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.
Tuesday 27 November 2012
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)