It is important in news to be objective, so that the information does not vary/alter. Writing what he saw will plainly tell the facts. When people tell a story from what they saw you are getting what happened according to their feelings and memory, which is not reliable and unfair to the facts of the story. Also subjective information can vary from one person to another depending on situational and emotional factors that they endured during the event. Also people have selective memory, they may forget major parts that completely alter the story or make additions that they thought happened. It is like the game of telephone, everyone perceives, remembers and understands an event or situation differently and you cannot rely on eye testimony. The editor is looking for straightforward facts and facts only. News must be objective, not subjective.

The reporter should remain unbiased, and deliver a new story based on facts and events that everyone at the airshow witnesses. The editor wants him to deliver a piece written to target the masses, who are all interested in the stunts and unbelievable races rather than the life of Laverene and her children. The editor doesn’t want an account that is too personal; he believes that reporters should maintain a certain distance. Their eyes are like cameras, capturing visuals and then turning them into words, as they actually are and not as the reporters interpret them to be.

The editor is trying to make it very clear that he does not want the reporter to become too involved with the story. He knows the reporter seeks to become more involved as a part of his story, but the editor wishes for a more detached perspective. Quite simply, the editor wants the reporter to provide an account whose headline can catch a reader’s attention, whereas the reporter really wants to get to the heart of the story.

It’s not enough for the reporter to write what he saw because that’s just his observations. Observations alone don’t make for news or an exciting story that people would want to read. Writing what others tell him is not enough either because his story would hinge on the recollection and words of someone else—it’s not 100% accurate. The editor is looking for him to bring back an accurate account of something newsworthy that will generate discussion or just a reaction from the readers.

It is not enough for the reporter to write what he saw because, he is able to perceive what he saw in in any tone that is desirable to him, and not to the reader, the editor here wants straight facts that are going to cause a response, he doesn’t care what type of response he just wants one. what others tell him maybe subjective or even a lie. the editor expects accuracy and engagement, but not to much to where he looses himself. He also wants the reporter to do whatever he can to make it happen.

Anyone can give an account of a event, simply writing what they saw. It is expected of him to go over the event with a fine tooth comb. Giving readers more than what our own eyes see. However, the editor doesn’t want anything partial,he wants a story that has observable backing.

The reporter its emotionally attached with these people, so to him only describing facts will be really hard since he feels and urge of getting involved in the narrative. the editor is looking for just news, Something that will catch the eyes and the mind of the audience.

It’s not enough for the reporter to write what he sees because doing that might not be as exciting as he wants his stories to be. He also might only be catching a glimpse of what the truth is, which can be far from his point of view. Writing what others tell him will be like writing about their perspectives, and they may leave out certain facts to avoid problems or humiliation. The editor wants the reporter to dig for the information, but stay unbiased.

It’s not enough because you need to garner outside information from what they saw on experience. There is simply more substance that is needed than just witnessing something first hand. The editor wants a more structured viewpoint that will gravitate to the reader by focusing on the central idea. Solely relying on observations doesn’t do a story enough justice.

Its not just enough for the reporter to write what he he sees, because looks can be deceiving. Also, information takes time to get processed. A second-take can reveal a different story that what was first perceived.

In terms of writing what others tell him, this is may be wrong because of the validity of the source. Eye-witness accounts can hold merit, but relying too much on other’s interpretation reduces the quality of the report.

What the editor is looking for are stories that have importance and provide some value to the reader. Also, with the proper means of evidence.

The reporter really wants to get involved and dig deep to get to the real hear of the story, but the editor is saying that the reporter can’t be so directly involved – that he needs to get the headline and get out.

It isn’t just enough for the reporter to write what he saw because he needs credibility to back up what he saw. That credibility comes from straight facts. It is wrong to write what others tell him because if he relies solely on their information to portray a story and they tell him different versions of one event, the story is not only not factual, its not credible and could cost the newspaper their reputation.

He is telling the reporter to be ethically correct by remaining unbiased, and refraining from crossing the personal boundaries between subject and friend. There are certain ethical principles he expects the reporter to stay true to, just as a lawyer is expected to do their job of defending his client without personal beliefs getting in the way, as is a journalist. It’s all about getting the story, but still remaining professional.

The editor’s last statement is meant to tell the reporter to separate himself from the story. The analogy of twins/triplets/regiment suggests the reporter to separate from himself in order to maintain the boundaries of professionalism a reporter should have when writing a story.

The editor’s last statement implies that the reporter’s perception of what is right and wrong in terms of what a journalist should do, is blurring. As a journalist, he is expected to be professional and the editor can see that he’s getting too involved. In him saying that, you could tell that the editor cares for the reporter above an employer and employee relationship.

He is telling the reporter leave his personality behind and simply provide what is needed; accurate facts. again the reporter must remain professional and follow journalistic guidelines

The editor implies from his last statement, that he holds the reporter to the ethics(moral standards) of a good journalist. Specifically, by asking for “an accurate account.” whilst, it is principle of a journalist to lift the veil for the public, at the same time he must be transparent. I feel like the editor wants the story but not the story behind the scenes, to him that is a whole other story, seperate to the one the reporter is delivering.

The editor wants the reporter to fully cooperate with the idea of just creating a story that will sell newspaper and not getting involved with this people. The editor is asking the reporter to act with a sense of accuracy and objectivity.

By stressing about accuracy, this indicates an objective mindset when doing your job as a journalist. The editor stresses neutrality that produces some type of emotion or reaction out of the reader.

The editor is asking the reporter to bring factual work. Him mentioning, “accurate account” tells that the editor does not work produced through emotion, but rather unbiased evidence. The ethical implications of the editor’s statement also shows the strong work ethic he has and the quality he looks for from his reporters.

The editor is saying that the journalist is too close to what he’s writing about, that there are boundaries to what the journalist can and cannot do and the journalist needs to see and respect those boundaries.