Activity 6: Listen up

Listen to two shows of Mediawatch on National radio - Sundays at 9am and 10pm or download the broadcast at www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/mediawatch. After listening to the radio shows write a response on the broadcasts. Your 2 responses need to be printed out and put into your clear file, or uploaded to your blog.

Please include the following questions in your responses:
What was the main topic of the radio show?
What did you enjoy and not enjoy about listening to the radio show?
Why do you think this was?
What were your views on the topic(s) before you listened to the radio show?
Were your views changed after listening to this radio show?
Why do you think this is?
Was the topic(s) of the broadcast newsworthy? Why?

Response 1:
What was the main topic of the radio show?
The Fifa world cup

What did you enjoy and not enjoy about listening to the radio show?
I don't like the topic. I don't enjoy listening to sport or sports news.

Why do you think this was?
It is what my Dad always listens to.

What were your views on the topic(s) before you listened to the radio show?
I was really proud of NZ and the effort our team put in.

Were your views changed after listening to this radio show?
Absolutely not. All whites did a great job.

Why do you think this is?
Because I am a born, bred Kiwi and I support my home land all the way.

Was the topic(s) of the broadcast newsworthy? Why?
The topic was in the sports new a lot. Because it is the first time in ages that NZ made it into the World Cup

Response 2:
What was the main topic of the radio show?
That John Key was a great supporter of NZ football in the World cup and that the government donated 300,000 to the All whites campaign.

What did you enjoy and not enjoy about listening to the radio show?
I didn't enjoy the way they made John Key stand out from the crowd. What I mean by this is that yes sure he is the PM but he should be treated as just another fan. Instead it is good PR and it takes the shine away from the All whites and their victory and concentrates on the fact that he was there.

Why do you think this was?
Because he is the PM he has a star factor and so it becomes all about him.

What were your views on the topic(s) before you listened to the radio show?
I didn't even know that he had gone to the game.

Were your views changed after listening to this radio show?
I think now that while it is a good thing he went to the game, supported our country and donated money, that he still took away from the game success

Why do you think this is?
Because the public may see him as the PM only and so when he shows an interest in sport it lets you know a little more about him.

Was the topic(s) of the broadcast newsworthy? Why?
Not particularly no. Because he was there, and it was decided it was newsworthy the All whites success was put off to the side a little.

Activity 5: Have your say

Watch 2-3 episodes of Media 7 TV show on TVNZ 7 (Thursday at 9:10pm) - if you cannot get this channel you can also watch episodes on http://tvnz.co.nz/media7 . After watching the episodes write a response on each of the topics that you have viewed. Your 2-3 responses need to be printed out and put into your clear file, or uploaded to your blog. Please include the following questions in your response: What was the main topic of the episode? Was the topic presented positively or negatively? Why do you think this was? What were your views on this topic before you viewed the episode? Were your views changed after viewing the episode? Why do you think this is? Was the topic of the episode newsworthy? Why?

Series 5, episode 2:

What was the main topic of the episode?

Gaza Boat deaths

Was the topic presented positively or negatively?

Negatively.

Why do you think this was?

Because the original version of the story and video that was shown to the world was making it look like the soldiers that invaded an activist's ship massacred them but in other footage shown later the activists were attacking the soldiers with metal bars and chairs.

What were your views on this topic before you watched this episode?

I had never even heard of the incident

Were your views changed after viewing this episode?

Yes they were. I understand that the soldiers were attacked by activists and even had one of their commanders pushed off the boat but what were they doing on the ship in the first place. Soldiers and governments need to back off.

Why do you think this is?

Because I had no opinion before hand but after wards I felt angry and pleased they pushed the silly little man off the boat.

Was the topic of the episode newsworthy? Why or why not?
Yes it was because it is about an issue that may interest a lot of people. It is also about a war or conflict situation and people could consider it important tot know what is going on in the world and what is happening behind the scenes of this episode.

Series 5, Episode 4
What is the main topic of this episode?
Home theater

Was the topic presented positively or negatively?
Positively

Why do you think this was?
Because they think home theater is better than a cinema. In a cinema people talk, everything is too expensive and you can't pause the movie if you need to go toilet.

What were your views before watching the episode?
Home theater isn't very good because the quality of the audio and visual is so much better at the cinema. Besides the cinema is a great place to be with friends.

Were your views changed after watching this episode?
Not really no.

Why do you think this is?
Because the cinema has a huge screen and when you are at home there are so many distractions. The cinema is a novelty thing; Home theater isn't.

Do you think this is newsworthy?
No I don't. It is a petty topic and it isn't important for anyone to know this.

Activity 4: In the picture

Have a look at some of the pictures on the World Press website. Choose two or three and answer these questions about each one:

Who (or what) is the subject?

What is the 'story here?
What else is in the photograph?
What do you learn from this photograph?

How do you think the photographer got this shot?

Photo one:

Who (or what) is the subject?

Starving, running, crying children. One of whom is completely naked.

What is the 'story here?

The story is one about a war torn country and refugee children. The reason I believe this is because the children are running from armed soldiers.

What else is in the photograph?

In the background is a small village and there are armed soldiers that the children seem to be running from.

What do you learn from this photograph?

That there is a war being waged and that they are preying on small villages. There are also refugees, in the photo they are all screaming children.

How do you think the photographer got this shot?

Stood in front of the running children and the soldiers then took the picture.

Photo 2:

What (or who) is in this photograph?

A little boy, about the age of six or seven, smiling innocently at the camera, while he carries an AK-47 over his shoulder.

What is the 'story' here?

The story is showing the reality of child soldiers. In some parts of the world children as young as seven carry weapons and guns and fight in a war that is not theirs to fight.

What else is in the photograph?

Just an image of a wall. The photographer had a medium-close-up shot off the boys face.

What do you learn from this photograph?

That children who should be in school learning to read and do their abc's are carrying guns and killing people.

How do you think this photographer got the shot?

They went up to them and said 'say cheese'

Photo 3:
Who (or what) is the subject?
An ape tied to a lattice structure of bamboo.

What is the 'story here?
The ape could be sacrificial and they are going to throw him into a volcano or something.

What else is in the photograph?
A long line of people following the ape and the 15 people carrying him

What do you learn from this photograph?
It takes 15 people to carry a live, fully grown ape.

How do you think the photographer got this shot?
Got told there was going to be a sacrificial march and he waited until they started walking up the hill and took a picture as the ape went underneath him.

Choose three of your own photographs and include them in your blog or folder. Now think about different types of photography and answer these questions:
What is the difference between personal photography and photojournalism?
Personal photography is more relaxed. There isn't really as much pressure on the photographer to get a good picture. Photojournalism is very professional and has quite strict regulations on what is an acceptable picture and what isn't.

What do professional photographers tend to pay attention to that amateurs do not?
Whether the picture is going to be acceptable and usable in a newspaper. What kind of shot they are going to take; close up, mid-shot etc.

What makes a photo good? What makes a photo great?
If the photo relates to the story and/or tells a story of its own. If it attracts attention to an article. If it a fair representation of a view, people, or activity.

Activity 3: Dear Editor

*Read the new section (front page and World section) of the Dominion Post for three days. Choose a story of personal interest from the news section as a topic to write a Letter to the Editor - this is your chance to express your opinion, get something off your chest, or have a good rant. Get your letter cjecked by Miss Teaz - then send a copy to The Dominion Post. Your letter needs to be printed out and put into youur clear file, or uploaded to your blog.

Rules for Letters to the Editor of the Dominion Post:
-E-mail address is letters@dompost.co.nz please do not send attatchments
-Fax number is (04) 474-0350
-Or send your letter to: Letters to the Editor, PO Box 1297, Wellington. Please write or type on one side of the paper only
-Letters must include the writer's full name, verifiable home address, and daytime phone nuber. PO Box numbers are not acceptable.
-Letters should not exceed 200 words and should be exclusive. ('Exclusive' means you aren't writing the same letter to a bunch of newspapers.
-Letters will be edited for clarity and length

Letter to the Editor:
Dear Editor,
in response to the article about the 'Minister confirming prison smoking ban' written on Monday 28th of June. I believe that removing cigarettes from prisons is a good idea. Prison is a place of punishment and the fact that a prisoner who has broken the law can smoke is not going to teach them a lesson, it will give them easy acces to cigarettes, therefore encouraging them to break the law.
Aleysha
(the rest of my contact information will not be posted online but will be given to the newspaper as required)

Activity 2: The price is right

*Before researching, answer these questions in your blog: How do you get your news? Word of mouth is how I usually get my news. My boss likes to talk about current events and we get into long conversations about them. If a story in particular interests me I will look more into it (eg. Look at the news, read the paper or look at it online.) I also watch the news with my Dad some nights.
Where do you get it from? TV, newspapers, online, other people
How much does it cost you? It doesn't cost me anything personally. My Dad on the other hand has the Dominion Post delivered to him each morning. I sometimes read the paper if something catches my eye, I want to irritate my Dad or if my Dad and I are just relaxing in the morning before school or soccer.
Do you think people should have to pay for the news? Why or Why not?
I don't think that we should have to pay for the news because it can be crucial for us to know certain things that are going on in the world and our country but I am also realistic. It is necessary for us to pay for the news. If we did not their would not be any news, any reporters to report it or any money for satellites to transmit the news world wide.

*Then find at least six sources about/by Rupert Murdoch. Try to answer some of these questions: Who is Rupert Murdoch?
Rupert Murdoch is an Australian- born American, Media Tycoon, and he is the founder, chairman and chief executive of News corporation.
Why is he important to journalists? Which news organizations in NZ are owned by Rupert Murdoch's companies?
Due to lack of information I am not able to answer this question.
What is he worried about in regards to news and paying for news? What are some ideas that are opposite to his?
He says that internet users shouldn't have had access to free news sites and TV shows because it costs a lot of money to put together good newspapers with good content. They are happy to pay for it when they are buying newspapers so he thinks that when they read it elsewhere they are should have to pay. Some ideas that are opposite to his are that, if it is so expensive to put together a newspaper then get rid of them altogether. Another negating view is that it is sometimes important to hear the news and if you have to pay, and you don't, then you could be at risk.

Finally:
What do you think: should people have to pay for the news? why or why not?
No, it should be free. The reason I say this is because if something happened (eg. a tsunami warning; a prison break; gunman attacking people from his house) then you would want to know. If you weren't told because you had to pay for it then it could put you at risk or get you dead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7GkJqRv3BI

Activity 1: Right or Wrong

Journalism Ethics: Does it matter?

*When you read a news story or see it on TV, What do you expect of the station/newspaper/journalist/photographer? Is it reliable? Truthful? Set up?

• I expect there to be a certain professionalism in the reporting of the story, if someone was shot the reporters aren't giggling or treating it as a joke.


• The stories should be honest, have a firm ground in fact and should not be exaggerated or set up.


• If a story is treated as good gossip it should not be repeated over and over, e.g. Tiger Woods


• I expect the source to be reliable

How do you know?
There are a few things which (if relevant) may help to prove the authenticity of a story

• Video or Pictures


• Statistics


• Eye witness accounts


• Police reports


• On scene reporting

What about the right to privacy? What is the balance between the public 'right to know' and an individuals 'right to privacy'?
It is a humans basic right to have privacy. Quite often in today's magazines and newspapers people's privacy is invaded. A few examples of invaded privacy are:

• Jenifer Aniston was called a home wrecker because a married woman saw how confident and independent she was single and divorced her husband.


• Tiger Woods was constantly hounded for having multiple affairs. While the public like to know about that stuff, it is none of our business.

The reason I think that these are good examples are because the first one is completely slanderous. It is absolutely not her fault, yet she is called a home wrecker. This is not reliable or truthful. The reason I thought Tiger Woods was a good example is because while people may consider it their 'right to know' about his dishonourable favour, the way they would not leave him alone for weeks was overstepping the boundaries.

A few examples of the public right to know are:

• A missing person


• Rapist on the loose


• Jail break


• Murder


• Kidnapping attempt

The reason I think that these come under the public right to know are because it may affect or cause harm to innocent individuals if they are ignorant of the issue. For example; If a serial murderer breaks out of prison, an ignorant person seeing them in the street may offer them assistance, such as picking up a hijacker but an informed person may recognize them and call the police. The difference between knowing and not knowing can be the difference between life and death for another.

*Find out about the NZ Press Council and the EPMU Code of Ethics. Read some of the decisions made and why they were made. Answer some of these questions.

What is the role of the NZ Press Council?
The role of the NZPC is to ensure that the press maintains balance, accuracy, fairness and public interest by the standards that they set.

Why are they necessary?
Because otherwise it is possible to create a completely falsified tale and report on it. This could create unnecessary panic and it is just plain wrong.

Why are the code of ethics important?
The reason that ethics are particularly important in this profession is because of the nature of the job. The job is based on morality, honesty and trust. As Oscar Wilde once said 'Morality, like art, means drawing a line someplace' Without a code of ethics, journalism would not exist as it does today.

What is the freedom of the press?
The freedom of the press means that the press can say almost anything they want

How is this guaranteed in NZ?

*Try to contact a journalist and ask them what s/he thinks about journalism ethics. You can use email, phone, etc to do this. You could ring Salient at Victoria University, or any of the community papers (The Wellingtonian, Capital Times, etc.) Ask your teacher to help you contact someone.

Who might think journalism ethics are not that important?
Greedy, desperate, little people who just want to make a quick buck off a false 'interesting' story rather than putting in the effort of finding a real story.

Can you find examples where the code of ethics doesn't seem to have been followed?
Stephen Glass falsifies a large amount of his articles. Making up sources, events, and places. People begin to doubt facts in his story and when questioned he claims that he was fooled by his sources. Glass is put on a two-year suspension and when his boss Lane goes through his articles it is discovered that he made up all or part of twenty seven out of his forty one articles.

In what way(s) has the code of ethics not been followed? Why?
The code of ethics state that journalism is about being balanced, honest and fair. He was not honest because a lot of what he said was false or untruthful. He was unbalanced in the fact that if he was balanced he would look at both sides of a story and decide what slant to put on the story, because there was no actual story he was only able to put his own view on the story therefore there was no balance. He was unfair in convincing, or attempting to convince the public of a false story.

Should it have been? Why?
Yes, it should have been. The reason there is a code in the first place is because, we as a public tend to rely on reporters to uphold their code of ethics so that we can get a fair and balanced view of the world.

Rent and view Shattered Glass. How/why is this relevant to journalism ethics?

Finally -
What do you think? How ethical are journalists?
I would love to believe that the all reporters follow a strict code of ethics and are completely honest with their reporting but unfortunately I know that this is probably not always the case. Commercialism can have an impact on impartialism. The necessity to sell newspapers can tempt journalists to make stories more elaborate and attractive to the reader.

How ethical should they be?
I believe that journalists should be completely ethical with their reporting however I do not believe that this is even close to being realistic. Honesty is idealistic and while everyone strives for it not many people will achieve complete honesty in their lives.