It could be the same at this paper.

Nowhere in the article does the reporter describe the family as caring. Only in the title. If I’m blind to that, someone please point out the word I missed.

Anne, ever thought you could be directing your ire at the wrong person?

I do agree with much of what you and Sarah say. And the editor of the paper also did in the other thread.

What irks me is how quickly blog comment threads get into the “tcha, typical local paper, not doing what I want them to do”.

Some of the rules which the NCTJ encourages trainee repoters to learn do seem to emphasise local reporters not putting their own opinion into a story. You’re expected to tell is straight and if you want to have a go at someone/thing, you’re meant to find someone else to provide that quote.

I would LOVE to be able to write in the way bloggers do in my paper, but it just doesn’t work that way. It wouldn’t get past the subs.

That’s not necessarily a failing of the reporter and to be honest, until the reporter is given a voice here, to explain and if necessary apologise, I’m not of the “you’re unprofessional and inept at your job” gang.

Perhaps urging papers to do an “open debate” series rather than just raiging at them all for one article would be a more constructive (and fairer) way forward, as I’ve suggested in another thread?

I bet my definition is different to theirs. I wouldn’t be in it for starters.

I’m a bit confused by the above. You’ve basically reiterated your previous argument, entirely avoiding my point. Have you read the article itself? The journalist isn’t ‘adhering to the principles of journalism’ by opening the piece with the words:
“They ferry THE MOST VULNERABLE special-needs children from home to school and back again, GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND their taxi driver role to provide an important service.” Simply removing the words I’ve capitalised (and amending the second half of the sentence, obviously) would be a step towards a more impartial tone, I’m sure you’d agree?

I know full well they believe themselves to be ‘doing their bit’, and indeed in this particular respect, they’re doing a very good deed. But how does making that the opening to the article (bearing in mind it’s not even a quote) achieve anything beside presenting them in a good light? As I said in my last response, I’m not suggesting the journalist write a sleaze-piece that demonises the candidates, but I fail to see what aspect of these all-important ‘principles of journalism’ is being adhered to by writing an article along the lines of “These are really lovely people…and they’re all BNP candidates! (Which is a bit controversial)”

The bottom line, in my opinion, is that writing a story which combines political PR with the candidate(s) entirely-unrelated, non-political community acts is – regardless of political affiliation – both sloppy and dangerously misleading journalism. Either the two aspects of the story should never have been combined, or else the details about the taxi firm should have been left until the end, and much less-loaded language used. A single sentence at the end would have sufficed – something to the effect of:

“The next few weeks are obviously going to be very busy for the Simpkins family, who also run a family taxi service, which holds a contract with Wiltshire Council to take children with special needs to schools in Corsham and Chippenham.”

That way, the facts are reported without any of the fluff. Do you see what I’m getting at here, or am I wasting my time?

Regarding your comment about quotes and ‘letting them speak’, I entirely agree, but that doesn’t excuse using nonsensical BNP euphemisms like “white ethnic indigenous British people” without quotations – again, that’s lazy journalism.

Finally, your opening comment about defining “ordinary” – please don’t let’s be silly. You know full well what I meant, and I can’t see how a 6th Form debate about the illusion of “normal” really helps the discussion here.

PS – To Sarah: sorry for hijacking the comments here!

Define “ordinary family” please… (I don’t think I’ve ever interviewed one to date!)

You forget, these twonks truly believe they ARE “doing their bit to help their community”. The reporter isn’t there to say they aren’t… that’s what the rival politicos are for.

A local reporter does have the unenviable task of reporting on people they don’t like, agree with, fancy, appreciate, love or anything else. During an election period it’s a right bugger not to be allowed to go “and here’s the local Tory standing for the seat of Upper Smidgeon and jesus H christ what a smarmy tossbag he is.. just look at those bloody cufflinks for a start”.

The news editor, or the editor really do pick up on lines like that.

And if they don’t you can bet every Tory-hugger will and complaints to the PCC will be made, and the Electoral Commission (or whoever does it now, I’m a crime reporter these days so I’ve left that shite behind) and they’ll turn up at the office, sometimes with banners and chants and you get shouted at and personally abused when you attend public meetings or the local supermarket to by cheap beer (“there he is… scum! scum! scum! bloody tabloid lefty filth!”)

I’m not necessarily saying the report is right or wrong. But LOCAL papers who do not have a partisan stand do get put in the awful position of having to make the decision whether to allow all parties of all political pursuasions (yes, even Respect) an equal platform or going “oh bugger them… they’re arseholes and I don’t agree with their ideology”.

For instance, while a reporter may personally loath Labour with a passion bordering on fizzing-explosion, they shouldn’t really write every article on the election which reveals the local Labour candidate as a filthy degenerate socialistic scumbag. He has to present him fairly, accurately, often allowing the lefty-hippie to speak using their own quotes and not out of context.

Anything less and the reporter isn’t really adhering to the principles of journalism (which in my book is let the BNP speak … then hopefully they’ll screw themselves with their own bigotry if the sensible public don’t get to them first).

Just shouting at the paper and going “oh look. the editor’s a friend of racists” is one step away from being Lord Tebbit and going “that bloody BBC, not bowing down again when they interview The Goddess Thatcher again… bloody typical of the Communist licence-fee-funded bastards!”

And yes, I also suppose we agree.

Much love, as always.