WINOL Critical Reflection- Did the project work?

This has been the third semester that I have been involved with the independent, student run project Winchester News Online (WINOL). The project is run by a group of journalism students at The University of Winchester, which is split into individual teams covering news, sports, features, production and web production. We venture and produce content for all mediums of broadcasting including television, online and radio. 

 

This semester has been the most rewarding and challenging for WINOL as it became clear early on that we had finally established a true competitor in the form of East London Lines (www.eastlondonlines.co.uk), which is run by journalism students at Goldsmiths College, The University of London. The demographic for each news operation is different as Winchester is covering a population of just over 70,000, whilst London is covering an area of just over 8 million people. Therefore, the scope for news is much greater for East London lines than it is for WINOL.

 

Establishing a competitor was ideal as it gave the team a goal to achieve and this saw a few major changes made to the operation, including a major overhaul of the WINOL website (www.winol.co.uk). The website was redesigned into a broadsheet format, which looked better and made the overall layout of the site more professional. The focus of the site was to use stronger pictures to push the top stories on the site, but also combing the strong features section that included for the first time a dedicated online "fashion" magazine. This pushed WINOL towards the female demographic much closer than we have before. The quote from a famous journalist I have known for the last three years was that "people come for the news, but stay for the features" and this was evident in the strength of the features produced, which was running the core of the website. 

 

The use of social networking has also pushed the publicity of the site with reporters using Twitter and Facebook to promote their stories and to push traffic towards the website. This has become a major factor as it clear that we have now created a established audience that returns to the site on a regular basis as statistic have shown that 50% of the WINOL's website users are "return users". This means that they will constantly come to the site to watch the weekly bulletin or to see the latest features. Therefore, we have created a loyal readership. 

 

In the second part of the semester my role as Managing Editor has been to track the competition and to ensure that WINOL came out on top. This has resulted in WINOL establishing itself as the number one student journalist operation in the UK. This is shown in the graph below comparing the Alexa ranking of both WINOL and ELL over the last four months:

 

The comparison shows that even though WINOL was behind ELL by 10,000 at the start of the semester, we have steadily caught up and thanks to our superior website layout and content, we have managed to beat them by over 15,000 places to become the number one student journalism website in the country. WINOL has also placed under 500,000 worldwide and this is way ahead of our nearest local rival, The Hampshire Chronicle.

 

This shows that we are making the most of our target audience, which has now branched outside of Winchester into the majority of Hampshire and The Isle of Wight. WINOL covers stories in Southampton, Portsmouth, Basingstoke, and London and beyond. This has shown another change in the website with dedicated sections to certain areas and topics like “Southampton” and “Campus”. This shows that we have directly targeted the split in our audience between the local residents in Hampshire and the student population in Winchester.

 

The work that has been put in this year has reaped success across the board with our former cohorts sweeping the board at the BJTC Awards (which was also hosted and produced by WINOL), earning recognition from the BBC College of Journalism and Journalism.co.uk. This has combined with two live WINOL specials covering the results of the US Presidential Election and a Debate for The Hampshire Police and Crime Commissioner election, showing student journalism at it’s finest hour.

 

 The course has also seen a number of major names in the journalism industry come in as “Guest Editors”, who have given praise to how professional the WINOL operation is and that it seem like a professional news team, rather than student led.

 

Guest Editors have included Geoff Hill, Editor of 5 News who said that was hard to hit both of our target demographics, but we did this “very well” and WINOL “replicates a local news bulletin”. WINOL also had the presence of Mike Bushell, Sports reporter on BBC Breakfast commented on how WINOL is “well-rounded, professional, polished programme.”

 

Positive feedback from leading figures in the field of broadcast journalism has been a testament to how well the WINOL teamwork together and in my own opinion this has been the most successful semester of the three I have been involved in. This is down in part to the positive communication links between everyone as we all work together as a team to strive for the same common goal of producing the highest level of content every week that we can broadcast or publish.

 

For WINOL to continue in this path the communication links must stay close as it was evident at points this year when senior members of the team were ill, communication links failed and problems started to arise. This is my one main criticism of the project this semester as there were

times were links between news and production were not met and this caused the bulletin to not go out on time or for problems with packages, which had to be rectified in post-production. In broadcast journalism, it would be a disaster for BBC or ITN to go late for a live bulletin and WINOL should follow this example and aim to go out every Wednesday at three, without fail.

 

In order for the success for WINOL to continue the team must continue to progress with the development of the website that has seen great improvements already and to continue the close communication links that will help the smooth running of the operation. There is also room for improvement, but this semester has shown that WINOL in my opinion look more like a professional journalism project, rather then student led journalism.

 

For my final semester of WINOL, I continued my role in news, but as Political Editor. I have had the opportunity in taking my experience of political reporting from the first two semesters and taking this to the next level.

 

For this semester I decided to come up with the idea of producing a live debate for The Hampshire and Isle of Wight Police and Crime Commissioner election, which was due to take place in early November. My work began throughout the summer with various meetings with the Vice Chancellor of The University of Winchester, Joy Carter, who I had to obtain permission of to organise and produce the debate. After consultation she obliged and my work began.

 

I had to get in contact with each candidate once they had announced their candidacy to run for the post. This is where my contact book came into my favour, as I had to contact a few of my existing contacts to gain contact information for the candidates. This shows in journalism that you need contacts to fulfill your ideas.

 

The HPCC election was the first of it’s kind; therefore there was a new set of election guidelines and regulations that I had to follow. I followed the BBC Editorial Guidelines that said I had to remain impartial throughout, have clear balance over time for all candidates, not just from the main three political parties (Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrats). I also had to remain accurate in my reporting and to ensure that all of my facts were correct and ensure that I did not breach any part of the Representation of the People Act. 

 

During the build up to the election, I previewed each candidate in a series of news packages. I had to ensure that each profile was exacting the same time for each candidate and that all of the facts included were correct. I created a new graphic sequence that profiled each candidate and then include a small interview grab. I felt that each package got more professional as the weeks went on and would be similar to news packages you would find on local BBC or ITN news during election season.

 

I was able to add another MP to my list during this process in the form of former Labour Minister, John Denham. This was a personal achievement as I have been trying to interview the Southampton Itchen MP for sometime as I live in his constituency and is the established marque name I have been looking for to add to my list of political interviews.

 

Due to an ongoing legal problem, I was unable to interview the Conservative candidate, Michael Mates. Conservative MP for Meon Valley who I interviewed in his support of Michael Mates. This helped because I was able to go up to Westminster a couple of days before the election to drive how important the outcome of the election was, which made the package I think as close as you would find on a regional or national news bulletin.

 

 

Then came the main event, the actual debate. I had gone through various sources to obtain a chair for the debate that would have the level of experience needed to take charge of such a forum of debate. I decided upon contacting BBC South Home Affairs Correspondent, Alex Forsyth who was more than happy to take part in the debate. We had the candidates, the chair and the venue; all I needed now was the audience.

 

 

Thursday November 1^st 2012, the night of the debate I feel was my best night as a student journalist by far. In front a live packed out audience of 300 and over 100 people watching online, the candidates took part in the debate, which was streamed live by the WINOL team. BBC South Today covered the election the following evening and there was subsequent coverage used during the BBC South supplement of The Sunday Politics. There was also coverage in The Hampshire Chronicle. This I feel was a major achievement for an election that had very little publicity and quite a low turnout. I feel that the coverage the debate received was testament to the hard work I had put in over six months and the efforts of the WINOL team that night.

 

The coverage that followed with my interview with the newly elected Hampshire Police and Crime Commissioner, Simon Hayes was personally my best news package as it included a face-to-face interview, graphics and coverage of the live debate to summarise the results of the election. This concluded six months of work, which I did have some doubts about when I decided to take on the task, but I feel that I showed great persistence and was able to deliver on everything that I promised I would do. As a journalist you need to deliver and I feel that this project has helped me when I undertake employment for the first time in the field of journalism.

 

 

 

 

I was also part of the small team that created WINOL 99, the first daily bulletin undertaken by a student journalism course in the country. My role in the team was to be the news planner each day and write the script. This was a new challenge for me as I have never scripted a bulletin together and I found this to be slightly tricky and I had to ensure that my top line was also about people doing or being affected by things, as this is the core of any news stories, people. I feel that I this helped as establish that I still can work and develop on my news writing as it is one thing to write a story for your own new package and it is another to write links for a entire news bulletin, even in this case a very short one.

 

The last four months have helped me grown as a journalist to the extent where I am now on first name terms with the majority of the senior political figures in Hampshire. I feel I have contributed massively to the success of WINOL this year and helped it grow and improve. I was skeptically about being a political journalist when starting on WINOL, but it has helped me and I have shown that I have the three things needed to be a journalist. I have ideas, I have contacts and I always deliver without fail!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Media Law, Lecture 9: Investigative Journalism

Investigative journalism is the hidden world, the story off the agenda, something that is there to shock and surprise the viewer. It is about discovering the truth and to identify what truth you can expose as the journalists goes to the news, the news never goes to the journalist.

Gonzo journalism is a prime example of investigative journalism, which consists of presenter0led investigation  The news agenda starts to become more exciting, than your standard court story. It is seen as more fulfilling than ordinary journalism and can open doors to the unknown, putting the journalist inside the story.

The fourth estate once again crops up as journalists we are there to expose the truth to the viewers and investigate corruption at every level. There are many examples of this historically with the Dreyfus Affair and the founder of investigative journalism, Emile Zola. But, who is Emile Zola and why is he important?

 Time for short history lesson.

After the French defeat to the Prussian (German) army in 1870, the French army were trying to find someone to blame and started to blame French-Jewish soldiers. They were  accused of selling French army military secrets to the Prussian army. Captain Alfred Dreyfus was accused of being the ringleader of the group. He was found guilty in a show trial and was sentenced to life on Devil's Island in French Guiana and placed in solitary confinement. 

Emile Zola believed that the French army had framed Dreyfus, however after being trialed and found guilty for criminal libel, Zola was exiled to live the rest of his life in Surrey. The trial was brought about due to the letter  Zola published, which possibly  is the most famous piece of investigative journalism in history.

J'accuse was an open letter written by Zola in the French newspaper L'Aurore. The letter was directed at the French Premier, Felix Faure, accusing the French of the unlawful and wrong imprisonment of Dreyfus and brought upon the famous quote: "We name the guilty men". This was supported by the first usage of photojournalism, exposing the corruption of the French army.

Even though it would take 15 years after Emile Zola's death for Alfred Dreyfus to be exonerated, it proved that the famous words of Zola laid down the foundations for the careers and success of all investigative journalists, up to this very day. 

Investigative journalism comes with risk as we have to ensure that we protect our sources as we expose people or groups for what they have done. Anyone who provides us with information must be protected and kept anonymous at all costs. 

There is a difference between information that we are given either on or off the record, Any information  provided off the record, must be stricken from the record and never used. A example of this was the leaked information from BBC reporter, Frank Gardener from a discussion he had with The Queen over the extradition of radical cleric, Abu Hamza. 

The evidence gap is seen as the one major legal problem that can face a journalist when trying to defend a investigative report in court. For someone to be convicted under British law it must be "beyond reasonable doubt" in criminal cases. In civil cases it is much easier to convict someone as this required lower levels of proof and it can be determined by the balance of probability. 

There are two cases that are key examples of the evidence gap involving The Death of Stephen Lawrence and The Omagh Bombings. 

Case Study: Stephen Lawrence

Stephen was 18 when he was killed on the night of 22 April 1993 in Eltham, South East London. It was claimed that he was attacked a killed by a group of 5 white men at a bus stop by two stab wounds to the stomach. On February 14 1997, The Daily Mail published a front page with the five men who has been accused of Lawrence's murder with the headline "Murderers" and claimed that if this was not the case then for the paper to sued. 

The men did not sue and ultimately a review to the Criminal Justice Act in 2003 determined that the "double jeopardy" ruling would not apply if there was enough evidence to do so. This happened and in 2011 two of the men; Gary Dobson and David Norris were both found guilty of murder and sentenced both to life in prison. 

This was a example of where the evidence gap did not affect the final outcome, but the Omagh Bombing is a key example of where the evidence gap is proven as a investigative journalists weakness.

Case Study: Omagh Bombing 

On Saturday August 15 1998, a bomb in Omagh in Northern Ireland left 29 people and another 220 injured in the worst single act of terrorism in the history of Northern Ireland. There were claims that the police knew who were responsible for the bombings, but they did not have enough substantial proof to charge anyone with the bombings. It also would of been hard to select a jury due to the strong support for the IRA throughout Ireland during the late 20th century. 

The police in Omagh decided to go the BBC Panorama program in order to try and help establish who was truly involved in the bombings and to bring the people responsible to justice. Panorama revealed the information they had behind who could potentially be responsible for the bombings. However the broadcast would backfire as the IRA retaliated by bombing the front of BBC television centre on 4th March 2001.

No one has been convicted of the Omagh Bombings 14 years after they occurred and this is down to the evidence gap as even though the police may know who is responsible without any evidence, witnesses to convict them "beyond reasonable doubt" is very unlikely. As journalists this may be the biggest constraint that we have from expressing the truth as in all professions, there are limitations. 

Media Law Lecture 6 and 7: Court Reporting and Privilege

Crime is all around us as journalists from assault to murder, from libel to slander, there is crime being reported everywhere you go. It can be at the scene of a crime that has just happened or at the conclusion of a trial where the defendant has been found not guilty, we are still reporting about it. But, when reporting on crime there are many different areas we need to notice and be aware of.

But, it is not just what happens inside the courtroom on what we report on, it is breaking crime, the arrest that is made and the person who is accused. But, we need to remember that their is a difference between being arrested and being formally charged with a crime. When a crime takes place, it becomes a frenzy with journalists looking to report on the arrest, but once they are arrested or charged and the case become active, there are a whole new set of rules that you have to follow.

What you have to remember though when you are reporting on a crime, you must get all of the facts right. You must get the accused correct spelling of their name, their address, their age and every that is important when reporting on the case. Once the case is active, we have to abide to a strict lists of rules to follow.

First let establish the difference between someone being arrested "on suspicion" and someone being formally charged with a crime. The accused can be held under arrest for 24 hours, 36 for a indictable offence (murder), but this can be extended by a magistrate court to 96 hours. The only situation where someone can be held for more than 96 is if they are under suspicion of a act of terrorism (Terrorism Act, 2006).

With a active case in progress, there are seven pieces of information a journalist can provide before a pre-court hearing, before the jury is selected and the court case has begun:

* The name of the court and the name of the judge.
* The names, ages and addresses of the defendants and witnesses.
* The charges of each defendant.
* The names of each barrister and solicitor.
* if proceedings are adjourned, the date and location of where it was adjourned.
*  Bail conditions.
* If any legal aid was granted.

It is illegal to take photographs in court rooms and to make audio recordings. Everything that you report on must be fair, fast and accurate, meaning that their should be a fair account of the days proceedings, you must report on it as quickly as possible, but remain accurate in your facts and checking them over before handing in your final report.

Any discrepancies can find journalists in the pathway of two criminal offences; Contempt of Court and Prejudice.

Under the Contempt of Court Act of 1981 ensure that anyone who is found to be disrupting or threatening the legal process in a courtroom can be held for contempt. For journalists it is reporting over proceedings that could impend or show prejudice to any active court proceedings and has the likeliness of affecting the final outcome of a case.

Therefore, it is strictly forbidden to reporting on any information on a case, once it has become active under any circumstances. If we report on findings that we have found during a court case, this is a clear contempt of court and we are liable to our career's before tarnished and a custodial sentence.

Prejudice is where you report of something, which can give influence to a trial's outcome and that is likely to affect the jury's final outcome of the case. Again if we cause prejudice to a court case, your career is over.

However, as I explained in a previous blog post there are defences against contempt of court. The main defence is privilege. Journalists have absolute privilege in court, but only Qualified privilege when reporting on them. This allows a reporter to say what was said during a day's proceedings at court on the basis that I mentioned earlier that it is fast, accurate and fair, without malice and it is a matter of public interest. In a court case the jury must also be present during all proceedings.

There are two types of QP: With subject to explanation and contradiction and without. Press conferences and public meetings are also examples of QP, as well are written handouts. Press conferences and public meeting are occasionally broadcasted live, so we have to be aware of the risks that something may go wrong. This was the case during the live debate of The Hampshire Police and Crime Commissioner vote where we streamed a live debate, but with a 5 second delay. This may seem very small, but it gave us the scope in case something was said that was defamatory and we had to pull the plug on the broadcast.

Until next time, remember to keep your reports fast, accurate and fair and do not try and reveal any details of court proceedings or you will end up in the dock yourself.

Media Law, Lecture 8: Reporting on Elections

This is the blog post I was looking forward to the most as it is the area of media law where I hopefully will be having to covering the most, reporting on elections. As Political Editor of WINOL, I have encountered the rules and regulations of reporting elections for the last six month during my coverage of the Hampshire Police and Crime Commissioner elections.

The role saw we have to interview each of the six candidates and host a live debate at The University of Winchester, produced and broadcasted live online by the WINOL team. This was unlike a General Election where you give balance over time to the three main political parties (Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrats) and a smaller party if they have a chance of winning the seat. The Hampshire Police Commissioner election was the first of it's kind, therefore I had to give equal balance for each candidate and had to ensure that I remained impartial throughout the process of reporting on the election.

Under the Representation of the People Act, as a broadcast journalist, during election season we have to remain impartial throughout as journalism is seen as the fourth estate and we have to ensure that we do not broadcast and bias towards the viewer as it may swing or affect the outcome of a election. Because the public are the ones who will be voting and deciding the outcome, the HPCC election was different as I had to get in contact with each of the candidates and ensured that they were interviewed to keep balance over time.

This was achieved to a extent where I interviewed five out of the six candidates. But, the sixth candidate who could not be interviewed at the time, due to a ongoing police investigation involving allegations made against him, I instead interviewed a Conservative MP in his place who expressed his support during the interview grab. This I checked with my News Editor and he was happy as I had profiled all candidate and gave them all equal billing. I was happy with the overall result as it was similar practice to what you would see at BBC, ITN or Sky.

Then the second job was the hosting of a live debate, chaired by BBC South's Home Affairs Correspondent, Alex Forsyth and streamed live by WINOL. The debate had a"Question Time" style format with each candidate having 90 second opening and closing statement and a 60 minute Q & A session with selected questions from members of the audience. This again had to be strictly abided to ensure that there was no undue prominence and that every candidate had the same amount of time to broadcast their views to the audience.

This again had to abided to strictly and this meant that for some questions only a few candidate could answer and this meant that the other candidate would have their opportunity in the next questions. It was difficult to ensure that everyone had a fair and equal chance. I also ensured that there was a short time delay on the stream to ensure that if anything was said that could have been seen as defamatory to a extent where privilege would not have saved us in court, I had the chance to pull the plug on the stream. This was not needed and I feel that my overall presentation of the election coverage showed balance, impartiality and was unbiased  Therefore, from a legal aspect of reporting on election, I did not make a wrong turn and it was good practice for the future as I know the laws that I have to follow.

Newspapers have a different set of rules to follow than broadcasters as they do not have to remain impartial and can side with one political party during their election campaign. This has been seen across history that with paper that swing to the left (The Guardian, The Mirror) will also support Labour during a election campaign and newspapers that are right-wing (The Daily Mail, The Daily Torygraph) support the Conservatives.  It shows that historically certain papers have decided the outcome of a election, this none more so than The Sun. The Sun has had a history of switching allegiances during General Election, for a party that supported The Conservatives during the Thatcher era and printed the infamous front page on the morning of the 1992 General Election that may have swayed the outcome to The Conservatives. However, when it came to the 1997 General Election the wave of New Labour had swung the allegiance of the paper from blue to red and this remained the case during the 10 years of the Blair era.

I personally think that now the findings of The Leveson report into press standards has been published, it should not been seen that the new regulatory (goodbye PPC) should make law that all newspapers should have the same rules as broadcasters during a election and show balance over time for all the major parties. But, what constitutes a major political party. In England the main three political parties are Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrats.

 They are also major parties in Scotland and Wales, but they are joined by each countries nationalist party SNP (Scottish National Party) and Plaid Cymru. Northern Ireland it is slightly different as none of the major political parties from over the Irish Sea contest seats, due to the history of the Norther Ireland peace conflict.

 The Main parties in Northern Ireland are The DUP (Democratic Unionist Party), The Ulster Unionists, Sinn Fein and The Social Democratic and Labour Party. All these parties across The United Kingdom make up and determine the 650 seats in the House of Commons. During the lecture we discussed that not all MP's will play fairly to the rules during a General Election campaign. This was not the case for Phil Wollas, the former Labour MP and Immigration Minister.

 The MP for Oldham East and Saddleworth had held his seat since 1997 and in the 2010 General Election was up against the favoured Liberal Democrat candidate, Elwyn Watkins. In an area already exposed to rows over racism, Wollas published a newsletter that showed that he had received death threats from what he claimed to be Muslim extremists who were plotting to kill him. But, on top of this he accused Elwyn Watkins of supporting the extremists who would vote for her and described it as "a lid dem pact with the devil." Phil Wollas held onto his seat by a minority of 103 votes, but Elwyn Watkins complained and took her case to the courts accusing Wollas of misleading the electorate in order to hold onto his seat that he was on course to lose. The High Court verdict showed that there was no substantial evidence to backup Wollas's claims of Elwyn Watkins links with extremists and overturned the decision of the election. This was the first time something like this has been done for 99 years and in turn Wollas was banned from running for Parliament for three years.

 A more recent case involved the recent Croydon-North by-election. The election that took place this was week was secured a safe Labour hold in the area, but the controversy of the election was marred by the UKIP candidate, Winston McKenzie. McKenzie in a press interview stated that adopting by gay couples is nothing more than "child abuse" and various other homophobic accusations. This luckily did not affect the outcome of the election as McKenzie came third, but it again show legally how careful we have to be with what we report during election as what journalists write can sway outcomes.

Channel 5 News 27/11/2012 debrief notes

Headlines: under water, flood risks eye catching photos, show the victims, the right grab of the Prime Minister
Latest update by Emma Crosby .

Sickness bug: Good photo

Nadine Dorries: Another photo.

Bill Tarney Funereal: Right shots that showed what was happening even without the headline.

Sports Personality: Too close to call, pause the soundbite to entice the viewer to keep watching.

Floods: Good explanation in the link gives a clear indication of what has happened and sticks to the facts. two-way with reporter live from the scene.

Astons show the reporters name and their twitter name. Something we should use on WINOL

No natural sound, but shots of the floods from different angles, cross dissolves used to show clips. Good interview grab and relay to questions. good use of different still-held shots from different angles.

Good short grab from the Environment agency

Nice use of map graphic to give more broader indication of what areas have been affected.

Use of the Prime Minister to show he's on the scene, good grab for the most important political figures in the county, but it right to show the affected areas first.

Overall: good shot types from different angles, good grab, but could of used natural sound at the beginning and could of wrote to the pictures more carefully.

Flood Story 2: Nice drop intro and use of footage to show how people have been affected and interesting use of interview technique to show the people affect by the floods.

Very similar stories. Why were 2 stories used?. I understand it is the biggest national story for the last few days, but I understand why the stories was done from 2 angles; the impact of the flood and the impact on the people.

Both stories had two-ways before and after the story with Emma Crosby and the reporters, could of used different techniques as it made both stories look the same with the outline of the story:

 hospital sickness outbreak: Interesting first shot with a move of the shot of the virus with a shot of a hospital ward in the background. Nice grab, but again it was very short. Very graphic heavy so far during the first 3 packages. Good use of mid-shot of people to ensure article 8 was not breached.
Same shot at the beginning and at the end. Lack of shots, shows that more could of been filmed.

E-ON oov: nice change from package, package, package to OOV to split the stories apart. Good shots

Nadine Dorries: talk over pictures with another move. and then another two-way with Political Editor: Nice backdrop relevant in Westminster. The show is becoming very two-way heavy though, it is a nice element, but it is becoming very familiar.

Nice coming up recapping on the stories from the headlines, keep the viewers informed. Nice vox-pops for the Sport Personality of the year shortlist.

 Recap to remind viewers of the top story, if they are just tuning in.

Yasser Arafat: 3 point list in the link, very good technique, the link made me interested in the story. good use of writing to pictures, no link to show is the pictures are archive footage, which is clear. But, a aston used for the footage from Al Jazeera documentary. The first interviews camera shot was possible too close and cut the top of the face off.and the quote was not memorable. Second interview the quote from Nabila Ramdani was very strong.

Bill Tarney funeral: A nice change to a sad story, given a very nice sentiment. showing the grief, but celebration of Bill's life, which is what is needed from a story covering a celebrity funeral. The interview's are showing a over the shoulder shot with the reporter present, very nice technique, which is not being used on every story, but show a freshness to each individual VT. Strong quotes from all interviewees.

Crane fire oov: Another OOV to break up the packages and a good footage using the action shot that hits the crane.

SPOTY: Music used to show it is very much of a puff piece. Good access to interviews with nominees and good profile pieces on both Sir Chris Hoy and Ellie Simmonds and good balance to show one Olympian and one Paraolympian. Nice use of graphics, this story needed a graphic and a vox-pop to show the general public, after all they will be voting to decide the winner.

Coming up to the next bulletin has used good use of stories to entice viewers to watch the next bulletin, including a exclusive interview with Nigel Farage.

Final thoughts: Good balance of stories during the bulletin with floods, viruses and Sport Personality of the Year. The bulletin was a little heavy with two-ways between the presenter and the reporters and it was very graphic heavy. I am also interested into why there is two bulletins and why it can not be incorporated into a hour news programme like Channel 4, which is also produced by ITN.

Media Law, Lecture 5: Defamation and Libel

As a journalist we need to recognise risk at every turn and if we are in doubt, leave it out. One of the main risks that journalists face is to ensure that they do not say anything that is rude or insulting to anyone. This is where we enter the realms of defamation and libel.

But, before we go any further, what exactly is defamation?

It is when someone writes or broadcasts something about a individual or a group of people that can defame them and lead to the following, according to the 21st edition of McNae's

* It can expose the person to hatred, ridicule and contempt.
* It can cause them to become shunned and avoided.
* Lower the person in the estimation of right thinking members of society.
* Disparage the person in their business, trade, office or profession.

As a reporter on WINOL for the last year and a half, I have had to be very careful that my story is almost balanced and that if it focuses on a individual or group (which in politics it can be very well be the case) that I ensure there is balance to ensure there is no defamatory statement and that no one has been libelled.

This was the case last year where I planned to cover a story on a ongoing dispute between the Conservative and Labour Councillors at Southampton City Council. The story was centred around a website created by a member of the Southampton Conservative party who accused the current Leader of Southampton City Council on helping influence the trade unions on striking and causing disruption during the summer of 2011.

I had to be extremely careful as the website was clearly defaming the council leader and I could not do the story without any comment from Labour, but this was not the case. Therefore, I had to drop the story because if I had gone ahead with any balance there is clear identification of the individual, it has been published on the WINOL bulletin and it is in the person would of been defamed.

These are the three main ingredinent that are needed to clearly indetify that someone has been libelled.

PUBLICATION+DEFAMATION+IDENTIFICATION= LIBEL

There are a few defences to Libel, but you have to ensure that these defences are solid as a rock before using them.

Justification: To justify your statement, you must ensure that it is true and you have the facts to back yourself up if you are taken to court. You need to ensure that you have your notes, your rushes, your shorthand notes, something that ultimately save your from criminal or civil prosecution. You must also ensure that your evidence you have cannot been misinterpreted and changed to show the statement is still defamatory, so ensure you have checked your facts and that every is 100% correct and foolproof.

A key example of this is the case involving former Conservative cabinet minister, Jonathan Aitken. A undercover operation by World In Action exposed Mr Aitken of dealing with the Saudi's in arms dealings and that he allowed a Arab businessman to pay for his bill in a hotel, a breach of parliamentary guidelines. A joint operation between World in Action and The Guardian provided that there was clear justification to publish these claims and led to Jonathan Aitken resigning from the Conservative party and being jailed for Perjury.

Fair comment: This must be a fair and honest account of a journalist and must be recognised as comment, rather than a allegation. The comment must be based on fact and it must be that keep thing that keep journalists within the realms of the law; in the public interest.

Absolute/Qualified Privilege: This is the most valuable defence to any journalists because in some situation our comment is free from prosecution. Absolute privilege gives use exemption from prosecution in situations involving court reporting and parliamentary proceedings. This is evident in parliament as a Conservative MP can call a Labour MP a idiot without threat of defamation. In court absolute privilege is guaranteed when there is fair and balance account of the courts proceedings and is published.

Qualified privilege is more important because the fact must be clear and in the public interests. This can involve situation including public meetings, press conferences and debate held in public. For QP to be used a defence, the information provided must be fair and accurate, without malice and in the public interest.

The Reynolds Defence is another key defence against defamation and libel, but I will give more context to this defence in a separate blog post.

These defences are helpful to a journalist who remains careful and vigilant in their stories, but there is situation where you have no defence against defamation or libel. These can include:

* When you have not checked your facts.
* When you have not "referred up" to your editor.
* When you do not put yourself in the persons situation.
* You get carried away by the story.
* You do not wait for legal opinion.

This check list of what not to do has been ticked off by the BBC at least once in the last few months with the ongoing investigation into the Newsnight allegations against Jimmy Saville and Lord McAlpine. In the case of Saville the evidence is clear and identification and fair comment will suffice as it is in the clear public interest. But, in the case of the Lord McAlpine and the allegation that he was a child abuse in Wales in the 1970's, there was clear evidence that facts were not checked and that the reporters had not referred to their news editor.

This has led to a £185,000 payment to Lord McAlpine by the BBC, two investigation into the Newsnight programme and the sacking of many senior executives at the BBC including the Director of News and the Director General. The main thing that astounds me is that the journalists covering this story did not do the most basic thing to ensure that this story was true, they did not call Lord McAlpine to get his comments on the allegations. If you do not know if the facts are true, then call the person involved and find them out. These are the basic ethical principles that have led to journalism being brought into disrepute and again having to rebuild reputations across society.

When planning a story as a journalist, the first thing I have to do and I will keep saying this until it is imbedded in my mind is to recognise risk. I need to ask myself who am I writing about and could this person potentially sue me? I need to ensure wherever I am working that I ask for legal advice at any point I am unsure of something. If you do not ask the question, you will not know the answer.

Libel has been seen as a lottery to make money out of people and this has seen a recent Libel Reform Bill be made to be passed through the House of Lords. The bill would see a change to the current law to make it harder for people to sue for the sake of getting money, rather than repairing their claimed "damaged reputation."

It is interesting as it bring up the questions, when a celebrity makes a libel claim against a journalist or a member of the general public, are they doing it for their reputation or to fill their already inflated pockets from more spare change? The debate is still out, but it will be interesting to see what happens if the bill is passed through parliament and the libel laws become a lot stricter.

What is evident I think though is that laws do need to be change, but the training and practice of journalism needs to change at the same time as there has been too many example of rogue journalism for my liking and I see now why ethical practice is the core of what every journalism should follow when covering a story about anything or anyone.

Media Law, Lecture 4: Code of conduct and regulation in journalism

I have been really neglecting my reader and I apologise for that. The reason you have not seen a new blog post in a while was my life being take over by The Hampshire Police and Crime Commissioner election. That is now over, so I can get back to business with the backlog of blogging I have to about various subjects in media law.

Week 4 and we were reintroduced the Ian Anderson who would begin his series of lectures with us. This week we focused on something that is very important to a journalist and that is regulation and the codes of conduct that we have to abide to.

Journalism is seen as the fourth estate as our influence is there, but no recognised in society. But, who is there to guard to the guardians???

Regulatory bodies are there to oversee and scrutinise both broadcast and print journalism bodies to ensure that they are working within the boundaries of the law and to punish anyone who breaks those rules and regulations.

The Leveson enquiry in press standards has been a prime example of rogue journalism. The findings are due to be announced this Thursday into how journalists can reports and will bring into account the ethics of journalism, which has been severely damaged, due to the press hacking scandal brought upon by News International publications The Sun and The News of the World, amongst others.

As journalists across all aspects of media (broadcast, print and online journalism), we must before doing anything, whilst doing a story and when thinking of the next story is recognising risk at every oppertunity. Even if we have a deadline that is due in 4 hours, we need to ensure that the story product is accurate, fair and has no legal or moral implications.

There are four codes of conduct that regulate journalists and they are:

PCC (Press Complaints Commission): the body that deal with newspapers publications and magazines.
OFCOM: Deal with all forms of television and radio.
BBC Trust: The body that oversee BBC staff and license payers
NUJ (National Union of Journalists): The body run by journalists and for journalists.

Codes of conduct matter as they bring into account the ethical practice and ensure that even knows we are journalists and we should know what to do in our jobs, we remain ethical whilst doing this. What are the punishments if we decide to break these rules and we get caught?? Well apart from having your career and reputation tarnished, it breaks trust people the broadcaster/newspaper and the people because the majority of stories in journalism are about people doing things. If we break the trust with the people who read or watch our publications, then problems soon follow.

As, well as ethical practice, there are other 3 other rules we need to follow as journalists and they are:

* Fair treatment-respect for privacy
* Requirement for accuracy and impartiality
* Protecting vulnerable groups E.G. children and the elderly

But, as long as we as journalists are fast, accurate and fair, then we will should save ourselves from risk and have a hopefully painless journey as journalists, away from court and contempt.

However, if a newspaper decides to becoming rogue and produce a story outside of the ethical guidelines, then they are likely to fall under scrutiny from the Press Complaints Commission. The PCC are responsible for print journalism and will act if a member of the public complaints about a story published in a newspaper. But, the PCC does not have much authority to regulate a newspaper and cannot pass any sanctions or fines. Another constraint is that it is self regulated and there is chance that bias may be shown by former journalists. Therefore, this is one of the key reasons that the Leveson Enquiry has come into force to try and put some enforcement back into newspapers and on Thursday we will find out what sort of changes will be recommended.

OFCOM however have much more authority than the PCC, they have the power and they have the control to keep broadcasters under control. They have the right to hand out massive fines to broadcasters who break the rules. A key example of this is the BBC who in 2008 was in the middle of a fiasco involving Russell Brand, Jonathan Ross and Manuel off Fawlty Towers, sorry Andrew Sachs. The incident involved a obscene prank phone call to the actor's home and a infamous statement involving Mr Sach's granddaughter.

Unfortunately this stunt caused both Brand and Ross to eventually lose their jobs at the BBC and OFCOM gave the BBC a fine of £150,000. OFCOM have the right to take up to 5% of a broadcasters revenue and in the case of the BBC or Sky that could run into millions of pounds. Any correction or findings that OFCOM regulate must be broadcasted. In the most extreme case OFCOM have the right to shut a broadcaster down permanently.

The BBC editorial guidelines are determined and monitored by the BBC Trust. The trust set their own guidelines as they have their own high expectations of their employess and there is a strict code they must abide to. However, these guidelines have been abused recently with the Jimmy Saville scandal and the Newnight investigation into both Saville and the child abuse scandal in Wales, which wrongly accused Lord Mcalpine of being the suspect involved. This resulted in the BBC paying Lord McAlpine £185,000 in damages and with two enquiries into the programme ongoing, the future of Newsnight remain bleak as the basic journalistic practice has been taken into questions as even the basic of rules were bot followed E.G. Checking sources

For broadcasters in particular they have to remain impartial, but this is not the case for newspapers. Broadcasters must show no bias or preconception and must consider everything that they decide to broadcast will have the opinion of someone and may cause debate across society. This has been something that the BBC have not followed over the last few weeks and this has led to the scandals and problems, which led to the resignation of former BBC Director General, George Entwistle who resigned after 55 days in the job. These scandals have taken into account the reputation of the BBC who is funded by the taxpayer.

Finally we come to the NUJ (National Union of Journalists). The NUJ is a code of conduct created by journalists, for journalists to follow and until recently a lot of newspapers required their journalists to be a member of the NUJ if they wanted to work for them. The NUJ is not as concerned about privacy and defamation, but is more focused on protection of the sources we use to find out stories. Journalists are seen as The Fourth Estate, therefore we must protect our sources at any cost, even if this means that we got to prison because we must remain impartial to our journalistic routes and must ensure that we never jeopardise the industry and bring it into disrepute.

As a journalist we will always make some mistakes and it is best to admit to your own mistakes straight away as it is likely there could be a way to fix the problem you have made, instead of hiding it and make the possibility it 100 times worse and possibly risking your own career in the process.

The consequences for broadcasters may become a lot stricter after Lord Leveson's finding are released on Thursday as it may change the editorial code of every news broadcaster and how journalists find stories and use sources may become very different. The press scandal has mainly been the work of print newspapers, but after the problems caused by the BBC, it may become rule that journalists learn the basic rules, before applying their trade into practice.

Journalism has gone through a dramatic change over the last year and with another major change impending, the way that journalism is regulated and controlled may change to the point where how we approach a story and ethical practice will become law as we remain impartial and ensure that we recognise risk at every turn.

HPCC Debate candidate final information

Right guys with the Hampshire Police and Crime Commissioner debate only 3 days away, As asked by Brian heres is a brief profile on each candidate and a link to their website.

Michael Mates-Conservative (www.michaelmates.org): Michael Mates is a former MP for East Hampshire for East Hampshire for 36 years between 1974 and 2010. He is coming from a previously military background and served in the army and was based in Cyprus, Germany and Northern Ireland. He was also Northern Ireland Minister during the first few years of John Major's reign of Prime Minister. He has therefore had previous responsibility with policing matters in Northern Ireland. 

He has been involved with the Asil Nadir case and his close friendship with him and is still under scrutiny for not paying back his share of the Dolphin Square parliamentary housing complex, which has come under pressure from many Labour MP's. 

His main priorities if elected as HPCC are:

My overriding priority will be to ensure that the people of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight get the police service they deserve, and for which they pay. I shall fight for appropriate funds from central government, while acknowledging that these are difficult financial times for us all.  In making decisions about the budget I shall confer with the Chief Constable and the four authorities – Hampshire; Isle of Wight; Portsmouth; Southampton.  I shall strive with the Home Office and the Treasury to ensure that the importance of good and efficient policing is recognised appropriately in the budgets set.

My focus will be on reducing crime, catching criminals, protecting the vulnerable and making our streets safe.  To achieve this in difficult times, there must be more efficient use of scarce resources, with the accent on getting experienced, well trained officers out of offices and in touch with the public.

If I must choose between competing priorities, my choice will be:

• All crimes of violence
• All crimes involving alcohol and drugs
• Rural crime.

In addition to these, I would like to see the fear of crime allayed.  It is this which often causes our citizens to believe that their police service is not doing its best.

Jacqui Rayment-Labour (www.jacquirayment.co.uk): Jacqui is currently the Deputy-Leader of Southampton City Council and was previously the Chair of The Hampshire Police Authority for the last 6 years and member of the authority for the last 15 years. She has overseen the appointments of many leading figures in Hampshire Police including current Chief Constable Alex Marshall (Who is also departing at the end of the year, therefore the new commissioner will be elected a new Chief Constable). 

These are Jacqui Priorities:

"I will engage with different sectors of Hampshire and the IOW, Community and Tenant groups, Hard to reach groups, as well as Local Authority colleagues and Businesses.

My vision for the role would be to put people in the community at the heart of what I do, enabling them to have a voice and an active say in how policing is delivered in their communities across Hampshire and the IOW. I will build on the successes of the past, such as hosting a conference and road shows where people have been invited from across the community to participate and have an active say in how policing is delivered.

I would provide the opportunity for consultation and give people at a local level
the chance to articulate their top priorities and build this into my strategic plan. I would involve key community stakeholders, agencies, individuals and other public sector organisation such as local authorities to ensure that diverse voices had a chance to input into and shape the strategy and once the plan had been developed I would provide regular opportunities throughout the year for progress monitoring and further input from all parties.

The Use of the media will be vital in all forms including tried and tested methods of communication which would combine community newsletters, the press and other media as well as all forms of social media such as Twitter, Face Book, Blogging and LinkedIn to provide up to the minute progress reports as well as inviting stakeholder input on an ongoing basis. This would ensure that local people would have a direct link and input into policing priorities and the delivery of both the strategy and policing plan.  This level of local engagement will ensure the closer involvement of people within communities in the way policing is delivered. The Communication would need to be relevant and timely with the information aimed at the right level and appropriate to the given audience."

David Goodall-Lib Dem (www.davidgoodall.org.uk): David Goodall is currently a councillor at Eastleigh Borough Council and has been the Lib Dem parliamentary candidate for Southampton Itchen in the last two general elections. He has family ties in Hampshire Police with his Father a former policeman and his brother currently working a police inspector.

All of the candidates in this election will talk about wishing to reduce all crime and in particular violent crime, alcohol and drug related crime and sexual assaults. All of us will agree that offenders need to be caught and punished for the criminal acts they have done. The difference between the candidates will come on:-

• how best to catch offenders?
• how best to punish offenders?
• how best the offender is re-integrated back into society once the punishment is complete?

There will also be differences on how we plan to operate as Police and Crime Commissioner and engage with the public, in particular:-

• how best to involve the public in creating the Police and Crime Plan?
• how best to involve the public in checking that the Police and Crime Plan is working?

These and other questions are addressed in my Manifesto published today

Stephen West-UKIP (www.vote4stephen.com): Stephen has defected from Conservatives from UKIP where has currently stands as a councillor on Basingstoke and Dean Borough Council. He is a former Special Constable and is the only candidate with front line policing experience:

His priorities are: 

The pledge that I make to you is simple and straight forward.  There is no fudge or minced words that you are used to from politicians of the mainstream political parties.  I want us to have a police force and not a police service and I want the criminals in our neighbourhoods to be frightened and not the victims.  I have listed below what I have committed to do, the details of why I must do this and how it will be done will come in my manifesto.

My pledges to you

• No reduction in numbers of front line police
• No real terms increase in your Council Tax police contribution
• Zero tolerance on anti-social behaviour
• Reduce overall crime levels
• Support victims of crime
• Support campaign to tear down speed cameras

I promise to deliver on the above pledges as your Police and Crime Commissioner.  Please print this page and keep it safe so that you can hold me to account against these clear commitments.

Simon Hayes- Independent (www.hayes4pcc.org): Simon is currently the chairman of Hampshire and IOW Crimestoppers and is standing as the only candidate with anyone political association. 

His Priorities include:

• To create sufficient Police Officers and PCSOs, so criminals know that they will be caught, whether they are active in rural or urban areas.
• To proactively combat crime in rural communities.
• To work directly with organisations, such as Victim Support, Neighbourhood Watch and other Charities, to achieve a safer society.
• To ensure a much more efficient and supportive approach to victims/witnesses, to achieve better outcomes for victims.
• To create quick and positive Community Justice - involving local people, to achieve better result for victims and say to criminals “crime doesn’t pay”.
• Take action to prevent constant police call outs about the same families, week in week out.
• To develop better School & College liaison with our young people, as part of the preventing offending campaign and giving confidence to young people that the Police are here to protect them.
• To improve Police response to Domestic Violence and Sexual Abuse, to reduce both the number of victims and the unacceptable level of repeat victimisation, and to support vulnerable and elderly victims.
• To liaise with and address concerns of minority ethnic communities across both Hampshire & the Isle of Wight.
• To save Your money by preventing re-offending, so reducing crime and reducing victims.

Don Jerrard- Justice and Anti-Corruption party (www.policeelections.com/candidates/hampshire/don-jerrard): Don Jerrard is a former solicitor and many years of experience in dealing with the police in policing and legal matters. His website link does not work, but his main priorities are on the link I have given.

Two other useful website for the elections are www.policelections.com and www.choosemypcc.org.uk 

Any other questions come find me, but remember people will ask you questions on Thursday and you need to know the answers

WINOL HPCC election Debate special final plan

Right guys and girls after consulting and having various meetings the final preparations have been finalised. We will have a dry run through on Tuesday afternoon between half 3 and 6 to prepare the set for the night and ensure that the production plan can work and if any changes need to be made, we will make them.

On Tuesday it will be me, Graham, Henry and everyone from production to help out and we will do a dummy run, but I will need anyone who is free to pretend to be candidates and sat in the audience so we can every angle we will be filming from. After meeting the technician's and Brian on Friday the final plan for the layout for the debate:

* 2 cameras will be at the front one on a tripod capturing reaction from the audience and one will be on the fig-rig, which will be operated by Lee to get shots of the audience asking their questions and to also help film the chair of the debate.

* the other two cameras will be positioned inside of one of the rows in the auditorium. This will allow better access to film the debate and will also stop any problems with health and safety with cameras positioned in the aisles. These seats will be cornered off, therefore we will have both cameras on this row filming.

* The two cameras at the back will be fed by 2 long BMC cablesinto the tricaster, which will be operated by Henry and there is a possibility of their being a fifth camera, which will be decided after the run-through on Tuesday.

* We will have six table microphones used for the debate and one radio mic for Alex Forsyth. Therefore we will still need to possible use the gun-mic's, but I think that the mic's on the cameras will be sufficient with the volume up to maximum, but we will try with both.

* There will be a technician available from 4pm on Thursday 1st, so we will have someone on hand to help us set up all the equipment and there will also be someone on hand throughout the debate and help with the sound and lighting arrangements, which will be controlled by a app on a IPad.

Onto the arrangements everyone knows their roles, but to refresh everyone's memory, here is the final list of roles and the small alteration I have made:

Managing Editor: Louis O'Brien

Tricaster/Producer: Henry Lewin-Titt

Floor Manger: Graham Marshall (I have personally assigned you the role of director for Alex Forsyth as well, because we will not have talk back, so I will need you to be down the front prompting her of timing and if we need to move onto the next question). 

Cameramen: George Berridge, Daniel Mackrell, Ewan Kennerell and Lee Jarvis (fig-rig operator) 

Ushers: Felicity Houston, Faith Thomas and myself. 

Guest Reception: (checking off guests name to ensure they have been invited): Sophie Webb,  and Nicole Collas

Photographer: Kate Drummond 

Audience runners: Christina Michaels, Kirsty Phillips, Amy Moore and Karina Sleiman. (you will be mainly going round with the microphone so people can ask their questions as the majority of the debate is a Q and A session with the candidates.

Runners: Nadine Forshaw, Georgia Spears and Ben Hatton (I think we will have more production roles, but for the time being I will need you guys on hands to get things if we have any technical problems or issues with candidate etc)

Online/graphics: Liam Garraham and Jason French (this is one of the most important jobs as we will need you to watch the stream throughout to ensure it is working and to have a graphics made ready to use if the stream goes down)

Post-debate interviewers: George Berridge, Spence Spencer, Tom Morgan and Thomas Baxter. This will depend on if we have any MP's attend. We have the Chief Constable of Hampshire Police and the Chairman of the Hampshire Police Federation and we will hopefully interview both, therefore I will still need the four of your to help if that is ok. 

The debate will have three parts:

* All six candidates will have a 90 second opening statement to begin.

* Then we will go for a hour Q and A session with the selected questions with a five minute time-limit on each question (we may go longer on some if the debate gets heated).

* All candidates will then have a 90 second closing statement to finish. 

I imagine that the debate will finish just before 10, but we will need to move equipment to the room upstairs above the stripe auditorium to store equipment until the morning when it will be moved by myself and the production team. 

I think that will sort everything. We will have a meeting tomorrow where I will go through all of the major points and answer any questions, but with the run-through on Tuesday hopefully we will sort any issues and will be prepared for next Thursday night for the 2nd of our big projects this semester.