Page 1 of 4

Newspaper Practice - 235 candidates; 111 passed - 47 per cent

The number of candidates achieving 60 percent and above in this section of the examination was once again depressingly low.

The number of passes shown above is inflated by the inclusion of those candidates who achieved only a borderline mark here but passed the examination overall as a result of high marks in other sections.

Markers agreed that this was not a difficult paper. Questions were topical or general enough to give candidates an opportunity to impress with evidence of their readiness to be accredited as competent senior reporters. Too many did not.

All questions required candidates to state how they would tackle the given problem or assignment for their own newspaper. For the benefit of trainers and lecturers preparing candidates for examinations in future it might be appropriate here to mention an instance of apparently vague phraseology in a question. Reference to 'a local authority with planning powers' was not a trap or even inserted to test a candidate's basic knowledge of public affairs. It was so worded as to cover the situations in England, Scotland and Wales where there are differences in local government structures and terminology - a situation that can only get worse following devolution.

Candidates were required to tackle either question one or two. In question one markers were surprised at the level of misunderstanding of both the status of meetings called by candidates at a forthcoming Parliamentary election and about what could or could not be safely published. Several candidates questioned whether such meetings, called by an extremist party, could be classed as lawful meetings. Many others thought that reports would have qualified privilege which would defend them successfully against any vitriolic racist diatribe. Others would not report racist remarks because the speaker's 'obvious malice' would destroy the defence of qualified privilege and said that all ethnic groups and non Anglo-Saxons would be able to sue for defamation if they published such views.

Next page...