D2: JUSTIFY THE CHOICE OF SOURCED INFORMATION TO BE REFERENCED WITHIN THE ARTICLE
Finished Broadcast Programme
List at least three ways that the article breaks or does not break the Editor’s Code of Practice and explain why
1. Accuracy – As the medium for my article was intended to be via a national television programme that is primarily aimed toward and produced for, the young children, it was essential that the article was accurate with information via reliable sources. It was also important that the article remained brief, easy to understand and communicated in an informative manner. The target audience and the time at which the programme is broadcast would impose a more stringent application of the Editor’s Code of Practice, Ofcom Broadcasting Code and the Data Protection Act. My article does not target or suggest a particular individual or a type of individual is a bully as this would be considered as defamation of that persons character. Similarly and in the knowledge that the information broadcast would require appropriate scheduling, as information provided could be used by children, my article does not identify any organisation other than credible national organisations. My article does not break the accuracy clause of the Editor’s Code of Practice as the information I collected was from reliable sources, such as ChildLine which is a recognised and trustworthy official web site solely for helping children.
2. Children – My article does not break the Editor’s Code of Practice children clause as no child under the age of 16 was interviewed, paid, approached or photographed at school. Evidence of this is that all data was sourced via reliable primary and secondary sources (websites) whereas the interview was with a consenting 16 year old girl whose privacy was maintained within the article by not revealing her full and true identity. By concealing the girl’s identity and location, the article prevents critical personal data from entering the public domain and therefore also complies with the Data Protection Act 1998. In addition the information is appropriately scheduled for persons under the age of 15 and without infringement of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code privacy rule.
3. Discrimination – My article does not break the discrimination clause as no reference is included that distinguishes between race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability. Any references to children or young people are made as a group with no prejudice towards or divisions into, any of the aforementioned potentially discriminatory factors. Evidence of this within my article text includes the use of colloquial terms such as teenagers or young people with distinguishing between other attributes. Examples in the article include “Studies from Do Something.org show that 81% of young people think bullying online is easier to get away with than bullying in person,…” and “Over 80% of teenagers use a cell regularly and 86% think that cyberbullying is a serious problem.”
List several ways that the article breaks or does not break the OFCOM Broadcasting Code Guidance (specifically: Sections 1,2,3,4,5,7 and 8) and explain why
OFCOM is the communication regulator in the UK. They regulate the T.V, radio, mobile and postal service, video on-demand sectors, and fixed-line telecoms.
Section 1, rule 1: Material that might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of people under eighteen must not be broadcast. I think my video follows this rule as I made sure the content was age appropriate for young viewers, with no excessive detail or exaggerated language that would cause any moral panic. I also made sure of this for the images I used, as I made sure they all were for the purpose as a extra explanation, only to help the viewers understand.
Section 2, rule 2.2: Factual programmes or items or portrayals of factual matters must not materially mislead the audience. This rule was not broken as I researched into the sources I used to make sure the information I collected was reliable and crossed referenced facts to reassure they are correct. The content in the article is purely there to guide and inform, not to mislead.
Section 3, rule 3.1: Material likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or to lead to disorder must not be included in television or radio services or BBC ODPS. I think the article does not break this rule as one of the purpose is to discourage the audience from cyberbullying. As my article does not mention any kind of crime it cannot encourage or promote. Although the topic discussed is a huge problem for young people in particular, it does not have the intention to promote crime through social media.
Section 3, rule 3.4: Descriptions or demonstrations of criminal techniques which contain essential details which could enable the commission of crime must not be broadcast unless editorially justified. The article does not break this rule as it does not include any descriptions or demonstrations of criminal techniques. With the news topic I covered, I could possibly included the crimes that take part on social media or criminal extent of cyberbullying, but I felt like this was not age appropriate for my target audience.
Section 7, rule 7.1:Broadcasters must avoid unjust or unfair treatment of individuals or organisations in programmes. My article does not break this rule as I never mentioned any organisations so therefore avoided any unfair comments or treatment. I believe I treated my interviewee with respect and curtesy throughout the broadcast and was not negative or unfair towards them. I hope my article reflects this.
Section 8, rule 8.2: Information which discloses the location of a person’s home or family should not be revealed without permission, unless it is warranted. I believe followed this rule as I avoided asking any personal details to the person I was interviewing. It wasn't necessary to the article and I didn't want to make my interviewee uncomfortable.
Section 8, rule 8.7: If an individual or organisation’s privacy is being infringed, and they ask that the filming, recording or live broadcast be stopped, the broadcaster should do so, unless it is warranted to continue. I followed this rule and would have abided by my interviewee wishes to stop if they needed. The person I interviewed requested an 'audio' recording as they didn't feel comfortable being filmed, so I respected their decision.
List several ways that the article breaks or does not break the BBC Editorial Guidelines (specifically the Sections on Accuracy, Impartiality, Harm and Offence, Fairness, Privacy, Reporting Crime, Children and Young People as Contributors, Editorial Integrity) and explain why
Section 3, 3.1 Accuracy I think that my article does not break the BBC Editorial Guidelines as the factual information I have collected is correct, however it is also about when it is a debatable topic, opinions must be distinct and considered. I backed up my sources by compared the information to reliable websites.
Section 5, 5.1 Harm and Offence I don't think my article for Newsround breaks the guidelines as it is targeted at 6 to 12 year olds, I have made sure the mode of address is kept simple, direct and nothing that will scare the young viewers watching or cause panic to the audience. Newsround is distributed through the channel CBBC, which stands for Children’s British Broadcasting Corporation. This made it essential to make the article appropriate for this popular news channel or else it would not then be able to broadcasted at the correct time for children and would have to comply to the watershed times for television. This would then not reach my target audience.
Section 6, 6.1 Fairness I think the article was fair as there was no bias, libel or slander content and I also made sure when a fact was given by referencing a source or commenting a study, making the audience aware.
Section 7, 7.1 Privacy As the person I interviewed was under eighteen, I made it a priority to also follow the Human Rights Act 1998. In my article, I had the involvement of a student who told her experience with cyberbullying. To follow the rule of protecting under eighteens, I made sure to have her permission to include the interview of her in my news article. However, I did not get the permission to show her visually so I conducted a interview that was only audio recorded to protect her identity on television. So the student was not caused any distress, I made sure she was comfortable during the interview and that she was happy for me to use the audio interview as a primary source.
Section 8, 8.1 Reporting Crime and Antisocial Behaviour I don't the article breaks this rule either as I am not reporting any crime specifically and only inform the viewers on a topic. As for Newsround, I made sure to stay in the publics interests by adapting my story so they benefit from it as well as trying not cause moral panic.
Section 9, 9.1 Children and Young People As Contributors In my article, I featured an audio interview from a student though I think my article does not break this code. This is because as my interviewee was not under the age of 16 which meant that I wasn't required to ask her parents for permission. She gave me her consent to record her and use her experience in the article. I recorded the interview in her free time so I wasn't taking her out of her lesson time which would not have been allowed.
Section 14, 14.1 Editorial Integrity and Independence from External Interest I think this is a topic that is important to report but I have made sure I have remained neutral throughout, with no bias or opinions on cyberbullying and social media. The BBC is a trusted company and it is important for the audience to not feel like the story was influenced, or like they were being swayed to one opinion. By remaining balanced in the article, I don't think this rule was broken.