I don't even know if the joke in the title is funny... or even a joke. But this is the last blog of this semester so let's get into it and get it over with.
In journalism the news agenda is not set by the journalist; we do not decide what to write about. In investigative journalism though the point is that the story should not be on the agenda. For an example from WINOL look at a story from the start of my second year where Julie Cordier investigated how many Hampshire police officers had previous convictions. You can view the story on YouTube here but the important thing here is that police officers with convictions was not a topic on the agenda, it was just a story that Julie had basically made up and then used the system of FOI requests to back it up and get the information she needed to make the story work. Often, investigative journalism is close in form to gonzo or presenter led journalism. During the lecture, Chris gave us an example where this was the case with his book True Blue. It wasn't something on the news agenda that they went to investigate and it is presenter led or more likely gonzo. If you're still unsure about investigative journalism then it is important to remember the big things in the history of the form like Emile Zola's famous J'Accuse or the investigation into the convictions of the Birmingham Six. Miscarriages of justice are the things that journalists will most often look to investigate because the reasons behind them can often be very much in the public interest, a corrupt government, a conspiracy; all good journalism topics. It was good to have a lecture on this subject as it directly influenced my thoughts about my FYP which is on the Innocence Project. For people who haven't heard of it or if I haven't written about it before, the Innocence Project was started in America for prisoners on death row who were still pleading not guilty despite many trials and appeals. It eventually was transferred over here and now university courses (mainly in law) can take on cases from prisoners in the UK who are still imprisoned for crimes they claim they didn't commit.
Back to the lecture though and Chris then went on to talk about a lady who is a hero to journalists although you may not have heard of her. Before our newsroom got a revamp her picture was on the wall but her story is worth more than that. Veronica Guerin was a journalist in Ireland during 'the troubles' who began investigating the crime lords of Ireland when no one else would. It was when she began to investigate drug dealers that she began to receive several death threats; shots fired into her home, a gunman at the door, threats over the phone. Her murder was an attack on democracy and the real irony is that two days after her death she was due to speak at a conference in London where her topic was "Dying to Tell the Story: Journalists at Risk." It wasn't the first time a journalist had been killed while investigating a story and it won't be the last but Guerin's story is one that should inspire rather than deflate us. Her pioneering work almost certainly did more to highlight the issue of drug crime in Ireland and whilst it cost her her life, her work will never be forgotten.
FOI requests are not just for journalists and can be made by anybody, yes YOU unsuspecting reader who wasn't prepared for me to address them directly. Websites like whatdotheyknow.com allow you to browse and make your own requests which could be responded to if you ask in a particular way. The people on the end of those requests will do everything they can to avoid answering so you need to be specific and you need to be prepared for disappointment. Two reporters over the last semester of WINOL had a huge amount of FOI requests out, submitted over the summer and despite their hard work were unable to make any of them work and these are our best reporters. Sometimes you're not asking the right questions or the idea just isn't going to turn up anything interesting.
This might be my last blog for a while apart from the WINOL Critical Reflection which should be above so...
Until Next Time. Stay Classy Internet.
Showing posts with label Journalism Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Journalism Law. Show all posts
Monday, 10 December 2012
Saturday, 24 November 2012
Reporting Elections
In our most recent law lecture we took the time to look at reporting elections, not always necessarily a story in itself but we're performing a public duty as the press in reporting on them. Who guards the guardians? We do. The profession of journalism has often been referred to as 'The Fourth Estate'. This really means that we're here to make sure those who are meant to be in charge and who are meant to be looking after us and our interests really are doing that. Arguably that raises the question of who do we report to, who watches the watchmen? I think that is an especially interesting point with the shadow of Leveson looming large with his report due this coming week.
During elections the issue of impartiality is very important; the difference between comment and straight reporting must be crystal clear. This is really a guideline for broadcast journalism though. The BBC and the like have to give the same amount of time or thereabouts to each political party in the running, in fact during the lecture it was pointed out to us by Ian who is a BBC man that they will have a record of which parties have been on what channels and for how long. This isn't the same for newspapers though who have the freedom to be completely biased in their reporting. The Sun shows us how important newspaper support can be in elections as it flip-flops from Conservative to Labour and now back again. The most famous example was its denouncement of Neil Kinnock in this famous front page. They even gave themselves a pat on the back after the Tories were voted in that year, saying "It's the Sun wot won it." Grammatically incorrect? Definitely. Factually correct? Possibly. There will often be editorial choices in broadcast media on who gets the main focus; in fact in the packages we watched about Corby not all parties got soundbites, just the main parties. But if you don't balance things and campaigns start to turn sour then who will the parties go for? Well it would be us journos. At election time there is fantastic scrutiny on us as journalists but we also wield great power.
The hard truths about reporting during elections are as follows. Citizens will base their voting choices on your reporting; it's a simple fact but important to remember since your words can change elections, bring down politicians, end governments. Accuracy and impartiality are even more important than usual during elections, they are totally and utterly vital because making a factual error at a time so sensitive could change the course of a campaign and would almost certainly end your career. Something like that would not be good at any time but during elections everything is a little bit more on edge. Another hard truth is that politicians love to shoot the messenger; I shouldn't need to explain this really but politicians need us like a hole in the head but if they can use us to their advantage they will. Going after journos seems pretty popular at the moment and would be even more so if it was election time. The final thing to remember is that campaign language can often become rather 'heated' as it were so there might be some untruths in what politicians will be saying. I don't mean that they'll just be going round lying but it would be a good idea to check what the facts are on what politicians say about their opponents before reporting it and getting in trouble ourselves. That's one of the danger areas of reporting on elections; if we were to report others statements for example we could get in to a lot of trouble, one case that came up in the lecture was that of Phil Woolas, the former Labour MP who ran this campaign against his Lib Dem rival. Reporting that as fact would have got us journalists into a lot of trouble; about as much trouble as Phil Woolas got himself in and you can read more about that in this article here.
An odd thing that I didn't know anything about before the lecture was that journalists can't report on opinion polls or exit polls once the election is underway. Now I know this it seems pretty obvious to me that it would be bad. I mean think of the consequences of reporting that Labour are currently ahead based on exit polls on the day of a general election. Would this make people who would normally vote Labour less likely to go out and vote, thinking they already had the victory sewn up? Or would it influence Tory voters or Lib Dem voters to get out and vote when they weren't sure whether to vote before, swinging the election their way. How reliable can these polls be anyway? You might find yourself reporting all sorts of things that have no real basis in fact.
All of this came to a head for me really with WINOL's work on the HPCC debate we put on. For those of you that aren't aware, my course hosted a debate with all six candidates for the position of Hampshire Police and Crime Commissioner, a post that was new and was being covered in lots of places where other elections were also taking place. In the build up our political editor, as I'm sure he likes to be known, was running profiles on each candidate, building up balance over time as he wasn't afforded the time to have what would have been something like a two and a half minute package which would not fit in a standard WINOL bulletin. He had to be very careful about how much time was afforded to each candidate as he would be the one blamed if the campaign turned sour (see above). You can see all of our coverage of the HPCC elections around and about on the WINOL website here.
Until Next Time. Stay Classy Internet.
During elections the issue of impartiality is very important; the difference between comment and straight reporting must be crystal clear. This is really a guideline for broadcast journalism though. The BBC and the like have to give the same amount of time or thereabouts to each political party in the running, in fact during the lecture it was pointed out to us by Ian who is a BBC man that they will have a record of which parties have been on what channels and for how long. This isn't the same for newspapers though who have the freedom to be completely biased in their reporting. The Sun shows us how important newspaper support can be in elections as it flip-flops from Conservative to Labour and now back again. The most famous example was its denouncement of Neil Kinnock in this famous front page. They even gave themselves a pat on the back after the Tories were voted in that year, saying "It's the Sun wot won it." Grammatically incorrect? Definitely. Factually correct? Possibly. There will often be editorial choices in broadcast media on who gets the main focus; in fact in the packages we watched about Corby not all parties got soundbites, just the main parties. But if you don't balance things and campaigns start to turn sour then who will the parties go for? Well it would be us journos. At election time there is fantastic scrutiny on us as journalists but we also wield great power.
The hard truths about reporting during elections are as follows. Citizens will base their voting choices on your reporting; it's a simple fact but important to remember since your words can change elections, bring down politicians, end governments. Accuracy and impartiality are even more important than usual during elections, they are totally and utterly vital because making a factual error at a time so sensitive could change the course of a campaign and would almost certainly end your career. Something like that would not be good at any time but during elections everything is a little bit more on edge. Another hard truth is that politicians love to shoot the messenger; I shouldn't need to explain this really but politicians need us like a hole in the head but if they can use us to their advantage they will. Going after journos seems pretty popular at the moment and would be even more so if it was election time. The final thing to remember is that campaign language can often become rather 'heated' as it were so there might be some untruths in what politicians will be saying. I don't mean that they'll just be going round lying but it would be a good idea to check what the facts are on what politicians say about their opponents before reporting it and getting in trouble ourselves. That's one of the danger areas of reporting on elections; if we were to report others statements for example we could get in to a lot of trouble, one case that came up in the lecture was that of Phil Woolas, the former Labour MP who ran this campaign against his Lib Dem rival. Reporting that as fact would have got us journalists into a lot of trouble; about as much trouble as Phil Woolas got himself in and you can read more about that in this article here.
An odd thing that I didn't know anything about before the lecture was that journalists can't report on opinion polls or exit polls once the election is underway. Now I know this it seems pretty obvious to me that it would be bad. I mean think of the consequences of reporting that Labour are currently ahead based on exit polls on the day of a general election. Would this make people who would normally vote Labour less likely to go out and vote, thinking they already had the victory sewn up? Or would it influence Tory voters or Lib Dem voters to get out and vote when they weren't sure whether to vote before, swinging the election their way. How reliable can these polls be anyway? You might find yourself reporting all sorts of things that have no real basis in fact.
All of this came to a head for me really with WINOL's work on the HPCC debate we put on. For those of you that aren't aware, my course hosted a debate with all six candidates for the position of Hampshire Police and Crime Commissioner, a post that was new and was being covered in lots of places where other elections were also taking place. In the build up our political editor, as I'm sure he likes to be known, was running profiles on each candidate, building up balance over time as he wasn't afforded the time to have what would have been something like a two and a half minute package which would not fit in a standard WINOL bulletin. He had to be very careful about how much time was afforded to each candidate as he would be the one blamed if the campaign turned sour (see above). You can see all of our coverage of the HPCC elections around and about on the WINOL website here.
Until Next Time. Stay Classy Internet.
Sunday, 4 November 2012
Defamation, Defamation, Defamation
Hosted by Kirstie Allsop for Channel 4.
Yeah, not really though. Defamation is essentially the legal term for saying bad things about a person. I've rather oversimplified things there but there is a simple bullet point way of defining defamation, and guess what? Here are the bullet points now!!
If what you write or broadcast about someone or a company 'tends to...'
Fortunately there are some defences you can apply when it comes to libel. The best defence you can have for libel is justification. Justification is simply that your statement is true and you can prove it in court (beyond reasonable doubt etc). The second is fair comment which is technically defined as an honestly held opinion based upon facts or privileged material which is in the public interest (check back to last weeks lecture for the PCC definition of public interest). One of the most solid defences though is absolute privilege which is based on your notes from court reporting mostly; if a judge says something in court and you report it word for word using your shorthand notes and it is FAST, ACCURATE and FAIR as it should always be then you can report any statements made, even if they are highly defamatory. The fun legal loophole here though is that you cannot defame a dead person. I can call any dead person I want anything I want and be completely safe legally. Yay for loopholes!
Defamation cases can often become quite famous as the cases rumble on, for example the Max Mosley case has rumbled on for so long, it's no longer about defamation (because it turned out for the most part to be true), it's now a case of privacy. One of the best (depending on your perspective) cases of defamation in recent times was the Chris Jefferies case. OK so I've definitely mentioned it before but it's because it really has changed things in journalism and in defamation law. Chris Jefferies was the landlord of Joanna Yates who went missing in 2010 later to be found dead which put Jefferies at the centre of a murder enquiry. Nothing wrong with that so far (except the murdering obviously) but what did go wrong next was the fact that newspapers reported Jefferies arrest as if he was definitely the murderer, simply because he looked a little eccentric. It eventually transpired that the murderer was a man named Vincent Tabak and the newspapers did a lot of backtracking, a lot of apologising and a little paying of substantial damages. The reason though that the papers jumping to these conclusions was so bad is that it could have caused serious problems in court. Had Jefferies gone to trial it would have been near impossible to find an unbiased jury who didn't already assume he was the murderer from the character assassination he was facing from the papers.
While that was one case of defamation where an out and out nasty thing was actually said of a person, that isn't the only way to defame a person. You can defame someone simply with the pictures you use in a package with the careless use of a voiceover. So for example in a story about football hooliganism a panning GV of the crowd with a voiceover like, "The (insert your clubs rival team) fans then took to the pitch and wrecked the goals, causing havoc," would be defamatory to the people in that shot as they might be completely innocent bystanders who just happened to be in your GV. The most likely explanation for something like this would be a story has broken and the only footage a reporter has is GVs of the previous weeks game; notice I said explanation rather than excuse as there is no excuse for that kind of mistake, you can and will be sued. The newspaper version of this is juxtaposition libel which can happen when a headline relating to one story saying, I dunno, "serial murderer finally captured," is put slap bang next to a picture from another story, leading the reader to assume the two are connected and therefore it libels the person in the picture. I've been doing a bit of reading and it appears the first case of juxtaposition libel involved a certain Madame Tussaud. Now you wouldn't think waxworks could cause much of a problem but in a blog from an old WINOL-ite you can read all about it
Finally I want to give a brief mention to the Reynolds defence. The points that make it up are as follows, laid down by Lord Nicholls during the Reynolds vs Times Newspaper case:
1. Seriousness of allegation - The more serious the charge, the more the public is misinformed and the individual harmed, if the allegation is not true.
2. Nature of information - The extent to which the subject matter is a matter of public concern.
3. Source of information - Some informants have no direct knowledge of the events. Some have their own axes to grind, or are being paid for their stories.
4. Steps taken to verify the information - It is always important to check whether the information is true.
5. Status of the information - The allegation may have already been the subject of an investigation which commands respect.
6 . The urgency of the matter - Is the news perishable? Courts must take in to account the need of journalists to work and publish quickly.
7. Whether comment was sought from claimant - The person who is defamed may have information others do not possess or have not disclosed. An approach to the claimant is not always necessary.
8. Whether the articles contained the gist of the claimant side of the story - the journalism must be fair.
9. Tone of the article - A newspaper can raise queries or call for an investigation but need not adopt allegations as statements of fact.
10. Circumstances of the publication - Is the story really so urgent that it had to be published when it was.
I've talked a lot about defences but what about the times when you can have no defence? You can have absolutely no defence when you have not checked the facts, when you have not 'referred up', when you have not put yourself in the shoes of the person or company you are writing about, when you have got carried away by a spicy story, when you have not bothered to wait for a lawyers opinion. On WINOL the system works like this; if a news reporter doesn't show the news editor their package before it goes in to the bulletin or includes something the news editor hasn't seen then it is their fault, if the news editor sees it and defamatory material still goes in then it is their fault, if it is a particularly complicated issue then the editor may be called in until eventually it may go all the way to a lecturer who will pass final judgement on the most legally delicate stories. As always though, recognise the risk.
Until Next Time. Stay Classy Internet.
Yeah, not really though. Defamation is essentially the legal term for saying bad things about a person. I've rather oversimplified things there but there is a simple bullet point way of defining defamation, and guess what? Here are the bullet points now!!
If what you write or broadcast about someone or a company 'tends to...'
- Lower them in the estimation of right thinking-people.
- Causes them to be shunned or avoided.
- Disparages them in their business, trade or profession.
- Exposes them to hatred, ridicule or contempt.
Fortunately there are some defences you can apply when it comes to libel. The best defence you can have for libel is justification. Justification is simply that your statement is true and you can prove it in court (beyond reasonable doubt etc). The second is fair comment which is technically defined as an honestly held opinion based upon facts or privileged material which is in the public interest (check back to last weeks lecture for the PCC definition of public interest). One of the most solid defences though is absolute privilege which is based on your notes from court reporting mostly; if a judge says something in court and you report it word for word using your shorthand notes and it is FAST, ACCURATE and FAIR as it should always be then you can report any statements made, even if they are highly defamatory. The fun legal loophole here though is that you cannot defame a dead person. I can call any dead person I want anything I want and be completely safe legally. Yay for loopholes!
Defamation cases can often become quite famous as the cases rumble on, for example the Max Mosley case has rumbled on for so long, it's no longer about defamation (because it turned out for the most part to be true), it's now a case of privacy. One of the best (depending on your perspective) cases of defamation in recent times was the Chris Jefferies case. OK so I've definitely mentioned it before but it's because it really has changed things in journalism and in defamation law. Chris Jefferies was the landlord of Joanna Yates who went missing in 2010 later to be found dead which put Jefferies at the centre of a murder enquiry. Nothing wrong with that so far (except the murdering obviously) but what did go wrong next was the fact that newspapers reported Jefferies arrest as if he was definitely the murderer, simply because he looked a little eccentric. It eventually transpired that the murderer was a man named Vincent Tabak and the newspapers did a lot of backtracking, a lot of apologising and a little paying of substantial damages. The reason though that the papers jumping to these conclusions was so bad is that it could have caused serious problems in court. Had Jefferies gone to trial it would have been near impossible to find an unbiased jury who didn't already assume he was the murderer from the character assassination he was facing from the papers.
While that was one case of defamation where an out and out nasty thing was actually said of a person, that isn't the only way to defame a person. You can defame someone simply with the pictures you use in a package with the careless use of a voiceover. So for example in a story about football hooliganism a panning GV of the crowd with a voiceover like, "The (insert your clubs rival team) fans then took to the pitch and wrecked the goals, causing havoc," would be defamatory to the people in that shot as they might be completely innocent bystanders who just happened to be in your GV. The most likely explanation for something like this would be a story has broken and the only footage a reporter has is GVs of the previous weeks game; notice I said explanation rather than excuse as there is no excuse for that kind of mistake, you can and will be sued. The newspaper version of this is juxtaposition libel which can happen when a headline relating to one story saying, I dunno, "serial murderer finally captured," is put slap bang next to a picture from another story, leading the reader to assume the two are connected and therefore it libels the person in the picture. I've been doing a bit of reading and it appears the first case of juxtaposition libel involved a certain Madame Tussaud. Now you wouldn't think waxworks could cause much of a problem but in a blog from an old WINOL-ite you can read all about it
Finally I want to give a brief mention to the Reynolds defence. The points that make it up are as follows, laid down by Lord Nicholls during the Reynolds vs Times Newspaper case:
1. Seriousness of allegation - The more serious the charge, the more the public is misinformed and the individual harmed, if the allegation is not true.
2. Nature of information - The extent to which the subject matter is a matter of public concern.
3. Source of information - Some informants have no direct knowledge of the events. Some have their own axes to grind, or are being paid for their stories.
4. Steps taken to verify the information - It is always important to check whether the information is true.
5. Status of the information - The allegation may have already been the subject of an investigation which commands respect.
6 . The urgency of the matter - Is the news perishable? Courts must take in to account the need of journalists to work and publish quickly.
7. Whether comment was sought from claimant - The person who is defamed may have information others do not possess or have not disclosed. An approach to the claimant is not always necessary.
8. Whether the articles contained the gist of the claimant side of the story - the journalism must be fair.
9. Tone of the article - A newspaper can raise queries or call for an investigation but need not adopt allegations as statements of fact.
10. Circumstances of the publication - Is the story really so urgent that it had to be published when it was.
I've talked a lot about defences but what about the times when you can have no defence? You can have absolutely no defence when you have not checked the facts, when you have not 'referred up', when you have not put yourself in the shoes of the person or company you are writing about, when you have got carried away by a spicy story, when you have not bothered to wait for a lawyers opinion. On WINOL the system works like this; if a news reporter doesn't show the news editor their package before it goes in to the bulletin or includes something the news editor hasn't seen then it is their fault, if the news editor sees it and defamatory material still goes in then it is their fault, if it is a particularly complicated issue then the editor may be called in until eventually it may go all the way to a lecturer who will pass final judgement on the most legally delicate stories. As always though, recognise the risk.
Until Next Time. Stay Classy Internet.
Friday, 26 October 2012
Media Law - Regulation and Codes of Conduct
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.
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.
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.
Friday, 25 February 2011
News of the World - Still with the phone hacking
Although this term I'm not studying Media Law, it's always nice to keep metaphorically fit when it comes to the law for journalists and as I had already covered some aspects of the 'Phone Hacking Scandal' as it often written; this story particularly caught my eye.
Link here ---> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/feb/25/phone-hacking-case-mulcaire-coogan
Essentially, Glenn Mulcaire, the private investigator on whom this case currently centers is being asked to reveal the names of the executives who commissioned him to hack celebrities' phones. Actor and comedian Steve Coogan is suing the private investigator and News Group, (a subsidiary company to News International) and so the case has moved on with judges ruling Mulcaire cannot refuse to answer on the grounds of self-incrimination.
This is big news in the journalism world as it has huge implications on our code of conduct (which does by the way ask very nicely that we don't engage in subterfuge unless the story can't be attained in any other way).
Until Next Time. Stay Classy Internet.
Link here ---> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/feb/25/phone-hacking-case-mulcaire-coogan
Essentially, Glenn Mulcaire, the private investigator on whom this case currently centers is being asked to reveal the names of the executives who commissioned him to hack celebrities' phones. Actor and comedian Steve Coogan is suing the private investigator and News Group, (a subsidiary company to News International) and so the case has moved on with judges ruling Mulcaire cannot refuse to answer on the grounds of self-incrimination.
This is big news in the journalism world as it has huge implications on our code of conduct (which does by the way ask very nicely that we don't engage in subterfuge unless the story can't be attained in any other way).
Until Next Time. Stay Classy Internet.
Thursday, 23 December 2010
Media Law - Sheridan Case
The Tommy Sheridan case is finally over and the 46-year old former MSP has been found guilty of lying in a defamation case in court (perjury). All the details in the link below.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-12059037
Good stuff for our media law studies.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-12059037
Good stuff for our media law studies.
Wednesday, 1 December 2010
Media Law 10 - Codes of Conduct
Our final structured law lecture (next is revision, then the dreaded exam) focused on the many codes of conduct that journalists have to adhere to.
Before this, we looked at a case that was from our own university's WINOL broadcast about the inspection of the bar Mikiki's after anti social behaviour allegations. The report contained examples of prima facie libel, broad brush identification and innuendo defamation. It was a great example for us as first year students to see how a story that seemed innocuous to us at first could actually contain some legal issues for you to consider. For example, needing the refutation of the owner about the allegations without which you would be subject to malice and would lose all defences.
Onto the codes of conduct now and there are four types that we indentified in the lecture as the main codes of conduct for journalists. The first was the NUJ (National Union of Journalists) code of conduct which B.M., (before Murdoch) had a lot more power. If you broke a rule from the NUJ code of conduct you could be thrown out of the NUJ, losing your press pass and other privileges. It is the journalists own code of conduct, decided by jounralists for journalists and so you are more likely to be frowned upon for breaking this code than probably any other. It is still quite important however as the BBC recognises the NUJ; The Sun however could fire you for being a member and there are cases where young journalists have been fired by a Murdoch owned paper simply for sticking to the code. A famous case where one of the most important aspects of the code of conduct was stuck to (protect your sources) created a kind of folk hero for journalists in Bill Goodwin which I discussed in a previous blog on confidentiality.
NUJ Link here --> http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=174
The second code is the PCC or Press Complaints Commission's code of conduct, often referred to as 'The Editors Code'. It is, in normal terms, the establishment and as such if you break it you can be sacked without compensation. These two codes are more applicable to newspaper journalism but the NUJ code of conduct should be thought of as the code for all journalists.
PCC Link here --> http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html
Next is the Ofcom code of conduct, also known as The Broadcasting Code, which of course applies to commercial TV (we will move on to the BBC next). It has specific rules relating to factual programming and is similar to the PCC in that it works on complaints before it is able to act. Generally if there are no complaints or at least not very many, it will not act.
Ofcom link here --> http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/
Finally we come to the BBC Producer Guidelines which are far, far too complicated to even get in to. They're available online and cover the same areas as the other codes but in a lot of detail.
Link here --> http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/
Revision time now.
Until next time. Stay classy Internet.
Before this, we looked at a case that was from our own university's WINOL broadcast about the inspection of the bar Mikiki's after anti social behaviour allegations. The report contained examples of prima facie libel, broad brush identification and innuendo defamation. It was a great example for us as first year students to see how a story that seemed innocuous to us at first could actually contain some legal issues for you to consider. For example, needing the refutation of the owner about the allegations without which you would be subject to malice and would lose all defences.
Onto the codes of conduct now and there are four types that we indentified in the lecture as the main codes of conduct for journalists. The first was the NUJ (National Union of Journalists) code of conduct which B.M., (before Murdoch) had a lot more power. If you broke a rule from the NUJ code of conduct you could be thrown out of the NUJ, losing your press pass and other privileges. It is the journalists own code of conduct, decided by jounralists for journalists and so you are more likely to be frowned upon for breaking this code than probably any other. It is still quite important however as the BBC recognises the NUJ; The Sun however could fire you for being a member and there are cases where young journalists have been fired by a Murdoch owned paper simply for sticking to the code. A famous case where one of the most important aspects of the code of conduct was stuck to (protect your sources) created a kind of folk hero for journalists in Bill Goodwin which I discussed in a previous blog on confidentiality.
NUJ Link here --> http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=174
The second code is the PCC or Press Complaints Commission's code of conduct, often referred to as 'The Editors Code'. It is, in normal terms, the establishment and as such if you break it you can be sacked without compensation. These two codes are more applicable to newspaper journalism but the NUJ code of conduct should be thought of as the code for all journalists.
PCC Link here --> http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html
Next is the Ofcom code of conduct, also known as The Broadcasting Code, which of course applies to commercial TV (we will move on to the BBC next). It has specific rules relating to factual programming and is similar to the PCC in that it works on complaints before it is able to act. Generally if there are no complaints or at least not very many, it will not act.
Ofcom link here --> http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/
Finally we come to the BBC Producer Guidelines which are far, far too complicated to even get in to. They're available online and cover the same areas as the other codes but in a lot of detail.
Link here --> http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/
Revision time now.
Until next time. Stay classy Internet.
Friday, 26 November 2010
Media Law 9 - Round up & Useful Examples
The lecture this week had a slightly different focus as we looked towards the exam in a couple of weeks time and so we discussed a few examples on the subjects we had covered so far.
Our first example was the Gilligan case which we discussed with the main objective of learning not to fake evidence. The case surrounded the Iraq War and the 'Dodgy Dossier' which eventually led to the suicide of Dr David Kelly. Before Britain went to war with Iraq, Tony Blair said that we had a dossier containing evidence that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan reported on whether the report had been exaggerated and some pieces faked and it turned out the majority of the information had come from the Internet. The dossier was shown to Dr David Kelly in his capacity as an employee of the Defence Intelligence Staff and at the time a quote appeared in The Observer which was later attributed to Kelly saying, "They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were - facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons". Andrew Gilligan then met with Kelly and had a two way interview with him which led Gilligan to broadcast his suspicions about the dossier on the Today programme. The combination of this and a later article in The Mail on Sunday, which named Alastair Campbell as the person responsible for the faking of the evidence, subsequently led to the Government pressing the BBC to reveal its source. Of course, as any journalist should know you can never reveal your source as part of the Journalists Code of Conduct. The process of elimination began to suggest Kelly was his source and so he was questioned extensively by his employers who could not be sure he was Gilligan's only source. Kelly was unstable however and the Hutton enquiry led to his suicide which then became the news story. The focus then changed to Gilligan with Greg Dyke having to defend him as BBC controller and defend the Today programme. Both were sacked over the affair and the Hutton enquiry led to the tightening of guidelines in the BBC. The whole problem could have been solved for Gilligan if he had kept good shorthand notes but without them, his conversation with Kelly may as well have been faked.
On the topic of confidentiality and privacy, Section 8 of the Human Rights Act will always trample Section 10 (Freedom of Expression). In the case of Naomi Campbell, where pictures of her emerging from a rehab centre were published, she sued under Section 8 and won as the paper could not justify the use of the pictures. They tried to say it was in the public interest as she is a 'role model' but judges are tired of this excuse. Don't do it. The big confidentiality case that is always worth a mention is the Princess Caroline of Monaco case. It established degrees of privacy that in simple terms meant she could only be photographed whilst performing a clear public duty. Presenting the European Cup to the winners, OK to photograph her, outside a cafe is wrong but only a small fine in comparison to taking a picture of her inside the cafe when she had gone all the way to the back to avoid attention. Similarly, a man sued after being seen at a Gay pride demonstration, apparently this was not public enough as he successfully sued saying it interfered with his personal life. The Royals in this country cannot monetise their Section 8 rights however because everything they do is public interest, they can't sue because that would be a bigger story than anything people can photograph them doing. Finally on confidentiality and privacy, Catherine Zeta-Jones and her marriage to Michael Douglas had exclusive photo rights to Hello magazine but somehow, OK! magazine sneaked in, got a photo of her scoffing some cake and did a 'ha ha ha' piece at Hello. This became a bigger case in which Zeta-Jones received a large payout but the main point is that some celebrities are now using their Section 8 rights to make money.
On the subject of Libel and Defamation there are a few more cases that we talked about in this lecture that we had not discussed previously. The first of these was a case in which it was said that Britney Spears had appeared in pornographic videos, she sued the people who made the claim but failed in a 10 million dollar libel case. The accusations were definitely defamatory but the defence of justification could not be used because she had not actually appeared in an adult movie per se. The comment defence could be used however as you can reasonably argue that her music videos do attempt to arouse someone, "we regard that as pornography" and so she failed in her libel case. Tommy Sheridan was a socialist MP in the Scottish Parliament who the News of the World reported had been visiting brothels. This was a serious case of defamation as he was married and a hypocrite but because it involved prostitutes the case was very difficult to prove with the only defence possible being justification. The precedent for this was the Jeffery Archer case where the judge did not believe the testimony of a prostitute and influenced the jury. In case of Sheridan however the News of the World did not give up and the case against Sheridan continues. Another libel case involved the naming of a Saudi banker as the main financier for the Taliban. Obviously they sued and the only defence could be justification but there was practically no evidence that would stand up in court. The only possible defence here was the Reynold's defence which I believe I outlined briefly in a previous post. Finally the celebrity hypnotist Paul McKenna was exposed as a charlatan by some news outlets but who won his libel claim against the Mirror group when they suggested his PhD was not real. It was one of the most expensive libel cases to date.
Apologies for the slightly erratic nature of this blog post but it was necessary to get these examples down not just for the blog but for my benefit as we draw near to the exam.
Until next time. Stay Classy Internet.
Our first example was the Gilligan case which we discussed with the main objective of learning not to fake evidence. The case surrounded the Iraq War and the 'Dodgy Dossier' which eventually led to the suicide of Dr David Kelly. Before Britain went to war with Iraq, Tony Blair said that we had a dossier containing evidence that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan reported on whether the report had been exaggerated and some pieces faked and it turned out the majority of the information had come from the Internet. The dossier was shown to Dr David Kelly in his capacity as an employee of the Defence Intelligence Staff and at the time a quote appeared in The Observer which was later attributed to Kelly saying, "They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were - facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons". Andrew Gilligan then met with Kelly and had a two way interview with him which led Gilligan to broadcast his suspicions about the dossier on the Today programme. The combination of this and a later article in The Mail on Sunday, which named Alastair Campbell as the person responsible for the faking of the evidence, subsequently led to the Government pressing the BBC to reveal its source. Of course, as any journalist should know you can never reveal your source as part of the Journalists Code of Conduct. The process of elimination began to suggest Kelly was his source and so he was questioned extensively by his employers who could not be sure he was Gilligan's only source. Kelly was unstable however and the Hutton enquiry led to his suicide which then became the news story. The focus then changed to Gilligan with Greg Dyke having to defend him as BBC controller and defend the Today programme. Both were sacked over the affair and the Hutton enquiry led to the tightening of guidelines in the BBC. The whole problem could have been solved for Gilligan if he had kept good shorthand notes but without them, his conversation with Kelly may as well have been faked.
On the topic of confidentiality and privacy, Section 8 of the Human Rights Act will always trample Section 10 (Freedom of Expression). In the case of Naomi Campbell, where pictures of her emerging from a rehab centre were published, she sued under Section 8 and won as the paper could not justify the use of the pictures. They tried to say it was in the public interest as she is a 'role model' but judges are tired of this excuse. Don't do it. The big confidentiality case that is always worth a mention is the Princess Caroline of Monaco case. It established degrees of privacy that in simple terms meant she could only be photographed whilst performing a clear public duty. Presenting the European Cup to the winners, OK to photograph her, outside a cafe is wrong but only a small fine in comparison to taking a picture of her inside the cafe when she had gone all the way to the back to avoid attention. Similarly, a man sued after being seen at a Gay pride demonstration, apparently this was not public enough as he successfully sued saying it interfered with his personal life. The Royals in this country cannot monetise their Section 8 rights however because everything they do is public interest, they can't sue because that would be a bigger story than anything people can photograph them doing. Finally on confidentiality and privacy, Catherine Zeta-Jones and her marriage to Michael Douglas had exclusive photo rights to Hello magazine but somehow, OK! magazine sneaked in, got a photo of her scoffing some cake and did a 'ha ha ha' piece at Hello. This became a bigger case in which Zeta-Jones received a large payout but the main point is that some celebrities are now using their Section 8 rights to make money.
On the subject of Libel and Defamation there are a few more cases that we talked about in this lecture that we had not discussed previously. The first of these was a case in which it was said that Britney Spears had appeared in pornographic videos, she sued the people who made the claim but failed in a 10 million dollar libel case. The accusations were definitely defamatory but the defence of justification could not be used because she had not actually appeared in an adult movie per se. The comment defence could be used however as you can reasonably argue that her music videos do attempt to arouse someone, "we regard that as pornography" and so she failed in her libel case. Tommy Sheridan was a socialist MP in the Scottish Parliament who the News of the World reported had been visiting brothels. This was a serious case of defamation as he was married and a hypocrite but because it involved prostitutes the case was very difficult to prove with the only defence possible being justification. The precedent for this was the Jeffery Archer case where the judge did not believe the testimony of a prostitute and influenced the jury. In case of Sheridan however the News of the World did not give up and the case against Sheridan continues. Another libel case involved the naming of a Saudi banker as the main financier for the Taliban. Obviously they sued and the only defence could be justification but there was practically no evidence that would stand up in court. The only possible defence here was the Reynold's defence which I believe I outlined briefly in a previous post. Finally the celebrity hypnotist Paul McKenna was exposed as a charlatan by some news outlets but who won his libel claim against the Mirror group when they suggested his PhD was not real. It was one of the most expensive libel cases to date.
Apologies for the slightly erratic nature of this blog post but it was necessary to get these examples down not just for the blog but for my benefit as we draw near to the exam.
Until next time. Stay Classy Internet.
Libel - Current Example 2
Whilst sifting through the disjointed ramblings on Twitter I found an absolute gem of a story, reported in today's Guardian, about the PCC (Press Complaints Commission) having to pay out for a libel case after comments made by its chairman Lady Buscombe in relation to the News Of the World's phone hacking allegations.
The case "is believed to be the first successful libel action brought against the press watchdog, whose code of conduct opens with a requirement for the press to 'take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information'".
Just another example of how invaluable Twitter is as a source for news.
To read the full story click on the link below:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/nov/26/pcc-buscombe-apology-phone-hacking
The case "is believed to be the first successful libel action brought against the press watchdog, whose code of conduct opens with a requirement for the press to 'take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information'".
Just another example of how invaluable Twitter is as a source for news.
To read the full story click on the link below:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/nov/26/pcc-buscombe-apology-phone-hacking
Thursday, 18 November 2010
Media Law 8 - Freedom of Information
Our lecture this week focused on the subject of the Freedom of Information Act, hereby referred to as the FOI. The lecture helped us understand what we could access using the FOI and also what restrictions there were on it, ironic, considering it is 'freedom' of information we are talking about here.
The FOI allows anyone to access documents and data held by organisations in the public sector; this being particularly useful for investigative journalists. Heather Brooke is a leading authority on the FOI and was part of the Daily Telegraph's investigation into expenses. Often FOI requests are put in for things that people believe to be true but without proof, it would often be defamation. Any person, not just a journalist, is entitled to be told when writing to an authority whether they hold any kinds of information. If the answer is yes, you can then ask for that information. For an example, you could write to the Dept. of Employment and ask them, "do you keep a record of what people are ill with?" and if the answer is yes, you might be able to do a 'Too Fat To Work' kind of Daily Mail story. A better example was when a journalist actually did put in a request to an education authority asking how much compensation they had paid for pupils injured. The sum turned out to be huge and suddenly you've got your hands on quite a big story, but it's the gamble you take with the FOI act, for every great story there's at least 10 rubbish ones from requests that went nowhere. Things like injuries in hospitals however can be absolutely hilarious apparently.
The stories you collect from the FOI act are all data based, the act is the key to the Aladdin's cave of news. Even in the Winter time when all news other than snows based news seems to stop, if you get your requests in early you can be writing stories about snow just in time for Christmas. 'Snow news is good news'. A large part of the act is however taken up by exemptions which prevent you from gaining certain information. Of course the Official Secrets Act means you cannot ask for information on the Army on the Secret Service (MI5, MI6 etc) because it would be detrimental to national security. Most organisations will attempt to stretch national security to breaking point in order to cover their own information under the act, "You can't have our information on how many employees have called in sick this year or the terrorists have won". You can also only ask for information that has been recorded so to get the information you need to make clever requests and hope you are not asking whilst under a sofa government, the kind that sits there not recording anything much. Confidentiality is also an issue as it always is, (see previous blogs), you cannot for example specifically ask for information on one person, 'I need information on whether Graham Marshall (me) has been attending lectures', would not be answered as it would breach common law confidentiality.
To put in a request it is best to find the freedom of information officer for that public authority, as each authority should have one. You then ask them "Under the FOI act, I want to know whether you keep information on..." and if they do have the information you can ask for it. If they respond saying "no can do, national security", you can make an appeal to the Information Commissioner and they will adjudicate often in the affirmative if the authority has made a foolish claim that you cannot have their information. Often though, if the authority says 'no can do, national security', it is probably better to rephrase your question until you get the information instead of starting a lengthy appeals process. The cost of them complying is also complicated as they will often say that they have the info but 'the cost of getting it is not justified', i.e. it is too expensive to give it to you. In the same way that national security is stretched to prevent you from getting certain information, the cost of complying is also stretched to prevent certain information from publication. In summary, National Security and Common Law Confidentiality are your main problems when trying to get a story from a FOI request.
Some tips:
Matt Davis has made quite a lot of money by selling off stories he has got from FOI requests to others so he is an authority on these requests and there are some extensive notes on his work in Chris' lecture notes. One of the stories he did revolved around an FOI request for the hospital league table of who has been sued the most. He sold this story to the Daily Mail which ran a headline like "THE WORST HOSPITALS IN BRITAIN" but which you could defend with the fair comment defence. A hospital top of the list of most sued could quite reasonably be considered as the worst by most right thinking people. The same thing happened about the movie Borat which provoked some quite angry reactions from some areas of both the press and the public. Matt Davis then asked the relevant department, "Have you received any complaints from Kazakhstan about the movie?". It turned out that the country was virtually declaring war and yet the story would never have been known without the FOI act. To get the information that you want you need to use their jargon; for example there are certain colloquial terms that do not apply to the bureaucrats that you have to deal with to get your information. You can't take no for an answer either, if for any reason they claim they can't give the information to you then just rephrase the question, you're dealing with bureaucrats who will do what they can to stop you from getting the information you want.
All the time you have an amazing amount of data collected on you, in hospital for example, the amount of data collected each time you go is vast, for this reason the Freedom of Information act is invaluable to journalists.
The FOI allows anyone to access documents and data held by organisations in the public sector; this being particularly useful for investigative journalists. Heather Brooke is a leading authority on the FOI and was part of the Daily Telegraph's investigation into expenses. Often FOI requests are put in for things that people believe to be true but without proof, it would often be defamation. Any person, not just a journalist, is entitled to be told when writing to an authority whether they hold any kinds of information. If the answer is yes, you can then ask for that information. For an example, you could write to the Dept. of Employment and ask them, "do you keep a record of what people are ill with?" and if the answer is yes, you might be able to do a 'Too Fat To Work' kind of Daily Mail story. A better example was when a journalist actually did put in a request to an education authority asking how much compensation they had paid for pupils injured. The sum turned out to be huge and suddenly you've got your hands on quite a big story, but it's the gamble you take with the FOI act, for every great story there's at least 10 rubbish ones from requests that went nowhere. Things like injuries in hospitals however can be absolutely hilarious apparently.
The stories you collect from the FOI act are all data based, the act is the key to the Aladdin's cave of news. Even in the Winter time when all news other than snows based news seems to stop, if you get your requests in early you can be writing stories about snow just in time for Christmas. 'Snow news is good news'. A large part of the act is however taken up by exemptions which prevent you from gaining certain information. Of course the Official Secrets Act means you cannot ask for information on the Army on the Secret Service (MI5, MI6 etc) because it would be detrimental to national security. Most organisations will attempt to stretch national security to breaking point in order to cover their own information under the act, "You can't have our information on how many employees have called in sick this year or the terrorists have won". You can also only ask for information that has been recorded so to get the information you need to make clever requests and hope you are not asking whilst under a sofa government, the kind that sits there not recording anything much. Confidentiality is also an issue as it always is, (see previous blogs), you cannot for example specifically ask for information on one person, 'I need information on whether Graham Marshall (me) has been attending lectures', would not be answered as it would breach common law confidentiality.
To put in a request it is best to find the freedom of information officer for that public authority, as each authority should have one. You then ask them "Under the FOI act, I want to know whether you keep information on..." and if they do have the information you can ask for it. If they respond saying "no can do, national security", you can make an appeal to the Information Commissioner and they will adjudicate often in the affirmative if the authority has made a foolish claim that you cannot have their information. Often though, if the authority says 'no can do, national security', it is probably better to rephrase your question until you get the information instead of starting a lengthy appeals process. The cost of them complying is also complicated as they will often say that they have the info but 'the cost of getting it is not justified', i.e. it is too expensive to give it to you. In the same way that national security is stretched to prevent you from getting certain information, the cost of complying is also stretched to prevent certain information from publication. In summary, National Security and Common Law Confidentiality are your main problems when trying to get a story from a FOI request.
Some tips:
Matt Davis has made quite a lot of money by selling off stories he has got from FOI requests to others so he is an authority on these requests and there are some extensive notes on his work in Chris' lecture notes. One of the stories he did revolved around an FOI request for the hospital league table of who has been sued the most. He sold this story to the Daily Mail which ran a headline like "THE WORST HOSPITALS IN BRITAIN" but which you could defend with the fair comment defence. A hospital top of the list of most sued could quite reasonably be considered as the worst by most right thinking people. The same thing happened about the movie Borat which provoked some quite angry reactions from some areas of both the press and the public. Matt Davis then asked the relevant department, "Have you received any complaints from Kazakhstan about the movie?". It turned out that the country was virtually declaring war and yet the story would never have been known without the FOI act. To get the information that you want you need to use their jargon; for example there are certain colloquial terms that do not apply to the bureaucrats that you have to deal with to get your information. You can't take no for an answer either, if for any reason they claim they can't give the information to you then just rephrase the question, you're dealing with bureaucrats who will do what they can to stop you from getting the information you want.
All the time you have an amazing amount of data collected on you, in hospital for example, the amount of data collected each time you go is vast, for this reason the Freedom of Information act is invaluable to journalists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)