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.
No comments:
Post a Comment