Our lecture this week focused on an extremely important aspect of our work; Investigative Journalism. To be an investigative journalist takes a very particular kind of person and so far I'm wondering whether that person could ever be me. In the lecture we looked at all sorts of examples of investigative journalism and some made it seem so glamorous whilst others made investigative journalism seem like a rather grubby profession in which your main goal is to destroy others, somehow not from malice but from your own inclination to find a story anywhere. Before the Times was bought by Murdoch the editor of the Sunday Times was Harry Evans who had his own special group of journalists called, 'The Insight Team' whose job it was to simply go out and investigate whatever news stories they could think of. "Local Shopkeepers are running a drug dealing business on the side. Well they're probably not but it's worth investigating anyway, just in case". They actually got to do that for a job, those were the days, the story that the journalist originated instead of it coming to them through the courts of the government. The most famous case of investigative journalism from Harry Evans' Insight Team was the Thalidomide case where a report was done into why hundreds of children had not received compensation for the severe birth defects that they had suffered. After investigation by the Insight team and a high profile campaign by Evans himself they took on the medical company and won, securing the compensation for the children and changing the law on reporting civil cases in the process.
Journalism is the business of selling information and the only difference between journalism and investigative journalism is that you get the information yourself and originate the story. An example of this is Watergate where the story came from a source as opposed to the courts and the usual way of collecting news. Often certain techniques that could be seen as illegal may have to be used to get your information, a key technique being subterfuge. This is essentially going under cover to get your story, the camera in a bag technique, the fake sheik, the list goes on. To do this is OK as long as it is part of some good strong journalism and the story is in the public interest; using it to secretly film someone just for fun is not on. Before Murdoch, (B.M.), investigative journalism was much more valid and relevant but now, the techniques are being used to find out about celebrity splits and sport star haircuts and so it gives the whole profession a bad name. Investigative journalism should be about saving innocent people from prison on the charge of bombing a pub in Birmingham, purely on the basis that the IRA did it and they were Irish or exposing the sale of rotten meat, unfit for human consumption to the Rochdale Schools service. Although these examples may seem either far fetched or oddly specific, they really did happen, reported on and exposed by the now sadly defunct World in Action programme.
The earliest investigative journalist was Emile Zola, often referred to as the father/founder of investigative journalism. He was known as a realist in literature, similar to Dickens but often thought of as more of a journalist than Dickens. His biggest moment in investigative journalism came after the Franco-Prussian war which the French lost and then decided to blame the loss on the Jews who they said were selling military secrets. One of the top officers in the army, a Captain Alfred Dreyfus was accused and court-martialled, simply because he was Jewish and a simple scapegoat. Zola took the view that they framed him and was persecuted for this, he had to live in exile before writing his most famous piece, "J'accuse" which accused the highest levels of the army and government of anti-semitism. Eventually though after many years Dreyfus was exonerated but it would not have happened without the tireless investigation of Emile Zola. Journalists are for this reason sometimes seen as a fourth state; you have the executive, the legislature and the judiciary but journalism has so much power that it can be called the fourth state.
There are some difficulties in investigative journalism as the things you are most likely to be accused of are defamation and libel, two civil cases which you need to know your defences for. You also need to understand the evidence gap, something you don't come across in criminal court. In the civil court cases you only need to prove something on the balance of probability as opposed to beyond reasonable doubt. It is very difficult to prove something beyond reasonable doubt but to prove you had malice when you wrote something 'on the balance of probability' would be quite simple. There are some complicated cases where a newspaper has gone out of its way to libel people after a case has been mishandled. The Stephen Lawrence case for example where the Daily Mail published a headline saying 'Murderers' and a positive ID on every single one of them, they somehow escaped because the people would never have challenged it as that would take it to civil court where they would only need to prove that they probably killed him to get them convicted.
In summary. Investigative journalism is an exciting field of journalism but certainly not for everyone. You can bring people down with good investigative journalism, and that sort of power is difficult to comprehend. Maybe we should save that for another day.
Until next time. You stay Classy Internet.
Friday, 12 November 2010
Thursday, 11 November 2010
Lecture 4 - David Hume tbh
In our latest lecture the main focus was the hugely influential and important David Hume. He is influential to many philosophers but also us journalists as his approach asks us to constantly verify information. He comes from the empirical school of philosophy and believes that ideas are synthesised; this is in great distinction from the idealists and rationalists such as Descartes. His approach is more like science whereas the rationalist viewpoint comes from a more religious way of thinking. He was probably an Atheist as to be religious would go against his own theories but to have said so in his time he would probably have been prosecuted and killed if he said so; Galileo was persecuted just because he questioned some of the less fundamental aspects of religion. Hume's work helped influence the modern philosophy of Logical Positivism (The Vienna Circle) which is the philosophy that modern science uses and social science follows as well. Social science is the scientific explanation of human behaviour, similar to but not entirely like Sociology.
Hume saw things in a similar way to Einstein and Einstein 'admitted that he could not have the gumption to oppose Newton's immortal status without reading Hume'. He saw things as mechanisms with no absolute truths or knowledge. Just because the sun rose yesterday doesn't mean it will tomorrow; the sun rising is a mental illusion, (admittedly the sun does not rise, it just appears to). He had ideas on a number of things, for example he had ideas on causation saying that it is only happening in your head, not in nature. With an example of billiard balls he says that whilst the white ball hits the red, you cannot know that it was this that caused the red ball to move, you cannot show the causation. On the subject of induction and logic he says you can draw inferences from your own synthetic logic, e.g. you can add knowledge to certain things as the brain synthesizes them together; an example of this would be a unicorn (bear with me), if you know what a horse looks like and you know what a rhinoceros looks like your brain can synthesize the image of a unicorn. Hume also had thoughts on morality, the 'is/ought' dichotomy, but there is no morality in phenomena - no teleology - if Hume were alive today and was told to solve the speeding problem, he would simply put up more cameras.
Hume's philosophy influences the modern philosophy of Logical Positivism which follows the verification principle. By this I mean that any knowledge you might have needs to be verified to have scientific value. The metaphysical needs to be separated from science, this is part of Aristotle's logic, it needs to be non-contradictory, i.e. if the sun is not the moon, then the moon is not the sun. In logical positivism there are three kinds of statements: those statements that can be verified as provisionally 'true', non contradictory; those statements that can be verified as definitely false, contradictory; and those statements that cannot be verified, gibberish. This is very similar in the way it functions to how a computer operates and thinks.
If Hume was the progenitor of logical positivism, Karl Popper was a disciple of Hume's theories and philosophy and took the theories to their logical conclusion. He ritually attacks metaphysics, what he wants is science but he also attacks the verification principle as this is also metaphysics. The statement that non-verifiable statements are gibberish is gibberish itself as it is not actually verifiable. To Karl Popper, statements need to be falsified also, it must be capable of not just verification but falsification.
Hume sought to take to its logical conclusion the work of earlier empiricists such as Locke and Berkeley, rooting out any explanations that depended on invention rather than experience. In the book I Think Therefore I Am: All the Philosophy You Need to Know by Lesley Levene, she writes that "Reasoning, says Hume, is about discovering relationships between things. He identified two different sorts: 'relations of ideas' and 'matters of fact'. That 15 is half of 30, for example, can be discovered and demonstrated by reason alone, without reference to other forms of evidence, so belongs in the first category. Statements such as 'The sun will rise tomorrow', however, cannot be demonstrated by reason alone; as long as their negation is conceivable, we depend on experience to determine whether they are true or false - which means they belong in the second category." She goes on to say that, for Hume, "mathematics was the only worthwhile form of demonstrative reasoning. Books that did not contain mathematical demonstrations or empirical reasoning - he singled out those on metaphysics and theology in particular - deserved to be 'committed to the flames' as nothing but sophistry and illusion".
To journalists, Hume is so important that this blog really does not do him justice so it will be interesting to look into him more and the seminar will also be an interesting experience.
Until next time. Stay Classy Internet.
Hume saw things in a similar way to Einstein and Einstein 'admitted that he could not have the gumption to oppose Newton's immortal status without reading Hume'. He saw things as mechanisms with no absolute truths or knowledge. Just because the sun rose yesterday doesn't mean it will tomorrow; the sun rising is a mental illusion, (admittedly the sun does not rise, it just appears to). He had ideas on a number of things, for example he had ideas on causation saying that it is only happening in your head, not in nature. With an example of billiard balls he says that whilst the white ball hits the red, you cannot know that it was this that caused the red ball to move, you cannot show the causation. On the subject of induction and logic he says you can draw inferences from your own synthetic logic, e.g. you can add knowledge to certain things as the brain synthesizes them together; an example of this would be a unicorn (bear with me), if you know what a horse looks like and you know what a rhinoceros looks like your brain can synthesize the image of a unicorn. Hume also had thoughts on morality, the 'is/ought' dichotomy, but there is no morality in phenomena - no teleology - if Hume were alive today and was told to solve the speeding problem, he would simply put up more cameras.
Hume's philosophy influences the modern philosophy of Logical Positivism which follows the verification principle. By this I mean that any knowledge you might have needs to be verified to have scientific value. The metaphysical needs to be separated from science, this is part of Aristotle's logic, it needs to be non-contradictory, i.e. if the sun is not the moon, then the moon is not the sun. In logical positivism there are three kinds of statements: those statements that can be verified as provisionally 'true', non contradictory; those statements that can be verified as definitely false, contradictory; and those statements that cannot be verified, gibberish. This is very similar in the way it functions to how a computer operates and thinks.
If Hume was the progenitor of logical positivism, Karl Popper was a disciple of Hume's theories and philosophy and took the theories to their logical conclusion. He ritually attacks metaphysics, what he wants is science but he also attacks the verification principle as this is also metaphysics. The statement that non-verifiable statements are gibberish is gibberish itself as it is not actually verifiable. To Karl Popper, statements need to be falsified also, it must be capable of not just verification but falsification.
Hume sought to take to its logical conclusion the work of earlier empiricists such as Locke and Berkeley, rooting out any explanations that depended on invention rather than experience. In the book I Think Therefore I Am: All the Philosophy You Need to Know by Lesley Levene, she writes that "Reasoning, says Hume, is about discovering relationships between things. He identified two different sorts: 'relations of ideas' and 'matters of fact'. That 15 is half of 30, for example, can be discovered and demonstrated by reason alone, without reference to other forms of evidence, so belongs in the first category. Statements such as 'The sun will rise tomorrow', however, cannot be demonstrated by reason alone; as long as their negation is conceivable, we depend on experience to determine whether they are true or false - which means they belong in the second category." She goes on to say that, for Hume, "mathematics was the only worthwhile form of demonstrative reasoning. Books that did not contain mathematical demonstrations or empirical reasoning - he singled out those on metaphysics and theology in particular - deserved to be 'committed to the flames' as nothing but sophistry and illusion".
To journalists, Hume is so important that this blog really does not do him justice so it will be interesting to look into him more and the seminar will also be an interesting experience.
Until next time. Stay Classy Internet.
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
Daily Mail
Saw this and it made me chuckle. Very much in the vein of The Daily Mail song that Henry recently posted but I was searching for a story and found this instead.
It is The Daily Mail-o-matic which generates Daily Mail style headlines with some very funny consequences.
My favourite so far is "HAVE THE UNIONS MADE THE MIDDLE CLASS OBESE".
Not really a substantial blog but it's keeping me amused whilst all the other blogs are being written.
Stay Classy Internet.
It is The Daily Mail-o-matic which generates Daily Mail style headlines with some very funny consequences.
My favourite so far is "HAVE THE UNIONS MADE THE MIDDLE CLASS OBESE".
Not really a substantial blog but it's keeping me amused whilst all the other blogs are being written.
Stay Classy Internet.
Seminar Notes - Early Journalism
In our latest seminar we had a paper from Ali on the subject of Joseph Addison, one of the early journalists of the late 17th and early 18th century. We talked about how Addison was in fact quite a modern man as the ideas he portrayed in 'The Royal Exchange' talked about how multicultural the place was and how this seemed a good thing. An alternative reading however came to light that changed almost all our opinions on the reading as it showed Addison as a more cynical and possibly even bitter writer who, though witty, was actually displeased with the way his world was. Little things that we had not picked up on, like certain phrases that suggested his point of view. He talks about how Volumes "get away with being dull" which essays do not, suggesting a contempt for the volume format and possibly an air that his form is more worthwhile as it is more focused. He speaks in a humorous way but makes many poignant statements that Ali picked up on such as, 'there is a kind of heaviness that hangs on mans head'.
Often in Addison's writings, the statements which appear to be compliments actually disguise the biggest insults; this was the style at the time which is best observed in the video that used to be on the Winchester Journalism homepage featuring the opening scene of The Draughtsman's Contract which contained the sort of language that Addison would have been familiar with. In his essays he talks about the sort of 'voluntary moles' who do not want to hear the news or have their opinions challenged, similar to the wilful ignorance of some people today. He perfectly describes the tabloids and their methods which can also still apply today.
"Should a writer single out particular persons, or point his rallery at any order of men, who by their profession ought to be exempt from it; should he slander the innocent, or satirize the miserable; or should he, even on the proper subjects of derision, give the full play to his mirth, without regard to decency and good-manners; he might be sure of pleasing a great part of his readers, but must be a very ill man, if by such a proceeding he could please himself".
This can also draw parallels to our media law as it seems to be talking about malice, apparently always the red kryptonite of journalists.
It is also interesting to note that Addison's philosophy was most similar to Locke and they both shared Tory sensibilities in the original sense of the Tories and the Whigs.
EDIT: The video of The Draughtsman's Contract no longer appears to be on the Winchester Journalism homepage so here is the video in all its glory.
Often in Addison's writings, the statements which appear to be compliments actually disguise the biggest insults; this was the style at the time which is best observed in the video that used to be on the Winchester Journalism homepage featuring the opening scene of The Draughtsman's Contract which contained the sort of language that Addison would have been familiar with. In his essays he talks about the sort of 'voluntary moles' who do not want to hear the news or have their opinions challenged, similar to the wilful ignorance of some people today. He perfectly describes the tabloids and their methods which can also still apply today.
"Should a writer single out particular persons, or point his rallery at any order of men, who by their profession ought to be exempt from it; should he slander the innocent, or satirize the miserable; or should he, even on the proper subjects of derision, give the full play to his mirth, without regard to decency and good-manners; he might be sure of pleasing a great part of his readers, but must be a very ill man, if by such a proceeding he could please himself".
This can also draw parallels to our media law as it seems to be talking about malice, apparently always the red kryptonite of journalists.
It is also interesting to note that Addison's philosophy was most similar to Locke and they both shared Tory sensibilities in the original sense of the Tories and the Whigs.
EDIT: The video of The Draughtsman's Contract no longer appears to be on the Winchester Journalism homepage so here is the video in all its glory.
Thursday, 4 November 2010
News Agenda - Peter Cole
During our first News Agenda session we were told that it might be worth our while reading Peter Cole's four part series on the national press that was published in The Guardian.
There were some points made that I found quite interesting. For example, the idea that journalists struggle to talk about 'the life of newspapers' in opposition to 'the death of newspapers', simply because we read too many. The articles themselves are therefore not strictly aimed at journalists, although we can gain much from reading them, but they are for the benefit of 'ordinary readers'. The articles are on the subject of the national press, starting mid-market with the Daily Express and the Daily Mail. It makes quite interesting but also humorous points on the obsession of the Express with Diana and Madeleine McCann. It reasons that the real Express obsession is Diana because they have such exceptional Paris contacts. This means the paper can continuously run headlines such as 'Diana: new sensation' or 'Scandal of Diana cover-up' with very little comment or following up of the stories. "The conspiracy theories build without trace. And nobody really knows why". The Mail is an interesting case study as its views are so strong and these views are intended to reflect the prejudices of their readers, not the contemporary world. The Mail also takes 'proper note of [its] demographics rather than pandering to the advertisers' preoccupation with young consumers'. The reason the Mail is doing so much better than the express comes down to two things: Confidence, the Mail's dominant quality and the fact that it knows its 'middle England' audience.
His next article starts with a bold statement, (and one that fortunately would appeal to the readers of the Guardian, he knows his own demographics), claiming that 'the tabloids are another country to readers of this and other serious newspapers'. He notes that the Red top market is dominated by the Sun on weekdays but by the News of the World on Sundays, the tabloids do still hold such influence even with the decline in circulation (however, the Sun is still the highest selling daily). Journalists on national newspapers - even editors of serious newspapers - can't get enough of the tabloids, the stories are followed up in their own columns with little excuse needed to refer back to them. The golden age of the tabloids was when "society was more stratified, when manual work was dominant, when politicians commanded respect, when education was driving social mobility and when stars were glitzy, (Peter Cole's words not mine). Most tabloids tend to feature stories on infidelity by the famous and not so much or drug addictions of the same. The way they get this information has been called into question however after the News of the World were found to have paid for illegally obtained phone intercepts and the Mirror was found to have phoney photos to back allegations of abuse by British troops. Tabloid journalists are the least trusted of all journalists which Cole finds unfair, "some of the best journalists work for tabloids and the techniques of tabloid journalism are the hardest to acquire". The agenda is what has gone 'awry'. The Sun's views on crime and punishment, Europe, asylum and the nanny state still reflect a strong vein of opinion (when they are present).
Whether you call them 'broadsheets' or use the official Audit Bureau of Circulations term, 'qualities', the more correct term would probably be 'serious'. Although it surprised me to learn that the four 'qualities' - Guardian, Telegraph, Times and Independent - have a combined circulation smaller than the Daily Mail's, it did not surprise me to learn they are punching well above their weight, even if the decisions made by our leaders after reading them, can often be wrong. Cole finds the 'serious sector' the most interesting in recent times due to its compact revolution, its engagement with online publishing, the changes in ownership, management and editors, the growth in the importance of Saturday and the huge investment made in giveaway CDs and DVDs. The article also had some interesting points especially for me, considering my news agenda presentation, on the subject of the Independent. He says the Independent is more like a pressure group than a political party, concentrating on the issues it believes its readers care about, carving a niche for itself on a daily fix of war, climate change, Heathrow protests, Darfur and university clearing.
In Cole's final essay on the press, he enthuses on the subject of the thriving multi section supplement paper. Although they are more expensive and often have a lot of waffle in their different sections, we as consumers actually purchase more Sunday newspapers than weekday newspapers. Market research suggests that readers prefer a more manageable product whilst the market demonstrates the complete opposite. Sunday papers have become 'embedded in our culture' even though Sundays have changed completely in society. The serious Sundays have not suffered the drop in circulation of the tabloids and so they are in reasonable health.
Long may this continue and we'll hope that 'the death of the newspaper' is a little over zealous. Perhaps it is 'too soon for obits'.
There were some points made that I found quite interesting. For example, the idea that journalists struggle to talk about 'the life of newspapers' in opposition to 'the death of newspapers', simply because we read too many. The articles themselves are therefore not strictly aimed at journalists, although we can gain much from reading them, but they are for the benefit of 'ordinary readers'. The articles are on the subject of the national press, starting mid-market with the Daily Express and the Daily Mail. It makes quite interesting but also humorous points on the obsession of the Express with Diana and Madeleine McCann. It reasons that the real Express obsession is Diana because they have such exceptional Paris contacts. This means the paper can continuously run headlines such as 'Diana: new sensation' or 'Scandal of Diana cover-up' with very little comment or following up of the stories. "The conspiracy theories build without trace. And nobody really knows why". The Mail is an interesting case study as its views are so strong and these views are intended to reflect the prejudices of their readers, not the contemporary world. The Mail also takes 'proper note of [its] demographics rather than pandering to the advertisers' preoccupation with young consumers'. The reason the Mail is doing so much better than the express comes down to two things: Confidence, the Mail's dominant quality and the fact that it knows its 'middle England' audience.
His next article starts with a bold statement, (and one that fortunately would appeal to the readers of the Guardian, he knows his own demographics), claiming that 'the tabloids are another country to readers of this and other serious newspapers'. He notes that the Red top market is dominated by the Sun on weekdays but by the News of the World on Sundays, the tabloids do still hold such influence even with the decline in circulation (however, the Sun is still the highest selling daily). Journalists on national newspapers - even editors of serious newspapers - can't get enough of the tabloids, the stories are followed up in their own columns with little excuse needed to refer back to them. The golden age of the tabloids was when "society was more stratified, when manual work was dominant, when politicians commanded respect, when education was driving social mobility and when stars were glitzy, (Peter Cole's words not mine). Most tabloids tend to feature stories on infidelity by the famous and not so much or drug addictions of the same. The way they get this information has been called into question however after the News of the World were found to have paid for illegally obtained phone intercepts and the Mirror was found to have phoney photos to back allegations of abuse by British troops. Tabloid journalists are the least trusted of all journalists which Cole finds unfair, "some of the best journalists work for tabloids and the techniques of tabloid journalism are the hardest to acquire". The agenda is what has gone 'awry'. The Sun's views on crime and punishment, Europe, asylum and the nanny state still reflect a strong vein of opinion (when they are present).
Whether you call them 'broadsheets' or use the official Audit Bureau of Circulations term, 'qualities', the more correct term would probably be 'serious'. Although it surprised me to learn that the four 'qualities' - Guardian, Telegraph, Times and Independent - have a combined circulation smaller than the Daily Mail's, it did not surprise me to learn they are punching well above their weight, even if the decisions made by our leaders after reading them, can often be wrong. Cole finds the 'serious sector' the most interesting in recent times due to its compact revolution, its engagement with online publishing, the changes in ownership, management and editors, the growth in the importance of Saturday and the huge investment made in giveaway CDs and DVDs. The article also had some interesting points especially for me, considering my news agenda presentation, on the subject of the Independent. He says the Independent is more like a pressure group than a political party, concentrating on the issues it believes its readers care about, carving a niche for itself on a daily fix of war, climate change, Heathrow protests, Darfur and university clearing.
In Cole's final essay on the press, he enthuses on the subject of the thriving multi section supplement paper. Although they are more expensive and often have a lot of waffle in their different sections, we as consumers actually purchase more Sunday newspapers than weekday newspapers. Market research suggests that readers prefer a more manageable product whilst the market demonstrates the complete opposite. Sunday papers have become 'embedded in our culture' even though Sundays have changed completely in society. The serious Sundays have not suffered the drop in circulation of the tabloids and so they are in reasonable health.
Long may this continue and we'll hope that 'the death of the newspaper' is a little over zealous. Perhaps it is 'too soon for obits'.
Wednesday, 3 November 2010
Media Law 6 - Copyright (with some extras)
The lecture started in unusual fashion with two older students coming into the room to show us an example of investigative journalism which, for reasons of confidentiality, I am not entirely sure I can talk of in full detail. Suffice to say, some investigative journalism had gone on with the result being that some defamatory material could be published which would essentially destroy the person involved.This brought into question some moral issues that had not been fully explored before. Sometimes as a journalist, the difficult decision has to be made about whether it is worth having such a story on your conscience, knowing that you have destroyed someone and their career.
The copyright law for journalists is quite complicated and I have already made a blog post on copyright in general from when Peter Hodges - former head of copyright at the BBC - came to give us a guest lecture on the subject. This lecture however gave more focus on the journalistic aspects and a few examples for us to think on. Increasingly, it is not only property (work) that can be copyrighted but your intellectual property is often just as important. There is no copyright on ideas though; if you were to say 'let's make a film about cowboys', then Clint Eastwood wouldn't be able to do much about it. You are not actually allowed to take things off of the Internet, (pictures included) because they are all protected under copyright. The 1911 Copyright Act make any breach of copyright a crime so it's a more serious thing than you may necessarily think. Often journalism students seem to think they are exempt from these laws purely because they are students. Just because you may feel you have exemption through your inexperience doesn't mean that putting copyrighted material into your blog may come back on you in a bad way.
Any work that you do is copyright and belongs to you until you sell it. The example we had in the lecture was that of shed building. If you build a shed it is yours and no one else's but if you sell it (your wages) it's not yours anymore. In the same way McNae's suggests that because you are being paid wages for your pieces then you no longer own them, (unless you have some prior agreement with the editor). If you were a freelance journalist you could license your work instead of receiving wages; you can have either a one off license or even a royalty. Royalties are more complicated however as they are tied to an advance. To use the example of a book you might be expected to sell say 500,000 copies of the book at £10 so your royalty is 10% of the profits and you receive 500,000 pounds. If your book actually sells 1 million copies then your 10% doesn't change, you just receive more royalties so to use the same example you would receive 1 million pounds from the sale of your book. It is important to secure your license so you do not get 'ripped off', the original example of this being the 60s rock band The Who. They recorded one of their songs in a studio and did not secure a license for their work so it was distributed and made successful without them even getting a penny, (fortunately for them it wasn't their only song).
Finally I'm going to talk about 'lifting' or the concept of fair dealing. You can, in certain circumstances actually take pieces of other journalists work but this does not mean actually stealing their entire articles and the like, it just applies to the facts of a news story which obviously cannot be copyrighted. If the Prime Minister resigns and someone has written the story before you then they do not own the copyright to the story, just the quotes that they may have got for the story; another example is the reporting of the score in a football match. The only time you can get away with taking quotes from another journalists report is if you use the defence of 'fair dealing' to avoid legal action. Mentioning 'the minister tells a newspaper' before a quote that you lifted is all you need, you do not need to name the rival newspaper who you took the quote from.
Thanks for reading my notes on copyright, if you liked this then please look at the rest of my entries and especially the above mentioned blog from Peter Hodges guest lecture.
Stay Classy Internet.
The copyright law for journalists is quite complicated and I have already made a blog post on copyright in general from when Peter Hodges - former head of copyright at the BBC - came to give us a guest lecture on the subject. This lecture however gave more focus on the journalistic aspects and a few examples for us to think on. Increasingly, it is not only property (work) that can be copyrighted but your intellectual property is often just as important. There is no copyright on ideas though; if you were to say 'let's make a film about cowboys', then Clint Eastwood wouldn't be able to do much about it. You are not actually allowed to take things off of the Internet, (pictures included) because they are all protected under copyright. The 1911 Copyright Act make any breach of copyright a crime so it's a more serious thing than you may necessarily think. Often journalism students seem to think they are exempt from these laws purely because they are students. Just because you may feel you have exemption through your inexperience doesn't mean that putting copyrighted material into your blog may come back on you in a bad way.
Any work that you do is copyright and belongs to you until you sell it. The example we had in the lecture was that of shed building. If you build a shed it is yours and no one else's but if you sell it (your wages) it's not yours anymore. In the same way McNae's suggests that because you are being paid wages for your pieces then you no longer own them, (unless you have some prior agreement with the editor). If you were a freelance journalist you could license your work instead of receiving wages; you can have either a one off license or even a royalty. Royalties are more complicated however as they are tied to an advance. To use the example of a book you might be expected to sell say 500,000 copies of the book at £10 so your royalty is 10% of the profits and you receive 500,000 pounds. If your book actually sells 1 million copies then your 10% doesn't change, you just receive more royalties so to use the same example you would receive 1 million pounds from the sale of your book. It is important to secure your license so you do not get 'ripped off', the original example of this being the 60s rock band The Who. They recorded one of their songs in a studio and did not secure a license for their work so it was distributed and made successful without them even getting a penny, (fortunately for them it wasn't their only song).
Finally I'm going to talk about 'lifting' or the concept of fair dealing. You can, in certain circumstances actually take pieces of other journalists work but this does not mean actually stealing their entire articles and the like, it just applies to the facts of a news story which obviously cannot be copyrighted. If the Prime Minister resigns and someone has written the story before you then they do not own the copyright to the story, just the quotes that they may have got for the story; another example is the reporting of the score in a football match. The only time you can get away with taking quotes from another journalists report is if you use the defence of 'fair dealing' to avoid legal action. Mentioning 'the minister tells a newspaper' before a quote that you lifted is all you need, you do not need to name the rival newspaper who you took the quote from.
Thanks for reading my notes on copyright, if you liked this then please look at the rest of my entries and especially the above mentioned blog from Peter Hodges guest lecture.
Stay Classy Internet.
Libel - Current example
I was alerted to a current news story on libel through the social networking site Twitter where a user called @bengoldacre said "another reminder for journalists internationally of the need to write about NMT's behaviour (and English libel reform) http://bbc.in/99SfQe.
The story can be viewed via the link above and is an interesting case of where someone is using libel laws to 'suppress legitimate scientific discussion'.
It is also interesting to consider the role of Twitter in all of this. The story would not have come to my attention had it not been Re-Tweeted, (a term used on the site to mean that you have Re-Tweeted someone else's tweet to your own followers, complicated to understand if you are not Twitter literate). Twitter has become a source of news for many people and it is understood that more people go on the web for news these days than pick up a newspaper.
See this brief article for an example: http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article4559162.ece
The story can be viewed via the link above and is an interesting case of where someone is using libel laws to 'suppress legitimate scientific discussion'.
It is also interesting to consider the role of Twitter in all of this. The story would not have come to my attention had it not been Re-Tweeted, (a term used on the site to mean that you have Re-Tweeted someone else's tweet to your own followers, complicated to understand if you are not Twitter literate). Twitter has become a source of news for many people and it is understood that more people go on the web for news these days than pick up a newspaper.
See this brief article for an example: http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article4559162.ece
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)