Week 8.

1) I would much rather do a ‘paper chase’ which is conducted entirely by computer and telephone that takes half the time it would have taken if I had left the office. I would chose this option because the other one says that I would be put under EXTREME deadline pressure and I can assure you, although my ability to work under pressure is reasonably good, I would much rather get the facts quickly over the phone. This is because the extra time would allow me to ensure that I have enough time to create a very well written article.
Also, I don’t see why I would spend more time by leaving the office to conduct in-person interviews when I can get the same answers over the phone.

2. Yes, I would be willing to pursue a corruption investigation or an investigation into organised crime if it included many unpaid hours of extra and personal risk.
I would do this because these are the stories I wish to do journalism for. I want to uncover crime and other important issues within society that as a result, will make a difference within the community. I believe personal sacrifice is only a small price to pay if the outcome is success or benefiting others.

3. No, I would not be willing to act together as a unit with competing reporters at a media conference in an effort to gain maximum information if it meant giving up a crucial question that I had intended on asking privately after the conference.
The reason I say this is because the chapter this week really opened my eyes to what it is like for journalists at news conferences. I always thought that they simply asked a question, got their answer and moved on. Never did I consider the possibility that by asking your question you run the risk of giving away the entire, unique angle of your own story.
I also did not realise the disadvantage journalists who work within the print media face in reporting news.
For example, Conley and Lamble (2006) state that “Print, and to a lesser extent, web journalists are at a disadvantage when attending press conferences with broadcast journalists” (p.173).
“If they ask tough, well researched questions, radio journalists will record the answers, which can be broadcast within minutes.
“The print journalist is left to find a new story angle for the morning’s paper.
“And, if print or web journalists try to speak with the person interviewed before the conference, they may find a microphone thrust over their shoulders.” (p.173).

For these reasons, I would not risk asking my question within a media conference. I would wait until my private interview commencing after this.

4.
After reading this chapter however, I believe that the government owns the information it withholds within Australia, simply because of our system of government.
When comparing the US republic which has a definite separation of powers between legislature, judiciary and public service to Australia’s Westminster-style system of government, it is demonstrated that government-held information is not owned by the people within Australia.
In the US, government-held information belongs to the people because the US republic has constitutional guarantees of free speech and freedom of the press.
This is not the case within Australia however, because there is no real separation between the leaders of the government ie) the Prime Minister and the public service. (Conley and Lamble, 2006).
Lamble (2003), states “Australian state and federal ministers can, and do, interfere in the workings of the public service” (p.51).
This means that public servants are encouraged by politicians and their associates to inform public relations practitioners in their minister’s office when difficult FoI applications are lodged by journalists, thus resulting in them using tactics to block the application. (Conley and Lamble, 2006).
As a result, this limits our access to government-held information, thus making me believe that due to our form of government, the people within Australia do not own this information as the governments power over it is far to extensive.

5. There was not a lot of information within this chapter to help me decide how I would address this situation. However, I think that I would decide which to attend by contacting the organisers of the conferences and requesting the agendas for their conferences. I would also ask for copies of the speeches that will be made, discussion papers and advice on key note addresses. This information would help me to decide on which conference session would be more beneficial in providing me with quality information for a story. I would then be able to make an informed decision on which conference to attend.

Journalism issue.
A point I found interesting within this chapter referred to covering protest rallies. As a result, I learnt a number of valuable points to remember when doing this.
Firstly, an obvious point raised by Conley and Lamble (2006) was that protest rallies are often one-sided and people participating are usually very passionate and emotional. Protest rallies are usually held because persons disagree with an organisation’s actions or political decisions, so when reporting a story on this, journalists need to ensure that they create balance.
Conley and Lamble (2006) suggest contacting those who are criticised after the event (if they are not present), to receive their points of view.
Recording crowd numbers is also an important point journalists need to cover, as according to Conley and Lamble (2006), it gives readers an idea of an event’s importance.
Police usually provide estimates of crown numbers, however at times so too will the protesters. A journalist then has a number of options. These include reporting both estimates and allowing the public to decide who is more credible (Personally, I would believe the estimate provided by the police, as they have no motive to give a false attendance count), or make their own estimate.
This is done by ‘head-counting’ which involves counting roughly how many people are in the front row and multiplying this by how many rows there are.
I also learnt that when covering rallies, a journalist must ensure their own safety by reporting away from the centre of the crowd, ie) from its edge. They must also have at least one clear escape route. This is primarily for safety reasons, however it is also so they can get away quickly when they need to write and file the story.
Therefore, this reading was beneficial to my knowledge of what being a journalist entails and as a result, made me very keen to begin my career, as it sounds quite exciting!

References:
Conley, D., & Lamble, S. (2006). Small path, big story. In Conley, D., & Lamble, S. (Eds.), The daily miracle: An introduction to journalism. (3rd ed). (pp. 163-182). Victoria: Oxford.

Lamble, S. (February 2003). United States FoI laws are a poor modle for stautes in other nations, Freedom of Information Review, no. 106 (pp. 5-9).