NEWSPAPER PRACTICE
- 240 candidates; 128 passed
– (53 per cent)

A major change in this section of the examination was the increased emphasis on the law section.

For the first time, the Part A question that candidates chose to tackle carried 50 per cent of the possible marks for the entire paper.

That there was no significant drop in the pass rate from that achieved in April reflects that candidates were well aware of the change. Most can be congratulated on having made the effort to prepare for the added challenge.

Permitting the use of legal text books, giving access to the ready reference available in news rooms to make the test more realistic, may have added to candidates' confidence. It certainly didn't lead to a major improvement in marks or provide any evidence to indicate, as critics of the change forecast, a dumbing down of the examination.

While some candidates had obviously used Essential Law or Scots Law for Journalists to quote paragraph 12 of Part II of Schedule 1 of the Defamation Act 1996 as to what constitutes a public meeting for the purposes of qualified privilege, this was not what examiners wanted. As in a news room, it is not just being able to quote the law that matters. Unless one understands and applies it correctly it has little value.

Most candidates tackled question one. Sadly, nearly half of them were convinced that a speaker's malice at a public meeting would infect their report and consequently stated they would ignore his defamatory attack on two named councillors who were not present. Slightly fewer were convinced that a fair and accurate report meant that before they turned in their report of the meeting they would need to get the response of these two councillors and/or check and satisfy themselves of the accuracy of the allegations!

Several candidates made the error of failing to indicate they would inform either their editors or news desks that a councillor who had attended the meeting had approached them afterwards seeking to prevent publication of the speaker's attack on his colleagues. Even some candidates who correctly interpreted the law and applied it demonstrated poor journalistic practice by indicating they would argue their rights to report with this councillor.

The alternative Part A question asked candidates how they would deal with a horrified young mother who claimed to have innocently bought from a local store what she described as filthy pornography in the belief that it was a children's video. Told that on viewing it they recognised the “star” as their local carnival princess, candidates were asked how they would proceed if they knew she was a) an adult and b) aged 15.

Candidates were not expected to know, or even search through their law books to discover, if the sale of the video had been a breach of conditions of any licence or even the criminal law such as the Obscene Publications Act. They were, however, expected to indicate that they would check with the police and possibly trading standards. There were marks for recognising that if the girl in the video was only 15 then in law she was a victim of a sex crime even if a willing participant. (A minority of candidates proceeded to answer this question on the assumption that the "star", whether adult or child, was videoed being raped.) In the best answers, candidates said they would check the accuracy of what they had been told and the law, explain how evidence would be collected to stand up the mother's story and how they would confirm the "identity" of the "star" and, in view of the potentially punitive damages if they got it wrong, that they would seek an editorial executive decision before filing their copy.

The three Part B questions were all on topical issues. Markers were generally disappointed at the lack of general knowledge apparent from the answers.

Few appeared aware that they were only a fortnight away from the first National Giving Week sponsored by the Charities Aid Foundation, an organisation of which most were blissfully unaware. They didn't need to know to pass but some prior awareness of both would have assisted them formulate their answers to the challenges posed by the question.

Similarly there were some very disappointing answers to the question that asked them to explain how they would proceed if tipped off that the local Licensed Victuallers' Association was planning a campaign against proposals for a smoking ban in public places.

Several candidates failed even to suggest approaching the LVA for details while five candidates suggested holding a vox pop on "the LVA's proposed ban!"

When it came to suggesting ideas for their newspapers to do "something special" to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II there were some astounding responses. On the strength of these answers few editors could safely give candidates in this exam a free hand to produce a commemorative feature, spread or supplement. Could it be that this generation is so pro-European and politically correct that most candidates purposely ignored the fact that the end of the war was a time for celebration of victory?

Most answers suggested finding "old soldiers" at the Royal British Legion. It was heartening that most candidates remembered the "Royal" though one said he would go to the "British Foreign Legion". Nearly a quarter of all answers to this question suggested taking old soldiers back to either Normandy or the scenes of other battles.

Only about ten per cent appreciated that there might be some local celebrations while only a quarter of the answers suggested using their office files to look at how VE Day and VJ Day were reported. One candidate's answer even posed the question to examiners: "Did my newspaper span back to war time?"

Some of the suggestions for memorable features follow: