IT cannot be denied that the aim of the journalist, first and foremost, is to grab the reader’s attention. If your story is not being read, you have failed in your purpose.
There are various ways and means of achieving this. A snappy or powerful headline is often key. A punchy intro is a must. What we must not do, in the case of a quality newspaper like The Herald, is indulge in sensationalism.
The Oxford Dictionary defines sensationalism as “the presentation of stories in a way that is intended to provoke public interest or excitement, at the expense of accuracy”. Those italics are mine. We must make sure all the facts are there, present and correct. Sometimes, though, readers see more sensation than salient information.
We have had two such instances this week. On Monday, John-Paul Holden reported that the English Department at James Gillespie’s High in Edinburgh said they no longer wanted to teach Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird and John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men because of their “dated” approach to race. Immediately, some readers began posting online about the books being “banned” and that the next stage would be putting them on a bonfire.
Except that the books aren’t banned. John-Paul quoted Stephen Kelly, secondary headteacher representative on Edinburgh Council’s Equalities Board, as saying: “I’m not saying that we’d ban To Kill a Mockingbird or Of Mice and Men ... but if you were going to teach something around what white saviourism actually is, you might use these books as an example.”
The story opened up a lively debate on our Letters Pages about the so-called cancel culture, changing attitudes and mores, and how we should react to them.
On Tuesday, Tom Gordon revealed that former cabinet secretary Aileen Campbell was paid a resettlement grant of £64,470 after quitting as an MSP in May, plus £12,112 for loss of ministerial office – despite having already landed a new job before leaving her old one. There is an obvious public interest issue here: does such a situation suggest that the system is at fault?
Tom was at pains to point out that Ms Campbell “did not apply for any money, and there is no suggestion of wrongdoing on her part”. That point bypassed several commentators, with posts about snouts and troughs being bandied about: one reader wrote “she was in it for what she could get out of it”. Another, though, got to the crux of the matter on our Letters Pages. Should Ms Campbell’s situation lead us to a rethink of the situation, perhaps introducing a form of means testing?
Both these stories grabbed the readers’ attention. Both opened up genuine debate. And, above all, both put all the facts out there. Guilty of sensationalism? We would deny the charge. Perhaps you would like to give us your own verdict.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here