I remember being warned by an assistant city editor once to never even call a story file by anything I wouldn’t want to see entered into evidence in a libel trial. Knowing that, and knowing how journalists have a macabre sense of humour, I found this interesting. Broadcast journalists caught talking about a candidate’s supporters including child molesters. And their boss says it was all just reporters “speculating,” and the reporters weren’t deciding ahead of time what the story would be.
So, does this mean we’ve got to start watching ourselves when we’re joking around?
I remember being warned by an assistant city editor once to never even call a story file by anything I wouldn’t want to see entered into evidence in a libel trial. Knowing that, and knowing how journalists have a macabre sense of humour, I found this interesting. Broadcast journalists caught talking about a candidate’s supporters including child molesters. And their boss says it was all just reporters “speculating,” and the reporters weren’t deciding ahead of time what the story would be.
So, does this mean we’ve got to start watching ourselves when we’re joking around?
[node:ad]
It’s a joke, right?
I remember being warned by an assistant city editor once to never even call a story file by anything I wouldn’t want to see entered into evidence in a libel trial. Knowing that, and knowing how journalists have a macabre sense of humour, I found this interesting. Broadcast journalists caught talking about a candidate’s supporters including child molesters. And their boss says it was all just reporters “speculating,” and the reporters weren’t deciding ahead of time what the story would be.
So, does this mean we’ve got to start watching ourselves when we’re joking around?
I remember being warned by an assistant city editor once to never even call a story file by anything I wouldn’t want to see entered into evidence in a libel trial. Knowing that, and knowing how journalists have a macabre sense of humour, I found this interesting. Broadcast journalists caught talking about a candidate’s supporters including child molesters. And their boss says it was all just reporters “speculating,” and the reporters weren’t deciding ahead of time what the story would be.
So, does this mean we’ve got to start watching ourselves when we’re joking around?
[node:ad]Dale Bass
November 1, 2010
I’ve been watching this story
I’ve been watching this story develop and I have to agree with the city editor that a level of professionalism must be maintained at all times.
What’s particularly interesting in this case is the candid account of what the team was discussing.
You never know who is listening and how they will use something like this against you. Even if it was harmless banter, the damage is done. You represent not only yourself, but the integrity of the news team so act accordingly. In this case, the news team is now the story. Bravo.
I guess that makes me a stick in the mud.