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.
Saturday, 24 November 2012
Sunday, 11 November 2012
Courting Controversy
I didn't blog last week and if by some strange quirk you are a regular follower of my blog then you may wonder why. Well the reasons are twofold; we put on our huge Hampshire Police and Crime Commissioner Debate, which I took part in on the day of last week's lecture, and also the last two weeks of lectures were on court reporting so I felt it would be beneficial to just put my thoughts on both lectures in to one single, easy to digest blog.
When talking about court reporting, the most important thing to remember in my opinion is privilege. There are a few other situations where privilege comes into effect, the House of Commons for example, but it is most commonly used in court. What privilege allows journalists to do is write and publish or broadcast material which may be defamatory or untrue, simply because it is said in court. We have protection in reporting these things as long as, yep, you guessed it; we are FAST, ACCURATE and FAIR. People in court have what is known as ABSOLUTE privilege but journalists only have QUALIFIED privilege (QP) in reporting on them. Your reports need to be fair, accurate, without malice and on a matter of public concern for QP to come into effect. It is the same rule for reporting on the House of Commons where as long as your report follows the regulations for QP then you can report anything said by MPs in the Commons. This is the way that recently many injunctions and super injunctions have been broken with MPs naming and in some cases shaming those with injunctions so that the paper can break the story without fear of reprimand. Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming was famous around the time of the Ryan Giggs super injunction, calling injunctions an "affront to democracy," and breaking a few using his absolute privilege in parliament. You can read a comment piece here about how that process works and the worries parliament have about this kind of conduct and you can read about how the Ryan Giggs story broke using several links; here, here and here. It's interesting to see there one of my mini blogs from a long time ago with a mention of another sports star with a super injunction who I'm not sure we ever found out about.
Qualified privilege has two levels: with or 'subject to' explanation or contradiction and 'without' explanation or contradiction. It is also subject to the Reynolds Test, the 10 point test which I listed and went through in my last blog. There are a few other events covered by privilege, pressers and public meetings are covered but again, only if they follow the rules for obtaining QP. Written handouts are also covered according to the lecture. This is something I'd never heard before and it made me wonder whether that defence would also stretch to a press release. Say for example you receive a press release from an outspoken, right wing, extremist group about a demonstration and you report what they have to say. As long as you give a balanced report, giving the other side a chance to respond and that your report is accurate and without malice; would it be legally safe? I genuinely don't know so a little more research is needed and perhaps an update to this blog will be in order. Stay tuned. It is also worth thinking about the risks of live broadcast when it comes to privilege. What can you broadcast when you're filming something live which is protected by privilege? We had to deal with this ourselves recently with the Hampshire Police and Crime Commissioner debate mentioned above. We were streaming the event live to the world (although more likely a few people in Hampshire and my mum) and so anything the candidates said would be transmitted to the world whether it was defamatory or not. Was that safe legally? Well it was a public debate but it was up to us as to whether there was balance or not. Fortunately the candidates were very well behaved on that front and we were lucky but it is good to show we have thought about this kind of issue.
I'm planning to update this blog with a few more thoughts and examples but if you feel you haven't learnt enough about court reporting you can see my first year blog here and my trip to the court from around that time (don't worry, I wasn't IN court, just visiting) can be read here.
Until Next Time. Stay Classy Internet.
When talking about court reporting, the most important thing to remember in my opinion is privilege. There are a few other situations where privilege comes into effect, the House of Commons for example, but it is most commonly used in court. What privilege allows journalists to do is write and publish or broadcast material which may be defamatory or untrue, simply because it is said in court. We have protection in reporting these things as long as, yep, you guessed it; we are FAST, ACCURATE and FAIR. People in court have what is known as ABSOLUTE privilege but journalists only have QUALIFIED privilege (QP) in reporting on them. Your reports need to be fair, accurate, without malice and on a matter of public concern for QP to come into effect. It is the same rule for reporting on the House of Commons where as long as your report follows the regulations for QP then you can report anything said by MPs in the Commons. This is the way that recently many injunctions and super injunctions have been broken with MPs naming and in some cases shaming those with injunctions so that the paper can break the story without fear of reprimand. Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming was famous around the time of the Ryan Giggs super injunction, calling injunctions an "affront to democracy," and breaking a few using his absolute privilege in parliament. You can read a comment piece here about how that process works and the worries parliament have about this kind of conduct and you can read about how the Ryan Giggs story broke using several links; here, here and here. It's interesting to see there one of my mini blogs from a long time ago with a mention of another sports star with a super injunction who I'm not sure we ever found out about.
Qualified privilege has two levels: with or 'subject to' explanation or contradiction and 'without' explanation or contradiction. It is also subject to the Reynolds Test, the 10 point test which I listed and went through in my last blog. There are a few other events covered by privilege, pressers and public meetings are covered but again, only if they follow the rules for obtaining QP. Written handouts are also covered according to the lecture. This is something I'd never heard before and it made me wonder whether that defence would also stretch to a press release. Say for example you receive a press release from an outspoken, right wing, extremist group about a demonstration and you report what they have to say. As long as you give a balanced report, giving the other side a chance to respond and that your report is accurate and without malice; would it be legally safe? I genuinely don't know so a little more research is needed and perhaps an update to this blog will be in order. Stay tuned. It is also worth thinking about the risks of live broadcast when it comes to privilege. What can you broadcast when you're filming something live which is protected by privilege? We had to deal with this ourselves recently with the Hampshire Police and Crime Commissioner debate mentioned above. We were streaming the event live to the world (although more likely a few people in Hampshire and my mum) and so anything the candidates said would be transmitted to the world whether it was defamatory or not. Was that safe legally? Well it was a public debate but it was up to us as to whether there was balance or not. Fortunately the candidates were very well behaved on that front and we were lucky but it is good to show we have thought about this kind of issue.
I'm planning to update this blog with a few more thoughts and examples but if you feel you haven't learnt enough about court reporting you can see my first year blog here and my trip to the court from around that time (don't worry, I wasn't IN court, just visiting) can be read 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.
Monday, 29 October 2012
Gallery Gripes - Vision Mixer
We've been having quite a lot of problems the last few weeks with the WINOL and Sportsweek backgrounds being deleted from the memory card in use in the gallery. Essentially what this has meant is I've had to remake the backgrounds using former production editor Domonique Jenkins' blog on the subject when this happened around this time last year. It's a simple enough process which shouldn't slow us down if we're all aware of the problem and how to solve it.
With that in mind, here is the link to Dom's blog which features the backgrounds we've used and also the process you need to go through to make a background and put it in to the memory card for the green-screen.
Dom's Blog: http://domoniquejenkins.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/guide-to-putting-image-on-to-vision.html
WINOL Background:
Sportsweek Background:
Until Next Time. Stay Classy Internet.
With that in mind, here is the link to Dom's blog which features the backgrounds we've used and also the process you need to go through to make a background and put it in to the memory card for the green-screen.
Dom's Blog: http://domoniquejenkins.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/guide-to-putting-image-on-to-vision.html
WINOL Background:
Sportsweek Background:
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)