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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)