I got something in! Am jolly.

Me too.
Woohooh.

I belive it may be a Jackapp about Vacuum cleaners.

I got a "Recorded but not included" email, so some encouragement at least.

I also got recorded but cut. If anyone was at the recording I'd be glad to know if there was a sketch about London Fashion Week, NHS Whistleblowers or Ian Duncan Smith rating the relative merits of Geology and Shelf-Stacking.

Congratulation to everyone who got something on!

I loved the 'brilliant school for boys' sketch a very clever piss take of the Tory candidate in Eastleigh.

FYInformation: I noticed that a tweet from @SlothDebaucher asked the question "Should one-liners and corrections be emailed to you in separate word documents?" and the response was "Either's fine".
So I presume then that you can supply a page of each (if you can think up that many good ones).

Interesting advice on jackapps and one-liners. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00kvs8r/features/one-liners

Good luck to everyone this week.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00kvs8r/clips

From watching these clips it struck me how young all the writers and production team are.

Can I just highlight a very important sentence from Ed's article on one-liners in case you missed it:

----
And proper sketches make up 24 minutes of our 28-minute show - sketch writers are what we're after.
----

So make sure you're submitting sketches as well as one-liners!

Kudos for the Newsjack team putting out plenty of hints and tips this series.

It seemed pretty clear cut to me, even before the Newsjack teams' explicit comments, that the Oscar Pistorius case was out of bounds. I have an idea for an article about the 3 Birmingham guys that were charged this week for their bomb plot. The article itself wouldn't touch on suicide bombing, and through their incompetence they didn't actually hurt anyone, but the fact remains that the reason they made the headlines is because they were planning on killing people. Do you think this is therefore too dark a subject to even touch upon?

My gut feeling was that would not be completely off-limits as long as the joke wasn't crass.

Thanks dtmcc. Funnily enough I've just been listening again to episode 1 of this series and they have a sketch about the use of social media by terrorists, which included the great line "You guys, it was not me that wrote that I looked forward to 72 Justin Bieber's in heaven; never leave your facebook logged in on the computers at the compound".
So evidently it is an acceptable topic, if done correctly.

Quote: TheJaw @ February 24 2013, 10:41 AM GMT

It seemed pretty clear cut to me, even before the Newsjack teams' explicit comments, that the Oscar Pistorius case was out of bounds. I have an idea for an article about the 3 Birmingham guys that were charged this week for their bomb plot. The article itself wouldn't touch on suicide bombing, and through their incompetence they didn't actually hurt anyone, but the fact remains that the reason they made the headlines is because they were planning on killing people. Do you think this is therefore too dark a subject to even touch upon?

View original

It's an interesting question because covering difficult subjects in an appropriate way in comedy is a great skill and one that often needs developing with practice. In the terrorist Social Media sketch it was terrorists in general whereas you are proposing using the news story relating to specific individuals which makes it far more difficult. I personally wouldn't cover it because I don't think they'd use it - but I don't think it would do you any harm to write it and send it if you had a good angle up your sleeve and wanted to demonstrate you could cover such stories appropriately.
Alison

Thanks Alison. It's a good point you make about the distinction. I'm leaning towards not sending it as having now written it it's the weakest of my three articles and I'm not sure the angle is sufficiently good as to warrant it. I wouldn't want this article to jeopardise the other two. That said I'm not sure what only submitting two articles says about your ability to prolifically produce output.