Law: Inside and Out

I thought that I would post an entire blog devoted to my revision cards on Law. If I have anything wrong please let me know. Also they may be helpful for other people too. I have all ready written a blog on definitions so I'll try not to repeat myself. In this blog I am hoping to address the key points of the most important parts of Journalism Law to study.

LIBEL

Libel is, a three point list, any of these may be done. They are: 1. defmamation - publish something about someone that defames them or slander. 2. identification - a particualr person is named, pictured or with jigsaw identification - put the facts out but when reading the article or watching the broadcast you can put together the facts and identify the one person. 3. Publication - this means that is going out to more than one person. If it is publicated on the internet, each time the site is viewed it is publicated again.

There are three defences for this. You only have to have one, although more would help your cause if you were ever in this position. 1. Justification - it is true and you can prove it. 2. Comment - It is in your opinion as the writer that what you have written is your opinion and not a fact. On the page of your article you must have comment or opinion. This was you can not be sued, with a reader presuming your opinion is a fact. 3. Qualified Privilege - this is when the comment has been said in court. If you are going to report on this it must be fair, fast and accurate. * The offended person doesn't have to show that they have been harmed but they do have to show that they have suffered.

COMMON LAW QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE

There is another form of qualified privilege which is, Common Law Qualified Privilege. This came about by the Clegg Case. I will provide links at the bottom so you can go into each case in more detail than what I am providing. The Clegg case is a soldier that stopped some drunken youths from driving in Northern Ireland. They gave him abuse and so he shot them thinking that they were terrorists. The 'Free Clegg Campaign' said that the solicitors prosecuting him were the IRA. This defamed the solicitors and so they sued the campaign group. Surprisingly the campaign group won. They won because the comment was made in a public meeting. It was publicated to a third party but it wasn't malice, it arose in a public meeting. There is also freedom of expression within this case. This is Common Law Qualified Privilege (CLQP).

The points for it be understood as CLQP are: 1. it is so important that the public need to hear about it. Whether you can prove it or not. 2. it has to be without malice, including everything you have ever written before.3. the facts must be accurate. Also, as an added extra there must be reasonable suspicion.

DEFAMATION
There is another 3 point list, however i think that you only need to have one of the following points to make it defamatory, not all of them, the same with the 3 point list for libel. They are: 1. the article/broadcast could expose someone to ridicule, contempt or hatred. 2. cause them to be shunned or avoided. 3. demeaning in their profession. The plaintiff has one year to gather their evidence, KEEP ALL YOUR NOTES for a minimum of this time.

CONFIDENTIALITY

If you are committing breach of contract you will be ticking these boxes: 1. quality of confidence, not just tittle tattle 2. it is imparted in circumstances implying confidentiality. 3. you will need authorisation to use it or you will be committing detriment - they must prove that they have been hurt by it. A case that fits in well is the Graham Pink case. He was nurse that worked for the NHS. He spoke to a newspaper but because of the gagging clause in his job contract he was fired. This was a breach of his contract and the NHS' confidentiality.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT

This governs the way the elections are held. When broadcasting the channel must give equal air time to all parties over an amount of time. Yes this means allowing the BNP on the television too.

COPYRIGHT

We (journalists) exploit the law of copyright - it has to be news to be sold and it has to original to be copyrighted.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

(FOIA) This is the right to obtain documents from companies. Simply phone the company and they must send you the relevant information that you have asked for.

PRIVACY - Article 8

Every person has the right to a normal family life. With privacy the best case to use would be Princess Carolina. The judge ruled that journalists cant take pictures of anyone unless they are given permission or if the person is doing a clear public duty. There are two types of consent: 1. you have to have explicit consent. This is written consent by the person in picture. 2. implicit consent - the area is likely to filmed or pictured. For example a live football match. There will definitely be cameras here. For an added point it is quite good to get the person to look into the camera. This way it will be shown on your rushes that they knew that the camera was there and that they were being filmed. If you film someone and they don't know this could be classed as subterfuge.

Subterfuge is when you are not honest. A journalist should always be upfront and tell the interviewee who they are, who they write for and their job. If this isn't done the person could sue. Rushes that are not known about by the interviewee will not be able to be used in court.

When on private land it isn't trespassing unless you have forced your way on to the grounds. There can also be no forced used when trying to escort you from the premises unless they think that you are going to commit a crime. This is thanks to the Tony Martin Law. The Tony Martin Law came about after the farmer with this name shot at two burglars that he found in his house. He was sentenced for man-slaughter after one of them men died of a shot in his back and the other was shot in the leg; he however only got sentenced a few years and recovered well.

Another case that can be used for privacy is the Max Mosley case. The News of The World reported that he had an orgy with 5 girls in a Nazi fashion. Interestingly he is the son of Oswald Mosley who marched with the black shirts to a Jewish part of town in London and started a fight just before the second World War. Mosley took NOTW to court and won. The judge said that he won because the activities he took part in did not involve Nazi role play.

TEN POINT LIST

Lord Nicholls set down a listof pointers to publications indicating what courts would look at to decide if the defence could be claimed. The courts will also examine whether the defendant can claim to have engaged in "responsible journalism" and "neutral reportage". Libel can be a criminal offence as well as a civil wrong. The ten point list is: 1.it must be a serious matter, the more serious the matter the more protected you will be. 2. the nature of the information - if it is likely to be said in court, even if it is defamatory and not malicious. 3. the source of the information, it has to be a solid source. 4. you must be able to show that you have taken steps to check and dissprove it. 5. the status of the information must be important and printed as soon as posisble. Not on a slow news day. 6. did you give them a chance to deny it? The final phonecall - allow them to say "no comment". 7. whether the article has the summary of the final phonecall. 8. the tone of the article. 9. the circumstances of the publication. 10. everything must be accurate, precise and facts. Cases that go well with the ten point list are the Galloway case and the Jamil case.

MAGISTRATES COURTS

Family disputes are handled here. All crimes have to go through a magistrates court, they will either deal with it themselves or pass it on to the crown courts. Non-indictable - minor fines - summary justice - parking tickets and Either-way - breaking and entering.

CROWN COURT

If the sentence can be 5 years or over - indictable offences (very offensive). Cases get referred here from the Magistrates Court. Between Magistrates and Crown court they will be released on bail or on rimand if there is fear of them absconding.

I hope that I have been of some help and that it's not all wrong. Good Luck for the test.

Sites to view the cases mentioned in more detail.

Max Mosley - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7523034.stm

Princess Carolina - http://www.out-law.com/page-4663

The Clegg Case - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/feb/01/northernireland.nicholaswatt3

Brave Student Hauls Elderly Man to Safety

A student pulled an elderly man to safety as a fire blazed below them in Winchester.

An ambulance crew arrived to find a student, Edward Herbert sat with the old man by the window as the fire raged below them.

After climbing the ladder, Herbert found the elderly man and pulled him to an open window; to breathe more easily. 

Herbert, reassured the 84-year-old, "telling him it was OK".

As the fire blazed from the kitchen on the floor below, Herbert did all he could to keep him alive. Herbert said, "he fainted twice on me", "it was really scary, I thought the worst"

After surviving the blaze with the elderly man Herbert added, "I just wanted to get him out". 

The brave 20-year-old plans to visit the elderly man in Winchester hospital this week, where he resides "feeling fine" with his family.

The fire is thought to have started by an electrical appliance in the kitchen.

It is thanks to the fire alarm that the elderly mans neighbors realised there was a fire at all. 

The fire alarm is also the reason for young Edward Herbert to climb into the elders house and pull him to safety; where the Hampshire fire and ambulance crew took over.

News class example

Isn't it Ironic? Or is it?

Recently there have been quite an amount of events that at the time I have called ironic. However it is thanks to these events that I have wondered what "ironic" truly means. Or if I am using it in compeltely the wrong sense of the word.

To begin with, my first thought was of the song "Isn't it ironic" by Alanis Morisette. The very first line is, "an old man turned ninety-eight he won the lottery and died the next day". Is that ironic? Or is it, "rain on your wedding day"? Is this ironic? I would just say that it is bad luck. Especially if you have planned a garden party.

I'm also confused between an event being ironic or a miracle. If you're wondering around late at night wondering about God and then some church bells ring is that ironic or is it a miracle, or is it none of the above and something completely different.

Wikipedia, my beloved friend, defines irony as, "a situation, literary technique or rhetorical device, in which there is an incongruity, discordance or unintended connection that goes beyond the most evident meaning. It is the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite. And to the normal person, in English, wikipedia is saying that irony is when the use of language signifies the opposite. When you dress for a summers day in August and it snows. Unlikely yes, however is that also what irony is? An event that is unlikely to happen.

The free online dictionary says that, ironic is split into three meanings. 1 being, characterized by or constituting irony (do you not therefore need irony defined?) 2, given to the use of irony and 3,poignantly contrary to what was expected or intended. So there we have it, if an event is ironic it is the exact opposite to what was expected. So if I went on holiday to Alaska, with my suit case packed full of mittens, boots and jumpers it would be ironic if when i got there the polar bears were sunbathing and swimming due to the heat. This would be ironic as it would not be what I was to expect.

Just encase you wanted to know, the free online dictionary defines irony as the use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning. So irony is just in terms of literacy.

Teenage Pedestrian Suffering after Car Clash

A car hit a 16 year old pedestrian on the evening of December 2nd. The young boy is suffering life threatening head injuries at Southampton General Hospital.

The 71 year old man, who was driving and his wife remain unscathed after the incident at the crossing in Newgate Lane, Fareham.

The black Hyundai Getz was travelling south when it hit the young boy, at the pedestrian crossing. The road was closed until 3.45am after an investigation and recovery of the scene.

The police are appealing for any witnesses to speak with about the accident that happened at 11.25pm on the 2nd December.

Edited Press Release Example

Jonathan Swift and Irish Cannibals

After the reading this week I found Jonathan Swifts, A Modest Proposal very interesting. Even though his piece is satirising and he himself wouldn't ever take part in his proposal I still found it a very good read. It is different from our usual passages of information for HCJ with Rousseau and Hobbes. Just as I enjoyed Addison's, Royal Exchange I am finding that journalism in the very beginning was very interesting and different to how it is now.

Swift lived in Ireland whilst there were famines, very low money and many people on the streets begging for money to feed their children. His satirical piece proposes a way of getting more money for the country, beggars off of the streets and into housing that they can pay for, cheap food for the country and no more over-crowding in the towns and villages.

Swift takes a while to make his proposal, in my opinion he is leading the reader into a false sense of security. He hypes his proposal up saying that it will end all of their problems and Ireland will be better for everyone. The reader, wanting this will not expect what his proposal will be. It is almost setting the readers hopes up, telling them how it will work and how amazing his plan is and then he finally tells his proposal and "oh", it's eating babies. A fix maybe but not a fix anyone would want to do.

His proposal is to sell babies when they are a year old to be eaten. They can be, "stewed, roasted, baked or boiled". This would allow the beggar mothers to have money for selling their children. They would not have to buy food for their children, only allow them breast milk and then the child is off of their hands. Swift even comes up with an idea if the child is too scrawny to eat, they will simply, "make admirable gloves for ladies, and summer boots for fine gentlemen". His proposal is in the interest of both the higher classes and the lowest classes. The rich are giving money to the poor in order for their children. In Swifts eyes, it's a win-win situation for the people of Ireland and Ireland itself.

His proposal is very well thought out, he has come up with a number of how many babies, the amount of money they will be sold for, how to cook them, how to freeze them, which size is best, which age is best and how the mothers will feel. However he does also say that his knowledge has come from an American aquaintance. This would be the same as you or I receiving knowledge and using as a source a drunk man in a pub.

The end of his proposal is quite insightful to Jonathan Swift. He ends his proposal with, "I profess in the sincerity of my heart, that I have not the least personal interest in endeavoring to promote this necessary work, having no other motive than the public good of my country, by advancing our trade, providing for infants, relieving the poor, and giving some pleasure to the rich. I have no children by which I can propose to get a single penny; the youngest being nine years old, and my wife past child bearing." This may be that Swift wants people to know that he is not mad and that he does not condone eating peoples children. He is simply saying this could be one way of getting out of the struggle that Ireland is in. He also tries to show the reader that he has nothing to gain from his proposal just the good that it may bring as his children are no longer young enough and his wife too old to bear children.

If you would like to read this you can find it here -http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

Everything about Everything about our Law Exam

This is more or less just a recap of Tuesdays lesson. Thought however that it may worth posting as some people may not have been there or missed a couple of explanations.

The test itself is an hour long. 5 questions. 10 minutes for each question. Need only 40 % to pass.

Some key points to revise from McNaes -

Defamation, the: PCC, Ofcom and the BBC codes of conduct, Libel, the 10 point test, these are just a few important ones, these are one to try and go revise in quite a bit of detail as you could be asked about something specific.

The rest now are definitions of words that either could come up in the exam, or you may just need to know so that you can refer to it, when answering another question. For example if you had a question on Libel you may also want to refer to qualified privilege. Therefore a good understanding of all the definitions could be very useful. Even if they just give you an overview of what it means.

Libel - An article or broadcast that identifies someone, defames them and is published to a third person. (Publication, identification, defamation.) The only defence against libel is, qualified privilege.

3 defences for Libel-

1. 
   It is true and you can prove it.
2. It is only comment, an honest opinion based on fact, without malice.
3. Qualified privilege
   

Qualified Privilege - When a comment is made in active court, in front of a BRITISH judge. If you write an article about a point made in court you must write it fast, accurately and fairly.

Malice - Writing or broadcasting anything that you know is not true. If taken to court and sued for malice you are not allowed defend yourself. You will not be given a chance.

Public Interest - Exposing something for the public interest. However if you are broadcasting you need prior consent needed from Ofcom. A proper definition of public interest can be found in the PCC's code of conduct. We are the 4th estae, we have to watch the first 3.

Inuendo - Making an allegation with absoloutly no evidence. Implying that it is a fact is also a form of malice and if sued you will not be able to defend yourself.

Juxtaposition - In English terms it is putting two words next to each other that are opposites such as "bitter sweet" however in Journalism it means putting two stories next to each other, on the same page that could be linked. For example, putting Gordon Browns picture next to a headline, "Man murders party people". This could be construde as inuendo, that Gordon Brown was the man that murdered the party people. This could also allow for you being sued.

Defamation - A story or comment that lowers peoples reputation, with or without justification. True or not. One problem with defamation is that it is very broad and many things could be said to be defamatory. There is a 3 point list that make it defamatory -

1. Could expose someone to ridicule, contempt or hatred.
2. Cause them to be shunned and avoided. E.g. saying that someone has Aids.
3. Demeaning in their profession.

Slander - This is defamation between 2 people speaking. This is very hard to prove as it is hard to get evidence. The person has to be identified but it doesn't have to be published.

Plaintiff - They have 1 year from the article/broadcast was published, to gather their evidence. this means that you have to keep all of your notes for at the very least of one year, if you do not have the notes and rushes it will look as if you are lying.

Subterfuge - This is when you are not honest. You have to declare: who you are, your job, who you work for and when the article/broadcast will be published. If you do not do this you are comitting subterfuge.

Your only defence of subterfuge is if you can not get the story any other way and you have tried, and that it is overwhelmingly in the case of public interest. If you are broadcasting you will need to tell Ofcom prior to comitting the subterfuge and get their permission.

I hope that you all find these notes useful for your revision cards. Remember the test is on the morning of 15th, the same day as our HCJ unseen class test. Also remember that Chris said if you fail miserably you can resit and commit one case of plagiarism, thus meaning you can copy someone with 100% and you'll get the same mark without it going against you, yay!

Good Luck

The Times vs BBC Radio 5 live

The Times, a newspaper that is sold world wide every day. The New York Times, The Irish Times and The Times of Malta. The 62 employees that publish the newspaper appeal to an audience of 1.8 million every week. At the newspapers highest point, under the editor, Robert Thomson it sold 692,581 copies a day. At 90p a copy that works out to be £623,322.90, revenue coming in ever day. This year it was also voted as newspaper of the year.

Since it was first published in 1785, under the name of “The Universal Register”, it has appealed to an audience of ABC1’s. It is the paper for CEO’s of companies, both men and women. The paper is also number one ABC1 adults earning £50,000 or more in an age group of 25 to 44. The advertisements in the paper can show easily the type of audience that it attracts. Advertisements such as Gucci, Sony, Audi and M&S. These are all companies that ABC1’s shop with. They are all companies that expensive but affordable for people with a salary of £50,000. This is in contrast to BBC Radio 5 live. As the radio company is owned by the BBC, it is the tax payers that are paying for it. Therefore it can not be elitist; it has to appeal to the masses.

It is primarily a sports radio channel offering many interviews with different sporting celebrities. It has news segments that cover the news of the day. However the main agenda is politics, science matters, the environment and children. They always end with sport but cover the news very well. They focus on many of the same stories as The Times. On the 20th November 2009, BBC Radio 5 live had a phone in on their breakfast show. The question was, “how is the weather affecting you?” This was just after the flooding in Cumbria. Not only is it an environmental story but also a community story. It involves the public. Not only with the phone in but with the question itself. It asks how the public are coping and what the weather is like where they live. In the same week, The Times headline on its front page was, “A month’s rain in 48 hours – and more on the way”. This is a similarity between the paper and the radio station.

When BBC Radio 5 live was first launched from just plain BBC 5 to what it is now The Times described it as, “slipping smoothly and confidently into a routine of informative banter”. This remark describes exactly how BBC 5 aims to be; laid back, with sports interviews and news. This is the opposite of The Times. They are not as laid back. They’re not able to be when their audience are CEO’s and managing directors. The Times has to give news, quickly and with an air of elitism about it. The paper is split into sections. The sections are: News, Opinion, The Daily Universal Register, World, Business and Sport. These are features and news that their audience care about and that want to know about on a daily occurrence. The paper is able to select their audience and select the news they cover whereas BBC Radio 5 live doesn’t have that choice because the tax payers are who keep them running. Just as BBC Radio 5 live can not be pro-active and speak clearly on their political party choice.

It is Rupert Murdoch that owns The Times. Murdoch decides what is written and from what view point. The newspapers political stance is conservative, with David Cameron. This could also mean that many ABC’1s are conservative as they are the target audience. However it could just be the newspapers political stance and the audience still reads it no matter what their political view. This could be because of how well the newspaper covers the news and what features and sections they have in their newspaper; regardless of which political party they follow.