KELLY DRAPER- 40202345 – BCP2001

Submission Form Module: BCP 2001 Project: Essay of Critical Reflection

STUDENT NAME: Kelly Draper

STUDENT NUMBER: 40202345
STUDENT EMAIL: kdraper01@qub.ac.uk

MARKING AND FEEDBACK (for examiner use)

Reflective Essay Feedback Grid 1st 2:1 2:2 3rd Fail

Structure and Presentation

Respect of word length (+/-200 words allowance) X

Spelling/grammar/formatting of paragraphs X

Introduction/ Description Section/Explanation of X

events

Correct use of in text referencing (MLA) X

Format of Bibliography / Filmography / Sound sources X

Content

Use of supporting evidence? X

Analysis and self-reflection/Interpretation of events X

Conclusion/ Outcomes discussion X

Reflecting forward / Discussion of what’s next? X

Style of writing and overall tone X

Connecting theory and practice well achieved? X

Relevance of discussion/learning is clearly identified X

Evidence of wider, extra-curricular reading/research? X

Reference to cognate work? Influences?

Overall X
First Marker Comments (where appropriate):

Kelly,

You showed clear and sustained reflection on your craft, and the ethical and regulatory
implications of it, throughout this essay. Your referral to secondary material was very good
and displayed that you have read widely and were well able to apply that reading to your
own craft. This kind of reflection will serve you well as a journalist.

Your essay was weaker in the areas where you slid off-topic and occupied yourself more
with your craft – how and why you made the package – rather than a more explicit
consideration of the ethical/regulatory implications of your work, which was the remit of the
essay. You did this on a few occasions and while I found your ruminations on your craft
quite interesting, they were, unfortunately, irrelevant to the assignment.

Kelly, you must absolutely re-read your work before submitting it. Read it aloud to yourself
and you will catch various typos, spelling errors, punctuation omissions and clumsy syntax.
These are totally avoidable mistakes that held back your essay.

Your ethical reflections and points were all quite well put and were interesting. I commend
you on really digging into your own experience and being honest with yourself in terms of
where you may have fallen short of ethical standards. I especially liked your explanations of
how you rebalanced your package in the edit and how you would go about doing it all better
next time.

I would have liked you to focus on fewer ethical points/aspects and to dig deeper into each
one.

Your process of asking each side of a story the very same questions is too cautions. It is
good to be careful but do know that being conscious of balance and wary to ensure it in the
final edit is enough. You don’t have to ask all interviewees the same questions. You can
tailor your questions to each interviewee and what role you want them to play in the overall
story.

You are able to reflect well and pull in diverse readings and this is a solid foundation for
good academic writing. In the future, make more of an effort to focus your line of argument
on the assigned topic of the essay, avoiding straying from that line for too long.

Good job!

Second Marker Comments (where appropriate):

External Examiner Comments (where appropriate):

GRADE:
 First Marker: 62

Second Marker:

Agreed Internal Grade:

External Examiner:

PENALTIES:

Lateness (5% p/day):

Over/Under Length:
(Conceptual point)

Presentation (5%):

FINAL GRADE:
 Critical Reflection - Radio Package

I will be critically evaluating my three-minute Radio Package revolving around Dublin’s ‘Prohibition of

Fur Farming Bill 2018’ in which Ruth Coppinger TD, from Solidarity, introduced in Irish Parliament this

October. A Radio Package is known as a pre-recorded speech package ‘to inform listeners about a subject which

the radio station considers they will find interesting,’ (Starkey, 33) and usually it is compact varying from two

to four minutes. Broadcast Journalists are known to ‘work out risks and implications’ (Alexander, Stewart,

Preface) within this package and thus I will be discussing the Ofcom Broadcasting Code, the BBC Editorial

Guidelines and the NUJ Code of Conduct in relation to my work. I will discuss specific examples from my work

to discuss how I applied these rules within these codes and guidelines to my Radio Package.

The agenda throughout my package was to not only expose corruption, abuse and wrong doing within the

Fur Industry but also to have a fair, two-sided story to create a more entertaining, emotional and educational

piece for the public. This is because journalism is not only to be a voice for the voiceless, such as animals, but

also to display this voice in an independent, fair and balanced manner. Thus, I approached both sides of the

debate, firstly introducing Evelyn Suttle from VegHuns, a group of Vegan Activists in the National Animal

Rights Association in comparison to Caroline Barnardo, whom co-runs Dublin’s Barnardo’s Furriers, the oldest

family furrier in the world. Evelyn has been trying to help pass the Bill by protesting outside the Department of

Agriculture for thirty weeks. However, Caroline fears that the changes to the Animal Health and Welfare Act

2013 will destroy her business, which has been creating fur garments for almost two-hundred years. I had to be

conscious of what role I wanted my interviewees to play and thus did not unequivocally know which direction

the interview with Caroline would take. Would people feel sympathy or aggravation towards her? Despite this,

I wanted to create an emotional reaction from the audience to maintain a strong engagement. The internal

challenges such as making sure the news is trustworthy and trusted were overcome by planning to ask all

respondents the same questions to conclude a fair and equal treatment towards them both. Hence, keeping in

mind the codes and objectives of The Ofcom Broadcasting Code, applying the rules to my Radio Package

throughout.

The Ofcom Broadcasting Code is a code for radio (and television) which covers programmes standards,

their privacy and fairness. This code was required by the 2003 Communications Act and the 1996 Broadcasting

Act and was also drafted regarding the 1998 Human Rights Act (Ofcom, 2). Principally, as a film production
student, I found the project challenging compared to my Broadcast and Journalism peers whom had more

Broadcast knowledge prior to the project and further experience with the typical rules and regulations within

Radio. Thus, I felt I did not abide all the rules as accurately as I intended to, for instance, with rule 7.1 in The

Ofcom Broadcasting Code. Rule 7.1, which is in section seven of The Ofcom Broadcasting Code, focuses on

fairness and states that ‘Broadcasters must avoid unjust or unfair treatment of individuals or organisations in

programmes’ (Ofcom, 38). I felt I struggled to meet the principles behind this rule as I had concealed elements

involving my intentions for the Radio Package in order to receive an interview with Caroline Barnardo. I found

it substantially more difficult to interview a subject with a view opposing the Fur Ban as it is seen as an unpopular

and more self-interested view today. Thus, after discovering Barnardo Furrier’s are arduous to secure an

interview from, I approached Caroline with a different angle to the story than I realistically knew I intended

which created ethical issues within my piece. Firstly, even though I never lied about the subject matter, I had

masked my overall intentions by withholding information from her about my other interviewees. For example,

I had told Caroline that this project was to shed a light on the positives of the Fur Ban as well, which it partially

was as I intended to show the opposing side of the Fur Ban to show how people will lose their jobs too. However,

after Caroline’s interview, there were no sound bites which created sympathy for her. The most engaging sound

bites were prone to make the audience agitated with her comments as she states her life is worse than the animals

slaughtered as they ‘do not have to go to work’ like she does. Thus, I feel my intentions changed in the edit in

order to create a more interesting piece, and therefore did not follow rule 7.1 as I failed to avoid unjust or unfair

treatment of the individual. This learning curve has enabled me to be able to approach individuals and

organisations with a more detailed plan of my project as I explain the edit may change depending on the sound

bites that are created within the interview. This was an important lesson as the terms of the Standards Code and

the Fairness Code are required to be followed by Broadcasters regarding the BBC Agreement4 and, by law in

the case of S4C (Ofcom, 39).

Rule 7.6 states that ‘When a programme is edited, contributions should be represented fairly’ (Ofcom, 40),

and I do feel I represented the opposing sides fairly, as I asked them both the same questions and did not

manipulate any of their arguments with music or sound using Pro Tools to create a specific atmosphere. Thus,

the decision to not add music to my package was to make sure I was not manipulating the audience to feel

sympathy for anyone or to dramatize a statistic. Guy Starkey states that even though it can be a considerable
asset to punctuate the narrative, the use of music can detract from a package and must be careful not to be used

indiscriminately in one either (Starkey, 46). As ‘the idea is to carry the narrative forward’ (Hudson, Rowlands,

260), I knew I had to cut out my questions in the edit, to create a smooth narrative that efficiently flowed. Hence,

asking both parties the same questions enabled me to construct a bridge between the interviews in the edit as

they would talk about the same topics but with opposing views.

The BBC Editorial Value Guidelines aim to create ethical and high-quality content for their audiences

(BBC, 1). I will be discussing the BBC’s 1.2.4 Editorial Value: Editorial Integrity and Independence. This

predominantly focuses on making sure the content produced is not influenced by political, commercial or

personal interests (BBC, 2). I feel even though I attempted to discard my personal beliefs and emotions on the

matter, it still mildly affected the overall piece, creating a slight bias. For instance, my decision to follow

Evelyn’s character could have been subconsciously influenced by my belief that there are more anti-fur

arguments that logically make sense, thus she would have more reliable and relatable sound bites within her

interview. I found it hard to relate to Caroline as I did not agree with her arguments myself, thus this may have

affected the edit as I used more of Evelyn’s interview due to agreeing with her arguments. The radio editor’s

role is known to be ‘responsible for making sure that reports are accurate and fair’ (Kern, 92). The BBC’s Charter

and Agreement incorporates these values as well, stating that we should ‘ensure that controversial subjects are

treated with due accuracy and impartiality’ (BBC, 3). I felt I not only followed this rule but also was able to

follow their aim of promoting educational content as Radio is seen as a ‘didactic medium’ (Leverage, 6). I

wanted to help the audience learn about what this Bill in Irish Parliament is and why it is important, incorporating

facts on who it affects both negatively and positively whilst attempting to maintain impartiality.

The main principles of UK and Irish Journalism was set out by The National Union of Journalists Code of

Conduct since 1963 (NUJ, 1). This code consists of twelve rules that members of The National Union of

Journalists are expected to abide by. I will be evaluating rule ten which states that the Journalist ‘does not by

way of statement, voice or appearance endorse by advertisement any commercial product or service save for the

promotion of her/his own work or of the medium by which she/he is employed’ (NUJ, 1). I was interviewing a

popular company selling a product: Barnardo Furriers. Therefore, I had to make sure this was an educational

package on the Bill to Ban Fur Farming instead of an advertisement for Barnardo’s business. For example,

Caroline began the interview by stating that their high-quality fur garments last over 200 years and therefore
enable customers to save more money on clothing as they do not have to re-bye a coat due to their durability.

To fix the issue of Caroline constantly complimenting Barnardo Furrier’s, I stopped the interview and explained

that the focal point of the research surrounds the Bill and Caroline’s input is more so to argue her opinion on the

Bill in Parliament, rather than Barnardo’s perks. I also followed Rule nine, which was to produce ‘no material

likely to lead to hatred or discrimination on the grounds of a person’s age, gender, race, colour, creed, legal

status, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation’ (NUJ, 1). Thus, throughout the piece I refrained from

mentioning any of the interviewees age, gender, race or any other personal information except from Caroline’s

job due to its relevancy to the subject matter. This enabled me to create an unbiased piece as the audience would

not be able to judge the interviewees on their personal life but only on the arguments they put forward. I further

managed to maintain an emotional distance from all the subjects in order to maintain neutrality and impartiality.

For example, when first meeting each of them individually, I briefly spoke with them politely, then re-explained

the process and questions and began the interview, leaving afterwards and maintaining no further friendship

post-interview and more-so a professional relationship. Thus, the lack of knowledge I as well as the audience

have on the interviewees personal life enabled me to construct an argument focusing solely on the debate instead

of the focal point being principally on the judgement of each person’s character.

The pre-production blueprint to follow Evelyn’s character enabled me to visualise sound bites for the piece

whilst simultaneously pre-identifying characters, scenes and locations with consideration to the knowledge that

‘a radio audience, consist of listeners not viewers’ (Kern, 35). Therefore, I began the piece using sound from the

Fur Ban protest, this sound being known as an actuality (Alexander, Stewart, 93), to encapsulate the audience

immediately into the hectic nature of the situation, thus portraying the intense importance this topic means to

some individuals. This dramatic opening to the package was vital for me as Hudson and Rowland stated, ‘the

opening words or sounds in any report have to grab the audience’s attention’ (Hudson, Rowland, 259) which

was my intention, thus I planned my trip to Dublin a day earlier in order to capture the protest chants on the

Zoom H4N Pro Handy Recorder. Kern argues that there must be ‘some sort of logical connection between the

intro and the start of the report itself’ (Kern, 106). Hence, connecting the chants of the protest to an interview

with a participator of the protest felt like a smooth transition between the actuality and the sound bite. I followed

Bloomberg’s mathematical “and what’s interesting” test (Bloomberg, 1) by stating to people that “I’m doing a

story about banning fur farming which saves animals lives, and what’s interesting about it is it will destroy a
family’s business and thus their lives.” This helped create a clear divide within the piece about which is more

important, the animals or the people involved, therefore enabling me to ‘keep it simple’ (Vin, 31). Thus,

interviewing predominantly two people, with an extra opinion from a third interview set up a more

straightforward, minimalistic piece of Journalism. John Grierson, a British filmmaker advocates that this is the

best approach for an entertaining piece as he stated that ‘you can write an article about the postal service, but

you must make a film about one single letter’ (Vin, 32). However, I did want an expert opinion on the matter

but struggled to receive an interview as nobody would respond to my calls and emails or were simply

unavailable. There were external challenges such as the changing media environment increasing in domination

by platform companies. This made it substantially harder to book interviews for an expert opinion on the Bill to

Ban Fur Farming as I was taken less seriously as a student journalist compared to well-known production

companies whose interviews would be a more efficient use of their time.

Overall, I structured my piece to assure I could ‘capture conflict, tension, and other dramatic elements’

(Rosenthal, 1). Thus, some of the questions I asked Caroline, Evelyn and Dean were ‘how does fur farming

being banned affect you personally?’ in hopes to create more emotionally-driven sound bites. I aimed to

construct ‘the most narratively compelling way to communicate both the factual and emotional truth of the story’

(Rosenthal, 1). However, another implication that I faced was in trying to capture authenticity among the

interviewees whilst simultaneously endorsing all the ‘rules’ I requested them to follow. Such as reducing the

amount of numbers and complex dialect they use throughout the interview and giving them a hefty list to not

use hollow, vague, vogue, non-broadcast, windy, wrong, weary and foreign words whilst concurrently not

wasting words, thus adding pressure (Block, 23-25). This came as a struggle to Evelyn as her arguments were

heavily focused on facts and statistics, leading her to rewording and restructuring her sentences by reducing the

amount of numbers in her statements to help the audience maintain interest. Furthermore, I strived to create a

specific atmosphere using the ambience of the interviews as ‘television has the powerful advantage of being

able to use graphic illustrations to bring home a point’ (Boyde, 77), thus I had to paint word pictures by using

visual language as well within the interviews.

In conclusion, even though I faced multiple challenges within my Radio Package process, I feel I achieved my

agenda to create an educational and engaging piece that is fairly presented to the public. This process enabled

me to become further informed on the Ofcom Broadcasting Code, the BBC Editorial Guidelines and the NUJ
Code of Conduct. Rule 7.1 revolving around fairness was challenging for me as I withheld information in order

to receive an interview and changed direction within the edit after Caroline’s interview created more

aggregational sound bites for the audience in comparison to sympathetic. However, I felt I met the guidelines of

Rule 7.6 as I refrained from manipulating the audience’s reactions to characters by discarding music or

emotionally-atmospheric techniques. Additionally, equally asking the interviewees the same questions enabled

me to maintain fairness and ease to bridge the sound bites smoothly within the edit. Journalism is known to exist

‘in the context of its audience, and its social role, its political importance’ (Nielsen, 1). Therefore, rule nine and

ten in The National Union of Journalists Code of Conduct helped me to focus more so on the packages social

and political role by discarding any use of advertisement and personal information within the interview to

prevent discrimination. Predominantly, my ambition was to create an ‘informative, engaging, relevant, diverse

and empowering’ (Nielsen, 2) piece whilst considering the boundaries from the bountiful rules and regulations

attached to Journalism to maintain accuracy and impartiality within my Radio Package.

 Works Cited

 Alexander, Ray and Stewart, Peter. Broadcast Journalism: Techniques of Radio and Television News.

London: Routledge, 2016.

 BBC Editorial Guidelines [website]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines

 Block, Mervin. Writing Broadcast News - Shorter, Sharper, Stronger: A Professional Handbook.

Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2010.

 Bloomberg, Alex. How to Tell if Something is a Story. QOL, 2018.

 Boyde, Andrew. Conversational writing. New York; London: Focal Press, 2008.

 Kern, Jonathon. Sound Reporting. The NPR Guide to Audio Journalism and Production. Chicago;

London: The University of Chicago Press, 2016.

 Leverage, Brett. How to Make Radio that’s Great. QOL, 2018.

 Nielsen, Rasmus Kleis. What Can we do for Journalism? University of Oxford, 2018.

 NUJ Code of Conduct [website]: https://www.nuj.org.uk/about/nuj-code/

 OfCom Broadcasting Code [PDF]:

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/100103/broadcast-code-april2017.pdf

 Ray, Vin. The Television News Handbook. London: Macmillan, 2003.

 Rosenthal, Rob. Imagining the Story. Transom, 2011.

 Starkey, Guy. Radio in Context. Second Addition. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.