Newspaper Practice
211 candidates; 93 passed - 44 per cent

Although April's improved pass rate for this section of the examination was sadly not maintained, most candidates were able to recognise the legal dangers faced by the scenarios posed in the questions. A clearly challenging paper, however, revealed weaknesses in the ability of many candidates to safely deal with them.

Of course it was the law section that generally proved the more difficult and as a couple of critics of the October paper have already suggested, the scenario presented would have given many editors cause for concern if (as the candidates were clearly told) it had occurred on their patch.

Too many candidates sought to usurp their editor. A responsible trained senior reporter - which success in this examination is intended to signify - could not fail to recognise that the legal challenges in the first two questions required a decision from someone with executive authority. Candidates were told in question one that the editor and deputy had already left the office for the Society of Editors annual conference and no other advice was immediately available. What would they use and what would they leave out of their copy? A vital point that too many ignored was to answer what points, if any, they would highlight for the attention of subs.

Markers were looking for candidates whose answers suggested a thoughtful attempt to safely cover this story, who knew the strict liability rule of contempt and the restrictions imposed when there was a complaint of a sex offence and saw both the requirement and possibly danger of telling readers that a 13-year-old runaway from their area was now safe and sound. There were candidates who did well: recognised all these points, covered them and drew subs' attention to the need to separate the reunion story completely from the arrest of the man charged with abduction. In a few cases candidates said they would have their editors paged at the conference. One candidate, confident of executive support, said that he would go direct to the paper's solicitor because he knew "that's what my editor would expect".

The other question in the law section was mainly concerned with copyright of a photograph taken by a witness to a newsworthy incident. Most candidates who answered this question correctly recognised that copyright was owned by the taker of the photograph. It was not taken in the course of employment and giving the film to the reporter in return for its free development and a promise of normal publication fees for anything used gave the paper a valid licence. Several, however, were prepared (without reference to their editor) to blank out the face of a royal bodyguard at the request of a police press officer.

Scenarios for the general questions were all based on recent or forthcoming situations. A senior reporter should have been able to develop reasonable copy from each. Several candidates' efforts, however, were far too brief and in some cases answers suggested little more than would be expected in a NIB. In several of these cases this was certainly due to them running out of time having spent overlong perhaps on their first answer.

While markers were disappointed that the pass rate for this section was down, they welcomed the small but growing number of candidates who did exceptionally well. These candidates invariably followed the general instructions to relate their answers to how they would tackle the challenges if faced with the problem on their own newspapers rather than the mythical Oxdown Gazette. They picked up marks for local knowledge by naming, where appropriate, their local council leader and Member of Parliament. (These were, incidentally, all checked.) What generally shines through the answers of those awarded high marks is a clear indication that there are well known procedures in the candidates' offices for dealing with major challenges that might arise when reporters are on their own.

Find out who passed their exams
PLUS