SPEECH
- 213 candidates; 143 passed
– (67 per cent)

The widespread publicity given to the problem of binge drinking by young people, its effect on town centres and the cost to society in general cannot have escaped the attention of candidates taking the speech test. Most of them must have reported on the issue at some time during their careers.

It was surprising, therefore, that so many candidates found it such a difficult subject to tackle.

The speech offered two straightforward angles, either of which was acceptable as an intro but which needed linking during the course of the story. One concerned the success of a Safe Street campaign to cut down on binge drinking in Oxdown, and the other a £200,000 study into alcohol abuse and its effects on the town.

To their credit, some candidates produced excellent stories – comprehensive, accurate and very well written. But many others fell short of this perfection through omissions and errors and the failure to make use of the "free" information contained in their background briefing. Clearly some of them had not even bothered to read it.

For example, the speech referred to an 11 per cent reduction in violent crime and a halving of drink-related sex attacks but too many stories did not include the supporting statistics that were provided.

Some strong quotes were on offer – amongst them "Alcohol permeates every nook and cranny of society" – "A monster in our midst, socially destructive and bringing misery to many" – but all too often these were ignored or reported incorrectly. Was this simply a failure to spot a good quote or a result of an inadequate shorthand note?

The two strands of the story often became confused but the better candidates spotted the link and made the connection within the first two or three paragraphs, thus providing depth and impact to their copy. The markers rewarded them accordingly.

There was the usual fair share of errors and howlers, once again calling into question the accuracy of shorthand notes. The Safe Street campaign became variously Safer Street, Street Safe and Save the Street.

The £200,000 cost of the study varied enormously in value – from £2,000 to £230,000, £250,000 and £300,000!

Town Forum chief executive Stewart Haines was named as Stuart Haines, or even Haynes – another example of not reading the brief provided. Meanwhile the Licensed Victuallers’ Association appeared in one paper as the Liscenesed Vistuallers Assocaition and in another paper licensees were described as "licensers". They were accused of selling cheap "buzz" (booze) or "no longer selling free drinks to people."

Thankfully, disasters were few and far between but many candidates could have done so much better simply by listening more attentively, paying more attention to detail and reading their copy through carefully. Basic advice – so why do so many young journalists think it does not apply to them?

Click for more on this year's: