I got another one of my peers to sub-edit my article after these changes and they said to take out the sentence "And with this tech, researchers have found that there are many more snow leopards than we previously thought!" because the article is too long with that in.
Below is the final written out version of my article.
My headline is: "Snow Leopards - now no longer Endangered!"
What is the purpose of your article that you have to write? The purpose of my article is to inform my audience that snow leopards are no longer endangered, to educate them about snow leopards and to warn them that even though snow leopards are no longer officially endangered, they are far from safe. I also want to persuade them to help conserve snow leopards and to donate money to help them.
Who is the audience? The target audience I wrote the story for are 6-12 year olds, but my audience could be anyone who is watching Newsround at the time it's on, so that could include older siblings and/or parents who are watching it with their child.
Should the language be informal or formal and why? I think the language should be fairly formal and simple, as this is how Newsround stories are normally presented. There is normally some informal phrases like "hey guys!", "how exciting" and "can you believe it?" and other tag questions as these keep the audience engaged as children have quite a short attention span. I have used formal language for example: "Snow leopard researchers have a problem: their terrain is so remote and inhospitable, and the animals are so good at hiding, it’s hard to count them accurately." This sentence is both formal and simple, which is what my young audience need.
Is the style direct or indirect and why? The style is direct because I address the audience with phrases like "we rarely see [snow leopards]", "If you want to get involved" and "there’s loads more of them than we thought". These phrases directly address the audience as a single person or group of people. This fits with Newsround's style as it keeps the young audience engaged. But also it makes the audience feel like they're being singled out and the snow leopards are relying on specifically them to help them, which makes my article more persuasive.
Should the tone be teacher to pupil, parent to child or peer to peer? Remember this is Newsround what is the expected tone and how does your article achieve this? I think my tone should be peer to peer because I want my presenter to be a friend to my audience so they feel comfortable interacting with them. I feel that this would make my audience trust the presenter more, and it would make them more engaged as they might switch off if an authority figure was talking to them. If it's someone their own age they will be much more comfortable and more likely to listen. My article achieves this by using language that is not too formal e.g. "Their habitat is a whopping 1.8 million square kilometres" and "their snowy homes". I made sure to do this so the article is accessible to young children, but still fits with the more serious tone of Newsround.
Why did you use the images/video you used? How did they enhance the article for the audience? I used video clips of snow leopards in the wild, as this allows the children to see what they look like and where they live. This also makes the article more enjoyable to watch as the audience can see cute videos of snow leopards whist learning about them. One of the videos in particular I picked because it showed some snow leopards sleeping and I found it very cute so my target audience would too. I also used videos of snow leopards cubs because everyone likes baby animals. But one video I used specifically to show how difficult it is to spot snow leopards, the clip shows the animals walking across a flat plain and up a hill, but they are very well camouflaged. This clearly shows the audience how elusive they really are.
Are your initial sentences structured so that the ‘who’, ‘what’ and ‘where’ is clear in the opening paragraph? Give examples. I would say my article achieves this because the first sentence is: "Snow leopards are some of the most elusive animals on Earth, but recently researchers have found that there’s loads more of them than we thought." This tells you the 'who' - researchers, and the 'what' - snow leopards. In that same opening paragraph, I say "These big cats live in central Asia, their habitat spanning countries like Russia, China, Tibet and India" which tells you the 'where'.
Does your next few paragraphs include the ‘why’ and ‘how’? Give examples. In my second paragraph, I say "Humans are taking over their habitat, and even eat some of the same prey as the leopards". This tells you the 'why' - it gives lots of reasons why snow leopards are endangered. Then in my third paragraph, I say "new technology like camera traps and tracking collars". This tells you the 'how' - it tells you how researchers have found more snow leopards.
Did you include at least two of the most useful and valid sources that were evaluated in D1? Discuss how these enhanced your article. I used something from all of my sources in my final article. These enhanced my article because I was able to use all these sources to collate all the information to make it into a news story. I feel my most useful and valid source was Source 11: Panthera because it is a primary source and it gave me lots of new information about snow leopards and their conservation. It was very interesting to read, and all the information was backed up by my other sources like the WWF and the IUCN, and I justified why these are reliable sources back in section M3. My second most useful source was Source 5: Traffic because it is a primary source and had a lot of reliable information about how many snow leopards there are in the wild, how many are smuggled, etc. This source gave me a lot of reliable primary research and some good statistics to use.
D2: Justify the choice of sourced information to be referenced within the article
My final video:
My final article:
Snow Leopards - now no longer Endangered!
Snow leopards are some of the most elusive animals on Earth, but recently researchers have found that there’s loads more of them than we thought. They’re known as ‘the ghost of the mountain’ as their habitats are so vast we rarely see them. These big cats live in the snowy mountains of central Asia, and their habitat is a whopping 1.8 million square kilometres.
There are now thought to be around 4,000 snow leopards surviving in the wild, but sadly research shows that for 10 years up to 400 snow leopards have been poached every year for their beautiful coats. Snow leopards face a variety of threats. Humans are taking over their habitat, and even eat some of the same prey as the leopards. Local livestock are dying, often through disease, but the farmers blame these big cats and see them as pests. Climate change is also making their snowy homes melt away.
Snow leopard researchers have a problem: their terrain is so remote and inhospitable, and the animals are so good at hiding, it’s hard to count them accurately. But new technology like camera traps and tracking collars gives us a much better idea. The good news is they’re no longer classified as endangered for the first time in 45 years!
Animal charities are doing important conservation work to help snow leopards. This includes educating local people, vaccinating farmers’ livestock and setting up boarder patrols to stop illegal smuggling of fur and live animals. This work is essential for the future of snow leopards. Although no longer endangered, they are classed as vulnerable which means their numbers are still declining, but at a slower rate.
So if you want to get involved, why not adopt a snow leopard through a charity like the WWF or go and see them at your local zoo?
List at least three ways my article does or does not break the Editor's Code of Practice and explain why:
My article doesn't break Rule 1. Accuracy, as I did thorough research and cross-referencing in sections M3 and P4. I made sure all my information came from reliable and official sources, I made sure to distinguish opinion from fact, and I made sure my headline represents the article fairly. If I didn't feel that any piece of information was 100% correct, I didn't include it in my article .
My article doesn't break Rule 3: Harassment, as I couldn't get an interview even though I had to chase up the people I wanted to interview a few times. But I made sure not to harass my potential interviewee by engaging in persistent pursuit, and if I had been asked to leave them alone I would have done so. I also made sure not to use non-compliant material from other sources as the interviews I looked at were carried out by official sources like the BBC, and I know that they have followed the IPSO Editor's Code of Practice.
My article doesn't break Rule 13: Financial Journalism, because I didn't buy or sell any information I collected. I did not have any financial information I could pass on to others or write about before the information was officially released, so therefore I didn't break Rule 13.
My article also doesn't break Rule 12: Discrimination, because I didn't make any "prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's, race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability". An individual's race, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability also weren't genuinely relevant to my story so I didn't comment on any of these things.
List several ways that my article breaks or does not break the OFCOM Broadcasting Code Guidance (specifically: Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8) and explain why:
Section 1: Protecting under 18s My story doesn't include any bad language, sexual content, violence or graphic images, so it can be shown before the watershed, which is when BBC Newsround airs. My article is also aimed at children, so all the language and content is aimed at them. I am therefore very certain that there is nothing in my article that could cause harm or offence to under 18s. Therefore I have not broken this code.
Section 2: Harm and offence My story doesn't depict any potentially offensive content or content that could harm the audience, e.g. offensive language, violence, sex, sexual violence, humiliation, distress, violation of human dignity, discriminatory treatment or language. My story also doesn't mislead the audience because I have thoroughly researched all my information to make sure it is as close to 100% accurate as possible. I don't use any ambiguous language either so I feel my article doesn't mislead my audience at all and doesn't break Section 2.
Section 3: Crime, disorder, hatred and abuse My article doesn't really talk about any groups of people in any great detail, it is mainly about snow leopards. I feel there is no content in my article that could incite crime as although I talk about poaching and smuggling, I feel that it is very unlikely that any of my readers would carry this out, especially as I go into no detail about how these crimes are committed. I also have not made any hate speeches or used any derogatory terms towards any group of people. The information I will broadcast also doesn't endanger any lives. Therefore I have not broken this code.
Section 4: Religion My article makes no reference to any religion, and religion isn't at all relevant to my story. There is nothing to suggest I have any prejudice towards any religion or lack thereof. Therefore I have not broken this code.
Section 5: Due impartiality and due accuracy My article meets this code because I have done detailed and thorough fact checking and cross-referencing. My story also doesn't have any particular bias. It might be slightly anti-poaching, but this is because I am using consonance as my target audience will share this view, and this will make the article more enjoyable for them as they share the views of the article. Therefore I have not broken this code.
Section 7: Fairness My article has avoided unjust or unfair treatment of individuals or organisations in programmes. I don't have any contributors so I don't need to worry about them not being depicted fairly. I haven't presented, disregarded or omitted any information in a way that is unfair to an individual or organisation. I also didn't get any information through misrepresentation or deception (including surreptitious filming or recording). Therefore I have not broken this code.
Section 8: Privacy In the end, I didn't get to conduct an interview so I don't need to worry about not respecting my interviewee's privacy, or getting permission from them to include the information. However, when chasing up the person I wanted to interview, I made sure to do it through official means like calling up and emailing the organisation, rather than going to my potential interviewee's house and infringing their privacy. I also didn't re-use information to infringe individual's privacy unwarranted. Therefore I have not broken this code.
List several ways that my article breaks or does not break the BBC Editorial Guidelines (specifically the Sections on Accuracy, Impartiality, Harm and Offence, Fairness, Privacy, Reporting Crime, Children and Young People as Contributors, Editorial Integrity) and explain why:
Section 3: Accuracy "Accuracy is not simply a matter of getting facts right. If an issue is controversial, relevant opinions as well as facts may need to be considered. When necessary, all the relevant facts and information should also be weighed to get at the truth. Where appropriate to the output, we should:
gather material using first hand sources wherever possible
check and cross check facts
validate the authenticity of documentary evidence and digital material
corroborate claims and allegations made by contributors wherever possible"
I feel that my story is very accurate because in sections M3 and P4 I carried out very detailed research into my story, and I thoroughly justified and cross-referenced all the information I included in my article to make sure it is as close to 100% accurate as possible. I relied on primary research wherever possible, and took secondary research with a pinch of salt. Therefore I did not break this code.
Section 4: Impartiality "Due impartiality is often more than a simple matter of 'balance' between opposing viewpoints. Equally, it does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from fundamental democratic principles. The BBC Agreement forbids our output from expressing the opinion of the BBC on current affairs or matters of public policy, other than broadcasting or the provision of online services." In my article, I do give a balanced argument as I say things like "the local people are desperate and the attacks on snow leopards are in retaliation" rather than "they kill snow leopards for no reason". Although there isn't much of a two-sided argument in my article, I feel it isn't really necessary because I am not being blatantly biased between one thing or another. However, my story is quite biased towards snow leopard conservation because I want to have consonance with my audience, and it makes the story more enjoyable for my target audience if the article is agreeing with their opinions. Therefore I did not break this code.
Section 5: Harm and offence "When our content includes challenging material that risks offending some of our audience we must always be able to demonstrate a clear editorial purpose, taking account of generally accepted standards, and ensure it is clearly signposted. Such challenging material may include, but is not limited to, strong language, violence, sex, sexual violence, humiliation, distress, violation of human dignity, and discriminatory treatment or language." My article doesn't break this code because I didn't include any harmful or offensive content in my story. I haven't included any of the above examples of "challenging material" in my story. My story is also aimed at children so I made sure to use language and content that is appropriate for them. Therefore I did not break this code.
Section 6: Fairness, Contributors and Consent "The BBC strives to be fair to all - fair to those our output is about, fair to contributors, and fair to our audiences. BBC content should be based on respect, openness and straight dealing." I feel I followed this code because I asked permission to use my videos and have a release form for it. However, I didn't follow this code because I did't credit or acknowledge the writers or articles I got my information from in the final video. Therefore I did break this code.
Section 7: Privacy "The BBC respects privacy and does not infringe it without good reason, wherever in the world it is operating. The Human Rights Act 1998 gives protection to the privacy of individuals, and private information about them, but balances that with a broadcaster's right to freedom of expression." My article doesn't break this code because I didn't do an interview, but also I didn't find out any private information about my potential interviewee or give it out. I did't use any secret cameras or carry out doorstepping. Therefore I did not break this code.
Section 8: Reporting crime and anti-social behaviour "Our coverage of crime and anti-social behaviour is part of the BBC's public purpose and is aimed at giving audiences the facts in their context. However, we must ensure that the public interest in our reporting is not outweighed by public concern about our methods. We must ensure that we observe appropriate standards of behaviour ourselves, consider the consequences of our actions and avoid obstructing the work of the authorities.Our reporting must not add to people's fear of becoming victims of crime if statistics suggest it is very unlikely." My story doesn't break this code because although I did talk about poaching and smuggling, I went into no detail about how the crimes are carried out. This prevents people trying to use my article to recreate these crimes. I also took into account moral panic in section P4 and I was careful not to cause the public distress. Therefore I did not break this code.
Section 9: Children and young people as contributors "We must always safeguard the welfare of the children and young people who contribute to our content, wherever in the world we operate. This includes preserving their right to speak out and to participate, as enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child." My article doesn't break this code because my target audience are children aged 6-12, so I had to make sure all the language and content used was appropriate and suitable for them. I didn't have any children as contributors in my story so I don't need to worry about not caring for them. Also, I made sure the topic of my story was educational and challenging as there will be information in it that children might not know already. But I also made it enjoyable and interesting for them as most children in that age group love animals. Therefore I did not break this code.
Section 14: Editorial Integrity and independence from external interests "The BBC's reputation, in the UK and around the world, is based on its editorial integrity and independence. Our audiences must be able to trust the BBC and be confident that our editorial decisions are not influenced by outside interests, political or commercial pressures, or any personal interests.This section of the Editorial Guidelines concerns the editorial decisions and production of our output. It should be read in conjunction with Section 15 Conflicts of Interest, which is concerned with ensuring the external activities of those involved in making content do not bring the BBC's editorial integrity into question." My article doesn't break this code because I made sure my story wasn't biased and it only offered a neutral viewpoint on the topic. I made sure my story is just presenting the facts and I clearly distinguished the difference between opinion and fact. I didn't add in any of my own opinions, and I made sure not to be influenced by other sources. I made sure that my story was as neutral as possible and had as little bias as possible. Therefore I did not break this code.