10 - Blame the Law or the Media?

Further thoughts.

In the case of reporting a victim or accused/guilty's name, I don't make the rules.
I don't like hiding behind the law, but if it states that I can't name those people, I can't name them.

Part of the reason I don't name then is because I could get fined or go to prison for contempt of court...
But strictly selfish reason aside, I believe it is a morally grey area too. In the most extreme cases, I could be the root cause of a vigilante attack etc because I published a name.

In every case that I cover I have a different moral opinion about the right or wrong of publishing a name. And so does the public.

But my opinion doesn't matter then, and it never matters in any story I do.
(Why should anyone care to hear what I think, and anyway, Ofcom requires me to be neutral.)

And in these stories, the law is the law. Dont name names.

If that pisses you off, blame the law not the media.

9 - Reporting Restrictions

I've been involved in a debate about protecting the identity of victims of crime and their accused. And why reporters do it.

The simple answer is because the law demands it. A child under the age of 18, or the victim of rape, for example, are instantly made anonymous. It is a rare case when a reporter gets those court reporting restrictions overturned. If reporting the name of the accused/or their relatives would also identify the victim too (known as "Jigsaw Identification") then the convicted also gets the luxury of their name never being known.

It may seem frustrating to the public who have a "right to know."

And it is frustrating for me too. Because believe me, there isn't a journalist out there who won't want to publish those names. Often you can sit in court and even feel emotionally part of some kind of cover up, simply because you know the name of the guilty, but aren't reporting it.

But each time that happens I tell myself that the law is made up by far more sensible people than me. And their aim is to protect the vulnerable, even at the expense of not exposing the guilty. And they are dispassionate about those laws, where as I am caught up in the heat of something outrageous which is inflaming my opinion, rightly or wrongly.

I feel like I want to expose it all to the court of public opinion.

I believe that justice should not just be done, but seen to be done.

But in legal cases, I quell any instinct to publish and be damned if the law, and only the law, deems it harmful to others who are innocent.

8 - Those Who Can, Do

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't do or teach get jobs as reporters. Or so the saying goes.

Well, in addition to working full time as a TV news reporter for two different television companies, in the (very little) spare time I have left over I also teach at a local University.

It's on one of the "Media" degree courses, which are actually much maligned within the industry. I think Editors like a person to be a blank page to write on.

My job is to teach the Undergraduate and Postgraduate students how to write broadcast news.

I don't really think I am a natural teacher. I am more of a doer. And trying to break down how I do a thing that comes relatively naturally to me has been a fascinating experience. Helping them to learn has also taught me long forgotten tricks. And they certainly ask a lot of questions and make you think!

It's hugely enjoyable, and it's also made me less complacent.

Lots of my family and loved ones come from a scientific ilk, and by comparison, I just "write and talk a bit for a living." They do incredibly intellectual things, that have the parameters of right and wrong answers to help define their skills and intellect.

But teaching has reminded me that I do have a huge range of skills to offer. They just aren't as obvious as the ones that a doctor or an engineer has.

The ability to put people at ease very quickly. To make small talk, and draw the best out of people. To talk with authority on a wide range of topics, off the cuff. And so on.

Oh and to be the source of celebrity gossip at dinner parties for my friends. Apparently that's what they are most impressed by anyway...

7 - Making My Own Luck

What is it they say about buses, all coming along at once?

Well after a wasteland of wondering how I was going to continue to be a TV reporter after this staff job ends, today I had four freelancing leads land in my lap in one morning.

Each one is only for a few days work here and there. But I believe Robert Frost when he said that way always leads on to way**. So I will keep faith that each concrete job booked in, will lead to another.

So two days ago, I felt scared.

Today I feel excited.

It's a good job that I never feel sick on rollercoasters...


**The beautiful "The Road Not Taken."

6 - Turn and Face the Change

The idea of losing my job is both horrifying and elating.
It's time to explain why it's happening.

My company is making cutbacks, so my current job will be completely revolutionised. The stories I report, my hours, my geographical patch, the technology, will all change.
Then there are the friends who will lose their job, in order for other friends to keep theirs. In all, 55% per cent of us will be cut.

Naturally, opinion is divided about whether this change is a good or bad thing. A new beginning, or the death of a golden era. There's no right answer, just the fact that it IS happening.

All I can say is how it makes ME feel. And the over riding emotion is this: immensely sad. Because I love my job, and I don't want it to change.

In the next few weeks, the selection process will begin for those who want the new style jobs. The rest will apply for voluntary redundancy, and then work on until the changes are implemented next year.

I am about to officially declare, for the first time, that I have decided to leave.

I know it is the right decision for me.

But I still feel very scared.

5 - The News Agenda

Of course every story that I do is being done for a reason.

The news schedule of the day is set by my bosses, who are reacting to events. I am sent out to report accordingly. And every story that I do has an "angle."

But I believe that is no where near as sinister as it sounds. I suppose I would say that! Let me explain.

Today, for example, N.I.C.E finally allowed people with the eye disease Macular Degeneration to get the drugs they need for free on the NHS.
I don't go with an agenda to bash NICE, the law requires me to be as neutral as I humanly can. But my "angle" is to get the human side of that Government announcement. I speak to someone with the disease, and ask their genuine opinion.

Yesterday I spoke about wanting interviewees to be angry.
But actually, my only "agenda" when I do that is to try to reflect the truth of somebody's sentiment off camera as accurately as possible.

So, I might go to interview someone who has lost the only respite care they get for their disable child, and that they desperately need. Or someone whose home was flooded. Or who spent 75 hours on a hospital trolley, or whose home was broken into. The list goes on.

They are all angry in reality, but the nerves and artificiality of a camera pointing at them makes them seize up. So my job is to say to them, "pretend that I am that person from the council/hospital/thieves. I am going to play Devil's Advocate and ask antagonistic questions to make you faithfully articulate you real feelings the best that you can."

Hand on heart, I have never made up someone's opinion about something, or made someone give an angry quote when they don't feel that way.

In fact, I don't know a reporter who has. And that gives me enormous optimism. It gives me faith in the integrity of my industry.

Now, I have seen some scurrilous behaviour. And in every single case, it was done by a reporter from a national tabloid newspaper. Never a broadcast journalist. Draw your own conclusions from that.

That said, I also believe that it is crucial that people question what I report, why I am saying it, and who my sources are.

I am rigorous about questioning every press release, every interviewee, every line of my script. About questioning my morals and what I am doing.

I fully expect the same rigorousness from my audience.

And I never expect them to agree with my conclusions.