This week was one of the most exciting ones for our team as Maria Melano was meant to be our special guest on the sofa at Winol Life last sow of the year. And in fact the last show I would do for WINOL as after Christmas third years are not going to be working for WINOL anymore. Final Year Project is going to take over! So this will be my last post ever on Winchester News Online.
Looking at our audience penetration, we were informed on Monday WINOL is just about to overtake the University's website! We are 165,000 website in the world and our university is 145, 000, in comparison, Southampton University is lower in readership ranking than our WINOL! Fantastic!
All that means that we are not only targeting our audience well but also developing our study of the market.
There was no WINOL news bulletin this week, only WINOL Life and sports.We found out that BJTC will be announcing the resoults around January time. We were also told that there are plans to have channel36 - analouge to broadcast our work.
Within this week it was important for us to make sure that we understand the concept of the factual entartanment, it is more about showing rather than telling. In preparation for the show with maria Melano, Paul and I looked into work of hers. Maria specialies in the design ainly, layout. Her magazine is all about fashion and big names being interviewed/photographed. In the world of fashion things have to be looked at from many different angles (her films/interviews). The magazine trully represents multimedia journalism with its interactive and video/picture led website.
For the running order of the show we have decided to have:
1. Autumn Fashion
2. Christmas dresses
3. alistair steward feature interview
4. Phil Jupitus feature interview (by Joey)
5. Atacama dessert race
6. News review of the semester by Joey
We are planning rehearsing 1/2 pm on Wednesday, we will be aiming athalf hour again and the same set up in the studion with two sofas (The ONe Show). We will have to have the script done by 1pm, and I will have to check and collect all the features onto my hard drive for the show. Every thing seemed to be well organised until... Wednesday
Charlotte, managing editor promised to help out in organising the production team and promote our show -she didn't even turn up
- studion was not ready for the morning
- Maria Melano unfortunately couldn't come in at the end and so we had to go plan b:
- have Chris and Brian as guests - We changed the script
- I still attempted to contact head of fashion at the Winchester school of arts and soem other people but noone could do it in such short notice.
- there was hardly anyone in and our production team was lacking in man power- noone seemed to be willing to help. Which was very frustrating. We had no camera people, floor manager, editor and Josh effectively had to be our director and producer during the recording of the show. I was still running as the feature editor, was in charge of delivering VTS, help in stiudio set etc and at the same time was presenting. Paul and I were in the same uncomfortable situation.
Tomek was a huge help, Rob, Jason and few other students have helped majourly for which i am very grateful.
As you can imagine lack of rehearsals and constant script chanes were very unhelpful. Chris and Brian couldn't be our guests and we actualy had a privilege to have Ian Anderson as our guest, who was one of the best studio guestas that I have ever realt with.
Eventually we managed record the show. It was incredibly hard and very challenging in many aspects but we have overcomed the difficulties and produced the show. I have uploaded it in three parts for now but it will go as a life stream onto the website:
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMeOpB7TQLQ
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zxnvxm5Akvg
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHj5dJtqrBA
UPDATE FROM THE FEATURES PROMISED LAST WEEK & NEW IDEAS FOR NEXT WEEK
1. Thom Hobbs:
- Akala concert review and a comment piece by Akala on Current Music Industry (completed)
- Adrian Howks - aliens in Winchester? Comment piece (completed)- Feature Interview with Alistair Steward from ITV- completed and used for the WINOL LIFE
2. Katie and Claire:
- Christmas Party deresses-completed-
- Autumn Fashion- is used in the WINOL LIFE
3. Behind the scenes for Katie and Claire feature making - made by Jake but not finished till this week so couldn't use it with the promo link, told him to make a version without promo at the end - he said he has finished it but has not showed it to me at the and (I have not seen him)
4. Andy:
- Feature Interview with lecturer who run through Atacama desert- completed (and used on the show)
- written piece - profile - not completed- short documentary - how were the police techniques changing across the student protests- not completed
- fashion - suits - not completed
5. Hanna (&Justina) Christmas Gifts on law budget - Hanna was meant to do this one and she didn't
6. Radical Fashion - Cara: text, Hanna & Justina : video - naither of them did it
7. Room make over - student acomodation - Cara: text, Jake;video - Jake didn't want to do it at the end so I gave this idea to Justina because her idea on Reading list challenge fell through - she completed room make over feature
8. Phil Jupitus feature interview by Joey - completed
Wednesday 15 December 2010
Wales and Scotland photographed features - inspired by Laura Barton
First I photographed views while being on holidays, then I decided to use the magic of Fianl Cut Pro and turn them into Photo-essays with the background music. Then I met Laura Barton and learnt about her style of feature making for the Guarian. Inspired by her work I eventually I decided to use poetic style of voice overs to go with the photoessays what has turned the two pieces into Panoramic features inspired by the beauty of UK views and Laura Barton't style of feature making.
SCOTLAND PHOTOGRAPHED FEATURE
WALES PHOTOGRAPHED FEATURE
SCOTLAND PHOTOGRAPHED FEATURE
WALES PHOTOGRAPHED FEATURE
Laura Barton is a guest at WINOL LIFE SHOW (Week 11)
What a fantastic week it was, no matter how intense or hard organisationally wise it was but how rewarding. Laura Barton was certainly one of our biggest guests at WINOL for our Features team.
Most of my team members worked hard and delivered beautiful packages or redone the ones I requested.Paul and I planned the show well, we chose the features we thought were the best so far, we set up a running order and communicate to the production about our plans. I gave Josh detailed requirements that will have to be curried out in order to have our show produced. It proved quite challenging in the matter of having the production team organised more than I expected but eventually we managed to pull out a good show performing a fantastic team effort.
We planned the show to be in style of The One Show on BBC, with Paul and I as main presenters.
It would take half an hour and our special guest was Laura Barton. Feature reporters to be on the sofas to talk about their work would be Katie and Claire (Wine tasting feature), Justyna (£20 Food challenge), Thom (Keats Anniversary) and Jake (Christmas in Winchester feature).
15 minutes of the show would account of the VTs and other 15 interviews and chats in the studio. We planned to record it on Wednesday as soon as Laura Barton comes in (around 12), then finish of with nice intro edited in and polished any technical glitches before uploading onto youtube.
As I mentioned before the most difficult was part organisation of the studio and the gallery. I had to be a big part of the production process, setting up the studio (sofas, camera angles etc.) as there was not enough people in the production team to do so. The few that were there tried their best but there was just not enough man power to have it run smoothly and that effected in lack of rehearsals. However as you can see on the film we show no sign of stress and the ending effect came out to be quite successful.
Paul and I researched into Laura Barton's work to be prepared and knowledgeable and make the script reacher for our special guest. On Wednesday Tomek and Paul polished and completed the script while I was finishing of preparation of the studio.
At the end we were overwhelmed with Laura's feedback at the end and I spoke to her after recording the WINOL Life on Wednesday:
Part of the editors role is to know how we can put it on the page and look out on the legal side of the stories or features, and it is really looking up for some of us as the WINOL as some of us are growing into great professionals. It is hard to believe that it is one week before last till I finish working for Winol and it will certainly be a sad moment for me to end the project.
Other things that I decided to do this week was to turn two of my photoessays into features Wales Photographed Feature and Scotland Photographed Feature (you can also click here to go to another post with these two features: Wales and Scotleand Photographed Features).
Paul and I have planned to produce a studio based feature show, presenting our best packages and having a guest to comment on the pieces. This week's special guest: Laura Barton, feature writer for the Guardian
WINOL Life with Laura Barton, Part 1Most of my team members worked hard and delivered beautiful packages or redone the ones I requested.
We planned the show to be in style of The One Show on BBC, with Paul and I as main presenters.
It would take half an hour and our special guest was Laura Barton. Feature reporters to be on the sofas to talk about their work would be Katie and Claire (Wine tasting feature), Justyna (£20 Food challenge), Thom (Keats Anniversary) and Jake (Christmas in Winchester feature).
15 minutes of the show would account of the VTs and other 15 interviews and chats in the studio. We planned to record it on Wednesday as soon as Laura Barton comes in (around 12), then finish of with nice intro edited in and polished any technical glitches before uploading onto youtube.
As I mentioned before the most difficult was part organisation of the studio and the gallery. I had to be a big part of the production process, setting up the studio (sofas, camera angles etc.) as there was not enough people in the production team to do so. The few that were there tried their best but there was just not enough man power to have it run smoothly and that effected in lack of rehearsals. However as you can see on the film we show no sign of stress and the ending effect came out to be quite successful.
Paul and I researched into Laura Barton's work to be prepared and knowledgeable and make the script reacher for our special guest. On Wednesday Tomek and Paul polished and completed the script while I was finishing of preparation of the studio.
At the end we were overwhelmed with Laura's feedback at the end and I spoke to her after recording the WINOL Life on Wednesday:
Part of the editors role is to know how we can put it on the page and look out on the legal side of the stories or features, and it is really looking up for some of us as the WINOL as some of us are growing into great professionals. It is hard to believe that it is one week before last till I finish working for Winol and it will certainly be a sad moment for me to end the project.
Other things that I decided to do this week was to turn two of my photoessays into features Wales Photographed Feature and Scotland Photographed Feature (you can also click here to go to another post with these two features: Wales and Scotleand Photographed Features).
Going back to my weekly routine of Feature editor's job, Monday morning was not starting of well as not many members of my team was in. My concerns about commitment levels grew from the last few weeks. I spoke to Charlotte, managing editor at WINOL last week and said that I was going to have a chat with my whole group about the levels of involvement in my team and asked her to take part in the Monday's meeting. On the not so nice side of this week I had to give an unpleasant speech to my team regarding few points which were directed separately at different members of the team. The reason of me doing so was that I was trying to reming them that this is our chance to practice, learn and make mistakes and if we don't use it now there will be no more room for error or re-doing in the world of journalism. It is important that they realise that they do it for themselves not to impress me or our tutors, they have to realise that if they avoid doing work that will reflect in their lack of skill and knowledge, bad marks and eventually smaller chance to break through in the industry after finishing the degree.
The points are purely a constructive criticism that is meant to motivate some of the members of my team a little bit more and remind them that they are not letting themselves down but also the whole team. Winol is not only meant to develop individual's personal skills but teach working within a team as that will be mostly what we will be facing after leaving university. I already spoke to most of the members of the team that should only pick out the points of further improvements and the ones that were non present would understand that other points would be directed at them. So the individual points are directed at individual members if the group:
- absence on the de-briefs on Monday mornings
- missing out on days at winol - avoiding work
- lacking in bringing own ideas (most of the time I have to appoint them tasks and tell them ideas and how to do them)
- need to speed up with editing as the deadlines keep being extended
- when editing in two's or doing a film and article in twos try to have one person working on one thing and other on another thing to meet the deadline
- not all of the members come to the features meeting on which they are meant to 'sell' me their ideas, they text a brief description or not come at all which is not acceptable in the real world of journalism, there is no way the idea will be presented well through a brief text message for example 'oh I want to do this... do you like the idea?', no that is not good enough
- And finally, a reminder - do not upload onto youtube unless I have seen it and approved it!
Other points I made were reminding them on trying to get big names into their piece; keep a weekely log of what you do and learnt at winol for the critical reflection; communicate with Jason, our photographer to come with you and take pictures to your pieces.
The last reminder was also to have all the packages chosen for the Show completed and exported onto my hard drive - TUESDAY, the end of the day.
Features my team prepared features for the show for this week and continued working on the rest of the ideas that were planned for the following week. Prepared for this week's show:
1. Thomas Hobbs: John Keats 'To Autumn'
2. Whole team involved (edited by Katie and Claire) : Who's the Hostess with the Mostess?
3. My Students demo (can be viewed in my previous posts)
4. Jake Gable - Christmas in Winchester (requested to be redone after the show-awaiting new version)
My legal concern here and what I was aware of was using a lots of GVs and possibility of having under 16s in the film and so I made sure I went through the piece carefully looking out on above. And as I thought I found few moments that children were shown - I advised either not to use it in the package or to stretch the picture so that the children are not visible (not identified). Jake did well on getting rid them, he listened and made his GVs legally correct.
Other problem here was writing a voice over in a poetic style which I knew would be quite challenging but I was hoping for the best.
Eventually, unfortunately, I decided to cut this piece out of the show as there was a room for improvement in area of voice over and I advised to not do it in a poetic style but just normal informative voice over for the following week.
5. Student Finance- Eating for a week on £20 by Justina
Film that was already done and requested to be perfected. Justina did an excellent work on that and everyone was impressed.
UPDATE FROM THE FEATURES PROMISED LAST WEEK and NEW IDEAS FOR NEXT WEEK
1. Behind the scenes of feature making film, by Justyna – not completed
2. News feature article on a historic mansion that was going to be taken down, by Gareth from news - not completed
3. Student version of the come dine with me – Who is the Hostess with the Mostess - completed
4. Restaurant Review, places to eat out for students, by Claire and Katie - decided not to complete
5. Budget Cuts article- in depth analysis of the Browne’s review by Thomas Hobbs -not completed
6. Wine tasting show in London, gonzo style feature by Claire and Katie - completed
7. Richard Cheetam, Atacama race - to be completed for week 11
8. Katie and Claire are adding voice-overs on to their autumn fashion piece - completed (planned to be used in week 11 for when Maria Melano comes over)
9. Also Thom has transcribed his interview with bishop and I listened to the whole interview to check for accuracy and that Thom informed the bishop of the purposes of the interview. I also advised Thom that I would like to see the consent in writing via email from bishop’s site agreeing for publication of the transcribed text. - consent received - piece uploaded onto website
10. Anniversary of Keits poem which was significant for Winchester by Thom- completed
11. Thom is also planning to get Steve Bishalti (bbc sports ancor) to write a comment piece on strikes at NUJ. - not completed
12. Concert of Skinnyman (English rapper) - completed
13. Justina is redoing few parts of the £20 challenge - completed
14. Jake brought an idea of setting himself up a challenge of living with a baby-doll - not completed
NEW IDEAS:
15. Thom Hobbs:
- Akala concert review and a comment piece by Akala on Current Music Industry (Deadline Wednesday week 11)
- Feature Interview with Alistair Steward from ITV- to be done for Tuesday (for the Maria Melano show)
- Adrian Howks - aliens in Winchester? Comment piece (deadline - Wednesday week 11)
16. Jake:
- Winol's version of Apprentice - (idea sent by txt message only) - spiked- sports feature that is already being done by sports team - I spoke to the sports team and they said that they do not want to give away their own idea - they want to do it themselves - spiked for Jake (kept for sports)17. Katie and Claire: Christmas Party deresses-to be done for Tuesday the end of the day18* My idea to make a behind the scenes for Katie and Claire feature making - appointed Jake to do it as I spiked both of his (txt message) ideas- I advised him to finish it of by the end of this week including little promo introducing the fact that Maria Melano is meant to be in our next week's WINOL LIFE
19. Andy:
- Feature Interview with lecturer who run through Atacama desert- deadline Tuesday the end of the day- written piece - profile on the same lecture to go with the video
- short documentary - how were the police techniques changing across the student protests- fashion - suits20. Hanna (&Justina) Christmas Gifts on law budget21. Radical Fashion - Cara: text, Hanna & Justina : video
22. Room make over - student acomodation - Cara: text, Jake;video
23. Reading list challenge - Justina
Kayleigh also produced What's on for this week:
The legal concern of mine in this film was the question of consent from a guy that is skating behind Kayleigh, I noticed that while she was editing and made sure she was aware of that. She had the permission to film. However I was communicated to that the section on What's on belongs fully to Kayleigh and that she is editor herself so I should not be having that in control. I took it on board and spoke to Kayleigh about that.
On Thursday this week there was meant to be a decision made on the issue of the tuition fees in England, Maddie and I planned to go there in the morning to film and make another documentary. Even though we both managed to even to take our Law revision lecture on Monday instead of Thursday to be able to go to London unfortunately, Maddie found out she had to work on Thursday evening and I had a very little time to arrange another person go with me. Eventually, I didn't go as it would have been unsafe for me to go on my own especially with such a huge potential for the protests to go big. I was incredibly disappointed and felt that I failed myself in a way that I wasn't in the place of 'history making', on the other side it would have been extremely dangerous for me to cover it on mu own.
Next week's plans: WINOL LIFE with Maria MELANO, editor from the InStyle magazine.
The points are purely a constructive criticism that is meant to motivate some of the members of my team a little bit more and remind them that they are not letting themselves down but also the whole team. Winol is not only meant to develop individual's personal skills but teach working within a team as that will be mostly what we will be facing after leaving university. I already spoke to most of the members of the team that should only pick out the points of further improvements and the ones that were non present would understand that other points would be directed at them. So the individual points are directed at individual members if the group:
- absence on the de-briefs on Monday mornings
- missing out on days at winol - avoiding work
- lacking in bringing own ideas (most of the time I have to appoint them tasks and tell them ideas and how to do them)
- need to speed up with editing as the deadlines keep being extended
- when editing in two's or doing a film and article in twos try to have one person working on one thing and other on another thing to meet the deadline
- not all of the members come to the features meeting on which they are meant to 'sell' me their ideas, they text a brief description or not come at all which is not acceptable in the real world of journalism, there is no way the idea will be presented well through a brief text message for example 'oh I want to do this... do you like the idea?', no that is not good enough
- And finally, a reminder - do not upload onto youtube unless I have seen it and approved it!
Other points I made were reminding them on trying to get big names into their piece; keep a weekely log of what you do and learnt at winol for the critical reflection; communicate with Jason, our photographer to come with you and take pictures to your pieces.
The last reminder was also to have all the packages chosen for the Show completed and exported onto my hard drive - TUESDAY, the end of the day.
Features my team prepared features for the show for this week and continued working on the rest of the ideas that were planned for the following week. Prepared for this week's show:
1. Thomas Hobbs: John Keats 'To Autumn'
2. Whole team involved (edited by Katie and Claire) : Who's the Hostess with the Mostess?
3. My Students demo (can be viewed in my previous posts)
4. Jake Gable - Christmas in Winchester (requested to be redone after the show-awaiting new version)
My legal concern here and what I was aware of was using a lots of GVs and possibility of having under 16s in the film and so I made sure I went through the piece carefully looking out on above. And as I thought I found few moments that children were shown - I advised either not to use it in the package or to stretch the picture so that the children are not visible (not identified). Jake did well on getting rid them, he listened and made his GVs legally correct.
Other problem here was writing a voice over in a poetic style which I knew would be quite challenging but I was hoping for the best.
Eventually, unfortunately, I decided to cut this piece out of the show as there was a room for improvement in area of voice over and I advised to not do it in a poetic style but just normal informative voice over for the following week.
5. Student Finance- Eating for a week on £20 by Justina
Film that was already done and requested to be perfected. Justina did an excellent work on that and everyone was impressed.
UPDATE FROM THE FEATURES PROMISED LAST WEEK and NEW IDEAS FOR NEXT WEEK
1. Behind the scenes of feature making film, by Justyna – not completed
2. News feature article on a historic mansion that was going to be taken down, by Gareth from news - not completed
3. Student version of the come dine with me – Who is the Hostess with the Mostess - completed
4. Restaurant Review, places to eat out for students, by Claire and Katie - decided not to complete
5. Budget Cuts article- in depth analysis of the Browne’s review by Thomas Hobbs -not completed
6. Wine tasting show in London, gonzo style feature by Claire and Katie - completed
7. Richard Cheetam, Atacama race - to be completed for week 11
8. Katie and Claire are adding voice-overs on to their autumn fashion piece - completed (planned to be used in week 11 for when Maria Melano comes over)
9. Also Thom has transcribed his interview with bishop and I listened to the whole interview to check for accuracy and that Thom informed the bishop of the purposes of the interview. I also advised Thom that I would like to see the consent in writing via email from bishop’s site agreeing for publication of the transcribed text. - consent received - piece uploaded onto website
10. Anniversary of Keits poem which was significant for Winchester by Thom- completed
11. Thom is also planning to get Steve Bishalti (bbc sports ancor) to write a comment piece on strikes at NUJ. - not completed
12. Concert of Skinnyman (English rapper) - completed
13. Justina is redoing few parts of the £20 challenge - completed
14. Jake brought an idea of setting himself up a challenge of living with a baby-doll - not completed
NEW IDEAS:
15. Thom Hobbs:
- Akala concert review and a comment piece by Akala on Current Music Industry (Deadline Wednesday week 11)
- Feature Interview with Alistair Steward from ITV- to be done for Tuesday (for the Maria Melano show)
- Adrian Howks - aliens in Winchester? Comment piece (deadline - Wednesday week 11)
16. Jake:
- Winol's version of Apprentice - (idea sent by txt message only) - spiked- sports feature that is already being done by sports team - I spoke to the sports team and they said that they do not want to give away their own idea - they want to do it themselves - spiked for Jake (kept for sports)17. Katie and Claire: Christmas Party deresses-to be done for Tuesday the end of the day18* My idea to make a behind the scenes for Katie and Claire feature making - appointed Jake to do it as I spiked both of his (txt message) ideas- I advised him to finish it of by the end of this week including little promo introducing the fact that Maria Melano is meant to be in our next week's WINOL LIFE
19. Andy:
- Feature Interview with lecturer who run through Atacama desert- deadline Tuesday the end of the day- written piece - profile on the same lecture to go with the video
- short documentary - how were the police techniques changing across the student protests- fashion - suits20. Hanna (&Justina) Christmas Gifts on law budget21. Radical Fashion - Cara: text, Hanna & Justina : video
22. Room make over - student acomodation - Cara: text, Jake;video
23. Reading list challenge - Justina
Kayleigh also produced What's on for this week:
The legal concern of mine in this film was the question of consent from a guy that is skating behind Kayleigh, I noticed that while she was editing and made sure she was aware of that. She had the permission to film. However I was communicated to that the section on What's on belongs fully to Kayleigh and that she is editor herself so I should not be having that in control. I took it on board and spoke to Kayleigh about that.
On Thursday this week there was meant to be a decision made on the issue of the tuition fees in England, Maddie and I planned to go there in the morning to film and make another documentary. Even though we both managed to even to take our Law revision lecture on Monday instead of Thursday to be able to go to London unfortunately, Maddie found out she had to work on Thursday evening and I had a very little time to arrange another person go with me. Eventually, I didn't go as it would have been unsafe for me to go on my own especially with such a huge potential for the protests to go big. I was incredibly disappointed and felt that I failed myself in a way that I wasn't in the place of 'history making', on the other side it would have been extremely dangerous for me to cover it on mu own.
Next week's plans: WINOL LIFE with Maria MELANO, editor from the InStyle magazine.
Tuesday 14 December 2010
In preparation for test - LAW REVISION (week 12)
I. DEFAMATION
Malice
– intentional, reckless, untrue statement written down (permanent form) without checking
The public interest
- opposite of malice
- there is no specific definition of this concept in law – as it is not defined in the Code of Conduct but is journalistic context is seen as a valuable or potentially so information to the society - reported in the interest of the public
- the editors Code of Practice: defined it in three tings – reporting on threat of the safety of the community (e.g terrorism) to help and fight the corruption etc.and it is where we consider the information to be in advantage to make the public aware (Jameel vs Wall Street case, WSJ acted responsibly)
Malicious Falsehood
- a false statement made with malice and intention to damage or harm (also likely to cause financial damage to the claimant)
Innuendo
-implying something throughout pictures/things assuming (hidden/not only one meaning)
- it's malicious, you can't prove it (no justification – no defence)
- statement that may seem to be innocuous to some people, but can be seen as defamatory to people with special knowledge
Juxtaposition (libel)
- intentional/unintentional setting of two things- usually done through the pictures for example when two objects or texts are set next to each other but that oppose one another
- a statement innocuous when standing alone can acquire defamatory meaning when juxtaposed with other material
– most libel actions are misidentification (for example) or misspelling, there has to be identification next to a picture
LIBEL
Libel is a civil wrong doing resulting from a defamatory statement. The Libel takes place when it may apply to a person or a company; For the statement to be labelous it has to be: Published – in a permanent form to a third party
Identified- positive identification (group under 40 people – The Banbery Police station – officers – broad brush identification – to avoid it we use positive identification.
Defamed – damaging reputatin causing them to be shunned and avoided or exposed them to hatered, redicule or contempt
Defamation
the statement is defamatory if it tends to do any of the following:
- expose the person to hatred, ridicule or contempt
or
- cause the person to be shunned or avoided
or
- lower the person in the eyes of the right thinking members of the society
or
- disparage the person in his/her business, trade, office or profession
Action for Libel can be started up to 1 year after it has happened/ been published (Gilligan case – journalist tampered with his notes – evidence after making them)
Libel defences are:
Justification (it is true and I can prove it);
Fair Comment and honestly held opinion/comment (based on fact and made on a matter of public interest); recognisable as a comment
Absolute Privilege/ Qualified Privilege (on Press Conferences, public meetings – has to be fast, accurate, contemporaneous and without malice)
Slander
Is libel in spoken form (impermanent), and it has to involve a third party overhearing the two people.
2. How long has the plaintiff got before he/she can start on action for libel comment briefly with regard to evidence and techniques of newsgathering
- they can wait one year before starting the case so always keep all the tapes and notes (it used to be 3years Robert Maxwell – would sue after one year for example)
- judges would comment to juries that the notes you took are the evidence – your contemporary notes will be acccepted as evidence (shorthand)
- keep all your notes/shorthand, tapes, rushes of the tapes no edits as there is no forensic evidence in edited material you need original footage.
- digital cameras/pictures are less reliabele, analouge camera is actually better (the Gilligan's case – changed notes on the lapstop)
III. DEFENCES IN DEFAMATION
1. Justification
- it is true and we can prove it, it's a fact (if you can prove that the fact is true and is without malice it is fully defended- full on justification)
2. Qualified Privilege
- journalists have it in Parliament/Court/public meetings Reporting
- exception- you are above the law (the Quinn is the board of justice, she is above the law) - constitutional power is the monarch. R v 'whoever has been accused of the crime'. It is in reporting the courts, parliament (parliamentary privilege). Qualified Privilege in general is a distinction with/without explanation .
- Lee Clegg case, significant
Absolute Privilege
- judges, lawyers and MP’s have it
- is from the monarch- so far as it is to do with the trial they can't be prosecuted for that, also lawyers and judges have the Absolute Privilege.
Privilege is kept:
- so long as it is without Malice e.g. Dennis Skinner & Graham Ridic – questioning over cocaine, Dennis Skinner had Absolute Privilege in Parliament so he could ask this question once they were in there, they could say anything.
Your report has to be:
- Fast: published in the first available bulletin - contemporaneous
- Accurate: no spelling mistakes, checked with facts
- Fair: free of Malice (in court reporting it has to be written for example that person has denied/admitted to be guilty of the charges)
3. It has to be done in the Public Interest
II. CODES OF CONDUCT
1. Subterfuge definition - in which circumstances it may be used according to the PCC Code of Conduct. Subterfuge is gathering the information without telling people that you are a journalist (hiding the fact that you are journalist from people). Point 2 of the NUJ code of conduct says that you should always identify yourself and subterfuge is when you are hiding or pretending you are not a journalist.
You can do it if:
- it is in the public interest
- there is no other way to obtain the information
- and you have got to have a permission in advance – legally, formally (this is in the BBC code of Conduct as well) BBC guidelines give that you on subterfuge- you have to have permission in advance and show it is in the interest of the public as well as there is no other way to obtain that information but incognito.
*There are three main Codes of Practice for journalists:
PCC – self regulation (Codes of Conduct, NUJ)
OfCom – statutory power
BBC Code of Practice
2. *Examples and differences in regulations between print journalism and broadcast journalism in a matter of subterfuge:
To be completed
3. The way in which media is regulated in relation to political bias on preference again (references to the difference between print and broadcast journalism)
- time before that Election is a difficult period in broadcast as well as in print in the coverage because journalists have to be highly aware of avoidance of undue prominence - make sure to give equal air time/ attention to candidates of all parties taking part in the election.
- pre-election time, bio-election or on the day of election for example (no regulation on print media/newspapers – they can be bias wheras broadcast musn't)
- broadcast –even outside election there has to be balance over time in any of the political programs or radio shows (BBC Code of conduct)
- newspapers have to make sure they cover it fairly but they of course don’t have to worry about equal air time so this does not apply to newspapers at all.
- in case of bio election they have to give a reasonable amount of time to all the sides (keep the balance all the time) – balance over time has to be kept and avoidance of undue prominence again. Example The Question Time show – everyone given equal opportunity to express their stance – the output is balanced)
4. Regulations related on Codes of Conduct on children:
- must do nothing to harm children and always require consent for children under 16 from the parents.
*Section 49 Order – gives anonymity to U-18s in Youth Courts
*Section 39 Order – when someone under 18 has to give evidence in adult court– they are covered by anonymity.
* ‘Jigsaw identification’ - about anonymity to under 18s
5. Regulations related to taste and decency in relation to the following:
a) use of language such as ‘the F word’
- we always must not be gratuitous (Given freely; unearned; Not called for by the circumstances; uncalled for; without reason, cause, or proof; adopted or asserted without any good ground; unjustified )
b) use of profoundly offensive language such as ‘the C word’
- possibility of being punished by OfCom
- people will complain
- it is not gratuitous to use it
- F and C words you could probably use so long as it is after 10pm and it is not gratuitous and it is needed in the context of the content.
- never to be used on air of the record by presenters for example– never in the studio
c) Use of material that may be offensive to religious believers
- do not use it if it is gratuitous and it can be blasphemy ,
- you mustn’t use the word ‘occult’ in connection to sex and violence
d) Interviewing criminals – you mustn’t glorify the crime or encourage it in any way
e) Racial status, racial identification (e.g. in crime stories)
- not gratuitous
- especially in the crime story as it can create a racial innuendo
- you can express the honestly held opinion within the law even if it’s racial
III. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE and Contempt of Court
* Prejudice & Contempt
Prejudice appears when it is made hard to treat someone fairly, when the decision is influenced in any way and if you are prejudicing someone’s trial you are committing a crime – Contempt of Court
* Differences between the Civil and Criminal Law
Civil law deals disputes between citizens (Smith VS Smith) where the community is not much affected except by the need for finding the solution to resolve the dispute (divorces, libel actions, compensations etc) e.g. The Diane Blood case
Criminal Law deals with offences against society (murder, violence, blasphemy) or offences against another person that are abhorrent to the society as a whole (fraud, dangerous driving, robbery etc.)
* There are two types of crimes: indictable- ‘arrestable’ (more serious crimes) and non-indictable – accusations or crimes carrying less than five years sentence .
1. Functions of a magistrates Court
a) Committals (big murders)
b) Summary Justice
c) Injunctions in Civil cases
2. When is the case active? – as soon as the has been an arrest/ warrant/charged!
a) Helping police with the enquiries – when the crime is reported
- case not active - if case is inactive there is a danger of libel /defamation (identification)
- but no danger of the Contempt of Court YET!
- no risk of Prejudice
- no charges
- no identification
b) Arrest and charged
- after the arrest/ issue of warrant - the case becomes active
- the person is identified and charged
- there is no danger of libel anymore as the person has been charged by the court so our report would be factually accurate to say that person X has been charged with the offence without libelling them – it is stating legal facts
- danger of Contempt of Court
- now we are limited with our report – stick to allowed facts only, basic facts like who was arrested because of what, who was charged with what
* next stage is the Magistrates court – where the penalty can be up to 6months of prison or/and £5.000 fine,
*Conditional discharge – is in other words a conditional sentence dependant on the good behaviour which may make the sentence shorter.
c) Magistrates’ Court (summary cases) – court hearing
- summary cases are minor cases
- at this stage case is continuously active so - no danger of libel but there is a danger of Contempt of Court
- we are limited in our report to write 7points only:
1. Names of defendants, ages, addresses, occupations
2. Charges faced
3. Courts name and magistrates names
4. Names of solicitors or barristers present
5. Date and place to where case is adjured
6. Bail (only whether it is or not) and bail arrangements
7. Whether legal aid was granted
d) Magistrates Court (Committal)
- the defendant may be hold on remand
e) Magistrates (Bail)- on remand- awaiting trial
- non violent, defendant will be put on bail
- danger of Contempt of Court as the judge can object the bail – and we cannot report the reasons not to prejudice the jury
- but no danger of libel
f) if on Remand
- Do not report the reasons
g) In Crown courts :
- when jury is not present there is no danger of Contempt of Court; there is danger of libel and the case is active; if the jury isn’t there, there are chances are that you can’t report it.
- when jury is present case is also active and journalists are covered with full protection (QP) - Privilege reporting (Fast , accurate, contemporaneous and balanced throughout the trial)
- a person shouting in the court from the gallery – you can report what was shouted out so long as it is non defamatory
so the danger is when:
- when in courtroom jury is not present – this is when there is no danger of Contempt of Court but there is danger of libel
- the minute the jury is sworn in and present we have Qualified Privilege
h) It is not permitted to interview members of jury during the case
i) it is not permitted to interview witnesses during the case because of the risk of intimidating the witness, contempt of court but it is allowed to interview witnesses after the case is closed (no longer active)
j) After the conviction – before the sentencing – the case is no longer active
- we have no more Qualified Privilege and there is no danger of the Contempt of court
- there is defence of justification here
k) There is no danger or restrictions before the Appeal
IV) PRIVACY & CONFIDENTIALITY- Impact of Article 8, European Convention of Human Rights Act
1. Princess Caroline of Monaco case – after her case there has been significant change recognised within the area of Privacy- journalists have permission only to take pictures when the photographed person is on public duty but there is allowance to do so if there is explicit or implied consent to do so.
2. Definition of Confidentiality- it’s simply a secret and depends on expectation that is given in circumstances that imply that there is a need for keeping that secret (Confidentially)
- it’s all about expectations and circumstances of passing the information
- Breach of Confidence – Bill Goodwin case
* recent case – Wikileaks
* other cases: Naomi Campbell – drug addiction case – which she won as she had an expectation privacy when talking about her matter- story published about her treated at Narcotics Anonymous, there were photographs taken of her emerging from treatment session; paper argued it was in the public interest; she responded it to have a significant level of circumstances implying confidence and that there was no justification of publishing it for public interest as it was not within interest of the public and there was no consent given. (Clive Porting – Official Secreats Act; Max Mosley vs The News of The World)
* There are three areas of concern here:
- revealing state secrets or official secrets
- revealing commercial secrets
- revealing facts about a person that would be expected to remain private
*The Official Secrets Act
* What’s the purpose of the law of confidence – and injunctions – to have people like for example celebrities away from breaching into their private lives/ family lives or in public people to draw a line for where press or public should be informed about their activities and to what extent (Caroline of Monaco- public duty).
3. Human Rights Act and trespassing
- journalists have to take practical measures
- always leave when being asked to do so if there is the sign on Section 8 official Secrecy Act
- you can film from the public place
- do not force entry
- and do it within reasonable judgment of the courtesy
V. OTHER ASPECTS
1. FOI stands for Freedom of Information Act
2. Provisions of the representation of the people Act that affect journalism are:
- it’s a crime to falsely represent the opinions of politicians - misrepresentation and libel
3. Circumstances that an editor might write a ‘without prejudice letter’:
- without the prejudice – on attempt to correct the error without allowing it to be used as evidence but to solve the issue.
4. Standards of proof in civil and criminal law – Principle of avoidance of double jeopardy –affect the practice of investigative journalism
- beyond reasonable doubt
-balance of probability
-can’t try do the same thing twice
- example: Steven Lawrence killer – The Daily Mail
5. In terms of statutory QP “subject to refutation”
- local government
- one councillor says something bad about something and we repeat it - we have to put a balance from that person accused of wrongdoing at the same article (bane & antidote)
- industrial tribunals, cricket club etc
* COPYRIGHT – protection of intellectual property (definition and purpose, Fair Dealing-‘lifting’- taking abstracts from other pieces- we can’t pass it off as our own, we have to make it clear it isn’t ours.
* Reporting Election – Phil Woolis case
VI. Raynolds 10 Points TEST
Qualified Privilege is available as a defence where it is considered important that the facts should be freely known in the public interest. ALBERT REYNOLDS vs SUNDAY TIMES is a United Kingdom legal case in the House of Lords concerning qualified privilege for publication of defamatory statements in the public interest. (Ref.4)
Reynolds v The Sunday Times, Jameel v Wall Street Journal and The Oryx Company v BBC here.
THE REYNOLDS CASE and the 10 POINT TEST
Lord Nicholls, the judge in the appeal stage of Albert Reynolds vs Sunday Times (1999), seemed to further define/extend QP-type protection against defamation, so long as the reporter was working without malice (as always with QP – you need lack of malice, accuracy and timeliness), had taken reasonable steps (not reckless) and so long as it was a matter of ‘public interest’ (ie not just a purely private matter).*Reynolds Defence can be implied when the facts are in public interest and is the product of reasonable journalism, and as given above it is a subject to Lord Nicholls’ list of criteria which must be satisfied. (Ref.4)
His ten point test of responsible journalism is well worth dwelling on because it forms a curriculum really for journalism of the highest quality which (quiet rightly) should enjoy a degree of legal protection.
1. The seriousness of the allegation
the more serious the allegation, the more protection will be applied.
2. The nature of the information
and the extent to which the subject matter is a matter of public concern. This follows from schedules I or II of 1996 act - essentially anything related to matters that would be discussed in forums listed in schedule I would be protected and almost certainly matters that would come up in forums detailed in schedule II would also be covered. Again, allegations of a private nature are excluded.
3. The source of the information
The more authoritative the source, the more you are entitled to report their allegations, even if those allegations cannot be proved or even if they turn out to be incorrect. So obviously chequebook journalism is not very safe, and would have less protection than allegations made by a responsible person with no axe to grind, and with a reputation for honesty. Sources ‘on the record’ are more protected than anonymous sources.
4. The steps taken to verify the information
There must be a reasonable attempt in the time available. The crucial thing is to try and put the allegations to the person being accused in order to get their side of the story. But you must either get to the person and make the allegation or, at the very least, be able to show a whole log of e-mails and phone calls where you make determined efforts to get their side of the story.
5. The status of the information
You need to check that this is not an old allegation which has previously been denied. If the allegation had been previously dismissed by “an investigation which commands respect” then it would have no protection.
6. The urgency of the matter
The judge recognised that news is “a perishable commodity” and that papers must compete to be first with the news. If the matter genuinely is urgent (eg to bring something like corruption to the attention of voters before polling day) then the other checks in the code might be less stringent and might still enjoy protection.
7. Whether comment was sought from the claimant
together with point 4 above and point 8 below, although the judge did say that putting allegations to the claimant was not necessary in every single case, if the case for protection on other counts was strong enough. As a practical point it is always wise to get the other side of the story and have them point out how or why the allegations might be untrue, then incorporate this in your report. Such a statement might also provide you with a ‘consent’ type defence to a libel action.
8. Whether the article contained the gist of the claimant’s side of the story
(see above, points 4 and 7)
9. The tone of the article
If the angle of a piece is along the lines of allegations of X have raised concerns… this would probably more protected than a straightforward assertion that the allegations are fact. It is always important to attribute the allegations to a named source (‘on the record’) if possible. If the source is not named there must be a genuine and obvious reason for this.
10. The circumstances of the publication
including the timing. The allegations should be brought to public attention as quickly as possible. They should not be ‘saved up’ for commercial motives by the paper or broadcaster. This is similar to the need to publish/broadcast quickly in ordinary QP of court and parliamentary reports. (Ref.4)
* Overall – learn how to recognise risks and seek advice!
References:
Ref.1) McNae’s essential law for journalists (Twentieth Edition) Banks, D. Hanna, M. (2009)
Ref.2) Notes from the Media Law section on Winchester Journalism site for third year ba students (updates, year 3, BA Journalism 2010) weeks 1-11 http://journalism.winchester.ac.uk/?page=102
3) Media Law Lectures throughout the whole semester and Law revision in week 11, ba Journalism, year 3
4) My blog posts on Media law, year3, 2010
Malice
– intentional, reckless, untrue statement written down (permanent form) without checking
The public interest
- opposite of malice
- there is no specific definition of this concept in law – as it is not defined in the Code of Conduct but is journalistic context is seen as a valuable or potentially so information to the society - reported in the interest of the public
- the editors Code of Practice: defined it in three tings – reporting on threat of the safety of the community (e.g terrorism) to help and fight the corruption etc.and it is where we consider the information to be in advantage to make the public aware (Jameel vs Wall Street case, WSJ acted responsibly)
Malicious Falsehood
- a false statement made with malice and intention to damage or harm (also likely to cause financial damage to the claimant)
Innuendo
-implying something throughout pictures/things assuming (hidden/not only one meaning)
- it's malicious, you can't prove it (no justification – no defence)
- statement that may seem to be innocuous to some people, but can be seen as defamatory to people with special knowledge
Juxtaposition (libel)
- intentional/unintentional setting of two things- usually done through the pictures for example when two objects or texts are set next to each other but that oppose one another
- a statement innocuous when standing alone can acquire defamatory meaning when juxtaposed with other material
– most libel actions are misidentification (for example) or misspelling, there has to be identification next to a picture
LIBEL
Libel is a civil wrong doing resulting from a defamatory statement. The Libel takes place when it may apply to a person or a company; For the statement to be labelous it has to be: Published – in a permanent form to a third party
Identified- positive identification (group under 40 people – The Banbery Police station – officers – broad brush identification – to avoid it we use positive identification.
Defamed – damaging reputatin causing them to be shunned and avoided or exposed them to hatered, redicule or contempt
Defamation
the statement is defamatory if it tends to do any of the following:
- expose the person to hatred, ridicule or contempt
or
- cause the person to be shunned or avoided
or
- lower the person in the eyes of the right thinking members of the society
or
- disparage the person in his/her business, trade, office or profession
Action for Libel can be started up to 1 year after it has happened/ been published (Gilligan case – journalist tampered with his notes – evidence after making them)
Libel defences are:
Justification (it is true and I can prove it);
Fair Comment and honestly held opinion/comment (based on fact and made on a matter of public interest); recognisable as a comment
Absolute Privilege/ Qualified Privilege (on Press Conferences, public meetings – has to be fast, accurate, contemporaneous and without malice)
Slander
Is libel in spoken form (impermanent), and it has to involve a third party overhearing the two people.
2. How long has the plaintiff got before he/she can start on action for libel comment briefly with regard to evidence and techniques of newsgathering
- they can wait one year before starting the case so always keep all the tapes and notes (it used to be 3years Robert Maxwell – would sue after one year for example)
- judges would comment to juries that the notes you took are the evidence – your contemporary notes will be acccepted as evidence (shorthand)
- keep all your notes/shorthand, tapes, rushes of the tapes no edits as there is no forensic evidence in edited material you need original footage.
- digital cameras/pictures are less reliabele, analouge camera is actually better (the Gilligan's case – changed notes on the lapstop)
III. DEFENCES IN DEFAMATION
1. Justification
- it is true and we can prove it, it's a fact (if you can prove that the fact is true and is without malice it is fully defended- full on justification)
2. Qualified Privilege
- journalists have it in Parliament/Court/public meetings Reporting
- exception- you are above the law (the Quinn is the board of justice, she is above the law) - constitutional power is the monarch. R v 'whoever has been accused of the crime'. It is in reporting the courts, parliament (parliamentary privilege). Qualified Privilege in general is a distinction with/without explanation .
- Lee Clegg case, significant
Absolute Privilege
- judges, lawyers and MP’s have it
- is from the monarch- so far as it is to do with the trial they can't be prosecuted for that, also lawyers and judges have the Absolute Privilege.
Privilege is kept:
- so long as it is without Malice e.g. Dennis Skinner & Graham Ridic – questioning over cocaine, Dennis Skinner had Absolute Privilege in Parliament so he could ask this question once they were in there, they could say anything.
Your report has to be:
- Fast: published in the first available bulletin - contemporaneous
- Accurate: no spelling mistakes, checked with facts
- Fair: free of Malice (in court reporting it has to be written for example that person has denied/admitted to be guilty of the charges)
3. It has to be done in the Public Interest
II. CODES OF CONDUCT
1. Subterfuge definition - in which circumstances it may be used according to the PCC Code of Conduct. Subterfuge is gathering the information without telling people that you are a journalist (hiding the fact that you are journalist from people). Point 2 of the NUJ code of conduct says that you should always identify yourself and subterfuge is when you are hiding or pretending you are not a journalist.
You can do it if:
- it is in the public interest
- there is no other way to obtain the information
- and you have got to have a permission in advance – legally, formally (this is in the BBC code of Conduct as well) BBC guidelines give that you on subterfuge- you have to have permission in advance and show it is in the interest of the public as well as there is no other way to obtain that information but incognito.
*There are three main Codes of Practice for journalists:
PCC – self regulation (Codes of Conduct, NUJ)
OfCom – statutory power
BBC Code of Practice
2. *Examples and differences in regulations between print journalism and broadcast journalism in a matter of subterfuge:
To be completed
3. The way in which media is regulated in relation to political bias on preference again (references to the difference between print and broadcast journalism)
- time before that Election is a difficult period in broadcast as well as in print in the coverage because journalists have to be highly aware of avoidance of undue prominence - make sure to give equal air time/ attention to candidates of all parties taking part in the election.
- pre-election time, bio-election or on the day of election for example (no regulation on print media/newspapers – they can be bias wheras broadcast musn't)
- broadcast –even outside election there has to be balance over time in any of the political programs or radio shows (BBC Code of conduct)
- newspapers have to make sure they cover it fairly but they of course don’t have to worry about equal air time so this does not apply to newspapers at all.
- in case of bio election they have to give a reasonable amount of time to all the sides (keep the balance all the time) – balance over time has to be kept and avoidance of undue prominence again. Example The Question Time show – everyone given equal opportunity to express their stance – the output is balanced)
4. Regulations related on Codes of Conduct on children:
- must do nothing to harm children and always require consent for children under 16 from the parents.
*Section 49 Order – gives anonymity to U-18s in Youth Courts
*Section 39 Order – when someone under 18 has to give evidence in adult court– they are covered by anonymity.
* ‘Jigsaw identification’ - about anonymity to under 18s
5. Regulations related to taste and decency in relation to the following:
a) use of language such as ‘the F word’
- we always must not be gratuitous (Given freely; unearned; Not called for by the circumstances; uncalled for; without reason, cause, or proof; adopted or asserted without any good ground; unjustified )
b) use of profoundly offensive language such as ‘the C word’
- possibility of being punished by OfCom
- people will complain
- it is not gratuitous to use it
- F and C words you could probably use so long as it is after 10pm and it is not gratuitous and it is needed in the context of the content.
- never to be used on air of the record by presenters for example– never in the studio
c) Use of material that may be offensive to religious believers
- do not use it if it is gratuitous and it can be blasphemy ,
- you mustn’t use the word ‘occult’ in connection to sex and violence
d) Interviewing criminals – you mustn’t glorify the crime or encourage it in any way
e) Racial status, racial identification (e.g. in crime stories)
- not gratuitous
- especially in the crime story as it can create a racial innuendo
- you can express the honestly held opinion within the law even if it’s racial
III. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE and Contempt of Court
* Prejudice & Contempt
Prejudice appears when it is made hard to treat someone fairly, when the decision is influenced in any way and if you are prejudicing someone’s trial you are committing a crime – Contempt of Court
* Differences between the Civil and Criminal Law
Civil law deals disputes between citizens (Smith VS Smith) where the community is not much affected except by the need for finding the solution to resolve the dispute (divorces, libel actions, compensations etc) e.g. The Diane Blood case
Criminal Law deals with offences against society (murder, violence, blasphemy) or offences against another person that are abhorrent to the society as a whole (fraud, dangerous driving, robbery etc.)
* There are two types of crimes: indictable- ‘arrestable’ (more serious crimes) and non-indictable – accusations or crimes carrying less than five years sentence .
1. Functions of a magistrates Court
a) Committals (big murders)
b) Summary Justice
c) Injunctions in Civil cases
2. When is the case active? – as soon as the has been an arrest/ warrant/charged!
a) Helping police with the enquiries – when the crime is reported
- case not active - if case is inactive there is a danger of libel /defamation (identification)
- but no danger of the Contempt of Court YET!
- no risk of Prejudice
- no charges
- no identification
b) Arrest and charged
- after the arrest/ issue of warrant - the case becomes active
- the person is identified and charged
- there is no danger of libel anymore as the person has been charged by the court so our report would be factually accurate to say that person X has been charged with the offence without libelling them – it is stating legal facts
- danger of Contempt of Court
- now we are limited with our report – stick to allowed facts only, basic facts like who was arrested because of what, who was charged with what
* next stage is the Magistrates court – where the penalty can be up to 6months of prison or/and £5.000 fine,
*Conditional discharge – is in other words a conditional sentence dependant on the good behaviour which may make the sentence shorter.
c) Magistrates’ Court (summary cases) – court hearing
- summary cases are minor cases
- at this stage case is continuously active so - no danger of libel but there is a danger of Contempt of Court
- we are limited in our report to write 7points only:
1. Names of defendants, ages, addresses, occupations
2. Charges faced
3. Courts name and magistrates names
4. Names of solicitors or barristers present
5. Date and place to where case is adjured
6. Bail (only whether it is or not) and bail arrangements
7. Whether legal aid was granted
d) Magistrates Court (Committal)
- the defendant may be hold on remand
e) Magistrates (Bail)- on remand- awaiting trial
- non violent, defendant will be put on bail
- danger of Contempt of Court as the judge can object the bail – and we cannot report the reasons not to prejudice the jury
- but no danger of libel
f) if on Remand
- Do not report the reasons
g) In Crown courts :
- when jury is not present there is no danger of Contempt of Court; there is danger of libel and the case is active; if the jury isn’t there, there are chances are that you can’t report it.
- when jury is present case is also active and journalists are covered with full protection (QP) - Privilege reporting (Fast , accurate, contemporaneous and balanced throughout the trial)
- a person shouting in the court from the gallery – you can report what was shouted out so long as it is non defamatory
so the danger is when:
- when in courtroom jury is not present – this is when there is no danger of Contempt of Court but there is danger of libel
- the minute the jury is sworn in and present we have Qualified Privilege
h) It is not permitted to interview members of jury during the case
i) it is not permitted to interview witnesses during the case because of the risk of intimidating the witness, contempt of court but it is allowed to interview witnesses after the case is closed (no longer active)
j) After the conviction – before the sentencing – the case is no longer active
- we have no more Qualified Privilege and there is no danger of the Contempt of court
- there is defence of justification here
k) There is no danger or restrictions before the Appeal
IV) PRIVACY & CONFIDENTIALITY- Impact of Article 8, European Convention of Human Rights Act
1. Princess Caroline of Monaco case – after her case there has been significant change recognised within the area of Privacy- journalists have permission only to take pictures when the photographed person is on public duty but there is allowance to do so if there is explicit or implied consent to do so.
2. Definition of Confidentiality- it’s simply a secret and depends on expectation that is given in circumstances that imply that there is a need for keeping that secret (Confidentially)
- it’s all about expectations and circumstances of passing the information
- Breach of Confidence – Bill Goodwin case
* recent case – Wikileaks
* other cases: Naomi Campbell – drug addiction case – which she won as she had an expectation privacy when talking about her matter- story published about her treated at Narcotics Anonymous, there were photographs taken of her emerging from treatment session; paper argued it was in the public interest; she responded it to have a significant level of circumstances implying confidence and that there was no justification of publishing it for public interest as it was not within interest of the public and there was no consent given. (Clive Porting – Official Secreats Act; Max Mosley vs The News of The World)
* There are three areas of concern here:
- revealing state secrets or official secrets
- revealing commercial secrets
- revealing facts about a person that would be expected to remain private
*The Official Secrets Act
* What’s the purpose of the law of confidence – and injunctions – to have people like for example celebrities away from breaching into their private lives/ family lives or in public people to draw a line for where press or public should be informed about their activities and to what extent (Caroline of Monaco- public duty).
3. Human Rights Act and trespassing
- journalists have to take practical measures
- always leave when being asked to do so if there is the sign on Section 8 official Secrecy Act
- you can film from the public place
- do not force entry
- and do it within reasonable judgment of the courtesy
V. OTHER ASPECTS
1. FOI stands for Freedom of Information Act
2. Provisions of the representation of the people Act that affect journalism are:
- it’s a crime to falsely represent the opinions of politicians - misrepresentation and libel
3. Circumstances that an editor might write a ‘without prejudice letter’:
- without the prejudice – on attempt to correct the error without allowing it to be used as evidence but to solve the issue.
4. Standards of proof in civil and criminal law – Principle of avoidance of double jeopardy –affect the practice of investigative journalism
- beyond reasonable doubt
-balance of probability
-can’t try do the same thing twice
- example: Steven Lawrence killer – The Daily Mail
5. In terms of statutory QP “subject to refutation”
- local government
- one councillor says something bad about something and we repeat it - we have to put a balance from that person accused of wrongdoing at the same article (bane & antidote)
- industrial tribunals, cricket club etc
* COPYRIGHT – protection of intellectual property (definition and purpose, Fair Dealing-‘lifting’- taking abstracts from other pieces- we can’t pass it off as our own, we have to make it clear it isn’t ours.
* Reporting Election – Phil Woolis case
VI. Raynolds 10 Points TEST
Qualified Privilege is available as a defence where it is considered important that the facts should be freely known in the public interest. ALBERT REYNOLDS vs SUNDAY TIMES is a United Kingdom legal case in the House of Lords concerning qualified privilege for publication of defamatory statements in the public interest. (Ref.4)
Reynolds v The Sunday Times, Jameel v Wall Street Journal and The Oryx Company v BBC here.
THE REYNOLDS CASE and the 10 POINT TEST
Lord Nicholls, the judge in the appeal stage of Albert Reynolds vs Sunday Times (1999), seemed to further define/extend QP-type protection against defamation, so long as the reporter was working without malice (as always with QP – you need lack of malice, accuracy and timeliness), had taken reasonable steps (not reckless) and so long as it was a matter of ‘public interest’ (ie not just a purely private matter).*Reynolds Defence can be implied when the facts are in public interest and is the product of reasonable journalism, and as given above it is a subject to Lord Nicholls’ list of criteria which must be satisfied. (Ref.4)
His ten point test of responsible journalism is well worth dwelling on because it forms a curriculum really for journalism of the highest quality which (quiet rightly) should enjoy a degree of legal protection.
1. The seriousness of the allegation
the more serious the allegation, the more protection will be applied.
2. The nature of the information
and the extent to which the subject matter is a matter of public concern. This follows from schedules I or II of 1996 act - essentially anything related to matters that would be discussed in forums listed in schedule I would be protected and almost certainly matters that would come up in forums detailed in schedule II would also be covered. Again, allegations of a private nature are excluded.
3. The source of the information
The more authoritative the source, the more you are entitled to report their allegations, even if those allegations cannot be proved or even if they turn out to be incorrect. So obviously chequebook journalism is not very safe, and would have less protection than allegations made by a responsible person with no axe to grind, and with a reputation for honesty. Sources ‘on the record’ are more protected than anonymous sources.
4. The steps taken to verify the information
There must be a reasonable attempt in the time available. The crucial thing is to try and put the allegations to the person being accused in order to get their side of the story. But you must either get to the person and make the allegation or, at the very least, be able to show a whole log of e-mails and phone calls where you make determined efforts to get their side of the story.
5. The status of the information
You need to check that this is not an old allegation which has previously been denied. If the allegation had been previously dismissed by “an investigation which commands respect” then it would have no protection.
6. The urgency of the matter
The judge recognised that news is “a perishable commodity” and that papers must compete to be first with the news. If the matter genuinely is urgent (eg to bring something like corruption to the attention of voters before polling day) then the other checks in the code might be less stringent and might still enjoy protection.
7. Whether comment was sought from the claimant
together with point 4 above and point 8 below, although the judge did say that putting allegations to the claimant was not necessary in every single case, if the case for protection on other counts was strong enough. As a practical point it is always wise to get the other side of the story and have them point out how or why the allegations might be untrue, then incorporate this in your report. Such a statement might also provide you with a ‘consent’ type defence to a libel action.
8. Whether the article contained the gist of the claimant’s side of the story
(see above, points 4 and 7)
9. The tone of the article
If the angle of a piece is along the lines of allegations of X have raised concerns… this would probably more protected than a straightforward assertion that the allegations are fact. It is always important to attribute the allegations to a named source (‘on the record’) if possible. If the source is not named there must be a genuine and obvious reason for this.
10. The circumstances of the publication
including the timing. The allegations should be brought to public attention as quickly as possible. They should not be ‘saved up’ for commercial motives by the paper or broadcaster. This is similar to the need to publish/broadcast quickly in ordinary QP of court and parliamentary reports. (Ref.4)
* Overall – learn how to recognise risks and seek advice!
References:
Ref.1) McNae’s essential law for journalists (Twentieth Edition) Banks, D. Hanna, M. (2009)
Ref.2) Notes from the Media Law section on Winchester Journalism site for third year ba students (updates, year 3, BA Journalism 2010) weeks 1-11 http://journalism.winchester.ac.uk/?page=102
3) Media Law Lectures throughout the whole semester and Law revision in week 11, ba Journalism, year 3
4) My blog posts on Media law, year3, 2010
Monday 13 December 2010
Recent legal changes that matter to journalists with examples of recent cases (week 10 & 11)
From the latest news and legal developments it is definitely worth mentioning that there has been some significant developments in certain areas that matter to journalists.
As McNae’s gives, the Coroners & Justice Bill 2009, for example (May 2009), the decision has been made that Home secretary can now decide that an inquest can be held without jury, with the reason being to try to stop ‘national security’ matters becoming public. “The Bill had proposed that such non-jury inquest would be presided over by a High Court Justice, not by a coroner, with wide discretion to exclude public reporters." (Ref.1) Critics didn’t like the idea but the Government insisted that “sensitive material” (Ref.1) should be protected from “being made public in inquests” (Ref.1).
Secondly, in February 2009 in High Court Justice decided that a man convicted of three notorious murders some decades ago should not be identified in media reports.
Thirdly, in April 2009 Jack Straw laid statutory instruments before Parliament to amend procedural rules governing family cases in the High Court. County Courts and Magistrate Courts. Reporters can gain admission to family cases in courts, but there is still a power to exclude them (journalists will need an identity card accredited in the UK Press card Scheme). (Ref.1)
Further on, significant change happened on the grounds of Public Order Act from 1986. The House of Lords the Criminal Justice & Immigration Act 2008 amended the 1986 Act to “create the offence of stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation.” (Ref.1)
More developments saw Section 46 order prevented, Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 “Barrister who was a witness should have anonymity in reports of an assault case (David Graham, head of Lancashire based freelance agency Watsons, barrister was assaulted by a client).
Breach of Section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (Confidentiality of jury deliberations), by The Times newspaper (fined £15,000) for reporting in 2007 that a man who was questioning the majority ‘guilty’ verdict, which he had opposed. The man had approached the paper himself. The times quoted him on how jurors took an early vote, as well as on the role played by complicated, medical evidence. He said the disclosures ‘offended against the secrecy of the jury room.’ (The Times, 13&23 May 2009). (Ref.1)
Also from Justice Ministry – libel & internet, what is very important for journalists to remember is that each download of an article accounts for a fresh publication and each publication can give rise to a separate action which should warn all the journalists that also online archives containing defamatory articles leave publishers open to a libel action for much longer if that material is downloaded. (Ref.1) (e.g. Internet Libel Yachting News - publisher not liable for chatroom content)
On the subject of privacy, Home Office have some guidance to aid photography in public places to help to ensure that people are not unnecessary stopped from taking photographs in public places, from recent cases on Privacy, Lilly Allen, singer and the celebrity, to secure a High Court injunction to prevent harassment by photographs or famous and very significant case on Max Mosley libel action against The News of The World, which also represents breach of Privacy. (Ref.1) Also Press Complaints Commission warned that “media reproduction of pictures found on social networking sites-such as facebook could breach the Editor’s Code of Practice, used by the PPC to adjudicate on ethics as well as possible copyright issue and privacy concerning the photographs.
On the subject of Confidentiality/privacy (see also PCC complaints re: privacy) recent cases are for example:
Elton John fails in privacy case against Daily MailEffect is to weaken Caroline ruling and strengthen ability of press to take photos of celebs in public without permission/payment. “A bid by Sir Elton John to prevent the Daily Mail publishing a photograph of him walking with his driver from his car to his London home was rejected by the High Court. If Sir Elton had been successful in obtaining this injunction, it would have completely revolutionised British newspaper and magazine practice. (Ref.1)
Sir Elton had his picture taken by a freelance photographer whilst walking from his Rolls Royce to the front gate of his West London home. He then heard that the Daily Mail was planning to publish the picture, and he applied for an injunction to prevent publication on the ground that it was an unwarranted infringement of his privacy. The picture merely showed him casually dressed, but he complained that it showed his baldness was returning. (Ref.1)
In his application, Sir Elton argued that the photo in question, which was surreptitiously acquired, was taken without consent, made no contribution to any matter of public interest, and its publication would be a breach of the Press Complaints Commission code. He supported his bid with the decision in the European Court of Human Rights case of Von Hannover v Germany [2004] ECHR, which involved Princess Caroline of Monaco. It was held in this case that her right to a private family life had been violated by sustained paparazzi photography of her and her children.” (Ref.4)
Beckham Nanny/ 'gagging clause' in contract/ confidentiality
“David and Victoria Beckham HAVE failed in a sensational legal attempt to gag the News of the World from publishing accounts of their marriage by former nanny Abbie Gibson.
The Beckhams launched a court bid to prevent the newspaper from publishing revelations from Ms. Abbie Gibson, 27. Lawyers of the showbiz couple applied for an emergency injunction from High Court judge Mr Justice Langley on the grounds of confidentiality. They argued that Abbie had signed a contract guaranteeing that she would not speak out about their lives. But lawyers acting for Abbie Gibson and the News of the World convinced the judge that out story was manifestly in the public interest. The court decided the News of the World IS entitled to publish Abbie's account about the real state of the Beckhams' marriage and David's affairs. The News of the World, represented by Richard Spearman QC, was given the green light to publish.” (Ref.5)
Other cases like: Section 10 HRA gives no protection to censorship effect of huge Naomi Campbell legal costs (10/05) Naomi Campbell drugs case/ conditional fee agreement/ costs; Caroline ruling strengthened by gay parade case, Hello! wins back £1million damages/ latest in Zeta-Jones saga; Zeta-Jones case - full set of reports from the Guardian' . Naomi Campbell: Law Lords find in her favour : Naomi Campbell case - full coverage from The Guardian
Princess Caroline of Monaco - significant in area of Confidentiality that I write about in my other blog post titled: Max Mosley, Catherine Zeta Jones and other cases - celebrities and privacy – see more here http://veronicafryd.blogspot.com/2010/11/max-mosley-catherine-zeta-jones-and.html (Ref.3)
Following cases on Privacy PCC released a report ON SUBTERFUGE AND NEWSGATHERING (Phone taps 'completely unacceptable' - PCC (08/06)) The Press Complaints Commission has conducted an investigation into the use of subterfuge by the British newspaper and magazine industry, with particular reference to phone message tapping and compliance with the Editors’ Code of Practice and the Data Protection Act” (ref.6) following the convictions in January 2007 of News of the World.
Journalist Clive Goodman and inquiry agent Glenn Mulcaire case on offences under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) and Criminal Law Act (1977). They had speculatively tapped into private mobile phone messages and used the information they discovered for stories in the News of the World.” (Ref.6) This type of snooping has no place in journalism, and the Chairman of the Commission has publicly deplored it on a number of occasions. The Commission as a whole condemns such behaviour. (Ref.6). Despite the police inquiry, court case and convictions, the Commission considered that there were a number of outstanding questions that arose under the Code of Practice, which sets out the required professional standards for UK journalists and, as such, supplements the law (...) .(Ref.6)
“On January 26 2007, Mulcaire and Goodman were sentenced to 6 and 4 months in prison. Mr Coulson resigned his post, saying that he had “decided that the time has come for me to take ultimate responsibility for the events around the Clive Goodman case”. Mr Colin Myler was appointed editor in his place.” (Ref.6)
“Despite Mr Myler’s appointment, the question arose whether the PCC should ask Mr Coulson to give an account of what had gone wrong. The PCC decided not to do so. Given that the PCC does not - and should not - have statutory powers of investigation and prosecution, there could be no question of trying to duplicate the lengthy police investigation. Furthermore, Mr Coulson was, following his resignation, no longer answerable to the PCC, whose jurisdiction covers journalists working for publications that subscribe to the self-regulatory system through the Press Standards Board of Finance.” (...) This report is therefore concerned with two main subjects: events at the News of the World in relation to Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire, how the situation developed and how repetition will be avoided; and what the industry as a whole is doing to ensure that lessons have been learned from this incident so that British journalism is not brought into similar disrepute in the future. “ (Ref.6)
New rule on reporting suicide, Journalists are to be issued with new rules governing reporting of suicides, in an attempt to prevent "copycat" deaths prompted by publicity, the article was published on 29 June 2006 (Ref.7)
The Press Complaints Commission has changed its code of practice to warn against printing "excessive" detail about the method used for a suicide. The commission's regulations already demanded cases were reported with sympathy and discretion. The latest move came after consultation with the charity Samaritans. “(Ref.7) In that article, ‘Mr Hinton said excessive detail would be avoided "unless it is in the wider public interest to give the information". (...) Mr King said sensationalised reporting could be "genuinely harmful". ‘(Ref.7)
In the area of Libel and defamation:
Britney Spears fails in $10 million libel claim (case in USA), the article, published on October 17th, 2005 in the magazine's "Hot Stuff" column, claimed that Spears and her husband, fearing the repercussions of the release of a secret sex tape, went to their estate planning lawyers. Spears then allegedly gave a copy of the tape to the lawyers on September 30th, 2005. US Weekly claimed that the lawyers who watched the tape reported that Spears and her husband were "acting goofy the whole time" during the video. Spears, after requesting a redaction that was subsequently refused, filed the lawsuit, stating:"There was no laughter, disgust or goofy behavior while watching the video in the company of lawyers because they did not watch any video, and because there is no such video.” Her lawsuit was subsequently struck down by California’s anti-SLAPP statute, which US Weekly invoked to defend the publication. US Weekly’s successful use anti-SLAPP, claiming that Spears filed the lawsuit as a method of intimidation, has been the source of much criticism. (...) Indeed, with the anti-SLAPP defense in their back 3 pockets, tabloid publishers may feel empowered to publish articles whose content straddles the line of malicious.
Tabloids, a multi-million dollar industry, should not be authorized to seek recourse through California’s anti-SLAPP statute. Affording tabloids the opportunity to raise anti-SLAPP as a defense can disturb the relational agreements between celebrities and tabloids, whose function can serve to stifle litigation at the onset of disputes through an unspoken understanding of each party’s interests. Furthermore, a defamation claim against such prosperous corporate defendants, who publish stories based on public curiosity rather than political debate, does not have a “chilling” affect on their First Amendment rights within the meaning of the statute.
Finally, by effectively freezing the discovery process, celebrities may be unable to prove the element of malice. By outlining the origin and intended scope of California’s anti-SLAPP statute, these declarations become apparent.” (Ref.8)
Sheridan v News International
“Thomas Sheridan v News Group Newspapers Ltd. is a civil court case brought by Tommy Sheridan against the publishers of the News of the World, which began in the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Scotland, on 4 July 2006. He alleged that the News of the World defamed his character through a series of articles in their publication.” (Ref.9)
“The jury heard allegations that Sheridan had visited "swingers'" clubs in Sheffield and Manchester and had engaged in an adulterous affair with another woman. Sheridan, who claims to be teetotal was also alleged to have drunk champagne during an extramarital liaison. Sheridan denied these allegations.” (Ref.9)
On 28 July, the News of the World editor, in evidence, confessed that the newspaper had changed parts of their story. This followed earlier evidence where the newspaper's journalist Anvar Khan admitted that parts of her story had been sensationalised to help sell her book. She altered her story admitting that the alcohol, drugs and spanking had been added.
National Union of Journalists Scottish Organiser Paul Holleran admitted advising both Anvar Khan and Tommy Sheridan, both of whom were NUJ members on opposing sides during the case, though only Khan was primarily a journalist. Under questioning, Holleran admitted to having passed on details of confidential discussions with Ms Khan - also an NUJ member - to Sheridan to assist Sheridan's case against the News of the World. The verdict was, that Tommy Sheridan had been defamed. The News of the World was ordered to pay damages of £200,000. However, this was not paid to Sheridan as the News of the World's editor Bob Bird immediately announced the newspaper intended to appeal the verdict on the basis it implied "eighteen independent witnesses came to this court and committed monstrous acts of perjury". (Ref.9) On August 2006 article “Tommy Sheridan has won his defamation case against the News of the World” was published on the BBC website. (...) Speaking outside the Court of Session after the verdict was delivered on Friday, the Glasgow MSP delivered an emotional and political speech. He said: "We have over the last five weeks taken on one of the biggest organisations on the planet with the biggest amount of resources to pay for the most expensive legal teams to throw nothing but muck against me, my wife and my family. "Today's verdict proves working class people can differentiate the truth from the muck. “ ‘ (Ref.10)
McKenna case - cross examination (good detail about the type of arguments used in these cases) BBC published an article, ‘A Daily Mirror newspaper article claimed hypnotist Paul McKenna was a fraud had made him a "laughing stock"’, that was what was heard by the High Court was told. The 42-year-old TV hypnotist disputes an October 2003 article, which mentioned his "bogus degree" from Lasalle University, Louisiana. McKenna's self-help business now has an annual turnover of £2.5 million. (...) McKenna was cross-examined on Wednesday by John Kelsey-Fry QC for the newspaper, which denies libel and pleads justification. (...).’ (Ref.11)
Eventually, has been cleared by the High Court of turning a man who took part in his live stage performance into an "aggressive schizophrenic". The High Court in London ruled that Christopher Gates, who sued Mr McKenna for £200,000 in damages, had not proved that he was affected by the experience of acting as a volunteer from the audience.(...) ” (Ref.12)
McKenna has also won damages from Mirror over claims of faked degree. Hypnotist Paul McKenna has won his High Court libel action over a newspaper claim that he bought a fake degree. ‘This time he “disputed a Daily Mirror article in October 2003 which said he had a "bogus degree" from La Salle University, Louisiana. McKenna, who also runs a self-help business, claimed he was "pilloried" by journalist Victor Lewis-Smith on around 10 occasions from 1997.’ (Ref.13)
As a result, McKenna ‘was awarded his costs in the action and the judge ordered the newspaper to pay interim costs of £75,000. (...) "Whether it is appropriate to characterise it as scholarship worthy of academic recognition is another matter. No doubt many would think not. "But one thing which is entirely clear to me is that Mr McKenna to this day does not believe it was bogus or that he misled anyone in allowing himself to be referred to as a PhD."’ (Ref.13)
Ashley Cole wins libel (jigsaw type identification) in 'gay orgy' case
News of World. Pink news published an article: The Sun apologises for Ashley Cole “gay orgy” stories. (Ref.14) “A second newspaper has apologised regarding reports wrongly claiming England and Arsenal defender Ashley Cole and Choice FM’s DJ Mastertepz were involved in a gay orgy. The Sun echoed its sister paper, The News of the World, with a retraction today after publishing a series of articles between the 12th and 19th of February 2006 accompanied with pixelated photographs of Mr Cole and the radio DJ Masterstepz (Ian Thompson) although neither party was named.
The Sun also ran a picture of Cole and his fiancée, Girls Aloud singer Cheryl Tweedy, with the headline, “Ashley’s got a good taste in rings,” alluding to alleged sex acts using vibrating mobile phones. (...) “ (Ref.14) As it is given further in the same article,’“There is no truth whatever in these allegations. Ashley Cole will not tolerate this kind of cowardly journalism or let it go unchallenged.” (Ref.14)
The apology: “We are happy to make clear that Mr Cole and Masterstepz were not involved in any such activities.“We apologise to them for any distress caused and we will be paying them each a sum by way of damages.”’ (Ref.14) “It follows an apology from the Daily Star last March, in a case which showed how the internet can be used for jigsaw identification and provided a landmark example of the use of libel laws when an individual is unnamed.” (Ref.14)
Galloway wins Saddam libel case - Daily Telegraph's Reynold's type defence fails
MP George Galloway has won £150,000 in libel damages from the Daily Telegraph over claims he received money from Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.
“The Glasgow Kelvin MP had denied ever seeking or receiving money from Saddam Hussein's government, which he said he had long opposed. The newspaper said it was in the public interest to publish the claims, based on documents found in Baghdad. A Telegraph spokesman said the judgment was "a blow to the principle of freedom of expression in this country". The newspaper was refused permission to appeal although it can apply to the Court of Appeal direct to take the case further. Following publication in April 2003, an investigation was begun by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
He added: "When we published the documents we did so believing that their contents were important, should be made public and would in due course be investigated by the proper authorities." (Ref.14)
The judge said that although Mr Galloway was interviewed by telephone on 21 April, he was not given an opportunity to read the Iraqi documents beforehand, and neither were they read to him. The reporter who contacted him, Andrew Sparrow, only summarised the claims relating to funding of the Mariam Appeal, but did not tell him the newspaper was planning to publish claims about personal enrichment, the judge said. "[Mr Galloway] did not therefore have a fair or reasonable opportunity to make inquiries or meaningful comment upon them before they were published." ‘ Ref.14
And finally - Freedom of expression/ criminal libel:
Roman Polanski vs Vanity Fair magazine
The Oscar-winning film director Roman Polanski has won £50,000 in libel damages after successfully suing Vanity Fair magazine over an allegation he said made him appear "callously indifferent" to the memory of his murdered wife Sharon Tate.
A high court jury today found in favour of the director of Rosemary's Baby, Tess and The Pianist, who sued over an article in the glossy magazine alleging he tried to seduce a Scandinavian model on his way to Tate's funeral by claiming he could make her "another Sharon Tate". (Ref.15)
The article claimed Polanski had tried to seduce a "Swedish beauty" in the fashionable New York restaurant bar Elaine's, delivering a "honeyed spiel" as he slid his hand between her thighs and promised to turn her into "another Sharon Tate". (Ref.15)
Giving evidence by videolink from Paris at the start of the four-day libel trial, Polanski said the Vanity Fair allegation was an "abominable lie" that made him appear "callously indifferent" to his wife's memory.
Polanski won permission from the House of Lords to testify from France because he feared he that if he set foot in Britain he would be arrested and extradited to the US, where he has been wanted since 1977 for having sex with an underage girl. (...) becoming the first claimant in a libel trial to give evidence by videolink. Costs in the case are estimated at around £1.5m and today the judge made an interim costs award of £175,000 to Polanski.(Ref.15)
References:
Ref.1) McNae’s essential law for journalists (Twentieth Edition) Banks, D. Hanna, M. (2009)
Ref.2) Notes from the Media Law section on Winchester Journalism site for third year ba students (updates, year 3, BA Journalism 2010) week 9 http://journalism.winchester.ac.uk/?page=102 & and with the assistance of the Periodical Publishers' Association's public domain website. The Media Law database at Guardian Unlimited
Ref.3) Media Law Lecture ba Journalism, year 3, week 10 & 11
Ref.4) http://www.asklawyers.info/media-law--privacy--elton-john--failed-injunction-296911.html
Ref.5) http://www.gambling911.com/Beckham-Nanny-Abbie-Gibson.html
Ref.6) http://www.pcc.org.uk/assets/218/PCC_subterfuge_report.pdf
Ref.7) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5126024.stm
Ref.8) http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=amanda_searle
Ref.9) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheridan_v_News_International
Ref.10) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/5246378.stm
Ref.11) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5175958.stm
Ref.12) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/150850.stm
Ref.13) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5223454.stm
Ref.14) http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-1812.html/
Ref.15 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4061165.stm
As McNae’s gives, the Coroners & Justice Bill 2009, for example (May 2009), the decision has been made that Home secretary can now decide that an inquest can be held without jury, with the reason being to try to stop ‘national security’ matters becoming public. “The Bill had proposed that such non-jury inquest would be presided over by a High Court Justice, not by a coroner, with wide discretion to exclude public reporters." (Ref.1) Critics didn’t like the idea but the Government insisted that “sensitive material” (Ref.1) should be protected from “being made public in inquests” (Ref.1).
Secondly, in February 2009 in High Court Justice decided that a man convicted of three notorious murders some decades ago should not be identified in media reports.
Thirdly, in April 2009 Jack Straw laid statutory instruments before Parliament to amend procedural rules governing family cases in the High Court. County Courts and Magistrate Courts. Reporters can gain admission to family cases in courts, but there is still a power to exclude them (journalists will need an identity card accredited in the UK Press card Scheme). (Ref.1)
Further on, significant change happened on the grounds of Public Order Act from 1986. The House of Lords the Criminal Justice & Immigration Act 2008 amended the 1986 Act to “create the offence of stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation.” (Ref.1)
More developments saw Section 46 order prevented, Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 “Barrister who was a witness should have anonymity in reports of an assault case (David Graham, head of Lancashire based freelance agency Watsons, barrister was assaulted by a client).
Breach of Section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (Confidentiality of jury deliberations), by The Times newspaper (fined £15,000) for reporting in 2007 that a man who was questioning the majority ‘guilty’ verdict, which he had opposed. The man had approached the paper himself. The times quoted him on how jurors took an early vote, as well as on the role played by complicated, medical evidence. He said the disclosures ‘offended against the secrecy of the jury room.’ (The Times, 13&23 May 2009). (Ref.1)
Also from Justice Ministry – libel & internet, what is very important for journalists to remember is that each download of an article accounts for a fresh publication and each publication can give rise to a separate action which should warn all the journalists that also online archives containing defamatory articles leave publishers open to a libel action for much longer if that material is downloaded. (Ref.1) (e.g. Internet Libel Yachting News - publisher not liable for chatroom content)
On the subject of privacy, Home Office have some guidance to aid photography in public places to help to ensure that people are not unnecessary stopped from taking photographs in public places, from recent cases on Privacy, Lilly Allen, singer and the celebrity, to secure a High Court injunction to prevent harassment by photographs or famous and very significant case on Max Mosley libel action against The News of The World, which also represents breach of Privacy. (Ref.1) Also Press Complaints Commission warned that “media reproduction of pictures found on social networking sites-such as facebook could breach the Editor’s Code of Practice, used by the PPC to adjudicate on ethics as well as possible copyright issue and privacy concerning the photographs.
On the subject of Confidentiality/privacy (see also PCC complaints re: privacy) recent cases are for example:
Elton John fails in privacy case against Daily MailEffect is to weaken Caroline ruling and strengthen ability of press to take photos of celebs in public without permission/payment. “A bid by Sir Elton John to prevent the Daily Mail publishing a photograph of him walking with his driver from his car to his London home was rejected by the High Court. If Sir Elton had been successful in obtaining this injunction, it would have completely revolutionised British newspaper and magazine practice. (Ref.1)
Sir Elton had his picture taken by a freelance photographer whilst walking from his Rolls Royce to the front gate of his West London home. He then heard that the Daily Mail was planning to publish the picture, and he applied for an injunction to prevent publication on the ground that it was an unwarranted infringement of his privacy. The picture merely showed him casually dressed, but he complained that it showed his baldness was returning. (Ref.1)
In his application, Sir Elton argued that the photo in question, which was surreptitiously acquired, was taken without consent, made no contribution to any matter of public interest, and its publication would be a breach of the Press Complaints Commission code. He supported his bid with the decision in the European Court of Human Rights case of Von Hannover v Germany [2004] ECHR, which involved Princess Caroline of Monaco. It was held in this case that her right to a private family life had been violated by sustained paparazzi photography of her and her children.” (Ref.4)
Beckham Nanny/ 'gagging clause' in contract/ confidentiality
“David and Victoria Beckham HAVE failed in a sensational legal attempt to gag the News of the World from publishing accounts of their marriage by former nanny Abbie Gibson.
The Beckhams launched a court bid to prevent the newspaper from publishing revelations from Ms. Abbie Gibson, 27. Lawyers of the showbiz couple applied for an emergency injunction from High Court judge Mr Justice Langley on the grounds of confidentiality. They argued that Abbie had signed a contract guaranteeing that she would not speak out about their lives. But lawyers acting for Abbie Gibson and the News of the World convinced the judge that out story was manifestly in the public interest. The court decided the News of the World IS entitled to publish Abbie's account about the real state of the Beckhams' marriage and David's affairs. The News of the World, represented by Richard Spearman QC, was given the green light to publish.” (Ref.5)
Other cases like: Section 10 HRA gives no protection to censorship effect of huge Naomi Campbell legal costs (10/05) Naomi Campbell drugs case/ conditional fee agreement/ costs; Caroline ruling strengthened by gay parade case, Hello! wins back £1million damages/ latest in Zeta-Jones saga; Zeta-Jones case - full set of reports from the Guardian' . Naomi Campbell: Law Lords find in her favour : Naomi Campbell case - full coverage from The Guardian
Princess Caroline of Monaco - significant in area of Confidentiality that I write about in my other blog post titled: Max Mosley, Catherine Zeta Jones and other cases - celebrities and privacy – see more here http://veronicafryd.blogspot.com/2010/11/max-mosley-catherine-zeta-jones-and.html (Ref.3)
Following cases on Privacy PCC released a report ON SUBTERFUGE AND NEWSGATHERING (Phone taps 'completely unacceptable' - PCC (08/06)) The Press Complaints Commission has conducted an investigation into the use of subterfuge by the British newspaper and magazine industry, with particular reference to phone message tapping and compliance with the Editors’ Code of Practice and the Data Protection Act” (ref.6) following the convictions in January 2007 of News of the World.
Journalist Clive Goodman and inquiry agent Glenn Mulcaire case on offences under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) and Criminal Law Act (1977). They had speculatively tapped into private mobile phone messages and used the information they discovered for stories in the News of the World.” (Ref.6) This type of snooping has no place in journalism, and the Chairman of the Commission has publicly deplored it on a number of occasions. The Commission as a whole condemns such behaviour. (Ref.6). Despite the police inquiry, court case and convictions, the Commission considered that there were a number of outstanding questions that arose under the Code of Practice, which sets out the required professional standards for UK journalists and, as such, supplements the law (...) .(Ref.6)
“On January 26 2007, Mulcaire and Goodman were sentenced to 6 and 4 months in prison. Mr Coulson resigned his post, saying that he had “decided that the time has come for me to take ultimate responsibility for the events around the Clive Goodman case”. Mr Colin Myler was appointed editor in his place.” (Ref.6)
“Despite Mr Myler’s appointment, the question arose whether the PCC should ask Mr Coulson to give an account of what had gone wrong. The PCC decided not to do so. Given that the PCC does not - and should not - have statutory powers of investigation and prosecution, there could be no question of trying to duplicate the lengthy police investigation. Furthermore, Mr Coulson was, following his resignation, no longer answerable to the PCC, whose jurisdiction covers journalists working for publications that subscribe to the self-regulatory system through the Press Standards Board of Finance.” (...) This report is therefore concerned with two main subjects: events at the News of the World in relation to Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire, how the situation developed and how repetition will be avoided; and what the industry as a whole is doing to ensure that lessons have been learned from this incident so that British journalism is not brought into similar disrepute in the future. “ (Ref.6)
New rule on reporting suicide, Journalists are to be issued with new rules governing reporting of suicides, in an attempt to prevent "copycat" deaths prompted by publicity, the article was published on 29 June 2006 (Ref.7)
The Press Complaints Commission has changed its code of practice to warn against printing "excessive" detail about the method used for a suicide. The commission's regulations already demanded cases were reported with sympathy and discretion. The latest move came after consultation with the charity Samaritans. “(Ref.7) In that article, ‘Mr Hinton said excessive detail would be avoided "unless it is in the wider public interest to give the information". (...) Mr King said sensationalised reporting could be "genuinely harmful". ‘(Ref.7)
In the area of Libel and defamation:
Britney Spears fails in $10 million libel claim (case in USA), the article, published on October 17th, 2005 in the magazine's "Hot Stuff" column, claimed that Spears and her husband, fearing the repercussions of the release of a secret sex tape, went to their estate planning lawyers. Spears then allegedly gave a copy of the tape to the lawyers on September 30th, 2005. US Weekly claimed that the lawyers who watched the tape reported that Spears and her husband were "acting goofy the whole time" during the video. Spears, after requesting a redaction that was subsequently refused, filed the lawsuit, stating:"There was no laughter, disgust or goofy behavior while watching the video in the company of lawyers because they did not watch any video, and because there is no such video.” Her lawsuit was subsequently struck down by California’s anti-SLAPP statute, which US Weekly invoked to defend the publication. US Weekly’s successful use anti-SLAPP, claiming that Spears filed the lawsuit as a method of intimidation, has been the source of much criticism. (...) Indeed, with the anti-SLAPP defense in their back 3 pockets, tabloid publishers may feel empowered to publish articles whose content straddles the line of malicious.
Tabloids, a multi-million dollar industry, should not be authorized to seek recourse through California’s anti-SLAPP statute. Affording tabloids the opportunity to raise anti-SLAPP as a defense can disturb the relational agreements between celebrities and tabloids, whose function can serve to stifle litigation at the onset of disputes through an unspoken understanding of each party’s interests. Furthermore, a defamation claim against such prosperous corporate defendants, who publish stories based on public curiosity rather than political debate, does not have a “chilling” affect on their First Amendment rights within the meaning of the statute.
Finally, by effectively freezing the discovery process, celebrities may be unable to prove the element of malice. By outlining the origin and intended scope of California’s anti-SLAPP statute, these declarations become apparent.” (Ref.8)
Sheridan v News International
“Thomas Sheridan v News Group Newspapers Ltd. is a civil court case brought by Tommy Sheridan against the publishers of the News of the World, which began in the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Scotland, on 4 July 2006. He alleged that the News of the World defamed his character through a series of articles in their publication.” (Ref.9)
“The jury heard allegations that Sheridan had visited "swingers'" clubs in Sheffield and Manchester and had engaged in an adulterous affair with another woman. Sheridan, who claims to be teetotal was also alleged to have drunk champagne during an extramarital liaison. Sheridan denied these allegations.” (Ref.9)
On 28 July, the News of the World editor, in evidence, confessed that the newspaper had changed parts of their story. This followed earlier evidence where the newspaper's journalist Anvar Khan admitted that parts of her story had been sensationalised to help sell her book. She altered her story admitting that the alcohol, drugs and spanking had been added.
National Union of Journalists Scottish Organiser Paul Holleran admitted advising both Anvar Khan and Tommy Sheridan, both of whom were NUJ members on opposing sides during the case, though only Khan was primarily a journalist. Under questioning, Holleran admitted to having passed on details of confidential discussions with Ms Khan - also an NUJ member - to Sheridan to assist Sheridan's case against the News of the World. The verdict was, that Tommy Sheridan had been defamed. The News of the World was ordered to pay damages of £200,000. However, this was not paid to Sheridan as the News of the World's editor Bob Bird immediately announced the newspaper intended to appeal the verdict on the basis it implied "eighteen independent witnesses came to this court and committed monstrous acts of perjury". (Ref.9) On August 2006 article “Tommy Sheridan has won his defamation case against the News of the World” was published on the BBC website. (...) Speaking outside the Court of Session after the verdict was delivered on Friday, the Glasgow MSP delivered an emotional and political speech. He said: "We have over the last five weeks taken on one of the biggest organisations on the planet with the biggest amount of resources to pay for the most expensive legal teams to throw nothing but muck against me, my wife and my family. "Today's verdict proves working class people can differentiate the truth from the muck. “ ‘ (Ref.10)
McKenna case - cross examination (good detail about the type of arguments used in these cases) BBC published an article, ‘A Daily Mirror newspaper article claimed hypnotist Paul McKenna was a fraud had made him a "laughing stock"’, that was what was heard by the High Court was told. The 42-year-old TV hypnotist disputes an October 2003 article, which mentioned his "bogus degree" from Lasalle University, Louisiana. McKenna's self-help business now has an annual turnover of £2.5 million. (...) McKenna was cross-examined on Wednesday by John Kelsey-Fry QC for the newspaper, which denies libel and pleads justification. (...).’ (Ref.11)
Eventually, has been cleared by the High Court of turning a man who took part in his live stage performance into an "aggressive schizophrenic". The High Court in London ruled that Christopher Gates, who sued Mr McKenna for £200,000 in damages, had not proved that he was affected by the experience of acting as a volunteer from the audience.(...) ” (Ref.12)
McKenna has also won damages from Mirror over claims of faked degree. Hypnotist Paul McKenna has won his High Court libel action over a newspaper claim that he bought a fake degree. ‘This time he “disputed a Daily Mirror article in October 2003 which said he had a "bogus degree" from La Salle University, Louisiana. McKenna, who also runs a self-help business, claimed he was "pilloried" by journalist Victor Lewis-Smith on around 10 occasions from 1997.’ (Ref.13)
As a result, McKenna ‘was awarded his costs in the action and the judge ordered the newspaper to pay interim costs of £75,000. (...) "Whether it is appropriate to characterise it as scholarship worthy of academic recognition is another matter. No doubt many would think not. "But one thing which is entirely clear to me is that Mr McKenna to this day does not believe it was bogus or that he misled anyone in allowing himself to be referred to as a PhD."’ (Ref.13)
Ashley Cole wins libel (jigsaw type identification) in 'gay orgy' case
News of World. Pink news published an article: The Sun apologises for Ashley Cole “gay orgy” stories. (Ref.14) “A second newspaper has apologised regarding reports wrongly claiming England and Arsenal defender Ashley Cole and Choice FM’s DJ Mastertepz were involved in a gay orgy. The Sun echoed its sister paper, The News of the World, with a retraction today after publishing a series of articles between the 12th and 19th of February 2006 accompanied with pixelated photographs of Mr Cole and the radio DJ Masterstepz (Ian Thompson) although neither party was named.
The Sun also ran a picture of Cole and his fiancée, Girls Aloud singer Cheryl Tweedy, with the headline, “Ashley’s got a good taste in rings,” alluding to alleged sex acts using vibrating mobile phones. (...) “ (Ref.14) As it is given further in the same article,’“There is no truth whatever in these allegations. Ashley Cole will not tolerate this kind of cowardly journalism or let it go unchallenged.” (Ref.14)
The apology: “We are happy to make clear that Mr Cole and Masterstepz were not involved in any such activities.“We apologise to them for any distress caused and we will be paying them each a sum by way of damages.”’ (Ref.14) “It follows an apology from the Daily Star last March, in a case which showed how the internet can be used for jigsaw identification and provided a landmark example of the use of libel laws when an individual is unnamed.” (Ref.14)
Galloway wins Saddam libel case - Daily Telegraph's Reynold's type defence fails
MP George Galloway has won £150,000 in libel damages from the Daily Telegraph over claims he received money from Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.
“The Glasgow Kelvin MP had denied ever seeking or receiving money from Saddam Hussein's government, which he said he had long opposed. The newspaper said it was in the public interest to publish the claims, based on documents found in Baghdad. A Telegraph spokesman said the judgment was "a blow to the principle of freedom of expression in this country". The newspaper was refused permission to appeal although it can apply to the Court of Appeal direct to take the case further. Following publication in April 2003, an investigation was begun by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
He added: "When we published the documents we did so believing that their contents were important, should be made public and would in due course be investigated by the proper authorities." (Ref.14)
The judge said that although Mr Galloway was interviewed by telephone on 21 April, he was not given an opportunity to read the Iraqi documents beforehand, and neither were they read to him. The reporter who contacted him, Andrew Sparrow, only summarised the claims relating to funding of the Mariam Appeal, but did not tell him the newspaper was planning to publish claims about personal enrichment, the judge said. "[Mr Galloway] did not therefore have a fair or reasonable opportunity to make inquiries or meaningful comment upon them before they were published." ‘ Ref.14
And finally - Freedom of expression/ criminal libel:
Roman Polanski vs Vanity Fair magazine
The Oscar-winning film director Roman Polanski has won £50,000 in libel damages after successfully suing Vanity Fair magazine over an allegation he said made him appear "callously indifferent" to the memory of his murdered wife Sharon Tate.
A high court jury today found in favour of the director of Rosemary's Baby, Tess and The Pianist, who sued over an article in the glossy magazine alleging he tried to seduce a Scandinavian model on his way to Tate's funeral by claiming he could make her "another Sharon Tate". (Ref.15)
The article claimed Polanski had tried to seduce a "Swedish beauty" in the fashionable New York restaurant bar Elaine's, delivering a "honeyed spiel" as he slid his hand between her thighs and promised to turn her into "another Sharon Tate". (Ref.15)
Giving evidence by videolink from Paris at the start of the four-day libel trial, Polanski said the Vanity Fair allegation was an "abominable lie" that made him appear "callously indifferent" to his wife's memory.
Polanski won permission from the House of Lords to testify from France because he feared he that if he set foot in Britain he would be arrested and extradited to the US, where he has been wanted since 1977 for having sex with an underage girl. (...) becoming the first claimant in a libel trial to give evidence by videolink. Costs in the case are estimated at around £1.5m and today the judge made an interim costs award of £175,000 to Polanski.(Ref.15)
References:
Ref.1) McNae’s essential law for journalists (Twentieth Edition) Banks, D. Hanna, M. (2009)
Ref.2) Notes from the Media Law section on Winchester Journalism site for third year ba students (updates, year 3, BA Journalism 2010) week 9 http://journalism.winchester.ac.uk/?page=102 & and with the assistance of the Periodical Publishers' Association's public domain website. The Media Law database at Guardian Unlimited
Ref.3) Media Law Lecture ba Journalism, year 3, week 10 & 11
Ref.4) http://www.asklawyers.info/media-law--privacy--elton-john--failed-injunction-296911.html
Ref.5) http://www.gambling911.com/Beckham-Nanny-Abbie-Gibson.html
Ref.6) http://www.pcc.org.uk/assets/218/PCC_subterfuge_report.pdf
Ref.7) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5126024.stm
Ref.8) http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=amanda_searle
Ref.9) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheridan_v_News_International
Ref.10) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/5246378.stm
Ref.11) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5175958.stm
Ref.12) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/150850.stm
Ref.13) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5223454.stm
Ref.14) http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-1812.html/
Ref.15 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4061165.stm
Sunday 12 December 2010
Codes of Practice for Journalists and my role as Features Editor at WINOL, week 9
When talking about codes of practice the main two points are to be considered, to stay ethical and professional. The key areas focused on within the journalistic codes of practice are: - ethical behaviour
- fair treatment – respect for privacy
- they are a requirement for accuracy and impartiality
- protecting vulnerable groups (children)
Also something important to be aware of as a journalist is that sanction and weight for regulating broadcasting are heavier than print.
Media Ethics
There are three main codes:
1. Press Complaints Commission (PCC) – covering Newspapers and magazines.
PCC is a self regulated body- they make the laws and reinforce them. The Press Complaints Commission is charged with enforcing the following Code of Practice which was framed by the newspaper and periodical industry and was ratified by the PCC in September 2009.
National Union of Journalists (NUJ) is one of the self regulating bodies and sets the ethical and professional Code of conduct. “The NUJ's Code of Conduct has set out the main principles of British and Irish journalism since 1936. It is part of the rules and all journalists joining the union must sign that they will strive to adhere to it. “
According to the NUJ's Code of Conduct members of the National Union of Journalists are expected to abide by the following professional principles: "a journalist:
1. At all times upholds and defends the principle of media freedom, the right of freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed
2. Strives to ensure that information disseminated is honestly conveyed, accurate and fair
3. Does her/his utmost to correct harmful inaccuracies
4. Differentiates between fact and opinion
5. Obtains material by honest, straightforward and open means, with the exception of investigations that are both overwhelmingly in the public interest and which involve evidence that cannot be obtained by straightforward means
6. Does nothing to intrude into anybody’s private life, grief or distress unless justified by overriding consideration of the public interest
7. Protects the identity of sources who supply information in confidence and material gathered in the course of her/his work
8. Resists threats or any other inducements to influence, distort or suppress information
9. Takes no unfair personal advantage of information gained in the course of her/his duties before the information is public knowledge
10. Produces no material likely to lead to hatred or discrimination on the grounds of a person’s age, gender, race, colour, creed, legal status, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation
11. Does not by way of statement, voice or appearance endorse by advertisement any commercial product or service save for the promotion of her/his own work or of the medium by which she/he is employed
12. Avoids plagiarism.
The NUJ believes a journalist has the right to refuse an assignment or be identified as the author of editorial that would break the letter or spirit of the code. The NUJ will fully support any journalist disciplined for asserting her/his right to act according to the code.” (Ref.10)
Apart from the NUJ Code of Practice there is also another code that also explores above aspects of journalistic profession but this one has been created to be directed at a specific role the Editors' Code of Practice. Apart from other codes this one was specifically in the area of my interest over that last few months as I have been put into a role of Feature Editor for our online magazine Winchester News Online (WINOL).
“This section also includes an Introduction to the Code, which explains the function of the Code and who is responsible for its development; and a history of the Code, which provides a comprehensive summary of all changes made to the Code since 1991.
The Press Complaints Commission is charged with enforcing the following Code of Practice which was framed by the newspaper and periodical industry and was ratified by the PCC in September 2009.
According to THE editors' CODE “all members of the press have a duty to maintain the highest professional standards. The Code, which includes this preamble and the public interest exceptions below, sets the benchmark for those ethical standards, protecting both the rights of the individual and the public's right to know. It is the cornerstone of the system of self-regulation to which the industry has made a binding commitment.
It is essential that an agreed code be honoured not only to the letter but in the full spirit. It should not be interpreted so narrowly as to compromise its commitment to respect the rights of the individual, nor so broadly that it constitutes an unnecessary interference with freedom of expression or prevents publication in the public interest.
It is the responsibility of editors and publishers to apply the Code to editorial material in both printed and online versions of publications. They should take care to ensure it is observed rigorously by all editorial staff and external contributors, including non-journalists, in printed and online versions of publications.
Editors should co-operate swiftly with the PCC in the resolution of complaints. Any publication judged to have breached the Code must print the adjudication in full and with due prominence, including headline reference to the PCC.” (Ref.5)
All this tips I have explored and implied in my best efforts into my work practice while studying the role of the editor, some of the points below I have used directly to fulfil my editorial position and took responsibility to deal with any of the problems that might have arose during our WINOL experience (Feature). I will give examples below the following points of the code.
“1 Accuracy
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published.
iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.” (Ref.5)
Here I found it quite challenging at first as comment articles or debates that we organised proved problematic in many aspects. We have our own comment/reader response editor that works within the team of feature section but it still had to be fully supervised by me as a main editor. Comment articles started off pretty badly, and being so inexperienced we had to learn the hard way what actually the comment feature format is. Sometimes reading articles in the newspaper or online doesn’t give away techniques and principles behind writing it. In the section “a newspaper says...”/”a financial expert correspondent says”, experienced and knowledgeable journalists are allowed to express their fair comment which is based on facts (it’s accurate), done without malice and within the public interest of course, it also has to be placed clearly and accurately in the Comment section and that is how the content is covered by its defences. The main thing that our comment editor had to understand was that because we are not experts on anything just yet we should not be acting/ pretending to be ones. And even though the name of the format implies so it is not for a journalist at our stage to express our personal opinion, it has to be a fair comment based on fact not our personal view. It took good few attempts for all of us to understand how to go about writing comment pieces when not being expert as of yet – the answer was to keep finding people that ‘matter and whose view/opinion’ is valuable to the public interest. Meaning get these people to write the comment pieces for us and then fit it within the format of for example “bishops view on single sex marriage”. Other way was so called ‘ghosting’ which was useful if a person was not willing to write an article for us but would rather be interviewed; the interview would be recorded and then transcribed into words. The interviewee has to give consent for such method to be used and be clearly informed of the purposes of the interview and for it to be transcribed and used as an article and published. Great practice was when Thom ghosted the bishop of Winchester; I made sure the whole process was well executed. I listened through the interview and checked accuracy of the transcribed text as well as made sure that Thom made the bishop aware of the purposes of the interview and got consent on email for the transcribed article to be published. Thom did really well with that article and executed it well. The article was published and is still within the front page of the features of WINOL.
The unsuccessful attempt to have weekly debates was a fantastic case study. At first our content of debates was not so much of a concern it was the visual aspect of it, our production team didn’t seem to be putting enough efforts in having it organised to the standard that i would have wanted it too and because they were always lacking in people filling the production roles I had to fill the gaps which resulted that there was not enough supervision over the content of the debates.
One of the debates that brought us the biggest case study was the political debate that Thom organised which seemed to have a great potential and the idea (fees and budget cuts). It was on current issues and if executed accurately it would have been great, the project was ambitious and was a great study touching my legal aspects of media law like fair dealing within the program, impartiality, need to keep fair political balance etc. I asked Thom to keep it under ten minutes and it was meant to be ‘as life’ but it went well over that time limit and despite the fact that even Chris tried to direct Thom from the studio floor it was difficult to control the length of the program. I should have been the one controlling the output content and we should have been better prepared within the aspect of the amount of questions and the potential length of the answers. And had more attention been put into giving equal air time the debate would have been broadcast able. As I already gave away a hint of what the issue was we had our first complaint from one of the participants of the debate, Michael Jardine. I write about how I dealt with that issue in blog on WINOL experience here: Solving Hot Topics debate issue & bulletin week 6
“iv) A publication must report fairly and accurately the outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been a party, unless an agreed settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement is published.” (Ref.5)
Once I accepted an idea for a feature I have to discuss all possible risks, picture or content wise that would have to be applied within the package, article, debate, studio based shows etc. As I gave an example above and from the post on dealing with the complaint you can see that I put my best efforts to deal with the complaint as quick as possible and the article with an apology to Mick is still on the features part of WINOL. I also applied the next point on ‘opportunity to reply’ ; even though our complainant did not use this opportunity it was given to him along with the apology and the debate remains unpublished for my request.
“2 Opportunity to reply
A fair opportunity for reply to inaccuracies must be given when reasonably called for.
3 *Privacy
i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital communications.
ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without consent. Account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of information.
iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals in private places without their consent.
Note - Private places are public or private property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.” (Ref.5)
This point was always the aspect that all the reporters were reminded of especially in the case of filming GVs. We didn’t have any specific issues with this one everyone seemed to remember about the need for implied or explicit consent while filming and every time I looked through the film I paid attention on the aspect of breach of confidentiality (privacy).
“4 *Harassment
i) Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.
ii) They must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on their property when asked to leave and must not follow them. If requested, they must identify themselves and whom they represent.
iii) Editors must ensure these principles are observed by those working for them and take care not to use non-compliant material from other sources.” (Ref.5)
This issue has not appeared in any stage of our work, common courtesy as well as good ethical practice when pursuing contacting people or sources has been kept within reasonable level of frequency and intensity. The reporters were reminded to identify themselves and whom they represent.
“5 Intrusion into grief or shock
i) In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively. This should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings, such as inquests.
*ii) When reporting suicide, care should be taken to avoid excessive detail about the method used.
6 *Children
i) Young people should be free to complete their time at school without unnecessary intrusion.
ii) A child under 16 must not be interviewed or photographed on issues involving their own or another child’s welfare unless a custodial parent or similarly responsible adult consents.
iii) Pupils must not be approached or photographed at school without the permission of the school authorities.
iv) Minors must not be paid for material involving children’s welfare, nor parents or guardians for material about their children or wards, unless it is clearly in the child's interest.
v) Editors must not use the fame, notoriety or position of a parent or guardian as sole justification for publishing details of a child’s private life.
7 *Children in sex cases
1. The press must not, even if legally free to do so, identify children under 16 who are victims or witnesses in cases involving sex offences.
2. In any press report of a case involving a sexual offence against a child -
i) The child must not be identified.
ii) The adult may be identified.
iii) The word "incest" must not be used where a child victim might be identified.
iv) Care must be taken that nothing in the report implies the relationship between the accused and the child.” (Ref.5)
Underage participants were kept out of our films, and my VJs did not have to deal with any issues of the points 5, 6 or 7. The only situation that arose for point 6 to be applied was when I went to cover the student protests in London on 10/11/10 and few of my interviewees looked like under the age of 16 but I made sure I asked all my interviewees about their age and have their implied consent by agreeing to be interviewed and informed of it to be published on WINOL.
“8 *Hospitals
i) Journalists must identify themselves and obtain permission from a responsible executive before entering non-public areas of hospitals or similar institutions to pursue enquiries.
ii) The restrictions on intruding into privacy are particularly relevant to enquiries about individuals in hospitals or similar institutions.” (Ref.5)
All the reporters always identified themselves and obtained permission from relevant people for filming or entering/participating within the event. A good example of that was when Katie and Claire organised to go to London on The wine tasting show. They were advised to get permission on filming (press passes) and inform relevant people (organisers) of their participation and purpose of it.
“9 *Reporting of Crime
(i) Relatives or friends of persons convicted or accused of crime should not generally be identified without their consent, unless they are genuinely relevant to the story.
(ii) Particular regard should be paid to the potentially vulnerable position of children who witness, or are victims of, crime. This should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings.
10 *Clandestine devices and subterfuge
i) The press must not seek to obtain or publish material acquired by using hidden cameras or clandestine listening devices; or by intercepting private or mobile telephone calls, messages or emails; or by the unauthorised removal of documents or photographs; or by accessing digitally-held private information without consent.
ii) Engaging in misrepresentation or subterfuge, including by agents or intermediaries, can generally be justified only in the public interest and then only when the material cannot be obtained by other means.
11. Victims of sexual assault
The press must not identify victims of sexual assault or publish material likely to contribute to such identification unless there is adequate justification and they are legally free to do so.
12. Discrimination
i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.
ii) Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.
13. Financial journalism
i) Even where the law does not prohibit it, journalists must not use for their own profit financial information they receive in advance of its general publication, nor should they pass such information to others.
ii) They must not write about shares or securities in whose performance they know that they or their close families have a significant financial interest without disclosing the interest to the editor or financial editor.
iii) They must not buy or sell, either directly or through nominees or agents, shares or securities about which they have written recently or about which they intend to write in the near future.
14. Confidential sources
Journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential sources of information.
15. Witness payments in criminal trials
i) No payment or offer of payment to a witness - or any person who may reasonably be expected to be called as a witness - should be made in any case once proceedings are active as defined by the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
This prohibition lasts until the suspect has been freed unconditionally by police without charge or bail or the proceedings are otherwise discontinued; or has entered a guilty plea to the court; or, in the event of a not guilty plea, the court has announced its verdict.
*ii) Where proceedings are not yet active but are likely and foreseeable, editors must not make or offer payment to any person who may reasonably be expected to be called as a witness, unless the information concerned ought demonstrably to be published in the public interest and there is an over-riding need to make or promise payment for this to be done; and all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure no financial dealings influence the evidence those witnesses give. In no circumstances should such payment be conditional on the outcome of a trial.
*iii) Any payment or offer of payment made to a person later cited to give evidence in proceedings must be disclosed to the prosecution and defence. The witness must be advised of this requirement.
16. *Payment to criminals
i) Payment or offers of payment for stories, pictures or information, which seek to exploit a particular crime or to glorify or glamorise crime in general, must not be made directly or via agents to convicted or confessed criminals or to their associates – who may include family, friends and colleagues.
ii) Editors invoking the public interest to justify payment or offers would need to demonstrate that there was good reason to believe the public interest would be served. If, despite payment, no public interest emerged, then the material should not be published.” (Ref.5)
None of the above 9-16 points were of our issue but I stayed aware of their importance and need to be supervised and checked.
“The public interest
There may be exceptions to the clauses marked * where they can be demonstrated to be in the public interest.
1. The public interest includes, but is not confined to:
i) Detecting or exposing crime or serious impropriety.
ii) Protecting public health and safety.
iii) Preventing the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or organisation.
2. There is a public interest in freedom of expression itself.
3. Whenever the public interest is invoked, the PCC will require editors to demonstrate fully that they reasonably believed that publication, or journalistic activity undertaken with a view to publication, would be in the public interest.
4. The PCC will consider the extent to which material is already in the public domain, or will become so.
5. In cases involving children under 16, editors must demonstrate an exceptional public interest to over-ride the normally paramount interest of the child.” (Ref.5)
The public interest has always stayed at the back of the intentions and when thinking of our audience we also kept in mind the potential need of them to see or read the content of our choice. When covering the London protests I stayed fully in the position of the observer and have not got involved in any chanting or demonstrating my personal point of view. When filming and them editing we focused on showing events of that day “ What happened in London on 10/11/10” and showed the extracts consecutively that we were observant of throughout the day. We didn’t focus only on the trouble at the Millbank nor did we show only peaceful marches from earlier on that day. It was a Gonzo style short documentary with intention to share with the public of what happened that day. It was an excellent practice and gave us also an opportunity to imply the skills of working in a hostile environmen which was an excellent experience.
Student protests in London Demo and Rob Kirk from Sky visits WINOL (week 7) here
Student protests documentary reaches over 7,000 hits on youtube! (Using the LiveStreem) (Week 8) here
2. OfCom – broadcasting statutory body regulating broadcasting
It stands for a little bit of ‘a different beast’ as our tutor said, as it has statutory powers (cases: Blue Peter BBC – comic relie).
- Corrections or findings must be broadcast
- It can impose fines- are counted in terms of % of the revenue.
- It can revoke broadcast licence
PRACTICAL JOURNALISM: OFCOM CODE
Meaning of “due impartiality” is not favouring one side or another, Evan Davies on BBC college of journalism website says that it’s all about context – it will vary according to circumstances.
Impartiality
- required for broadcasters
- not for newspapers – hence Sun or Mail
- absence of bias or preconception
- considers ‘axis of debate’
- mediating within the conflict
3. BBC - (staff and licence payers) for BBC
New BBC editorial Guidelines, BBC (BBC complaints)
- violence in news
- secret recording
- electoral law
- reporting of war/terror – no need to be sensationalist
- examples – look up in papers/online
- BBC fines
- Itv fines
They are important because breaching any of the above brings severe consequences; they are guides through ethical issues stating not only how far can we go to get a story but also when do circumstances become morally or ethically uncertain.
Should bloggers follow a professional code of ethics?
References:
Ref.1) McNae’s essential law for journalists (Twentieth Edition) Banks, D. Hanna, M. (2009)
Ref.2) Notes from the Media Law section on Winchester Journalism site for third year ba students (updates, year 3, BA Journalism 2010) week 9 http://journalism.winchester.ac.uk/?page=102
Ref.3) Media Law Lecture ba Journalism, year 3, week 9
Ref.4) The NUJ's Code of Conduct http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqGwAMI5TqU&feature=related
Ref.5) Editor’s Code of Practice: http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html
Ref.6) PRACTICAL JOURNALISM: OFCOM CODE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF6xyoSa49g&feature=related
Ref.7) Should bloggers follow a professional code of ethics? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3QEgox2cCE&feature=related
Ref.8) Ethical Journalism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzB0zwiyFzM&feature=related
Ref.9) WINOL experience of being a Features Editor as well as produce my own films/features (September-December 2010)
Ref.10) NUJ Code of Practice http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=174
- fair treatment – respect for privacy
- they are a requirement for accuracy and impartiality
- protecting vulnerable groups (children)
Also something important to be aware of as a journalist is that sanction and weight for regulating broadcasting are heavier than print.
Media Ethics
There are three main codes:
1. Press Complaints Commission (PCC) – covering Newspapers and magazines.
PCC is a self regulated body- they make the laws and reinforce them. The Press Complaints Commission is charged with enforcing the following Code of Practice which was framed by the newspaper and periodical industry and was ratified by the PCC in September 2009.
National Union of Journalists (NUJ) is one of the self regulating bodies and sets the ethical and professional Code of conduct. “The NUJ's Code of Conduct has set out the main principles of British and Irish journalism since 1936. It is part of the rules and all journalists joining the union must sign that they will strive to adhere to it. “
According to the NUJ's Code of Conduct members of the National Union of Journalists are expected to abide by the following professional principles: "a journalist:
1. At all times upholds and defends the principle of media freedom, the right of freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed
2. Strives to ensure that information disseminated is honestly conveyed, accurate and fair
3. Does her/his utmost to correct harmful inaccuracies
4. Differentiates between fact and opinion
5. Obtains material by honest, straightforward and open means, with the exception of investigations that are both overwhelmingly in the public interest and which involve evidence that cannot be obtained by straightforward means
6. Does nothing to intrude into anybody’s private life, grief or distress unless justified by overriding consideration of the public interest
7. Protects the identity of sources who supply information in confidence and material gathered in the course of her/his work
8. Resists threats or any other inducements to influence, distort or suppress information
9. Takes no unfair personal advantage of information gained in the course of her/his duties before the information is public knowledge
10. Produces no material likely to lead to hatred or discrimination on the grounds of a person’s age, gender, race, colour, creed, legal status, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation
11. Does not by way of statement, voice or appearance endorse by advertisement any commercial product or service save for the promotion of her/his own work or of the medium by which she/he is employed
12. Avoids plagiarism.
The NUJ believes a journalist has the right to refuse an assignment or be identified as the author of editorial that would break the letter or spirit of the code. The NUJ will fully support any journalist disciplined for asserting her/his right to act according to the code.” (Ref.10)
Apart from the NUJ Code of Practice there is also another code that also explores above aspects of journalistic profession but this one has been created to be directed at a specific role the Editors' Code of Practice. Apart from other codes this one was specifically in the area of my interest over that last few months as I have been put into a role of Feature Editor for our online magazine Winchester News Online (WINOL).
“This section also includes an Introduction to the Code, which explains the function of the Code and who is responsible for its development; and a history of the Code, which provides a comprehensive summary of all changes made to the Code since 1991.
The Press Complaints Commission is charged with enforcing the following Code of Practice which was framed by the newspaper and periodical industry and was ratified by the PCC in September 2009.
According to THE editors' CODE “all members of the press have a duty to maintain the highest professional standards. The Code, which includes this preamble and the public interest exceptions below, sets the benchmark for those ethical standards, protecting both the rights of the individual and the public's right to know. It is the cornerstone of the system of self-regulation to which the industry has made a binding commitment.
It is essential that an agreed code be honoured not only to the letter but in the full spirit. It should not be interpreted so narrowly as to compromise its commitment to respect the rights of the individual, nor so broadly that it constitutes an unnecessary interference with freedom of expression or prevents publication in the public interest.
It is the responsibility of editors and publishers to apply the Code to editorial material in both printed and online versions of publications. They should take care to ensure it is observed rigorously by all editorial staff and external contributors, including non-journalists, in printed and online versions of publications.
Editors should co-operate swiftly with the PCC in the resolution of complaints. Any publication judged to have breached the Code must print the adjudication in full and with due prominence, including headline reference to the PCC.” (Ref.5)
All this tips I have explored and implied in my best efforts into my work practice while studying the role of the editor, some of the points below I have used directly to fulfil my editorial position and took responsibility to deal with any of the problems that might have arose during our WINOL experience (Feature). I will give examples below the following points of the code.
“1 Accuracy
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published.
iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.” (Ref.5)
Here I found it quite challenging at first as comment articles or debates that we organised proved problematic in many aspects. We have our own comment/reader response editor that works within the team of feature section but it still had to be fully supervised by me as a main editor. Comment articles started off pretty badly, and being so inexperienced we had to learn the hard way what actually the comment feature format is. Sometimes reading articles in the newspaper or online doesn’t give away techniques and principles behind writing it. In the section “a newspaper says...”/”a financial expert correspondent says”, experienced and knowledgeable journalists are allowed to express their fair comment which is based on facts (it’s accurate), done without malice and within the public interest of course, it also has to be placed clearly and accurately in the Comment section and that is how the content is covered by its defences. The main thing that our comment editor had to understand was that because we are not experts on anything just yet we should not be acting/ pretending to be ones. And even though the name of the format implies so it is not for a journalist at our stage to express our personal opinion, it has to be a fair comment based on fact not our personal view. It took good few attempts for all of us to understand how to go about writing comment pieces when not being expert as of yet – the answer was to keep finding people that ‘matter and whose view/opinion’ is valuable to the public interest. Meaning get these people to write the comment pieces for us and then fit it within the format of for example “bishops view on single sex marriage”. Other way was so called ‘ghosting’ which was useful if a person was not willing to write an article for us but would rather be interviewed; the interview would be recorded and then transcribed into words. The interviewee has to give consent for such method to be used and be clearly informed of the purposes of the interview and for it to be transcribed and used as an article and published. Great practice was when Thom ghosted the bishop of Winchester; I made sure the whole process was well executed. I listened through the interview and checked accuracy of the transcribed text as well as made sure that Thom made the bishop aware of the purposes of the interview and got consent on email for the transcribed article to be published. Thom did really well with that article and executed it well. The article was published and is still within the front page of the features of WINOL.
The unsuccessful attempt to have weekly debates was a fantastic case study. At first our content of debates was not so much of a concern it was the visual aspect of it, our production team didn’t seem to be putting enough efforts in having it organised to the standard that i would have wanted it too and because they were always lacking in people filling the production roles I had to fill the gaps which resulted that there was not enough supervision over the content of the debates.
One of the debates that brought us the biggest case study was the political debate that Thom organised which seemed to have a great potential and the idea (fees and budget cuts). It was on current issues and if executed accurately it would have been great, the project was ambitious and was a great study touching my legal aspects of media law like fair dealing within the program, impartiality, need to keep fair political balance etc. I asked Thom to keep it under ten minutes and it was meant to be ‘as life’ but it went well over that time limit and despite the fact that even Chris tried to direct Thom from the studio floor it was difficult to control the length of the program. I should have been the one controlling the output content and we should have been better prepared within the aspect of the amount of questions and the potential length of the answers. And had more attention been put into giving equal air time the debate would have been broadcast able. As I already gave away a hint of what the issue was we had our first complaint from one of the participants of the debate, Michael Jardine. I write about how I dealt with that issue in blog on WINOL experience here: Solving Hot Topics debate issue & bulletin week 6
“iv) A publication must report fairly and accurately the outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been a party, unless an agreed settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement is published.” (Ref.5)
Once I accepted an idea for a feature I have to discuss all possible risks, picture or content wise that would have to be applied within the package, article, debate, studio based shows etc. As I gave an example above and from the post on dealing with the complaint you can see that I put my best efforts to deal with the complaint as quick as possible and the article with an apology to Mick is still on the features part of WINOL. I also applied the next point on ‘opportunity to reply’ ; even though our complainant did not use this opportunity it was given to him along with the apology and the debate remains unpublished for my request.
“2 Opportunity to reply
A fair opportunity for reply to inaccuracies must be given when reasonably called for.
3 *Privacy
i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital communications.
ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without consent. Account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of information.
iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals in private places without their consent.
Note - Private places are public or private property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.” (Ref.5)
This point was always the aspect that all the reporters were reminded of especially in the case of filming GVs. We didn’t have any specific issues with this one everyone seemed to remember about the need for implied or explicit consent while filming and every time I looked through the film I paid attention on the aspect of breach of confidentiality (privacy).
“4 *Harassment
i) Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.
ii) They must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on their property when asked to leave and must not follow them. If requested, they must identify themselves and whom they represent.
iii) Editors must ensure these principles are observed by those working for them and take care not to use non-compliant material from other sources.” (Ref.5)
This issue has not appeared in any stage of our work, common courtesy as well as good ethical practice when pursuing contacting people or sources has been kept within reasonable level of frequency and intensity. The reporters were reminded to identify themselves and whom they represent.
“5 Intrusion into grief or shock
i) In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively. This should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings, such as inquests.
*ii) When reporting suicide, care should be taken to avoid excessive detail about the method used.
6 *Children
i) Young people should be free to complete their time at school without unnecessary intrusion.
ii) A child under 16 must not be interviewed or photographed on issues involving their own or another child’s welfare unless a custodial parent or similarly responsible adult consents.
iii) Pupils must not be approached or photographed at school without the permission of the school authorities.
iv) Minors must not be paid for material involving children’s welfare, nor parents or guardians for material about their children or wards, unless it is clearly in the child's interest.
v) Editors must not use the fame, notoriety or position of a parent or guardian as sole justification for publishing details of a child’s private life.
7 *Children in sex cases
1. The press must not, even if legally free to do so, identify children under 16 who are victims or witnesses in cases involving sex offences.
2. In any press report of a case involving a sexual offence against a child -
i) The child must not be identified.
ii) The adult may be identified.
iii) The word "incest" must not be used where a child victim might be identified.
iv) Care must be taken that nothing in the report implies the relationship between the accused and the child.” (Ref.5)
Underage participants were kept out of our films, and my VJs did not have to deal with any issues of the points 5, 6 or 7. The only situation that arose for point 6 to be applied was when I went to cover the student protests in London on 10/11/10 and few of my interviewees looked like under the age of 16 but I made sure I asked all my interviewees about their age and have their implied consent by agreeing to be interviewed and informed of it to be published on WINOL.
“8 *Hospitals
i) Journalists must identify themselves and obtain permission from a responsible executive before entering non-public areas of hospitals or similar institutions to pursue enquiries.
ii) The restrictions on intruding into privacy are particularly relevant to enquiries about individuals in hospitals or similar institutions.” (Ref.5)
All the reporters always identified themselves and obtained permission from relevant people for filming or entering/participating within the event. A good example of that was when Katie and Claire organised to go to London on The wine tasting show. They were advised to get permission on filming (press passes) and inform relevant people (organisers) of their participation and purpose of it.
“9 *Reporting of Crime
(i) Relatives or friends of persons convicted or accused of crime should not generally be identified without their consent, unless they are genuinely relevant to the story.
(ii) Particular regard should be paid to the potentially vulnerable position of children who witness, or are victims of, crime. This should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings.
10 *Clandestine devices and subterfuge
i) The press must not seek to obtain or publish material acquired by using hidden cameras or clandestine listening devices; or by intercepting private or mobile telephone calls, messages or emails; or by the unauthorised removal of documents or photographs; or by accessing digitally-held private information without consent.
ii) Engaging in misrepresentation or subterfuge, including by agents or intermediaries, can generally be justified only in the public interest and then only when the material cannot be obtained by other means.
11. Victims of sexual assault
The press must not identify victims of sexual assault or publish material likely to contribute to such identification unless there is adequate justification and they are legally free to do so.
12. Discrimination
i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.
ii) Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.
13. Financial journalism
i) Even where the law does not prohibit it, journalists must not use for their own profit financial information they receive in advance of its general publication, nor should they pass such information to others.
ii) They must not write about shares or securities in whose performance they know that they or their close families have a significant financial interest without disclosing the interest to the editor or financial editor.
iii) They must not buy or sell, either directly or through nominees or agents, shares or securities about which they have written recently or about which they intend to write in the near future.
14. Confidential sources
Journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential sources of information.
15. Witness payments in criminal trials
i) No payment or offer of payment to a witness - or any person who may reasonably be expected to be called as a witness - should be made in any case once proceedings are active as defined by the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
This prohibition lasts until the suspect has been freed unconditionally by police without charge or bail or the proceedings are otherwise discontinued; or has entered a guilty plea to the court; or, in the event of a not guilty plea, the court has announced its verdict.
*ii) Where proceedings are not yet active but are likely and foreseeable, editors must not make or offer payment to any person who may reasonably be expected to be called as a witness, unless the information concerned ought demonstrably to be published in the public interest and there is an over-riding need to make or promise payment for this to be done; and all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure no financial dealings influence the evidence those witnesses give. In no circumstances should such payment be conditional on the outcome of a trial.
*iii) Any payment or offer of payment made to a person later cited to give evidence in proceedings must be disclosed to the prosecution and defence. The witness must be advised of this requirement.
16. *Payment to criminals
i) Payment or offers of payment for stories, pictures or information, which seek to exploit a particular crime or to glorify or glamorise crime in general, must not be made directly or via agents to convicted or confessed criminals or to their associates – who may include family, friends and colleagues.
ii) Editors invoking the public interest to justify payment or offers would need to demonstrate that there was good reason to believe the public interest would be served. If, despite payment, no public interest emerged, then the material should not be published.” (Ref.5)
None of the above 9-16 points were of our issue but I stayed aware of their importance and need to be supervised and checked.
“The public interest
There may be exceptions to the clauses marked * where they can be demonstrated to be in the public interest.
1. The public interest includes, but is not confined to:
i) Detecting or exposing crime or serious impropriety.
ii) Protecting public health and safety.
iii) Preventing the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or organisation.
2. There is a public interest in freedom of expression itself.
3. Whenever the public interest is invoked, the PCC will require editors to demonstrate fully that they reasonably believed that publication, or journalistic activity undertaken with a view to publication, would be in the public interest.
4. The PCC will consider the extent to which material is already in the public domain, or will become so.
5. In cases involving children under 16, editors must demonstrate an exceptional public interest to over-ride the normally paramount interest of the child.” (Ref.5)
The public interest has always stayed at the back of the intentions and when thinking of our audience we also kept in mind the potential need of them to see or read the content of our choice. When covering the London protests I stayed fully in the position of the observer and have not got involved in any chanting or demonstrating my personal point of view. When filming and them editing we focused on showing events of that day “ What happened in London on 10/11/10” and showed the extracts consecutively that we were observant of throughout the day. We didn’t focus only on the trouble at the Millbank nor did we show only peaceful marches from earlier on that day. It was a Gonzo style short documentary with intention to share with the public of what happened that day. It was an excellent practice and gave us also an opportunity to imply the skills of working in a hostile environmen which was an excellent experience.
Student protests in London Demo and Rob Kirk from Sky visits WINOL (week 7) here
Student protests documentary reaches over 7,000 hits on youtube! (Using the LiveStreem) (Week 8) here
2. OfCom – broadcasting statutory body regulating broadcasting
It stands for a little bit of ‘a different beast’ as our tutor said, as it has statutory powers (cases: Blue Peter BBC – comic relie).
- Corrections or findings must be broadcast
- It can impose fines- are counted in terms of % of the revenue.
- It can revoke broadcast licence
PRACTICAL JOURNALISM: OFCOM CODE
Meaning of “due impartiality” is not favouring one side or another, Evan Davies on BBC college of journalism website says that it’s all about context – it will vary according to circumstances.
Impartiality
- required for broadcasters
- not for newspapers – hence Sun or Mail
- absence of bias or preconception
- considers ‘axis of debate’
- mediating within the conflict
3. BBC - (staff and licence payers) for BBC
New BBC editorial Guidelines, BBC (BBC complaints)
- violence in news
- secret recording
- electoral law
- reporting of war/terror – no need to be sensationalist
- examples – look up in papers/online
- BBC fines
- Itv fines
They are important because breaching any of the above brings severe consequences; they are guides through ethical issues stating not only how far can we go to get a story but also when do circumstances become morally or ethically uncertain.
Should bloggers follow a professional code of ethics?
References:
Ref.1) McNae’s essential law for journalists (Twentieth Edition) Banks, D. Hanna, M. (2009)
Ref.2) Notes from the Media Law section on Winchester Journalism site for third year ba students (updates, year 3, BA Journalism 2010) week 9 http://journalism.winchester.ac.uk/?page=102
Ref.3) Media Law Lecture ba Journalism, year 3, week 9
Ref.4) The NUJ's Code of Conduct http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqGwAMI5TqU&feature=related
Ref.5) Editor’s Code of Practice: http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html
Ref.6) PRACTICAL JOURNALISM: OFCOM CODE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF6xyoSa49g&feature=related
Ref.7) Should bloggers follow a professional code of ethics? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3QEgox2cCE&feature=related
Ref.8) Ethical Journalism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzB0zwiyFzM&feature=related
Ref.9) WINOL experience of being a Features Editor as well as produce my own films/features (September-December 2010)
Ref.10) NUJ Code of Practice http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=174
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)