“For the democracy to work, citizens must have information to help them plan for the future and to choose which politicians to vote for. The Freedom of Information (2000) Act, which came into effect in 2005, created the UK’s first general right to access to information held by government departments and other public authorities in the United Kingdom.” (Ref.1)
The FOI (2000) Act gives public and journalists TWO key powers, it makes it mandatory on a public authority to disclose whether or not it has the information requested and the public authority must communicate that information. (Ref.2)
There are around 130 000 different organisations and bodies covered by the Act, it is estimated that there are around 1000 000 requests a year (cast £34m) of which journalism is thought to account for only 12% of it, Hard to believe, is it not?
Freedom of Information - Masterclass
FOI was a New Labour policy objective, Journalists also feel that this is the high water mark of FOI requests as you can always request something that has been published or uploaded. "Unnecessary secrecy in government leads to arrogance in government and defective policy decisions"- Tony Blair 1995 (Ref.2) The Freedom of Information Act covers the basic principle that any person making request for information to a public authority is entitled to have that information given to.
Exceptions: FOI gives you legal right of access to any piece of information held by most public authorities, unless there’s a valid reason. Also “if a request costs too much, then the department does not have to supply the information, even if you are willing to pay. Previously the cost of providing an answer was a common reason why ministers would not respond to PQs.” (Ref.2)
Politicians tend to claim the FOI Act has a “chilling effect" on the government as they tend to step back and don’t feel free just to say or discuss issues openly in any way they would like as they are afraid that it would be put into a document and requested by someone to find out.
Tony Blair interview by Andrew Marr Best Bits on youtube
Matthew Davies – King of FOI requests
Matt Davis made a very profitable career just out of selling FOI stories to the national papers, he said the act was not perfect - too many exemptions, too many delays and the new ruling on 'prohibitive cost' can give bureaucrats an effective veto but as we know FOI can prove a good tool for journalists. He says that all journos had to become FOI evangelists. (Ref.2) One of his succesfull stories obtained thanks to request of FOI was when he got a set of national front pages with THE WORST HOSPITALS IN BRITAIN – by doing FOI on an obscure body called the NHS litigation authority. He asked for a breakdown of spending by hospital and also for the insurance the hospitals needed. He identified the worst hospitals on the basis of how much the insurance companies charged to cover them for negligence. (Ref.2)
Other of his researches was on BORAT - two years ago when a massive start - he sent off an FOI to the Foreign Office asking for ALL documents from UK ambassador to Kazakstan. Revealed that the Kazak government had threatened action against Britain - maybe even military attack on Britain - because of BORAT - was a big story. (Ref.2)
As our tutor Chris Horrie outlines in his notes “good authorities to go for are the quangos - eg NHS litigation authority (how much paid in compensation this year for medical cock-ups) - his eyes actually lit up with an evil glint at the thought of the Olympic Delivery Authority. (Ref.2)
What are the public authorities?
“In total, around 100,000 major and minor bodies in the public sector are covered by the Act.”(Ref.1) Why can they say NO - If it costs more than £600 (or £450 for smaller authorities) or if the information is exempt (not included), but you do not have to accept this decision.
Organisations that are believed to be covered by it account for more than 1,000 public bodies, Central and local government, Health, Education, other public bodies throughout England, Wales and Northern Ireland (all local councils; Parish & Town councils; Hospitals; Health trusts; GPs; Dentists; Pharmacists; Government departments; Schools, colleges, universities). (Ref.2)
“Public authorities are requested by ection 16 of the Act to give someone proposing to make a request, or someone who has already made one, ‘advice and assistance, so far as it would be reasonable to expect the authority to do so’.” (Ref.1)
The act also allows the same authorities to refuse to supply the requested information “given various grounds” (Ref.1) which we call exemptions.
EXEMPTIONS are given to organisations that are not required to respond to FOI requests like Security & Intelligence services; Special forces – SAS / SBS; NCIS; GCHQ ; ALL OF WHO have NO DUTY to CONFIRM or DENY that ANY INFO EXISTS. (Ref.2)
“Information must be released UNLESS it is judged that the public interest in NOT disclosing it is greater than the public interest in releasing it”. (Ref.2) Public authorities must disclose if info that will allow public better understanding of decisions affecting individual lives and assists challenges to such decisions. (Ref.1)
GOVERNMENT VETO POWERS are available only to Cabinet ministers which mean that the notices issued by the Commissioner can be vetoed by them. Anyone else such power derogated to can block Information Commissioner Disclosure on Public Interest grounds BUT CANNOT be used against an order NOT covered by EXEMPTION. (Ref.2)
How do you make an FOI request?
Under the 2000 FOIA more than 100,000 public authorities were not only required to give a legal right to the public, they must also help process inquiries within certain time limits. “The whole process is overseen by a national Information Commissioner to whom appeals can be made. Public bodies which do not help the public exercise their rights under the act could, in theory, lose their right to keep records at all which, in practice. (Ref.2)
An FOI request should be in writing (emails, letters); there should be enclosed enough info for authority to reply on and 3) we can even specify how the reply should be formatted to us e.g. by post, e-mail, fax etc You can use the website and choose the public authorities that you would like your request to be directed at and you send the request).
The operational part of the act is any person making a request for information to a public authority is entitled to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it hold information of the description specified in the request, and if that is the case, to have that information communicated to him. (Ref.2) It is important to frame the requests in bureaucratic language, and keep it vague. If you are specific and categorical (journo language) then they can wriggle. It is also important to think which particular authority will have what sort of information. (Ref.2)
Also within F.O.I – PROTOCOLS there is no need to disclose WHY info sought; response must be within 20 working days; there is no distinction between media requests and others; there are statutory duty to assist inquiries; info refusal only citing clause of Act and must outline complaints procedure. (Ref.2) But a large part of the act is taken up with a long list of exemptions – cases or circumstances where a public body does not have to provide information.
There are two kinds of exemption. There is an absolute exemption that covers court records, trade secrets, security matters. ABSOLUTE exemption can be faced with refusal if no PUBLIC INTEREST TEST is applied. And a qualified exemption (subject to “Public interest” test 23 such criteria spelt out in Act which covers ministerial communications or commercial confidentiality (government policy formulation; info “prejudicial” to effective conduct of public affairs; law enforcemen; the economy; legal professional privilege). (Ref.2)
The main danger is asking for anything that might identify anyone in particular - because of section 8 HRA and Data Protection Act, “they can turn you down if the request will identify anyone, even by accident. Avoid that in the way you from the question. (Ref.2)
“The first potential hurdle is the definition of “information” itself. The Act specifies that only information, or records of decisions, which have been written down or electronically recorded, counts as information available to the public under the meaning of the Act. The danger is that once public officials realise that decisions they record will be open to public scrutiny, they will be more circumspect in creating accessible records in the first place. (...) Records of decisions made in cabinet or other official bodies did not exist, because t they had been made in advance and in private. (...) (The Lord Chancellor office issued a Code of Practice on Management of Records which establishes standards in this area.(Ref.2)
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 8 http://journalism.winchester.ac.uk/?page=102
Ref.3) Media Law Lecture ba Journalism, year 3, week 8
Ref.4) Freedom of Information - Masterclass http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPp_HEFJoHE&feature=player_embedded
Ref.5) Tony Blair interview by Andrew Marr Best Bits http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6PQTUU0eh4&feature=related
Thursday, 9 December 2010
Wednesday, 8 December 2010
Innocence Project in Winchester & Investigative Journalism
Bringing the Innocence Project as the aspect of studying Investigative Journalism, as mentioned in my previous posts since 2005, universities across England, Wales and Scotland have established innocence projects to investigate cases of alleged wrongful convictions. (Ref.4)
“We have now about 30 innocence projects in the UK of which more than 20 are members of the innocence Network UK (INUK). Innocence project movement emerged in response to growing concerns that the criminal justice systems cannot guarantee innocent victims of wrongful conviction will be able to have their convictions overturned. “ (Ref.4)
“INUk’ innocence projects do not offer campaigning or victim-support services, they undertake free, impartial casework investigations to alleged factually innocent victims of wrongful conviction who exhausted the normal appeals process.” (Ref.4)
“ To date, the INUK and its network of member innocence projects are collectively working on over 80 cases of alleged wrongful convictions. Most of these cases involve prisoner serving life long term sentences for serious offences, over half of whom have already been refused by the CCRC” (ref.4)
“ The investigations undertaken by the innocence projects generally involve going through all available unused material, conducting research on forms of evidence and areas of law relevant to the case, following up on any leads that could assist in the case, interviewing witnesses and finding new methods such us forensic science technologies that could help to establish whether a claim of innocence is valid. “(Ref.4)
There are currently 8 cases under review by the CCRC and 1 case under review at the SCCRC that were referred to a member innocence projects. (Ref.4) The Innocence Project http://www.innocenceproject.org/
An idea of supporting wrongly convicted prisoners has started from one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in the British law. The times that have been famously remembered that have exercised the legal system investigating miscarriages of justice are shown in a short film called: Reeling in the Years 1974-3, which shows two of the cases that I would like to talk about. The case of The Birmingham Six and the case of The Guilford Four:
(Ref.1)
In 1974, in Ireland, The Guildford four was wrongly accused and imprisoned for many years for the crime they did not commit. Gerry Carole, Paddy Hill, Padd Armstrong and Carole Richardson, their conviction has come to the history of British law as one of the worst miscarriages of Justice.
The Guildford four: “In the name of the father final scene” (Ref.2)
And here is the real footage from youtube of Gerry Conlon who had been to be released after spending 15 years in prison:
They were released in 2005, after they had spent 14 years in prison, even British Prime Minister, Tony Blair apologised to them.
Then, after other cases like The Birmingham six, in seventies
See more in my article: Investigative Journalism & article on Miscarriages of Justice - Birmingham Six and Guildford Four.
After the course of miscarriages of justice in seventies the Government created The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), formally established in 1st January 1997 to review cases with possible grounds to appeal.
Innocence Project steps in when mistakes are being made in the process to appeal, and when the process for rectifying them is flawed. The idea of The Innocence Project stands on side of wrongly imprisoned people giving them their last chance for appeal. As its name indicates, Innocence Project concentrates on prisoners maintaining innocence, and its leading idea is to work towards gathering new evidence that could allow for an appeal. INUK is university based initiative and was launched in 2014.
INUK founder and creator, Michael Naughton says that “it may as well be called the guilty projects” as it is often that the project have to communicate to the client that their claim of innocence is wrong and that they are in fact guilty as there are numerous occasions that the clients need to be made aware of their guilt and explained of why they are guilty in light of Criminal law.
For group of students it is as successful to discover either factual guilt or even better - factual innocence, as that will take the student’s re-investigation to its end and make it easier in the process of reconciliation and acceptance of the cause of verdict way to improve as a human being.
Even if the client is found factually guilty at the end of the student’s re-investigation, the idea of promoting the idea of questioning and having a hunger for justice and helping people not even mentioning investigative skills which will definitely help in journalistic/law/medical profession. It will all benefit all the students involved, strengthen the character and develop their personality in any different areas.
Winchester University has joined the Innocence Network and BA Journalism students at The University of Winchester are now working within the Innocence Network UK and have undertaken reexamining of couple of cases.
Journalists “have the curiosity and persistence, a strong sense of purpose, a feeling of outage about wrongdoing and a moral conviction to find the truth.” (Sparks, D.1999)
One of the core functions that Winchester journalism students have taken upon themselves by joining the Innocence Project is undertaking a “full investigations into alleged cases of wrongful conviction that meet the eligibility criteria, seeking to determine whether claims of innocence are valid and overturn convictions given to factually innocent people.” (http://www.innocencenetwork.org.uk/)
Innocence Project gets involved when legally guilty people claim their factual innocence. After careful consideration, if the decision is that there are possible grounds for appeal, and this is when universities get involved. The case is passed over to a member university, which then will be working towards “gathering new evidence that will allow convicted criminal’s cases to be taken to appeal”. (Kenyon J.)
And therefore, students of Journalism will be working either towards proving factual innocence of our clients and try their best to reach beyond reasonable doubt of our clients’ conviction to either prove their factual innocence or prove the legal system right and make the client aware why was the verdict right, both factually and legally.
As one of our students rightly emphasized, “despite limited law background a journalist is used to researching unfamiliar subjects and being placed outside our comfort zones”. (Kenyon J.) Skills of an investigative journalist serve very well in searching for new evidence, witnesses and searching through the case files for the millionth time to find something that could have potentially been missed out on or misunderstood.
Journalists have the confidence “to pick up the phone and ask questions where others might not” (Kenyon J.) and our student journalists will certainly get to the bottom of the case to find the missing link.
Other responsibilities as members of INUK that journalism students from Winchester will have to fulfil, as stated in the INUK’s core functions are to conduct and facilitate research into, among other related things like ” the cause of wrongful conviction of the innocent; the barriers to attempt to overturn these convictions that are presented by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) and the respective courts appeal; the associated harmful consequences of wrongful conviction on victims, their families, friends and society as a whole. ” (http://www.innocencenetwork.org.uk/)
What is also essential is communication, informing “the public debates about wrongful conviction and imprisonment of factually innocent people, the INUK will communicate the findings from research and the practical work of its member innocence projects with the objective of improving the criminal justice system and preventing future wrongful convictions.” (http://www.innocencenetwork.org.uk/)
References:
Ref.1) Reeling in years 1974-3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_OFo7Crigs&NR=1&feature=fvwp
Ref.2) The Guilford Four, In the name of the father : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgUWn0gVpq0&feature=related
Ref.3) http://www.innocencenetwork.org.uk/
Ref.4) Claims of Innocence, An Introduction to wrongful convictions and how they might be challenged by Michael Naughton with Gabe Tan (2010)
“We have now about 30 innocence projects in the UK of which more than 20 are members of the innocence Network UK (INUK). Innocence project movement emerged in response to growing concerns that the criminal justice systems cannot guarantee innocent victims of wrongful conviction will be able to have their convictions overturned. “ (Ref.4)
“INUk’ innocence projects do not offer campaigning or victim-support services, they undertake free, impartial casework investigations to alleged factually innocent victims of wrongful conviction who exhausted the normal appeals process.” (Ref.4)
“ To date, the INUK and its network of member innocence projects are collectively working on over 80 cases of alleged wrongful convictions. Most of these cases involve prisoner serving life long term sentences for serious offences, over half of whom have already been refused by the CCRC” (ref.4)
“ The investigations undertaken by the innocence projects generally involve going through all available unused material, conducting research on forms of evidence and areas of law relevant to the case, following up on any leads that could assist in the case, interviewing witnesses and finding new methods such us forensic science technologies that could help to establish whether a claim of innocence is valid. “(Ref.4)
There are currently 8 cases under review by the CCRC and 1 case under review at the SCCRC that were referred to a member innocence projects. (Ref.4) The Innocence Project http://www.innocenceproject.org/
An idea of supporting wrongly convicted prisoners has started from one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in the British law. The times that have been famously remembered that have exercised the legal system investigating miscarriages of justice are shown in a short film called: Reeling in the Years 1974-3, which shows two of the cases that I would like to talk about. The case of The Birmingham Six and the case of The Guilford Four:
(Ref.1)
In 1974, in Ireland, The Guildford four was wrongly accused and imprisoned for many years for the crime they did not commit. Gerry Carole, Paddy Hill, Padd Armstrong and Carole Richardson, their conviction has come to the history of British law as one of the worst miscarriages of Justice.
The Guildford four: “In the name of the father final scene” (Ref.2)
And here is the real footage from youtube of Gerry Conlon who had been to be released after spending 15 years in prison:
They were released in 2005, after they had spent 14 years in prison, even British Prime Minister, Tony Blair apologised to them.
Then, after other cases like The Birmingham six, in seventies
See more in my article: Investigative Journalism & article on Miscarriages of Justice - Birmingham Six and Guildford Four.
After the course of miscarriages of justice in seventies the Government created The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), formally established in 1st January 1997 to review cases with possible grounds to appeal.
Innocence Project steps in when mistakes are being made in the process to appeal, and when the process for rectifying them is flawed. The idea of The Innocence Project stands on side of wrongly imprisoned people giving them their last chance for appeal. As its name indicates, Innocence Project concentrates on prisoners maintaining innocence, and its leading idea is to work towards gathering new evidence that could allow for an appeal. INUK is university based initiative and was launched in 2014.
INUK founder and creator, Michael Naughton says that “it may as well be called the guilty projects” as it is often that the project have to communicate to the client that their claim of innocence is wrong and that they are in fact guilty as there are numerous occasions that the clients need to be made aware of their guilt and explained of why they are guilty in light of Criminal law.
For group of students it is as successful to discover either factual guilt or even better - factual innocence, as that will take the student’s re-investigation to its end and make it easier in the process of reconciliation and acceptance of the cause of verdict way to improve as a human being.
Even if the client is found factually guilty at the end of the student’s re-investigation, the idea of promoting the idea of questioning and having a hunger for justice and helping people not even mentioning investigative skills which will definitely help in journalistic/law/medical profession. It will all benefit all the students involved, strengthen the character and develop their personality in any different areas.
Winchester University has joined the Innocence Network and BA Journalism students at The University of Winchester are now working within the Innocence Network UK and have undertaken reexamining of couple of cases.
Journalists “have the curiosity and persistence, a strong sense of purpose, a feeling of outage about wrongdoing and a moral conviction to find the truth.” (Sparks, D.1999)
One of the core functions that Winchester journalism students have taken upon themselves by joining the Innocence Project is undertaking a “full investigations into alleged cases of wrongful conviction that meet the eligibility criteria, seeking to determine whether claims of innocence are valid and overturn convictions given to factually innocent people.” (http://www.innocencenetwork.org.uk/)
Innocence Project gets involved when legally guilty people claim their factual innocence. After careful consideration, if the decision is that there are possible grounds for appeal, and this is when universities get involved. The case is passed over to a member university, which then will be working towards “gathering new evidence that will allow convicted criminal’s cases to be taken to appeal”. (Kenyon J.)
And therefore, students of Journalism will be working either towards proving factual innocence of our clients and try their best to reach beyond reasonable doubt of our clients’ conviction to either prove their factual innocence or prove the legal system right and make the client aware why was the verdict right, both factually and legally.
As one of our students rightly emphasized, “despite limited law background a journalist is used to researching unfamiliar subjects and being placed outside our comfort zones”. (Kenyon J.) Skills of an investigative journalist serve very well in searching for new evidence, witnesses and searching through the case files for the millionth time to find something that could have potentially been missed out on or misunderstood.
Journalists have the confidence “to pick up the phone and ask questions where others might not” (Kenyon J.) and our student journalists will certainly get to the bottom of the case to find the missing link.
Other responsibilities as members of INUK that journalism students from Winchester will have to fulfil, as stated in the INUK’s core functions are to conduct and facilitate research into, among other related things like ” the cause of wrongful conviction of the innocent; the barriers to attempt to overturn these convictions that are presented by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) and the respective courts appeal; the associated harmful consequences of wrongful conviction on victims, their families, friends and society as a whole. ” (http://www.innocencenetwork.org.uk/)
What is also essential is communication, informing “the public debates about wrongful conviction and imprisonment of factually innocent people, the INUK will communicate the findings from research and the practical work of its member innocence projects with the objective of improving the criminal justice system and preventing future wrongful convictions.” (http://www.innocencenetwork.org.uk/)
References:
Ref.1) Reeling in years 1974-3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_OFo7Crigs&NR=1&feature=fvwp
Ref.2) The Guilford Four, In the name of the father : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgUWn0gVpq0&feature=related
Ref.3) http://www.innocencenetwork.org.uk/
Ref.4) Claims of Innocence, An Introduction to wrongful convictions and how they might be challenged by Michael Naughton with Gabe Tan (2010)
Miscarriages of justice and Investigative Journalism (Birmingham Six & Guilford four)
The times that have been famously remembered that have exercise the legal system by miscarriages of justice are shown in a short film called: Reeling in the Years 1974-3, which shows two of the cases that I would like to talk about. The case of The Birmingham Six and the case of The Guilford Four:
(Ref.12)
Who Bombed Birmingham (Part 1-11)?
Six men were arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment after the bombing in Birmingham in 1970s. IRA seemed to be the instigator but what the IRA insisted was that none of the sentenced six were their members. 21st November 1974 two of the public houses were bombed by the IRA, 21 people were killed and 162 injured, 6 people were convicted and had been in prison since 1974. A Granada film is a reconstruction of examining of their case by three journalists since 1985 giving the story of the Birmingham six.
Part 2:
The journalists kept on knocking on the doors. Forensic scientists made some sort of method of DNA testing and few of the results showed positive. The journalists noticed inaccuracies to do with the times of interrogation by the police and started questioning the course of the investigation that had put the six men into prison.
Part 3:
As we can see on the film, the men were brutally beaten and assaulted. As the journalists found out (suggestion that due to the interrogation they were forced the six to sign the confessions.) Journalists find a clue in ‘playing cards’ and interview men in prison.
Part 4:
The journalists decide to run a simple DNA test that proves that the test carried out on the Birmingham six may have been misleading (playing cards in the train-test turning red in the DNA test bowl when one of the journalists played with card and then had the DNA sample taken” ). Men in prison were very severely mistreated. The journalists see a clue in the fact that the men are severely beaten up on their faces as they can see from the pictures, all six men were bruised and abused in prison, the journalists were looking into that aspect. Looking into the bombing routine - bombings were tightened up with the funeral?).
Part 6 is the next one given on youtube (there is no part 5)
Chris comes to the conclusion that there were four people responsible for the bombing, 2makers two planters and “we have agreed that you are one of them” says the journalist to one of his interviewees. There is also an assumption about the guy in the van to be another. The film ‘Word In Action’ is made and broadcasted, men in prison re watching it (possibility of an appeal? New evidence?) “Two makers, two planters, not six, four” – Chris now needs the planters to make the application for an appeal stronger.
Part 7:
Chris finds the guy who put the suitcase with the bomb under the table in the pub. ‘Error of judgment’ book by Chris was published, it doesn’t get men out of the prison but it makes the governing bodies start to question things again (Home office 1986). The police who is under the eye of the home secretary requests to interview Chris.
Part 8:
During the questioning Chris keeps his sources covered fulfilling his journalistic code of Conduct. Police says to him that they never said that the imprisoned 6 were members of IRA even though that he knows that in evidence they said that the Birmingham 6 was. Chris meets the policeman who gives the evidence about the mistreating in prison (shotguns) saying that he personally saw it. Further material is being broadcasted, possibility of the DNA judgment to be wrong and mistreating by the looks of the prisoner’s faces. In court again, stage; after two programs had been published and book by Chris Muller, 1987 the case goes into the court of Appeal!
Part 9:
The Birmingham six has met and get to study the timings of them being questioned, the case is investigated again as the case has been taken to the court of appeal. 1987 in court.
Part 10: (my favourite part of the film! “they didn’t know where the bombs were, it was you! I challenge you to deny it! “)
While being questioned in court, the police officer denies all the allegation on violence used on the Birmingham six and inaccuracies within the schedule of questioning them but the turning point is when the police woman who has previously given a false statement (because she was being threatened) came back to court and said in front of the judge and jury how she witnessed one of the defendants to be physically assaulted, she also heard what was said “This is what we do to the fucking murdering bustards”(Ref.10). Then the forensic scientist who examined the original samples of the defendants’ DNA is called a witness and his statement proves that his judgment then was wrong. In the meantime Chris Mullin goes to the house of the man who he believes to be ‘the young planter of the bomb’ and challenges him to deny what Chris believes to be true.
Part 11:
The appeal fails but Chris does not give in, he keeps exercising the justice system. It took until the 1991 for the court to admit that they had the wrong men The Birmingham Six spent 16 years in prison before found not guilty and was released.
Other case mentioned in the that has come to the history as miscarriage of Justice is the case of the Guildford four: “In the name of the father final scene” (Ref.13)
And here is the real footage of Gerry Conlon who had been to be released after spending 15 years in prison:
See more on:
INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM (Media Law week 7) here
INNOCENCE PROJECT IN WINCHESTER & INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM here
References:
Ref.11) Who bombed Birmingham?
Part1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbTqTbmMgkQ
Part2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNCGyaS3oPk&feature=related
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpPW2LjkYnE&feature=related
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXMUuyEgbb8&NR=1
Part 6 (which is the following part after part 4 on youtube): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XstdO1PY5gQ&feature=related
Part 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu9isCmV-rs&NR=1
Part 8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YBqyYOjCcQ&NR=1
Part 9: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIO0lClllzI&NR=1
Part 10: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nY70XT_Muo&NR=1
Part 11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WhtXQo5EC4&feature=related
Ref.12) Reeling in years 1974-3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_OFo7Crigs&NR=1&feature=fvwp
Ref.13) The Guilford Four, In the name of the father : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgUWn0gVpq0&feature=related
(Ref.12)
Who Bombed Birmingham (Part 1-11)?
Six men were arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment after the bombing in Birmingham in 1970s. IRA seemed to be the instigator but what the IRA insisted was that none of the sentenced six were their members. 21st November 1974 two of the public houses were bombed by the IRA, 21 people were killed and 162 injured, 6 people were convicted and had been in prison since 1974. A Granada film is a reconstruction of examining of their case by three journalists since 1985 giving the story of the Birmingham six.
Part 2:
The journalists kept on knocking on the doors. Forensic scientists made some sort of method of DNA testing and few of the results showed positive. The journalists noticed inaccuracies to do with the times of interrogation by the police and started questioning the course of the investigation that had put the six men into prison.
Part 3:
As we can see on the film, the men were brutally beaten and assaulted. As the journalists found out (suggestion that due to the interrogation they were forced the six to sign the confessions.) Journalists find a clue in ‘playing cards’ and interview men in prison.
Part 4:
The journalists decide to run a simple DNA test that proves that the test carried out on the Birmingham six may have been misleading (playing cards in the train-test turning red in the DNA test bowl when one of the journalists played with card and then had the DNA sample taken” ). Men in prison were very severely mistreated. The journalists see a clue in the fact that the men are severely beaten up on their faces as they can see from the pictures, all six men were bruised and abused in prison, the journalists were looking into that aspect. Looking into the bombing routine - bombings were tightened up with the funeral?).
Part 6 is the next one given on youtube (there is no part 5)
Chris comes to the conclusion that there were four people responsible for the bombing, 2makers two planters and “we have agreed that you are one of them” says the journalist to one of his interviewees. There is also an assumption about the guy in the van to be another. The film ‘Word In Action’ is made and broadcasted, men in prison re watching it (possibility of an appeal? New evidence?) “Two makers, two planters, not six, four” – Chris now needs the planters to make the application for an appeal stronger.
Part 7:
Chris finds the guy who put the suitcase with the bomb under the table in the pub. ‘Error of judgment’ book by Chris was published, it doesn’t get men out of the prison but it makes the governing bodies start to question things again (Home office 1986). The police who is under the eye of the home secretary requests to interview Chris.
Part 8:
During the questioning Chris keeps his sources covered fulfilling his journalistic code of Conduct. Police says to him that they never said that the imprisoned 6 were members of IRA even though that he knows that in evidence they said that the Birmingham 6 was. Chris meets the policeman who gives the evidence about the mistreating in prison (shotguns) saying that he personally saw it. Further material is being broadcasted, possibility of the DNA judgment to be wrong and mistreating by the looks of the prisoner’s faces. In court again, stage; after two programs had been published and book by Chris Muller, 1987 the case goes into the court of Appeal!
Part 9:
The Birmingham six has met and get to study the timings of them being questioned, the case is investigated again as the case has been taken to the court of appeal. 1987 in court.
Part 10: (my favourite part of the film! “they didn’t know where the bombs were, it was you! I challenge you to deny it! “)
While being questioned in court, the police officer denies all the allegation on violence used on the Birmingham six and inaccuracies within the schedule of questioning them but the turning point is when the police woman who has previously given a false statement (because she was being threatened) came back to court and said in front of the judge and jury how she witnessed one of the defendants to be physically assaulted, she also heard what was said “This is what we do to the fucking murdering bustards”(Ref.10). Then the forensic scientist who examined the original samples of the defendants’ DNA is called a witness and his statement proves that his judgment then was wrong. In the meantime Chris Mullin goes to the house of the man who he believes to be ‘the young planter of the bomb’ and challenges him to deny what Chris believes to be true.
Part 11:
The appeal fails but Chris does not give in, he keeps exercising the justice system. It took until the 1991 for the court to admit that they had the wrong men The Birmingham Six spent 16 years in prison before found not guilty and was released.
Other case mentioned in the that has come to the history as miscarriage of Justice is the case of the Guildford four: “In the name of the father final scene” (Ref.13)
And here is the real footage of Gerry Conlon who had been to be released after spending 15 years in prison:
See more on:
INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM (Media Law week 7) here
INNOCENCE PROJECT IN WINCHESTER & INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM here
References:
Ref.11) Who bombed Birmingham?
Part1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbTqTbmMgkQ
Part2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNCGyaS3oPk&feature=related
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpPW2LjkYnE&feature=related
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXMUuyEgbb8&NR=1
Part 6 (which is the following part after part 4 on youtube): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XstdO1PY5gQ&feature=related
Part 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu9isCmV-rs&NR=1
Part 8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YBqyYOjCcQ&NR=1
Part 9: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIO0lClllzI&NR=1
Part 10: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nY70XT_Muo&NR=1
Part 11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WhtXQo5EC4&feature=related
Ref.12) Reeling in years 1974-3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_OFo7Crigs&NR=1&feature=fvwp
Ref.13) The Guilford Four, In the name of the father : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgUWn0gVpq0&feature=related
Investigative journalism- J’Accuse (studying Media law week 7)
De Burgh in his book Investigative Journalism defines Investigative Journalism: as an act leading to “discover the truth and to identify lapses from it in whatever media may be available… distinct from apparently similar work done by police, lawyers, auditors and regulatory bodies in that it is not limited as to target, not legally founded and it is closely connected to publicity”. (Ref.2)
In the chapter about ‘globalising media agendas (The production of journalism)’ De Burgh also mentions that “because investigative journalism upholds people’s right to know about controversial issues and events through media exposure, it is central to debates about the public sphere.” (Ref.4)
In other words investigative journalism is closely related to ‘Gonzo’ journalism and performance journalism. Ordinary ‘news’ journalism is just telling the news which determined by the public agenda whereas investigative journalism is where journalists decide the agenda for themselves. Unlike De Burgh definition this could include subject matter on a lightweight or TV or even entertainment-led agenda. The classic ‘investigations’ however are on heavy subjects like for example Harry Evans and the Insight Team. A lot of the serious IJ these days is financial, fraud and money laundering for example. (Ref.2)
De Burgh also says that the principle of publicity coincides with the principle of investigative journalism, the principle of reason and truth to be more important than a personal profit intentions and therefore it is within for public good to make sure of exposing corruption and domination. (Ref.4) He also rightly notices that the “role of journalism in upholding democratic communication are increasingly taking place in a global concept.” (Ref.4) The features that define the globalisation process through “intensification of global interconnectness and media networks, financial systems, the expansion of transnational corporate activity (...) and so on bring up the question on “the nature of information and news and practices of investigative journalism at an international level”(Ref.4) as one of the arguments given is that transnational media business can lead to the “homogenisation of culture and may erode distinctive national and local cultures across the world through an ‘Americanisation’ of other cultures, particularly poorer and weaker Third World nations.” (Ref.4) However, what we should take into consideration is the fact that many broadcasting organisations in America have the materials that they use more available and convenient (cheaper) if obtainable from their own country or even England than other countries. The broadcasts are made out of specific country and so they will be covered in a particular way representing the culture they are in. I think it is safe to say that America or England have more financial potential to produce/print materials to the world that yes, can be about other countries or events happening elsewhere but it is understandable it will be shown to the world in a specific cultural style that is representing their own country. Whereas broadcasts from the Third World countries for example is probable not as frequent and not as reachable (sometimes restriction wise or financially not as advanced technically for example) to other countries and so majority of people is likely to watch programs from let’s say America than from any other poorer country.
MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE
The classic ‘off agenda’ for investigative journalism is miscarriage of justice – where innocent people go to jail and if it is the case that it is the criminal justice system that is corrupt then the last hope is the journalists which brings up the concept of the journalism fulfilling the role of The Fourth Estate. (Ref.2) The Fourth Estate also hits when there is a need for exposing a political manipulation (Watergate, “All the president’s men”- when the legendary power of the press is shown during the famous Watergate case which inspired generation of journalists. , to see more go to post “All the president’s men” Watergate exposed- power of the fourth estate)
The times that have been famously remembered that have exercised the legal system by re-examining miscarriages of justice are shown in a short film called: Reeling in the Years 1974-3, which shows two of the cases that I would like to talk about. The case of The Birmingham Six and the case of The Guilford Four:
(Ref.11)
Who Bombed Birmingham- Parts 1-11 (Ref.10)
Six men were arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment after the bombing in Birmingham in 1970s. IRA seemed to be the instigator but what the IRA insisted was that none of the sentenced six were their members. 21st November 1974 two of the public houses were bombed by the IRA, 21 people were killed and 162 injured, 6 people were convicted and had been in prison since 1974. A Granada film is a reconstruction of examining of their case by three journalists since 1985 giving the story of the Birmingham six.
See article on Miscarriages of Justice –Investigative Journalism (The Birmingham Six and The Guilford four. )
The journalists who were re-examining their case noticed inaccuracies to do with the times of interrogation by the police, methods and possible fault in the DNA testing; they started questioning the course of the investigation that had put the six men into prison. As we can see on the film, the men were brutally beaten and assaulted (the interrogation forced the Six to sign the confessions).They were also looking into the bombing routine. In part 6 Chris Muller, one of the journalists comes to the conclusion that there were four people responsible for the bombing, two makers and two planters and there is also an assumption about the guy in the van to be another. The film ‘Word In Action’ is made and broadcasted as a result of the investigative journalism of the re-examining of the case (possibility of an appeal? New evidence?). Chris finds the man who put the suitcase with the bomb under the table in the pub and shortly his ‘Error of judgment’ book was published. It didn’t get men out of the prison but it made the governing bodies start to question things again (Home office 1986). The police was under the eye of the home secretary. During the questioning by the police Chris kept his sources covered fulfilling his journalistic code of Conduct. Police says to him that they never said that the imprisoned Six were members of IRA. Eventually Chris found the police officer who decided to give the evidence about the mistreating in prison (shotguns). Further material is being broadcasted, possibility of the DNA judgment to be wrong and mistreating (looks of the prisoner’s faces). The case goes to court of Appeal after two programs had been done and book by Chris Muller published, 1987. Once the Appeal started The Birmingham Six got to study the schedule of the timings produced by the police of them being questioned, the case is investigated again (1987).
Part 10 is my favourite part of the film when Chris says to the ‘young bomber’: “They didn’t know where the bombs were, it was you! I challenge you to deny it! “. In the meantime, while being questioned in court, the police officer unfortunately denies all the allegation on violence used on the Birmingham Six and inaccuracies within the schedule of questioning them but the turning point is when the police woman who had previously given a false statement came back to the court and admitted how she had witnessed one of the defendants to had been physically assaulted, she had also heard what was said “This is what we do to the fucking murdering bustards”(Ref.10). Then the forensic scientist who examined the original samples of the defendants’ DNA is called as a witness and his statement implies that his judgment then could have been faulty but neither that or any other allegations put forward in the court of Appeal convinced the judge and in the last part of the film the appeal fails. Chris does not give in; he keeps exercising the justice system. It took until the 1991 for the court to admit that they had the wrong men The Birmingham Six spent 16 years in prison before found not guilty and was released.
Other case mentioned in the that has come to the history as miscarriage of Justice is the case of the Guildford four: “In the name of the father final scene” (Ref.12)
The Innocence Project (The Innocence Network UK) http://www.innocenceproject.org/
An idea of supporting wrongly convicted prisoners has started from one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in the British law. After cases like The Birmingham six, in seventies, and the Guildford four the Government created The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), formally established in 1st January 1997 to review cases with possible grounds to appeal. The Innocence Project steps in when mistakes are being made in the process to appeal, and when the process for rectifying them is flawed. The idea of The Innocence Project stands on side of wrongly imprisoned people giving them their last chance for appeal. (Read more on Innocence Project here).
EXPOSING CORRUPTION (PEOPLE’S TRIBUNES) is certainly another fascinating aspect of investigative journalism. The work and story of Veronica Guerin brilliantly shows the risks that come with this dangerous subject. See the post on: Journalists resources and my Irish inspiration – Veronica Guerin here
which also explores aspects of protection of sources which is one of the most difficult aspects to cover by being a journalists.
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. As the European Court reached conclusion over the Goodwin v United kingdom case from 1996, it said that “protection of journalistic sources was one of the basic conditions for press freedom, as was reflected in the laws and professional codes of conduct in a number of contracting states and was affirmed in several international instruments on journalistic freedoms.” (Ref.1)
Another great example of a journalist who was not afraid of sacrifices to curry out journalistic duty of keeping the source of his information safe is Bill Goodwin, I talk about Bill’s case in detail in a separate post: Max Mosley, Catherine Zeta Jones and other cases - celebrities and privacy here.
Police Act 1997, Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) Act 2000, the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005... they all have now created more opportunities for lawful chance to ace the confidential information from citizens (including journalists). (Ref.1) And the European Court of Human Rights has stated that “an order to disclose the source of information cannot be compatible with the Article 10 of the Convention (freedom of expression) unless it is justified by overriding requirements in the public interest.” (Ref.1)
Protection of confidential sources of information is perhaps the key professional duty of the journalist. Refusal by journalists to reveal sources of confidential information can lead to prosecution for contempt of court if the journalist defies a court order to reveal those sources. (Ref.2)
“More recently the Attorney General threatened the deputy news editor of the Manchester Evening News, Steve Panter, with prosecution after he had refused to reveal protected sources who had helped him name suspects behind the 1996 IRA bombing of central Manchester. The case was dropped amid comment that it would have been politically unwise to turn Panter into an ‘instant martyr’”. (Ref.2)
Other aspect to be considered when talking about investigative journalism is the evidence gap - civil and criminal standards of proof. “The Daily Mail’s famous branding of five young men suspected of killing the London teenager Stephen Lawrence as “Murderers” is a highly illustrative example of the way in which journalism can operate in the ‘gap’ between the standards of proof in the civil and criminal law. After the collapse of the trial the Daily Mail printed front page pictures of the five youths beneath the block headline “MURDERERS” and the prominent strapline: “The Mail accuses these men of killing. If we are wrong, let them sue.” http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/02_04/paperDM2502_468x433.jpg
“Had the accused been facing trial the paper would have been guilty of the serious crime of contempt of court. But since it was now extremely unlikely that the accused would be facing trial in front of a jury in the near future the only legal risk was an action for libel. “ (Ref.2)
OMAGH BOMBING
“The BBC Panorama programme’s investigation into the Omagh bombing is another illustrative example of investigative journalists using persuasive and accurate, but legally inadmissible evidence, gathered by the police. The official investigation was largely based on then innovative methods of electronic tracking of patterns of mobile phone traffic. The evidence was highly persuasive, but open to challenge as circumstantial and co-incidental. ‘The programme’s reporter, John Ware, defended his methods and commented: “Getting people out of jail who have been wrongly convicted has always been recognised as a journalistic pursuit very much in the public interest. “ (Ref.2)
The investigative work has to be of course practiced with absence of malice and keeping the Common Law Qualified Privilege (REYNOLD’S DEFENCE AND COMMON LAW QP). Central to the Reynolds ten-point test is the idea of the public good and “the public interest”, and “how this is to be balanced against the right of the individuals under investigation to maintain their reputation, as well as their HRA right to privacy (36). If it can be shown that there is a high level of public interest in making the allegations, and that they are free from malice, then there is a strong QP right to publish them (and perhaps, indeed, even a duty to publish), even if the allegations turn out to untrue, or are incapable of proof (37).” (Ref.20
"INVESTIGATION OF CELEB PRIVATE LIFE – FAR LESS PROTECTED thus ‘investigative journalism’ which has as its focus purely private concerns such as the state of health or interesting lifestyles of public figures may not enjoy protection even if the methods used to obtain and check information conform to the ten point test and are otherwise of the highest quality .” Read more on examples of celebrities and their privacy cases: ‘Max Mosley, Catherine Zeta Jones and other cases - CELEBRITIES AND PRIVACY, (CATHERINE ZETA JONES CASE; MAX MOSLEY CASE; PRINCESS CAROLINE OF MONACO; NAOMI AND DAILY MIRROR DRUG REHAB CASE )
The law says that a person who has obtained information in confidence must not take unfair advantage of it and therefore someone who believes his/her confidence is to be breached can get an injunction preventing this. Such injunction will prevent all media from publishing it. The right to privacy is guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention of Human Rights. Section 12 of the Human Rights Act is intended to provide some protection against injunctions in matters involving freedom of expression but in absence of a cause of action for privacy, courts use breach of confidence actions to prevent ‘the unjustified publication of private information’. (Ref.9)
See the details on Breach of Confidence and secrecy – studying media law week 5 post in here.
SUBTERFUGE, usually, you must ALWAYS clearly identify that you are a reporter and that anything said to you COULD be published. You have no choice but to honour an ‘off record’ undertaking, because of the general obligation in the first place to protect sources and possibility of denial. TAPE RECORDERS and SECRET RECORDING are not allowed in radio/TV without specific prior permission from regulatory bodies or BBC editorial policy. If there’s no consent you can’t use the material at all as evidence, but you can quote it. (Ref.2)
HEAVY INVESTIGATIVE STUFF (electronic surveillance)
Some of the law are more relevant to photographer, journalists using video cameras, and TV crews than the print reporters (PPS Code of practice and Photo-journalism). (Ref.1) in Clause 3: Privacy, states that “everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital communications. Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual’s private life without consent.”(Ref.1) And that “it is unacceptable to photograph individuals in a private place without their consent.” (Ref.1)
Journalistic infiltration of far right, far left can be perfectly legitimate, so long on matters of public interest, and no entrapment (Infiltration (eg Gunther Wal lraff) of Bild – he’s the German Fake Shiek), The Secret Policeman (BBC)
In Clause 4 of the Privacy Act it is stated that “Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit. They must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing photographing individuals once asked to desist; not remain on their property when asked to leave and must not follow them. 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.1)
Electronic surveillance by private persons (and journalists) was made illegal by the 1997 Criminal Law Act, and the prohibition was strengthened by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), 2000. There was concern at the time of the RIPA’s passage that it would constrain certain types of legitimate journalistic investigation. January 2007 saw the first prosecution of an investigate journalist using RIPA - News of the World investigative reporter Clive Goodman was sentenced to four months in jail after being discovered using an electronic ‘bug’ to record telephone calls made by the British royal princes. (Ref.2)
“Photographers, to avoid the arrest, need to know law on aggravated trespass, and the general powers police have to arrest those ‘obstructing’ them or the highway.”(Ref.1) Moreover, the law of trespasses forbids an unlawful entry to a land or property and if failed to do so the result can be “an injunction to prevent further trespasses, or damages.”(Ref.1)
Police have also “issued guidelines to their officers about the need to help the media, and about controversial ‘stop and search’ powers in section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.” (Ref.1) It should be well known for journalists that publishing of a wrong photograph or juxtaposing it results in action for libel and so the editors have to be careful when “deciding whether to use ‘user-generated content’ (...)” (Ref.1) which is essentially the materials (pictures/footage) that is supplied by the members of the public because their “publication may breach someone’s privacy or copyright” (Ref.1) or even defame a someone.
Laws are clearly against terrorism and even the UK citizens now are legally obliged to communicate with the police about any information about actual terrorist activity anywhere in the world. Terrorism in UK is defined as “the use or threat of action where the threat is designed to influence the government, or an international government organisation, or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause. (Ref.13)
(Read more on terrorism and Counter Terrorism in the post: Terrorism and the effect of counter-terrorism law- studying McNae’s).
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 7 http://journalism.winchester.ac.uk/?page=102
Ref.3) Media Law Lecture ba Journalism, year 3, week 7
Ref.4) Investigative Journalism, Context and Practice (2nd Edition) Hugo de Burgh (edited) Routledge, chapter 6
Ref.5) Emile Zola and J’Accuse – Dreyfus http://www.lawsch.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_more/his9_jaccuse.html
Ref.6) My blog on Breach of Confidence and Secrecy (to Privacy) http://veronicafryd.blogspot.com/2010/11/breach-of-confidence-and-secrecy.html
Ref.7) My blog on terrorism and effects of counter terrorism: http://veronicafryd.blogspot.com/2010/12/terrorism-and-effect-of-counter_02.html
Ref.8) My blog on protecting the sources ( and my Irish inspiration: Veronica Guerin): http://veronicafryd.blogspot.com/2010/11/journalists-sources-and-my-irish.html
Ref.9) My blog on recent cases on Privacy: Max Mosley, Catherine Zeta Jones and other cases - celebrities and privacy http://veronicafryd.blogspot.com/2010/11/max-mosley-catherine-zeta-jones-and.html
Ref.10) Who bombed Birmingham?
Part1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbTqTbmMgkQ
Part2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNCGyaS3oPk&feature=related
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpPW2LjkYnE&feature=related
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXMUuyEgbb8&NR=1
Part 6 (which is the following part after part 4 on youtube): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XstdO1PY5gQ&feature=related
Part 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu9isCmV-rs&NR=1
Part 8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YBqyYOjCcQ&NR=1
Part 9: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIO0lClllzI&NR=1
Part 10: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nY70XT_Muo&NR=1
Part 11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WhtXQo5EC4&feature=related
Ref.11) Reeling in years 1974-3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_OFo7Crigs&NR=1&feature=fvwp
Ref.12) The Guilford Four, In the name of the father : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgUWn0gVpq0&feature=related
Ref.13) Terrorism and the effect of counter-terrorism law- studying McNae’s http://veronicafryd.blogspot.com/2010/12/terrorism-and-effect-of-counter_02.html
In the chapter about ‘globalising media agendas (The production of journalism)’ De Burgh also mentions that “because investigative journalism upholds people’s right to know about controversial issues and events through media exposure, it is central to debates about the public sphere.” (Ref.4)
In other words investigative journalism is closely related to ‘Gonzo’ journalism and performance journalism. Ordinary ‘news’ journalism is just telling the news which determined by the public agenda whereas investigative journalism is where journalists decide the agenda for themselves. Unlike De Burgh definition this could include subject matter on a lightweight or TV or even entertainment-led agenda. The classic ‘investigations’ however are on heavy subjects like for example Harry Evans and the Insight Team. A lot of the serious IJ these days is financial, fraud and money laundering for example. (Ref.2)
De Burgh also says that the principle of publicity coincides with the principle of investigative journalism, the principle of reason and truth to be more important than a personal profit intentions and therefore it is within for public good to make sure of exposing corruption and domination. (Ref.4) He also rightly notices that the “role of journalism in upholding democratic communication are increasingly taking place in a global concept.” (Ref.4) The features that define the globalisation process through “intensification of global interconnectness and media networks, financial systems, the expansion of transnational corporate activity (...) and so on bring up the question on “the nature of information and news and practices of investigative journalism at an international level”(Ref.4) as one of the arguments given is that transnational media business can lead to the “homogenisation of culture and may erode distinctive national and local cultures across the world through an ‘Americanisation’ of other cultures, particularly poorer and weaker Third World nations.” (Ref.4) However, what we should take into consideration is the fact that many broadcasting organisations in America have the materials that they use more available and convenient (cheaper) if obtainable from their own country or even England than other countries. The broadcasts are made out of specific country and so they will be covered in a particular way representing the culture they are in. I think it is safe to say that America or England have more financial potential to produce/print materials to the world that yes, can be about other countries or events happening elsewhere but it is understandable it will be shown to the world in a specific cultural style that is representing their own country. Whereas broadcasts from the Third World countries for example is probable not as frequent and not as reachable (sometimes restriction wise or financially not as advanced technically for example) to other countries and so majority of people is likely to watch programs from let’s say America than from any other poorer country.
MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE
The classic ‘off agenda’ for investigative journalism is miscarriage of justice – where innocent people go to jail and if it is the case that it is the criminal justice system that is corrupt then the last hope is the journalists which brings up the concept of the journalism fulfilling the role of The Fourth Estate. (Ref.2) The Fourth Estate also hits when there is a need for exposing a political manipulation (Watergate, “All the president’s men”- when the legendary power of the press is shown during the famous Watergate case which inspired generation of journalists. , to see more go to post “All the president’s men” Watergate exposed- power of the fourth estate)
The times that have been famously remembered that have exercised the legal system by re-examining miscarriages of justice are shown in a short film called: Reeling in the Years 1974-3, which shows two of the cases that I would like to talk about. The case of The Birmingham Six and the case of The Guilford Four:
(Ref.11)
Who Bombed Birmingham- Parts 1-11 (Ref.10)
Six men were arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment after the bombing in Birmingham in 1970s. IRA seemed to be the instigator but what the IRA insisted was that none of the sentenced six were their members. 21st November 1974 two of the public houses were bombed by the IRA, 21 people were killed and 162 injured, 6 people were convicted and had been in prison since 1974. A Granada film is a reconstruction of examining of their case by three journalists since 1985 giving the story of the Birmingham six.
See article on Miscarriages of Justice –Investigative Journalism (The Birmingham Six and The Guilford four. )
The journalists who were re-examining their case noticed inaccuracies to do with the times of interrogation by the police, methods and possible fault in the DNA testing; they started questioning the course of the investigation that had put the six men into prison. As we can see on the film, the men were brutally beaten and assaulted (the interrogation forced the Six to sign the confessions).They were also looking into the bombing routine. In part 6 Chris Muller, one of the journalists comes to the conclusion that there were four people responsible for the bombing, two makers and two planters and there is also an assumption about the guy in the van to be another. The film ‘Word In Action’ is made and broadcasted as a result of the investigative journalism of the re-examining of the case (possibility of an appeal? New evidence?). Chris finds the man who put the suitcase with the bomb under the table in the pub and shortly his ‘Error of judgment’ book was published. It didn’t get men out of the prison but it made the governing bodies start to question things again (Home office 1986). The police was under the eye of the home secretary. During the questioning by the police Chris kept his sources covered fulfilling his journalistic code of Conduct. Police says to him that they never said that the imprisoned Six were members of IRA. Eventually Chris found the police officer who decided to give the evidence about the mistreating in prison (shotguns). Further material is being broadcasted, possibility of the DNA judgment to be wrong and mistreating (looks of the prisoner’s faces). The case goes to court of Appeal after two programs had been done and book by Chris Muller published, 1987. Once the Appeal started The Birmingham Six got to study the schedule of the timings produced by the police of them being questioned, the case is investigated again (1987).
Part 10 is my favourite part of the film when Chris says to the ‘young bomber’: “They didn’t know where the bombs were, it was you! I challenge you to deny it! “. In the meantime, while being questioned in court, the police officer unfortunately denies all the allegation on violence used on the Birmingham Six and inaccuracies within the schedule of questioning them but the turning point is when the police woman who had previously given a false statement came back to the court and admitted how she had witnessed one of the defendants to had been physically assaulted, she had also heard what was said “This is what we do to the fucking murdering bustards”(Ref.10). Then the forensic scientist who examined the original samples of the defendants’ DNA is called as a witness and his statement implies that his judgment then could have been faulty but neither that or any other allegations put forward in the court of Appeal convinced the judge and in the last part of the film the appeal fails. Chris does not give in; he keeps exercising the justice system. It took until the 1991 for the court to admit that they had the wrong men The Birmingham Six spent 16 years in prison before found not guilty and was released.
Other case mentioned in the that has come to the history as miscarriage of Justice is the case of the Guildford four: “In the name of the father final scene” (Ref.12)
The Innocence Project (The Innocence Network UK) http://www.innocenceproject.org/
An idea of supporting wrongly convicted prisoners has started from one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in the British law. After cases like The Birmingham six, in seventies, and the Guildford four the Government created The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), formally established in 1st January 1997 to review cases with possible grounds to appeal. The Innocence Project steps in when mistakes are being made in the process to appeal, and when the process for rectifying them is flawed. The idea of The Innocence Project stands on side of wrongly imprisoned people giving them their last chance for appeal. (Read more on Innocence Project here).
EXPOSING CORRUPTION (PEOPLE’S TRIBUNES) is certainly another fascinating aspect of investigative journalism. The work and story of Veronica Guerin brilliantly shows the risks that come with this dangerous subject. See the post on: Journalists resources and my Irish inspiration – Veronica Guerin here
which also explores aspects of protection of sources which is one of the most difficult aspects to cover by being a journalists.
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. As the European Court reached conclusion over the Goodwin v United kingdom case from 1996, it said that “protection of journalistic sources was one of the basic conditions for press freedom, as was reflected in the laws and professional codes of conduct in a number of contracting states and was affirmed in several international instruments on journalistic freedoms.” (Ref.1)
Another great example of a journalist who was not afraid of sacrifices to curry out journalistic duty of keeping the source of his information safe is Bill Goodwin, I talk about Bill’s case in detail in a separate post: Max Mosley, Catherine Zeta Jones and other cases - celebrities and privacy here.
Police Act 1997, Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) Act 2000, the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005... they all have now created more opportunities for lawful chance to ace the confidential information from citizens (including journalists). (Ref.1) And the European Court of Human Rights has stated that “an order to disclose the source of information cannot be compatible with the Article 10 of the Convention (freedom of expression) unless it is justified by overriding requirements in the public interest.” (Ref.1)
Protection of confidential sources of information is perhaps the key professional duty of the journalist. Refusal by journalists to reveal sources of confidential information can lead to prosecution for contempt of court if the journalist defies a court order to reveal those sources. (Ref.2)
“More recently the Attorney General threatened the deputy news editor of the Manchester Evening News, Steve Panter, with prosecution after he had refused to reveal protected sources who had helped him name suspects behind the 1996 IRA bombing of central Manchester. The case was dropped amid comment that it would have been politically unwise to turn Panter into an ‘instant martyr’”. (Ref.2)
Other aspect to be considered when talking about investigative journalism is the evidence gap - civil and criminal standards of proof. “The Daily Mail’s famous branding of five young men suspected of killing the London teenager Stephen Lawrence as “Murderers” is a highly illustrative example of the way in which journalism can operate in the ‘gap’ between the standards of proof in the civil and criminal law. After the collapse of the trial the Daily Mail printed front page pictures of the five youths beneath the block headline “MURDERERS” and the prominent strapline: “The Mail accuses these men of killing. If we are wrong, let them sue.” http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/02_04/paperDM2502_468x433.jpg
“Had the accused been facing trial the paper would have been guilty of the serious crime of contempt of court. But since it was now extremely unlikely that the accused would be facing trial in front of a jury in the near future the only legal risk was an action for libel. “ (Ref.2)
OMAGH BOMBING
“The BBC Panorama programme’s investigation into the Omagh bombing is another illustrative example of investigative journalists using persuasive and accurate, but legally inadmissible evidence, gathered by the police. The official investigation was largely based on then innovative methods of electronic tracking of patterns of mobile phone traffic. The evidence was highly persuasive, but open to challenge as circumstantial and co-incidental. ‘The programme’s reporter, John Ware, defended his methods and commented: “Getting people out of jail who have been wrongly convicted has always been recognised as a journalistic pursuit very much in the public interest. “ (Ref.2)
The investigative work has to be of course practiced with absence of malice and keeping the Common Law Qualified Privilege (REYNOLD’S DEFENCE AND COMMON LAW QP). Central to the Reynolds ten-point test is the idea of the public good and “the public interest”, and “how this is to be balanced against the right of the individuals under investigation to maintain their reputation, as well as their HRA right to privacy (36). If it can be shown that there is a high level of public interest in making the allegations, and that they are free from malice, then there is a strong QP right to publish them (and perhaps, indeed, even a duty to publish), even if the allegations turn out to untrue, or are incapable of proof (37).” (Ref.20
"INVESTIGATION OF CELEB PRIVATE LIFE – FAR LESS PROTECTED thus ‘investigative journalism’ which has as its focus purely private concerns such as the state of health or interesting lifestyles of public figures may not enjoy protection even if the methods used to obtain and check information conform to the ten point test and are otherwise of the highest quality .” Read more on examples of celebrities and their privacy cases: ‘Max Mosley, Catherine Zeta Jones and other cases - CELEBRITIES AND PRIVACY, (CATHERINE ZETA JONES CASE; MAX MOSLEY CASE; PRINCESS CAROLINE OF MONACO; NAOMI AND DAILY MIRROR DRUG REHAB CASE )
The law says that a person who has obtained information in confidence must not take unfair advantage of it and therefore someone who believes his/her confidence is to be breached can get an injunction preventing this. Such injunction will prevent all media from publishing it. The right to privacy is guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention of Human Rights. Section 12 of the Human Rights Act is intended to provide some protection against injunctions in matters involving freedom of expression but in absence of a cause of action for privacy, courts use breach of confidence actions to prevent ‘the unjustified publication of private information’. (Ref.9)
See the details on Breach of Confidence and secrecy – studying media law week 5 post in here.
SUBTERFUGE, usually, you must ALWAYS clearly identify that you are a reporter and that anything said to you COULD be published. You have no choice but to honour an ‘off record’ undertaking, because of the general obligation in the first place to protect sources and possibility of denial. TAPE RECORDERS and SECRET RECORDING are not allowed in radio/TV without specific prior permission from regulatory bodies or BBC editorial policy. If there’s no consent you can’t use the material at all as evidence, but you can quote it. (Ref.2)
HEAVY INVESTIGATIVE STUFF (electronic surveillance)
Some of the law are more relevant to photographer, journalists using video cameras, and TV crews than the print reporters (PPS Code of practice and Photo-journalism). (Ref.1) in Clause 3: Privacy, states that “everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital communications. Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual’s private life without consent.”(Ref.1) And that “it is unacceptable to photograph individuals in a private place without their consent.” (Ref.1)
Journalistic infiltration of far right, far left can be perfectly legitimate, so long on matters of public interest, and no entrapment (Infiltration (eg Gunther Wal lraff) of Bild – he’s the German Fake Shiek), The Secret Policeman (BBC)
In Clause 4 of the Privacy Act it is stated that “Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit. They must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing photographing individuals once asked to desist; not remain on their property when asked to leave and must not follow them. 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.1)
Electronic surveillance by private persons (and journalists) was made illegal by the 1997 Criminal Law Act, and the prohibition was strengthened by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), 2000. There was concern at the time of the RIPA’s passage that it would constrain certain types of legitimate journalistic investigation. January 2007 saw the first prosecution of an investigate journalist using RIPA - News of the World investigative reporter Clive Goodman was sentenced to four months in jail after being discovered using an electronic ‘bug’ to record telephone calls made by the British royal princes. (Ref.2)
“Photographers, to avoid the arrest, need to know law on aggravated trespass, and the general powers police have to arrest those ‘obstructing’ them or the highway.”(Ref.1) Moreover, the law of trespasses forbids an unlawful entry to a land or property and if failed to do so the result can be “an injunction to prevent further trespasses, or damages.”(Ref.1)
Police have also “issued guidelines to their officers about the need to help the media, and about controversial ‘stop and search’ powers in section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.” (Ref.1) It should be well known for journalists that publishing of a wrong photograph or juxtaposing it results in action for libel and so the editors have to be careful when “deciding whether to use ‘user-generated content’ (...)” (Ref.1) which is essentially the materials (pictures/footage) that is supplied by the members of the public because their “publication may breach someone’s privacy or copyright” (Ref.1) or even defame a someone.
Laws are clearly against terrorism and even the UK citizens now are legally obliged to communicate with the police about any information about actual terrorist activity anywhere in the world. Terrorism in UK is defined as “the use or threat of action where the threat is designed to influence the government, or an international government organisation, or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause. (Ref.13)
(Read more on terrorism and Counter Terrorism in the post: Terrorism and the effect of counter-terrorism law- studying McNae’s).
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 7 http://journalism.winchester.ac.uk/?page=102
Ref.3) Media Law Lecture ba Journalism, year 3, week 7
Ref.4) Investigative Journalism, Context and Practice (2nd Edition) Hugo de Burgh (edited) Routledge, chapter 6
Ref.5) Emile Zola and J’Accuse – Dreyfus http://www.lawsch.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_more/his9_jaccuse.html
Ref.6) My blog on Breach of Confidence and Secrecy (to Privacy) http://veronicafryd.blogspot.com/2010/11/breach-of-confidence-and-secrecy.html
Ref.7) My blog on terrorism and effects of counter terrorism: http://veronicafryd.blogspot.com/2010/12/terrorism-and-effect-of-counter_02.html
Ref.8) My blog on protecting the sources ( and my Irish inspiration: Veronica Guerin): http://veronicafryd.blogspot.com/2010/11/journalists-sources-and-my-irish.html
Ref.9) My blog on recent cases on Privacy: Max Mosley, Catherine Zeta Jones and other cases - celebrities and privacy http://veronicafryd.blogspot.com/2010/11/max-mosley-catherine-zeta-jones-and.html
Ref.10) Who bombed Birmingham?
Part1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbTqTbmMgkQ
Part2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNCGyaS3oPk&feature=related
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpPW2LjkYnE&feature=related
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXMUuyEgbb8&NR=1
Part 6 (which is the following part after part 4 on youtube): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XstdO1PY5gQ&feature=related
Part 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu9isCmV-rs&NR=1
Part 8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YBqyYOjCcQ&NR=1
Part 9: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIO0lClllzI&NR=1
Part 10: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nY70XT_Muo&NR=1
Part 11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WhtXQo5EC4&feature=related
Ref.11) Reeling in years 1974-3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_OFo7Crigs&NR=1&feature=fvwp
Ref.12) The Guilford Four, In the name of the father : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgUWn0gVpq0&feature=related
Ref.13) Terrorism and the effect of counter-terrorism law- studying McNae’s http://veronicafryd.blogspot.com/2010/12/terrorism-and-effect-of-counter_02.html
Monday, 6 December 2010
Copyright – understanding the media law (week 6)
Journalism is the business of turning information into money and the “copyright is the branch of law that enables journalism to exist as a business. Development of effective copyright law is the key to the entire industry. Without copyright law there could be no profit, since giving up rights to copyright is the way in which we are able to charge money for our work, as individuals and as an industry as a whole.” (Ref.2)
As McNae’s essential law for journalists edition 20th gives ‘ Copyright is a branch of intellectual property law and it protects the products of people’s skill, creativity, labour, or time.’ (Ref.1)
Copyright has existed in the UK and US in common law since the early18th century. In common law breach of copyright is similar to theft – it is the act of making beneficial use of somebody else’s intellectual WORK without permission. If a person can prove that their intellectual property has been stolen they can sue for compensation. (Ref.2) And so breach of infringement of copy rights is ‘making beneficial use’ or exploiting someone else’s intellectual work without permission. “The statutes are the 1911 Copyright Act, which made breach of copyright a crime, and the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. This gave extended rights to the makers of certain types of ‘intellectual property’ which didn’t really exist in 1911 to make their work protected. “(Ref.2)
According to Intellectual Property Office Copyright applies to: Original works- (most works) must be original to have copyright protection.Websites and the internet- the same rules apply on the internet as with other medium. Written work including software and databases- software and databases can be protected as written work. Theatre- dance and mime can receive protection too. Music- can have numerous types of work capable of protection. Artistic works including photographs- photographs are also artistic works. Spoken word and performers- performers of spoken word may receive protection. And finally, TV and Film - numerous types of work can be protected in the case of TV and film. (Ref.9)
An interesting challenge set by one of our tutors that exercised the rules of Copyright thing was described in an article on BBC News on Friday, August 200, titled ‘How to Copyright Yourself’, written by Chris Horrie (also our director for Journalism course) gives that “film stars are being encouraged to patent their own DNA to stop anyone stealing their identity to make a clone. BBC News Online's Chris Horrie - worried about a similar threat to himself - tried to register himself. (...)” (Ref.7) Chris attempts to see how hard/easy would it be to protect himself from having his genes copied. Chris then writes, ‘there must be millions of people around the globe, I therefore reasoned, who are gagging for my genes and so urgent steps were needed to protect them. (...) “ (Ref.7) First of all Chris had to try to get a print out of his personal DNA an after a number of organisations that Chris had to go through NHS: St Mark's Hospital in Harrow (one of the leading centres for genetic diagnosis and analysis in the country), Human Genome Project and then Patent Office, he says in the article that he was trying to make sure that he would be able to register himself once he had persuaded the Scientists of the Genome to scan him or whatever it was. (Ref.7)
Then he came across ‘more problems’ as he says. He goes onto saying ‘ spokesperson doubted that my DNA would be accepted as unique, since as much as 90% of the pattern was shared with monkeys - if anything it could be argued that I had stolen my persona from them, and so I might end up having to mount a massive class action against the population of London Zoo.
Also, to get my patent, I would have show a clear "technological application" - such as evidence that by throwing myself into a vat of deadly chemicals, I could catalyse some sort of useful chemical reaction.
Another difficulty was that I would have to prove that I was "novel at the time of making the application" - meaning that nobody had ever heard of me or seen me doing whatever result of being Chris Horrie it was that was worth copyrighting. ‘ (Ref.7)
Then Chris tried to put his genes in aspect of being off as a ‘work of art, literature, drama or sculpture but as he says in the article ‘it could only apply to any documents on which my gene pattern was written and not the genes themselves. ‘ (Ref.7)
Chris goes onto writing that ‘ it would be hard to copyright a sheet of computer print-out possibly several miles long if it represented a complete, unique DNA print out.‘ (Ref.7) He then turns to the Copyright Licensing Agency but as he soon finds out ‘the authority mainly deals with the law on photocopying books’ (Ref.7).
His conclusion out of that challenge was that ‘for the time being at least, anyone thinking of surreptitiously obtaining a sample of genetic Chris Horrie material (...) and then producing an army of super-intelligent zombie-clones (...) can do so with legal impunity. “ (Ref.7)
After this witty and interestingly executed challenge we can see that there are probably gaps within the law on the Copyrights that for some reason, essentially allow within a law to copy a sample of someone else’s DNA as they are copyright free (funny, but quite surprising conclusion). Let’s hope that as our technology develops the copyright laws will adjusts to it making sure that at some point we ‘will be lawful owners of our own copy of genes’.
As we found out from Chris’s quest personal DNA is not copyright covered but what we know for sure is that Copyright protects intellectual property as mentioned earlier and the intellectual property – “is a residual right that every citizen has” (Ref.2) and it is protected as. Any work you do belongs to you (you own it– it is a residual right) until you sell it to somebody else. (Ref.2)
The Intellectual Property Office states that things protected by copyright are:
• literary works, including novels, instruction manuals, computer programs, song lyrics, newspaper articles and some types of database
• dramatic works, including dance or mime
• musical works
• artistic works, including paintings, engravings, photographs, sculptures, collages, architecture, technical drawings, diagrams, maps and logos
• layouts or typographical arrangements used to publish a work, for a book for instance
• recordings of a work, including sound and film
• broadcasts of a work (Ref. 8)
Also, ‘under 1988 Act, there is copyright in spoken words, even if they are not delivered from a script, as soon as they are recorded, with or without the speaker’s permission. The speaker, as the author of a literary work, owes the copyright in his/her words, unless he she is speaking in the course of his/her employment.’ (Ref.1) Of course the speaker that reads from the manuscript is also covered by the copyright (e.g. sending the copies of the Quinn’s Christmas day message that was sent to The Sun and other newspapers).
Copyright free things:
Things that are not protected by copyright (no copyright) are for example undeveloped ideas, slogans or catchphrases as the copyright only applies to things that had already been done. For example if you reproduce a film which is copyrighted (or any part of it, with the exception of pieces of the film for purpose of review) then you are in breach of copyright. There is no copyright in facts or information, or in particular numbers or particular words.
Why do we care as journalists:
We care as journalists because without copyright protection, journalism would never have flourished, copyright materials exclusively. Copyright gives our product a value and so we should always respect other people’s copyright in the hope they respect ours. Also we care for self representation as we have a lot to lose like money for example, reputation or even being left with embarrassment. “In the entertainment industry the compensation claims can be massive – eg Napster and unsuspecting parents who suddenly get massive bills from record companies because their children have been stealing lots of music using Limewire or similar. “ (Ref.2)
Selling the rights to use intellectual work
You can sell the rights to use your intellectual work but you are more likely to license the use of your work in return for payment. “There are three ways this would normally work.
1. If on the staff (fully employed with legal employment protection) of a broadcaster or newspaper or website almost always your contract of employment (...) will either state that you surrender the rights to commercial exploitation of your work. (...)You have been paid wages (...) and the employer then re-sells that article for a lot of money; you will not be paid any more. However, since the 1988 Copyright Act, you do retain ‘moral rights’ – you must be identified as the author of the work, and you have a right to prevent the article being altered in such a way that you would be denigrated if identified as author of the work.
2. Therefore as a journalist/photographer/author, etc, you can negotiate a different contract of employment, which gives you some rights to money if your work is re-sold. (...) More likely you can be a ‘freelance’ journalist (...) you retain the rights to your work, and license the use to publishers or broadcasters – either exclusively (...) or non-exclusively (...). You then retain the copyright so that after an agreed period of time the copyright in the work will return to you. (...)” (Ref.2)
There are also a specific durations that pieces of work can be can be potentially used. The duration: For literary, dramatic, music (scores), films or artistic works (1988 statute) for example is 70 years after the death of the author; for sound recordings and broadcasts is 50 years from the year in which the work was created (compilation CDs of songs from the World War II which are all non copyright). (Ref.2) Also before a release of a film there is a two/three week gap when there is a possibility of access to film footage through the trailer (bond film and car package example). (Ref.3)
Generally speaking, before using any material it is important to always carry out copyright checks and recognise if there is a risk or issue of copyright matter (think about how to go about it if needed) and remember that contacting right holders takes time and you should tell others you cleared the issue.
“LIFTING” (fair dealing)
There is no copyright in the facts of a news story, though the actual words (especially quotes and even more especially bits of video, or clips of interviews) are protected by copyright. The reason is that the actual way in which the news story is written is the work of the journalist, as are the actual words in the quotes and as is the interview which may have been captured on film. (Ref.2)
“There is a very strong defense to breach of copyright when reporting the news and writing about matters in the public interest. This is the defence of ‘fair dealing’ which covers the old journalistic practice of “lifting” quotes from a newspaper report carried by a rival paper.” (Ref.2) Papers have been ‘lifting’ each others’ stories for years in very constrict criteria as you can ‘lift’ stuff as long as you obey certain principles of ‘fair dealing’. The fair dealing is for the purpose of reporting current events. As long as we follow these rules we "can safely lift” a short, sound-bite type quote from another newspaper or from a broadcast news bulletin and include it in your report under fair dealing so long as you give proper attribution to the source, and that you do not “pass off” the quote as your own work’ (Ref.2) ; we also have to do it in public interest and the usage must be fair (this is how newspapers have been ‘sharing’ things and there is legal underpinning for it).
"You do not have to name the rival title, but you must NOT give the impression that the quote was given exclusively to you. You have not heard the actual quote yourself, so you should not give the impression that you have as that would be malice. (Ref.2)
THE DA VINCI CODE CASE
“The point that there is no copyright in ideas, concepts, plot outlines, etc and only in the actual work was strengthened in a 2007 High Court appeal case where Dan Brown was sued by two authors who claimed that they had already published the gist of lot in the The Da Vinci Code some years before in a non-fiction book called The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail (essentially that Jesus had children who escaped the middle east ruled as monarchs in the South of France in the middle ages, protected by secret societies and secret knowledge – or at least that such a thing was believed). The two books are in fact very similar in what they allege. But The Holy blood people lost their case, because there was no copyright in an idea of this sort; and it had not been proven that Dan Brown had lifted anything substantial from the earlier book.” (Ref.2)
When talking about the ‘FAIR DEALING you can use copyrighted materials only in the following ways: (from the statute)
* Private and research study purposes.
* Performance, copies or lending for educational purposes.
* Criticism and news reporting.
* Incidental inclusion.
* Copies and lending by librarians.
* Acts for the purposes of royal commissions, statutory enquiries, judicial proceedings and parliamentary purposes.
* Recording of broadcasts for the purposes of listening to or viewing at a more convenient time, this is known as "time shifting".
* Producing a back up copy for personal use of a computer program.
* Playing sound recording for a non profit making organisation, club or society.
Most of these rights are lost if you are doing it for profit (eg, journalism).‘ (Ref.2)
Fair dealing allows wider reporting of stories in public interest; criticism and review of copyright material; broadcast news or even bits of film (stars can use famous movie clips for free).
CREATIVE COMMONS MOVEMENT is a way of using copyrighted material for free with permission. You must respect moral rights, and share profits if they arise. The license is usually time limited. You must inform the license holder (Ref.2)
Photography and film footage
‘Where a photograph is commissioned from a freelance or commercial photographer today, the copyright is owe by the photographer (or his employer) unless there is an agreement to the contrary. ‘(Ref.1)
Photographs (stills and video) are never a subject to fair dealing and therefore it is of our concern as journalists, which are now also so easily available on the internet. “Until 1988 the copyright in a photograph belong to the person who supplied the original photographic plate, or photographic film. The 1988 Act changed that so that photographers had “moral rights” over their own photography. “ (Ref.2) ‘If the photograph was taken before the 1988 Act came to force, however, the copyright will be owed by the person or company who commissioned it, even thought the photographer or his employer will own the negatives or film.’ (Ref.1)
To use someone’s photograph just as it is with video footage we have to have a permission for it (license) or sometimes even pay for it. ‘The reason for the 1988 act was the outdated copyright law as it applied to photography. But it also applies to all “intellectual property” including ‘literary’ work, dramatic work, drawings, works of art, sound recordings, video, design, etc.’ (Ref.2)
COPYRIGHT USED BY BUREAUCRATS TO PREVENT INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM
If you get a leaked document from a government department, then they may allege breach of confidence and seek an injunction to stop you publishing the story (Goodwin case look in here: Breach of Confidence and secrecy – studying media law week 5 (part I)). They may also allege theft both of the actual document (Sarah Tisdall case), and also infringement of copyrighted words in the document. They may also prosecute for theft of electricity (even a minute amount) if you hack into a computer remotely to obtain copyrighted information (or any information for that matter). (Ref.2)
Sarah Tisdall case:
In 1983, the The Guardian newspaper “was at the centre of a controversy surrounding documents regarding the stationing of cruise missiles in Britain that were leaked to The Guardian by civil servant Sarah Tisdall. The paper eventually complied with a court order to hand over the documents to the authorities, which resulted in a six month prison sentence for Tisdall. “(Ref.6) she served only four. Peter Preston who was the editor of The Guardian at the time, argued that ‘the paper had no choice because it "believed in the rule of law". ‘(Ref.6)
The right of freedom of expression under the Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights was held by Sir Andrew Morrit, Vice Chancellor, in 2001 to provide no defence for infringement of copyright over and above the defences provided by the Copyright act 1988. The decision was upheld in the Court of Appeal. (Ref.1)
References:
Ref.1) McNae’s, Essential law for journalists, D.Banks, M.Hanna (20th Edition 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 5 http://journalism.winchester.ac.uk/?page=102
Ref.3) Media Law Lecture ba Journalism, year 3, week 6
Ref.4) Breach of Confidence and secrecy – studying media law week 5 (part I) http://veronicafryd.blogspot.com/2010/11/breach-of-confidence-and-secrecy.html
Ref.5) Preston, Peter (5 September 2005). "A source of great regret". The Guardian (London) http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/sep/05/pressandpublishing.politicsandthemedia
Ref.6) Wikipedia: The Guardian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian#cite_note-33
Ref.7) ‘How to copyright yourself’ by Chris Horrie for BBC News online http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1494746.stm
Ref.8) Intellectual Property Office: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-about.htm
Ref.9) Intellectual Property Office: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-applies.htm
As McNae’s essential law for journalists edition 20th gives ‘ Copyright is a branch of intellectual property law and it protects the products of people’s skill, creativity, labour, or time.’ (Ref.1)
Copyright has existed in the UK and US in common law since the early18th century. In common law breach of copyright is similar to theft – it is the act of making beneficial use of somebody else’s intellectual WORK without permission. If a person can prove that their intellectual property has been stolen they can sue for compensation. (Ref.2) And so breach of infringement of copy rights is ‘making beneficial use’ or exploiting someone else’s intellectual work without permission. “The statutes are the 1911 Copyright Act, which made breach of copyright a crime, and the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. This gave extended rights to the makers of certain types of ‘intellectual property’ which didn’t really exist in 1911 to make their work protected. “(Ref.2)
According to Intellectual Property Office Copyright applies to: Original works- (most works) must be original to have copyright protection.Websites and the internet- the same rules apply on the internet as with other medium. Written work including software and databases- software and databases can be protected as written work. Theatre- dance and mime can receive protection too. Music- can have numerous types of work capable of protection. Artistic works including photographs- photographs are also artistic works. Spoken word and performers- performers of spoken word may receive protection. And finally, TV and Film - numerous types of work can be protected in the case of TV and film. (Ref.9)
An interesting challenge set by one of our tutors that exercised the rules of Copyright thing was described in an article on BBC News on Friday, August 200, titled ‘How to Copyright Yourself’, written by Chris Horrie (also our director for Journalism course) gives that “film stars are being encouraged to patent their own DNA to stop anyone stealing their identity to make a clone. BBC News Online's Chris Horrie - worried about a similar threat to himself - tried to register himself. (...)” (Ref.7) Chris attempts to see how hard/easy would it be to protect himself from having his genes copied. Chris then writes, ‘there must be millions of people around the globe, I therefore reasoned, who are gagging for my genes and so urgent steps were needed to protect them. (...) “ (Ref.7) First of all Chris had to try to get a print out of his personal DNA an after a number of organisations that Chris had to go through NHS: St Mark's Hospital in Harrow (one of the leading centres for genetic diagnosis and analysis in the country), Human Genome Project and then Patent Office, he says in the article that he was trying to make sure that he would be able to register himself once he had persuaded the Scientists of the Genome to scan him or whatever it was. (Ref.7)
Then he came across ‘more problems’ as he says. He goes onto saying ‘ spokesperson doubted that my DNA would be accepted as unique, since as much as 90% of the pattern was shared with monkeys - if anything it could be argued that I had stolen my persona from them, and so I might end up having to mount a massive class action against the population of London Zoo.
Also, to get my patent, I would have show a clear "technological application" - such as evidence that by throwing myself into a vat of deadly chemicals, I could catalyse some sort of useful chemical reaction.
Another difficulty was that I would have to prove that I was "novel at the time of making the application" - meaning that nobody had ever heard of me or seen me doing whatever result of being Chris Horrie it was that was worth copyrighting. ‘ (Ref.7)
Then Chris tried to put his genes in aspect of being off as a ‘work of art, literature, drama or sculpture but as he says in the article ‘it could only apply to any documents on which my gene pattern was written and not the genes themselves. ‘ (Ref.7)
Chris goes onto writing that ‘ it would be hard to copyright a sheet of computer print-out possibly several miles long if it represented a complete, unique DNA print out.‘ (Ref.7) He then turns to the Copyright Licensing Agency but as he soon finds out ‘the authority mainly deals with the law on photocopying books’ (Ref.7).
His conclusion out of that challenge was that ‘for the time being at least, anyone thinking of surreptitiously obtaining a sample of genetic Chris Horrie material (...) and then producing an army of super-intelligent zombie-clones (...) can do so with legal impunity. “ (Ref.7)
After this witty and interestingly executed challenge we can see that there are probably gaps within the law on the Copyrights that for some reason, essentially allow within a law to copy a sample of someone else’s DNA as they are copyright free (funny, but quite surprising conclusion). Let’s hope that as our technology develops the copyright laws will adjusts to it making sure that at some point we ‘will be lawful owners of our own copy of genes’.
As we found out from Chris’s quest personal DNA is not copyright covered but what we know for sure is that Copyright protects intellectual property as mentioned earlier and the intellectual property – “is a residual right that every citizen has” (Ref.2) and it is protected as. Any work you do belongs to you (you own it– it is a residual right) until you sell it to somebody else. (Ref.2)
The Intellectual Property Office states that things protected by copyright are:
• literary works, including novels, instruction manuals, computer programs, song lyrics, newspaper articles and some types of database
• dramatic works, including dance or mime
• musical works
• artistic works, including paintings, engravings, photographs, sculptures, collages, architecture, technical drawings, diagrams, maps and logos
• layouts or typographical arrangements used to publish a work, for a book for instance
• recordings of a work, including sound and film
• broadcasts of a work (Ref. 8)
Also, ‘under 1988 Act, there is copyright in spoken words, even if they are not delivered from a script, as soon as they are recorded, with or without the speaker’s permission. The speaker, as the author of a literary work, owes the copyright in his/her words, unless he she is speaking in the course of his/her employment.’ (Ref.1) Of course the speaker that reads from the manuscript is also covered by the copyright (e.g. sending the copies of the Quinn’s Christmas day message that was sent to The Sun and other newspapers).
Copyright free things:
Things that are not protected by copyright (no copyright) are for example undeveloped ideas, slogans or catchphrases as the copyright only applies to things that had already been done. For example if you reproduce a film which is copyrighted (or any part of it, with the exception of pieces of the film for purpose of review) then you are in breach of copyright. There is no copyright in facts or information, or in particular numbers or particular words.
Why do we care as journalists:
We care as journalists because without copyright protection, journalism would never have flourished, copyright materials exclusively. Copyright gives our product a value and so we should always respect other people’s copyright in the hope they respect ours. Also we care for self representation as we have a lot to lose like money for example, reputation or even being left with embarrassment. “In the entertainment industry the compensation claims can be massive – eg Napster and unsuspecting parents who suddenly get massive bills from record companies because their children have been stealing lots of music using Limewire or similar. “ (Ref.2)
Selling the rights to use intellectual work
You can sell the rights to use your intellectual work but you are more likely to license the use of your work in return for payment. “There are three ways this would normally work.
1. If on the staff (fully employed with legal employment protection) of a broadcaster or newspaper or website almost always your contract of employment (...) will either state that you surrender the rights to commercial exploitation of your work. (...)You have been paid wages (...) and the employer then re-sells that article for a lot of money; you will not be paid any more. However, since the 1988 Copyright Act, you do retain ‘moral rights’ – you must be identified as the author of the work, and you have a right to prevent the article being altered in such a way that you would be denigrated if identified as author of the work.
2. Therefore as a journalist/photographer/author, etc, you can negotiate a different contract of employment, which gives you some rights to money if your work is re-sold. (...) More likely you can be a ‘freelance’ journalist (...) you retain the rights to your work, and license the use to publishers or broadcasters – either exclusively (...) or non-exclusively (...). You then retain the copyright so that after an agreed period of time the copyright in the work will return to you. (...)” (Ref.2)
There are also a specific durations that pieces of work can be can be potentially used. The duration: For literary, dramatic, music (scores), films or artistic works (1988 statute) for example is 70 years after the death of the author; for sound recordings and broadcasts is 50 years from the year in which the work was created (compilation CDs of songs from the World War II which are all non copyright). (Ref.2) Also before a release of a film there is a two/three week gap when there is a possibility of access to film footage through the trailer (bond film and car package example). (Ref.3)
Generally speaking, before using any material it is important to always carry out copyright checks and recognise if there is a risk or issue of copyright matter (think about how to go about it if needed) and remember that contacting right holders takes time and you should tell others you cleared the issue.
“LIFTING” (fair dealing)
There is no copyright in the facts of a news story, though the actual words (especially quotes and even more especially bits of video, or clips of interviews) are protected by copyright. The reason is that the actual way in which the news story is written is the work of the journalist, as are the actual words in the quotes and as is the interview which may have been captured on film. (Ref.2)
“There is a very strong defense to breach of copyright when reporting the news and writing about matters in the public interest. This is the defence of ‘fair dealing’ which covers the old journalistic practice of “lifting” quotes from a newspaper report carried by a rival paper.” (Ref.2) Papers have been ‘lifting’ each others’ stories for years in very constrict criteria as you can ‘lift’ stuff as long as you obey certain principles of ‘fair dealing’. The fair dealing is for the purpose of reporting current events. As long as we follow these rules we "can safely lift” a short, sound-bite type quote from another newspaper or from a broadcast news bulletin and include it in your report under fair dealing so long as you give proper attribution to the source, and that you do not “pass off” the quote as your own work’ (Ref.2) ; we also have to do it in public interest and the usage must be fair (this is how newspapers have been ‘sharing’ things and there is legal underpinning for it).
"You do not have to name the rival title, but you must NOT give the impression that the quote was given exclusively to you. You have not heard the actual quote yourself, so you should not give the impression that you have as that would be malice. (Ref.2)
THE DA VINCI CODE CASE
“The point that there is no copyright in ideas, concepts, plot outlines, etc and only in the actual work was strengthened in a 2007 High Court appeal case where Dan Brown was sued by two authors who claimed that they had already published the gist of lot in the The Da Vinci Code some years before in a non-fiction book called The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail (essentially that Jesus had children who escaped the middle east ruled as monarchs in the South of France in the middle ages, protected by secret societies and secret knowledge – or at least that such a thing was believed). The two books are in fact very similar in what they allege. But The Holy blood people lost their case, because there was no copyright in an idea of this sort; and it had not been proven that Dan Brown had lifted anything substantial from the earlier book.” (Ref.2)
When talking about the ‘FAIR DEALING you can use copyrighted materials only in the following ways: (from the statute)
* Private and research study purposes.
* Performance, copies or lending for educational purposes.
* Criticism and news reporting.
* Incidental inclusion.
* Copies and lending by librarians.
* Acts for the purposes of royal commissions, statutory enquiries, judicial proceedings and parliamentary purposes.
* Recording of broadcasts for the purposes of listening to or viewing at a more convenient time, this is known as "time shifting".
* Producing a back up copy for personal use of a computer program.
* Playing sound recording for a non profit making organisation, club or society.
Most of these rights are lost if you are doing it for profit (eg, journalism).‘ (Ref.2)
Fair dealing allows wider reporting of stories in public interest; criticism and review of copyright material; broadcast news or even bits of film (stars can use famous movie clips for free).
CREATIVE COMMONS MOVEMENT is a way of using copyrighted material for free with permission. You must respect moral rights, and share profits if they arise. The license is usually time limited. You must inform the license holder (Ref.2)
Photography and film footage
‘Where a photograph is commissioned from a freelance or commercial photographer today, the copyright is owe by the photographer (or his employer) unless there is an agreement to the contrary. ‘(Ref.1)
Photographs (stills and video) are never a subject to fair dealing and therefore it is of our concern as journalists, which are now also so easily available on the internet. “Until 1988 the copyright in a photograph belong to the person who supplied the original photographic plate, or photographic film. The 1988 Act changed that so that photographers had “moral rights” over their own photography. “ (Ref.2) ‘If the photograph was taken before the 1988 Act came to force, however, the copyright will be owed by the person or company who commissioned it, even thought the photographer or his employer will own the negatives or film.’ (Ref.1)
To use someone’s photograph just as it is with video footage we have to have a permission for it (license) or sometimes even pay for it. ‘The reason for the 1988 act was the outdated copyright law as it applied to photography. But it also applies to all “intellectual property” including ‘literary’ work, dramatic work, drawings, works of art, sound recordings, video, design, etc.’ (Ref.2)
COPYRIGHT USED BY BUREAUCRATS TO PREVENT INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM
If you get a leaked document from a government department, then they may allege breach of confidence and seek an injunction to stop you publishing the story (Goodwin case look in here: Breach of Confidence and secrecy – studying media law week 5 (part I)). They may also allege theft both of the actual document (Sarah Tisdall case), and also infringement of copyrighted words in the document. They may also prosecute for theft of electricity (even a minute amount) if you hack into a computer remotely to obtain copyrighted information (or any information for that matter). (Ref.2)
Sarah Tisdall case:
In 1983, the The Guardian newspaper “was at the centre of a controversy surrounding documents regarding the stationing of cruise missiles in Britain that were leaked to The Guardian by civil servant Sarah Tisdall. The paper eventually complied with a court order to hand over the documents to the authorities, which resulted in a six month prison sentence for Tisdall. “(Ref.6) she served only four. Peter Preston who was the editor of The Guardian at the time, argued that ‘the paper had no choice because it "believed in the rule of law". ‘(Ref.6)
The right of freedom of expression under the Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights was held by Sir Andrew Morrit, Vice Chancellor, in 2001 to provide no defence for infringement of copyright over and above the defences provided by the Copyright act 1988. The decision was upheld in the Court of Appeal. (Ref.1)
References:
Ref.1) McNae’s, Essential law for journalists, D.Banks, M.Hanna (20th Edition 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 5 http://journalism.winchester.ac.uk/?page=102
Ref.3) Media Law Lecture ba Journalism, year 3, week 6
Ref.4) Breach of Confidence and secrecy – studying media law week 5 (part I) http://veronicafryd.blogspot.com/2010/11/breach-of-confidence-and-secrecy.html
Ref.5) Preston, Peter (5 September 2005). "A source of great regret". The Guardian (London) http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/sep/05/pressandpublishing.politicsandthemedia
Ref.6) Wikipedia: The Guardian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian#cite_note-33
Ref.7) ‘How to copyright yourself’ by Chris Horrie for BBC News online http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1494746.stm
Ref.8) Intellectual Property Office: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-about.htm
Ref.9) Intellectual Property Office: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-applies.htm
Thursday, 2 December 2010
How I went to cover London student protests and trouble at the Millbank on 10/11/10
... From the streets of Horse Guards Avenue to the corridors of Parliament: ‘NO IFS NO BUTS NO EDUCATION CUTS’...
London Demo 10/11/10, produced and edited by Veronica Frydel and Madeleine Klippel
It was the biggest student protest since 1998. They say about 50,000 people took part in a march through Westminster earlier on that day. The protests were the reaction of the Lord Brown’s proposed education cuts which also forced the tuition fee cap to rise to £9.000.
The proposal is that the tuition fees would rise from 2012. The funding is planned to be cut by 40%, teaching grants are meant to be got rid of except science and maths and the costs of teaching other courses is expected to be funded only by these tuition fees. As it was written in the article on BBC on tht day Universities Minister David Willetts said the new system would be fairer than the present one, offering more help to the poorest students and the students would only have to pay back their tuition fee loans once they were earning £21,000 or more.
Intentions of the protests were peaceful and music of the drums singing and chanting spread along the street uniting students from all over UK against the proposal.
Aaron Porter National Union of Students President spoke at the meeting earlier on that morning:
“We are here today to send out a clear message about how devastating the cuts to the Higher education will be really troubling and how some of the students I think, will find themselves priced out of higher education (...) This is a government that runs its election campaign, the Tory half at least, saying that we cannot sustain an economy on debt while simultaneously passing on a record level of debt onto the next adult generation (...) “It’s right that we continue to focus on the issue of the fee cup because I don’t think it is right that we will sit back and watch the student contribution to treble in from of our eyes whilst state funding is just simply withdrawn.
(...) The Liberal Democrats need to stick to their word they made a promise at the general election to vote against the higher fees. They had election broadcast where Nick Clegg said ‘no more broken promises’, the students are laughing at their faces right now, and they face wipe out unless they reverse what they are doing.(...) “ said Aaron Porter, National Union of students president.
A group of students fro the University of Winchester decided to tke upon themselves a challenge to cover the student demonstrations that took place in London on 10/11/10. The film we made was produced by Madeleine Klippel and I, filmed by Madeleine, Andrew Giddings, William Cooper and myself. Will's voice appears as the voice over.
Couple of our reporters Madeleine and Andrew went to the press conference and filmed it.
Aaron also said that they wanted it to be peaceful protest as that was what they have signed up for and if students go violent that would be what will be a matter for the police and they would have to hand it over to them.
After the conference they video interviewed Aaron as well as Alan Whitaker, University and College Union President, who said that if we end up with the riots on the street the press will focus on that, that is not what my union want the press to focus on, we want the press to focus on not increasing fees, not scrubbing the educational maintenance, those are the messages we want to get across.
While Andy and Maddie focused on sending the materials over to the studio William and I were already among the crowd filming the demonstrations. ‘No ifs no buts, no education cuts’ was the students’ leading chanting phrase. Millions of different banners were raised into air and demonstrated with a strong feeling and determination to represent what the demonstrators felt.
“Education is a right not a privilege”
“Who nicked our Education”
“Don’t cut a child’s future”
“Death of Education”
“We miss Gordon”
“RIP Education”
Trumpets, drums and significant phrases flooded the streets. Students were trying their best to have their voices heard. Will and I decided to speak to few of the participants to get the genuine feeling and intentions from the Protestants. We spoke to number of people while marching along with them trying to capture an amazing feeling of higher purpose and unity of the crowd that stood out and marched to make a difference.
We spoke to students from universities and colleges all around UK. Head teachers, unions who said that they were there because they think that the costs of education are unfair and they will not stand back, and they are against it. College students were saying that if the fees go up they won’t be able to afford to go to university and they don’t want the ones who will go to university to be paying their debts till the rest of their lives. Head of school teacher came along to the demonstration to support the cause. Our interviewees were saying that it should be a principle of our society that we should all be there, not only as parents supporting our children but also to politicise the younger generation. Most of our interviewees were full of hope for a significant and decision breaking outcomes of the demonstration and others admitted that they were there to have their voices heard but they were not sure if they would be listened to.
We even managed to find a member of parliament in the crowds, Lisa Nandy, Labour MP for Wigan who was there to show the support for the young people in her constituency who won’t be able to go to the university as a result of the announcements. She has just come out from the inside of the house of Parliament and said that there was a real anger amongst the MPs in there about what’s happening and the demonstrations are fuelling it.
We were taking pictures at the same time and sending them over to the newsroom so that it could use it in the news bulletin. As the main protests wound down Will and I decided to head towards the coaches to head with our student union back over to Winchester around 3.30pm. We got to the coach sat and ready for the last students to join us we received a message that just across the bridge at the Millbank, Tory Head Quarters “are being trashed” from one of our colleagues Jason who was at the protests photographing it.
Jason Curtis is our WINOL’s photographer and was covering it for the website, whereas Will (sports deputy editor for WINOL) and I (Feature Editor for WINOL) were filming it for the Feature section of the website. Will and I had a big dilemma in that we had only few minutes to solve. It was around 4pm and we had only 1min left on our tape and the coach was just about to head back to Winchester.
We stormed out of the coach and run across the bridge with only one minute left on the tape and run to 30 Millbank to capture at least minutes of footage of what was happening there. We made sure we stayed together and safe in the crowd and when our last tape run out we started filming with our mobiles. We informed our tutors and editor where we were and kept them updated of what was happening constantly sending the pictures over to the newsroom.
We could not get hold of Maddie and Andy throughout the demonstrations until later on that day. We bumped into them while filming the fireplace, banners burning on the pavement right in front of the Millbank. They happened to have a spare tape! From now on the four of us were filming the events at the Millbank with two cameras and had no concern of tapes running out.
The atmosphere was filled with a lot more anger and attitudes ready for action rather than just peaceful drumming and marching. It felt as if all the peaceful demonstrators wend back on the coaches and deferent intentions were pushed the people in front the Tory HQ to put their words into action. When we got there the windows were already broken and the police started forming a wall trying to push people away from the building. Lots of journalists around trying to do their’ piece to camera’ from the heart of the situation at that stage... and we, observing and filming trying to paint the whole picture of the day.
We were scared but excited at the same time we were at the right middle of the history happening. We were determined not to leave until it all finishes... or our tapes run out.
There were objects flying above our heads, police and media helicopters above and fire places below and crowd trying to sustain not movable from the place. Swearwords and people with their faces covered only showing eyes could not mean anything good in their intentions. Where some of the people there were only observing and the ongoing phrase ‘no ifs no buts no education cuts’ was still coming out of part of the crowd just standing there and manifesting with their presence there were also those who decided to climb up the roof and throw things from up above and these on the ground kept pushing trying to get into the building.
We decided to interview with some students at the place. We managed to find few. They said that they only just got there. We were trying to get the feeling whether the remaining students there though that this part of the protests was planned. As you can see on the film and from interviews with union presidents earlier on that day, it was all not part of the plan the fact that it turned into a trouble for the police and that the police looked to be outnumbered made it quite dangerous for some.
Unfortunately at that stage press was not focusing on the message that was meant to be the main message of the day but on the ‘violence’ that it turned to at the 30 Millbank House.
BBC news published an article at 8pm‘Violence at Tory HQ overshadows student fees protest’, starting the report with words , ‘there have been violent scenes as tens of thousands of people protested against plans to treble tuition fees and cut university funding in England.” Then it went to ‘demonstrators stormed a building in Westminster housing the Conservative Party headquarters, smashed windows and got on to the roof. Outside, a crowd of thousands surged as placards and banners were set on fire and missiles were thrown.” And then it looks like they tried to make a balance saying: ‘student leaders condemned the violence as "despicable".’
A stand-off is still taking place between about two dozen demonstrators and the police, with 32 people having been arrested so far.”
On of their Educational Correspondents, Sean Coughlan at the scenedescribed in the BBC article that “This siege of Millbank Tower was a violent break-away from what had been a noisy but good-natured march.
As demonstrators crowded around the building, some masked and hooded, the mood began to turn ugly. Missiles began flying towards the large plate glass windows, with only a thin line of police, with metal truncheons raised, guarding the building's entrance.
Outnumbered and overwhelmed, they were slowly but relentlessly hemmed against the front of the building.
As protesters surged, a succession of windows were smashed and then demonstrators flooded into the building entrance. Security guards scattered and the handful of police inside were completely overrun. A few yards away, in surreal calm, guests carried on eating in the adjacent Pizza Express.
Inside the building, demonstrators wearing police hats danced on tables. A protester ripped a security camera from the ceiling and danced in triumph, slogans were spray-painted on walls. (...)” He also said in his report that according to Scotland Yard, 14 people have been injured, including seven police officers but no-one was seriously hurt.
Will and I heard that some people got hurt and at that stage we also heard that some also got arrested. As we were doing our last interview with a girl who summarised the situation saying that it was a disgusting that the press was only focusing on ‘the riots’ of the protests rather than the facts that thousands of students turned up this day to disagree with the coalition. She also said that it would be a waste if the group of people that did what they did have made the point of that day overshadowed.
After that interview Will and I felt that we have had enough footage for our film and Maddie and Andy also agreed that it was time to head back to Waterloo. I think it was around 5pm when we decided to leave however to our surprise the police surrounded the area and said that we cannot get out.
We explained that we were there acting as journalist and were there to film events of that day purely observing but they did not let us out. When Maddie and Andy who are at the same year studying Journalism at Winchester University with us were standing next to us and had the same camera. They were let out because they had press passes and Will and I did not have one as we did not expect to be there at the first place. We tried to explain to the police that we were studying at the same course acting as journalists but they did not take that for an answer. In front of our eyes two of our classmates were let through and we were kept back because we didn’t have press passes.
Hours went by and we were standing there in cold waiting and frustrated to be kept for such a long time.
BBC report from 1700 GMT said that the police had "largely taken control" of the building, some protesters were escorted out by officers and the crowds outside were gradually dispersing.
Well, there could have been around hundred of us standing there surrounded by the police I think, and every now and again the huge ‘police wall’ was getting closer and closer. We figured that it was part of the system to tackle the crowd but we could not believe that we were kept with that crowd. I heard in a distance a young guy speaking to a police officer, the guy mentioned the word ‘kettling’, which I felt fitted well description to what was happening around us.
I remembered a definition of Kettling from Wikipedia, which is simply a police tactic for the management of large crowds during demonstrations or protests... large cordons of police officers who then move to contain a crowd within a limited area- was exactly what was happening.
We heard from someone that we were being kept there for breach of public piece.
When kittling, protesters are usually left only one choice of exit, determined by the police, or are completely prevented from leaving, detainees can be denied access to food, water and toilet facilities for a long period- yes, this part was of my big concern as unluckily we happened to be in that ‘doomed circle of kettled people accused of breach of piece’ and could do nothing about it.
The part of the definition that was of my biggest concern was that sometimes all or some of those kettled are mass-arrested and that was the least thing that we wanted.
Well, there was nothing else that we could do but wait for the police to let us out.
About four hours later on our ‘way out’ we were searched ‘for sharp objects’ and requested to have our pictures taken and then let out.
Other posts related to this one:
London Demo 10/11/10, produced and edited by Veronica Frydel and Madeleine Klippel
It was the biggest student protest since 1998. They say about 50,000 people took part in a march through Westminster earlier on that day. The protests were the reaction of the Lord Brown’s proposed education cuts which also forced the tuition fee cap to rise to £9.000.
The proposal is that the tuition fees would rise from 2012. The funding is planned to be cut by 40%, teaching grants are meant to be got rid of except science and maths and the costs of teaching other courses is expected to be funded only by these tuition fees. As it was written in the article on BBC on tht day Universities Minister David Willetts said the new system would be fairer than the present one, offering more help to the poorest students and the students would only have to pay back their tuition fee loans once they were earning £21,000 or more.
Intentions of the protests were peaceful and music of the drums singing and chanting spread along the street uniting students from all over UK against the proposal.
Aaron Porter National Union of Students President spoke at the meeting earlier on that morning:
“We are here today to send out a clear message about how devastating the cuts to the Higher education will be really troubling and how some of the students I think, will find themselves priced out of higher education (...) This is a government that runs its election campaign, the Tory half at least, saying that we cannot sustain an economy on debt while simultaneously passing on a record level of debt onto the next adult generation (...) “It’s right that we continue to focus on the issue of the fee cup because I don’t think it is right that we will sit back and watch the student contribution to treble in from of our eyes whilst state funding is just simply withdrawn.
(...) The Liberal Democrats need to stick to their word they made a promise at the general election to vote against the higher fees. They had election broadcast where Nick Clegg said ‘no more broken promises’, the students are laughing at their faces right now, and they face wipe out unless they reverse what they are doing.(...) “ said Aaron Porter, National Union of students president.
A group of students fro the University of Winchester decided to tke upon themselves a challenge to cover the student demonstrations that took place in London on 10/11/10. The film we made was produced by Madeleine Klippel and I, filmed by Madeleine, Andrew Giddings, William Cooper and myself. Will's voice appears as the voice over.
Couple of our reporters Madeleine and Andrew went to the press conference and filmed it.
Aaron also said that they wanted it to be peaceful protest as that was what they have signed up for and if students go violent that would be what will be a matter for the police and they would have to hand it over to them.
After the conference they video interviewed Aaron as well as Alan Whitaker, University and College Union President, who said that if we end up with the riots on the street the press will focus on that, that is not what my union want the press to focus on, we want the press to focus on not increasing fees, not scrubbing the educational maintenance, those are the messages we want to get across.
While Andy and Maddie focused on sending the materials over to the studio William and I were already among the crowd filming the demonstrations. ‘No ifs no buts, no education cuts’ was the students’ leading chanting phrase. Millions of different banners were raised into air and demonstrated with a strong feeling and determination to represent what the demonstrators felt.
“Education is a right not a privilege”
“Who nicked our Education”
“Don’t cut a child’s future”
“Death of Education”
“We miss Gordon”
“RIP Education”
Trumpets, drums and significant phrases flooded the streets. Students were trying their best to have their voices heard. Will and I decided to speak to few of the participants to get the genuine feeling and intentions from the Protestants. We spoke to number of people while marching along with them trying to capture an amazing feeling of higher purpose and unity of the crowd that stood out and marched to make a difference.
We spoke to students from universities and colleges all around UK. Head teachers, unions who said that they were there because they think that the costs of education are unfair and they will not stand back, and they are against it. College students were saying that if the fees go up they won’t be able to afford to go to university and they don’t want the ones who will go to university to be paying their debts till the rest of their lives. Head of school teacher came along to the demonstration to support the cause. Our interviewees were saying that it should be a principle of our society that we should all be there, not only as parents supporting our children but also to politicise the younger generation. Most of our interviewees were full of hope for a significant and decision breaking outcomes of the demonstration and others admitted that they were there to have their voices heard but they were not sure if they would be listened to.
We even managed to find a member of parliament in the crowds, Lisa Nandy, Labour MP for Wigan who was there to show the support for the young people in her constituency who won’t be able to go to the university as a result of the announcements. She has just come out from the inside of the house of Parliament and said that there was a real anger amongst the MPs in there about what’s happening and the demonstrations are fuelling it.
We were taking pictures at the same time and sending them over to the newsroom so that it could use it in the news bulletin. As the main protests wound down Will and I decided to head towards the coaches to head with our student union back over to Winchester around 3.30pm. We got to the coach sat and ready for the last students to join us we received a message that just across the bridge at the Millbank, Tory Head Quarters “are being trashed” from one of our colleagues Jason who was at the protests photographing it.
Jason Curtis is our WINOL’s photographer and was covering it for the website, whereas Will (sports deputy editor for WINOL) and I (Feature Editor for WINOL) were filming it for the Feature section of the website. Will and I had a big dilemma in that we had only few minutes to solve. It was around 4pm and we had only 1min left on our tape and the coach was just about to head back to Winchester.
We stormed out of the coach and run across the bridge with only one minute left on the tape and run to 30 Millbank to capture at least minutes of footage of what was happening there. We made sure we stayed together and safe in the crowd and when our last tape run out we started filming with our mobiles. We informed our tutors and editor where we were and kept them updated of what was happening constantly sending the pictures over to the newsroom.
We could not get hold of Maddie and Andy throughout the demonstrations until later on that day. We bumped into them while filming the fireplace, banners burning on the pavement right in front of the Millbank. They happened to have a spare tape! From now on the four of us were filming the events at the Millbank with two cameras and had no concern of tapes running out.
The atmosphere was filled with a lot more anger and attitudes ready for action rather than just peaceful drumming and marching. It felt as if all the peaceful demonstrators wend back on the coaches and deferent intentions were pushed the people in front the Tory HQ to put their words into action. When we got there the windows were already broken and the police started forming a wall trying to push people away from the building. Lots of journalists around trying to do their’ piece to camera’ from the heart of the situation at that stage... and we, observing and filming trying to paint the whole picture of the day.
We were scared but excited at the same time we were at the right middle of the history happening. We were determined not to leave until it all finishes... or our tapes run out.
There were objects flying above our heads, police and media helicopters above and fire places below and crowd trying to sustain not movable from the place. Swearwords and people with their faces covered only showing eyes could not mean anything good in their intentions. Where some of the people there were only observing and the ongoing phrase ‘no ifs no buts no education cuts’ was still coming out of part of the crowd just standing there and manifesting with their presence there were also those who decided to climb up the roof and throw things from up above and these on the ground kept pushing trying to get into the building.
We decided to interview with some students at the place. We managed to find few. They said that they only just got there. We were trying to get the feeling whether the remaining students there though that this part of the protests was planned. As you can see on the film and from interviews with union presidents earlier on that day, it was all not part of the plan the fact that it turned into a trouble for the police and that the police looked to be outnumbered made it quite dangerous for some.
Unfortunately at that stage press was not focusing on the message that was meant to be the main message of the day but on the ‘violence’ that it turned to at the 30 Millbank House.
BBC news published an article at 8pm‘Violence at Tory HQ overshadows student fees protest’, starting the report with words , ‘there have been violent scenes as tens of thousands of people protested against plans to treble tuition fees and cut university funding in England.” Then it went to ‘demonstrators stormed a building in Westminster housing the Conservative Party headquarters, smashed windows and got on to the roof. Outside, a crowd of thousands surged as placards and banners were set on fire and missiles were thrown.” And then it looks like they tried to make a balance saying: ‘student leaders condemned the violence as "despicable".’
A stand-off is still taking place between about two dozen demonstrators and the police, with 32 people having been arrested so far.”
On of their Educational Correspondents, Sean Coughlan at the scenedescribed in the BBC article that “This siege of Millbank Tower was a violent break-away from what had been a noisy but good-natured march.
As demonstrators crowded around the building, some masked and hooded, the mood began to turn ugly. Missiles began flying towards the large plate glass windows, with only a thin line of police, with metal truncheons raised, guarding the building's entrance.
Outnumbered and overwhelmed, they were slowly but relentlessly hemmed against the front of the building.
As protesters surged, a succession of windows were smashed and then demonstrators flooded into the building entrance. Security guards scattered and the handful of police inside were completely overrun. A few yards away, in surreal calm, guests carried on eating in the adjacent Pizza Express.
Inside the building, demonstrators wearing police hats danced on tables. A protester ripped a security camera from the ceiling and danced in triumph, slogans were spray-painted on walls. (...)” He also said in his report that according to Scotland Yard, 14 people have been injured, including seven police officers but no-one was seriously hurt.
Will and I heard that some people got hurt and at that stage we also heard that some also got arrested. As we were doing our last interview with a girl who summarised the situation saying that it was a disgusting that the press was only focusing on ‘the riots’ of the protests rather than the facts that thousands of students turned up this day to disagree with the coalition. She also said that it would be a waste if the group of people that did what they did have made the point of that day overshadowed.
After that interview Will and I felt that we have had enough footage for our film and Maddie and Andy also agreed that it was time to head back to Waterloo. I think it was around 5pm when we decided to leave however to our surprise the police surrounded the area and said that we cannot get out.
We explained that we were there acting as journalist and were there to film events of that day purely observing but they did not let us out. When Maddie and Andy who are at the same year studying Journalism at Winchester University with us were standing next to us and had the same camera. They were let out because they had press passes and Will and I did not have one as we did not expect to be there at the first place. We tried to explain to the police that we were studying at the same course acting as journalists but they did not take that for an answer. In front of our eyes two of our classmates were let through and we were kept back because we didn’t have press passes.
Hours went by and we were standing there in cold waiting and frustrated to be kept for such a long time.
BBC report from 1700 GMT said that the police had "largely taken control" of the building, some protesters were escorted out by officers and the crowds outside were gradually dispersing.
Well, there could have been around hundred of us standing there surrounded by the police I think, and every now and again the huge ‘police wall’ was getting closer and closer. We figured that it was part of the system to tackle the crowd but we could not believe that we were kept with that crowd. I heard in a distance a young guy speaking to a police officer, the guy mentioned the word ‘kettling’, which I felt fitted well description to what was happening around us.
I remembered a definition of Kettling from Wikipedia, which is simply a police tactic for the management of large crowds during demonstrations or protests... large cordons of police officers who then move to contain a crowd within a limited area- was exactly what was happening.
We heard from someone that we were being kept there for breach of public piece.
When kittling, protesters are usually left only one choice of exit, determined by the police, or are completely prevented from leaving, detainees can be denied access to food, water and toilet facilities for a long period- yes, this part was of my big concern as unluckily we happened to be in that ‘doomed circle of kettled people accused of breach of piece’ and could do nothing about it.
The part of the definition that was of my biggest concern was that sometimes all or some of those kettled are mass-arrested and that was the least thing that we wanted.
Well, there was nothing else that we could do but wait for the police to let us out.
About four hours later on our ‘way out’ we were searched ‘for sharp objects’ and requested to have our pictures taken and then let out.
Other posts related to this one:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)