Week 6.

Discussion Questions.
1. In a perfect world I would say no as it is unethical. Yet in a world where I choose to take a chance, I say yes. I would include the balancing comment. I would only do this however, if it could not be proved that it was false, because proper balance reduces the odds of defamation. If the reader insists that this is what they want recorded, and you have exhausted every other witness available to prove it to be false, yet failed, what do you have to loose?

2. No, I would not withhold this story which I have worked hard on. I would simply state within my story that a source was not able to be reached for a comment. This makes it clear that they were given the opportunity to make a balancing statement, while also making it obvious to readers that an effort was made in good faith to be fair and balance the story.
My decision would not change if I knew that an opposing newspaper was planning to run a similar story, reducing the value of my effort because this means that readers of my publication would not be informed of this event, unless of course they read the other paper aswell.
This may have a negative effect on the reputation of my publication, as it may be perceived as missing a important news event and readers may believe that they are not being informed of alot of other issues within society aswell.
Personally, I believe it would be better to run my story which I have done my best on than none at all.

3.Firstly, dangers I would look out for are threats to myself, such as the flames (obviously), falling debri and smoke. I would also be aware of those around me and ensure they do not put themselves at risk either. I would interview witnesses of the fire, as according to Conley and Lamble (2006), they add weight and credibility to the story. I would however, be sure to confirm their statements later, as they may be embellished from the excitement they are exeriencing.
I would also interview police, fire fighters; particularly the Chief, along with medical officers at the scene. This is because according to Conley and Lamble (2006), they would be valuable in giving authorative comments on injuries, the fire's trail, structural damage and suspected causes.
In addition to these people I would interview the owners of the building, its tenants; particularly those who where in the building when the fire started, a council building inspector to get an idea of the damage and finally, owners of adjoining businesses.

4. From my reading of news stories, I believe that the inverted pyramid remains the most effective method of structuring material.
Although writing in a narrative style may be useful to entice an individual into reading a story and keep them captivated, I believe that the inverted pyramid is more effective in immediately informing them with pressing issues.
This is because it always ensures that the most important facts of a news story are rightfully addressed at the beginning of the story.
According to Conley and Lamble (2006), other forms of writing may produce irritating articles which never get to the point.
This therefore persuades me that the inverted pyramid is the way to go.

Journalism Issue.
Alternatives to inverted pyramid reporting.
I was amazed by the attitude the information under the sub-heading " Alternatives to inverted pyramid reporting," expressed towards the inverted pyramid.
It was astounding to see that there was only about a paragraph suggesting that it should be used, while the rest of the information positively portrayed other modes of writing such as the use of narrative, point of view and radical clarity.
It suggested that "sometimes using the inverted pyramid model means that the further one reads into a news story, the more boring it gets" (Conley & Lamble, 2006, p. 136). This is because each paragraph is less important than the one before it.
It was particulary interesting to read that the American Society of Newspaper Editors, (ASNE) conducted research which showed that effective writing was not always associated with the inverted pyramid format. (ASNE cited in Conley & Lamble 2006).
The research project involved using the four modes of reporting to report the same story in the St Petersburg Times.
The study revealed that the narrative version tended to be more favourable than the others, as it was simply better to read as it apparently communicated information better.
The report thus suggested that compared to a narrative style of writing, the inverted pyramid encourages 'newspaper skimming,' but deters reading. (ASNE cited in Conley & Lamble 2006).
I think that this point is valid, however a narrative style forces you to read the whole story because you are not presented with the facts immediately.
ASNE (as cited in Conley & Lamble 2006), notes that most alternative modes including narratives, do not attempt to explain the story to the reader at the start, but lead them several paragraphs into an article before attempting to deal with news values.
Personally, I think this is manipulative and would make reading the story tiresome and frustrating. I would rather be informed straight away with who and what the story is about, along with when it occured, followed by the pleasure of finding out in more detail how and why the incident happened further in the story.
So, from a readers point of view, I would rather read stories that are written in the inverted pyramid style, however as a writer, I sometimes find this style very restrictive.

Reference: Conley, D., & Lamble, S.(2006). Upside-down pyramids. In Conley, D., & Lamble, S. (Eds.), The Daily Miracle: An introduction to journalism. (3rd ed). (pp.124-140). Victoria: Oxford.