This lecture was our first with Ian Anderson, former News Editor on the BBC
10 O’clock News; so Dan, when you think your job on WINOL is hard, try and
fathom how much of a step up it would be to do that on a national programme
like the 10 O’clock News.
So to start it is important to remember that regulation and codes are not
laws, but often are of the same or higher importance to journalists. With the
shadow of Leveson looming large over the whole industry this is an extremely
important time in regulation; the PCC (Press Complaints Commission) has been
held up in ridicule, journalists are less trusted by the public than ever and
newspapers are closing down faster than you can say News of the World.
Regulation and codes must work in practice because if they don't then the
public does not trust us; if the public doesn't trust us, where do our stories
come from? Why do codes matter though? Well all professionals have codes of
conduct which occupy the space between actual laws and what is right ethically;
so if you break one of your codes of conduct you may not actually be breaking
the law but you can still damage your career or even lose your job. Journalism
is all about having the trust of the public so it's good to have these codes to
guide us in areas like; how far can we go to get a story, what practices are
legitimate and when do circumstances make a difference? The Jimmy Savile case
which is currently playing out across the media has been extremely damaging to
the bond between the BBC and the public. These codes are in place to stop bad
practice in journalism in order to gain and maintain public trust.
There are 3 main codes for journalists to remember plus one other which I'll
mention briefly later. For newspapers and magazines it is the PCC which of course
is in transition at the moment. It's very difficult to define the PCC code at
the moment but essentially it is a regulator which deals (or perhaps dealt?)
with complaints submitted to them where a journalist has perhaps made a mistake
which cannot be rectified by a simple apology in the next edition. Often the
PCC has to be the middle man between the complainant and the newspaper, such as
in this case, now resolved, where Gordon
Brown MP complained to the PCC about something written in The Times about money
given to MPs in addition to their parliamentary salary. Since the PCC is run by
ex-press people pretty much, the question of how it can be fully independent is
ever present. It also has no real power to regulate, offering as it does
apologies and a slap on the wrist. The code and regulator for broadcasters is
Ofcom who are arguably much less ineffectual than their newspaper regulating
cousins. This is mainly because they have real power to regulate in being able
to fine people or pull their programmes off air. Think back to the Russell
Brand and Jonathan Ross saga, Ofcom fined the hell out of them and it
eventually caused the pair to lose their jobs. This was nothing though in
comparison to the breach of trust the incident caused. If you don't keep to the
Ofcom codes though they can and will take you off air; they license people to
broadcast and have no hesitation in giving with one hand and taking away with
the other. In comparison to the timid PCC, Ofcom really can hurt an institution
with its powers which have to be there to enforce impartiality as well as any
legal issues. Impartiality is something which doesn't matter to newspapers,
there is no requirement for them to be impartial, yet broadcasters have to be
impartial or risk the wrath of Ofcom. Finally we have the BBC code of conduct,
available for all to read here and which are, by all accounts,
"a great tool for how to do your job well," as spoken by Ian Anderson
in our lecture. I won't go into detail on the BBC guidelines as they will only
affect you if you get a job with the BBC and since that's a little more niche
than getting a job in journalism in general I'll leave it up to you as to whether
you want to find out more.
There are times however when as a journalist it may be necessary to not
adhere to these ethical rules. In the search for a story, how far is too far?
In investigative journalism it may be necessary to secretly film someone or lie
in order to get the story. This is obviously not ideal and the only real
defence you can have for these sorts of actions is public interest. OK so the
story could be true but if it is not in the public interest you lied and
cheated to get the story and deserve to be reprimanded. If however it is in the
public interest then you should be home and dry. The fake sheik stories in the
long gone News of the World were a great example of investigative journalism
where rather dodgy tactics were employed to break codes for good reasons. At
the moment there is a consultation by the DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions)
which is hoping to put a real answer to the question of whether the public
interest served by the conduct investigated outweighs the overall criminality
of the means of acquiring that information. If yes, run that story dammit; if
no, you're going to jail lad.
Finally (oh you thought I meant finally when we were talking about the BBC?
Well this is awkward) let's talk about the NUJ. OK so the National Union of
Journalists hasn't been as strong ever since Murdoch came along but there are
some journalists who still hold its 12 key points sacred. In most other codes
there is a focus on privacy but there's a fair more laissez faire
attitude to that in the NUJ code of conduct; you can read the whole list here but the
one that all journalists should adhere to if they are to be respected and considered
trustworthy is the protection of sources. If you are given sensitive
information which is entirely possible as a journalist then it is your solemn
duty not to reveal the source of this information if you publish the story
which you gained from said information. Really though, as long as you make
every piece of work you do FAST, ACCURATE and FAIR then you shouldn't have any
problems. And how hard can that be?
Until Next Time. Stay Classy Internet.
Friday, 26 October 2012
Saturday, 20 October 2012
Media Law - Copyright or Copywrong?
This week's law lecture was taken by a guest lecturer, Peter Hodges. An expert, if not THE expert in copyright law (who some long term readers may remember visited once before). Having started on the other side of copyright as a music producer which helped him when he made the transition to the BBC advising on the use of music and other copyrighted materials in BBC programmes. Copyright isn't too difficult to define but it has changed over the years since its first use in 1640 with Paradise Lost. It can cover all manner of things, not just music and films but even this blog. Although it's been updated often throughout European law and with the advent of the Internet it matters hugely to us as journalists because we should be thinking about our own rights. To protect your work you need to have it published. You can't just write it down and let that be that because if it isn't published then it isn't covered by copyright. Some rather obscure things can be copyrighted; for example the Eiffel Tower when illuminated at night is copyrighted because the lighting company has the copyright on the lighting configuration. Insane.
Copyright doesn't last forever though and the laws about how long copyright lasts are quite specific. For a literary piece of work like a book it is covered during the life of the author and then 70 years after that, for music the same rules apply except it is 50 years after the death of the author. In the case of films though, the normal rules apply but it continues to stay in copyright for 70 years after the death of the director, the screenwriter and many others. But what can a person do to protect their work? Well the simplest thing is to prevent it being copied. That's why you often see on DVDs a little symbol saying copy protected or similar. Watching a film in the home you don't need to clear that copyrighted material but if, for example, you had the film on your website or played music underneath it which isn't yours, you could be prosecuted. The performance still has to be paid for. There is an exception though and it is the glorious world of 'Fair Dealing'. Fair dealing is essentially the acceptable face of taking and using copyrighted material. You can use anything you like for research or public study but you're probably wondering how much of a song or how long can a clip from a film be if I use it on my hipster blog. Well the good news is yes you can under the fair dealing usage of comment and review. How long you can use a piece of copyrighted material for is up for some debate however. In the WINOL Games series I produced last year with course mate Ewan Kennerell we had to come up against fair dealing quite regularly; here's a typical episode. We were told by Peter Hodges that up to 2 minutes would have been acceptable so it's a real relief to know that every episode we made of WINOL Games was totally safe legally. In news you can also use fair dealing but it doesn't cover photos and is much harder to prove that the material is safe under fair dealing.
"But what about live broadcasts?" You're probably not saying. Well in a live broadcast if there is music playing and it is included incidentally, there's nothing you can do about it. It's live. But record the live broadcast and rebroadcast it at a later date without clearing that music and you're in trouble. Basically, everything is copyrighted. Even Happy Birthday is copyrighted! And all artists, authors, movie makers, photographers have the right to be credited. Always remember though that there is no copyrighting ideas. If someone says, "let's have a show that does football highlights," Gary Lineker is unlikely to head round to your house and tell you to stop ripping off Match of the Day.
Until Next Time. Stay Classy Internet.
P.S. Previous copyright blogs 1 and 2
Copyright doesn't last forever though and the laws about how long copyright lasts are quite specific. For a literary piece of work like a book it is covered during the life of the author and then 70 years after that, for music the same rules apply except it is 50 years after the death of the author. In the case of films though, the normal rules apply but it continues to stay in copyright for 70 years after the death of the director, the screenwriter and many others. But what can a person do to protect their work? Well the simplest thing is to prevent it being copied. That's why you often see on DVDs a little symbol saying copy protected or similar. Watching a film in the home you don't need to clear that copyrighted material but if, for example, you had the film on your website or played music underneath it which isn't yours, you could be prosecuted. The performance still has to be paid for. There is an exception though and it is the glorious world of 'Fair Dealing'. Fair dealing is essentially the acceptable face of taking and using copyrighted material. You can use anything you like for research or public study but you're probably wondering how much of a song or how long can a clip from a film be if I use it on my hipster blog. Well the good news is yes you can under the fair dealing usage of comment and review. How long you can use a piece of copyrighted material for is up for some debate however. In the WINOL Games series I produced last year with course mate Ewan Kennerell we had to come up against fair dealing quite regularly; here's a typical episode. We were told by Peter Hodges that up to 2 minutes would have been acceptable so it's a real relief to know that every episode we made of WINOL Games was totally safe legally. In news you can also use fair dealing but it doesn't cover photos and is much harder to prove that the material is safe under fair dealing.
"But what about live broadcasts?" You're probably not saying. Well in a live broadcast if there is music playing and it is included incidentally, there's nothing you can do about it. It's live. But record the live broadcast and rebroadcast it at a later date without clearing that music and you're in trouble. Basically, everything is copyrighted. Even Happy Birthday is copyrighted! And all artists, authors, movie makers, photographers have the right to be credited. Always remember though that there is no copyrighting ideas. If someone says, "let's have a show that does football highlights," Gary Lineker is unlikely to head round to your house and tell you to stop ripping off Match of the Day.
Until Next Time. Stay Classy Internet.
P.S. Previous copyright blogs 1 and 2
Sunday, 14 October 2012
The 2nd Law
Not just a Muse album but also an incredibly cheesy way of introducing the second week of law blogs.
This week it was Confidentiality and Privacy. Two subjects close to journalists' hearts but with one in particular sliding out of relevance rather rapidly, (try saying that three times fast).
We'll save the best 'til last then and start with confidentiality which is really a technical term for secrets. Obviously it's more complicated than that but at its root, something confidential is often something secret. For example, let's pretend a hospital is fiddling its numbers, causing patients to suffer; if a hospital worker were to tell a journalist this it would be quite clearly something which is secret but definitely something which is confidential. It is often in cases like this where confidentiality is of the utmost importance and sources need protecting that we look to the journalism code of conduct. Much has been made in the last few months and even years about the character of journalists, arguably we're worse than lawyers and politicians now in most peoples eyes, but yes, we do have a code of conduct. One of the most sacred and important parts of said code of conduct is the protection of sources. Where do people think stories come from if not sources? And if we go around whistle-blowing on the whistle-blowers then who will trust us? We as journalists need to be prepared to go to court and even jail to protect our sources. Outside of journalism Bill Goodwin is probably not all that well known but to journalists he should be considered a hero. As a young, up and coming reporter on a business trading magazine he broke a story using his sources that quite frankly angered the company he was writing about. They took him to court and he was asked again and again to identify his source; he wouldn't do it. Goodwin was eventually cleared and the story revealed to be completely true if memory serves me but it is for his dogged protection of sources that he deserves to be remembered.
Confidentiality though has become a little niche since 2000. The European Human Rights Act is what caused it and the two most important articles for journalists to remember are Article 8 and Article 10. Article 8 concerns the right to privacy and Article 10 is essentially freedom of speech which is why it is so important to journalists to have a good understanding of what can be protected under it. A journalist also needs a basic understanding of the difference between statute and common law. If statute was the only kind of law then you could probably get a law degree in a couple of months, fortunately (or unfortunately if you're a law student reading this for some reason) common law stops that by being absolutely insanely complicated as it is the law made by judges over the years in past cases. This means that despite statute laying down the main laws, any slight changes made by judges in their handling of cases and their sentencing can have huge legal ramifications down the line. You don't need to do a law degree and understand all the ins and outs of common law, I reckon even lawyers would admit they don't know absolutely all common law, but just have a understanding of the dangers this presents. Similarly you don't need to understand every point of Article 8 and 10 but just to understand the dangers and the defences. The Leveson enquiry may return a verdict that calls for what will amount to fixing the regulation of journalists, but this would not be needed if all journalists could recognise the dangers present in law.
Remember when I got all obsessed about secrets a few paragraphs ago? Well there was a reason, and it's as follows. Sometimes a journalist can come across something like the Official Secrets Act which, whilst designed to protect national security, can be a real thorn in journalists' sides as it completely takes away our trusty public interest defence. Although you could possibly claim a defence under Article 10 or perhaps ask them to show how the information you published actually damaged national security, you'd be walking on thin ice. Not to be confused with common law, there is such a thing as common law secrets which essentially gives us the right to have secrets and to pass those secrets on with the expectation that it won't be passed on to others, (Bill Goodwin again). For something to be a breach of confidence it has to have four things present. You are in breach of confidence if you pass on info which:
Journalism is selling words for money but that should never mean you compromise your legal safety. An important case to remember here is the continuing saga of Princess Caroline which has come to define privacy over and over again. In the original case photos of the princess eating in a restaurant were published. I could comment on the cult of celebrity and why anyone would want to see those photos anyway but this is a law blog so shut up. Those photos were a breach of her privacy but why? She's famous, surely she expects it. No. Not how it works. She was sitting inside the restaurant at the back, clearly trying to conserve her privacy, not performing a public duty so she had the expectation of privacy in this case. Publishing photos of her would be - and was - a total breach of privacy. There isn't a public interest defence here. This ruling essentially meant that an activity can be private even it occurs in a public place and the person concerned is famous. It doesn't always work that way for ol' Caroline though as this more recent example shows. Personally I don't want to see pictures of Princess Caroline but anything about her daughter is welcome as far as I'm concerned.
What our mate Carol (can I call you Carol?) should have done is whack an injunction on everything that moves like everyone with the money and the lawyers does these days. When a journalist has a juicy story, the person or group the story concerns has the right to reply, that is the journalist must let them know the story is about to break if they are to be free from defamation claims. Unfortunately this means the person can go "Right..." and grab an injunction hot off the presses from Lord Justice Eady or similar. An injunction against one is an injunction against all, so if I took out an injunction against you for threatening to print the extremely damaging story that I am completely and utterly terrified of wasps then no one else can print that story either as the injunction stops them too. What journalists took to doing in the early days was reporting the fact that there was an injunction so, using the wasp example, "A student journalist has taken out an injunction... etc," and that would be enough but now we also have super injunctions which prevent even the mentioning of the original injunction. This was what happened in the now famous Ryan Giggs saga. Giggs had taken out an injunction preventing journalists from saying he had been a bit naughty but then also took out a super injunction preventing journalists from saying he'd taken out an injunction. Fortunately (or unfortunately if you're Ryan Giggs) it all got published on Twitter, tweeted and re-tweeted, breaking the injunction and making a farce of the whole affair (poor choice of words there). It was a similar issue in the Max Mosley case where the newspapers reported that Mosley had indulged in some weird sex orgies, knowing it was true but thinking they were safe anyway because surely he wouldn't take them to court and drag that considerable dirty laundry through the public washing machine... too many metaphors spoil the broth. Well it turned out that they vastly underestimated Mosley as he did take them to court and is still taking people to court.
Finally I want to finish with the PCC definition of Public Interest as often it is the last refuge for journalists.
It is as follows:
This week it was Confidentiality and Privacy. Two subjects close to journalists' hearts but with one in particular sliding out of relevance rather rapidly, (try saying that three times fast).
We'll save the best 'til last then and start with confidentiality which is really a technical term for secrets. Obviously it's more complicated than that but at its root, something confidential is often something secret. For example, let's pretend a hospital is fiddling its numbers, causing patients to suffer; if a hospital worker were to tell a journalist this it would be quite clearly something which is secret but definitely something which is confidential. It is often in cases like this where confidentiality is of the utmost importance and sources need protecting that we look to the journalism code of conduct. Much has been made in the last few months and even years about the character of journalists, arguably we're worse than lawyers and politicians now in most peoples eyes, but yes, we do have a code of conduct. One of the most sacred and important parts of said code of conduct is the protection of sources. Where do people think stories come from if not sources? And if we go around whistle-blowing on the whistle-blowers then who will trust us? We as journalists need to be prepared to go to court and even jail to protect our sources. Outside of journalism Bill Goodwin is probably not all that well known but to journalists he should be considered a hero. As a young, up and coming reporter on a business trading magazine he broke a story using his sources that quite frankly angered the company he was writing about. They took him to court and he was asked again and again to identify his source; he wouldn't do it. Goodwin was eventually cleared and the story revealed to be completely true if memory serves me but it is for his dogged protection of sources that he deserves to be remembered.
Confidentiality though has become a little niche since 2000. The European Human Rights Act is what caused it and the two most important articles for journalists to remember are Article 8 and Article 10. Article 8 concerns the right to privacy and Article 10 is essentially freedom of speech which is why it is so important to journalists to have a good understanding of what can be protected under it. A journalist also needs a basic understanding of the difference between statute and common law. If statute was the only kind of law then you could probably get a law degree in a couple of months, fortunately (or unfortunately if you're a law student reading this for some reason) common law stops that by being absolutely insanely complicated as it is the law made by judges over the years in past cases. This means that despite statute laying down the main laws, any slight changes made by judges in their handling of cases and their sentencing can have huge legal ramifications down the line. You don't need to do a law degree and understand all the ins and outs of common law, I reckon even lawyers would admit they don't know absolutely all common law, but just have a understanding of the dangers this presents. Similarly you don't need to understand every point of Article 8 and 10 but just to understand the dangers and the defences. The Leveson enquiry may return a verdict that calls for what will amount to fixing the regulation of journalists, but this would not be needed if all journalists could recognise the dangers present in law.
Remember when I got all obsessed about secrets a few paragraphs ago? Well there was a reason, and it's as follows. Sometimes a journalist can come across something like the Official Secrets Act which, whilst designed to protect national security, can be a real thorn in journalists' sides as it completely takes away our trusty public interest defence. Although you could possibly claim a defence under Article 10 or perhaps ask them to show how the information you published actually damaged national security, you'd be walking on thin ice. Not to be confused with common law, there is such a thing as common law secrets which essentially gives us the right to have secrets and to pass those secrets on with the expectation that it won't be passed on to others, (Bill Goodwin again). For something to be a breach of confidence it has to have four things present. You are in breach of confidence if you pass on info which:
- Has "the necessary quality of confidence" (eg is important and not already known) - "not just tittle tattle." AND
- was provided in "circumstances imposing an obligation" (eg - when a reasonable person would think it would be kept secret). AND
- There was no permission to pass on the information. AND
- "detriment" is likely to be caused to the person who gave the information.
Journalism is selling words for money but that should never mean you compromise your legal safety. An important case to remember here is the continuing saga of Princess Caroline which has come to define privacy over and over again. In the original case photos of the princess eating in a restaurant were published. I could comment on the cult of celebrity and why anyone would want to see those photos anyway but this is a law blog so shut up. Those photos were a breach of her privacy but why? She's famous, surely she expects it. No. Not how it works. She was sitting inside the restaurant at the back, clearly trying to conserve her privacy, not performing a public duty so she had the expectation of privacy in this case. Publishing photos of her would be - and was - a total breach of privacy. There isn't a public interest defence here. This ruling essentially meant that an activity can be private even it occurs in a public place and the person concerned is famous. It doesn't always work that way for ol' Caroline though as this more recent example shows. Personally I don't want to see pictures of Princess Caroline but anything about her daughter is welcome as far as I'm concerned.
What our mate Carol (can I call you Carol?) should have done is whack an injunction on everything that moves like everyone with the money and the lawyers does these days. When a journalist has a juicy story, the person or group the story concerns has the right to reply, that is the journalist must let them know the story is about to break if they are to be free from defamation claims. Unfortunately this means the person can go "Right..." and grab an injunction hot off the presses from Lord Justice Eady or similar. An injunction against one is an injunction against all, so if I took out an injunction against you for threatening to print the extremely damaging story that I am completely and utterly terrified of wasps then no one else can print that story either as the injunction stops them too. What journalists took to doing in the early days was reporting the fact that there was an injunction so, using the wasp example, "A student journalist has taken out an injunction... etc," and that would be enough but now we also have super injunctions which prevent even the mentioning of the original injunction. This was what happened in the now famous Ryan Giggs saga. Giggs had taken out an injunction preventing journalists from saying he had been a bit naughty but then also took out a super injunction preventing journalists from saying he'd taken out an injunction. Fortunately (or unfortunately if you're Ryan Giggs) it all got published on Twitter, tweeted and re-tweeted, breaking the injunction and making a farce of the whole affair (poor choice of words there). It was a similar issue in the Max Mosley case where the newspapers reported that Mosley had indulged in some weird sex orgies, knowing it was true but thinking they were safe anyway because surely he wouldn't take them to court and drag that considerable dirty laundry through the public washing machine... too many metaphors spoil the broth. Well it turned out that they vastly underestimated Mosley as he did take them to court and is still taking people to court.
Finally I want to finish with the PCC definition of Public Interest as often it is the last refuge for journalists.
It is as follows:
The public interest includes, but is not confined to:
i) Detecting or exposing crime or serious impropriety.
ii) Protecting public health and safety
iii) Preventing the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or organisation
Until Next Time. Stay Classy Internet.
Sunday, 30 September 2012
Law is back and so am I
A new term, a new blog, a new beginning? No. Just the first two. I'm back at
Winchester for my final year at university and an integral part of this course
is the media law course. Do you remember my first year blogs on law with
examples coming at you most weeks? Good, because I don't and that's why we're
doing this refresher. The lecture this week was mainly an overview and that's
exactly what I'm about to do in order to tell you what's in store for this blog
over the coming weeks.
Often in law you'll find that things just don't seem right, this is because it's the law. Law isn't about what is right, the law is just the law; I can't help but feel Judge Dredd would approve (in cinemas now, I think). As journalists though we need to know a fair chunk of law, OK we aren't going to be as in depth or as comprehensive as a law student but be serious, those guys want to be lawyers. So what, as a journalist, are you expected to know?
Well you'll need a good grounding in all of the big three; defamation, contempt and privacy. If these terms are unfamiliar at the moment, don't worry, all will become clear over the more detailed blogs to come, (or you could have a look at my first year blogs which probably don't have the detail or the self deprecating humour you'll soon learn to love). So for defamation, you'll need to know the textbook tests for defamation, i.e. what is a defamatory statement? Seems simple but if you're not sure then a defamation blog will be on its way, right after we've had the lecture. Another test is can someone come after me? So insulting a big current celebrity might be a bit of a mistake but legally I can call Charlie Chaplin a Hitler look-a-like and despite the fact there's numerous legal (and factual) problems with it, they're both dead, what are they going to do. Lesson learned, always insult the dead. Now you'll also need to know the defences for defamation of which I'll go into more detail in a later blog; the defences for defamation are: justification, fair comment, privilege (in all its forms) and public interest. Personally I find public interest the most interesting as it is arguably the least clear cut. Justification just means it's true and privilege is to do with court reporting mostly but public interest covers a multitude of sins and that's why I'm very much looking forward to our lecture on defamation. If you do a fair and accurate report though, free of malice, which you should be doing anyway then defamation, libel, slander, shouldn't be a problem.
A very important thing for a journalist to understand is contempt. Not just any contempt though, for example I have a real contempt for people who wear Crocs but journalists don't need to understand that. They do need to understand contempt of court though, a law that unlike defamation will almost certainly see you in jail and most likely incur a heavy fine too. Again it's about understanding the tests. When do proceedings become active and all that jazz. Essentially, try to imagine explaining the law of contempt to your gran, it'd probably run a bit like this, "Contempt Gran, is when you annoy the court basically." And in its simplest terms that's what it is. OK so there are probably a few more technical terms than that but not identifying someone as the murderer before they've been charged but after they've been arrested is always a good one, as Chris Jefferies might tell you. What editors don't need is a journalist who needs a refresher lecture on contempt the day a bulletin goes out. You can't read a report to someone with better law knowledge than yourself and say, "Is that alright?" How should they know? They weren't there in court with you getting these notes down. What you really need to know though are the reporting restrictions in cases where there are children in court or (often the same case) where there are sexual offenders. Even if someone is charged in a sexual offence case there is a possibility that identifying them would also identify the defendant. It's also useful to know which courts do what? For example here in Winchester we're only one step down from the Old Bailey so could often get some rather juicy cases but if you're hanging around the magistrates court, don't expect the rules on reporting to be any different despite the change in severity of crimes dealt with.
Privacy is another important aspect of the law for any budding journalist, (and any flowered journalist for that matter, may have mixed my metaphors a bit). Claims of privacy against news corporations are increasing rapidly and could soon outstrip even defamation claims. We'll have a lecture on privacy soon where I'll go into a lot more depth but privacy isn't just about knowing articles 8 and 10 of the European Human Rights Act, article 8 concerning privacy and 10 concerning the protection of free speech. To run stories where privacy could be an issue always, with no exception, seek consent. Privacy is moving fast in legal terms so seeking consent could protect you in a confusing area of media law. It would also be a good idea as a journalist to understand the Freedom of Information act but that's for another day and another blog.
The most important thing that I've learnt in law though is that just because you have a defence for defamation, contempt, privacy or anything, it doesn't at all mean that you haven't broken the law. As a journalist you'll be breaking the law every day but if you know your law and can keep yourself protected you should be able to stay safe out there in the big scary world. Just keep your work, fast, accurate and fair.
Until Next Time. Stay Classy Internet.
P.S. I think it's also interesting to note that my course has its own fatal errors system which you can access here. If you don't follow those rules then there is nothing they can do to protect you and in fact the course will quite rightly feed you to the dogs.
Often in law you'll find that things just don't seem right, this is because it's the law. Law isn't about what is right, the law is just the law; I can't help but feel Judge Dredd would approve (in cinemas now, I think). As journalists though we need to know a fair chunk of law, OK we aren't going to be as in depth or as comprehensive as a law student but be serious, those guys want to be lawyers. So what, as a journalist, are you expected to know?
Well you'll need a good grounding in all of the big three; defamation, contempt and privacy. If these terms are unfamiliar at the moment, don't worry, all will become clear over the more detailed blogs to come, (or you could have a look at my first year blogs which probably don't have the detail or the self deprecating humour you'll soon learn to love). So for defamation, you'll need to know the textbook tests for defamation, i.e. what is a defamatory statement? Seems simple but if you're not sure then a defamation blog will be on its way, right after we've had the lecture. Another test is can someone come after me? So insulting a big current celebrity might be a bit of a mistake but legally I can call Charlie Chaplin a Hitler look-a-like and despite the fact there's numerous legal (and factual) problems with it, they're both dead, what are they going to do. Lesson learned, always insult the dead. Now you'll also need to know the defences for defamation of which I'll go into more detail in a later blog; the defences for defamation are: justification, fair comment, privilege (in all its forms) and public interest. Personally I find public interest the most interesting as it is arguably the least clear cut. Justification just means it's true and privilege is to do with court reporting mostly but public interest covers a multitude of sins and that's why I'm very much looking forward to our lecture on defamation. If you do a fair and accurate report though, free of malice, which you should be doing anyway then defamation, libel, slander, shouldn't be a problem.
A very important thing for a journalist to understand is contempt. Not just any contempt though, for example I have a real contempt for people who wear Crocs but journalists don't need to understand that. They do need to understand contempt of court though, a law that unlike defamation will almost certainly see you in jail and most likely incur a heavy fine too. Again it's about understanding the tests. When do proceedings become active and all that jazz. Essentially, try to imagine explaining the law of contempt to your gran, it'd probably run a bit like this, "Contempt Gran, is when you annoy the court basically." And in its simplest terms that's what it is. OK so there are probably a few more technical terms than that but not identifying someone as the murderer before they've been charged but after they've been arrested is always a good one, as Chris Jefferies might tell you. What editors don't need is a journalist who needs a refresher lecture on contempt the day a bulletin goes out. You can't read a report to someone with better law knowledge than yourself and say, "Is that alright?" How should they know? They weren't there in court with you getting these notes down. What you really need to know though are the reporting restrictions in cases where there are children in court or (often the same case) where there are sexual offenders. Even if someone is charged in a sexual offence case there is a possibility that identifying them would also identify the defendant. It's also useful to know which courts do what? For example here in Winchester we're only one step down from the Old Bailey so could often get some rather juicy cases but if you're hanging around the magistrates court, don't expect the rules on reporting to be any different despite the change in severity of crimes dealt with.
Privacy is another important aspect of the law for any budding journalist, (and any flowered journalist for that matter, may have mixed my metaphors a bit). Claims of privacy against news corporations are increasing rapidly and could soon outstrip even defamation claims. We'll have a lecture on privacy soon where I'll go into a lot more depth but privacy isn't just about knowing articles 8 and 10 of the European Human Rights Act, article 8 concerning privacy and 10 concerning the protection of free speech. To run stories where privacy could be an issue always, with no exception, seek consent. Privacy is moving fast in legal terms so seeking consent could protect you in a confusing area of media law. It would also be a good idea as a journalist to understand the Freedom of Information act but that's for another day and another blog.
The most important thing that I've learnt in law though is that just because you have a defence for defamation, contempt, privacy or anything, it doesn't at all mean that you haven't broken the law. As a journalist you'll be breaking the law every day but if you know your law and can keep yourself protected you should be able to stay safe out there in the big scary world. Just keep your work, fast, accurate and fair.
Until Next Time. Stay Classy Internet.
P.S. I think it's also interesting to note that my course has its own fatal errors system which you can access here. If you don't follow those rules then there is nothing they can do to protect you and in fact the course will quite rightly feed you to the dogs.
Monday, 16 April 2012
Wittgenstein and more logic... yay
Have you missed my posts? No. Well neither have I really but they've got to be done and this weeks could be quite interesting. Don't take my word for it, read on; and if it isn't don't complain, I said it could be quite interesting, not it will be. Important distinction there. Firstly, the traditional "I didn't just Google Wittgenstein, honest" biography intro. Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein, (what a name), was born in Austria in 1889 but did a lot of his best work in Britain as a peer of Bertrand Russell working in the same field of logic. Russell even described him as "the most perfect example I have ever known of genius as traditionally conceived, passionate, profound, intense, and dominating". Can't say fairer than that, especially since in my experience of Russell he's quite disparaging of other philosophers. His work is divided between the early thoughts in the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus or the Tractatus to its friends, and his later writings, articulated in the Philosophical Investigations. In his earlier work Wittgenstein was concerned with the logical relationship between propositions and the world, and believed that by providing an account of the logic underlying this relationship he had solved all philosophical problems, according to Wikipedia at least. But later on in his work he rejected many of the Tractatus's propositions, arguing that language games are the most important function, more on which will undoubtedly come later. He died in 1951 at the age of 62 in Cambridge and perhaps the best way to sum this shambles of an opening paragraph up is to directly quote the Tractatus. Either way that's exactly what I'm about to do. "Death is not an event in life: we do not live to experience death. If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present. Our life has no end in the way in which our visual field has no limits." - Tractatus 6.431
Second paragraph!! Wooo!! Well anyway, the Tractatus is a seminal piece of work which reflected a desire to "reveal the relationship between language and the world: what can be said about it, and what can only be shown." This is where we start getting our logic and later, our language games. Now this next bit is confusing for me and could be boring for you so some of the words will be links to stupid pictures or videos, just to keep it fresh. Now the Tractatus is divided in to seven chapters which each have smaller sections, by the time you get to chapters four and five, the sections are branching out so far that it's difficult to keep up. For now then. Let's keep it simple and look at the seven main propositions.
Let's carry on with language for a while, the main thrust of the Tractatus picks apart logic in language, reasoning that all statements and colour in speech follow certain rules of logic. To Wittgenstein I would suggest that there is no difference in the importance of logic in language to the importance of logic in mathematics or later, in computers. The world is just your structure of ideas, a sequence of language games. On the phone to your mum? Language game. Arguing on an Internet forum? Language game. Venting on Twitter? Language game. This blog? Language game. They all have a set of certain rules that we follow; in the seminar Ali did his paper and we all cheered (maybe not, my memory is a little fuzzy sometimes) and then Chris explained all the things we'd inevitably got wrong. This is perfect for the language game of a seminar. During Ali's part, everyone stayed quiet and wrote except for Chris, who in his privileged position as the lecturer in the particular game, has the power to interject; and that's fine! Yay for language games. But it's not possible to work everything out according to the big W, it's a pretty nihilistic view but one which sums up a large amount of philosophy nowadays. He saw metaphysics as a bit of a holiday. You're not really doing anything or getting anywhere but it is enjoyable. You want to believe that you think therefore you are Descartes? Go ahead! Here, have a flake in your little God shaped hole ice cream.
To end, it makes a lot of sense to say "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must stay silent." In the case of this blog, maybe Wittgenstein would have preferred me to keep it that way.
Until Next Time. Stay Classy Internet.
Second paragraph!! Wooo!! Well anyway, the Tractatus is a seminal piece of work which reflected a desire to "reveal the relationship between language and the world: what can be said about it, and what can only be shown." This is where we start getting our logic and later, our language games. Now this next bit is confusing for me and could be boring for you so some of the words will be links to stupid pictures or videos, just to keep it fresh. Now the Tractatus is divided in to seven chapters which each have smaller sections, by the time you get to chapters four and five, the sections are branching out so far that it's difficult to keep up. For now then. Let's keep it simple and look at the seven main propositions.
- The world is everything that is the case.
- What is the case (a fact) is the existence of states of affairs.
- A logical picture of facts is a thought.
- A thought is a proposition with a sense. (An elementary proposition is a truth-function of itself.)
- A proposition is a truth-function of elementary propositions.
- The general form of a proposition is the general form of a truth function, which is: (Impossible to type, I don't know where to get the characters from?). This is the general form of a proposition.
- Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Let's carry on with language for a while, the main thrust of the Tractatus picks apart logic in language, reasoning that all statements and colour in speech follow certain rules of logic. To Wittgenstein I would suggest that there is no difference in the importance of logic in language to the importance of logic in mathematics or later, in computers. The world is just your structure of ideas, a sequence of language games. On the phone to your mum? Language game. Arguing on an Internet forum? Language game. Venting on Twitter? Language game. This blog? Language game. They all have a set of certain rules that we follow; in the seminar Ali did his paper and we all cheered (maybe not, my memory is a little fuzzy sometimes) and then Chris explained all the things we'd inevitably got wrong. This is perfect for the language game of a seminar. During Ali's part, everyone stayed quiet and wrote except for Chris, who in his privileged position as the lecturer in the particular game, has the power to interject; and that's fine! Yay for language games. But it's not possible to work everything out according to the big W, it's a pretty nihilistic view but one which sums up a large amount of philosophy nowadays. He saw metaphysics as a bit of a holiday. You're not really doing anything or getting anywhere but it is enjoyable. You want to believe that you think therefore you are Descartes? Go ahead! Here, have a flake in your little God shaped hole ice cream.
To end, it makes a lot of sense to say "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must stay silent." In the case of this blog, maybe Wittgenstein would have preferred me to keep it that way.
Until Next Time. Stay Classy Internet.
Sunday, 11 March 2012
New Journalism
So there's this thing called journalism. I quite like it, it's useful for news and investigations and... stuff but at some point in the 60s at a time of political and social upheaval a group of journalists changed how journalism works (sort of... but we'll get on to that). Tom Wolfe wrote a book called The New Journalism but this doesn't mean that he started the movement because the majority of the book was a collection of new journalism articles. My knowledge of new journalism really comes from the Gonzo Journalism of Hunter S. Thompson who was not the first person to write in a gonzo style but was one of the most successful. His book Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas which was turned in to a very successful film (especially if we're measuring success by how much Johnny Depp your film has) was a great example of Gonzo journalism as we follow Thompson in the guise of Raoul Duke and his attorney Dr. Gonzo or The Samoan. Thompson was sent to cover two events for Rolling Stone magazine and yet what he actually covered were his and Dr. Gonzo's exploits while off their faces on a cocktail of drugs and probably cocktails. Thompson's only complaint about Fear and Loathing was that it wasn't Gonzo enough; he took events that happened a month or two apart and condensed them into a couple of days. For better examples of gonzo-ness, Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail is, (according to my friend George whose blog on this is much better as it was his seminar paper and a subject he's passionate about) much better.
New journalism is not strictly an American thing but that is where it comes from. Today new journalism can come from anywhere but it is important when looking at the origins of new journalism to consider American journalism's history. After the creation of wire services like the Associated Press, these companies realised to sell their product of news to other outlets, they needed to be objective, so objectivity became the name of the game in journalism. It was the strict Five W's: Who, What, When, Where and Why. What followed was the Yellow Press. The battle between William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer (of Pulitzer Prize fame). The struggle between the two was a real power struggle in the US, running emotive headlines with big, striking pictures. There were exclusives, dramatic stories, romantic stories, shocking stories and crime stories; all the same sort of things you'd get in the Sun today. America then in the 60s and 70s felt similar to the time of the Yellow Press. It was a time of great social and political upheaval with Vietnam, the Cold War, Communism and Civil Rights looming over the people of America. Journalists of the time were recording these events in the same formulaic way they had been doing since journalism became a thing that people did, the new journalism was an attempt to record events in a way that mirrored the language and style of the events themselves; let it bleed into the copy. It was a part of the whole anti establishment movement of the 60s and the idea that "there is a policeman inside your head - he must be destroyed," seeped into journalism. The objectivity question came up again as journos questioned whether only basing stories on press releases was really objective. Spoiler alert: it isn't. Interpretive reporting began with journalists like Truman Capote, Tom Wolfe and Norman Mailer who are examples of the New Breed.
Journalism moved from "seeing" to "telling" as narration in journalism moved from Diegetic to Mimetic; objectivity was junked in favour of subjective experience so as in the previously mentioned Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, it was more about Hunter S. Thompson's personal experience in Vegas than it was the events he was sent to cover. This eventually took us to the "Performance Journalism" of Michael Moore and Morgan Spurlock in Supersize Me and to a lesser extent Louis Theroux. Journalism became a lot more about real dialogue between people. Not just quotes from speeches and interviews but dialogue between people. In the seminar we talked about a hatchet job a journalist in Rolling Stone magazine had done on John McCain in the run up to the presidential election which Obama subsequently won, and in the way that most journalists (myself included) overstate their personal influence, the dialogue between McCain and his wife which did not show him in a particularly good light could have been a deciding factor in the elections.
For now I think we're done with New Journalism. It's not dead but it seems to be far less popular than it was at its zenith. With characters like Michael Moore and Louis Theroux still producing thought provoking content though there could still be hope for a strand of journalism which at one time looked like it was going to take over the world.
Until Next Time. Stay Classy Internet.
New journalism is not strictly an American thing but that is where it comes from. Today new journalism can come from anywhere but it is important when looking at the origins of new journalism to consider American journalism's history. After the creation of wire services like the Associated Press, these companies realised to sell their product of news to other outlets, they needed to be objective, so objectivity became the name of the game in journalism. It was the strict Five W's: Who, What, When, Where and Why. What followed was the Yellow Press. The battle between William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer (of Pulitzer Prize fame). The struggle between the two was a real power struggle in the US, running emotive headlines with big, striking pictures. There were exclusives, dramatic stories, romantic stories, shocking stories and crime stories; all the same sort of things you'd get in the Sun today. America then in the 60s and 70s felt similar to the time of the Yellow Press. It was a time of great social and political upheaval with Vietnam, the Cold War, Communism and Civil Rights looming over the people of America. Journalists of the time were recording these events in the same formulaic way they had been doing since journalism became a thing that people did, the new journalism was an attempt to record events in a way that mirrored the language and style of the events themselves; let it bleed into the copy. It was a part of the whole anti establishment movement of the 60s and the idea that "there is a policeman inside your head - he must be destroyed," seeped into journalism. The objectivity question came up again as journos questioned whether only basing stories on press releases was really objective. Spoiler alert: it isn't. Interpretive reporting began with journalists like Truman Capote, Tom Wolfe and Norman Mailer who are examples of the New Breed.
Journalism moved from "seeing" to "telling" as narration in journalism moved from Diegetic to Mimetic; objectivity was junked in favour of subjective experience so as in the previously mentioned Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, it was more about Hunter S. Thompson's personal experience in Vegas than it was the events he was sent to cover. This eventually took us to the "Performance Journalism" of Michael Moore and Morgan Spurlock in Supersize Me and to a lesser extent Louis Theroux. Journalism became a lot more about real dialogue between people. Not just quotes from speeches and interviews but dialogue between people. In the seminar we talked about a hatchet job a journalist in Rolling Stone magazine had done on John McCain in the run up to the presidential election which Obama subsequently won, and in the way that most journalists (myself included) overstate their personal influence, the dialogue between McCain and his wife which did not show him in a particularly good light could have been a deciding factor in the elections.
For now I think we're done with New Journalism. It's not dead but it seems to be far less popular than it was at its zenith. With characters like Michael Moore and Louis Theroux still producing thought provoking content though there could still be hope for a strand of journalism which at one time looked like it was going to take over the world.
Until Next Time. Stay Classy Internet.
Sunday, 4 March 2012
Logic is Hard
I struggled with the topic of logic last semester so it's pretty safe to say that I wasn't really jumping for joy at the thought of another jaunt into the horrifying world of binary and numbers. Actually, that's unfair, the binary part from last semester with Frege and the way his logic essentially paved the way for computers makes a modicum of sense. Even now though I don't entirely understand the last HCJ topic but it was fun to go back to Bertrand Russell whose History of Western Philosophy got us through our first year. So for the first part of this little blog, I'm going to give some background to Bertrand.
Bertrand Russell was born in 1872 in Victorian England and lived through two World Wars the end of the Victorian Era and all the Edwardian England and right through into the reign of Queen Elizabeth the 2nd. This ridiculously long life span gave him a lot of time to think and thinking was what Russell did best. Whilst you might know Russell best on this course for being mildly superior whilst writing about nearly all the significant philosophers of history, he was actually at the forefront of the Analytic Philosophy of the early 20th century, taking some of the work of Gottlob Frege and his friend Ludwig Wittgenstein. His most famous work was the Principia Mathematica an attempt to ground mathematics in logic, whereas Frege worked with language, Russell believed you could apply the same logic to numbers as they also were a perfect language like music. For a simple round up of the Principia Mathematica or PM to its friends, I direct you to Mr W. Ikipedia. "PM, is an attempt to derive all mathematical truths from a well-defined set of axioms and inference rules in symbolic logic. One of the main inspirations and motivations for PM was Frege's earlier work on logic, which had led to paradoxes discovered by Russell. These were avoided in PM by building an elaborate system of types: a set of elements is of a different type than is each of its elements (a set is not an element; one element is not the set) and one cannot speak of the "set of all sets" and similar constructs, which would lead to paradoxes."
Well I'm glad we've got that sorted. In the lecture I had no understanding of the Russell school of logic and I left the seminar with a basic understanding of it so hopefully my notes will help me here. If I'm honest though you should just look at Flick's blog when she posts her seminar paper as that helped me quite a bit.
Finally, my thoughts on logic can really be summed up in the following joke:
My mate was yapping on about how "logic can prove anything."
I said, "Nothing is better than eternal happiness, right?" He agreed.
I said, "A ham sandwich is better than nothing, right?" Once again, he nodded.
"So therefore, logic dictates that a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness, right?"
That shut him up.
Until Next Time. Stay Classy Internet.
Bertrand Russell was born in 1872 in Victorian England and lived through two World Wars the end of the Victorian Era and all the Edwardian England and right through into the reign of Queen Elizabeth the 2nd. This ridiculously long life span gave him a lot of time to think and thinking was what Russell did best. Whilst you might know Russell best on this course for being mildly superior whilst writing about nearly all the significant philosophers of history, he was actually at the forefront of the Analytic Philosophy of the early 20th century, taking some of the work of Gottlob Frege and his friend Ludwig Wittgenstein. His most famous work was the Principia Mathematica an attempt to ground mathematics in logic, whereas Frege worked with language, Russell believed you could apply the same logic to numbers as they also were a perfect language like music. For a simple round up of the Principia Mathematica or PM to its friends, I direct you to Mr W. Ikipedia. "PM, is an attempt to derive all mathematical truths from a well-defined set of axioms and inference rules in symbolic logic. One of the main inspirations and motivations for PM was Frege's earlier work on logic, which had led to paradoxes discovered by Russell. These were avoided in PM by building an elaborate system of types: a set of elements is of a different type than is each of its elements (a set is not an element; one element is not the set) and one cannot speak of the "set of all sets" and similar constructs, which would lead to paradoxes."
Well I'm glad we've got that sorted. In the lecture I had no understanding of the Russell school of logic and I left the seminar with a basic understanding of it so hopefully my notes will help me here. If I'm honest though you should just look at Flick's blog when she posts her seminar paper as that helped me quite a bit.
Finally, my thoughts on logic can really be summed up in the following joke:
My mate was yapping on about how "logic can prove anything."
I said, "Nothing is better than eternal happiness, right?" He agreed.
I said, "A ham sandwich is better than nothing, right?" Once again, he nodded.
"So therefore, logic dictates that a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness, right?"
That shut him up.
Until Next Time. Stay Classy Internet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)