute action needs to drive any future agreement.

TONY JONES: I will move on quickly to a final question because it is quite important. It’s been reported that the Peacock, Professor Peacock’s examination of the pulp mill, will report in fact that some severe restrictions need to be placed on the Gunn’s pulp mill before it goes ahead.

It does appear, if that’s the case, that this won’t be an issue to be discussed or decided upon before the election. Are you relieved by that?

PETER GARRETT: Well we don’t know what the Chief Minister… scientific advisor, I am sorry, is going to say and we don’t have access to the other material that Minister Turnbull seems to think is in the public domain.

We’ve always said in the initial phase Malcolm Turnbull chose an assessment process which was too light on and a lot of the problems and anxiety about the mill derive from his initial mistake in setting that assessment bar too low.

Subsequently, we’ve had a series of different processes. We have this thing called “draft conditions” and conditions that are proposed or a proposed condition and decisions that are drafts. The Minister has been all over the shop on it. We don’t know what the scientific – chief scientific officer will say either.

TONY JONES: Would it worry you if he rejected the mill outright?

PETER GARRETT: We’ve always said that we support a world’s best practice environment standards mill that adds value in northern Tasmania which satisfies the requirements under the Commonwealth legislation in terms of impacts on matters of national environment significance, marine ecosystems, listed and endangered species. Those things are absolutely critical. That’s the bar that we will hold Malcolm Turnbull to.

TONY JONES: We have leave it there. Thank you very much, Peter Garrett, for coming in to see us. We will see you no doubt during the campaign in the next few weeks as we anticipate it will be happening.

PETER GARRETT: I hope so, Tony.

TONY JONES: Thank you.

a) a paper chase conducted entirely by computer and telephone that takes half the time it would have taken if you had left the office?

or

b) a paper chase involving visits to half a dozen government offices and in-person interviews that puts you under extreme deadline pressure?

I would rather do (b) because it would be extremely rewarding to uncover corruption and to overturn governments, like a young Brisbane reporter working for Brisbane’s Courier- mail, Phil Dickie, who uncovered who owned a curious building in Brisbane’s fortitude valley. It housed a masssage parlour. The result was the Fitzgerald inquiry into police corruption.

I have borrowed ‘The Bagman’ Final confessions of Jack Herbert from the library, I found it quite interesting in the second page of the book is an excerpt from the Fitzgerald inquiry.

Sir Terence Lewis – “Would you agree you are probably one of the greatest liars to have ever sat in a witness box in this state?

Jack Herbert- No.

Sir Terence Lewis- Can you nominate anybody who you think would be better or worse?

Jack Herbert- I would say you have done your fair share of it, sir.

Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry, 184th day of evidence.

It is really scary to think that our justice system could well be an in-justice system.

2. Would you be willing to pursue a corruption investigation or an investigation into organised crime if it included many unpaid hours of extra work and personal risk?

It depends on whether it was safe for me to do so, i would assess the level of risk and then yes i would be willing to do it, if i was passionate about the issue.

3. Would you be willing to act together as a unit with competing reporters at a media conference in an effort to get maximum information if it meant giving up your best question, which you had intended to ask privatley after the conference?

It depends on the nature of the situation, but i would try to ask my own question anyway, there has to be a way around it. I would be checking records on the internet, telephone books etc. I think there needs to be a balance between getting maximum information and asking my best question. It is hard to say given this is a hypothetical.

4. Who really owns government -held information: the government or the people? Why?

The government, when it comes to national security information and child protection etc. Because the government are trying to protect the free flow of information to the public where it is not necessary and in fact, could be dangerous. Another reason why they will not allow information to be released is when it is critical of the government and when it is newsworthy. When it comes to other such matters, a FOI request can be made for protected information, a fee is payed and the Freedom of information officer makes a decision as to whether that information can be disseminated.

5. If you were assigned to report on the proceedings of a conference and you had to choose between attending different sessions being conducted at the same time, how would you decide which to attend?

I would analyse the PR spin objective of the conference’s being seperate and at the same time. This is an easy way of finding out whether it is a waste of time or not, largely, the use of common sense and a ‘reading between the lines’ could really help the situation at hand.

My interesting Topic this week: The Art of Spin doctoring

There doesn’t need to be an educational level in which to aim, If the writing is simple yet accurate, virtually any one could read it and understand its substance and subject. An over use of ‘Big’ words can hinder the understanding of the audience. Where possible clean and simple, active language is what is needed to be of universal understanding.

I think that yes the metro papers such as The Australian and The Sydney Morning Herald could use language which is much less interpretive, it could boost the amount of young readers, it is not so much a young person friendly newspaper, with its focus on particular political allegiances and the economy many young people need to learn about these two subjects to gain an understanding of the world in which they live.

2. To what extent do you think reporters should be able to interpret news events and inject their thoughts into news stories?

To the extent that they can accurately report the facts and find a balance between opinion and fact. Otherwise it will quickly show its subjectivity. Making it hard for the reader to trust the credibility of the journalist who wrote the story.

3. English is a growing and ever-changing language as new words evolve and old ones fall into disuse. What then of the idea of a global language? Does it really matter that our language is is being tainted with americanisms and US spellings?

I don’t think it really matters very much, there isn’t a strict way of writing ism’s.

4. Based on your own experience and your reading of newspapers , do you think news -papers have a serious commitment to accuracy?

It would be difficult to assess, but overall yes i think they do but there would be many which go by the wayside due to time pressure.

5. What would you do if you made a serious mistake in a story you wrote but no one contacted the paper to complain?

I would make sure i didn’t do it again, i would tell my boss and see what they say about it. If they suggest i put a small apology for inaccuracy in the next weeks paper, then i would do that.

I just would not use it. With the proliferation of defamation actions against journalists, i just would not risk it.

2. Because you could not locate a source for balancing comment, would you withhold a story on which you have worked hard? would your decision change if you knew that an opposing newspaper was planning to run a similar story, reducing the value of your effort?

Yes, i would wait until i had the balancing comment. As i said in the earlier question, especially with the implications for court reporting etc , i would obtain the source i needed first, to be safe. I would not change my mind about it if another newspaper was running a similar story because my story would be more credible and newsworthy if it contains accurate information, regardless of pressure.

3. You are sent to report from the scene of a major uncontrolled fire in a high-rise building. People are trapped inside. What dangers should you look out for? Who would you interview? When would you start writing your story?

I would look out for falling debris from the building. Once i checked the danger, i would ask any local neighbour standing by some questions about what they saw and how it happened. I would start writing my story after it was safe and clear to do so without jeopardising people.

4. From your reading of news stories, do you think the inverted pyramid remains the most effective method of structuring material?

I think that generally, yes. It is a good standard format to follow, until i start writing a news story i don’t know if the inverted pyramid is the best way to write it, i weigh up all the relevant parts and then find the right method, quickly of course.

I read the local and national news sections to keep up to date with my university course and to know what is going on in the world around me. I think knowledge equals power.

2. How much time a day do you spend watching television compared with reading? What would encourage you to spend more time reading the local paper?

I spend more time watching television when i get home than reading because i have been reading all day at university. I still skim the local paper when it arrives on a Wednesday. I love to read and to learn, it is not a problem for me.

3. You have the perfect opportunity to write a ‘trick intro’ that will get most readers atleast into your second paragraph. But it would be at the expense of the central news value, which isn’t very strong anyway. What would you do?

Conley and Lamble explain… “The best intro is impossible to achieve without the best facts. Finding the best facts is square 1. Square two is assessing and interpreting those facts and arranging them in a compelling, meaningful form that people will want to read about.” I would follow the above example, arranging and cutting down words where needed. I would use an attribution intro if the story involves key players in government or the like. This leaves no room for in-accurate sourcing. I would re-assess the news values and find another central news value which is stronger.

4. You have done your research and conducted your interviews and have the basis of a great story but the intro just won’t gel . What will you do?

I would go through a checklist of what makes a great intro according to the facts found and the type of story being written, i would make sure that the intro is 1) 100% accurate 2) is short and succinct 3) simple and to the point. I feel that it is necessary to re-write the intro as much as needed in order to draw attention from reader’s. If in doubt, leave it out.

5. You have written a well-researched story but when it appears in the paper you see that a sub-editor who thought they knew more about the topic than you did has added a new intro which is not only wrong but ruins the whole article and offends your sources. What should you do?

I should do my best to formulate my reason for writing the intro in such a way. I would make sure i was organised with the information i had obtained, put it forward to the sub-editor and try to resolve the matter directly with the sub-editor. I should always check my work before submission to avoid the same situation in future.

My interesting Topic: Types of intros explored. The Daily Miracle.

1. Direct – The direct intro gets to the point.

2. Attribution- The attribution intro incorporates opinion or predictions that need to be sourced.

3. Summary- Is the most common. It condenses complex subject matter to the bare essentials.

4. Decision- Frequently used in stories about parliaments, councils, and other bodies. Its strength lies in the importance of a decision made and who made it, often includes attribution.

5. Delayed- Is called the ‘buried lead’. It consists of two or more sentences or paragraphs and relies on contrast or surprise.

6. Question- Should generally be avoided. As with the delayed intro, they are most frequently (and effectively) used in feature articles or shorter colour stories and are most effective when they are short.

7. Quotation- Even more rare than question intros, but can be effective if a comment aptly sums up and/or humanises a situation.

8. Direct address- More common in features than news stories. It involves ‘speaking’ directly to the reader and employing the second-person pronoun ‘you’ or first -person ‘I’ or ‘we’. A way in which reporter’s can project their theme and themselves.

An interesting link about the legislative body which governs the newspaper industry.

URL: http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/fop/auspress.html

Because Proximity as a news value has its main focus on the ‘where’, it is easy to place how Australian news outlets gave proximity through its immediate coverage of the actual tsunami and its aftermath in their evening news bulletins. Watching this tragic event happen in moving history and not to mention the ‘locality’ of the event – that it broke through Indonesia, our neighbouring country made this value even more pronounced. The impact on the tourist destinations of western Thailand, a place well used by Australian tourists made this tradgedy feel all the more ‘close to home’ for the Australian audience.

2. If you were a reporter covering a story about a mentally ill Australian woman who was found by Queensland police in Cairns talking what they thought was German, who was subsequently arrested and found herself locked up in an immigration detention centre in South Australia for 10 months, what main news value would you focus on when writing the story? In order of importance, what would be the next two subsidiary news values?

The first and main news value in this situation would be ‘Impact’, as mentioned in The Daily Miracle where it explains…”For many journalists impact is synonymous with newsworthiness: the greater the impact, the bigger the story”. I would tend to agree in this situation in particular. Because of the ‘impact’ that the event would have on the woman incarcerated and it branching into the broader social and community sphere.

The next most important news value in this case would be, ‘Conflict’. Next to ‘Impact’ I would say conflict would be the second most important news value as it draws the most readers. It brings to light the various social mis-haps in society and it helps the readers to feel involved in the ‘debate’ over details and outcomes of the event.

The third most important news value would be ‘currency’, it is important for readers to know that this is an issue which is current, the obvious problem with a lack of this value is that it would detract from the coming resolve of the situation. There would be no real point in covering the story if it had been covered before unless there are some very fresh new details or evidence in which to further the case and its outcome.

3. As a reporter, which information would you feature more prominently: a) a mayoral announcement about an urban renewal plan to resolve inner-city crime problems;

or b) a comment by Prince Charles, in Australia on a visit, who says after the mayor’s speech that such problems can also be attributed to building regulations formulated by city councils?

I would feature b) more prominently because it encompasses both lots of information and features a ‘prominent’ figure of the public, thereby creating ‘prominence’ as a news value and it covers the mayor’s announcement at the same time.

4. Define news in 20 words or less

News is what is ‘new’, previously unknown, it sparks interest and curiosity for further information, it educates, entertains, informs and uncovers injustice, it provides security, it fuel’s rage, highlight’s predjudice and gives its audience anticipation for the future, it brings lovers together, it has the power to sadden and make joyful and in rare cases can cause suicide.

5. Should Kipling’s Six Strong Serving Men be assigned equal value when writing a news article?

Lamble and Conley state …”As with media functions, news-value criteria and the five Ws and the H can appear in multiple combinations and in a different order of importance in any particular story”. So therefore they are not always assigned equal value.

My interesting Topic: The ‘unusual’ news value

An interesting concept i found about the ‘unusual’ news value is that it can be dangerous if not reported correctly. The text demonstrates “Journalists should always be wary of stories that can only be confirmed by one source without accompanying physical evidence. A reporter taken in by a hoax is a pitiful sight- something to be particularly careful of if sourcing information from the web”.

I found this aspect important to take note of. They say “Good journalists have antennae for the unusual”. “It is the unusual that sparks conversation on commuter trains, and reporters recognise and exploit this public fascination with the extroadinary”.

Here is a link to some unusual news stories: http://caveviews.blogs.com/cave_news_stories/index.html

This gave me a good understanding of what is considered the unusual in news stories.