Media in the 21st Century – Media History, Censorship and the BBC

As with many events, there are various approaches in which you can look at Media history. Week 1’s media readings outline some of these.

Curran and Seaton, in their book “Power Without Responsibility”, outline two different ways in which the rise of the free press can be seen. The first is the “Whig” approach where the press winning its freedom is depicted as a “heroic struggle against state repression”[1] which is often accredited to the abolition of acts such as Fox’s Libel Act in 1792 and the press taxation between 153 and 1861. The second, the “market” approach, implies that the press did not become free until it reached financial independence through advertising and the growth of profits through this “rescued the press from its compromising dependence on state or party subsidies.”[2]

However, it could also be argued that the press’ reliance on advertising to be profitable is in itself a form of censorship – as this is what they relied upon to be able to make a profit, they would be inclined not to run stories which the advertisers or the public did not like as this would affect the amount of companies advertising in their paper. Of course, you could also argue that other companies would be willing to advertise in their place, and therefore allows much greater freedom than government or party subsidies.

These perspectives can also be applied to television – as the BBC is, indirectly, government funded, it does not need to concern itself, necessarily, with shows that a mass market will enjoy and is therefore able to produce texts which are educational and informational as well as entertaining, as per its charter, whilst commercial channels need their texts to appeal to a large number of people in order to get funding from advertisements.

What is also interesting to look at is whether technology is driven by social needs (symptomatic technology) or if technology alters the way society works (technological determinism) which is looked at in Raymond William’s “Television”. In this reading, he discusses several different ways in which the relationship between television’s invention, the texts produced and the way in which society uses it can be viewed – whether television has changed the way in which society works or if the evolution of society has driven television to develop the way it has as well as how the market may or may not have affected the development of either or even both.

Kevin Williams, in chapter 5 of his book “Get me a Murder a Day”, seems to imply that technological determinism is not necessarily accurate as, in the case of the radio, technology is often developed for one purpose such as the military and then turned into a form of media afterwards, often by companies selling receivers for the medium (and therefore, supporting a market perspective) – “The BBC began as a private company… formed by the leading wireless manufacturers.”[3] However, you could interpret it as providing evidence for technological determinism as society adapted itself around the new technology rather than the other way round.

All of this suggests that there is no definitive perspective with which media history can be viewed, though many would disagree having already formed their own opinion on the subject.

Serious Law Business

Right, before my exam in less than 10 hours time, I want to just list some of the law things I know that might come up in the test so that the world knows that if I fail it's not because I haven't been paying attention but because 1) I suck at exams and 2) I probably got distracted by things... possibly mostly by trying to find the purple in my hair (seriously, you can barely tell it exists, haha). Particularly as I haven't done that many proper law blogs. If any. I should really cut back on the comment...

Media Law:

• The highest court in the UK is the Supreme Court and deals with appeals from Crown Court
• DPP stands for "Director of Public Prosecution" and they hire the prosecuting lawyers for criminal cases
• Crown courts: Hear/try indictable cases; Hear appeals for bail; Hear appeals against conviction/sentence from Magistrate's Court
• Magistrate's Court: Bail application; Committal & setting a trial date; Hear "either way"; summary justice
• You can state in the news that someone has been denied bail but not why as it may sway a jury's decision
• Criminal court - cases of crime against the state or society e.g. murder, fraud, drug dealing, etc
• Civil court - against individual/company e.g. divorce, libel, trimming someone else's hedge because it's spoiling your view, rent disputes
• Statute - law enacted in Parliament
• Common Law - precedent set by Judges
• Prejudice: to pre-judge someone; in court, being unable to get a fair hearing as the jury have been swayed in some way by something
• Contempt: compromising integrity of the case/court; a crime; stopping people from having a fair trial e.g. prejudicing a jury, going against a Judge
• A case becomes active when "it's likely there will be a trial" so when charged/arrested/some point between the two
• Once someone's arrested, you can report: their identity (making sure you've got positive identification); things like they "look nervous" (NOT that they "look guilty"); anything that won't prejudice a jury
• Things you can report about a case once it's active: Identity (though not in sexual offence cases in case of jigsaw identification of victim); charge; whether they have or haven't been granted bail; how they pleaded
• An "either way" offence is one where you can either chose summery justice or a trial in Crown Court
• To have qualified privilege, your report must be Fast, Accurate and Fair/have Balance (FAF or FAB, depending on what you prefer)
• To libel someone, you must have: publication, identification (must be positive to stop other randomers from being libelled too), defamation
• Defamation: lower someone's respectability/alter their representation/remove their fame; to expose them to hatred, contempt or ridicule or damage their profession or cause them to be shunned or avoided
• Defences for defamation: Common Law Qualified Privilege; It being true (requires evidence); "Fair" comment (honest opinion, based on fact, in public interest)
• Accidental Libel (or very bad luck libel, if you want a technically more accurate name) - when you have positively identified someone and someone else also, coincidentally, is also identified in spite of this (i.e. shares the same unusual name, age, occupation and lives in the same place as someone else)
• Picture/Juxtaposition libel - when an unrelated picture/story is next to another, making it look related and therefore libellous (i.e. having a picture of Kate Middleton next to a story with the headline "Axe Murderer Found" makes it look like she's the axe murderer); solved on TV by using a presenter and in newspapers by putting different stories in separate boxes
• According to Reynolds' 10 point test, stories must: be serious, have a good and reliable source, be investigated thoroughly, be new, be urgent, be put to accused so that allegations can be denied, include "the jist" of the defence, be written factually, not be sensationalised, be written and published as quickly (yet accurately) as physically possible
• You have Qualified Privilege on things said: In Court; In Parliament; in Local Government meetings (subject to refutation, i.e. so long as there's lots of balance in the same story); Public meetings/gatherings (common law, subject to refutation), UN meetings and foreign courts with which Britain has diplomatic relations (common law, subject to refutation)
• Copy right protects intellectual property (everything you physically write/make/create) until these rights are traded in some way
• Fair dealing is "lifting" a picture or section of text which you use and give credit to such as a link to a blog or the name of the artist/photographer - sometimes are given conditions such as you cannot alter it or claim it as your own in anyway even if you do alter it, etc
• Material on the internet is not automatically free of copy right, but can be sourced on there if you look in the "creative commons" parts of sites such as Flickr
• In confidentiality, privacy is protected by Section 8 of the Human Rights Act which entitles everyone to the right to a "normal family life"; State Secrets are protected by the Official Secrets Act; Commercial Secrets are protected by Common Law
• You breech confidence if you disclose information that: has the necessary quality of confidence and was provided in circumstances imposing an obligation and was not permitted to be passed on and is likely to cause detriment (with evidence that this will happen)
• Gagging clauses - contractually stop you from revealing information, even if it is true.
• Need permission for things such as photographs for celebrities (explicit consent) unless they are "engaged in a clear public duty" or allow you to photograph them by acknowledging the camera and not stopping you (implicit consent)
• Ofcom provide the Codes of Conduct for broadcast journalism and is an official Government body
• PCC Editors' Code of Practice deals with print and although it can't issue fines etc, unlike Ofcom, it will mark you as a bad journalist and make you essentially unemployable
• Impartiality is to not show your own opinion/a bias - this does not apply to political stance in Newspapers as if you do not agree with their values, you can buy a different one where as broadcast must be fair and balanced as you have no/less choice
• Equal amount of time must be given to each political party on television, proportional to their seats/votes (I can't remember which) in the last election
• During an election, there is a danger that you may be biased towards a particular party by broadcasting/writing too much/little about one of them (apparently they use actual stop watches on TV to time how much exposure each party receives in broadcasts)

Right, as I now have less than 9 hours until the test, I'm going to go to bed and, hopefully, dream of law and philosophy so that I can revise even in my unconscious state.

Until next time, Good night (and good luck if you're also doing this exam with me!)

Privilege, Principles and Privacy

Just going to quickly summarise a few of the law bits we’ve learnt so far on the basis that I have 2 hours to write this blog in before I break my 1-a-day promise and I can’t think of anything else to write about (apart from Red Dwarf, and I’m not sure how I can make that relevant to journalism, unless I review it… might do that for tomorrow’s blog…)

Privilege:

Common law privilege – If a story is in the public interest, it can be printed. However, it must include any denial form the parties depicted within it

Statutory Qualified Privilege – anything said within a court, parliament or other special places along those lines is reportable as long as the story is written fast, accurately and fairly

Principles:

1)      Presumption of innocence

2)      Justice must be seen to be done

3)      Justice must be based on evidence

Privacy:

·         Under section 8 of the Human Rights Act, privacy is protected as it states that everyone has the right to a normal family life.

·         State secrets (official secrets act) and Commercial secrets (common law confidentiality) are also protected.

·         A person is in breach of confidence if they pass on information that is ALL of the following:

1)      Has the necessary quality of privilege

2)      Was provided in circumstances imposing an obligation

3)      Was not permitted to be passed on

4)      Is likely to cause detriment

·         Gagging clauses, such as injunctions, can be taken out to protect privacy – contractual stop you from saying certain things, regardless as to whether or not they are true

·         Royalty and celebrities can be photographed without permission if they are on “a clear public duty”, otherwise, permission is needed to take photographs (implicitly – acknowledging the presence of the camera and allowing photos to be taken, explicitly – arranging for photographers to be at certain events)

Right, that’s all I’ve got for tonight. I hope that makes sense, seeing as I’m tired and it’s late and all… Might have to give up on this blog-a-day lark… we’ll see.

Until tomorrow!

Courting

Considering I went to the Courts here over two weeks ago now, I should really put up my blog on the experience and talk about some of the Court-related law stuff I’ve learnt so far…

Now, as I’ve not written about the court in the first available publication I don’t have qualified privilege*, so I intend on skirting around the details of the case my excellent friend Amy Moore and I sat in on. Though, if I’m honest, probably wouldn’t have said a lot about it anyway in case I got it wrong. I don’t want to get in trouble.

Re-reading my shorthand from the day now, I am reminded how incredibly nerve-wracking the entire experience was. Just walking into the court and up to the desk to go in was thoroughly scary. I made Amy talk the first time but they were about to go to lunch so we had to go back – typical! We took this opportunity to take some photos, hopefully they should appear here:

Anyway, we returned and, as promised, I spoke to the man this time, which is a bigger deal for me than it sounds. After a little explanation, we walked through the metal detector (which we both set off) and approached the desk, overwhelmed by the size of the place before we had even really got inside. The extremely busy woman at reception eventually managed to find a gap between phone calls to direct us to the only court where the jury was not deliberating. This case just so happened to be a rape case – what joy.

We took a fair amount of time to work up the courage to go in, alarmed by the fact that the girl being interviewed on the television screen seemed so young. We waited outside for a good 15 minutes before we entered the public gallery, only going in because someone had just come out - we’d become a little paranoid about the possibility that we might not have actually been allowed to be there. This is silly because the whole point of there being a public gallery is to let the public watch – after all, “justice has to be seen to be done.”

I managed to make a few notes from what was said in the recorded witness interview in shorthand (I’m quite proud of myself for this) and I think I can just about read them back but I’m not going to write it on here because:

1)      It’s sad

2)      I am taking no risks in potentially getting into trouble.

We left after about half an hour, as the jury had left and the barristers and judges and what-not were confusing the hell out of us with their pretentious-sounding lawyer-jargon, and were, frankly, thoroughly depressed by the whole affair. I think if we’d had a less intensive case, we might have felt a little more positive or if we had had the ability to hear the verdict. Alas, the case continued the next day and we had lectures. Not that either of us really wanted to go back after all that.

Oh well; if nothing else the experience taught me I probably can’t be a court reporter without needing serious amounts of therapy.

* Qualified privilege – the ability to report anything said in court, and some other places, if reported quickly, accurately and fairly; more detail in a future blog; promise.

I thought the law…

Before it’s questioned by anyone, I deliberately changed the lyric to thought to be ironic and/or clever; it is not yet another typo, as seen repeatedly in my original post (sorry about that, I’ll get better – promise).

So, the law and such… Aside from the fact it’s very important anyway because, as human beings, we’re supposed to abide by it, the law is particularly important to us journalists (in training or otherwise) for three main reasons:

1)      It is a particularly good source for news stories. This is mostly because humans are, by nature, a very nosy species and are often unable (or at least unaware we’re able) to see court and other legal proceedings for ourselves. That and we like to have a good moan about how no-one respects anyone or the law nowadays (particularly us British – we do love a good moan, almost as much as we like tea).

2)      It contains particular constraints on what we journalists are allowed to do. Despite the fact journalists get no special mention within the law and anyone can pretend they are one (why you would, I’m not sure… but, still, you can if you like), it's vital to know what we write is lawful to avoid being in contempt of court, sued for libel or anything bad like that.

3)      As journalists, we should encourage freedom of expression and expose any ‘dodgy dealings’ that politicians or other important figures are trying to keep from the public. After all, we are, in essence, “the fourth estate” – there to stop the corruption of parliament and ensure fairness in the three branches of government (Legislature which is essentially parliament and makes the law, Executive (White Hall) which is the Departments of State and therefore deals with the everyday running of the country and Judiciary which is the system of courts in the country). Of course, the question then is who ‘polices’ us? The answer to which is we do. Because we’re just that cool.

So that’s why it’s important, where it comes from however is a completely different thing. It comes from a variety of different sources as Britain has no single constitutional document. It includes documents such as the Magna Carta and the Human Rights Act 1998 which is particularly essential to know for us journalists; the two most important Articles being article 8 (the right to privacy) and 10 (the right to free expression). The balance of these is often difficult to decide as they are equally as important so neither can take preference. If someone were to argue that an article invaded their privacy, they would raise the issue in a civil court as opposed to a criminal court. The difference between the two is that civil courts deal with disputes between people whilst criminal courts deal with offences against society as a whole.

Other important things to remember, branching off of this is that a murderer is only so if he/she is convicted of murder in court and that comment is allowed as long as it is your honest opinion. This is because, by law, journalists must ensure that we report crime accurately (e.g. call a thief a thief not a burglar because that makes them sound worse than they are… though they shouldn’t really have broken the law in the first place).

Right, what else do I need to talk about… Well, there’s the two different types of criminal court: Magistrates, which all crimes have to go to and Crown Court (or proper court, as I like to think of it). In Magistrates Court, people who have committed crimes carry little or no jail-time admit to their crime or try to defend themselves and tend to end up paying a fine – this is not interesting unless they’re a celebrity. This is also where people who committed proper, hard-core crimes go to essentially “check-in” to the Crown Court and find out if they have to remain in custody or are allowed to leave on bail. Crown Court, however, is where all the juicy stories come from such as murder and arson and that kind of a jazz. Unlike Magistrates Court, Crown Court has a jury, gavels, big curly wigs and all the things typically seen on television (hence why I like to think of it as proper court).

I should also talk about standards of proof. In civil court, a decision is made based on “the balance of probability” – if it’s more likely than not to be true. This also applies to what journalists write (so just because you read something in a newspaper, it doesn’t necessarily make it 100% accurate). Criminal Court, however, uses the “beyond reasonable doubt” statement as a base for convictions, which, in practice, means that the police need at least one of the following:

1.       A confession

2.       Forensic evidence

3.       One or more eyewitnesses

Often, if these are not available, a case will not be taken to court, despite the police being sure that they have the correct criminal. This is because of the “double jeopardy” rule which stops people being prosecuted for the same crime more than once. This way, if new evidence comes to light later that will get a conviction, the criminal can be prosecuted where as, if he/she has already been tried for the crime and found guilty, he/she would be unable to be tried for the same crime. The double jeopardy law is in place to stop people from being randomly accused of crimes they probably didn’t commit.

Right, I think that’s everything I’m supposed to have learnt… It’s certainly everything I understand and remember. Until next time, try not to break the law, okay? (Or, if you do, tell me so I can write a really good article on it).