Our confidentiality law lecture mildly surprised me as to the level of confidentiality that people (I suppose I'm thinking more along the lines of celebrities) are given. It does explain the reasoning behind the 'leg shots' often used when filming in a busy street or area. This is also known in journalist jargon as a general view (GV). It seems that you cannot photograph anyone who has not given their consent to be photographed, unless they are performing a public duty. In the case of Princess Caroline, pictures were taken of her riding a horse on her estates, and were published. Caroline did not take this favourably and sued them under the Human Rights Act, as an intrusion of her privacy. In contrast, pictures of her that were taken as she presented the European Cup, were not an intrusion of privacy because of the aforementioned public duty. This means that any and all paparazzi shots in magazines such as Hello! Or OK! Have either been bought with the permission of whomever is the subject of the shots. Or they will be sued for using them. another famous example of intrusion of privacy in this way, was the case of Naomi Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers. Campbell was photographed leaving a known Narcotics Anonymous building and a story was published around it. Campbell sued for breach of confidence and infringement of the data protection act 1998, and was awarded £2,500 damages for distress and injury to her feelings.
According to the Human Rights Act, section 8, all citizens are guaranteed the right to a normal home life. This links to the above paragraph
Defining what is confidential information can be tricky as it often depends on the quality of information. To be considered confidential, it is necessary that:
• It has the 'quality' of confidential information. Not "Tittle-Tattle"
• It must have been imparted in a situation implying an obligation of confidence e.g. Doctor-patient confidentiality
• It was not imparted with permission to publish
• The information must be shown to cause detriment to whomever is concerned (as opposed to defamation which only has to show that it could cause detriment)
To be sure that confidentiality is not breached, consent must be obtained. There are two types of consent, explicit, and implied. Explicit consent, is very simple. The person has agreed to be interviewed or to appear on camera in some form. Implied consent is when a person intentionally calls attention to themselves in some form E.g. Football fans that paint their faces, or those idiots who wave at cameras during live broadcasts. If either of these forms of consent is given, or implied, then the subject of consent is not allowed to sue for breach of confidentiality.
During the lecture, we also discussed state secrets. According to the Official Secrets Act 1911, it is a crime to reveal state secrets. The severity of the crime depends on which section of the secrets act is broken. If you break section 1, then you have committed treason. To break section 1, you would have to, for example, disclose classified information (say, locations of British troops) to an enemy (the Taliban, or the French). A famous example of the breaking of section 1 was when the British Intelligence's electronic spying centre, GCHQ (based in Cheltenham), was reported on. Before this, GCHQ did not officially exist (our own Area 51). The report, which revealed the location and purpose of the spy centre. Was taken to court and it was ruled to be in the public interest to know that it existed, and its use (though it would be treason to report on the exact nature of whatever it was currently investigating).
Section 2 secrets, however, are any document produced by the military. (this includes the canteen menu for the MOD). You could quite happily call these 'silly secrets'. And being sued for publishing them could well be more profitable then not doing so.
The vast majority of confidential information is found through sources. Sources are among the most useful tools a journalist can have. Provided that they are trustworthy, accurate, and willing. Most companies will have what is known as a gagging clause in every employees contract. This is to prevent them discussing the business of whatever company it is they work for. This means that if you have a source willing to provide you with confidential information, you must not reveal that person to their employer. They have trusted you with their livelihood and as part of the journalist's code of conduct they have to be protected. To the point of jail. A very famous case involving Bill Goodwin (a 'hero' of journalists) was sent to jail for publishing a story about an engineering firm who, he found out, sold faulty parts. The firm obtained a court order demanding that he reveal his source. He refused and was fined £5000 and sent to jail for 5 months. Yet he never revealed his source. This sort of story can help journalists convince potential sources that we will protect them, earning their trust, and their information.
The last thing to consider with confidential information is the dreaded injunction. Injunctions are usually triggered when journalists contact the subject of a story to verify details. Once said subject realises there is a potentially damaging story, they contact a judge who can them issue an injunction to prevent publication of the details. By any journalist, or other media outlet. It is also sable to obtain a 'super-injunction'. This stops journalists from revealing that there has even been an injunction, and therefore, that there is something that they may be trying to hide.
Sunday 31 October 2010
Friday 29 October 2010
Citizen Journalism
Citizen Journalism (CJ) refers to a wide range of activities that members of the public can contribute information and opinions concerning news events to. CJ is a very old, perhaps even ancient, practice that has evolved along with the technology of the age. The first major technological breakthrough to give CJ an effective outlet was Gutenberg’s moveable type printing press. The Gutenberg press revolutionised the media, effectively making scribes redundant and allowing publications to be made by anyone who could afford to produce them. These publications ranged from simple pamphlets and newsletters, to books and, eventually, newspapers. CJ was used in this way by Suffragettes during the early 1900s. By handing out pamphlets and flyers, they hoped to put across their message, change current opinion, and grant women equal rights.
As with the printing press, many think that the telegraph, radio, and television made significant contributions to this field. But it was not until the advent of digital technologies and media were the public given such unparalleled access to new production and investigative software, as well as an immensely improved systems of communication in the form of email, instant messaging, and web forums. This allowed CJ to develop into a media field that was increasingly professional, accurate, and world-wide.
Initially, the citizen journalists on the internet were primarily bloggers. These bloggers would not, in the same way as conventional journalists, investigate stories or use sources to gain information. They would take the information that had already been published and using their own style, reformat the story for their own use. Many bloggers have thousands of subscribers and can exert an increasing amount of influence. This style of blogger has become more popular since the creation of sites such as YouTube, home to the ‘Philip DeFranco Show’ and ‘What the Buck‘.
Of the more promising neo-CJ that has developed in recent years, the Huffington Post has emerged as a first-rate news source. From its formation in May 2005 as a forum for various bloggers, including Rob Reiner and Larry David. The Huffington Post has become a fully fledged news website, with over 3000 bloggers, and coverage that ranges from politics and religion, to entertainment and education.
In April 2008, during the run-up to the American presidential election, there was a demonstration of the influence that can be exerted by CJ; in this case through the Huffington Post. Mayhill Fowler, a blogger on the Post was following Barack Obama’s campaign through Pennsylvania to California. At a fundraiser in California, Obama, after asking members of the press to leave, gave a speech that discussed the cultural gap in certain states such as Pennsylvania, as opposed to richer, more liberal states, such as California. Fowler, not technically a member of the press was not required to leave and was able to record the speech. As a result, she was able to publish a story that quoted him saying that Pennsylvanians, “cling to guns or religion”. Regardless of Obama’s intentions, this remark almost cost him the election. If Fowler had not been there as a representative of CJ, this may never have been reported and a huge amount of controversy would have been avoided. Nonetheless, the public had a right to know such statements were being made and CJ was able to provide the medium.
As with the printing press, many think that the telegraph, radio, and television made significant contributions to this field. But it was not until the advent of digital technologies and media were the public given such unparalleled access to new production and investigative software, as well as an immensely improved systems of communication in the form of email, instant messaging, and web forums. This allowed CJ to develop into a media field that was increasingly professional, accurate, and world-wide.
Initially, the citizen journalists on the internet were primarily bloggers. These bloggers would not, in the same way as conventional journalists, investigate stories or use sources to gain information. They would take the information that had already been published and using their own style, reformat the story for their own use. Many bloggers have thousands of subscribers and can exert an increasing amount of influence. This style of blogger has become more popular since the creation of sites such as YouTube, home to the ‘Philip DeFranco Show’ and ‘What the Buck‘.
Of the more promising neo-CJ that has developed in recent years, the Huffington Post has emerged as a first-rate news source. From its formation in May 2005 as a forum for various bloggers, including Rob Reiner and Larry David. The Huffington Post has become a fully fledged news website, with over 3000 bloggers, and coverage that ranges from politics and religion, to entertainment and education.
In April 2008, during the run-up to the American presidential election, there was a demonstration of the influence that can be exerted by CJ; in this case through the Huffington Post. Mayhill Fowler, a blogger on the Post was following Barack Obama’s campaign through Pennsylvania to California. At a fundraiser in California, Obama, after asking members of the press to leave, gave a speech that discussed the cultural gap in certain states such as Pennsylvania, as opposed to richer, more liberal states, such as California. Fowler, not technically a member of the press was not required to leave and was able to record the speech. As a result, she was able to publish a story that quoted him saying that Pennsylvanians, “cling to guns or religion”. Regardless of Obama’s intentions, this remark almost cost him the election. If Fowler had not been there as a representative of CJ, this may never have been reported and a huge amount of controversy would have been avoided. Nonetheless, the public had a right to know such statements were being made and CJ was able to provide the medium.
Friday 22 October 2010
Strictly Come Copyright
The Copyright lecture started… well it didn’t start when it was supposed to, so me and the rest of the intrepid investigative explorers decided to try and find out what was going on. An hour later following a trip to the faculty office, the Thomas Atkinson Building and generally a lot of wandering around. We decided to have a quick look into the stripe just to check. Lo and behold it was just about to start, apparently there had been a mix up with the drama lot so it had been moved back. Thrilled to hear it was still on, we enthusiastically bounded into the lecture theatre and took our seats (I wouldn’t normally advertise my mistakes but, in the previous line, instead of enthusiastically, for some reason I’d written atheistically. The picture in my head made me laugh so I thought I‘d share).
Mr Hodges opened the Lecture by telling us that a mistake with copyright could cost us our money, our job, or our house. Luckily at the moment I have none of these things to lose, but I have a feeling that this will stick with me for a while. He proceeded to give us several example of things that are copyrighted. I have never put much thought to this before, but I imagined that it would involve music and movies as well as logos. Turns out that basically everything you’ve ever seen is protected by copyright law. On a CD jacket there is the type face, the photo/drawing, the logo, the sound recording not to mention the songs and performance of the artists. Another good example is the television program ‘Strictly Come Dancing’. when you watch this program the copyrighted material starts at the songs and choreography, down to the clothing and the set itself.
Copyright can cost productions a lot of money as the majority of the time they will have to pay the creator/author/designer to use their material. There are, however, some exceptions when copyright will not have to be paid. In the case of songs, a recording’s copyright will last for 50 years before it is no longer mandatory to pay royalties to the artist. This has caused some unhappy murmurings recently as, with the advent of ever more powerful drugs, artists are starting to live longer, and have started to put up a fuss when they stop getting royalties. most notably at the moment is Cliff Richard (poor old Cliff’s run out of money I guess).
Halfway through the lecture we were treated to a short film of an opera. Afterwards we were asked to list as many copyrighted things as possible to the best of my memory, during the credits at the start there were: the author of the opera, the produce, the conductor, the orchestra, the director, the main actors, and various designers. During the actual opera, there were: paintings, costumes, clocks, wigs, and many, many others. This was more to show how many copyrights have to be checked, approved and paid for, during the making of any kind of production.
Perhaps one of the more important things to take away from the lecture was that an idea cannot be copyrighted. If you were to come up with a brilliant new game show that doesn’t at all resemble X-Factor or Family Fortunes, or any successful current show. For the love of God, don’t share your idea with any shady exec-types. They will steal it! And you won’t see so much as a shiny penny of it. However, once an idea is published, it becomes copyright protected. This is what you have to do to make a million. Publish your idea, then sell it.
The best part of the lecture for me was when, after about an hour and a half of this excitement, Mr Hodges asked if their were any journalists in the room. The 5 or 6 of us who had made it there raised our hands. “Well” he said, “you don’t have to worry about this as anything you write about will be covered by fair comment… Great.
Mr Hodges opened the Lecture by telling us that a mistake with copyright could cost us our money, our job, or our house. Luckily at the moment I have none of these things to lose, but I have a feeling that this will stick with me for a while. He proceeded to give us several example of things that are copyrighted. I have never put much thought to this before, but I imagined that it would involve music and movies as well as logos. Turns out that basically everything you’ve ever seen is protected by copyright law. On a CD jacket there is the type face, the photo/drawing, the logo, the sound recording not to mention the songs and performance of the artists. Another good example is the television program ‘Strictly Come Dancing’. when you watch this program the copyrighted material starts at the songs and choreography, down to the clothing and the set itself.
Copyright can cost productions a lot of money as the majority of the time they will have to pay the creator/author/designer to use their material. There are, however, some exceptions when copyright will not have to be paid. In the case of songs, a recording’s copyright will last for 50 years before it is no longer mandatory to pay royalties to the artist. This has caused some unhappy murmurings recently as, with the advent of ever more powerful drugs, artists are starting to live longer, and have started to put up a fuss when they stop getting royalties. most notably at the moment is Cliff Richard (poor old Cliff’s run out of money I guess).
Halfway through the lecture we were treated to a short film of an opera. Afterwards we were asked to list as many copyrighted things as possible to the best of my memory, during the credits at the start there were: the author of the opera, the produce, the conductor, the orchestra, the director, the main actors, and various designers. During the actual opera, there were: paintings, costumes, clocks, wigs, and many, many others. This was more to show how many copyrights have to be checked, approved and paid for, during the making of any kind of production.
Perhaps one of the more important things to take away from the lecture was that an idea cannot be copyrighted. If you were to come up with a brilliant new game show that doesn’t at all resemble X-Factor or Family Fortunes, or any successful current show. For the love of God, don’t share your idea with any shady exec-types. They will steal it! And you won’t see so much as a shiny penny of it. However, once an idea is published, it becomes copyright protected. This is what you have to do to make a million. Publish your idea, then sell it.
The best part of the lecture for me was when, after about an hour and a half of this excitement, Mr Hodges asked if their were any journalists in the room. The 5 or 6 of us who had made it there raised our hands. “Well” he said, “you don’t have to worry about this as anything you write about will be covered by fair comment… Great.
Tuesday 19 October 2010
Privilege - A Defence Against Popes and Pussycats
Privilege is essentially exemption from the law, and as great as that sounds, unfortunately there are rules to abide by. Absolute privilege (AP) is granted to Members of Parliament whenever they are in session at the House of Commons. This allows MPs to speak freely without any fear of libel action against them from anyone they may slander or defame by doing so. This can be especially juicy as it does not matter if it is malicious. If they really wanted to they could forget politics and have a slagging match in which they call each other Martian-Yeti Gigolos (I hope I didn’t just discriminate against female MPs). Of course, the odds on that happening are pretty slim, yet we will stand ready, just in case.
There seems to be a bone of contention between McNae’s and the Privilege Notes on the website, as McNae‘s claims that under some circumstances journalists are afforded AP. This is contradicted by the course notes. As a compromise I’ll simply write what the book says on the subject, then carry on as if nothing has happened (hopefully I’ll be corrected one way or the other).
Journalists are permitted absolute privilege when reporting court cases or the proceedings of certain types of tribunals. Journalists are only granted absolute privilege if the material they publish is: Fair, Accurate and published contemporaneously (it’s a posh word for quickly). For a report to be fair and accurate it needs:
There seems to be a bone of contention between McNae’s and the Privilege Notes on the website, as McNae‘s claims that under some circumstances journalists are afforded AP. This is contradicted by the course notes. As a compromise I’ll simply write what the book says on the subject, then carry on as if nothing has happened (hopefully I’ll be corrected one way or the other).
Journalists are permitted absolute privilege when reporting court cases or the proceedings of certain types of tribunals. Journalists are only granted absolute privilege if the material they publish is: Fair, Accurate and published contemporaneously (it’s a posh word for quickly). For a report to be fair and accurate it needs:
- A summary of both sides.
- No substantial inaccuracies (in this case, inaccuracies that create a false or misleading impression).
- To be unbiased.
For a report to be contemporaneous means it must be published as soon as possible so that would be the next possible publication. If the report is not published as quickly as possible it may still enjoy qualified privilege if it fits the statutes required under common law.
Qualified privilege (QP) is a defence that can be used in situations where it is considered important that the facts should be freely known to the public. Circumstances where this defence can be used include court cases, council meetings and police statements. The requirements to use qualified privilege differ from absolute privilege in that motives play a key part in the former as there can be no evidence of malicious intent. General requirements for qualified privilege are that the report must be:
Qualified privilege (QP) is a defence that can be used in situations where it is considered important that the facts should be freely known to the public. Circumstances where this defence can be used include court cases, council meetings and police statements. The requirements to use qualified privilege differ from absolute privilege in that motives play a key part in the former as there can be no evidence of malicious intent. General requirements for qualified privilege are that the report must be:
- Fair, accurate, and published without malice.
- Of public concern/be of benefit to the public.
It is important to note that there is no qualified privilege for a report of defamatory statements made after a case or meeting when people involved are asked to expand on statements made during the proceedings.
QP in common law is formed by judges and convention as opposed to statute. Common law QP applies to certain circumstances where potentially defamatory statements are protected for “the common convenience and welfare of society”. One circumstance where a person may make a defamatory statement in a moral, legal, or social duty to another who has a vested interest in receiving it, would be in the case of someone asking for a reference from a past employer, or lecturer. The lecturer would have to tell the truth and as long as it is not malicious, he cannot be sued for libel over the reference.
A highly important and influential case involving Albert Reynolds vs. Sunday Times further defined QP protection outside of a court reporting situation. Reynolds, the then Prime Minister of Ireland was reported by the Sunday Times to have tried to (and lied about) cover up a child abuse scandal in the Catholic church (A similar case has been ongoing for a while involving the Pope when he was still Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger). Reynolds sued for defamation and the newspaper said that while it believed it to be true, there was no evidence. This could have been a very sticky situation, however, on reaching the higher courts, the judges thought the paper had had a duty to publish the allegations. this was due to a relevance to public interest and simply that they weren't unreasonable. Lord Nicholls, the Judge in the appeal stage of the case, decided that the media needed more protection so that they could continue to report stories in the name of the public interest. He set out a list of 10 points that will provide QP if covered in writing such a report. I wont write these out as will no doubt take up a lot of space, however they can be found in the qualified privilege course notes.
QP in common law is formed by judges and convention as opposed to statute. Common law QP applies to certain circumstances where potentially defamatory statements are protected for “the common convenience and welfare of society”. One circumstance where a person may make a defamatory statement in a moral, legal, or social duty to another who has a vested interest in receiving it, would be in the case of someone asking for a reference from a past employer, or lecturer. The lecturer would have to tell the truth and as long as it is not malicious, he cannot be sued for libel over the reference.
A highly important and influential case involving Albert Reynolds vs. Sunday Times further defined QP protection outside of a court reporting situation. Reynolds, the then Prime Minister of Ireland was reported by the Sunday Times to have tried to (and lied about) cover up a child abuse scandal in the Catholic church (A similar case has been ongoing for a while involving the Pope when he was still Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger). Reynolds sued for defamation and the newspaper said that while it believed it to be true, there was no evidence. This could have been a very sticky situation, however, on reaching the higher courts, the judges thought the paper had had a duty to publish the allegations. this was due to a relevance to public interest and simply that they weren't unreasonable. Lord Nicholls, the Judge in the appeal stage of the case, decided that the media needed more protection so that they could continue to report stories in the name of the public interest. He set out a list of 10 points that will provide QP if covered in writing such a report. I wont write these out as will no doubt take up a lot of space, however they can be found in the qualified privilege course notes.
It must be noted that the Reynolds defence is not an automatic protection as long as you make a token gesture for any of the points. An important case involving George Galloway showcased this point. The Daily Telegraph made serious defamatory statements against George Galloway for which there was no defence of justification or fair comment. The Telegraph claimed it had documents found by one of its reporters that suggested Galloway was in the pay of Saddam Hussein. It further claimed that it had a duty to publish the allegations even if they were untrue. The paper lost the case because it failed the 10 points of the Reynolds defence. Apart from a quick call to Galloway, they did not make any real attempt to put the allegations to him and recieve comment from him reagrding the truth of them. The Telegraph were ordered to pay £150,000 in damages as well as around £1.2 million in costs.
If there's anything I've gleaned from this, it's that as long as you are very diligent and careful, without sacrificing haste, you should be well defended in terms of Privilege. That and not to mess with George Galloway. He's a meaner pussycat than Big Brother would have had me believe.
Sunday 17 October 2010
John Locke: Life, Liberty and (if you're American) the Pursuit of Happiness
Our third HCJ lecture focused mainly on John Locke’s ‘Essay Concerning Human Understanding’ and his thoughts on Social Contracts. This was also linked with Hobbes and his work ‘Leviathan’, both of which were written following the aftermath of the English civil war, as well as being influenced by this period of political upheaval. However both doctrines disagree with each other more often than they are in accord.
Locke and Hobbes both wanted the monarchy to be rid of it’s ‘mystical quality’, meaning that Kings should stop claiming to have divine power and authority. Locke attacks this point, especially in reference to Sir Robert Filmer, whose work ‘Patriarcha’ deals with the hereditary principle that Adam was given Kingly authority by God, and therefore all subsequent monarchs are heirs to Adam’s Authority. Locke tore Filmer’s arguments apart following simple logical reasoning that if this hereditary power were so important, it would make no difference to be born male or female (but most monarchies are heavily misogynistic). Not to mention that surely Adam would only have one true heir, and therefore all other kings are usurpers. From this basis Locke decides that a system of hereditary leadership is unjust and a people should be given the ability to choose who is to lead them.
Both men talk about a ‘State of Nature’ which could have existed before any form of government. Hobbes theorised that in such a world, people would act on their passions, would have no inhibitions, and would have a right to everything and anything he wanted. This would lead to wars following an every man for himself policy. He claim life in that time would be
“Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. Therefore, the people would choose to give absolute power to a leader who would hold their natural rights for the sake of protection. Locke opposes this argument, saying that exchanging all rights for personal safety with an absolute ruler will not work in the long run. He has a very different impression of this State of Nature: Everyone has natural freedom, but will follow natural laws governed by a set of morals known by everyone intuitively as they are “interwoven in the constitution of the human mind”. He goes on to state that these morals would be discovered by human reason, but were originally given by God (He is lovely isn’t he, that God). Not only does reason give us moral guidelines however, oh no, Locke states that there is nothing in our brain, no knowledge or ideas, that don’t come from experience. This flies directly against Cartesian thinking and no doubt caused a ruckus in their camp. But then when you present any kind of dogmatic thinking with other reasoning, you will no doubt receive a backlash of some kind.
As part of Locke’s Social Contract he maintained that civil government is the result of a contract and should be in no way hindered by any divine authority. The difference in Locke’s Contract compared to others (especially Hobbes, who claimed that once established, the government had complete authority to the point of tyranny, and the people had no right to rebellion) is that the sovereign was party to the contract and can be rightly resisted if it fails to keep its part of the bargain. Parallel to this is the natural right of every man to revolt against a government that ceases to respect the law.
A subject which Locke seems to be obsessed with is the concept of property. He claims that the formation of all governments was to protect the property of all within it. One of his main tenets is that every man has a right to Life, Liberty, and Property (on the assumption that the second two don’t impeach on another’s). The American constitution quotes this when they say that every man has the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. His proposed concept of Government is one made by consent from the majority of people populating it, and limited by laws (that effect everyone), and powers used mainly for the protection of property. This is taken to such an extent that he presents an example of a soldier in an army. If this soldier breaks any rules or oaths required of him, he may be disciplined . But not by the taking of his property. Locke considers that to be a terrible act. He may however be punished in so far as his body may be punished, by flogging for example. I’m sure that would certainly be the much preferred choice.
Locke’s theories on Human Understanding are a bold innovation compared to pretty much every philosopher since Plato, as he uses empiricist theory to state that there is no such thing as innate ideas, and all knowledge comes from sensation, and the perception of the operation of the mind. Locke’s empiricist teachings directly contradict those of Plato, down to and including Descartes and his contemporary Leibniz. He was wholly against ‘Innate Ideas’ as described by Plato and Descartes, which he discusses in great detail in the first book of his Essay Concerning Human Understanding. He claims that rather than giving us a vague blueprint; God gave us the ability to discover knowledge and morality through reasoning.
It is interesting to note that Locke, a believer in God (though it is difficult to name his exact religion), was of the opinion that religion should never mix with politics. One could say that this is obvious concerning his thoughts on hereditary divinity, and perhaps he simply saw the effect religion can have on an otherwise sensible constitution of government. I certainly wonder what he would think of the situation in America, where it’s practically anathema to admit to being an atheist, and in some cases to being anything other than Christian. I think that Locke simply saw how chaotic things can become when you mix fundamentalism with power. To quote Douglas Adams:
“Anyone who is capable of getting themselves into a position of power should on no account be allowed to do the job”.
I'm not 100% sure of how relevant that is but I have put up 7 posts and haven't quoted Adams in any of them, so I think I owe him a shout out.
Locke and Hobbes both wanted the monarchy to be rid of it’s ‘mystical quality’, meaning that Kings should stop claiming to have divine power and authority. Locke attacks this point, especially in reference to Sir Robert Filmer, whose work ‘Patriarcha’ deals with the hereditary principle that Adam was given Kingly authority by God, and therefore all subsequent monarchs are heirs to Adam’s Authority. Locke tore Filmer’s arguments apart following simple logical reasoning that if this hereditary power were so important, it would make no difference to be born male or female (but most monarchies are heavily misogynistic). Not to mention that surely Adam would only have one true heir, and therefore all other kings are usurpers. From this basis Locke decides that a system of hereditary leadership is unjust and a people should be given the ability to choose who is to lead them.
Both men talk about a ‘State of Nature’ which could have existed before any form of government. Hobbes theorised that in such a world, people would act on their passions, would have no inhibitions, and would have a right to everything and anything he wanted. This would lead to wars following an every man for himself policy. He claim life in that time would be
“Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. Therefore, the people would choose to give absolute power to a leader who would hold their natural rights for the sake of protection. Locke opposes this argument, saying that exchanging all rights for personal safety with an absolute ruler will not work in the long run. He has a very different impression of this State of Nature: Everyone has natural freedom, but will follow natural laws governed by a set of morals known by everyone intuitively as they are “interwoven in the constitution of the human mind”. He goes on to state that these morals would be discovered by human reason, but were originally given by God (He is lovely isn’t he, that God). Not only does reason give us moral guidelines however, oh no, Locke states that there is nothing in our brain, no knowledge or ideas, that don’t come from experience. This flies directly against Cartesian thinking and no doubt caused a ruckus in their camp. But then when you present any kind of dogmatic thinking with other reasoning, you will no doubt receive a backlash of some kind.
As part of Locke’s Social Contract he maintained that civil government is the result of a contract and should be in no way hindered by any divine authority. The difference in Locke’s Contract compared to others (especially Hobbes, who claimed that once established, the government had complete authority to the point of tyranny, and the people had no right to rebellion) is that the sovereign was party to the contract and can be rightly resisted if it fails to keep its part of the bargain. Parallel to this is the natural right of every man to revolt against a government that ceases to respect the law.
A subject which Locke seems to be obsessed with is the concept of property. He claims that the formation of all governments was to protect the property of all within it. One of his main tenets is that every man has a right to Life, Liberty, and Property (on the assumption that the second two don’t impeach on another’s). The American constitution quotes this when they say that every man has the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. His proposed concept of Government is one made by consent from the majority of people populating it, and limited by laws (that effect everyone), and powers used mainly for the protection of property. This is taken to such an extent that he presents an example of a soldier in an army. If this soldier breaks any rules or oaths required of him, he may be disciplined . But not by the taking of his property. Locke considers that to be a terrible act. He may however be punished in so far as his body may be punished, by flogging for example. I’m sure that would certainly be the much preferred choice.
Locke’s theories on Human Understanding are a bold innovation compared to pretty much every philosopher since Plato, as he uses empiricist theory to state that there is no such thing as innate ideas, and all knowledge comes from sensation, and the perception of the operation of the mind. Locke’s empiricist teachings directly contradict those of Plato, down to and including Descartes and his contemporary Leibniz. He was wholly against ‘Innate Ideas’ as described by Plato and Descartes, which he discusses in great detail in the first book of his Essay Concerning Human Understanding. He claims that rather than giving us a vague blueprint; God gave us the ability to discover knowledge and morality through reasoning.
It is interesting to note that Locke, a believer in God (though it is difficult to name his exact religion), was of the opinion that religion should never mix with politics. One could say that this is obvious concerning his thoughts on hereditary divinity, and perhaps he simply saw the effect religion can have on an otherwise sensible constitution of government. I certainly wonder what he would think of the situation in America, where it’s practically anathema to admit to being an atheist, and in some cases to being anything other than Christian. I think that Locke simply saw how chaotic things can become when you mix fundamentalism with power. To quote Douglas Adams:
“Anyone who is capable of getting themselves into a position of power should on no account be allowed to do the job”.
I'm not 100% sure of how relevant that is but I have put up 7 posts and haven't quoted Adams in any of them, so I think I owe him a shout out.
Thursday 14 October 2010
WINOL Bulletin Criticism
After Watching the latest WINOL bulletin in my first instance of a critically minded journalist peer. I think that in general, it is of very high quality, in terms of editing, presentation, and professionalism. This is not to say that it was flawless however. The first instance of what I considered of poor quality, was the sound of the section filmed in the multimedia centre, discussing pass cards for international students' entry into clubs. Of course, this could be an equipment related issue, in which case this may be something the media department should look into as it spoils the flow of dialogue.
I was very impressed by the performance of the presenters who, apart from some minor slip-ups, were very eloquent and on a par with many professional anchors. That said, the in-field reporters could have been a touch more enthusiastic, especially in the case of one of the sport reporters. If I'm not mistaken, the roles of the WINOL team are continually rotated so as to maximise the experience in different aspects of Broadcast journalism. However, if you happen to be given a role is not necessarily your favourite, you should try and at least make a pretense of not being bored with the whole thing.
In the case of the stories covered in the bulletin, the first two stories were well considered in that they directly affected the target audience: Students. While the first was more directed to international students, rather than the main populace, the second concerned almost everyone attending or soon-to-be attending university. In that respect I think they could have been reversed so as to provide a better hook to non- internationals who could well stop watching if the initial piece doesn't affect them. The Housing and Queen stories were les important in my opinion and were therefore well placed in the midsection. The final story concerning the BJTC award was very well presented and all of the footage piqued my interest (clap clap, by the way), with any luck I'll be able to do the same in a year or two.
A major mistake for which I believe the editor took a lot of flak, was a spelling mistake in the score sheet during the sports section, misspelling some of the names of sports teams. You wouldn't expect such schoolboy mistakes from what is otherwise a very competent piece of journalsm.
All in all I was very impressed with the slick editing (except for one instance during an interview within the tuition fee story, where it seems as though someone was cut off midsentence) and very proffesional appearance of what I would call a top-notch broadcast
I was very impressed by the performance of the presenters who, apart from some minor slip-ups, were very eloquent and on a par with many professional anchors. That said, the in-field reporters could have been a touch more enthusiastic, especially in the case of one of the sport reporters. If I'm not mistaken, the roles of the WINOL team are continually rotated so as to maximise the experience in different aspects of Broadcast journalism. However, if you happen to be given a role is not necessarily your favourite, you should try and at least make a pretense of not being bored with the whole thing.
In the case of the stories covered in the bulletin, the first two stories were well considered in that they directly affected the target audience: Students. While the first was more directed to international students, rather than the main populace, the second concerned almost everyone attending or soon-to-be attending university. In that respect I think they could have been reversed so as to provide a better hook to non- internationals who could well stop watching if the initial piece doesn't affect them. The Housing and Queen stories were les important in my opinion and were therefore well placed in the midsection. The final story concerning the BJTC award was very well presented and all of the footage piqued my interest (clap clap, by the way), with any luck I'll be able to do the same in a year or two.
A major mistake for which I believe the editor took a lot of flak, was a spelling mistake in the score sheet during the sports section, misspelling some of the names of sports teams. You wouldn't expect such schoolboy mistakes from what is otherwise a very competent piece of journalsm.
All in all I was very impressed with the slick editing (except for one instance during an interview within the tuition fee story, where it seems as though someone was cut off midsentence) and very proffesional appearance of what I would call a top-notch broadcast
Tuesday 12 October 2010
The Simple Sword of Truth, and the Trusty Barge Pole of Cowardice
Defamation is perhaps one of the most worrying things a journalist can confront. Usually encountered while court reporting (but by no means limited to), a claim of defamation means an accuser thinks that something published concerning them has damaged their reputation and lowered right-minded peoples opinion of them. In many cases, a defamatory statement will expose the subject to hatred, ridicule and contempt from their peers, often resulting in Libel action. You can get an idea of how journalists view being presented with a defamation charge, in that there is actually a name for the feeling you get when considering even a genuine, unbiased story on a person or group that is particularly litigious: The 'Chilling Effect'. For example, the Church of Scientology has filed dozens upon dozens (perhaps even hundreds) of lawsuits, funded by their enormous wealth and influence. Here is a policy letter written by L. Ron Hubbard (the founder of the Church of Scientology), distributed in early 1966:
This is correct procedure:
Against such a code of conduct, I don't blame people for getting the willies.
Fear not however, we aren't doomed to the dole queue just yet. Journalists are awarded certain defences, provided that they follow a certain code of conduct. The first of these defences is Justification, or to put it simply, Truth. If the reporter can present evidence showing that the published matter in question is in fact true, then this provides complete protection against any libel action. A very famous example of justification at work was that of Conservative cabinet minister Jonathon Aitken who filed Libel actions against The Guardian for reporting that his bill for the Ritz hotel in Paris was paid for by an Arab associate, in direct breach of ministerial guidelines. He even resigned from his post stating that he would:
"Fight to cut out the cancer of bent and twisted journalism in our country with the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play".
After four years of investigations and court trials, evidence was found that proved that Aitken had been lying all along, and that he had been willing to have his daughter lie under oath to protect him, saying that it was his wife Lolicia Aitken who had paid for his hotel stay, when it was in fact found that she had been in Switzerland at the time and it would have been impossible for her to have done so. Aitken was faced with legal costs of £2 million and an 18 month prison sentence (of which he served 7) for committing perjury and perverting the course of justice.
While the Aitken case is a fantastic example of justification at its best, they aren't all quite as interesting. Another defence afforded to journalists is Privilege. This gives protection to publish potentially damaging material in accordance with the principle that justice must be seen to be done. As journalist are the eyes and ears of the public, they are allowed to report things that could be defamatory, as long as it is considered in the public interest to do so. Reports may only hold privilege if they are fair and accurate, otherwise you may well find out just how deep the rabbit-hole goes.
The last main defence of defamation is known as Fair Comment. This is essentially exactly what it says on the tin. Such a comment may be published as long as it is: the honestly held opinion of the writer; recognisable as opinion (not presented as fact); based on provably true facts; linked to theprovably true facts, in the same publishing (unless so well known as to make it unnecessary); on a subject that is a matter of public interest. On the plus side it doesn't have to be 'fair' (I know, the name confused me too), a judge/ jury does not have to agree with it to rule it fair comment, as long as it is honest opinion - in other words, not malicious - then we're home free.
The 'Bane and Antidote' defense was also discussed, which is where One would write something negative, followed by something appealing to kiss it all better. However, as far as I can make out, this is very dodgy ground to be used as a defence for defamation, so I would personally not touch it with the preverbial barge pole, could it be avoided.
This is correct procedure:
- Spot who is attacking us.
- Start investigating them promptly for FELONIES or worse using own professionals, not outside agencies.
- Double curve our reply by saying we welcome an investigation of them.
- Start feeding lurid, blood sex crime actual evidence on the attackers to the press.
Against such a code of conduct, I don't blame people for getting the willies.
Fear not however, we aren't doomed to the dole queue just yet. Journalists are awarded certain defences, provided that they follow a certain code of conduct. The first of these defences is Justification, or to put it simply, Truth. If the reporter can present evidence showing that the published matter in question is in fact true, then this provides complete protection against any libel action. A very famous example of justification at work was that of Conservative cabinet minister Jonathon Aitken who filed Libel actions against The Guardian for reporting that his bill for the Ritz hotel in Paris was paid for by an Arab associate, in direct breach of ministerial guidelines. He even resigned from his post stating that he would:
"Fight to cut out the cancer of bent and twisted journalism in our country with the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play".
After four years of investigations and court trials, evidence was found that proved that Aitken had been lying all along, and that he had been willing to have his daughter lie under oath to protect him, saying that it was his wife Lolicia Aitken who had paid for his hotel stay, when it was in fact found that she had been in Switzerland at the time and it would have been impossible for her to have done so. Aitken was faced with legal costs of £2 million and an 18 month prison sentence (of which he served 7) for committing perjury and perverting the course of justice.
While the Aitken case is a fantastic example of justification at its best, they aren't all quite as interesting. Another defence afforded to journalists is Privilege. This gives protection to publish potentially damaging material in accordance with the principle that justice must be seen to be done. As journalist are the eyes and ears of the public, they are allowed to report things that could be defamatory, as long as it is considered in the public interest to do so. Reports may only hold privilege if they are fair and accurate, otherwise you may well find out just how deep the rabbit-hole goes.
The last main defence of defamation is known as Fair Comment. This is essentially exactly what it says on the tin. Such a comment may be published as long as it is: the honestly held opinion of the writer; recognisable as opinion (not presented as fact); based on provably true facts; linked to theprovably true facts, in the same publishing (unless so well known as to make it unnecessary); on a subject that is a matter of public interest. On the plus side it doesn't have to be 'fair' (I know, the name confused me too), a judge/ jury does not have to agree with it to rule it fair comment, as long as it is honest opinion - in other words, not malicious - then we're home free.
The 'Bane and Antidote' defense was also discussed, which is where One would write something negative, followed by something appealing to kiss it all better. However, as far as I can make out, this is very dodgy ground to be used as a defence for defamation, so I would personally not touch it with the preverbial barge pole, could it be avoided.
Monday 11 October 2010
Law n' Order Laid Out
Following the second Law lecture, I found my views on how journalists affect the law, and how the law affects journalists weren't quite up to scratch. While I was aware that newspapers and other media outlets had to be very careful as to what they published, providing they didn't want to be sued. I was not aware of how precise and clear-cut the rules are concerning court reporting, and reporting in general and how very careful Journalists have to be.
After a brief outline of how courts are established i.e. a judge, 12 members of the jury, barristers representing each side etc. (this being, let's say, a hypothetical Crown Court) We became enlightened to the (many) different codes and laws concerning court proceedings, and Court reporting. One of the most basic, and yet most important fundamentals to all cases, is the 'Presumption of Innocence'. This can be recognised mostly by the fact that someone should never have to prove their innocence, only that the prosecuting party has to prove their guilt. In this respect, especially in those involving juries, it is critical that this is not breached, as it can result in prejudice (influencing a juries decision). This applies to journalists in that, if they report on a defendant as having committed the offence, rather than saying, they are accused of having committed the offence. They are implying guilt on said defendant, which could sway a jury's decision. If a reporter or newspaper is found to have done this, they are in danger of 'Contempt of Court' for which there is no defense. An individual found to have contempt of court could be faced with up to a £40,000 fine, or a 6 month sentence.
Providing however, that any reporting is unbiased, fair, and above-all, accurate.Journalists are granted Qualified Privilege meaning they are exempt from any Libel law action. This does not mean they can simply make it up as they go along (although that would be a hell of an easy job) for that would be Malice: The telling of a lie (whether you believe it to be true makes no difference, as that shows negligence on behalf of the reporter).
Despite whatever apparent limitations on court reporting however, Journalists - in the case of court reporting - are the eyes and ears of the public. Journalists are there to make sure that the law is carried out in full. We help to confirm one of the basic legal principles, 'Justice must be seen to be done'.
Is it just me who thinks that sounds a touch Machiavellian?
After a brief outline of how courts are established i.e. a judge, 12 members of the jury, barristers representing each side etc. (this being, let's say, a hypothetical Crown Court) We became enlightened to the (many) different codes and laws concerning court proceedings, and Court reporting. One of the most basic, and yet most important fundamentals to all cases, is the 'Presumption of Innocence'. This can be recognised mostly by the fact that someone should never have to prove their innocence, only that the prosecuting party has to prove their guilt. In this respect, especially in those involving juries, it is critical that this is not breached, as it can result in prejudice (influencing a juries decision). This applies to journalists in that, if they report on a defendant as having committed the offence, rather than saying, they are accused of having committed the offence. They are implying guilt on said defendant, which could sway a jury's decision. If a reporter or newspaper is found to have done this, they are in danger of 'Contempt of Court' for which there is no defense. An individual found to have contempt of court could be faced with up to a £40,000 fine, or a 6 month sentence.
Providing however, that any reporting is unbiased, fair, and above-all, accurate.Journalists are granted Qualified Privilege meaning they are exempt from any Libel law action. This does not mean they can simply make it up as they go along (although that would be a hell of an easy job) for that would be Malice: The telling of a lie (whether you believe it to be true makes no difference, as that shows negligence on behalf of the reporter).
Despite whatever apparent limitations on court reporting however, Journalists - in the case of court reporting - are the eyes and ears of the public. Journalists are there to make sure that the law is carried out in full. We help to confirm one of the basic legal principles, 'Justice must be seen to be done'.
Is it just me who thinks that sounds a touch Machiavellian?
Friday 1 October 2010
The Laws of the Great and the Good, and the not so good.
After having read the first chapter of ‘McNae’s’ and watching our first Law lecture, I would have to admit certain passages caught my attention. Now don’t get me wrong, but reading law in a book is never going to be thrilling. However, I found that once given examples of these codes, it allows you to see what they actually lead to. Or prevent, given the circumstances. The laws relating to Human Rights in particular caught my eye. I had never before connected corruption and political violence in Third World countries to the lack of a Free Press. Now that it’s been pointed out, I can see the impact that Investigative Journalists can have on society by exposing these wrongdoings. It makes one wonder what would be dug up should a Free Press ever be established in, say North Korea. It certainly helps to explain how these dictatorships manage to stay in power so easily. As opposed to the petty fraud of our own ‘Higher-ups’ who can barely sneeze without appearing on the cover of ‘The Sun‘. But then you can’t compare a madman in control of a country on the brink, to a bit of on-the-side moat cleaning, or a little free porn.
I was also quite interested in the court system of the UK, learning about the differences between the Civil and Criminal courts. I wasn’t aware of the court-specific jargon used in each: Found guilty against being ‘held liable’; Only using the term ‘sentence’ in criminal courts etc. I had also never thought much about appeals, I had assumed that if a defendant appealed a decision, the case would be repeated with a new jury and judge. This seemed logical to me as it helps to eliminate the chances of any kind of accidental ruling (looking back I can see how that sounds stupid, but in fairness I’ve not had much experience in these matters till now). In a sense the appeals moving up a court, does introduce a new ‘audience’ and as it moves up, the standard of conduct would be expected to rise in tangent. Therefore, if you were innocent and had been convicted, new evidence would be much more likely to be found or re-examined. It could definitely prove to be interesting to have the number 2 Crown Court in the country here in Winchester. Never know, we could get lucky.
I myself could be getting some first-hand experience of the UK’s court system as I’m currently engaged in a GBH case against a bouncer, so I’ll certainly be taking notes if it comes to that.
I welcome any and all criticism on this post, as with a constitutional code as ever-changing and complicated (to me) as ours, I’m certain I’ll have misunderstood something along the line.
Thanks for bearing with me.
I was also quite interested in the court system of the UK, learning about the differences between the Civil and Criminal courts. I wasn’t aware of the court-specific jargon used in each: Found guilty against being ‘held liable’; Only using the term ‘sentence’ in criminal courts etc. I had also never thought much about appeals, I had assumed that if a defendant appealed a decision, the case would be repeated with a new jury and judge. This seemed logical to me as it helps to eliminate the chances of any kind of accidental ruling (looking back I can see how that sounds stupid, but in fairness I’ve not had much experience in these matters till now). In a sense the appeals moving up a court, does introduce a new ‘audience’ and as it moves up, the standard of conduct would be expected to rise in tangent. Therefore, if you were innocent and had been convicted, new evidence would be much more likely to be found or re-examined. It could definitely prove to be interesting to have the number 2 Crown Court in the country here in Winchester. Never know, we could get lucky.
I myself could be getting some first-hand experience of the UK’s court system as I’m currently engaged in a GBH case against a bouncer, so I’ll certainly be taking notes if it comes to that.
I welcome any and all criticism on this post, as with a constitutional code as ever-changing and complicated (to me) as ours, I’m certain I’ll have misunderstood something along the line.
Thanks for bearing with me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)