Write an original article for TV broadcast
Draft:
Use sub-editing skills to finalise article for broadcast
In the sub edited script above, I've looked at it and realised there are some spelling mistakes within the piece as well as some of it didn't make sense. Meaning I had to change it grammatically as well as changing some of the sentences to make sure it makes sense.
Sub edited version:
Teenagers all over England are being effected by social media, could this be happening to you? Recent studies show that teenagers spend up to nine hours a day on social media, this is according to the common sense media website.
Social media today is very easy to use compared to 50 years ago, when you would have to write a letter to someone. Now you can send a message to someone within seconds and its all done by your phone.
So when did this really start? Well it started about 12 years ago, when Facebook was launched by a man called Mark zuckerburg; this changed the world forever. Facebook was an easy way to contact people. This started to really effect teenagers, teenagers would now spend hours on Facebook, not connecting with the outside world.
In another study posted by ‘live science’, they say that social media and teens are linked to poor sleep and anxiety, which can lead to bad mental health.
In a recent interview with Brendan Sheppard, head of media at Netherhall Sixth Form, he says how he thinks social media has impacted teenagers a lot.
Interview clip<
4’50” to 5’08”
last couple of words “Is more important than the person standing in front of them”
So if you are a teenager and you have any electronic device that allows you to access the internet, just think how long you are really spending on it. And is it actually good to be spending that long on your phone or tablet. Thats all for now on social media and teenagers, now to the football…
Teenagers all over England are being effected by social media, could this be happening to you? Recent studies show that teenagers spend up to nine hours a day on social media, this is according to the common sense media website.
Social media today is very easy to use compared to 50 years ago, when you would have to write a letter to someone. Now you can send a message to someone within seconds and its all done by your phone.
So when did this really start? Well it started about 12 years ago, when Facebook was launched by a man called Mark zuckerburg; this changed the world forever. Facebook was an easy way to contact people. This started to really effect teenagers, teenagers would now spend hours on Facebook, not connecting with the outside world.
In another study posted by ‘live science’, they say that social media and teens are linked to poor sleep and anxiety, which can lead to bad mental health.
In a recent interview with Brendan Sheppard, head of media at Netherhall Sixth Form, he says how he thinks social media has impacted teenagers a lot.
Interview clip<
4’50” to 5’08”
last couple of words “Is more important than the person standing in front of them”
So if you are a teenager and you have any electronic device that allows you to access the internet, just think how long you are really spending on it. And is it actually good to be spending that long on your phone or tablet. Thats all for now on social media and teenagers, now to the football…
Explain mode of address and structure used
|
What is the purpose of your article that you have to write? 0:30
Who is the audience? 0:31 - 0:54
Should the language be informal or formal and why? 0:55 - 1:22
Is the style direct or indirect and why? 1:23 - 1:46
Should the tone be teacher to pupil, parent to child or peer to peer? Remember this is Newsround what is the expected tone and how does your article achieve this? 1:47 - 3:01
Why did you use the images / video you used? How did they enhance the article for the audience? 3:01 - 4:06
Are your initial sentences structured so that the ‘who’, ‘what’ and ‘where’ is clear in the opening paragraph? Give examples. 4:07 - 5:00
Does your next few paragraphs include the ‘why’ and ‘how’.? Give examples 5:01 - 5:42
Did you include at least two of the most useful and valid sources that were evaluated in D1? Discuss how these enhanced your article. 5:43 - 7:50
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.
This part of the script follows rule 1. Accuracy. The reason why this part of the script follows rule.1 is because I got this from a reliable website which was non bias and all the facts and figure where right on it. "Live Science launched in 2004, with just three team members, as a complement to the space and astronomy news site Space.com. The site received Webby Awards as an Honoree in the Science category in 2008 and 2010. It was acquired by Tech Media Network, now called Purch, in 2009." So this website is very safe and reliable. They are reliable as a website that is so big and won many awards wouldn't post false information otherwise there platform would get shut down. This data would be very trustworthy as it is a group of scientists and this would be there job to collect data like this and analyse it, so this is trustworthy information. However the only problem with this data is we don't know how old it is for example this data could have been collected 5 years ago and the results may have changed today significantly.
This part of the script does not break rule 2 which is privacy. It doesn't break rule number 2 as I had permission from the person I was interviewing to use his name and his job title, this then doesn't break rule 2 as I didn't infringe on his privacy. I also didn't give or ask him to give any personal family life stories or information to the camera, instead he shared his own personal information as he wanted to and I didn't ask him to. This means I have also followed rule 14 which is confidential sources meaning I didn't give away any of his information without his permission. I also didn't break rule 3 which is harassment, as I didn't force the teacher to do the interview I asked and he did it as he wanted to help me do it.
Here I didn't break the editors code of practice as I didn't break rule 12 because I didn't discriminate against teenagers, for example I only said if you are a teenager think on how long you are really spending on social media. I didn't discriminate saying all teenagers spend all their time on social media. The reason why however I did mention teenagers being associated with social media as it is part of the story and true to the story as there has been many facts and figures to show teenagers do spend the most time on social media, so I wasn't generalising when writing this piece I took teenagers as they are relevant to the story.
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.
Section 1, rule 1: Material that might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of people under eighteen must not be broadcast.
My article diffentley does follow this rule as I believe there is nothing in this piece that could either impair or be morally wrong, fro example all of my images I use are safe to see and nothing the would be morally wrong is on the picture neither is there anything on the picture that would impair the physical. Because I haven't broken section 1 rule 1 this means my broadcast can be played at what were time and doesn't have to be played to a certain audience or at a certain time.
section 2, 2.2 Factual programmes or items or portrayals of factual matters must not materially mislead the audience. (Note to Rule 2.2: News is regulated under Section five of the Code.)
I am following this rule as I checked all my facts and the information I used along with all the figures to make sure they are all correct and non of it was false information, I know all the information I used was reliable as it came from a reliable source which was not fake and had false information on.
section 3, 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 my article doesn't condone violence at all but it does however give examples on how social media has posters side to it like connecting with friends and posting photos etc. It doesn't however encourage violence though social media.
section 3, 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.
I don't think my article follows this rule, although I didn't demonstrate any criminal techniques, the one thing I didn't show was how you could stop criminal techniques or avoid them through social media; thus breaking section 3, rule 3.4.
section 7, 7.1 Broadcasters must avoid unjust or unfair treatment of individuals or organisations in programmes.
I think I have followed this rule in my article as I didnt give anyone unfair or unjust treatment when filming this article as everything I said in the script was not unfair toady organisation or individual. for example When talking about live-Sceince I didn't use any words to slander the organisation. I also didn't treat the person who I interviewed unfairly.
section 8, 8.2 Information which discloses the location of a person’s home or family should not be revealed without permission, unless it is warranted.
My article does not break this code as when I was filming my interview I told the teacher who I was filming that he can state anything he likes and I didn't force him to say anything, he also had a free obligation to state the location go his home or about his family but he chose not too and that was completely fine with me and I didn't make him say something or reveal something he didn't want to.
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 feel that I have followed this rule because I told the individual that at if any point he or she is getting uncomfortable they can stop the broadcasting. To do this I made sure before hand that I got permission from them and made sure they where comfortable with doing this. I also gave the list of question I would be asking to the individual so they could run through it and flag up any of the question they weren't comfortable with.
My article diffentley does follow this rule as I believe there is nothing in this piece that could either impair or be morally wrong, fro example all of my images I use are safe to see and nothing the would be morally wrong is on the picture neither is there anything on the picture that would impair the physical. Because I haven't broken section 1 rule 1 this means my broadcast can be played at what were time and doesn't have to be played to a certain audience or at a certain time.
section 2, 2.2 Factual programmes or items or portrayals of factual matters must not materially mislead the audience. (Note to Rule 2.2: News is regulated under Section five of the Code.)
I am following this rule as I checked all my facts and the information I used along with all the figures to make sure they are all correct and non of it was false information, I know all the information I used was reliable as it came from a reliable source which was not fake and had false information on.
section 3, 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 my article doesn't condone violence at all but it does however give examples on how social media has posters side to it like connecting with friends and posting photos etc. It doesn't however encourage violence though social media.
section 3, 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.
I don't think my article follows this rule, although I didn't demonstrate any criminal techniques, the one thing I didn't show was how you could stop criminal techniques or avoid them through social media; thus breaking section 3, rule 3.4.
section 7, 7.1 Broadcasters must avoid unjust or unfair treatment of individuals or organisations in programmes.
I think I have followed this rule in my article as I didnt give anyone unfair or unjust treatment when filming this article as everything I said in the script was not unfair toady organisation or individual. for example When talking about live-Sceince I didn't use any words to slander the organisation. I also didn't treat the person who I interviewed unfairly.
section 8, 8.2 Information which discloses the location of a person’s home or family should not be revealed without permission, unless it is warranted.
My article does not break this code as when I was filming my interview I told the teacher who I was filming that he can state anything he likes and I didn't force him to say anything, he also had a free obligation to state the location go his home or about his family but he chose not too and that was completely fine with me and I didn't make him say something or reveal something he didn't want to.
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 feel that I have followed this rule because I told the individual that at if any point he or she is getting uncomfortable they can stop the broadcasting. To do this I made sure before hand that I got permission from them and made sure they where comfortable with doing this. I also gave the list of question I would be asking to the individual so they could run through it and flag up any of the question they weren't comfortable with.
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 is not simply a matter of getting facts right. If an issue is controversial, relevant opinions as well as facts may need to be considered. When necessary, all the relevant facts and information should also be weighed to get at the truth.
I think my article doesn't break the BBC's rule of accuracy because I made sure all my facts and figures where doubled checked before putting them into the article so I didn't have any false information in there and it was as accurate as it could be. I did have sources direct from people so I knew it was as accurate as possible because they had first hand experience of it.
Section 5, 5.1 harm and offence
I think my article didn't break section 5 of the BBC's guidelines as there was no harm done or offence given. I made sure they way I structured my piece didn't course harm to anyone I was also careful of what Images I used and video content as I didn't want to offend anyone so I was careful what I said and what content was displayed.
section 6, 6.1 fairness
I think my article did follow this rule as when I gave my facts and figure I explained where they were from, giving the website when In the speech so this then allows the audience to know where the facts and figure are from as well as free publicity for LiveScience.
section 7, 7.1 privacy. The Human Rights Act 1998 gives protection to the privacy of individuals, and private information about them, but balances that with a broadcaster's right to freedom of expression.
I think my article follows this rule because I showed the person who I was interviewing the questions before hand so they could see if they where too personal I also made sure the questions I showed them went too personal. I also made sure my individual was happy talking to the camera and filming, I also made sure he was perfectly happy talking about parts of his private life and I stated he didn't have to share if he didn't want to.
section 8, 8.1 reporting crime and antisocial behaviour.
I think I did follow this rule in my article as the whole article was about antisocial behaviour with teenagers today, using facts to back up my point. I also didn't add moral panic as in the BBC's guideline it states "Our reporting must not add to people's fear of becoming victims of crime if statistics suggest it is very unlikely." so I didn't add moral panic as this ould course the audience to be alarmed.
section 9, 9.1 children and young people as contributors. Children and young people are very important to the BBC. They contribute and interact with us in many different ways - as contributors, actors, presenters, through our interactive and user generated content, via all our services
I didn't break this rule as there where no young people in my article so this means I couldn't have broken the BBC's rule as there was no one under the age of 16 in the piece.
Section 14, 14.1 Editorial Integrity and Independence from External Interest. The BBC's reputation, in the UK and around the world, is based on its editorial integrity and independence. Our audiences must be able to trust the BBC and be confident that our editorial decisions are not influenced by outside interests, political or commercial pressures, or any personal interests.
I think that I followed this rule as my article was very non bias and was very informative which allowed the audience to rest the article and not feel like they where being swayed to one opinion. I also made sure my piece was factual and not opinionated in anyway only giving facts to the audience.
I think my article doesn't break the BBC's rule of accuracy because I made sure all my facts and figures where doubled checked before putting them into the article so I didn't have any false information in there and it was as accurate as it could be. I did have sources direct from people so I knew it was as accurate as possible because they had first hand experience of it.
Section 5, 5.1 harm and offence
I think my article didn't break section 5 of the BBC's guidelines as there was no harm done or offence given. I made sure they way I structured my piece didn't course harm to anyone I was also careful of what Images I used and video content as I didn't want to offend anyone so I was careful what I said and what content was displayed.
section 6, 6.1 fairness
I think my article did follow this rule as when I gave my facts and figure I explained where they were from, giving the website when In the speech so this then allows the audience to know where the facts and figure are from as well as free publicity for LiveScience.
section 7, 7.1 privacy. The Human Rights Act 1998 gives protection to the privacy of individuals, and private information about them, but balances that with a broadcaster's right to freedom of expression.
I think my article follows this rule because I showed the person who I was interviewing the questions before hand so they could see if they where too personal I also made sure the questions I showed them went too personal. I also made sure my individual was happy talking to the camera and filming, I also made sure he was perfectly happy talking about parts of his private life and I stated he didn't have to share if he didn't want to.
section 8, 8.1 reporting crime and antisocial behaviour.
I think I did follow this rule in my article as the whole article was about antisocial behaviour with teenagers today, using facts to back up my point. I also didn't add moral panic as in the BBC's guideline it states "Our reporting must not add to people's fear of becoming victims of crime if statistics suggest it is very unlikely." so I didn't add moral panic as this ould course the audience to be alarmed.
section 9, 9.1 children and young people as contributors. Children and young people are very important to the BBC. They contribute and interact with us in many different ways - as contributors, actors, presenters, through our interactive and user generated content, via all our services
I didn't break this rule as there where no young people in my article so this means I couldn't have broken the BBC's rule as there was no one under the age of 16 in the piece.
Section 14, 14.1 Editorial Integrity and Independence from External Interest. The BBC's reputation, in the UK and around the world, is based on its editorial integrity and independence. Our audiences must be able to trust the BBC and be confident that our editorial decisions are not influenced by outside interests, political or commercial pressures, or any personal interests.
I think that I followed this rule as my article was very non bias and was very informative which allowed the audience to rest the article and not feel like they where being swayed to one opinion. I also made sure my piece was factual and not opinionated in anyway only giving facts to the audience.