Reliability (e.g. use of field experts, first had eye-witnesses, authority – official v. subordinate, use of primary and secondary definers) why did you choose these people to interview? Do you think their contribution was important? Were they the right people to interview?
I think my article will be very reliable as I have gathered information from very truthful and reliable sources. Especially, in my interviews I coordinated, you can see the knowledge and real life experience that went into the answers of my questions both with my interview with Mr Watkins and with Maria. Maria could be considered a first hand witness because she herself, utilises social media in her day to day life so her answers were right from the core of the target audience, of whom, I want to base my story around. Mr Watkins is a person of authority and is somewhat of a field expert, because he sees, first hand, students every day and, being a psychology teacher, has expertise in the realm of mental health and through his knowledge, gave me a basic idea or where the anxiety and stresses of being online come from.
I choose these specific people to interview because I wanted two very contrasting perspectives on the issue. On the one hand, you have Mr Watkins, who didn't grow up with social media however, through being a teacher has maybe some further knowledge about the dangers and risks of putting yourself online. Then you have Maria, a 16 year old student and an avid user of social media, someone who has gown up with the internet at her fingertips. Maria taught me a lot about how it feel when you get lots of 'likes' on a photo oppose to when maybe you don't and the stresses that come with that.
I think think their contribution was essential to the piece because, it gave me different insights into social media. As well as teaching me things I can use in the article which I would not have thought of before. For example, some of Mr Watkin's points about the grasp and pull of social media as well as people who stay up late and the sleep deprivation becoming a factor as well. These things I wouldn't have thought about without conducting the interviews.
I think these people were the right people to interview because, as I said, they did give me good insights. Maybe if I were to do this again, I would invest more time in gathering more interviewees or maybe a conducting a survey of my own to get more primary source information. I might also have gone to experts or specialists both in mental health and social parameters. However, in the time I had to get the story together, I feel the source I found were all I needed.
In conclusion, I believe my sources to be very reliable.
Relevance of your story to its target audience and broadcaster I think that mental health issues and, i turn, their connection to social media, although still very much a 'taboo' subject are becoming more prevalent in the youth of today. This is because there has been a staggering increase of mental health issues starting in younger people and lasting longer. I'm not saying that this is a direct result of social media however, it very much is a factor tat goes into it. So I believe that this topic is relevant to Newsround's target audience because the sooner we install the dangers and risks associated with social media, the better the outcome will be because children will know how to not fall into the grasp of social media.
I feel like the story is also relevant to Newsround as a broadcaster because they have been known to show some of the more 'series' topics in todays work to teach kids about the dangers surrounding them. And that is exactly what I am trying to do with my story.
Accuracy of your story - how can you vouch that your story is 100% accurate?
I can vouch that it is 100% accurate because I used trusted websites and sources such as my interviews, to find out more and broaden my knowledge on the subject matter. As you can see back in P4 and M3 I went on numerous websites, trying to find the best statistics and first hand accounts of social media and mental health or things that could lead to mental health.
Validity - are the stories findings valid and factually sound?
I believe all my stories in my sources to be valid because they all link to the subject matter and factually sound because they come from trusted people and websites.
Accessibility - how will you write your story so that your target audience will understand it and at the same time be challenged by it?
I will make my story accessible to the target audience of Newsround by using simple language and small, concise points so that its not too much to handle all at once. I might, to challenge, them use the words 'depression and anxiety' because I feel it's important they know the actual words for it and know the daggers so that they them selves don't fall in to the traps.
I will also make it accessible by using lots of images and videos so that the audience have something to look at and be engaged by the whole way though. I will also make the article under two minutes long so that the viewers, again, stay engaged and don't get bored.
Quality - do you think your sources are good quality? How do you know this? I think my interviews are good quality because I think my questions really opened a discussion up and gave me back some good points that I can use in the future. Whether some of the articles were of the highest quality I don't know because, I did not conduct them although some of the statistics and opinions in them I found very interesting and would be interested to learn more about so, in that sense, yes they were good quality.
Cost effectiveness - if the story was written for a newspaper, would it help sell papers? If so how? I think this story would help to sell papers because it's talking about bit of a 'taboo' topic that I think would spark people's interest. Also, it includes interviews with real people from real life not politicians or higher grade people actual modern day life, which is always good and adds a cool dynamic.