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.