There’s nothing like a practical example for learning a skill. So here’s a little example of how to take a story and then carefully apply journalistic skill and judgement to make it into one of those proper stories they put in newspapers. Or something like that 
The core of the story is this: child climbs up tree, child climbs down tree, stranger walks up to child, school staff walk up to stranger, stranger walks off, police have a word with stranger.
Fact 1: “At no point was any child ever stuck in a tree”.
How do you report this? Easy:
- TEACHERS LEAVE BOY OF 5 STUCK UP A TREE (Express)
- A FIVE-YEAR-OLD pupil was left stuck up a tree (Sun)
- She spotted the stuck five-year-old at Manor School in Melksham, Wiltshire (Metro)
- TEACHERS refused to rescue a five-year-old boy stuck up a tree (Daily Star)
Fact 2: The child was in the tree for no more than “ten minutes”.
How do you report this? Easy:
- Half an hour (Daily Star)
- 45 minutes (The Guardian) [Update: as pointed out in the comment, the Guardian (now) also gives the school saying it was "less than 10"]
- At least 45 minutes (Telegraph)
- Nearly an hour (Express)
Fact 3: Because no child was stuck, there was no child to rescue.
How do you report this? Easy:
- Teachers leave boy, 5, stranded in tree because of health and safety (Daily Mail)
- A DAREDEVIL five-year-old boy who got stuck up a tree at school had to stay there for nearly an hour – because health and safety rules banned teachers from rescuing him (Express)
- A FIVE-YEAR-OLD pupil was left stuck up a tree at school because a bizarre health and safety policy BANNED teachers from helping him (The Sun)
- TEACHERS refused to rescue a five-year-old boy stuck up a tree because of daft health and safety rules (Daily Star)
Fact 4: A stranger walked up to the tree, by which time “the child was standing on the path, having exited the tree” on his own.
How do you report this? Easy:
- The boy was only rescued after 45 minutes in the tree when passer-by Kim Barrett, 38, noticed the child and helped him down herself (Daily Mail)
- The child was only rescued when a woman noticed him and helped him down herself (The Sun)
- The stranded pupil was finally rescued from the 20ft tree when passerby Kim Barrett spotted his plight and helped him down (Express)
- She came to the aid of a five-year-old boy who had been left on his own in a tree (Telegraph)
Fact 5: The child’s mother says, “I am amazed at the gullibility of the press and some of the general public. My child was never stuck in a tree and was very unhappy about a stranger approaching him in his school … The staff were doing their job and were fully aware that my son was there. They were also aware that a stranger was approaching him. They intercepted her to ensure there was no possibility of my son being removed from the premises.”
How do you report this? Easy:
- Err, you don’t.
Hat-tip: Andreas Christodoulou who in turn links to the further information on the story in the two letters here and here.
Share:
9 Comments
It’s almost like those papers want to ban tree-climbing!
Of course they do, Oranjepan – then they can write articles about the Nanny State contributing to the death-epidemic of childhood obesity and hark back to the days when children could climb trees without getting stuck!
How did this even make the news?
Did the Guardian update their story since you posted this?
And of course, if you’re writing for the Times, it was all the Pope’s fault anyway.
Andrew: I’m not sure as I didn’t take a full copy of their story. Certainly at the time I read all the pieces the Guardian was the one that seemed nearest to a balanced account.
The Guardian article states:
>Barrett, who works as a part-time cleaner, claimed the boy was in the tree for 45 minutes. The school insisted it was less than 10.
Which this article misrepresents, stating the Guardian claimed the boy was in the tree for 45 minutes.
Dispense with credibility to pursue agenda, or “How to be a reactionary blogger”.
Mouthadr: I don’t think that’s what the Guardian piece read at the time I looked at it, but regardless I’ve updated the piece to make it clearer. You know there are explanations other than reactionary blogging
Shouldn’t there be a bar chart in there somewhere? With a label like “Trees can’t win here”?