As a journalist, one of the most powerful tools in acquiring information for a story is using the Freedom of Information act.
The act allows any citizen, including journalists, the right to information held by public authorities, such as the police, government and hospitals. Under the act, if one of these public bodies receives a request for information, they must respon within 20 working days, either with the information or a reason why it cannot be provided. The information is provided free of charge, providing that it costs the holder £600 or less if they are a government body, or £450 or less for other public bodies.
There are several exemptions under the act however, divided into absolute exemptions and qualified exemptions.
Absolute Exemptions: These are exemptions that do not require an explanation for the information not being disclosed. This covers:
- Information reasonably accessible by other means
- Information supplie to the public authority by or relating to bodies dealing with security matters
- Court records
- Personal information
- Information provided to the authority in confidence by another party
- Information which the disclosure of is forbidden by other law
These are pretty straightforward, information that falls under these categories does not need to be disclosed, an a reason for the lack of disclosure is not required.
Qualified Exemptions: This is yet another use of the 'public interest'.
Essentially, if a public body denies the request for information, they must satisfy the 'public interest test' to justify it, which basically states that the public interest in witholding the information is greater than that of releasing it. The 'public interest' is not defined in the act, however, in 'The Freedom of Information Act: An Introduction, the Information Commissioner lists a number of factors that should encourage public bodies to disclose information:
- Furthering the understanding and participation in the public debate of issues of the day.
- Promoting accountability and transparency by public authorities for decisions taken by them.
- Promoting accountability and transparency in the spending of public money.
- Allowing individuals and companies to understand decisions made by public authorities affecting their lives.
- Bringing to light information affecting public health and safety.
The Qualified Exemptions cover categories such as:
- Information which if disclosed is likely to prejudice national security
- Information which if disclosed is likely to prejudice international relations
- Information held by an authority for law enforcement functions
- Information which relates to formulation or development of Government policy
- Information the disclosure of which is likely to prejudice effective conduct of public affairs
- Protecting commercial interests.
All these exemptions can lead to a delay or a prevention in the release of information.
Despite this, public authorities are obliged under the act to advise parties in their wording of requests, so that they are more likely to be accepted.
Anyone requesting information can also appeal to the Information Commissioner against any authorities refusal to supply information. Appeals against the commissioners decision can be heard by the information tribunal.
The Environmental Information Regulations have the backing of the European Union, which requires public bodies to provide information about environmental matters. These powers far exceed those outlined in the Freedom of Information Act.
Wednesday 30 November 2011
Thursday 24 November 2011
Investigative journalism - Media Law
I wrote this entry a while ago but forgot to post it, so here are notes on our law lecture from a couple of weeks ago on Investigative Journalism.
The key difference between investigative and everyday journalism is who sets the agenda for the piece being written. Whilst in mainstream journalism jobs the agenda is set by the editor, and is based on events that are either planned and anticipated, or surprise events that need to be reported, investigative journalism is far more independent. For an investigative piece, the agenda is set by the journalist themselves, who then seeks to uncover a story which someone, somewhere, does not want published. Investigative journalism aims to reveal hidden problems and plots in public organisations, companies or society for the benefit of the community. A good example of this is the MP's expenses scandal, revealed by The Daily Telegraph in 2009.
Of course, an undercover journalist has to be incredibly careful to do all research within the law, however when this is done correctly, it leads to some of the most incisive and important pieces of reporting.
Alongside this, the reading covered how journalists must behave when covering elections, terrorism and photography and film footage in journalism. I'll make it a quick summary.
Election coverage - under the Representation of the People Act of 1983, it is a criminal offence to make or publish false statements about election candidates as it may affect the number of votes the individual receives. The only defence is the genuine belief at the time of publishing that the statement was true. It is punishable by a fine of up to £5000. It is also illegal to publish any data gathered from exit polls before polls have closed. This is again punishable by a fine of up to £5000, or a prison sentence of up to six months.
Terrorism - under the Terrorism Act 2006, it is an offence to publish any statement or material that can be seen to 'glorify' or encourage terrorism or terrorist organisations. If a journalist conducts an interview with someone who glorifies terrorism, the journalist is protected as long as it is clear in the publication that the journalist themself was not encouraging terrorism, and it was reported neutrally.
It is also a crime, under the Terrorism Act 2000, to fail to disclose to police any information acquired that could help prevent an act of terrorism, or information that could assist in the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of a terrorist. This is punishable by up to five years imprisonment. Of course journalists must be aware of this in their work, especially if interviewing or researching anyone linked to a terrorist organisation or terrorist activities.
Further, it is an offence to elicit information that could be beneficial to any person in preparing or committing an act of terrorism, or to publish information about a member of the armed forces, UK intelligence services or a police officer that may assist a terrorist.
Under counter-terrorism law, the police have far more power than under any other law to compel a journalist to surrender research material, and so this is a delicate area for a journalist to work in.
The use of Photography and Filming - If one person is persistently followed by photographers they may successfully sue the photo journalist for breach of privacy or for harassment, this particularly affects the paparazzi. The Press Complaints Commission Code of Practice also states that journalists should not photograph individuals anywhere were they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, unless it can be justified by public interest.
The key difference between investigative and everyday journalism is who sets the agenda for the piece being written. Whilst in mainstream journalism jobs the agenda is set by the editor, and is based on events that are either planned and anticipated, or surprise events that need to be reported, investigative journalism is far more independent. For an investigative piece, the agenda is set by the journalist themselves, who then seeks to uncover a story which someone, somewhere, does not want published. Investigative journalism aims to reveal hidden problems and plots in public organisations, companies or society for the benefit of the community. A good example of this is the MP's expenses scandal, revealed by The Daily Telegraph in 2009.
Of course, an undercover journalist has to be incredibly careful to do all research within the law, however when this is done correctly, it leads to some of the most incisive and important pieces of reporting.
Alongside this, the reading covered how journalists must behave when covering elections, terrorism and photography and film footage in journalism. I'll make it a quick summary.
Election coverage - under the Representation of the People Act of 1983, it is a criminal offence to make or publish false statements about election candidates as it may affect the number of votes the individual receives. The only defence is the genuine belief at the time of publishing that the statement was true. It is punishable by a fine of up to £5000. It is also illegal to publish any data gathered from exit polls before polls have closed. This is again punishable by a fine of up to £5000, or a prison sentence of up to six months.
Terrorism - under the Terrorism Act 2006, it is an offence to publish any statement or material that can be seen to 'glorify' or encourage terrorism or terrorist organisations. If a journalist conducts an interview with someone who glorifies terrorism, the journalist is protected as long as it is clear in the publication that the journalist themself was not encouraging terrorism, and it was reported neutrally.
It is also a crime, under the Terrorism Act 2000, to fail to disclose to police any information acquired that could help prevent an act of terrorism, or information that could assist in the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of a terrorist. This is punishable by up to five years imprisonment. Of course journalists must be aware of this in their work, especially if interviewing or researching anyone linked to a terrorist organisation or terrorist activities.
Further, it is an offence to elicit information that could be beneficial to any person in preparing or committing an act of terrorism, or to publish information about a member of the armed forces, UK intelligence services or a police officer that may assist a terrorist.
Under counter-terrorism law, the police have far more power than under any other law to compel a journalist to surrender research material, and so this is a delicate area for a journalist to work in.
The use of Photography and Filming - If one person is persistently followed by photographers they may successfully sue the photo journalist for breach of privacy or for harassment, this particularly affects the paparazzi. The Press Complaints Commission Code of Practice also states that journalists should not photograph individuals anywhere were they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, unless it can be justified by public interest.
Monday 21 November 2011
HCJ Seminar Paper - Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz
This week focused on three key philosophers - Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz. All three were concerned with the 'Substances' that make up the Universe and the existence of God.
DESCARTES - 1596 - 1650
Descartes is seen as the founder of modern philosophy. He also made important progress in mathematics, with the invention of co-ordinate geometry.
As with the majority of philosophers of his time, he was profoundly influenced by religion, at times arguably to the detriment of his work. As a practicing catholic, Descartes chose not to publish his book 'Le Monde', as it contained two heretical doctrines.
Descartes' most famed and crucial contribution to philosophy was the Cogito. In seeking to prove the existence of the Universe itself, he chose to deconstruct it, doubting everything around him that he could not prove to be fundamentally true, a method known as cartesian doubt. Descartes found that everything could be doubted, as even something as precise as mathematics could be no more than an illusion, or the intentional deceit of an evil demon. He found that the only thing he could not doubt was his own mind, as doubt itself is an operation of the mind. This lead to the statement "Cogito Ergo Sum", 'I think, therefore I am', one of the most widely known philosophical propositions ever.
Descartes was not the first to make a statement of this kind, St Augustine had previously made a similar observation, however Descartes' attributed great value to this statement, something St Augustine had not done. This theory encouraged Descartes' belief that the mind and the body are separate, and furthered his conviction that there were three substances that the Universe was comprised of, God, Mind and Matter.
From the cogito, Descartes went on to believe only those things that are clear and distinct, not based on perception or interpretation.
The religious influence on Descartes then came into play, as he sought to prove the existence of objects around him. First, he had to prove God, which he did by the ontological argument, which basically states that it is possible for a perfect being to exist, and one of the perfections that would comprise such a being would be existence, therefore God must exist. This is an incredibly weak argument, and is used as the basis for Descartes' proof of all other things, therefore devaluing the rest of his work on this theory, being so strongly based on a fundamentally flawed argument.
Descartes stated that as God exists, and God is good, all objects around him must exist as a good God would not deceive him.
While his proof of God was flawed, and thus the rest of his argument was also, the cogito and the method of Cartesian doubt were incredibly important contributions to philosophy.
SPINOZA - 1632-1677
Unlike Descartes' belief that there were three substances, Spinoza believed in only one substance in the Universe, God, and all other things were simply an aspect of the divine being.
Again, Spinoza's philosophy was dominated by God, however despite this, he was despised by Jews and Christians alike. This was partly down to his belief that the Church sould be entirely suborinate to the state.
Spinoza's key work, 'Ethics', was published posthumously, the central argument of which is that everything is dictated by logical necessity. Everything is pre-determined, and as such any incident wich occurs, even if it appears to be negative, is only perceived that way by an individual, as a result of limited perspective. All negative events are necessary to overall good, and we must seek to see the entire Universe as a whole, as God does. Spinoza argued 'passions' obscure our perception of the Universe, preventing us seeing it as a whole and rather focusing on the individual events. A wise man, argued Spinoza, is one who overcomes these passions and self-preservation instinct, and realises that "what is real and possitive in us is what unites us to the whole".
As everything is pre-determined, Spinoza opposed the idea of hope or fear, as we can not influence our future and so must accept those things that happen to us. Once we see the Universe as God does, we see that there is in fact no evil, as evil is a result of external forces, and there is nothing external of the Universe, therefore evil cannot exist, and all things we perceive as bad are simply present to facilitate greater good things.
Once we share God's perception, and become wise, we will have a heightened intellectual love of God, argued Spinoza. God himself is not subject to the 'passions'; love and hate etc, as he is a perfect being, he has only an infinite love for himself, which is comprise of the intellectual love of humans for God.
LEIBNIZ - 1646-1716
Again greatly focused on God and the Universe, however Leibniz had two philosophical perspectives, one which he presented to the public, and another which was restricted to his communication with other philosophers, undiscovered until many years after his death.
Like Descartes, Leibniz also made a substantial contribution to mathematics, conceiving the infinitesimal calculus simultaneously, but in ignorance of, Newton.
Leibniz's philosophy was also based on substances, however where Descartes believe in three and Spinoza in one, Leibniz believed there were an infinite number of substances, called "monads", and that they made up everything around us, a similar concept to that of the atom. Leibniz saw each inividual monad as a soul, each carrying some physical property of the object which it made up.
Leibniz followed the doctrine of some followers of Descartes, believing that substances could not interact, arguing that where monads appeared to interact, it was merely deception. He suggested there was a pre existing harmony between changes in monads, which created the illusion of interaction.
Leibniz also stated that in humans, the soul of a man was the dominant monad inside him.
Leibniz contrasted greatly with Spinoza on the idea of free will. Whereas in Spinoza's system free will was impossible, as everything was pre-determined, Leibniz's perspective was that all things happened for a reason, all men had motives for their actions, but these actions are not the result of logical necessity. He also applied a similar freedom to the actions of God, claiming that he was unable to act contrary to logic, however could do anything withing the realms of logical possibility, giving the divine being a broad choice of actions. This lead on to one of Leibniz's central points, that the world we inhabit is the best of all possible worlds. He argued that God being good, he would have created the best world possible, and thus sin is required, as it exists in this best of worlds. Leibniz argued that some sin is logically bound to good things, for example free will. Free will could not exist if there was not a variety of choices available to make in any given scenario, some of which are negative.
As Descartes before him, Leibniz supported the ontological argument for the existence of God. He also furthered three other arguments for God's existence:
- The Cosmological argument - The basic thrust of this was that the Universe must logically have a reason for existing, and so must have a creator, God.
- The Eternal Truths - Statements relating to essence if true are eternally true, and an eternal truth must exist in an eternal mind.
- Pre-established Harmony - There must be a single outside cause regulating the harmony of things in the universe, such as clocks, which keep in time with one another without interaction. This leads on to the argument of design, which states that some things in the Universe cannot be plausibly explained by natural forces, and must have been designed by some higher power.
The above contains the published work of Leibniz, however, some of his most profound work he left unpublished. Among this unpublished work was the idea of mathematical logic, which, had he published it, would have become known some 150 years earlier.
In his unpublished philosophy, Leibniz suggested that while substances cannot act on one another, they could interact through all mirroring the Universe from their perspective; "because all that happens to each subject is part of its own notion and eternally determined if that substance exists." This statement clearly bears great resemblance to the deterministic view of Spinoza. This was left unpublished as it appeared to contradict the Christian views of free will and sin.
Leibniz also argued that those things which exist do so because they are compatible with the most other things. He said that everything that does not exist struggles to do so, all things cannot exist as they are not all 'compossible', the group of the largest compossibles is that which 'wins' an exists, those things that do not exist cannot because they cannot successfully coexist with as many other objects. This theory is completely separated from God, and comes from a strictly logical approach.
DESCARTES - 1596 - 1650
Descartes is seen as the founder of modern philosophy. He also made important progress in mathematics, with the invention of co-ordinate geometry.
As with the majority of philosophers of his time, he was profoundly influenced by religion, at times arguably to the detriment of his work. As a practicing catholic, Descartes chose not to publish his book 'Le Monde', as it contained two heretical doctrines.
Descartes' most famed and crucial contribution to philosophy was the Cogito. In seeking to prove the existence of the Universe itself, he chose to deconstruct it, doubting everything around him that he could not prove to be fundamentally true, a method known as cartesian doubt. Descartes found that everything could be doubted, as even something as precise as mathematics could be no more than an illusion, or the intentional deceit of an evil demon. He found that the only thing he could not doubt was his own mind, as doubt itself is an operation of the mind. This lead to the statement "Cogito Ergo Sum", 'I think, therefore I am', one of the most widely known philosophical propositions ever.
Descartes was not the first to make a statement of this kind, St Augustine had previously made a similar observation, however Descartes' attributed great value to this statement, something St Augustine had not done. This theory encouraged Descartes' belief that the mind and the body are separate, and furthered his conviction that there were three substances that the Universe was comprised of, God, Mind and Matter.
From the cogito, Descartes went on to believe only those things that are clear and distinct, not based on perception or interpretation.
The religious influence on Descartes then came into play, as he sought to prove the existence of objects around him. First, he had to prove God, which he did by the ontological argument, which basically states that it is possible for a perfect being to exist, and one of the perfections that would comprise such a being would be existence, therefore God must exist. This is an incredibly weak argument, and is used as the basis for Descartes' proof of all other things, therefore devaluing the rest of his work on this theory, being so strongly based on a fundamentally flawed argument.
Descartes stated that as God exists, and God is good, all objects around him must exist as a good God would not deceive him.
While his proof of God was flawed, and thus the rest of his argument was also, the cogito and the method of Cartesian doubt were incredibly important contributions to philosophy.
SPINOZA - 1632-1677
Unlike Descartes' belief that there were three substances, Spinoza believed in only one substance in the Universe, God, and all other things were simply an aspect of the divine being.
Again, Spinoza's philosophy was dominated by God, however despite this, he was despised by Jews and Christians alike. This was partly down to his belief that the Church sould be entirely suborinate to the state.
Spinoza's key work, 'Ethics', was published posthumously, the central argument of which is that everything is dictated by logical necessity. Everything is pre-determined, and as such any incident wich occurs, even if it appears to be negative, is only perceived that way by an individual, as a result of limited perspective. All negative events are necessary to overall good, and we must seek to see the entire Universe as a whole, as God does. Spinoza argued 'passions' obscure our perception of the Universe, preventing us seeing it as a whole and rather focusing on the individual events. A wise man, argued Spinoza, is one who overcomes these passions and self-preservation instinct, and realises that "what is real and possitive in us is what unites us to the whole".
As everything is pre-determined, Spinoza opposed the idea of hope or fear, as we can not influence our future and so must accept those things that happen to us. Once we see the Universe as God does, we see that there is in fact no evil, as evil is a result of external forces, and there is nothing external of the Universe, therefore evil cannot exist, and all things we perceive as bad are simply present to facilitate greater good things.
Once we share God's perception, and become wise, we will have a heightened intellectual love of God, argued Spinoza. God himself is not subject to the 'passions'; love and hate etc, as he is a perfect being, he has only an infinite love for himself, which is comprise of the intellectual love of humans for God.
LEIBNIZ - 1646-1716
Again greatly focused on God and the Universe, however Leibniz had two philosophical perspectives, one which he presented to the public, and another which was restricted to his communication with other philosophers, undiscovered until many years after his death.
Like Descartes, Leibniz also made a substantial contribution to mathematics, conceiving the infinitesimal calculus simultaneously, but in ignorance of, Newton.
Leibniz's philosophy was also based on substances, however where Descartes believe in three and Spinoza in one, Leibniz believed there were an infinite number of substances, called "monads", and that they made up everything around us, a similar concept to that of the atom. Leibniz saw each inividual monad as a soul, each carrying some physical property of the object which it made up.
Leibniz followed the doctrine of some followers of Descartes, believing that substances could not interact, arguing that where monads appeared to interact, it was merely deception. He suggested there was a pre existing harmony between changes in monads, which created the illusion of interaction.
Leibniz also stated that in humans, the soul of a man was the dominant monad inside him.
Leibniz contrasted greatly with Spinoza on the idea of free will. Whereas in Spinoza's system free will was impossible, as everything was pre-determined, Leibniz's perspective was that all things happened for a reason, all men had motives for their actions, but these actions are not the result of logical necessity. He also applied a similar freedom to the actions of God, claiming that he was unable to act contrary to logic, however could do anything withing the realms of logical possibility, giving the divine being a broad choice of actions. This lead on to one of Leibniz's central points, that the world we inhabit is the best of all possible worlds. He argued that God being good, he would have created the best world possible, and thus sin is required, as it exists in this best of worlds. Leibniz argued that some sin is logically bound to good things, for example free will. Free will could not exist if there was not a variety of choices available to make in any given scenario, some of which are negative.
As Descartes before him, Leibniz supported the ontological argument for the existence of God. He also furthered three other arguments for God's existence:
- The Cosmological argument - The basic thrust of this was that the Universe must logically have a reason for existing, and so must have a creator, God.
- The Eternal Truths - Statements relating to essence if true are eternally true, and an eternal truth must exist in an eternal mind.
- Pre-established Harmony - There must be a single outside cause regulating the harmony of things in the universe, such as clocks, which keep in time with one another without interaction. This leads on to the argument of design, which states that some things in the Universe cannot be plausibly explained by natural forces, and must have been designed by some higher power.
The above contains the published work of Leibniz, however, some of his most profound work he left unpublished. Among this unpublished work was the idea of mathematical logic, which, had he published it, would have become known some 150 years earlier.
In his unpublished philosophy, Leibniz suggested that while substances cannot act on one another, they could interact through all mirroring the Universe from their perspective; "because all that happens to each subject is part of its own notion and eternally determined if that substance exists." This statement clearly bears great resemblance to the deterministic view of Spinoza. This was left unpublished as it appeared to contradict the Christian views of free will and sin.
Leibniz also argued that those things which exist do so because they are compatible with the most other things. He said that everything that does not exist struggles to do so, all things cannot exist as they are not all 'compossible', the group of the largest compossibles is that which 'wins' an exists, those things that do not exist cannot because they cannot successfully coexist with as many other objects. This theory is completely separated from God, and comes from a strictly logical approach.
Thursday 17 November 2011
Journalism Now: Indepent vs i
Since it was founded in 1986, The Independent has been one of the nation’s leading broadsheet newspapers, and recently it has undergone a number of stylistic changes. In 2003, The Independent moved from a traditional broadsheet layout to a compact design. In 2010, the newspaper went one step further and began printing the ‘i’, a further compacted and condensed issue of the newspaper, alongside the original publication. The ‘i’ carries most of the same content as its sister paper, however it differs greatly in price, style and layout.
According to NMA figures, between August and October 2011, average daily circulation of the ‘i’ was greater than that of The Independent, listing the circulation of ‘i’ at 184,402 , compared to 176,983 for The Independent. This difference in circulation is not particularly substantial, however it suggests that, considering the shared content of the two papers, the ‘i’ carries some greater appeal than that of the paper that created it. There are a number of potential reasons for the comparative popularity of ‘i’.
The higher sales of ‘i’ could indicate a greater demand for condensed news and a more tabloid-style layout, though retaining the ‘neutral’, intelligent reporting that The Independent is famed for. The layout is particularly notable for the abundance of pictures and distinct lack of words on the front page when compared to The Independent, and “The News Matrix” found across pages 2 and 3, summarising the key stories of the day. The first 3 pages of the condensed format lack any detailed reporting, a contrast to traditional broadsheets. This offers a convenient alternative to a mainstream broadsheet for those with little time to read detailed pieces, and seek an overall view of the news.
The price difference between the two could also be a significant factor, with the ‘i’ costing 20p, compared to £1 for The Independent itself. In times of economic difficulty, perhaps consumers are being more careful with their money, even when it comes to purchasing newspapers, and at 20p, ‘i’ offers a more high brow alternative to similarly priced red top tabloids, such as the Sun. This could also indicate a difference in income between readerships. NMA states that 81% of The Independent’s readers fall into the ABC1 income category, proving it to be a paper for higher earners. There are no such figures available for the ‘i’ at this time, so any difference in the average earnings of the readerships cannot be evaluated.
Age may be another factor; however with statistics again unavailable for the ‘i’, there is no evidence. Certainly, the appearance of the ‘i’ can be seen as designed to appeal to a younger market, with a layout that more closely resembles a website or app for smart phones than a typical newspaper. According to NMA figures however, The Independent itself has a fairly young readership, with 38% of its readers between 15 and 34.
With greatly overlapping content, the main differences between the two publications are layout and price, and so it appears likely that any difference in readership is dictated by these two factors. With statistics relating to the ‘i’ unavailable however, it remains unclear what difference in readership exists and why.
Friday 11 November 2011
Winol Review 2
Last weeks Winol was a great improvement on the previous weeks edition, and showed far more of the skill and technical ability that I had come to expect from the show. There were still a few small problems, as with any student production, however on the whole it was an impressive edition.
There were a few potential legal issues which were picked up on however. The headline 'He's a Rebel', could be considered defamatory towards Steve Brine, especially as he states that he does not consider himself a rebel in the interview. The statement certainly seems defamatory, but would probably be legally safe under a defence of justification, as he voted against his party in Parliament, which is a rebellious act. Brine also defames Ed Miliband during his interview, claiming "Ed Miliband has is own humiliations on a daily basis in this place [Parliament]". This is clearly a defamatory statement and, as published, Winol would be legally responsible for it. Again, though, it is probably safe material as politicians are allowed to defame each other within Parliament, as it is protected under Qualified Privelege, and this protection is widely acknowledged to bleed out into wider society, politicians are generally accepted to have the legal right to defame one another in public.
There were also a few minor technical issues in the show. At a few points the picture changes seemed choppy, with sound and picture not changing at the same time, leading to some small overlap of sound and picture that did not match up. The overlap was minimal, but it was still noticeable, and could have been tighter.
The standard of sound quality of the interviews on this weeks edition was much higher than the previous week. The outdoor interviews, which last week had much distracting background noise, were much better this week, with the interviewee's voice clear. An impressive improvement.
The presenting was also of a high standard, with all pieces delivered confidently, and all voiceovers very well paced, this helped to really give the sense of a professional production.
Sport was, as always, very good. The coverage was interesting and extensive, and the highlights packages were well constructed. I also felt that the 'Winol Woodwork' piece was brilliant, a nice little piece of borrowing from Soccer AM, legally safe, and adding an extra piece of interest to the sport. Perhaps sport would benefit from being more concise, however it is of a very high standard.
Overall then, it was a very professional and impressive edition of Winol, there were still some areas which require work, but it showed marked improvement from the previous week, and demonstrated the high level of journalism expected from this broadcast.
There were a few potential legal issues which were picked up on however. The headline 'He's a Rebel', could be considered defamatory towards Steve Brine, especially as he states that he does not consider himself a rebel in the interview. The statement certainly seems defamatory, but would probably be legally safe under a defence of justification, as he voted against his party in Parliament, which is a rebellious act. Brine also defames Ed Miliband during his interview, claiming "Ed Miliband has is own humiliations on a daily basis in this place [Parliament]". This is clearly a defamatory statement and, as published, Winol would be legally responsible for it. Again, though, it is probably safe material as politicians are allowed to defame each other within Parliament, as it is protected under Qualified Privelege, and this protection is widely acknowledged to bleed out into wider society, politicians are generally accepted to have the legal right to defame one another in public.
There were also a few minor technical issues in the show. At a few points the picture changes seemed choppy, with sound and picture not changing at the same time, leading to some small overlap of sound and picture that did not match up. The overlap was minimal, but it was still noticeable, and could have been tighter.
The standard of sound quality of the interviews on this weeks edition was much higher than the previous week. The outdoor interviews, which last week had much distracting background noise, were much better this week, with the interviewee's voice clear. An impressive improvement.
The presenting was also of a high standard, with all pieces delivered confidently, and all voiceovers very well paced, this helped to really give the sense of a professional production.
Sport was, as always, very good. The coverage was interesting and extensive, and the highlights packages were well constructed. I also felt that the 'Winol Woodwork' piece was brilliant, a nice little piece of borrowing from Soccer AM, legally safe, and adding an extra piece of interest to the sport. Perhaps sport would benefit from being more concise, however it is of a very high standard.
Overall then, it was a very professional and impressive edition of Winol, there were still some areas which require work, but it showed marked improvement from the previous week, and demonstrated the high level of journalism expected from this broadcast.
Monday 7 November 2011
Copyright - Media Law Week Six
This one will be a quickie, so lets rattle through.
COPYRIGHT
Basically, any work you do is yours unless you pass it on to others deliberately. Two major ways of passing on work:
- It can be licensed out, where the rights remain with the original owner, but the second party is allowed to publish it.
- Copyright can be sold on, in which case the rights of ownership pass completely, the original owner having no possession over the work from that point.
This only covers 'physical' work (for lack of a better word), intellectual property is not protected, e.g. facts and ideas are not protected by copyright, however words, images, sound recordings and video footage are. As a general rule, a result of someone's skill, creativity, labour or time IS protected. Contrary to popular belief, Copyright DOES NOT HAVE to be registered, but it helps when proving that the original work is yours.
In a journalistic context, this means that a news story is not protected in itself, but the words used to convey it are.
The major defence to all this is Fair Dealing, which applies if a short extract from a piece protected by copyright is used, provided it is properly credited to the author and is not extensive. This does not apply to photographs.
If Copyright is breached, as before, the injured party can claim for damages or seek an injunction.
Simples! (the use of which would not breach copyright)
COPYRIGHT
Basically, any work you do is yours unless you pass it on to others deliberately. Two major ways of passing on work:
- It can be licensed out, where the rights remain with the original owner, but the second party is allowed to publish it.
- Copyright can be sold on, in which case the rights of ownership pass completely, the original owner having no possession over the work from that point.
This only covers 'physical' work (for lack of a better word), intellectual property is not protected, e.g. facts and ideas are not protected by copyright, however words, images, sound recordings and video footage are. As a general rule, a result of someone's skill, creativity, labour or time IS protected. Contrary to popular belief, Copyright DOES NOT HAVE to be registered, but it helps when proving that the original work is yours.
In a journalistic context, this means that a news story is not protected in itself, but the words used to convey it are.
The major defence to all this is Fair Dealing, which applies if a short extract from a piece protected by copyright is used, provided it is properly credited to the author and is not extensive. This does not apply to photographs.
If Copyright is breached, as before, the injured party can claim for damages or seek an injunction.
Simples! (the use of which would not breach copyright)
The Clockwork Universe - HCJ Week Five
This lecture covered a couple of hundred years and some of the most significant scientific developments in the field of astronomy, ever. So I guess what I'm saying is, I fear, this may not be a brief blog.
First off, FRANCIS BACON.
Put forward a direct challenge to the centuries old and widely accepted Aristotelian school of thought. Believed that all this previous accepted knowledge on astronomy was wrong, and that it needed to be scrapped and others start again developing these ideas. This point of view was put forward in his work, The New Organon. Bacon is credited with creating the scientific method, he was a great believer in experiment and claimed that no theory could be proved correct without repeated testing. This is now fundamental in all areas of science. Bacon also thought that there should be a clear separation of science and religion, rather than the two being intertwined, as it was at the time. Set the ball rolling on scientific development in the area of astronomy.
LOCKE (again)
Consistent with Bacon, saw the need for scientific experiment. Did not agree with the concept of 'innate ideas', felt that when born the mind was a blank slate, and is filled in through life with knowledge acquired through deduction, reasoning and experience. As religion goes beyond reasoning and experience, it cannot be dictated, it must develop through private revelation.
Despite these proposals from two great minds, science was still very under developed, with a lot of theories taken for granted as true that were fundamentally incorrect, including the belief that everything revolved around earth. Until...
THE HELIOCENTRIC MODEL
This is the model that states that the earth in fact rotates around the sun, as does everything else.
COPERNICUS - Through his attempts to reform the calendar in the 16th Century, came to the conclusion that it must be the Sun that is at the center of the Universe, not Earth. This idea did not make much headway until...
JOHANNES KEPLER - Also a believer in Bacon's scientific method, Kepler attempted to prove Copernicus' unproven theory. After gathering centuries worth of data together, he was able to make a case for the hypothesis based on evidence, however it was still not proven.
GALILEO - His life bridges the gap between the Renaissance and the Age of Science, being born the year Michelangelo died and dying the year Newton was born. Galileo was the first to look upon the heavens accurately, using a telescope he had acquired from Holland, and made personal improvements to, allowing him to see the universe in greater detail than anyone before him. Challenged the two major authorities of his day, Aristotle and the Bible. Galileo believed in provable facts, which emanated from nature, not from men. Claimed mathematics was the language of nature, and without the knowledge of mathematics, the human mind could not comprehend nature. Made the distinction between primary and secondary qualities in objects, primary being measurable assets of an object, and secondary depending on human interpretation.
NEWTON - Wrote 'Principia', a mathematical demonstration of the Copernican hypothesis on the Heliocentric model. Convinced people in general that the Universe was ordered and knowable. Newton began the enlightenment period, his work finally ending the reign of Aristotle, Newton's work fundamentally undermining and discrediting Aristotle's in the area of Physics.
First off, FRANCIS BACON.
Put forward a direct challenge to the centuries old and widely accepted Aristotelian school of thought. Believed that all this previous accepted knowledge on astronomy was wrong, and that it needed to be scrapped and others start again developing these ideas. This point of view was put forward in his work, The New Organon. Bacon is credited with creating the scientific method, he was a great believer in experiment and claimed that no theory could be proved correct without repeated testing. This is now fundamental in all areas of science. Bacon also thought that there should be a clear separation of science and religion, rather than the two being intertwined, as it was at the time. Set the ball rolling on scientific development in the area of astronomy.
LOCKE (again)
Consistent with Bacon, saw the need for scientific experiment. Did not agree with the concept of 'innate ideas', felt that when born the mind was a blank slate, and is filled in through life with knowledge acquired through deduction, reasoning and experience. As religion goes beyond reasoning and experience, it cannot be dictated, it must develop through private revelation.
Despite these proposals from two great minds, science was still very under developed, with a lot of theories taken for granted as true that were fundamentally incorrect, including the belief that everything revolved around earth. Until...
THE HELIOCENTRIC MODEL
This is the model that states that the earth in fact rotates around the sun, as does everything else.
COPERNICUS - Through his attempts to reform the calendar in the 16th Century, came to the conclusion that it must be the Sun that is at the center of the Universe, not Earth. This idea did not make much headway until...
JOHANNES KEPLER - Also a believer in Bacon's scientific method, Kepler attempted to prove Copernicus' unproven theory. After gathering centuries worth of data together, he was able to make a case for the hypothesis based on evidence, however it was still not proven.
GALILEO - His life bridges the gap between the Renaissance and the Age of Science, being born the year Michelangelo died and dying the year Newton was born. Galileo was the first to look upon the heavens accurately, using a telescope he had acquired from Holland, and made personal improvements to, allowing him to see the universe in greater detail than anyone before him. Challenged the two major authorities of his day, Aristotle and the Bible. Galileo believed in provable facts, which emanated from nature, not from men. Claimed mathematics was the language of nature, and without the knowledge of mathematics, the human mind could not comprehend nature. Made the distinction between primary and secondary qualities in objects, primary being measurable assets of an object, and secondary depending on human interpretation.
NEWTON - Wrote 'Principia', a mathematical demonstration of the Copernican hypothesis on the Heliocentric model. Convinced people in general that the Universe was ordered and knowable. Newton began the enlightenment period, his work finally ending the reign of Aristotle, Newton's work fundamentally undermining and discrediting Aristotle's in the area of Physics.
Wednesday 2 November 2011
Winol Review
Winchester News Online is ordinarily a great piece of television news. So far this term I've been impressed by high production standards, slick editing and well researched and delivered news items. It was therefore rather disappointing that this weeks broadcast (26th October) did not live up to the usual high standards.
As always, the stories were well researched, accurate and well written, but the delivery of the bulletins let down the content. I felt that at times the speech of the presenters flowed unnaturally, causing mistakes, and the obvious reading from paper scripts suggested that the piece had been rushed, and not enough time had been dedicated to learning the script. I also felt that the use of outdoor interviews meant that there was much overwhelming background noise, which distracted this viewer, and detracted from an informative piece of journalism. Having said this, the content was of a very high standard, and the stories were informative and interesting, it was a shame that they were not done justice.
At times the camera work and editing was also problematic, with shots out of focus for extended periods of time and too many shot changes in short periods. Perhaps using fewer shots for longer periods would have been better for the overall aesthetic of the piece.
Overall then, the broadcast this week felt fairly weak, and appeared to be rushed. The stories had obviously been well researched and written and had much time dedicated to them, it was disappointing that similar commitment was not apparent in the presentation of the show. It was still a reasonably good piece of student work, however it had far greater potential than it displayed.
As always, the stories were well researched, accurate and well written, but the delivery of the bulletins let down the content. I felt that at times the speech of the presenters flowed unnaturally, causing mistakes, and the obvious reading from paper scripts suggested that the piece had been rushed, and not enough time had been dedicated to learning the script. I also felt that the use of outdoor interviews meant that there was much overwhelming background noise, which distracted this viewer, and detracted from an informative piece of journalism. Having said this, the content was of a very high standard, and the stories were informative and interesting, it was a shame that they were not done justice.
At times the camera work and editing was also problematic, with shots out of focus for extended periods of time and too many shot changes in short periods. Perhaps using fewer shots for longer periods would have been better for the overall aesthetic of the piece.
Overall then, the broadcast this week felt fairly weak, and appeared to be rushed. The stories had obviously been well researched and written and had much time dedicated to them, it was disappointing that similar commitment was not apparent in the presentation of the show. It was still a reasonably good piece of student work, however it had far greater potential than it displayed.
Thursday 27 October 2011
CENSORED - Media Law Week Five (PART ONE)
Finally I am blogging about a lecture the week that it happened! Hurrah. I wish I could say my day has been made up of these little victories, but alas, it has been yet another fairly unproductive and uneventful day. Still, I'll chalk this one up in the win column and, if I can do another HCJ blog and book my ticket home for the weekend, call it a good day.
So this particular blog will be coming at you in two parts. This is the first, an actual discussion on the events of the lecture and information on the topic of CONFIDENTIALITY. The second part will be a review of this weeks WINOL production by the second years.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the privacy of an individual, and guarantees everyone the right to enjoyment of normal family life. If anyone feels that their right has been infringed upon, they can take one of many actions. This blog will focus on the action for Breach of Confidence.
Basically, law states that anyone who receives confidential information must not take unfair advantage of it. It is comprised of three parts:
- It must have the necessary quality of confidence
- The information must be conveyed in circumstances imposing an obligation of confidence
- The information must have been communicated further without authorisation, and to the detriment of the party that originally communicated it.
All three aspects must be present for a breach of confidence to occur, and if it does so then those publishing such information are likely to have action taken against them.
The biggest action against a breach of confidence is an injunction. This can be used when the person to whom the confidence is owed discovers, prior to publication, that the information is intended to be distributed. In this case, if an injunction is granted by a court, the information cannot be published by any source, and if it is then the offending organisation will be fined. Injunctions are, however, temporary, and can be lifted if the publisher can make a compelling case in court as to why the story should be printed. They are only intended to prevent the story being run until such a time as the case can be heard and decided in full.
If an injunction is sought, the individual seeking the injunction must give an undertaking that he will pay any damages to the defendant, if the injunction is proved to be wrongly granted in court.
A court can also order a journalist to declare the source of their information, or destroy the confidential matter.
If the piece is published, a publication can be ordered to pay some or all of the profits they received to the offended party. They may also be able to claim damages from the publisher.
Of course, if the material to be published is "in the public interest", then a judge is unlikely to grant an injunction. This is covered by Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, which defends the freedom of speech. A judge must balance whether it is more in the public interest to protect privacy or disclose important information.
So this particular blog will be coming at you in two parts. This is the first, an actual discussion on the events of the lecture and information on the topic of CONFIDENTIALITY. The second part will be a review of this weeks WINOL production by the second years.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the privacy of an individual, and guarantees everyone the right to enjoyment of normal family life. If anyone feels that their right has been infringed upon, they can take one of many actions. This blog will focus on the action for Breach of Confidence.
Basically, law states that anyone who receives confidential information must not take unfair advantage of it. It is comprised of three parts:
- It must have the necessary quality of confidence
- The information must be conveyed in circumstances imposing an obligation of confidence
- The information must have been communicated further without authorisation, and to the detriment of the party that originally communicated it.
All three aspects must be present for a breach of confidence to occur, and if it does so then those publishing such information are likely to have action taken against them.
The biggest action against a breach of confidence is an injunction. This can be used when the person to whom the confidence is owed discovers, prior to publication, that the information is intended to be distributed. In this case, if an injunction is granted by a court, the information cannot be published by any source, and if it is then the offending organisation will be fined. Injunctions are, however, temporary, and can be lifted if the publisher can make a compelling case in court as to why the story should be printed. They are only intended to prevent the story being run until such a time as the case can be heard and decided in full.
If an injunction is sought, the individual seeking the injunction must give an undertaking that he will pay any damages to the defendant, if the injunction is proved to be wrongly granted in court.
A court can also order a journalist to declare the source of their information, or destroy the confidential matter.
If the piece is published, a publication can be ordered to pay some or all of the profits they received to the offended party. They may also be able to claim damages from the publisher.
Of course, if the material to be published is "in the public interest", then a judge is unlikely to grant an injunction. This is covered by Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, which defends the freedom of speech. A judge must balance whether it is more in the public interest to protect privacy or disclose important information.
Further Political Philosophy - HCJ Week Four
So week four was seminar time, and having missed the first seminar for this module due to illness in week 2, it was an interesting experience. The students take it in turns to lead the sessions, further discussing the previous weeks reading and lectures.
In my previous blog on this topic I discussed at length the work of Plato, Hobbes and Locke. In the seminar we largely focused on Hobbes and Locke, and the as yet unmentioned Macchiavelli, so I'm going to focus on summarising Macchiavelli.
MACCHIAVELLI
Macchiavelli's work was more or less practical observations on how best to achieve and retain power. His two major works were 'The Prince' and 'The Discourse'. To get a complete picture of his philosophy, it is necessary to read both, as reading either alone will give you a pretty narrow view of what he was all about.
Macchiavelli's views were somewhat controversial, but in many ways he made a lot of sense. His basic argument in The Prince is that a leader must do whatever is necessary to maintain power, forget about what is good and bad, right and wrong, and do what is required to keep power. So for a leader, the number one priority and focus must be the retention of power. This sounds extreme, however it could be argued that many or even all leaders follow this theory to some extent, whether its establishing a military dictatorship or making empty promises in election manifestos, most all leaders will do what they deem necessarry to retain their position of power.
Macchiavelli suggested that the best way to lead was by the generation of fear, as: "love is fickle, but fear is constant". However he also made it clear that you must avoid being hated, as that is bound to lose you power. So the overall picture is do whatever is necessarry to retain power, let people fear you, but don't let them hate you.
I'm gonna leave it at that for this post, keep 'em wanting more and all that. Plus this has the added bonus of finally achieving a reasonably concise blog post. Expect two or three more before the end of today though, I've got some catching up to do...
In my previous blog on this topic I discussed at length the work of Plato, Hobbes and Locke. In the seminar we largely focused on Hobbes and Locke, and the as yet unmentioned Macchiavelli, so I'm going to focus on summarising Macchiavelli.
MACCHIAVELLI
Macchiavelli's work was more or less practical observations on how best to achieve and retain power. His two major works were 'The Prince' and 'The Discourse'. To get a complete picture of his philosophy, it is necessary to read both, as reading either alone will give you a pretty narrow view of what he was all about.
Macchiavelli's views were somewhat controversial, but in many ways he made a lot of sense. His basic argument in The Prince is that a leader must do whatever is necessary to maintain power, forget about what is good and bad, right and wrong, and do what is required to keep power. So for a leader, the number one priority and focus must be the retention of power. This sounds extreme, however it could be argued that many or even all leaders follow this theory to some extent, whether its establishing a military dictatorship or making empty promises in election manifestos, most all leaders will do what they deem necessarry to retain their position of power.
Macchiavelli suggested that the best way to lead was by the generation of fear, as: "love is fickle, but fear is constant". However he also made it clear that you must avoid being hated, as that is bound to lose you power. So the overall picture is do whatever is necessarry to retain power, let people fear you, but don't let them hate you.
I'm gonna leave it at that for this post, keep 'em wanting more and all that. Plus this has the added bonus of finally achieving a reasonably concise blog post. Expect two or three more before the end of today though, I've got some catching up to do...
Wednesday 26 October 2011
Playing Games - Media Law Week Four
Having been covering the area of defamation in our media law lectures, I have been keeping an eye on the newspapers to see if I could spot any potentially defamatory statements creeping into articles. I hadn't spotted much, until today, when procrastination became inspiration.
I stumbled across this article on the BBC Sport website, whilst carrying out my daily routine of seeing what is going on in the world of my beloved football:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15455362.stm
For those who don't know, Carlos Tevez is a professional footballer who has had something of a turbulent time in England. He has played for West Ham, Manchester United and Manchester City, and there has been plenty of controversy surrounding him in his spells at these clubs (admittedly, not all of his own creation).
He currently warms the bench of Manchester City, having spent the summer insisting he was leaving, and then refusing to go anywhere. About two weeks ago now he allegedly refused to play against German giants Bayern Munich in the Champions League (prestigious European club football competition). He refutes this claim and is now looking into suing his own manager for DEFAMATION. As it was his manager, Roberto Mancini, who claimed he would not play against Bayern Munich, and there is arguably a reasonable case. As the comment came in a post match interview on the telly, this particular case would fall into libel. Spoken words may be transient, but not when Guy Mowbray (or any other post match interviewer) is pointing a microphone in your face and there's a camera present. The recording makes it permanent, and that makes it libel (as opposed to slander).
Libel requires three things - Defamation, Publication and Identification.
Identification and Publication are pretty concrete here, post match interviews are widely distributed, on TV, Radio and in Papers, so there's plenty there in the way of publication. Identification is also pretty unquestionable, Carlos Tevez the Manchester City forward is specific, and unlikely to muddle the case by defaming multiple people (not that many others by that name would be too offended by the suggestion they refused to play for Manchester City, them being evil and that).
So the point of debate here is whether or not the suggestion that Tevez refused to play for the club that pays his wages amounts to defamation.
I would suggest that it does. It definitely exposes him to hatred and contempt, the reactions of City fans to his alleged refusal to play confirming that. It also would clearly lower him in the estimation of right thinking members of society, as refusing to do the job you get paid £250 000 a week to do is pretty disgraceful.
So it satisfies the criteria, Tevez certainly has a case. That is, of course, unless Mancini can prove that his comment is true, 'on the balance of probabilities'.
All this of course is speculation, it doesn't look likely to make it to court.
In other news, I'm going to endeavour to reduce my use of parentheses.
I stumbled across this article on the BBC Sport website, whilst carrying out my daily routine of seeing what is going on in the world of my beloved football:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15455362.stm
For those who don't know, Carlos Tevez is a professional footballer who has had something of a turbulent time in England. He has played for West Ham, Manchester United and Manchester City, and there has been plenty of controversy surrounding him in his spells at these clubs (admittedly, not all of his own creation).
He currently warms the bench of Manchester City, having spent the summer insisting he was leaving, and then refusing to go anywhere. About two weeks ago now he allegedly refused to play against German giants Bayern Munich in the Champions League (prestigious European club football competition). He refutes this claim and is now looking into suing his own manager for DEFAMATION. As it was his manager, Roberto Mancini, who claimed he would not play against Bayern Munich, and there is arguably a reasonable case. As the comment came in a post match interview on the telly, this particular case would fall into libel. Spoken words may be transient, but not when Guy Mowbray (or any other post match interviewer) is pointing a microphone in your face and there's a camera present. The recording makes it permanent, and that makes it libel (as opposed to slander).
Libel requires three things - Defamation, Publication and Identification.
Identification and Publication are pretty concrete here, post match interviews are widely distributed, on TV, Radio and in Papers, so there's plenty there in the way of publication. Identification is also pretty unquestionable, Carlos Tevez the Manchester City forward is specific, and unlikely to muddle the case by defaming multiple people (not that many others by that name would be too offended by the suggestion they refused to play for Manchester City, them being evil and that).
So the point of debate here is whether or not the suggestion that Tevez refused to play for the club that pays his wages amounts to defamation.
I would suggest that it does. It definitely exposes him to hatred and contempt, the reactions of City fans to his alleged refusal to play confirming that. It also would clearly lower him in the estimation of right thinking members of society, as refusing to do the job you get paid £250 000 a week to do is pretty disgraceful.
So it satisfies the criteria, Tevez certainly has a case. That is, of course, unless Mancini can prove that his comment is true, 'on the balance of probabilities'.
All this of course is speculation, it doesn't look likely to make it to court.
In other news, I'm going to endeavour to reduce my use of parentheses.
Friday 21 October 2011
What makes a good journalist?
A journalist holds an important role in society, as they have the responsibility of delivering the news and events of the world to an audience of millions. A journalist can hold any individual or organisation responsible for their actions in public, and therefore have an important role in maintaining society. This is a significant amount of power for anyone to have at their fingertips, and as such, there are very high standards for what makes a good journalist.
The most basic requirement, in my opinion, is an enthusiastic interest and in depth knowledge of the area they cover. Whatever field a journalist works in, if they are not informed on the matters they are required to write about, or have little interest in them, the pieces they produce will be severely lacking.
Another basic criterion for a good journalist is that they have a wide ranging vocabulary, understanding of grammar and punctuation, a distinct writing style and the ability to spell. Of course, everyone makes mistakes from time to time, but a good grasp of the english language is crucial in delivering high quality journalism.
Additionally, as we have been reminded on a daily basis, you've got to be fast, accurate and fair. These qualities have two benefits, the article will be strong, and you won't get sued (at least not as much).
Finally, I would suggest a good journalist is opinionated, as this allows interesting comment where the opportunity presents itself, but they must also be able to shelve their opinions when necessary to keep their writing fair.
And I guess there's nothing wrong with a bit of wit as well.
Thursday 20 October 2011
Why should I obey the law? History and Context of Journalism, Week Three
So the HCJ side of the course is moving quiiiiiiiiiiickly, and having been ill in week two, there was some catching up to do. Here I'm going to try and summarise Week Three's learnings in a more concise post than my others, bearing in mind that we've been trying to be more economic with words in our Precision English lectures. Though four lines for an introductory paragraph doesn't bode particularly well. Here we go...
So week three was political philosophy, and there's a few bright thinkers involved. Plato, Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau are the individuals we focused on.
PLATO - Couple of major points, The Crito and The Cave (not the mumford and sons track, though you could link the two). The Cave will come back at the end of the blog, first off:
Crito - a Dialogue written by Plato. It takes place between two people, Socrates (merely a character) and Crito. Socrates is imprisoned and Crito offers to help him escape. Socrates' argument for refusing this generous offer is the philosophical point in question, and an interesting one. Socrates says that by living in the city of Athens, he is bound by its laws, his dwelling there can be seen as him voluntarily entering into a contract with the city to obey its laws. If he were to attempt escape, he would be destroying the entire city, as if one man disobeys the laws then he is setting an example to others, like a domino, it could lead to the crumbling of an entire city, all on the basis of one man breaking one law. Anyone who switched on the news in August saw the result of such an event in the London Riots, many people jumping on the violent, looting bandwagon, for no sensible reason.
This then, was the first occasion on which any philosopher touched on the idea of the Social Contract. This idea was picked up by...
THOMAS HOBBES - Much further down the line, in 1651, he published his 'Leviathan', examining the idea of the Social Contract.
The Leviathan is a biblical creature, a big monstrous thing, originally a sea monster referred to extensively in the book of Job. Hobbes' Leviathan does not refer to this biblical sea monster, but a commonwealth.
Hobbes' view on social contract is shaped by his context, written during the English Civil War, and so his thoughts are influenced by the violence that surrounded him. As such, Hobbes believed that human nature was essentially aggressive, and in the 'state of nature' (a time before any form of social contract, without law or government) the world would regress to a war of all against all. As such, Hobbes' suggested that mankind required a central, ruling figure, to avoid this situation. In the book, the Leviathan sets out a contact between himself and his subjects, trading all power in return for his protection. This book sets out a limited democracy, with the people able to nominate their initial leader, however from there, the succession of power is determined by the sovereign. It strongly supports the concept of a monarchy and is firmly against the separation of powers, Hobbes arguing that the Civil War took place as a result of the division of power between Kings, Lords and Commons. However, there was some limitation to the Leviathan's power, as he stated that if he failed to fulfil his side of the contract then he could be removed, as well as each subject having the fundamental right to self preservation, entitled to resist the monarchy in self defence. Basically, Hobbes believed in a monarchy as government, with the divine right of kings, and desired a submissive public.
LOCKE - Also discussed social contract, but coming from a completely different angle than Hobbes. His thoughts on the matter are contained within his two 'Treatises on Government'.
Locke had a far more optimistic view of human nature than Hobbes, believing that all humans followed natural laws that were intuitive, "interwoven in the constitution of the human mind". Therefore Locke's view of the state of nature was of a peaceful place, in vast contrast to Hobbes'. Despite these natural laws, Locke acknowledged the need for a governing state, as he was aware that disputes could arise over property, and as such a judge like figure was required. Locke believed in the necessity of government, however thought that the people should only be governed consentually, and that laws should be in place to restrict governmental power, not civil liberties. He also argued that taxes could not be levied without public consent, a principle that became a cornerstone of the manifesto used in the American revolution, and his thinking went on to provide a backbone to the US constitution. Overview - Locke believed in the necessity of a government, but in a far more democratic style, and viewed human nature as basically positive.
ROUSSEAU - Some similar views to Locke.
Believed that the state of nature was a utopian paradise, argued that civilisation makes humans unhappy. Saw some sort of fundamental conscience in humans, and thought that the public must be part of the creation of legislature, as they are the ones who must live by the laws. Believed law should not be restrictive as there is a general will and acceptance of what is right amongst uhmans, therefore the general will of the people should become law.
PLATO - The Cave
Plato had a theory named The Republic, or The Cave theory, which examines the way humans think, and the general make up of the populus.
Plato suggested that all people are in a cave, and that our reality is merely shadow puppets on the wall of this cave, it is not in fact reality. The theory states that this 'cave' existence is a poor replica of the real, perfect world, which humans could see if only we could leave the cave. Plato argued that only philosophers could leave the cave and access the perfect world, and it is from here that Plato discovered "the forms". The Forms are essentially three parts which combine to make the human soul. These forms are Reason, Spirit and Desire. Plato suggests that all people have some awareness of the forms, but cannot understand them fully, as demonstrated by the fact that no man can imagine perfection. Which of these 'forms' dominates our personality dictates our understanding of them, and our being.
- Reason - If reason dominates, we can understand the forms and the perfect reality, hence the view that philosophers can access this perfect world.
- Spirit - If spirit dictates, we seek honour and pride, and are aggressive people.
- Desire - If desire dominates, we are distracted by the obsession with material gain.
Plato went on to say that one day the Philosophers, who have accessed the perfect world, will return to the cave and educate those watching shadows.
Next blog will analyse Locke and Hobbes further, compared with Machiavelli.
That one is likely to be even less concise.
So week three was political philosophy, and there's a few bright thinkers involved. Plato, Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau are the individuals we focused on.
PLATO - Couple of major points, The Crito and The Cave (not the mumford and sons track, though you could link the two). The Cave will come back at the end of the blog, first off:
Crito - a Dialogue written by Plato. It takes place between two people, Socrates (merely a character) and Crito. Socrates is imprisoned and Crito offers to help him escape. Socrates' argument for refusing this generous offer is the philosophical point in question, and an interesting one. Socrates says that by living in the city of Athens, he is bound by its laws, his dwelling there can be seen as him voluntarily entering into a contract with the city to obey its laws. If he were to attempt escape, he would be destroying the entire city, as if one man disobeys the laws then he is setting an example to others, like a domino, it could lead to the crumbling of an entire city, all on the basis of one man breaking one law. Anyone who switched on the news in August saw the result of such an event in the London Riots, many people jumping on the violent, looting bandwagon, for no sensible reason.
This then, was the first occasion on which any philosopher touched on the idea of the Social Contract. This idea was picked up by...
THOMAS HOBBES - Much further down the line, in 1651, he published his 'Leviathan', examining the idea of the Social Contract.
The Leviathan is a biblical creature, a big monstrous thing, originally a sea monster referred to extensively in the book of Job. Hobbes' Leviathan does not refer to this biblical sea monster, but a commonwealth.
Hobbes' view on social contract is shaped by his context, written during the English Civil War, and so his thoughts are influenced by the violence that surrounded him. As such, Hobbes believed that human nature was essentially aggressive, and in the 'state of nature' (a time before any form of social contract, without law or government) the world would regress to a war of all against all. As such, Hobbes' suggested that mankind required a central, ruling figure, to avoid this situation. In the book, the Leviathan sets out a contact between himself and his subjects, trading all power in return for his protection. This book sets out a limited democracy, with the people able to nominate their initial leader, however from there, the succession of power is determined by the sovereign. It strongly supports the concept of a monarchy and is firmly against the separation of powers, Hobbes arguing that the Civil War took place as a result of the division of power between Kings, Lords and Commons. However, there was some limitation to the Leviathan's power, as he stated that if he failed to fulfil his side of the contract then he could be removed, as well as each subject having the fundamental right to self preservation, entitled to resist the monarchy in self defence. Basically, Hobbes believed in a monarchy as government, with the divine right of kings, and desired a submissive public.
LOCKE - Also discussed social contract, but coming from a completely different angle than Hobbes. His thoughts on the matter are contained within his two 'Treatises on Government'.
Locke had a far more optimistic view of human nature than Hobbes, believing that all humans followed natural laws that were intuitive, "interwoven in the constitution of the human mind". Therefore Locke's view of the state of nature was of a peaceful place, in vast contrast to Hobbes'. Despite these natural laws, Locke acknowledged the need for a governing state, as he was aware that disputes could arise over property, and as such a judge like figure was required. Locke believed in the necessity of government, however thought that the people should only be governed consentually, and that laws should be in place to restrict governmental power, not civil liberties. He also argued that taxes could not be levied without public consent, a principle that became a cornerstone of the manifesto used in the American revolution, and his thinking went on to provide a backbone to the US constitution. Overview - Locke believed in the necessity of a government, but in a far more democratic style, and viewed human nature as basically positive.
ROUSSEAU - Some similar views to Locke.
Believed that the state of nature was a utopian paradise, argued that civilisation makes humans unhappy. Saw some sort of fundamental conscience in humans, and thought that the public must be part of the creation of legislature, as they are the ones who must live by the laws. Believed law should not be restrictive as there is a general will and acceptance of what is right amongst uhmans, therefore the general will of the people should become law.
PLATO - The Cave
Plato had a theory named The Republic, or The Cave theory, which examines the way humans think, and the general make up of the populus.
Plato suggested that all people are in a cave, and that our reality is merely shadow puppets on the wall of this cave, it is not in fact reality. The theory states that this 'cave' existence is a poor replica of the real, perfect world, which humans could see if only we could leave the cave. Plato argued that only philosophers could leave the cave and access the perfect world, and it is from here that Plato discovered "the forms". The Forms are essentially three parts which combine to make the human soul. These forms are Reason, Spirit and Desire. Plato suggests that all people have some awareness of the forms, but cannot understand them fully, as demonstrated by the fact that no man can imagine perfection. Which of these 'forms' dominates our personality dictates our understanding of them, and our being.
- Reason - If reason dominates, we can understand the forms and the perfect reality, hence the view that philosophers can access this perfect world.
- Spirit - If spirit dictates, we seek honour and pride, and are aggressive people.
- Desire - If desire dominates, we are distracted by the obsession with material gain.
Plato went on to say that one day the Philosophers, who have accessed the perfect world, will return to the cave and educate those watching shadows.
Next blog will analyse Locke and Hobbes further, compared with Machiavelli.
That one is likely to be even less concise.
Wednesday 19 October 2011
In My Defence - Media Law Week Three
Having previously discussed the various restrictions on journalists in the UK, and the law regarding what can and cannot be published, it is important to be aware of the defences available, should a law suit be filed against a reporter.
As outlined in my previous law post, journalists, when reckless, can find themselves being sued for defamation. This offence is divided into two areas, slander (defamatory statements made in a transient form) and libel (defamatory statements made in a permanent form).
As with any offence, when in court the defendant can use one of a number of specific defences, in the case of defamation, the main defences available are:
- Justification
- Fair Comment
- Absolute Privelege
- Qualified Privelege
In lamens terms, Justification is proving that the offending statement was truthful. Obviously, this defence may only be used when the offensive comment was phrased as a statement of fact, it cannot defend opinion. The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that the statement is true, 'on the balance of probabilities'. This of course makes it a difficult defence to use; however, there is some benefit to the defendant, in that only the most damaging allegation (the sting) must be proved true, rather than the entire piece. Despite this, the fact that many such cases are decided by juries means that if some statements are not proved to be true, the integrity of the defendant in the eyes of the jury could become vulnerable. Additionally, inferences and innuendoes must also be proved, so if a statement could have multiple defamatory meanings, each one must be proved to be true. This overall makes the defence very hard to successfully use, as there is so many requirements to meet for the defendant. As a result, journalists must be incredibly careful as to what information they present as being factual, as, if they do not have compelling evidence that their statement is accurate, they are likely to lose in court.
The second major defence availalable is that of Fair Comment. Fair Comment essentially means that the defamatory statement was merely the opinion of the writer, clearly not stated as fact and honestly held by the author, printed without any malice. The comment must also be based on fact or priveleged matter (although not necessarilly referred to within the same article, see 'Lowe v Associated Newspapers 2006') and must be of public interest. Any defendant using the defence of Fair Comment must run this defence in tandem with one of the other available defamation defences.
Importantly, the Defendant is not required to convince the jury or judge to agree with their opinion, only that the opinion itself is honestly held by the author. It is this defence that particularly protects reviews, as they are articles of comment based on experience.
Privelege as a whole protects complete freedom of speech where it is in the public interest to do so, regardless of whether the statements may be defamatory and later found to be untrue. It falls into two categories, Absolute Privelege and Qualified Privelege.
Absolute Privelege completely prevents any action for defamation, where the defence is available. Absolute Privelege is restricted to court cases and particular tribunals, and to be covered by Absolute Privelege, the contents of the report must be "a fair and accurate report of judicial proceedings held in public within the United Kingdom, published contemporaneously" - 'McNae's essential law for journalists'. This also covers the European Court of Justice, European Court of Human Rights, and any international criminal tribunal established by the Security Council of the United Nations or by an international agreement to which the United Kingdom is a party.
The requirements on reporting to qualify for Absolute Privelege are incredibly stringent, as it offers complete protection for the publication of defamatory material.
Firstly, the report must be fair, presenting a summary of both sides involved, no substantial inaccuracies and a balanced, unbiased view on proceedings. If it fails to achieve any of these, it immediately loses its protection under privelege.
Secondly, the report must be accurate, all allegations made in court must be attributed to an individual, so as to avoid preventing any allegation as fact. Journalists must also be careful to report the facts of the case accurately, simple, avoidable mistakes can disqualify a report from privelege. Thirdly, the report must be contemporaneous, meaning 'as soon as is practicable'. This would mean printing the report in the next available edition of the publication, unless reporting restrictions are in place, in which case it may be published in the first edition of the publication after restrictions are lifted. Earlier reports of court cases may be used later to place current proceedings in context, and will still attract the defence of Absolute Privelege.
The final main defence for Defamation is Qualified Privelege. This covers a far wider range of situations, including council meetings, public meetings and police statements, and has the same basic requirements - that the report is fair and accurate - however with the additional requirement that the report must be without malice. The report must also be a matter of public concern, the material published must be seen to benefit the public. Qualified Privelege can only apply when the reporter in question is predominantly motivated by providing information in the public interest, hence "Qualified".
There is one additional defence to Defamation available to journalists, the Reynolds defence, born out of a 1998 case between Reynolds and The Sunday Times newspaper. The Reynolds defence gives privelege to a story considered to be in the public interest, so long as it is responsibly reported. In the original case, Lord Nicholls set out a list of ten points which must be met for a story to fall under this defence. These requirements can be found in 'McNae's essential law for journalists', page 357. The overall conclusion is that the story must be in the public interest, with the information having come from a reliable source with satisfactory attempts made to verify the information, a comment sought from the claimant and an overall balanced tone and unbiased presentation in the article itself. Not every single one of the ten points must be met to use the defence, however it must be clear that the story was reported responsibly, with appropriate steps taken to ensure its accuracy and neutrality.
The availability of these defences mean that, the majority of the time, an accurate, responsible journalist should not be successfully sued. Of course, with many defamation cases meeting jury trial, there can be unexpected results, however these defences provide a good deal of protection for honest and professional journalists.
As outlined in my previous law post, journalists, when reckless, can find themselves being sued for defamation. This offence is divided into two areas, slander (defamatory statements made in a transient form) and libel (defamatory statements made in a permanent form).
As with any offence, when in court the defendant can use one of a number of specific defences, in the case of defamation, the main defences available are:
- Justification
- Fair Comment
- Absolute Privelege
- Qualified Privelege
In lamens terms, Justification is proving that the offending statement was truthful. Obviously, this defence may only be used when the offensive comment was phrased as a statement of fact, it cannot defend opinion. The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that the statement is true, 'on the balance of probabilities'. This of course makes it a difficult defence to use; however, there is some benefit to the defendant, in that only the most damaging allegation (the sting) must be proved true, rather than the entire piece. Despite this, the fact that many such cases are decided by juries means that if some statements are not proved to be true, the integrity of the defendant in the eyes of the jury could become vulnerable. Additionally, inferences and innuendoes must also be proved, so if a statement could have multiple defamatory meanings, each one must be proved to be true. This overall makes the defence very hard to successfully use, as there is so many requirements to meet for the defendant. As a result, journalists must be incredibly careful as to what information they present as being factual, as, if they do not have compelling evidence that their statement is accurate, they are likely to lose in court.
The second major defence availalable is that of Fair Comment. Fair Comment essentially means that the defamatory statement was merely the opinion of the writer, clearly not stated as fact and honestly held by the author, printed without any malice. The comment must also be based on fact or priveleged matter (although not necessarilly referred to within the same article, see 'Lowe v Associated Newspapers 2006') and must be of public interest. Any defendant using the defence of Fair Comment must run this defence in tandem with one of the other available defamation defences.
Importantly, the Defendant is not required to convince the jury or judge to agree with their opinion, only that the opinion itself is honestly held by the author. It is this defence that particularly protects reviews, as they are articles of comment based on experience.
Privelege as a whole protects complete freedom of speech where it is in the public interest to do so, regardless of whether the statements may be defamatory and later found to be untrue. It falls into two categories, Absolute Privelege and Qualified Privelege.
Absolute Privelege completely prevents any action for defamation, where the defence is available. Absolute Privelege is restricted to court cases and particular tribunals, and to be covered by Absolute Privelege, the contents of the report must be "a fair and accurate report of judicial proceedings held in public within the United Kingdom, published contemporaneously" - 'McNae's essential law for journalists'. This also covers the European Court of Justice, European Court of Human Rights, and any international criminal tribunal established by the Security Council of the United Nations or by an international agreement to which the United Kingdom is a party.
The requirements on reporting to qualify for Absolute Privelege are incredibly stringent, as it offers complete protection for the publication of defamatory material.
Firstly, the report must be fair, presenting a summary of both sides involved, no substantial inaccuracies and a balanced, unbiased view on proceedings. If it fails to achieve any of these, it immediately loses its protection under privelege.
Secondly, the report must be accurate, all allegations made in court must be attributed to an individual, so as to avoid preventing any allegation as fact. Journalists must also be careful to report the facts of the case accurately, simple, avoidable mistakes can disqualify a report from privelege. Thirdly, the report must be contemporaneous, meaning 'as soon as is practicable'. This would mean printing the report in the next available edition of the publication, unless reporting restrictions are in place, in which case it may be published in the first edition of the publication after restrictions are lifted. Earlier reports of court cases may be used later to place current proceedings in context, and will still attract the defence of Absolute Privelege.
The final main defence for Defamation is Qualified Privelege. This covers a far wider range of situations, including council meetings, public meetings and police statements, and has the same basic requirements - that the report is fair and accurate - however with the additional requirement that the report must be without malice. The report must also be a matter of public concern, the material published must be seen to benefit the public. Qualified Privelege can only apply when the reporter in question is predominantly motivated by providing information in the public interest, hence "Qualified".
There is one additional defence to Defamation available to journalists, the Reynolds defence, born out of a 1998 case between Reynolds and The Sunday Times newspaper. The Reynolds defence gives privelege to a story considered to be in the public interest, so long as it is responsibly reported. In the original case, Lord Nicholls set out a list of ten points which must be met for a story to fall under this defence. These requirements can be found in 'McNae's essential law for journalists', page 357. The overall conclusion is that the story must be in the public interest, with the information having come from a reliable source with satisfactory attempts made to verify the information, a comment sought from the claimant and an overall balanced tone and unbiased presentation in the article itself. Not every single one of the ten points must be met to use the defence, however it must be clear that the story was reported responsibly, with appropriate steps taken to ensure its accuracy and neutrality.
The availability of these defences mean that, the majority of the time, an accurate, responsible journalist should not be successfully sued. Of course, with many defamation cases meeting jury trial, there can be unexpected results, however these defences provide a good deal of protection for honest and professional journalists.
Saturday 8 October 2011
Are You Enthused?
Bertrand Russel was undoubtedly a great man. The mere fact he can produce a book the length of 'History of Western Philosophy' (744 pages, small type) impresses me greatly. That it is also interesting, intelligent and well written is nothing short of a wonderful achievement as far as I'm concerned, considering 2000 word A level essays were, for me, taxing. This book is required reading for my course, and the further I get, the more relieved I am. Looking at it sitting on a shelf can be daunting, however once I pick it up I find it easy to get lost in the words. It's not the historical element that I've found fascinating, more his examination of it. It is one statement of his in the early chapters that has prodded me to write, as I found myself re-reading it at this unholy hour of the morning.
"Prudence may easily involve the loss of some of the best things in life".
Boom. That got to me.
I may have now read the paragraph containing that sentence about ten times. I should really be reading the chapters required for this weeks lecture, but I find myself reluctant to pass this part just yet.
Russel's point is an interesting one, he expands further and suggests that prudence can drain joy and enthusiasm from life, by distracting one with trivial, monotonous, everyday preoccupations. After a day where I have seriously lacked joy and enthusiasm, I found it something of a revelation.
Now I'm not suggesting that prudence is the reason I have not been particularly enthused today. I woke up at 4pm and have done little else but eat and watch 'How I Met Your Mother' online. The enemy of enthusiasm today was laziness. But at other times, when I find myself bored, languid and unhappy, it is often because I am endlessly focusing on practical issues. Now this is in no way a bad thing, but it leads me to feeling joyless on occasion, as I haven't made time to do anything else (it probably doesn't help that I think of all the things that need doing, rather than doing them, but that's another issue). It seems to me that prudence really can be preventative, at times it overrides passion and adventure, which are crucial to deriving excitement and happiness from life.
Now prudence in itself is an admirable quality. As someone who could do with a little more, I am impressed by those who have that level of forethought, who are careful, who plan for the future. It is also incredibly important, it is key to feeling secure. Despite the argument that it can "easily involve the loss of some of the best things in life", it can also lead to great things.
So I find myself on the fence. I spend far more of my time looking for joy than I do planning for a rainy day, and yet on the rare occasions I attempt to be more organised I find myself listless (unintentional irony). And yet, often when I look for joy I can't seem to find it, it tends to arrive when I'm spontaneously wandering through my day.
After a few glances at Russel's words, however, the answer seems simple.
Balance, as I'm sure my good friend George would agree, is the key to happiness. There is nothing wrong with playing the long game, planning for the future and making allowances, it will reward you in weeks, months and years to come. Equally there is a lot to be said for seeking out pleasure and excitement, it gives you a feeling that cannot be matched. But neither can be truly fulfilling without the other. If you lack all prudence, nothing gets done. If you're nothing but prudent, you'll plan your life but never live it. Balancing the two on a daily basis allows the benefits of both, without detracting from the other, and you can "find your bliss", to quote the aforementioned TV show that has taken over my day. So that's what I'm gonna get to work on, balance. That, and my reading for this weeks lectures. One concrete assertion I derived from today is that nothing good can come of spending all day in bed, watching TV and munching cereal. Although that realisation won't change a thing.
Anyway, back to the genius of Neil Patrick Harris. I never learn.
"Prudence may easily involve the loss of some of the best things in life".
Boom. That got to me.
I may have now read the paragraph containing that sentence about ten times. I should really be reading the chapters required for this weeks lecture, but I find myself reluctant to pass this part just yet.
Russel's point is an interesting one, he expands further and suggests that prudence can drain joy and enthusiasm from life, by distracting one with trivial, monotonous, everyday preoccupations. After a day where I have seriously lacked joy and enthusiasm, I found it something of a revelation.
Now I'm not suggesting that prudence is the reason I have not been particularly enthused today. I woke up at 4pm and have done little else but eat and watch 'How I Met Your Mother' online. The enemy of enthusiasm today was laziness. But at other times, when I find myself bored, languid and unhappy, it is often because I am endlessly focusing on practical issues. Now this is in no way a bad thing, but it leads me to feeling joyless on occasion, as I haven't made time to do anything else (it probably doesn't help that I think of all the things that need doing, rather than doing them, but that's another issue). It seems to me that prudence really can be preventative, at times it overrides passion and adventure, which are crucial to deriving excitement and happiness from life.
Now prudence in itself is an admirable quality. As someone who could do with a little more, I am impressed by those who have that level of forethought, who are careful, who plan for the future. It is also incredibly important, it is key to feeling secure. Despite the argument that it can "easily involve the loss of some of the best things in life", it can also lead to great things.
So I find myself on the fence. I spend far more of my time looking for joy than I do planning for a rainy day, and yet on the rare occasions I attempt to be more organised I find myself listless (unintentional irony). And yet, often when I look for joy I can't seem to find it, it tends to arrive when I'm spontaneously wandering through my day.
After a few glances at Russel's words, however, the answer seems simple.
Balance, as I'm sure my good friend George would agree, is the key to happiness. There is nothing wrong with playing the long game, planning for the future and making allowances, it will reward you in weeks, months and years to come. Equally there is a lot to be said for seeking out pleasure and excitement, it gives you a feeling that cannot be matched. But neither can be truly fulfilling without the other. If you lack all prudence, nothing gets done. If you're nothing but prudent, you'll plan your life but never live it. Balancing the two on a daily basis allows the benefits of both, without detracting from the other, and you can "find your bliss", to quote the aforementioned TV show that has taken over my day. So that's what I'm gonna get to work on, balance. That, and my reading for this weeks lectures. One concrete assertion I derived from today is that nothing good can come of spending all day in bed, watching TV and munching cereal. Although that realisation won't change a thing.
Anyway, back to the genius of Neil Patrick Harris. I never learn.
Thursday 6 October 2011
What can I say? Media Law Part Two
Despite missing this weeks Law lecture through illness, the required reading set gave me quite an insight into the way the law affects journalists, specifically how it limits the amount and type of information one can disclose regarding a court case. Essentially, if a court case is ongoing there is very little detail you can release without being vulnerable to legal action. With regards to either way offences in Magistrates courts, the restrictions of reporting fall under the 1980 Magistrates' Courts Act. The result of which is that while a preliminary hearing is ongoing in a Magistrates court, only the following may be published:
- the name of the court
- the names, addresses and occupations of the parties
- the charge(s)
- the names of any legal representatives involved
- arrangements as to bail
- if proceedings are adjourned, where and when they will resume
- whether legal aid was granted
- the fact that reporting restrictions are in place
This is sufficient detail to describe basics of the case and those involved, however it prevents, or is designed to prevent, the release of any information which may create prejudice, including previous convictions of the defendant, and any reference to evidence in the case. Journalists will routinely publish these details, along with any protestations of innocence, as long as they apply to all charges faced, and if the defendant has chosen trial by jury. If it is a committal hearing, reporters may additionally tell of any decision of the magistrates to commit any defendant to Crown court for trial, the charge(s) and the court to which the defendant is commited. It is also permissible for journalists to report scene setting information, as long as the information is unbiased and not likely to affect any potential juror who may read the article. These restrictions are more or less identical for adult trials in Crown courts, with the restrictions being lifted automatically once the trial ends. Defendants may also request to have the restrictions lifted if they desire, however the decision is down to the magistrate or judge.
There are two main situations, however, where the restrictions are more severe.
The first is in summary cases in a magistrates court. The restrictions are largely the same, however only;
- the name of the court
- the names, ages, addresses and occupations of defendants and witnesses
- the charge(s)
- the names of solcitors and barristers involved
- if the case is adjourned, where and when it will resume
- arrangements as to bail
- whether legal aid was granted
Magistrates can choose to lift the restrictions, as long as there are no objections from the defendant and it is in the interests of justice.
The major difference is where the defendant is considered a juvenile, and in this situation only limited information may be released.
Section 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 prohibits the identification of any defendant or witness under the age of 18 in a juvenile court case, unless in exceptional circumstances.
There is no automatic protection for young people appearing in adult courts, although the court has discretion to apply the restrictions of section 39 of the above act. Under section 49, the restrictions can be lifted in the 'public interest' (see previous blog post), or to avoid injustice.
There are obvious motives for these restrictions, they ensure fairness in court proceedings, protect those involved and still allow the public some knowledge of what is occuring in a given court case.
However, do defendants in court cases deserve protection? In the UK everyone is innocent until proven guilty, however to be taken to court there is almost always substantial evidence that they are guilty, so should there not be more freedom for reporters to describe proceedings?
As for ensuring fairness, should journalists not be both motivated and committed to releasing only information which would not influence the case, regardless of legal restrictions?
- the name of the court
- the names, addresses and occupations of the parties
- the charge(s)
- the names of any legal representatives involved
- arrangements as to bail
- if proceedings are adjourned, where and when they will resume
- whether legal aid was granted
- the fact that reporting restrictions are in place
This is sufficient detail to describe basics of the case and those involved, however it prevents, or is designed to prevent, the release of any information which may create prejudice, including previous convictions of the defendant, and any reference to evidence in the case. Journalists will routinely publish these details, along with any protestations of innocence, as long as they apply to all charges faced, and if the defendant has chosen trial by jury. If it is a committal hearing, reporters may additionally tell of any decision of the magistrates to commit any defendant to Crown court for trial, the charge(s) and the court to which the defendant is commited. It is also permissible for journalists to report scene setting information, as long as the information is unbiased and not likely to affect any potential juror who may read the article. These restrictions are more or less identical for adult trials in Crown courts, with the restrictions being lifted automatically once the trial ends. Defendants may also request to have the restrictions lifted if they desire, however the decision is down to the magistrate or judge.
There are two main situations, however, where the restrictions are more severe.
The first is in summary cases in a magistrates court. The restrictions are largely the same, however only;
- the name of the court
- the names, ages, addresses and occupations of defendants and witnesses
- the charge(s)
- the names of solcitors and barristers involved
- if the case is adjourned, where and when it will resume
- arrangements as to bail
- whether legal aid was granted
Magistrates can choose to lift the restrictions, as long as there are no objections from the defendant and it is in the interests of justice.
The major difference is where the defendant is considered a juvenile, and in this situation only limited information may be released.
Section 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 prohibits the identification of any defendant or witness under the age of 18 in a juvenile court case, unless in exceptional circumstances.
There is no automatic protection for young people appearing in adult courts, although the court has discretion to apply the restrictions of section 39 of the above act. Under section 49, the restrictions can be lifted in the 'public interest' (see previous blog post), or to avoid injustice.
There are obvious motives for these restrictions, they ensure fairness in court proceedings, protect those involved and still allow the public some knowledge of what is occuring in a given court case.
However, do defendants in court cases deserve protection? In the UK everyone is innocent until proven guilty, however to be taken to court there is almost always substantial evidence that they are guilty, so should there not be more freedom for reporters to describe proceedings?
As for ensuring fairness, should journalists not be both motivated and committed to releasing only information which would not influence the case, regardless of legal restrictions?
Tuesday 27 September 2011
I'm sincerely grateful, Amin Ladha. (Media Law, Week One)
Programmed Reading - Chapter 1, McNae's Essential Law for Journalists.
When, in September 2008, I began studying A level law, I had some doubts about whether or not my choice was the correct one. I was confident that I would find it interesting and enjoy the subject, however my motivation for choosing the course was, largely, that the teacher (Mr Ladha) who took the class was something of a legend in my eyes. After two years studying Law, despite a disappointing C grade, I was in no doubt that I had, in fact, made the correct decision. Now, a full 15 months since my final lesson of A level law, that certainty has been affirmed, as I find myself covering old ground to some extent in the introductory lecture to media law, a module of my Journalism degree. Studying the UK court structure, sources of law and legal professions, among others, reminds me somewhat of being 16 again, in an unnecessarily stuffy classroom at Bishop Ramsey School. However, this time around I'm scrutinising the inner workings of this country's legal system through the eyes of a Journalist (or a journalist on a course, to be entirely truthful). With this journalistic perspective, the significant difference is that I can see directly how the law shapes my future career (having had no intention during my A levels of a career in crime, or as a lawyer). It is with the benefit of a good grounding in Law that I am able to understand and analyse media law, so far, quite comfortably, so thank you, Mr Ladha, who knew I actually learnt something?
The key point I took from todays lecture, and the reading prior to, was that, while journalists have no more rights than any other citizens to gathering information, there are a number of restricitions, both self inflicted and those derived from law, on what information they may release. While journalists are not specified explicitly in statute or precedent, lecturer Chris Horrie suggested that as many as 40 statutes affect journalists in their work. The majority of these, and the restrictions placed by organisations such as the Press Complaints Commission, are logical, ethics based regulations, designed to protect the members of the public from unwanted attention and harassment, and to ensure that stories are obtained in socially acceptable ways.
There is, however, an exception to this, that is when information is deemed to be in the 'public interest'. This phrase, however, requires definition. What exactly is the 'public interest', and who decides it? With the general public of this nation being such a diverse group, surely it is impossible that we all share the exact same core values, and would consider the same information of 'public interest'. McNae's Essential Law for Journalists suggests 'public interest' means "the information's value to society is argued to be particularly high, or potentially so'. It also makes the important distinction between the 'public interest', and a story that simply interests the public. The suggestion here, therefore, is that for an issue to be of 'public interest', it must be of national importance, significant information that the public have an overwhelming right to know.
It seems, therefore, that the basics of media law serve and protect everyone in equal measure, ensuring the balance of the individuals right to privacy, and freedom of expression, as set out in the Human Rights Act 1998, as well as the right of the public to information. However, the balancing act becomes most difficult when these two fundamental human rights appear to conflict. It seems then, that despite the logical and well established regulations on the press, there is no one, fundamental ruling on exactly what journalists can and cannot do. Perhaps everything really is negotiable.
When, in September 2008, I began studying A level law, I had some doubts about whether or not my choice was the correct one. I was confident that I would find it interesting and enjoy the subject, however my motivation for choosing the course was, largely, that the teacher (Mr Ladha) who took the class was something of a legend in my eyes. After two years studying Law, despite a disappointing C grade, I was in no doubt that I had, in fact, made the correct decision. Now, a full 15 months since my final lesson of A level law, that certainty has been affirmed, as I find myself covering old ground to some extent in the introductory lecture to media law, a module of my Journalism degree. Studying the UK court structure, sources of law and legal professions, among others, reminds me somewhat of being 16 again, in an unnecessarily stuffy classroom at Bishop Ramsey School. However, this time around I'm scrutinising the inner workings of this country's legal system through the eyes of a Journalist (or a journalist on a course, to be entirely truthful). With this journalistic perspective, the significant difference is that I can see directly how the law shapes my future career (having had no intention during my A levels of a career in crime, or as a lawyer). It is with the benefit of a good grounding in Law that I am able to understand and analyse media law, so far, quite comfortably, so thank you, Mr Ladha, who knew I actually learnt something?
The key point I took from todays lecture, and the reading prior to, was that, while journalists have no more rights than any other citizens to gathering information, there are a number of restricitions, both self inflicted and those derived from law, on what information they may release. While journalists are not specified explicitly in statute or precedent, lecturer Chris Horrie suggested that as many as 40 statutes affect journalists in their work. The majority of these, and the restrictions placed by organisations such as the Press Complaints Commission, are logical, ethics based regulations, designed to protect the members of the public from unwanted attention and harassment, and to ensure that stories are obtained in socially acceptable ways.
There is, however, an exception to this, that is when information is deemed to be in the 'public interest'. This phrase, however, requires definition. What exactly is the 'public interest', and who decides it? With the general public of this nation being such a diverse group, surely it is impossible that we all share the exact same core values, and would consider the same information of 'public interest'. McNae's Essential Law for Journalists suggests 'public interest' means "the information's value to society is argued to be particularly high, or potentially so'. It also makes the important distinction between the 'public interest', and a story that simply interests the public. The suggestion here, therefore, is that for an issue to be of 'public interest', it must be of national importance, significant information that the public have an overwhelming right to know.
It seems, therefore, that the basics of media law serve and protect everyone in equal measure, ensuring the balance of the individuals right to privacy, and freedom of expression, as set out in the Human Rights Act 1998, as well as the right of the public to information. However, the balancing act becomes most difficult when these two fundamental human rights appear to conflict. It seems then, that despite the logical and well established regulations on the press, there is no one, fundamental ruling on exactly what journalists can and cannot do. Perhaps everything really is negotiable.
Thursday 22 September 2011
Good Afternoon World
Aloha, world of internet.
This is my (Sam Sheard) first post on my first blog, so it may be low on insight and informative opinion, but I'm sure I'll get the hang of it soon enough. This blog will develop over the course of the year, hopefully with commentary on my wonderful lectures and social life at the University of Winchester. At least that is the intention.
That'll do for now I think, the next post is bound to be far more thrilling.
Sam
This is my (Sam Sheard) first post on my first blog, so it may be low on insight and informative opinion, but I'm sure I'll get the hang of it soon enough. This blog will develop over the course of the year, hopefully with commentary on my wonderful lectures and social life at the University of Winchester. At least that is the intention.
That'll do for now I think, the next post is bound to be far more thrilling.
Sam
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)