Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Spelling/grammar/formatting of paragraphs X
Content
Overall X
First Marker Comments (where appropriate):
Kelly,
You showed clear and sustained reflection on your craft, and the ethical and regulatory
implications of it, throughout this essay. Your referral to secondary material was very good
and displayed that you have read widely and were well able to apply that reading to your
own craft. This kind of reflection will serve you well as a journalist.
Your essay was weaker in the areas where you slid off-topic and occupied yourself more
with your craft – how and why you made the package – rather than a more explicit
consideration of the ethical/regulatory implications of your work, which was the remit of the
essay. You did this on a few occasions and while I found your ruminations on your craft
quite interesting, they were, unfortunately, irrelevant to the assignment.
Kelly, you must absolutely re-read your work before submitting it. Read it aloud to yourself
and you will catch various typos, spelling errors, punctuation omissions and clumsy syntax.
These are totally avoidable mistakes that held back your essay.
Your ethical reflections and points were all quite well put and were interesting. I commend
you on really digging into your own experience and being honest with yourself in terms of
where you may have fallen short of ethical standards. I especially liked your explanations of
how you rebalanced your package in the edit and how you would go about doing it all better
next time.
I would have liked you to focus on fewer ethical points/aspects and to dig deeper into each
one.
Your process of asking each side of a story the very same questions is too cautions. It is
good to be careful but do know that being conscious of balance and wary to ensure it in the
final edit is enough. You don’t have to ask all interviewees the same questions. You can
tailor your questions to each interviewee and what role you want them to play in the overall
story.
You are able to reflect well and pull in diverse readings and this is a solid foundation for
good academic writing. In the future, make more of an effort to focus your line of argument
on the assigned topic of the essay, avoiding straying from that line for too long.
Good job!
GRADE:
First Marker: 62
Second Marker:
External Examiner:
PENALTIES:
Over/Under Length:
(Conceptual point)
Presentation (5%):
FINAL GRADE:
Critical Reflection - Radio Package
I will be critically evaluating my three-minute Radio Package revolving around Dublin’s ‘Prohibition of
Fur Farming Bill 2018’ in which Ruth Coppinger TD, from Solidarity, introduced in Irish Parliament this
October. A Radio Package is known as a pre-recorded speech package ‘to inform listeners about a subject which
the radio station considers they will find interesting,’ (Starkey, 33) and usually it is compact varying from two
to four minutes. Broadcast Journalists are known to ‘work out risks and implications’ (Alexander, Stewart,
Preface) within this package and thus I will be discussing the Ofcom Broadcasting Code, the BBC Editorial
Guidelines and the NUJ Code of Conduct in relation to my work. I will discuss specific examples from my work
to discuss how I applied these rules within these codes and guidelines to my Radio Package.
The agenda throughout my package was to not only expose corruption, abuse and wrong doing within the
Fur Industry but also to have a fair, two-sided story to create a more entertaining, emotional and educational
piece for the public. This is because journalism is not only to be a voice for the voiceless, such as animals, but
also to display this voice in an independent, fair and balanced manner. Thus, I approached both sides of the
debate, firstly introducing Evelyn Suttle from VegHuns, a group of Vegan Activists in the National Animal
Rights Association in comparison to Caroline Barnardo, whom co-runs Dublin’s Barnardo’s Furriers, the oldest
family furrier in the world. Evelyn has been trying to help pass the Bill by protesting outside the Department of
Agriculture for thirty weeks. However, Caroline fears that the changes to the Animal Health and Welfare Act
2013 will destroy her business, which has been creating fur garments for almost two-hundred years. I had to be
conscious of what role I wanted my interviewees to play and thus did not unequivocally know which direction
the interview with Caroline would take. Would people feel sympathy or aggravation towards her? Despite this,
I wanted to create an emotional reaction from the audience to maintain a strong engagement. The internal
challenges such as making sure the news is trustworthy and trusted were overcome by planning to ask all
respondents the same questions to conclude a fair and equal treatment towards them both. Hence, keeping in
mind the codes and objectives of The Ofcom Broadcasting Code, applying the rules to my Radio Package
throughout.
The Ofcom Broadcasting Code is a code for radio (and television) which covers programmes standards,
their privacy and fairness. This code was required by the 2003 Communications Act and the 1996 Broadcasting
Act and was also drafted regarding the 1998 Human Rights Act (Ofcom, 2). Principally, as a film production
student, I found the project challenging compared to my Broadcast and Journalism peers whom had more
Broadcast knowledge prior to the project and further experience with the typical rules and regulations within
Radio. Thus, I felt I did not abide all the rules as accurately as I intended to, for instance, with rule 7.1 in The
Ofcom Broadcasting Code. Rule 7.1, which is in section seven of The Ofcom Broadcasting Code, focuses on
fairness and states that ‘Broadcasters must avoid unjust or unfair treatment of individuals or organisations in
programmes’ (Ofcom, 38). I felt I struggled to meet the principles behind this rule as I had concealed elements
involving my intentions for the Radio Package in order to receive an interview with Caroline Barnardo. I found
it substantially more difficult to interview a subject with a view opposing the Fur Ban as it is seen as an unpopular
and more self-interested view today. Thus, after discovering Barnardo Furrier’s are arduous to secure an
interview from, I approached Caroline with a different angle to the story than I realistically knew I intended
which created ethical issues within my piece. Firstly, even though I never lied about the subject matter, I had
masked my overall intentions by withholding information from her about my other interviewees. For example,
I had told Caroline that this project was to shed a light on the positives of the Fur Ban as well, which it partially
was as I intended to show the opposing side of the Fur Ban to show how people will lose their jobs too. However,
after Caroline’s interview, there were no sound bites which created sympathy for her. The most engaging sound
bites were prone to make the audience agitated with her comments as she states her life is worse than the animals
slaughtered as they ‘do not have to go to work’ like she does. Thus, I feel my intentions changed in the edit in
order to create a more interesting piece, and therefore did not follow rule 7.1 as I failed to avoid unjust or unfair
treatment of the individual. This learning curve has enabled me to be able to approach individuals and
organisations with a more detailed plan of my project as I explain the edit may change depending on the sound
bites that are created within the interview. This was an important lesson as the terms of the Standards Code and
the Fairness Code are required to be followed by Broadcasters regarding the BBC Agreement4 and, by law in
Rule 7.6 states that ‘When a programme is edited, contributions should be represented fairly’ (Ofcom, 40),
and I do feel I represented the opposing sides fairly, as I asked them both the same questions and did not
manipulate any of their arguments with music or sound using Pro Tools to create a specific atmosphere. Thus,
the decision to not add music to my package was to make sure I was not manipulating the audience to feel
sympathy for anyone or to dramatize a statistic. Guy Starkey states that even though it can be a considerable
asset to punctuate the narrative, the use of music can detract from a package and must be careful not to be used
indiscriminately in one either (Starkey, 46). As ‘the idea is to carry the narrative forward’ (Hudson, Rowlands,
260), I knew I had to cut out my questions in the edit, to create a smooth narrative that efficiently flowed. Hence,
asking both parties the same questions enabled me to construct a bridge between the interviews in the edit as
they would talk about the same topics but with opposing views.
The BBC Editorial Value Guidelines aim to create ethical and high-quality content for their audiences
(BBC, 1). I will be discussing the BBC’s 1.2.4 Editorial Value: Editorial Integrity and Independence. This
predominantly focuses on making sure the content produced is not influenced by political, commercial or
personal interests (BBC, 2). I feel even though I attempted to discard my personal beliefs and emotions on the
matter, it still mildly affected the overall piece, creating a slight bias. For instance, my decision to follow
Evelyn’s character could have been subconsciously influenced by my belief that there are more anti-fur
arguments that logically make sense, thus she would have more reliable and relatable sound bites within her
interview. I found it hard to relate to Caroline as I did not agree with her arguments myself, thus this may have
affected the edit as I used more of Evelyn’s interview due to agreeing with her arguments. The radio editor’s
role is known to be ‘responsible for making sure that reports are accurate and fair’ (Kern, 92). The BBC’s Charter
and Agreement incorporates these values as well, stating that we should ‘ensure that controversial subjects are
treated with due accuracy and impartiality’ (BBC, 3). I felt I not only followed this rule but also was able to
follow their aim of promoting educational content as Radio is seen as a ‘didactic medium’ (Leverage, 6). I
wanted to help the audience learn about what this Bill in Irish Parliament is and why it is important, incorporating
facts on who it affects both negatively and positively whilst attempting to maintain impartiality.
The main principles of UK and Irish Journalism was set out by The National Union of Journalists Code of
Conduct since 1963 (NUJ, 1). This code consists of twelve rules that members of The National Union of
Journalists are expected to abide by. I will be evaluating rule ten which states that the Journalist ‘does not by
way of statement, voice or appearance endorse by advertisement any commercial product or service save for the
promotion of her/his own work or of the medium by which she/he is employed’ (NUJ, 1). I was interviewing a
popular company selling a product: Barnardo Furriers. Therefore, I had to make sure this was an educational
package on the Bill to Ban Fur Farming instead of an advertisement for Barnardo’s business. For example,
Caroline began the interview by stating that their high-quality fur garments last over 200 years and therefore
enable customers to save more money on clothing as they do not have to re-bye a coat due to their durability.
To fix the issue of Caroline constantly complimenting Barnardo Furrier’s, I stopped the interview and explained
that the focal point of the research surrounds the Bill and Caroline’s input is more so to argue her opinion on the
Bill in Parliament, rather than Barnardo’s perks. I also followed Rule nine, which was to produce ‘no material
likely to lead to hatred or discrimination on the grounds of a person’s age, gender, race, colour, creed, legal
status, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation’ (NUJ, 1). Thus, throughout the piece I refrained from
mentioning any of the interviewees age, gender, race or any other personal information except from Caroline’s
job due to its relevancy to the subject matter. This enabled me to create an unbiased piece as the audience would
not be able to judge the interviewees on their personal life but only on the arguments they put forward. I further
managed to maintain an emotional distance from all the subjects in order to maintain neutrality and impartiality.
For example, when first meeting each of them individually, I briefly spoke with them politely, then re-explained
the process and questions and began the interview, leaving afterwards and maintaining no further friendship
post-interview and more-so a professional relationship. Thus, the lack of knowledge I as well as the audience
have on the interviewees personal life enabled me to construct an argument focusing solely on the debate instead
of the focal point being principally on the judgement of each person’s character.
The pre-production blueprint to follow Evelyn’s character enabled me to visualise sound bites for the piece
whilst simultaneously pre-identifying characters, scenes and locations with consideration to the knowledge that
‘a radio audience, consist of listeners not viewers’ (Kern, 35). Therefore, I began the piece using sound from the
Fur Ban protest, this sound being known as an actuality (Alexander, Stewart, 93), to encapsulate the audience
immediately into the hectic nature of the situation, thus portraying the intense importance this topic means to
some individuals. This dramatic opening to the package was vital for me as Hudson and Rowland stated, ‘the
opening words or sounds in any report have to grab the audience’s attention’ (Hudson, Rowland, 259) which
was my intention, thus I planned my trip to Dublin a day earlier in order to capture the protest chants on the
Zoom H4N Pro Handy Recorder. Kern argues that there must be ‘some sort of logical connection between the
intro and the start of the report itself’ (Kern, 106). Hence, connecting the chants of the protest to an interview
with a participator of the protest felt like a smooth transition between the actuality and the sound bite. I followed
Bloomberg’s mathematical “and what’s interesting” test (Bloomberg, 1) by stating to people that “I’m doing a
story about banning fur farming which saves animals lives, and what’s interesting about it is it will destroy a
family’s business and thus their lives.” This helped create a clear divide within the piece about which is more
important, the animals or the people involved, therefore enabling me to ‘keep it simple’ (Vin, 31). Thus,
interviewing predominantly two people, with an extra opinion from a third interview set up a more
straightforward, minimalistic piece of Journalism. John Grierson, a British filmmaker advocates that this is the
best approach for an entertaining piece as he stated that ‘you can write an article about the postal service, but
you must make a film about one single letter’ (Vin, 32). However, I did want an expert opinion on the matter
but struggled to receive an interview as nobody would respond to my calls and emails or were simply
unavailable. There were external challenges such as the changing media environment increasing in domination
by platform companies. This made it substantially harder to book interviews for an expert opinion on the Bill to
Ban Fur Farming as I was taken less seriously as a student journalist compared to well-known production
Overall, I structured my piece to assure I could ‘capture conflict, tension, and other dramatic elements’
(Rosenthal, 1). Thus, some of the questions I asked Caroline, Evelyn and Dean were ‘how does fur farming
being banned affect you personally?’ in hopes to create more emotionally-driven sound bites. I aimed to
construct ‘the most narratively compelling way to communicate both the factual and emotional truth of the story’
(Rosenthal, 1). However, another implication that I faced was in trying to capture authenticity among the
interviewees whilst simultaneously endorsing all the ‘rules’ I requested them to follow. Such as reducing the
amount of numbers and complex dialect they use throughout the interview and giving them a hefty list to not
use hollow, vague, vogue, non-broadcast, windy, wrong, weary and foreign words whilst concurrently not
wasting words, thus adding pressure (Block, 23-25). This came as a struggle to Evelyn as her arguments were
heavily focused on facts and statistics, leading her to rewording and restructuring her sentences by reducing the
amount of numbers in her statements to help the audience maintain interest. Furthermore, I strived to create a
specific atmosphere using the ambience of the interviews as ‘television has the powerful advantage of being
able to use graphic illustrations to bring home a point’ (Boyde, 77), thus I had to paint word pictures by using
In conclusion, even though I faced multiple challenges within my Radio Package process, I feel I achieved my
agenda to create an educational and engaging piece that is fairly presented to the public. This process enabled
me to become further informed on the Ofcom Broadcasting Code, the BBC Editorial Guidelines and the NUJ
Code of Conduct. Rule 7.1 revolving around fairness was challenging for me as I withheld information in order
to receive an interview and changed direction within the edit after Caroline’s interview created more
aggregational sound bites for the audience in comparison to sympathetic. However, I felt I met the guidelines of
Rule 7.6 as I refrained from manipulating the audience’s reactions to characters by discarding music or
emotionally-atmospheric techniques. Additionally, equally asking the interviewees the same questions enabled
me to maintain fairness and ease to bridge the sound bites smoothly within the edit. Journalism is known to exist
‘in the context of its audience, and its social role, its political importance’ (Nielsen, 1). Therefore, rule nine and
ten in The National Union of Journalists Code of Conduct helped me to focus more so on the packages social
and political role by discarding any use of advertisement and personal information within the interview to
prevent discrimination. Predominantly, my ambition was to create an ‘informative, engaging, relevant, diverse
and empowering’ (Nielsen, 2) piece whilst considering the boundaries from the bountiful rules and regulations
Alexander, Ray and Stewart, Peter. Broadcast Journalism: Techniques of Radio and Television News.
Block, Mervin. Writing Broadcast News - Shorter, Sharper, Stronger: A Professional Handbook.
Boyde, Andrew. Conversational writing. New York; London: Focal Press, 2008.
Kern, Jonathon. Sound Reporting. The NPR Guide to Audio Journalism and Production. Chicago;
Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis. What Can we do for Journalism? University of Oxford, 2018.
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/100103/broadcast-code-april2017.pdf
Starkey, Guy. Radio in Context. Second Addition. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.