1 / 10

BROADCAST JOURNALISM ETHICS: THE ART AND SCIENCE OF PRESENTING NEWS PUBLIC AFFAIRS PROGRAM:

BROADCAST JOURNALISM ETHICS: THE ART AND SCIENCE OF PRESENTING NEWS PUBLIC AFFAIRS PROGRAM:. PROF. JEFFREY P. DEATRAS BABC, MPSDC, PH.D (CANDIDATE). PRESENTING IN BRODJOURN.

kaemon
Download Presentation

BROADCAST JOURNALISM ETHICS: THE ART AND SCIENCE OF PRESENTING NEWS PUBLIC AFFAIRS PROGRAM:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. BROADCAST JOURNALISM ETHICS:THE ART AND SCIENCE OF PRESENTINGNEWS PUBLIC AFFAIRS PROGRAM: PROF. JEFFREY P. DEATRAS BABC, MPSDC, PH.D (CANDIDATE)

  2. PRESENTING IN BRODJOURN • Ethical standards in presenting well written broadcast journalistic scripts revolve around the factors of voice, looks and personality, in-depth knowledge and training, wit, wisdom and professionalism in handling sensitive ideas and information among presenters/anchors. • In both radio and television pleasant looks and well-managed voice are keys. • Unpleasant sights and sounds from presenters simply distort the messages

  3. PRESENTING IN BRODJOURN • Distorted messages misinform the mass audience. • Ill-informed audience leads to uncritical public opinion and ineffectual social change • Broadcasters have the responsibility to shape critical, progressive and developmental public opinion among the masses. • Pleasant looks and voice simply affirms communication theories’ avoidance of “noise”----anything that hinders the ideal and effective transmission of messages from source to receiver.

  4. PRESENTING IN BRODJOURN • Wit and wisdom in handling sensitive information comes with in-depth knowledge and training. • Knowledge in diverse academic areas (history, politics, economics, health, etc.) helps in making a sensible broadcast presentation • Commentaries, interviews, and other varieties that come with news announcing requires a great deal of wit, wisdom, and academic training. • Continuity or transitional lines may not be written all the time, thus wit may solve the problem • The free-flow of ideas in interview and commentary may put the presenter in great trouble from a simple word or phrase. Witty and smart broadcasters can always get away with such trouble

  5. broadcast commentary and debate • the art of debate has been the primary framework in commentary and other public affairs discussion programs • In debate, there is the affirmative side (proposing a change) and the negative side (status qou). • In public affairs discussions, the affirmative might take the forms of proponents, complainants, etc. • The negative might fall upon those who defend or answer the complaints or go against the wishes of the proponents. • Commentaries and debate use news, history, statistics and other proofs as evidences to support arguments

  6. affirmative versus negative • The “burden of proof” or the task to prove that something is wrong or unreasonable with the status qou lies with the affirmative or complainants using appropriate proofs and evidences • The negative or defendants must combat by attacking the reasoning of the affirmative through counter proofs/evidences • A broadcast journalist-commentator using pertinent news, history, and other documents may pursue a stand either of the affirmative or negative • Another way is to present the arguments of both sides and let the audience decide to make a stand • On pressing issues, commentaries must make a clear stand reflecting public welfare against partisan interests.

  7. issues and propositions • In broadcast context, “issues” are socio-political problems reflected through most sensational news • In formal debate, “propositions are statements showing a planned action or change as an ideal solution to an issue/s • An excellent commentary must be clear of its “stand”, an informal term for debate proposition • In formal debate, propositions are never stated in the negative (such as using negation terms and affixes “not”, “in”, “dis”, etc.) • Commentaries can freely state its stand

  8. organizing a stand • Like debate, great commentaries are well-written sequence of organized discussion of information that supports a stand. • Organization may begin with history or background of an issue or problem. This part must state a clear stand/proposition as it discusses how it started citing proofs and evidences. • It is followed by the discussion of its practicability through convincing and persuading the audience of how a stand becomes a practical solution. • The discussion ends with the part emphasizing the “urgency” of making a stand

  9. of debaters and commentators • Commentaries are like the constructivespeeches in debates • Heated exchange of views between commentators versus guest/s or guest/s versus guest/s are like interpellationin debates where questions are thrown to trash the proofs and arguments of the opponents • Closing arguments in commentaries where the final assessment aimed at destroying the arguments/proofs of the opponents constitute the rebuttal in formal debate • READ: “The Art of Argumentation and Debate” by Africa

  10. ACTIVITY • In a group of 15 members, make a commentary-stand on a recent issue. • Leader will act as commentator, thus the group will help him/her do a clear and organized sequence guide • History, practicability, and urgency will use four members/researchers each (4 x 3=12) to write and deliver proofs/evidences as one-minuter news each (12 total minutes). • The commentator will present 1-2 minutes (x 3= 3 to 6 total minutes) constructive arguments for each part (history, practicability, urgency) • Two members will deliver a minute each rebuttal against the arguments and proofs of the commentary. • Commentary ends in 15-20 minutes. Interpellation comes for the next level of the activity.

More Related