Editorialising should be avoided in news reporting because it blurs the line between fact and opinion, undermining accuracy, fairness, and public trust. This exercise is designed to help journalists recognise editorialising and avoid it.
Welcome to this Media Helping Media (MHM) exercise about editorialising is not for news. You are invited to complete the exercise either on your own or with a colleague. Please ensure you read the article above before proceeding.
MHM exercises are a chance for those who are new to journalism to learn skills and test what they know against fictional scenarios. The articles on which the exercises are based have been created from the experience of journalists who have shared their knowledge in order to help others learn the fundamental principles of robust public service journalism.
The first requirement of any piece of journalism is that it should be accurate. Although this is an exercise involving fictitious material, not for publication, trainees must take everything they are told in the exercise to be factual and they must stick to those facts. If one thing they produce in the exercise is inconsistent with those facts, their whole work is discredited. Accuracy comes first.
The exercise
Your news editor throws you a copy of a local tabloid newspaper in which she has circled the lead story. She asks you to follow it up and write a 300-word update about “what’s really going on” avoiding all “sensationalism and editorialising”. “Just give me the facts” she says as she walks away.
Task 1: Study the tabloid article – Your first task is to read the tabloid article (below), separating out the facts from the emotive adjectives, assumptions about motives, and words and phrases which take sides.
The original tabloid version
Greedy Developers Threaten Beloved Community Garden
In a shocking move that has outraged local residents, St. Jude’s Hospital has unveiled a heartless plan to bulldoze the neighbourhood’s historic community garden to build a massive new Accident and Emergency wing. The £45 million project, which many see as a vanity project for the hospital’s ambitious administration, threatens to destroy the very heart of our community.
Despite the garden being a beautiful sanctuary for eighty years, the hospital seems determined to replace trees with concrete. The expansion is being spearheaded by the controversial Dr. Aris Thorne, who used alarmist language today, claiming the hospital is at a “breaking point” to justify the land grab.
Even more disturbing is the murky financial trail behind the project. A staggering £30 million is being handed over by wealthy developer Elena Moretti. In a clear conflict of interest, Moretti’s own construction firm has been conveniently selected to build the wing, ensuring she profits from her own “donation.” Local politician Marcus Vane, who has suspiciously accepted thousands in campaign cash from Moretti, shamefully dismissed residents’ concerns today, calling the destruction “vital for progress.”
While the hospital complains about wait times, this expensive new building will do little for patients while flooding our quiet streets with 15% more noisy, disruptive ambulances. It is a dark day for our neighbourhood as corporate interests once again come before the people.
Task 2: Identifying editorialising – Make notes of the places in the story where you think there is editorialising.
Click here to see some examples we identified.
- Loaded adjectives: Using words like greedy, heartless, massive, shocking, suspicious, and shamefully. These are opinions, not facts.
- Assumed motives: Claiming the project is a “vanity project” or that the Chief of Medicine is being “alarmist.” A journalist cannot know a person’s inner motives.
- Taking sides: The reporter clearly favours the “Save Our Green” group, calling the garden a “sanctuary” and the hospital’s plan a “land grab.”
- Lack of impartiality: Instead of simply reporting the donation and the contract, the reporter uses words like “conveniently” and “murky” to imply guilt without proof.
Task 3: Researching the story – Now you look into the story. In a real-life situation you would make phone calls to contacts, calls and emails to the parties identified in the original story, examine official documents and carry out Internet searches. Here are some of the people involved.
- Dr. Aris Thorne (hospital’s chief of medicine): Claims the hospital is “at a breaking point” and that “lives are being lost” due to the current lack of space.
- Sarah Jenkins (local resident): Founder of “Save Our Green.” She claims the community garden is the “heart of the neighbourhood” and calls the expansion a “corporate land grab.”
- Councillor Marcus Vane: A local politician who received a £5,000 campaign donation from the private donor. He says the project is “vital for progress.”
- The private donor (Elena Moretti): Owner of Moretti Constructions, the company contracted to build the wing. She declined to comment on the conflict of interest.
As a result of all your inquiries, you have made a list of the known facts, as far as can be established at this time:
- The proposal: St. Jude’s Hospital has submitted a planning application to build a new four-story Accident and Emergency (A&E) wing.
- The cost: The project is budgeted at $45 million.
- The impact: Construction will require the removal of an 80-year-old community garden and will increase local ambulance traffic by an estimated 15%.
- Current status: St. Jude’s currently has the longest A&E wait times in the county (average six hours).
- The funding: £30 million is coming from a private donor who owns a major construction firm; £15 million is coming from local taxpayer funds.
- The timeline: If approved, construction starts in three months and will last two years.
- Quotes: You will have assembled a few quotes you can use to illustrate your
story.
Task 4: The news report – Write a 300-word news story based on the information provided.
- Goal: Inform the public about the proposal and the controversy.
- Constraint: You must avoid editorialising. This means you cannot use your own adjectives to describe the situation (e.g., do not call the donor “generous” or the councilman “corrupt” or the garden “beautiful”). Let the facts and the quotes do the work.
Once you have completed all four tasks – and not before – take a look at the example below showing how the story could be written in a way that avoids editorialising. We suggest you don’t click on the link to reveal the article until you have completed the tasks above.
Click here to see our suggested story treatment
Hospital proposes £45m expansion amid community protest
St Jude’s Hospital has submitted a formal planning application for a £45 million Accident & Emergency (A&E) Wing, a move aimed at reducing the county’s emergency room wait times.
The proposal for the four-story facility has drawn both support and opposition. According to hospital data, the current average wait time in the A&E is six hours. Dr. Aris Thorne, Chief of Medicine, stated that the facility is currently at “breaking point” and argued that the expansion is necessary because “lives are being lost” under current conditions.
However, the project faces opposition from local residents due to the planned removal of an 80-year-old community garden to make way for the wing. Sarah Jenkins, founder of the “Save Our Green” group, described the garden as the “heart of the neighbourhood” and characterised the expansion as a “corporate land grab.”
Financial records show that the project is funded by a £30 million donation from Elena Moretti and £15 million in local taxpayer funds. Ms. Moretti is the owner of Moretti Constructions, the firm contracted to build the wing. While Ms. Moretti declined to comment on the arrangement, Councillor Marcus Vane called the project “vital for progress.” Records indicate Councillor Vane received a £5,000 campaign donation from Ms. Moretti during the last election.
Beyond the loss of the green space, a traffic impact study suggests the expansion will increase local ambulance traffic by 15%. If the local council approves the application, construction is scheduled to begin in three months and is expected to last two years.
The council will meet to discuss the proposal on Tuesday evening.
How does this version compare with the one you produced? Reflect on any areas that could be improved in either version.
Assessment
How did you get on? Did any editorialising slip through into your version? If so, make a note and make sure you don’t make the same mistakes in future stories. If your version was free from editorialising you have successfully completed this exercise.
Related material
