WINOL Bulletin Criticism

After Watching the latest WINOL bulletin in my first instance of a critically minded journalist peer. I think that in general, it is of very high quality, in terms of editing, presentation, and professionalism. This is not to say that it was flawless however. The first instance of what I considered of poor quality, was the sound of the section filmed in the multimedia centre, discussing pass cards for international students' entry into clubs. Of course, this could be an equipment related issue, in which case this may be something the media department should look into as it spoils the flow of dialogue.

I was very impressed by the performance of the presenters who, apart from some minor slip-ups, were very eloquent and on a par with many professional anchors. That said, the in-field reporters could have been a touch more enthusiastic, especially in the case of one of the sport reporters. If I'm not mistaken, the roles of the WINOL team are continually rotated so as to maximise the experience in different aspects of Broadcast journalism. However, if you happen to be given a role is not necessarily your favourite, you should try and at least make a pretense of not being bored with the whole thing.

In the case of the stories covered in the bulletin, the first two stories were well considered in that they directly affected the target audience: Students. While the first was more directed to international students, rather than the main populace, the second concerned almost everyone attending or soon-to-be attending university. In that respect I think they could have been reversed so as to provide a better hook to non- internationals who could well stop watching if the initial piece doesn't affect them. The Housing and Queen stories were les important in my opinion and were therefore well placed in the midsection. The final story concerning the BJTC award was very well presented and all of the footage piqued my interest (clap clap, by the way), with any luck I'll be able to do the same in a year or two.

A major mistake for which I believe the editor took a lot of flak, was a spelling mistake in the score sheet during the sports section, misspelling some of the names of sports teams. You wouldn't expect such schoolboy mistakes from what is otherwise a very competent piece of journalsm.

All in all I was very impressed with the slick editing (except for one instance during an interview within the tuition fee story, where it seems as though someone was cut off midsentence) and very proffesional appearance of what I would call a top-notch broadcast