Archives For Journalism

‘Radio 1 and Radio 2 are failing’. I’m not so sure.

September 30, 2014 — 3 Comments

There’s a new RadioCentre-commissioned report which says, according to Radio Today, that ‘Radio 1 and Radio 2 are failing’. RadioCentre is the industry body for commercial radio. The survey behind the report is independent. But I’m not so sure about this article, because it reads a bit like a RadioCentre press release: read the article here.

RadioCentre

 …according to independent research commissioned by RadioCentre…nearly half (46%) think that Radio 1 is the same, or only slightly different to Capital FM

In the name of accuracy you cannot lump these two things together. The phrases ‘the same’ and ‘slightly different’ are very different things. If 46% of all Radio 1 listeners think it’s ‘the same’ as Capital FM there’s perhaps a problem. However if 46% think it’s ‘slightly different’ then Radio 1 must be doing something right. Especially because presumably the remaining 54% think it’s ‘different’ or ‘very different’.

Whatever the breakdown within that 46%, the MAJORITY of those surveyed actually think Radio 1 is MORE than ‘slightly different’ to Capital FM.

Only 6% of its listeners associated the station with social action and documentaries and 25% with programming for young teenagers

Did the survey question ask people about the phrase ‘social action’? In which case I’m amazed anyone said ‘yes’ at all. It’s a not a phrase most people use. And surely only a small percentage of Radio 1’s output is ‘social action’, therefore if 6% of listeners know about it that doesn’t sound too bad. More than 25% of Radio 1’s audience is NOT ‘young teenagers’ therefore for 25% of those surveyed to ‘associate the station with programming for young teenagers’ is not surprising.

And although Radio 1 is supposed to be aimed at people aged 29 years and under, 30% of 35-44 think it is aimed at them

Or to put it another way: more than two thirds of Radio 1’s ‘older’ audience (35-44) acknowledge that the station is NOT aimed at them.

I don’t know about you but I think it’s amazing that two-thirds of people will admit that they probably shouldn’t be listening to the station they actually listen to.

On we go to Radio 2:

Radio 2 listeners wanted to hear less mainstream chart music (35%)

Isn’t the key finding that ‘65% of Radio 2 listeners are AT THE VERY LEAST ‘happy’ with the amount of mainstream chart music on the station’? Why report the minority, unsurprising comment, headlined as the main finding?

Of the specific service requirements for Radio 2, only 21% said they associated the station with extending musical tastes

‘Only’ 21%? For a station as ‘mainstream’ as Radio 2 I think it’s not such a bad thing that a fifth of people in this survey cite the station as a ‘taste-maker’. In the previous paragraph of the report we’re told that half of the audience ‘highly associate’ the music with Magic and Heart. Are we told what percentage of people think that Magic and Heart are taste-making? No. My guess is the result might be lower.

only…11% associated the station with original comedy and just 17% with arts programming

There’s that ‘only’ word again. Less than 11% of Radio 2’s output has anything to do with original comedy. Less than 17% of Radio 2’s output is what you’d define as ‘arts programming’. So, these figures sound pretty good. Why are they written up as a bad thing?

Siobhan Kenny, Chief Executive of RadioCentre, will unveil key findings from the research at a fringe meeting on the future of the BBC at the Conservative Party Conference today. In particular, she will call for tougher regulation of the BBC to help prioritise the delivery of public service output in future

Ah.

 

——-

Important caveats:

  • I love Radio Today, even if not this article.
  • A survey like this raises important questions about the BBC and these should be debated. Always. Here I’m discussing the way statistics are used to form ‘findings’.
  • Disclosure: I work at Radio 2 and hey, I happen to like the BBC. However – this article is about the reporting of surveys, statistics and numbers. I’ve written previous similar articles on the same subject where I also slag off the BBC.
In Journalism, Radio
permalink

Have you seen the ‘white flower’ photo? Think before you share

July 9, 2014 — 1 Comment

Perhaps you’ve seen this image doing the rounds:

flowers1

Since @OliverJamesUK posted it on 6th July it’s gone viral. Thousands retweeted it immediately, others nicked it and re-posted it, campaigners and celebrities like Frankie Boyle shared it, and it’s all over Facebook timelines.

But is it accurate? And where’s the picture from?

This is not about the pros or cons of the Work Capability Assessments. There’s plenty of evidence to suggest they’ve gone wrong in many instances, and the Atos contract is due to come to an end. This is about how a simple, powerful message can spread on social media even when people don’t really know what it is they’re sharing.

This picture was actually tweeted a few times over previous months, but never got much attention. It actually dates back to a rally against disability welfare cuts held on 28th September 2013. More pictures here… The fact that it’s gone viral this time suggests that the wording of the tweet was important.

The flowers are meant to represent “more than 10,000 people who died shortly after undergoing the Atos Work Capability Assessment“.

But hang on – the number of people who underwent the assessment is very different from the number of people who were actually declared fit for work, as the tweet stated.

So how many really was it?

The protest last September, and the ‘10,000’ people the flowers were for, are based on the table below, which comes from a DWP report from July 2012.

flowergraph

What does it mean? Those 10,600 people started the fit-for-work assessment.

  • Of those, 2,200 never completed the assessment
  • 7,100 were placed in the ‘support group’. These people were specifically deemed not fit to work.

The DWP states in that report:

“Those in the Support Group receive unconditional support due to the nature of their illness, which can include degenerative conditions, terminal illness and severe disability.”

  • The remaining 1,300 were placed in a ‘work related activity group’.

From the DWP:

“Those in this group are not expected to work, but are provided with help and support to prepare for work where possible.”

And here’s the most important bit regarding our original tweet. From the last page of the report:

“Data on the number of ESA claimants that have died following a fit for work decision is not available, as the Department does not hold information on a death if the person has already left benefit.”

So is the original tweet accurate? Absolutely not. Do people sharing it think it’s factually accurate and shows a new, current picture? Almost certainly.

Confusing a desire for accuracy with giving an opinion

The difficulty with writing things like this is that people jump to the conclusion that you’re somehow arguing one side or the other on the issue itself. I’m not. Just because I’m pointing out that the tweet is misleading doesn’t mean I don’t agree with its sentiment.

This exchange on Twitter regarding the ‘flower tweet’ is typical – if you go looking there are many like it:

flowerchat

Politics aside, @guy_herbert is right that a number with no context is unhelpful. Statistics are an important business. But when you question them on such an emotive topic people become angry, as if because you want accuracy you don’t care for those 10,600 individuals who died.

If you believe in a cause and want to campaign on it, those in power will ignore you if your numbers don’t add up, or if your facts are not facts. So if you want to share things to further a social cause, I would argue that asking what exactly it is you’re sharing, and whether it might be accurate before you click ‘retweet’ can help.

In Journalism, Misc
permalink

Get ahead in radio with editing: EDITING IS SEXY

May 28, 2014 — Leave a comment

At this year’s Student Radio Conference I gave a talk titled ‘Editing is Sexy’. The first thing I said was perhaps more accurate:

Instead of ‘Editing is sexy’ this talk should really be called this: ‘Getting better at audio editing will give you better career prospects in radio’

I was talking to people in student radio, but I think it’s good advice for anyone working in radio. Below is a summary of my thinking. Basically: don’t neglect the art of editing audio.

editingissexypic

 

A cheesy metaphor

If you work as a blacksmith you need to be able to use a hammer. Sure – if you’re starting your own blacksmith business these days you might need to have good people skills, management skills, marketing and social media skills. You might need to employ other people and be an all-round good entrepreneur and businessperson. You might want to run big blacksmith events and even stream them live online. But fundamentally, if your profession is blacksmithery, you need to be able to use a hammer.

A blacksmith works with metal and uses a hammer to shape it.

A radio employee works with audio and uses audio editing to shape it.

Cheesy. But true. And cheesy metaphors taste the best.

THE BIG SECRET

This really is top secret. Don’t tell anyone.

Are you ready for this?

A LOT of people who work in radio…perhaps even MOST people who work in radio…AREN’T that good at editing audio.

That’s the secret. The emphasis is important there.

And once you know that – you know that getting better at editing audio is an easy way to get ahead.

What do I mean by ‘editing’ here?

I’m mainly talking about the ability to edit audio. Do I mean video as well? Yes – I probably do, and the basic nuts and bolts of editing audio or video aren’t that dissimilar.

And getting better at ‘editing’ doesn’t mean becoming an editing ‘expert’. All I’m talking about here is giving audio editing the basic attention it deserves.

Here’s what I said at the Student Radio Conference:

All I’m trying to sell you is the idea that getting better at editing should be something you think about. If you do that, and the person sitting next to you doesn’t, you’re giving yourself an advantage over them that you didn’t have before.

Some of you will be complete beginners. It’s fine to practice editing just speech with no effects or music. You don’t need fancy software – get used to using Audacity – it’s free – it’s fine.

What I’m talking about here is just doing something, anything, to get better at editing. It might be running a podcast. Editing your station’s SRA award entries. Trying to make a few jingles for the features on your show. Just anything that gets you editing.

Me me me

My argument is, unsurprisingly, partly based on my own experience. I have no doubt that at every stage of my career thus far being slightly more proficient at editing than the person sitting next to me has helped me out.

Again – I stress that I’m not talking about really advanced editing techniques.

At the moment I get to create reports and packages for the largest current affairs programme in Europe. I have creative freedom and can only do it because I can edit audio quickly; the turnaround time isn’t long. I think this is great. Thanks, editing.

Thing I’ve made recently are over here. Below is one recent example where I was proud to bring together journalism and editing to deliver FACTS and SCIENCE to a huge audience. It’s nothing special but the fact I get to do this day in, day out, is.

listen to ‘My attempt to explain Big Bang and Inflation Theory’ on Audioboo

 

(At the conference I was also asked about putting together radio packages like the above in a short space of time – the answer to which is in this blog post about making radio packages quickly.)

The radio industry agrees…

People working in radio who I spoke to about my talk wholeheartedly agreed with what I had to say. Whether in music or news, commercial or BBC – editing is just as important. Jacob for example, a brilliant producer at Radio 1, was clear that editing both audio and video are vital skills if you want to work there.

And in news-radio, here are a couple more comments I gathered ahead of the student radio conference. Jeremy Vine says that editing is vital for creating good radio packages and reports:

In Journalism, Radio, Student Radio, Video
permalink

The BBC Journalism Trainee Scheme – why you should apply

January 28, 2014 — 1 Comment

UPDATE – 10/02/14 – The BBC JTS is now open to applicants who are doing, or have completed, a broadcast journalism qualification. This is a change of heart – scroll to the bottom of this article for more details of the change.

 

The BBC’s Journalism Trainee Scheme gets a lot of applicants. So it doesn’t really need any extra publicity.

But…this year a handful of people have said to me in passing “so, do you think that journalism scheme is worth applying for?”, or “do you think that trainee journalism thingy is worth it?”. The majority of these have been people with at least a passing interest in current affairs, and people who are young, talented, and want to work full time in radio.

So I would like to publicly declare that the overwhelming answer is YES.

A lot of the very ‘top’ BBC-types started out as BBC journalism trainees. Among others: Huw Edwards, Jeremy Vine, Nick Robinson and former DG Mark Thompson (although I’m not sure we talk about him at the moment). The list of ‘big names’ is quite huge once you start looking. But perhaps that puts people off – not everyone wants to be the next superstar political correspondent.

If you’re not sure whether to apply, consider a few things:

  • If you want to work in media, and aren’t dead-set on music or entertainment programming then consider applying. If you think that one day at any point in the future you might have an interest in working on any programme on any medium with a factual premise, a background in journalism could be really helpful.
  • Consider the range of programmes that require journalistic training. It’s not just the ‘main’ news programmes. Just within BBC radio, a journalism background helps put you ahead in all of BBC Local Radio. You need it for almost any job at 5 Live. Most Radio 4 programmes require it – that might obvious for Today or PM, but even something like the Food Programme will be made by people with a journalism background. Then there’s The Jeremy Vine Show on Radio 2… And that’s just BBC radio! Nevermind TV (the majority of documentary-makers will be journalists, whether it’s for Benefits Street or Panorama), and nevermind the entire commericial sector (journalists will flourish at LBC and Talksport).
  • The clue’s in the money. As a ‘trainee’ you’re being offered around £20k for a full-time job in the media. Yes, if you get the job you probably have enough talent to go off and earn far more in a different sector – but a full-time ‘trainee’ job on this salary shows that it’s a serious position compared to any other entry job in the sector. And the level of funding behind the training and support you get is something else again.
  • As point three suggests – this scheme really is the jewel in the crown of BBC traineeships.

It’s also designed for ‘career-changers’ too – not just graduates or people in their early-20s looking to start their career.

Sadly, it’s not for people who already have a journalism qualification, so if you’re a journo graduate you can’t apply (UPDATE 10/02/14 – THIS HAS NOW CHANGED. SEE BELOW)**. I’ll defer to the official wording:

To be considered for the JTS you need to be an avid follower of news. You regularly read the local and national newspapers, watch television and listen to radio. You also have an excellent grasp of social media.

There is no age limit and the scheme welcomes career-changers who have ambitions to work in broadcast news, but have been pursuing a career in other industries.

Our scheme is not for complete beginners, but neither is it open to anyone who is already working as a broadcast journalist or has a qualification in broadcast journalism.

So basically – if you know you’re eligible and have at any point thought “I wonder if I should apply for this…” then APPLY!

Watch a video about it here – and apply here.

You have until the 10th February** (extended until the 17th February)

 

**UPDATE

Rather oddly (not as many applicants as previous years? Too many complaints about the criteria?***) the JTS scheme is now open to anyone who has a Broadcast Journalism qualification, and the deadline to apply has been extended to the 17th February.

The JTS is DEFINITELY still worth applying for if you have this qualification. It’ll get you a full time paid job in journalism for the BBC – which, if you’ve been studying broadcast journalism – is presumably something you’d be very keen on!

This is a pretty big turn-around in the entry criteria, because I would imagine application numbers will massively swell.

It is – in my personal opinion – very much the right thing to do.

If you’ve got a qualification – make sure your application stands out. This course is going to be about you and your talents, they won’t care much that you’ve learnt the ‘legal stuff’ as part of your course, for example – because so will everyone else.

And, if you haven’t got a journalism qualification and are now worried about the competition, I wouldn’t worry unduly. They won’t be giving preference to those with the qualification, and their experience won’t necessarily put them ahead. But…it does mean there will be more people to compete against!

***UPDATE 2

@BBCTrainees has Tweeted the reason for the change of heart on the entry criteria:

“For those of you who are wondering about the rationale behind widening the #bbcjts criteria, this year sees the BBC launch a brand new apprenticeship across its Local Radio network aimed at non-grads, with a purpose of growing future Broadcast Assistants with an interest in journalism. In light of this expansion to our entry-level opportunities, we’ve revisited the entry criteria for our higher-level Journalism Trainee Scheme and will for the first time be opening it up to those who’ve completed a Broadcast Journalism course at University.”

In Journalism, Radio, Student Radio, Video
permalink

Scientists! The media needs you!

December 4, 2013 — 10 Comments

Scientists want more science, more accurately represented, in the media. Yet I find they so rarely want to come on the radio and talk about it*

I work on a large daily current affairs radio programme, and certain big topics get covered frequently. The state of the economy, immigration laws, high-speed rail, welfare; those and many more get regular outings on air. Climate change is another topic that, in one form or another, will warrant regular discussion.

On most subjects, finding knowledgeable pundits on either side of the debate isn’t too tricky – especially for the ‘big topics’. But when it comes to climate change, something funny happens. In fact, it’s a problem more broadly across most scientific topics.

People don’t want to talk about it. Scientists – the ones who know their stuff the most – seem the most reticent to get on the radio to explain what they know.

climatechange

Good scientists don’t want to go on air

From the many conversations I’ve had with scientists, university press officers and other science-representation groups, I believe the following to be true: the more specialised a scientist is, the less qualified they feel they are to talk to the media about it.

But why?

Science is a highly complex and specialised profession. Academics trade blows over incredibly niche little-by-little discoveries through peer-reviewed journal articles. The more you know about your specialist field, the more you think you’re not necessarily in a position to be ‘the authority on all of climate change’ (or whatever your specialism is) in a five-minute radio interview.

And, the more you know, the more you dislike the way your speciality is portrayed in the media. The less willing you are to devalue your work by debating it with someone who just hasn’t studied it like you have, and who is out of step with the scientific community.

But here’s the problem: that ‘someone’ is perfectly happy to be on the radio, and there’s a real danger your viewpoint – and more importantly your scientific research – won’t get properly represented.

Global warming sceptics are easy to book

Let me be more specific. Let’s take a basic “is climate change happening?” debate: yes or no. The following is absolutely typical in my experience:

I call round lots of universities and lots of climate change experts. They all say “yes it’s happening” but “no I couldn’t possibly come on the radio today…I’m not the right person for this”. Or, often, “no!! I won’t argue with a climate-change sceptic! They don’t deserve to be on. I don’t want to be party to giving their view equal weight in the debate!”.

Well, there’s one hour left until we’re on air, and at this rate your opponent’s viewpoint will be the only one that gets heard. What’s more – from the conversation I had with you – you sounded like the perfect guest. Please do the interview.

Meanwhile…I find that climate change sceptics are in comparatively short supply. Yet everyone I call on that side is willing to come on the radio in a heartbeat. So here we are in a situation where, because so many scientists are unwilling to come on the radio, the majority scientific viewpoint (in my experience) is in danger of being woefully underrepresented.

I must pause, briefly, to address a question some of you will be thinking:

Why must you represent the minority viewpoint at all? Surely that’s mis-representative?

I’m a radio producer and journalist. I’m not a scientist. I’m not an economist. I’m not a breastfeeding new mum. I’m not a ‘victim of the bedroom tax’. I’m not qualified enough on the vast majority of subjects we discuss to decide to completely silence a particular point of view. If people hold that opinion, it deserves some representation. So it’s my job to do that, rather than to unilaterally stifle particular sides of the argument.

And, as much as many in the scientific community dislike it – there are lots of global warming sceptics, not least our audience. And as with any media debate, if one side makes an overwhelmingly better case, that should shine through on air.

But if no-one’s willing to give that side of the argument, there’s a problem.

But I digress; for more on this particular debate I suggest you read this.

Scientists! Please embrace the media!

I know it’s easier said than done – but I really wish scientists were more happy to come on air. The fact is, the media ‘rules of engagement’ aren’t going to change. Sometimes you’ll only get a few minutes to discuss a HUGELY complicated topic. Sometimes you might have to debate with someone who you quite simply think is wrong and hugely underqualified. But those are the parameters in which the majority of the population will normally discuss your speciality, if at all.

And if you tell me you can’t come on the radio, or you don’t want to, I’m going to have to find someone else who can. And they may well know far less than you. And that’s not annoying for me because it makes my job more difficult. It’s annoying because I care deeply about doing my best to make sure scientific viewpoints are portrayed fairly and accurately to seven million listeners.

Thank goodness, then, for organisations such as the Science Media Centre. They get it – they fight to get science in the media, represented as accurately as possible. They’re adept at responding to media requests. For anyone grumbling about the under-representation or misrepresentation of science in the media – get behind these guys and help them do something about it.

Brian Cox is too busy to do all of the interviews on all of the science all of the time*. Scientists: science needs you!

—

*

Caveats!!

Coverage of science in the media is a gigantic topic – I could only mention one tiny point here. I’d like to give the above a couple of additional caveats:

1. There are LOTS of brilliant scientists willing to be in the media. I know that. My point is that there are, arguably, not enough!

2. There are LOTS of brilliant scientists willing to discuss climate change. And despite what I write above I’ve never failed to book the guests I need. However, by comparison with other professions, in my personal experience it can prove more difficult.

3. This is NOT a post about the way the media covers science – with the exception of the penultimate section. That’s a whole other debate.

4. Another ‘whole other debate’ is the way the media deals with the ‘climate change debate’ – where the majority of scientists would argue there’s no debate about whether climate change itself is happening. I appreciate that, but it is not my point – I merely use it as an example of an occasion where I’ve found many scientists hesitant to speak.

5. The headline of this article was an exaggeration, ok? (see points 1 – 2!).

6. I’m JOKING about Brian Cox!

In Journalism, Misc, Radio
permalink

5 Tips for Making Radio Packages Quickly

October 10, 2013 — 3 Comments

At work I sometimes make radio packages. I work on a daily current affairs programme so it’s important to be able to do it at speed – normally I have about 90 minutes to create something. If you want to include the right music and sound effects, need to find different elements to go into it (such as a vox pop – which might take a bunch of time in itself), and, vitally, get the scripting, accuracy, editorial message and delivery right…90 minutes isn’t that long.

faders

I’ve answered many questions in the past about my methods for churning stuff out at speed – including yesterday when I made a short package about the Higgs Boson. I’ve written some thoughts down, so below are my top five tips for speed-packaging.

listen to ‘Do YOU know what the Higgs Boson is?’ on Audioboo

Top Five Tips in Brief!

Perhaps you’re making a speed-package right now in which case this post is too late. But in the name of brevity – here’s a summary of my top five before a longer explanation below:

  1. Get ready to speed-package NOW – bookmark your favourite websites for sound effects and audio production music.
  2. Take a breath, gather your thoughts. You don’t have long to make this package but spend a few minutes learning your subject and knowing what you might like to include in it.
  3. Do a very quick storyboard and write a script. Use bullet points to map out the messages you want to convey and what other audio or clips you’ll want to use. Then flesh it out with a script.
  4. Learn to edit well. Before you have to make a package quickly make sure you’re half-decent at audio editing.
  5. Have a voice-recording device available NOW! Have a smartphone in your possession that you can record good audio with and know how to use it.
And again – in greater detail:

1. Get ready to speed-package NOW!

Creating something like the package I posted above – at speed – requires being set up and ready to do so. You need a bunch of things already in place, and this is useful both for making packages quickly and for producing radio in general. There are a couple of pretty key things below – look to point 5 for more thoughts.

Sound Effects

“Ok! I need to make a comedy package about a donkey! Right – I need to find a good donkey sound effect.” *Fifteen minutes later…* “I can’t find a good donkey sound effect!”.

You can waste an awfully long time looking for the right sound effect. I’ve collected together a half-decent sound effects library over time, and I make sure it’s always to hand. Do the same – when you use or hear a good sound effect try to grab it for your own FX collection. You can also buy sound effects CDs which is often the simplest way to get everything you might need, and there are also free sound effects websites such as findsounds.com which can be a bit sketchy at times but invaluable at others.

Music

If you work in radio hopefully you have pretty decent access to popular commercial music. But ‘production music’ is often just what your package needs. If you’re making a package about aliens – please don’t use the X-Files theme tune. Instead, get on a production music website and just find something nice and spooky to score your package with. In the package I posted above I used music from westonemusic.com – but there are loads of sites just like this. Google it and explore! If you sign up to these sites and learn how to download the tracks and logging details – you’re ready to very quickly grab music for any occasion when the need arises.

2. Take a breath, gather your thoughts.

If you only have 90 minutes and you know how much work you have to do, it’s easy to see the clock ticking and get straight into scripting your package. But hang on – give yourself ten minutes to make sure you know your subject. If I’m making a factual piece I’ll use these ten minute to read the relevant news articles and see what archive audio is available to me. I’ll perhaps consult colleagues for their creative thoughts and jot down ideas I have that I might like to include. Taking a few minutes to properly understand the topic and what could go into the package helps a lot with point number 3…

3. Do a very quick storyboard and write a script.

This can normally be done whether you’re in the office or out on a job working on a story. Don’t go straight for the script. Think first about what you want to say overall and what audio you have to make that happen. Put that into a storyboard. And by ‘storyboard’ I just mean a sequence of bullet points roughly collecting your thoughts together.

Suppose there’s been a fire at a beach hut and you’re there to report – the ‘storyboard’ might look like this:

FX recorded from scene

Voice intro walking around ruins, end with “the firefighters said it was devastating”

Chief firefighter clip

Record on-location link into archive audio

Archive news audio from the previous fires

Final link from scene – include latest statement from local police

It’s a bit of a simple off-the-top-of-my-head example but you get the idea. Now – flesh it out. It’s much easier to write a script around a few bullet points like this than to write one from start to finish without having a master-plan.

4. Learn to edit well

If you’re a blacksmith you might be great at knowing how to forge iron. But if you’re rubbish at using a hammer, what you make might be useless. If you work in radio your hammer is the ability to edit audio. If it takes you a week to find out how to fade something out then you’ll never create a radio package quickly!

Never dismiss editing as geeky and therefore avoid learning how to do it. If you work in radio but don’t have much time to practice editing, make time. If you have a brilliant idea for a package and a brilliant (and slightly complicated) script, there’s no way you’ll be able to bring it to life quickly unless you’re practiced at the editing process.

5. Have a voice-recording device available NOW!

“Quick! You have to record a package immediately! It needs a few vox pops, some narration, and a clip of an interview.”

If that’s said to me I already know how I will record these things. Different radio stations have different ways of allocating equipment. Perhaps your station has a Marantz you can grab. Maybe you need to book kit out. Or it could be that it’s incredibly difficult to get something to record audio on at short notice – and even then perhaps the office is lacking in card-readers to get the audio onto your computer.

I make sure that wherever I work I know how I might quickly be able to go and record something. Basically – I know how to use the voicememo bit of my iPhone, how to email that back to myself, and how to convert that to a file I can use with my audio editing software. It’s not complicated, and there are plenty of smartphone apps that do a similar thing with .mp3 files – but the point is you have to know exactly how to do it, and be able to do it, in advance of when you need to make your speed-package!

That’s it

But here’s another one I made about PANDAS:

listen to ‘Panda: a baby is born? ’ on Audioboo

In Journalism, Radio, Student Radio
permalink

Should ALL new journalists be on Twitter? (Yes).

July 25, 2013 — Leave a comment

Twitter front page

A ‘budding 23-year-old journalist’ was recently commissioned to write an article for a national paper, in which she made it clear she’d like more journalism work.

It was a great, well written piece. She has a distinctive name but when I went to share the article on Twitter I couldn’t find her to properly attribute the piece.

We discussed her article in the morning meeting at work and considered chatting to her about it on the radio*. I made the point that I thought any journalist starting out SHOULD be on Twitter. Not everyone agreed.

Stupid Twitter

Why should you have to be on Twitter? It’s geeky and annoying. It’s yet another social media fad soon to be replaced with something else (? – a whole other debate entirely). Why does everything these days have to be online and tweeted every five seconds? Why can’t you cut your teeth as a journalist through pure journalistic talent? Isn’t Twitter just for posting what you had for lunch?** (These aren’t actually all things my colleagues said).

I think a lot of that is largely irrelevant to this question. Whether you think Twitter is useful, and whether you want to be on there or not is sort of beside the point. If you’re starting out as a journalist I think there’s no question that you SHOULD be on there.

Clever Twitter!

Twitter Screenshot

Please don’t tweet about food

How can you keep track of what your peers are doing if you’re not on there? All the people at the top of their game in the journalism industry are on there – surely you need to know what they’re up to and how they’re using it? Surely if they’re using Twitter you just look like you’re left behind if you’re not? How can you properly track breaking news unless you’re watching the social networks people around the world currently use to break it? How can you build and develop your skills in social media? Even if you don’t care, you need them, and need to prove to potential employers that you have them. All of this is more acute when you’re younger; when you should be at the cutting edge of such things.

I’m not arguing (though I could) that people who have already-established journalism careers need to be on there. Or that new journalists have to be really active users. And I’m not wanging on about the importance of Twitter itself. I’m simply stating that if you’re starting out as a new journalist, you SHOULD be on Twitter.

Surely?

*We never talked to her on the radio because, as well as not being on Twitter, her blog had only one generic email address which produced no response all day.

**This is an increasingly boring comment to make.

In Journalism, Radio
permalink

SHOCKER – CANCER UP 30% (Or just bad reporting?)

April 2, 2013 — 4 Comments

If you’re a man and watch or read the news today you may, understandably, be worried.

“Bowel cancer rates in men soar by a quarter“…

…proclaims the Daily Mail.

“Bowel cancer rates for men rise by 29%” writes The Independent, and The Guardian reports a rise of “nearly 30% in 35 years”. Stick ‘bowel cancer’ into Google News and you’ll see similar reporting across the board.

These headlines are actually relatively accurate. However, as much as headlines need to sell a story, they shouldn’t scaremonger or mislead; which I believe these do. I would think it reasonable for a person reading these headlines to, at a glance, believe their likelihood of getting bowel cancer to be up by nearly a third, or that 30% more people they know will be getting it. But that’s not the case at all.

Let me argue for a moment that today’s headlines could have, in fact, been more like:

“Bowel cancer survival up, as rate of new patients with the disease remains unchanged”

The numbers

I’m not a statistician, but broadly speaking…

The key word in all of this is rate. Cancer rates have risen 29% in 35 years (for bowel cancer in men, according to the stats from Cancer Research UK). The rate refers to the number of people getting the disease per 100,000, which is a world away from simply ‘the number of people getting the disease’. You might reasonably assume the phrase ‘rate of cancer’ refers to the latter if you didn’t know better.

In 1975-77, the rate of bowel cancer for men was 45 in 100,000. In 2008-10, it’s 58. So after 35 years, 13 more men per 100,000 are likely to get bowel cancer. That’s 1.3 per 10,000. That’s 0.13 per thousand. These numbers suddenly seem less scary than something involving THIRTY PERCENT.

35 years later (assuming 50/50 men/women for the following examples), you could say that the number of men who might get bowel cancer in the City of Ely, Cambridgeshire, has gone up by one person. At a full capacity concert, Wembley Stadium would hold maybe seven more men who might get it – but only if almost a quarter of the crowd were 60 years old or above (more on that in a minute…).

Don’t get me wrong – cancer’s on the increase and it’s not good. But it’s as true to say “SOME CANCER RATES UP 30%!” as it is to say “the number of men per thousand getting bowel cancer in the last 35 years has risen by 0.13”.

An aging population

A key part of this story is to be found in the news copy beneath the terrifying headlines.

“The age group with the biggest rise [in bowel cancer] is those in their 60s and 70s, who experience 23,000 new cases a year.”

Ah, ok. So how many new cases are there each year, in ‘real’ numbers? The total number of new cases in the UK for 2010 was 40,695 (this is no longer gender specific).

So over 50% of new bowel cancer cases are now in the 60+ age group. We know there’s an ageing population, and a greater proportion of the UK is over 60 compared to 35 years ago. If bowel cancer is far more common in this age group, we would be expecting the rate to rise as the population ages.

But why let that dent a strong headline?

Create your own headlines!

Today’s bold page-headers refer to changes in bowel cancer rates over 35 years. But with the same data today’s news came from, let’s try out a headline for, say, the change over ten years – again with male bowel cancer rates.

In 1998-2000 the rate was 57 per 100,000. As we know the rate for 2008-10 is 58 (I’m looking at Figure 1.2 here).

So how’s this for a headline:

Bowel cancer rates remain largely unchanged over the past ten years

Doesn’t quite have the same ring to it… There’s another key bit of info in today’s news too – that cancer survival rates have doubled in the last 40 years.

So why don’t we go for:

Bowel cancer survival up, as rate of new patients with the disease remains unchanged

That’s not right either

Cancer is a huge problem. Trends over time show that rates are increasing. Anecdotally most people know this – sadly – from personal experience.

I think headlines like the rather boring one I wrote just above, are just as irresponsible as ones that blindly report 30% increases.

My main argument here is that unless you think the majority of people reading your headline know that ‘cancer rates’ refers to ‘the number of people per 100,000’, you should perhaps think again about how you portray the story.

If you compare today’s news articles with the original press release you’ll see the majority are largely cut-and-paste jobs. When it comes to something like cancer, just regurgitating the stats from a press release isn’t always good enough.

 

An incredible book for any journalist is ‘The Tiger That Isn’t’ by Michael Blastland and Andrew Dilnot. It will make you think twice before reporting any statistic – from cancer rates to unemployment figures and beyond. I can’t recommend it enough.

In Journalism
permalink

Demystifying BBC Radio Job Titles

March 12, 2013 — 8 Comments

Job titles and job descriptions rarely do enough to tell you whether you realistically have a shot at getting a position or not. And that’s very true when you’re starting out at the BBC. ‘Producer’, ‘Researcher’, ‘Broadcast Assistant’ and others are titles thrown around that do nothing to explain how much experience you might need to get that job.

I started in student radio where most people do some sort of ‘producer’ role – but knowing how that experience applies to being a BBC ‘Producer’ can be mystifying. So the below is some information I wish I’d had when I graduated and set out to work for the BBC. It certainly won’t ‘demystify’, but it may ‘very very slightly demystify something’.

BBC Jobs Website

The organisation is so big, and job titles are so few, that no doubt for much of what I write there will be examples for which the opposite is true. I’m also only going to write about a few examples, otherwise we’ll be here all week.

Me

I’ve done a few jobs in BBC radio where the headline job-title didn’t really sum up quite what I did.

When I was a Broadcast Assistant I often felt more like an Assistant Producer, and sometimes even a Technical Operator. As a local radio Broadcast Journalist I usually thought I was more of a Producer or Presenter, and now I’m a Producer I feel more like a Broadcast Journalist. And so on.

Job titles are more like job grades

The first and perhaps most important thing to say about BBC job titles in radio, is that they often say far more about the ‘grade/level’ of the job than about what that job specifically involves. To make it more complicated, different departments can use different titles for what are often broadly the same jobs.

When looking at job titles on the BBC jobs website, it’s worth taking a closer look at the job’s numerical grade. You’ll see a number from 1 – 11. The majority of jobs are grades 3 – 7, and the grades give you a better idea of how senior the job is and correspondingly how much experience you might need to stand a chance of getting it. It goes without saying that where the job is plays a huge part in its competitiveness too – a grade 5 job on the Radio 1 breakfast show is infinitely more competitive than a grade 5 job as the district reporter for Slough (no offence if that job actually exists and it’s yours).

In fact, not so long ago I had a grade 5 staff job (permanent) in local radio and applied for a grade 2 part-time job on a national programme I really wanted to work on. That’s unusual, but such can be the discrepancy. I didn’t get it.

Local vs. National

You could be doing a pretty much identical job in BBC Local Radio to a job on national radio but have a different job title. Titles also differ between different national networks.

On top of that there are the ‘nations’ – BBC Wales/Scotland/Northern Ireland. They have a whole mix of all the different job titles used by network and by local radio.

And on top of that you can make BBC programmes for independent production companies – those companies choose their own job titles (often in line with the BBC) – but I’m leaving that out of this post.

BBC Local Radio

Over-generalising (as I am through this entire post) the local radio ‘ranks’ are a bit like this:

bbcradiojobs

The BBC jobs website highlights some common roles

  • Broadcast Assistant – grade 3
  • Broadcast Journalist – grade 5 (more experienced staff and some positions will be grade 7)
  • Senior Broadcast Journalist – grade 8 (and up)
  • Senior broadcast journalists make up a lot of the management team (eg. News Editor) and the boss of the station is the Managing Editor.

The most striking omission from this list is ‘Presenter’. Typically, BBC Local Radio presenters are categorised as ‘Broadcast Journalists’ – which because of the news-focussed programming, they often are.

Something also lacking from local radio is the ‘Producer’ job title. You can be an assistant producer or the producer of a programme in local radio but your main job title will be Broadcast Assistant or Broadcast Journalist. Likewise, in network radio (national) your job title may be Producer or Researcher but depending on the programme you may need to be a broadcast journalist first and foremost.

The ‘entry level’ job in local radio is usually the Broadcast Assistant role. But if you’re just starting out (even if you’ve done lots of student radio for example) you may not find it easy to simply apply for a job at a station you’ve never worked in and get it (see the last bit of this post for a more typical route in to employment).

If you’re fresh out of a journalism post-grad you may be aiming for a Broadcast Journalist job. The majority of people getting their first BBC Local Radio Broadcast Journalist job have either freelanced for a while at the station where they finally get a contract, have come from a job in commercial radio, or sometimes have come from newspaper/print/online.

National Radio

Network radio is understandably more complicated because it covers hundreds of programmes across multiple networks. But I just want to mention a few job titles that I often hear graduates discussing, wondering whether they should apply or not. With the grades below – they can all be +2 in some instances.

bbcjobsasiannetwork

As I write, an AP job is being advertised grade 5-7, showing there are always exceptions to ‘rules’

  • Unit Assistant – grade 2
  • Broadcast Assistant – grade 3/5
  • Assistant Producer – grade 5
  • Researcher – grade 5
  • Broadcast Journalist – grade 7
  • Producer – grade 7
  • Senior Producer/Editor/other – grades 8 and above

Even more so in network (because of its even more competitive nature) if you’re starting your career and apply for a full-time contract as any of these positions you’re unlikely to get too far. Normally people get work experience and the occasional paid shift, and work their way up the ladder from there, or get experience elsewhere then move across.

I’d like to highlight a couple of job titles above that are a little misleading to anyone browsing the BBC jobs website for the first time. I know a lot of people, based purely on the title, assume ‘Assistant Producer’ and ‘Researcher’ roles would be quite junior and within their reach. And why not, one’s got ‘assistant’ in the title and one seems to be about doing (for all you know) ‘a bit of background research’ for whatever the programme is. But those roles aren’t typically entry-level jobs, and getting a full-time contract as an AP or Researcher on a national BBC radio station is a rare thing as your first paid radio job.

Contracts

The issue of contracts is a whole other essay. But typically the longer the contract the more competitive it might be. If you’re starting out you’ve far less chance of going straight in with a job that’s advertised as permanent (continuing). Equally a 12-month contract may be more difficult to get than a 3-month contract.

A typical way to get a job

Ok – there’s not really a typical scenario because there will be examples of just about everything under the sun. But this is a route that I’ve seen time and time again:

  1. Sitting in on a show can often lead to work experience
  2. That can lead to continued work experience on a particular programme
  3. Eventually, along comes an opportunity for paid shifts on freelance/casual contract
  4. Now you’re on the books and part of a team – you may get more shifts on more teams across the radio station you’re working for
  5. Now you’re in a good position to apply for a full-time contract if one comes up. Alternatively if something comes up the boss might be able to give you a short contract (for example to cover absence or work on a special project)
  6. Once you’re on a contract, if you apply elsewhere for similar roles you’ll have more chance (not just because ‘being on a contract’ is important, but typically by this stage you’ll have a lot more experience)
  7. Once you’re on a fixed-term contract in a particular department (ie. for a specified period of time, normally a number of months), you have a better chance at getting a permanent job if one comes up

More questions than answers?

Hopefully not – confusing as it all may be I hope that helps more than it hinders. Having a realistic expectation of a job you’re applying for is better than being ill-informed. However – please don’t let any of the above put you off applying for jobs you think might be ‘above’ you. I very much subscribe to the view that it’s always worth giving it a go. I over-enthusiastically applied to dozens of jobs in the past and got nowhere!

Leave a comment if you’ve any questions and if I don’t know the answer, I’ll find someone who does.

In Journalism, Radio, Student Radio
permalink

“I Hate Journalism”

January 14, 2013 — 4 Comments

That’s a sentiment which could well be echoed by anyone who feels that TV and radio news bulletins and programme cues often sound like formulaic, uncreative pieces of churnalism.

I mean it could be. It might not be. I’m just guessing.

Anyway, see what I did there? My opening paragraph was a bit boring and generic so I headlined the piece with the trashy top-line ‘I hate journalism’. I apologise if at this stage you feel cheated into reading this. But that’s the point. It was a cheap tactic.

I don’t hate journalism. I’d actually like to share a few thoughts about my love/hate relationship with the ‘delayed drop’.

The delayed drop

A delayed drop is a technique you’ll be all too familiar with when you hear it (and read it – but I’ll talk here about broadcast journalism rather than print). Basically it’s when the crux of the story is delivered after something a little more sensational.

You can just imagine this news bulletin:

It’s been described as the most dramatic shake-up of the system for years.

Today, the pensions minister announced a radical change to state pensions…

The top-line is just a sexed-up tease; the detail follows in the second line. This sort of delayed drop seems to be ubiquitous. You can’t escape it. However, it’s a relatively gentle example. What sometimes grieves me more is when a direct quote is used:

Piers Morgan should be deported because, among other things, he’s a hatchet man of the New World Order.

Those are the views of one pro-gun American radio talk-show host who came to blows with the former British newspaper editor when interviewed on Piers Morgan’s CNN programme.

If that story arrived out of context right after a piece about a happy dolphin that had been saved, you can see how it might grab your attention.

You can basically take any old dramatic quote and shamelessly spice up your copy by making the quote your top-line.

Cows in a field

“STOP EATING US AND GET OFF OUR MILK!” Those are the demands of…

Love*

As I say I have a love/hate relationship with these sorts of delayed drops.

I think it’s good to have varied copy. Sometimes you really can use them to entice a listener or viewer in to the story. Sometimes you can use the direct quote angle to slap someone in the face with a shocking statement or opinion out of the blue to grab their attention, before delivering the finer details.

It’s more interesting to use a delayed drop here and there than to never use them, but…

Hate

…they’re horribly overused. That’s my problem with them 

If someone’s written a news story with a delayed drop, known they’ve done it, and have decided why that’s the best way to deliver the story, fine. So long as they’re not doing it too often.

The trouble is it too often sounds to me like a knee-jerk reaction to spice-up a boring story in an incredibly un-spicy and lazy way, or it just sounds like someone’s following a formula they were taught in journalism school.

If you go back to listening to news bulletins with a heightened awareness of the delayed drop after reading this, it won’t be long until you hear one. And the more commonplace the delayed drop becomes the less useful and less creative journalistic tool it becomes.

If your delayed drop sounds generic and boring, perhaps you should just face the fact the story isn’t incredible and just write it straight. Save the drop for another day.

* I perhaps wrote too much in defence of the delayed drop, because I want to cover my own back knowing that I have used them in the past, and will in the future. In honesty…I mostly hate them.

In Journalism, Radio
permalink