From the Telegraph, yesterday (I'm not linking). Online journalism checklist:

• Apple and/or iPad angle to get the Google traffic? Check.
• Related to something that has happened recently? Check.
• Sense of perspective in light of huge tragedy? (Awkward silence)

Because this is a rare example of shockingly angry-making journalism that falls under my work remit, I've written about it on the magazine blog, here: Because some things are clearly more important than the iPad.

Something I knocked up the other week while playing with DIY Chromakey. The green screen (four sheets of A4 paper) worked fairly well. The camera, on the other hand – an early consumer HD model with no effective manual focus – was a bit crap.

Everyone loves a good Facebook news story – or rather, a bad one. And over the past few days, a classic has emerged: Facebook will wreck your marriage. See for example:

Facebook cited in 20% of U.S. divorces (CBC News): "Facebook use has been cited in 1 of 5 U.S. divorce cases, according to a recent survey among American marriage lawyers."

Facebook Linked to More Divorces (Consumer Affairs): "The source of this observation is the nation's divorce lawyers, who may be in a position to know…"

Reason for 1 in 5 divorces in the US: Facebook (Perez Hilton): "According to a study.."

Facebook Blamed for 1 in 5 Divorces in the US (ZDnet): "According to a recent survey by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML)."

And of course, many more.

So far, so tedious – an association of lawyers has conducted a recent survey, and so on. It's not groundbreaking news, but hey, it's a job. But if you go looking for that recent survey – to check how it was conducted, perhaps – you'll find something a little odd: there doesn't seem to be one.

All the stories, in fact, seem to stem from a press release entitled (yes, in all-caps): "DON’T LET YOUR MARRIAGE BE AMONG THE 1 IN 5 DESTROYED BY FACEBOOK". It was issued by Loyola Medicine, a University in Chicago, and includes lots of nice media-friendly quotes from a PhD there. Top two paras:

MAYWOOD, Ill. – If you’re single, Facebook and other social networking sites can help you meet that special someone. However, for those in even the healthiest of marriages, improper use can quickly devolve into a marital disaster.

A recent survey by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers found that Facebook is cited in 1 in 5 divorces in the United States. Also, more than 80 percent of divorce lawyers reported a rising number of people are using social media to engage in extramarital affairs.

So, there's the recent survey, but there's no link. Take a look at the AAML website, and there seems to be no mention of a recent survey there, either – which is odd, as recent press releases from the last month (none mention Facebook) are prominently displayed.

Dig back in the archive a bit, though, and you'll find this: "Big Surge in Social Networking Evidence Says Survey of Nation's Top Divorce Lawyers":

Chicago, IL, February 10, 2010— If your status is separated or going through a divorce, you might want to stay off Facebook. An overwhelming 81% of the nation’s top divorce attorneys say they have seen an increase in the number of cases using social networking evidence during the past five years, according to a recent survey of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML).   Facebook holds the distinction of being the unrivaled leader for online divorce evidence with 66% citing it as the primary source.

It goes on. But note the date: February 10, last year. There's no mention that I can see of the "1 in 5" statistic, but other parts of the story (the "over 80 per cent", for instance) seem to come from this release.

So where does this leave the news about Facebook and divorce? Well, there are two possibilities.

It could be that there's a new survey, or at least new press release, not commonly available, at the heart of the whole story. I contacted the AAML asking for a copy of "its recent press release regarding Facebook and divorce", but have received nothing. If it shows up, I'll post it here. It's probably bollocks, but at least it would be *new* bollocks.

But I think the second possibility is more likely: that this is a non-story, sparked by an unimportant press release that misquotes year-old "research", that has made it into the output of several news outlets who should know better (and many others that perhaps shouldn't) on the back of a nice negative line about a popular website. And, more worryingly, I don't see any evidence that the news outlets even attempted to check the data – if they had, they would have found the same as me.

Or to put it another, more media-friendly way: Facebook causes bad journalism.

– UPDATE 9/3:

The Guardian ran the story last night, here, and as I write this it's the most popular story on its Technology section. According to Twitter it's also running on CNN, and of course the Guardian story has been picked up by websites, blogs etc.

In the meantime, Loyola Medicine responded to my request for a copy of the AALM release. The press officer sent me a link to the February 2010 research. When I questioned the source of the "1 in 5" he apologised and put it down to a mathematical error on his part, then supplied me with a corrected release without that statistic.

– SECOND UPDATE

Loyola has replaced its original press release online with an amended version – you can see it here, or the original in Google's cache here. The key changes are in the third paragraph, which has gone from:

A recent survey by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers found that Facebook is cited in 1 in 5 divorces in the United States. Also, more than 80 percent of divorce lawyers reported a rising number of people are using social media to engage in extramarital affairs.

to:

A survey by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers found that “Facebook holds the distinction of being the unrivaled leader for online divorce evidence with 66% citing it as the primary source.” Also, more than 80 percent of divorce lawyers reported they “have seen an increase in the number of cases using social networking evidence” during the past few years.

So it's now correct, in as far as reporting the original AAML release.

– UPDATE 10/3:

BBC Radio 5 Live is the latest outlet to run a 13-month-old press release as news – it's on iPlayer here. The Guardian story now clearly states "a 2010 survey" as its source, which is true, although "February 2010" wouldn't have looked so good. It was the top story on the Guardian website for some time yesterday.

– UPDATE 12/3

It's still going. I particularly like this story, which half-way through even references the fact that the website has covered another AAML release (hint: it's the same one) some time previously. The good news is that the Wall Street Journal's Carl Bialik has picked up the myth on his Numbers Guy blog, here, and in print. Another good round-up of the nonsense and its sources has been posted here.

The video camera: somewhat trickier to use (and harder to replace) than a biro

When I started training to be a journalist digital still cameras were still new and ludicrously expensive, and even written news didn't always go onto the web. All you had to take out and about was a biro. Since then things have changed to the point where I'm now travelling with this back-breaking pile of electronic mayhem in my bag, shooting interviews and pieces-to-camera that get edited in a blur of minibar cuisine and uploaded the same day. And it's not always easy.

I haven't received any training in how to do this, and don't claim to be a video journalist – I'm a print hack with a camera (and without a camera crew) – but at this year's CES I finally think I managed to get the hang of it. So, for whatever it's worth, here are the ten things I wish I'd known a few years ago when I started shooting video reports.  Think of it it as a bluffing writer's  guide to video.

1) Get the right kit

Some of this is obvious. You need the right camera, and this is tricky – pro models cost a fortune, are fiddly to use and weigh too much, but consumer cameras will struggle with iffy lighting and external microphones. For CES and Taipei I used a Sony HXR-MC50E (picture above) owned by our publishers, and found it great: it's small enough to carry in a LowePro DSLR bag, takes a shotgun microphone and records AVCHD high-def video to an internal SSD – plug it into a laptop via USB and you can copy the footage in minutes. I believe Canon makes similar high-end consumer models.

As well as the camera you'll need a decent microphone: built-in microphones suck. Shotgun microphones work fine for both interviewing and pieces-to-camera providing there isn't too much background chatter – see below. A tripod is absolutely essential – with the Sony camera I used a Velbon CX-540, designed for DSLRs – it's lighter and smaller than video tripods. It's also cheap, which is just as well as my last one was smashed up during the flight back from Vegas (thanks, Virgin Atlantic!).

Never, ever, shoot without a tripod. Ever. No matter how steady things look on the preview screen, the results will suck.

And you'll need a computer with editing software. I like Sony Vegas on Windows, but take whatever you prefer. Obviously the quicker the laptop the better when it comes to rendering – an i5 processor made my life much easier at CES. Finally, also take headphones with a very long cord, spare USB cables and an Ethernet cable. I'll explain why.

2) Know your video spec

You'll need to know exactly what format of video you should be uploading, as CMS systems are far more picky than, say, Youtube. Know the codec, container (if applicable) and dimensions you'll be working with, set these up as presets on the laptop and upload a sample file before travelling. If it doesn't work, you'll have time to suss out the problem.

3) Set up your titles and projects at home

Editing video in a hotel room with jetlag is no fun, so do the hard work before leaving the UK. Set up your video project files, and add any necessary title cards and captions – these can be duplicated, or deleted if not needed for a particular video. Save the project files as read-only to prevent accidental overwriting. Again, test these out by rendering and uploading to make sure it all looks OK.

4) Blank the camera

You really, really don't want to be fishing around in a million video clips of other events to find the one you want, so wipe the camera's hard disk or tape before you start shooting. Also, set the camera to local time so the clip timestamps make sense. Keep a list in your notebook of every clip recorded, in order, and who's in it – this makes editing so much easier.

5) Shoot wide in HD

If you're uploading at the best resolution recorded by your camera then you'll need to frame the clips properly – not so easy if you're filming and interviewing yourself. So, if your output resolution is lower, set the camera to 1080P or 720P and frame each clip nice and wide – that way heads and limbs won't be chopped off if people move around. It's easy to crop in on the video to tighten things up when editing, but impossible to rescue areas that you didn't film in the first place. With that done flip the screen around, if possible, so you can see it while you're interviewing.

6) Check the bloody sound

Sound can be trickier to get right. Once you've set the camera's image, plug the headphones in and check the sound: walk around to where you'll be talking, and check that you're clearly audible over the hopefully minimal background noise. If using a shotgun microphone, beware hubbub directly behind you – I had bad experiences with a taxi rank (Taipei) and a giant fake volcano (Vegas, where else) causing an annoying racket. If there's a problem, move – no point shooting an unusable interview.

7) Instruct the interviewee

If you're interviewing, explain what's going on to your subject: how you'll introduce and end the clip, roughly how many questions you'll be asking, that sort of thing. Tell them to talk to you, not the camera. If interviewing from off camera, stand behind it and to one side, and get them to talk at you. If you don't do this people will keep glancing at the camera, or sometimes stare at it the whole time.

On a related note: check the subject's name, write it down, and ask them to spellcheck it. I conducted an entire interview calling the subject by the name on his show pass – it belonged to someone else. Oops.

8) Plan your piece

If doing a piece-to-camera, plan it out beforehand: think about what you want to include, the best order to discuss these sections and how you can introduce and wrap it up. Work out where you'll be cutting to other clips with audio and be sure to leave a long enough pause to do so without a harsh cut (5 seconds or so). I found that a bullet point list that I could glance at each time I'd be cutting away to other footage helped me to keep on track.

9) Take two. Or three. Or more.

After doing your first take, watch it back and look for annoying mannerisms: I tend to start every clip with the word "so", for example, and flap my arms like a lunatic. Note these down then try again without them (if you too suffer from flappy-arm-syndrome, hold onto a notebook with both hands). Also check for gurning idiots and/or other distractions in the background – at shows this can be tricky.

Also, once you've managed a usable take with no stumbles, errors or passing helicopters, try doing one more – I found that the second is normally much better. Mark the good takes in your notebook.

10) Hunt the WiFi!

Armed with project files and encoder settings that are ready to go and a notebook full of clips that you know are good, editing should be simple. When it comes to uploading, though, you're at the mercy of the hotel internet connection. Use your Ethernet cable if there's a socket, or failing that try Wifi. If the Wifi's rubbish try roaming the hotel or staking out the reception. If that fails try other hotels (the more expensive the better – maybe you can sit in the bar or lobby) or, if all else fails, McDonalds. Urgh. Remember that good quality clips make for large files, so you might be in for a wait.

More depressing news. Stumbled across this today on the journalism blog Getting Ink:

Indeed, one magazine editor said someone looking to break into journalism should expect to work for free for two years. Yes, you read that right – TWO YEARS. Jesus.

I checked to find the editor in question. Journalism.co.uk attributed the statement to Maureen Rice of Psychologies (at Hachette Fillipacchi), although she has clarified the statement on the same site:

I would like to clarify: I didn't say that journalists "should expect" to work for free for two years, and certainly didn't imply that I consider that standard or desirable. I said I'd known people work for up to two years in a variety or work experience placements and internships before landing a properly paying job.

Which isn't quite as bad, but still – two years? Really?

The whole idea of working for free (work experience, internship – pick your own euphemism) to get a job is not, of course, new, and I did the same thing. Some places were interesting and useful – a brief spell at the BBC was my first opportunity to learn anything at all about television news – but it's not easy working without pay. And that's despite the fact that I was lucky enough to be able to live at home at the time, and to find a full time day job from which I could take "holidays" working on, for example, the local paper – not everyone has it that easy.

And then, of course, I was lucky enough to get a paid job on a magazine. Would I have managed to stick unpaid work for two years? I'm really not sure that I could have. And, given that I'm not entirely sure what other jobs I could actually do, that's a rather depressing thought.