The PCC has just published its latest adjudication, upholding a complaint against the Canterbury Times, Herne Bay Times and the Whitstable Times.
All three were found to have breached clause 1 of the editor's code that insists the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information.
The papers had received an anonymous e-mail claiming that the complainant, who had just been given the lead role in a local operatic production, was an 'ex-heroin user'.
According to the PCC, there was no evidence that the papers had made any efforts to verify the story other than to contact the complainant (who vehemently denied it) and the operatic society for their comment. On this basis they published the story, with the complainant's denial.
The PCC said this was a "clear editorial lapse"; something of an understatement but a far clearer judgement than the risible view of the newspaper that this was a "difficult call".
Printing defamatory information about people on the basis of an anonymous, unsolicited call without further evidential support is not a "difficult call"; it is editorial madness. Even checking with the complainant is arguably unethical but with a firm denial there is nowhere else to go but to drop the story unless further evidence is found.
I am assuming that the complainant is even now consulting m'learned friends down at Carter Ruck and partners and that we will be seeing reports of a substantial payment being made in the near future. If such a payment can ram home to those taking the decision that this was not a "difficult call" but a straightforward case for non-publication then the courts will have done the right thing.
Thursday, 23 September 2010
Monday, 16 August 2010
The News of the World splashed yesterday on the story of David Beckham's sister being on benefits. This intrusive story goes into details of her personal circumstances including the fact that she was out of work and allegations that her new boyfriend was violent.
The sole reason for this story seems to be that she is the sister of one of the UK's best known footballers and it is on this basis that the editor of the News of the World will have to defend any complaint the family may bring.
The PCC's code says that everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home and health and that editors will be expected to justify intrusion. This justification would be based in the public interest which the PCC identifies as being identifying or exposing wrongdoing; protecting public health; and preventing the public from being misled.
None of these seem to apply here as a justifaction for publication with the story being run to inform the reader of Beckham's sister's private life; her employment status, the benefits she was claiming, facts about the support her brother had given her and her relationship with a man that the NoW identifies as being a violent criminal.
The NoW claims to support freedom of the press, yet constantly puts its continuance and public support at risk by its determination to run stories that have no public interest despite being of interest to the public. The public generally understands that the famous may have to put up with considerable intrusion into their private lives as the price of their fame, but the general feeling is that their relatives (and other non-famous, private citizens) deserve more protection. It is stories such as these, printed purely for profit without regard for the damage done to the subject of the story, that may eventually lead to damaging restrictions being introduced on the media. Unless papers such as NoW can be persuaded to take their responsibilities seriously we may lose our tradional free press. It is its failure to seriously censure papers such as the NoW for stories such as these that has brought such criticism to the PCC. Why would the Beckham's complain about this story when the only redress the PCC can offer is a finding that it breaches the code and simply reminds everyone about the intrusion?
The PCC will continue to be largely irrelevant until it takes its duty to uphold standards seriously and penalises those newspapers that would breach them with penalties that are meaningful.
The sole reason for this story seems to be that she is the sister of one of the UK's best known footballers and it is on this basis that the editor of the News of the World will have to defend any complaint the family may bring.
The PCC's code says that everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home and health and that editors will be expected to justify intrusion. This justification would be based in the public interest which the PCC identifies as being identifying or exposing wrongdoing; protecting public health; and preventing the public from being misled.
None of these seem to apply here as a justifaction for publication with the story being run to inform the reader of Beckham's sister's private life; her employment status, the benefits she was claiming, facts about the support her brother had given her and her relationship with a man that the NoW identifies as being a violent criminal.
The NoW claims to support freedom of the press, yet constantly puts its continuance and public support at risk by its determination to run stories that have no public interest despite being of interest to the public. The public generally understands that the famous may have to put up with considerable intrusion into their private lives as the price of their fame, but the general feeling is that their relatives (and other non-famous, private citizens) deserve more protection. It is stories such as these, printed purely for profit without regard for the damage done to the subject of the story, that may eventually lead to damaging restrictions being introduced on the media. Unless papers such as NoW can be persuaded to take their responsibilities seriously we may lose our tradional free press. It is its failure to seriously censure papers such as the NoW for stories such as these that has brought such criticism to the PCC. Why would the Beckham's complain about this story when the only redress the PCC can offer is a finding that it breaches the code and simply reminds everyone about the intrusion?
The PCC will continue to be largely irrelevant until it takes its duty to uphold standards seriously and penalises those newspapers that would breach them with penalties that are meaningful.
Thursday, 25 February 2010
Culture media and Sport Select Committee
The CMS select committee has finally released its report after months of deliberations.
Generally speaking there is a lot of good stuff there. Libel gets a good look and sensible recommendations are made about time constraints for making claims for defamation online. Privacy also gets the once over with a decision not to recommend that there should be a privacy law. They also agreed that it would inappropriate to provide a legal obligation on journalists to contact the subject of stories before publication. They did emphasise that this is good journalistic practice and called on the Press Complaints Commission to include a clause in their code saying journalists should do this.
The main thrust of the report is about press standards and the Press Complaints Commission.
The committee says the PCC should spend more of its effort on raising press standards rather than just taking complaints. This has long been a concern of mine. The PCC deliberately ignored the idea of supporting press freedom and standards when it was first set up, it wanted to be solely a complaints body. But it's not possible to be a complaints body that means anything unless you are also keen to improve standards.
I also agree with the committee that there should be a wider range of people on the code committee. Journalists need to be there as well as editors, for instance. They need to be able to push their own views on the code committee to ensure they are not made the scapegoat for bad decision making. The committee also called for the PCC code to be placed in Journalists' contracts of employment and this makes it even more important that journalists have a say and are also able to speak out for ethics in the workplace without putting their careers at risk.
Giving the PCC more power to decide on stronger punishments for newspapers that are reckless about their commitment to the code of practice is also a good idea.
The committee was right to point out that the News of the World's behaviour over the phone tapping scandal was appalling.
Generally speaking there is a lot of good stuff there. Libel gets a good look and sensible recommendations are made about time constraints for making claims for defamation online. Privacy also gets the once over with a decision not to recommend that there should be a privacy law. They also agreed that it would inappropriate to provide a legal obligation on journalists to contact the subject of stories before publication. They did emphasise that this is good journalistic practice and called on the Press Complaints Commission to include a clause in their code saying journalists should do this.
The main thrust of the report is about press standards and the Press Complaints Commission.
The committee says the PCC should spend more of its effort on raising press standards rather than just taking complaints. This has long been a concern of mine. The PCC deliberately ignored the idea of supporting press freedom and standards when it was first set up, it wanted to be solely a complaints body. But it's not possible to be a complaints body that means anything unless you are also keen to improve standards.
I also agree with the committee that there should be a wider range of people on the code committee. Journalists need to be there as well as editors, for instance. They need to be able to push their own views on the code committee to ensure they are not made the scapegoat for bad decision making. The committee also called for the PCC code to be placed in Journalists' contracts of employment and this makes it even more important that journalists have a say and are also able to speak out for ethics in the workplace without putting their careers at risk.
Giving the PCC more power to decide on stronger punishments for newspapers that are reckless about their commitment to the code of practice is also a good idea.
The committee was right to point out that the News of the World's behaviour over the phone tapping scandal was appalling.
Friday, 19 February 2010
Jan Moir and the PCC
The PCC has finally reached its decision over the Jan Moir column about the death of Steven Gately of Boyzone that raised more than 25,000 complaints from outraged readers (we'll ignore the possibility that many of them weren't actually Daily Mail readers, or at least not until the article was pointed out to them on Twitter).
The Daily Mail (regularly in the top ten of complained of newspapers desite its editor in chief Paul Dacre chairing the committe that writes the code the PCC uses to measure complaints) specialises in controversial columns written from a traditional conservative viewpoint and this one was no exception.
The 25,000 complaints left the PCC with a problem: it doesn't take complaints from third parties, that is from people not actually involved in the story. Fortunately for the PCC (or perhaps that is unfortunately) Gately's civil partner Andrew Cowle rode to the rescue by submitting a complaint that the article was inaccurate, intruded into private grief and was discriminatory.
The PCC rejected the allegations of inaccuracy saying "there was no inaccuracy or misleading statement here". Discrimination quickly followed as while the commission was "uncomfortable with the tenor of the article" it did not consider it to be homophobic: "it was not possible to identify any direct uses of pejorative or prejudicial language". But it was the publication of matter involving personal grief that was the major issue. On this point the commission accepted that "timing of the piece was questionable to say the least" and that it had caused the complainant great distress, yet despite this they agreed that a "slide towards censorship" was not something they could endorse.
This is an interesting interpretation of a code that says journalists should handle publication sensitively in cases involving personal grief. Because Gately was a public figure and his death a matter of public discussion the intrusion into grief was acceptable. But because the PCC has always refused to rule on matters of taste and decency and has always avoided adjudicating on opinion columns this actually makes it a little more difficult for them. On the basis of freedom of expression, of course, the Moir column is perfectly legitimate journalism. It is her opinion and she is entitled to it and to publish it if a newspaper will provide the space. What is more difficult to justify is an invasion into private grief, the one thing on which the PCC is supposed to adjudicate.
So while it is a win for freedom of expression and its associated right to offend, it is also another example of the PCC at its most ineffectual.
The Daily Mail (regularly in the top ten of complained of newspapers desite its editor in chief Paul Dacre chairing the committe that writes the code the PCC uses to measure complaints) specialises in controversial columns written from a traditional conservative viewpoint and this one was no exception.
The 25,000 complaints left the PCC with a problem: it doesn't take complaints from third parties, that is from people not actually involved in the story. Fortunately for the PCC (or perhaps that is unfortunately) Gately's civil partner Andrew Cowle rode to the rescue by submitting a complaint that the article was inaccurate, intruded into private grief and was discriminatory.
The PCC rejected the allegations of inaccuracy saying "there was no inaccuracy or misleading statement here". Discrimination quickly followed as while the commission was "uncomfortable with the tenor of the article" it did not consider it to be homophobic: "it was not possible to identify any direct uses of pejorative or prejudicial language". But it was the publication of matter involving personal grief that was the major issue. On this point the commission accepted that "timing of the piece was questionable to say the least" and that it had caused the complainant great distress, yet despite this they agreed that a "slide towards censorship" was not something they could endorse.
This is an interesting interpretation of a code that says journalists should handle publication sensitively in cases involving personal grief. Because Gately was a public figure and his death a matter of public discussion the intrusion into grief was acceptable. But because the PCC has always refused to rule on matters of taste and decency and has always avoided adjudicating on opinion columns this actually makes it a little more difficult for them. On the basis of freedom of expression, of course, the Moir column is perfectly legitimate journalism. It is her opinion and she is entitled to it and to publish it if a newspaper will provide the space. What is more difficult to justify is an invasion into private grief, the one thing on which the PCC is supposed to adjudicate.
So while it is a win for freedom of expression and its associated right to offend, it is also another example of the PCC at its most ineffectual.
Monday, 15 February 2010
European challenge
Media lawyers Mark Stephens and Geoffrey Robertson QC are to lead a challenge to the European case being brought by Max Mosley.
Mosley is hoping to persuade the European Court of Human Rights that the media should be obliged to give prior notification to the subject of a story before publication. Prior notification, through a request for comment, is normal good journalistic practice but there are times when it is not appropriate; usually because the subject of the story will seek an injunction to prevent publication. It is a way that the wealthy and powerful can use their knowledge and position to prevent examination of their lives.
Mr Robertson said that it is a rule of the English Courts that you cannot get a pre-publication injunction where the press is prepared to defend, but he is concerned that the ECHR would not give this full consideration and put at risk one of the main freedoms of expression in the UK.
The challenge by a number of free speech campaign groups is welcome news. Whatever you think of the News of the World's intrusion into the privacy of Max Mosley, there is no doubt that a legal guarantee that publication can always be prevented by those with something to hide would be a further blow to freedom of expression and public accountability. The media may spend too much time spotlighting celebrities and too little exposing those whose actions deserve attention, but Mosley's desires would make it impossible to do either.
Mosley is hoping to persuade the European Court of Human Rights that the media should be obliged to give prior notification to the subject of a story before publication. Prior notification, through a request for comment, is normal good journalistic practice but there are times when it is not appropriate; usually because the subject of the story will seek an injunction to prevent publication. It is a way that the wealthy and powerful can use their knowledge and position to prevent examination of their lives.
Mr Robertson said that it is a rule of the English Courts that you cannot get a pre-publication injunction where the press is prepared to defend, but he is concerned that the ECHR would not give this full consideration and put at risk one of the main freedoms of expression in the UK.
The challenge by a number of free speech campaign groups is welcome news. Whatever you think of the News of the World's intrusion into the privacy of Max Mosley, there is no doubt that a legal guarantee that publication can always be prevented by those with something to hide would be a further blow to freedom of expression and public accountability. The media may spend too much time spotlighting celebrities and too little exposing those whose actions deserve attention, but Mosley's desires would make it impossible to do either.
Friday, 26 June 2009
Class memories
The Information Commissions Office has issued new guidance to schools saying that parents and other family members should not be prevented from taking photographs or video of their children at school events citing the Data Protection Act.
The Act has been widely used to prevent people taking pictures at school events such as nativity plays and sports days. Now the commission office wants that to end and says such pictures are the basis of albums of happy memories. This does not open things up for press photographers though who still need to get permission from the school to take pictures of children at these events.
It does however open up the debate and starts to put schools and other authorities that have tried to prevent photography on notice that they will have to be more convincing with attempts to prevent photography.
This is not the only bit of good news for photographers. Section 58 of the Counter Terrorism Act introduced in February makes it an offence to take pictures of the police for use in terrorism. This has caused a bit of stir in some newspapers but Lord Carlile has recently ridden to the rescue.
The Lord, who revies terror legislation, has said that the law sets a high bar. Giving the green light for photographers, amateur or professional, to continue taking pictures he warns police officers that they may face prosecution themselves if they continue to force photographers to delete pictures. The clause that says taking pictures for use by terrorists is a high bar and one that would require proof said his lordship.
The Act has been widely used to prevent people taking pictures at school events such as nativity plays and sports days. Now the commission office wants that to end and says such pictures are the basis of albums of happy memories. This does not open things up for press photographers though who still need to get permission from the school to take pictures of children at these events.
It does however open up the debate and starts to put schools and other authorities that have tried to prevent photography on notice that they will have to be more convincing with attempts to prevent photography.
This is not the only bit of good news for photographers. Section 58 of the Counter Terrorism Act introduced in February makes it an offence to take pictures of the police for use in terrorism. This has caused a bit of stir in some newspapers but Lord Carlile has recently ridden to the rescue.
The Lord, who revies terror legislation, has said that the law sets a high bar. Giving the green light for photographers, amateur or professional, to continue taking pictures he warns police officers that they may face prosecution themselves if they continue to force photographers to delete pictures. The clause that says taking pictures for use by terrorists is a high bar and one that would require proof said his lordship.
Tuesday, 23 June 2009
Good news from Belfast
Good news that journalist Suzanne Breen won the right to protect her sources at a court in Belfast last week. Ms Breen had been contacted by the Real IRA following the Massereene barracks murders claiming responsibility for the atrocity. Police investigating the case wanted her to hand over all records, phones, computers and notebooks in a search for clues. They had given little detail of what they wanted and Ms Breen refused to hand over any material. She told the court that her life would be in danger if she were to hand over material to the NI police sevice. The Belfast Recorder agreed, saying there was a real risk of the group carrying out its bood-thirsty threats. However he also said it was a difficult decision to make. Ms Breen had been supported throughout byh the National Union of Journalists.
Ms Breen will not now be obliged to reveal her sources, not only ensuring her life is not put at risk but also allowing her to become the latest in an honour roll of journalists prepared to take a stand at considerable personal risk for the integrity of their profession.
Freedom of the media to investigate wrongdoing and inform the public about it often depends upon getting information from people who have a lot to lose if their identity were revealed. Only by promising confidentiality are journalists able to ensure people are still willing to talk.
Suzanne is to be praised for her brave stand which has left journalism in a stronger positon.
Ms Breen will not now be obliged to reveal her sources, not only ensuring her life is not put at risk but also allowing her to become the latest in an honour roll of journalists prepared to take a stand at considerable personal risk for the integrity of their profession.
Freedom of the media to investigate wrongdoing and inform the public about it often depends upon getting information from people who have a lot to lose if their identity were revealed. Only by promising confidentiality are journalists able to ensure people are still willing to talk.
Suzanne is to be praised for her brave stand which has left journalism in a stronger positon.
Wednesday, 25 March 2009
PCC's annual report
The PCC has just released its annual report. Not surprisingly it again claims the year has been another success for self regulation: the rise in complaints to more than four and a half thousand is good, it says, but the small number of adjudications and fall in resolutions is also good. Sir Christopher Meyer will leave his job as chairman this month surrounded by the heady scent of smug self-satisfaction.
It will be interesting to learn how the Select Committee now investigating the PCC's activities views the PCC's performance after hearing the evidence of Gerry McCann and Max Mosley. The two men may have very different reasons for detesting the Press, but both believe that self-regulation is not a sufficient control.
Despite the 4,600 complaints, only 42 were adjudicated by the PCC with fewer than half upheld, most of these such gross breaches that there was little option but to uphold. To read the annual report of the PCC is lead one to believe that the British press is a paragon of professional virtue. It is doubtful if many recognise this as an appropriate description.
It will be interesting to learn how the Select Committee now investigating the PCC's activities views the PCC's performance after hearing the evidence of Gerry McCann and Max Mosley. The two men may have very different reasons for detesting the Press, but both believe that self-regulation is not a sufficient control.
Despite the 4,600 complaints, only 42 were adjudicated by the PCC with fewer than half upheld, most of these such gross breaches that there was little option but to uphold. To read the annual report of the PCC is lead one to believe that the British press is a paragon of professional virtue. It is doubtful if many recognise this as an appropriate description.
Thursday, 26 February 2009
PCC starts new year with a bang
The PCC got off to a busy start in 2009, launching an investigation into its own complaint about several newspapers and websites covering the case of a man committing suicide with a chain saw. The Newspapers includ the Metro, The Guardian, Daily Star, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, The Sun, Daily Mirror and the Independent and their websites. The Metro (but not its website) and the Guardian did not have complaints upheld against them, but all the others, both print and websites, did have complaints upheld for giving too much detail about the suicide method and how the man had managed to kill himself.
The suicide clause is a new one for the PCC (see below) and one they are determined to uphold.
The suicide clause is a new one for the PCC (see below) and one they are determined to uphold.
Wednesday, 9 January 2008
PCC and privacy
The Press Complaints Council has today release a new adjudication, upholding a complaint against OK! magazine for invading the privacy of a woman attending an AA meeting.
The article concerned a male celebrity attending an AA meeting with a friend - the complainant.
The article published information the complainant felt was private about her addiction and treatment. It also published a picture of her.
The adjudication is interesting for two reasons. First, the magazine made no attempt to suggest that this publication was in the public interest. Second that the magazine made no attempt to disguise the identity of the complainant even though the story was about the celebrity.
The story raises the age old issue of whether celebrities deserve less protection than ordinary people merely because of their celebrity. According to the Appeal Courts McKennitt verdict, it would depend upon the celebrity and the lengths they had gone to previously to protect their privacy. So, if we accept that there is a difference between celebrities and non-celebrities, and take into account this new adjudication, journalists would be well advised to prevent non-celebrities in circumstances such as these being identifiable and concentrate their stories on the celebrity - or find a good public interest defence.
The article concerned a male celebrity attending an AA meeting with a friend - the complainant.
The article published information the complainant felt was private about her addiction and treatment. It also published a picture of her.
The adjudication is interesting for two reasons. First, the magazine made no attempt to suggest that this publication was in the public interest. Second that the magazine made no attempt to disguise the identity of the complainant even though the story was about the celebrity.
The story raises the age old issue of whether celebrities deserve less protection than ordinary people merely because of their celebrity. According to the Appeal Courts McKennitt verdict, it would depend upon the celebrity and the lengths they had gone to previously to protect their privacy. So, if we accept that there is a difference between celebrities and non-celebrities, and take into account this new adjudication, journalists would be well advised to prevent non-celebrities in circumstances such as these being identifiable and concentrate their stories on the celebrity - or find a good public interest defence.
Thursday, 22 November 2007
PCC censures magazine for deception
Newspapers and magazines are not immune to deception. The Press Complaints Commission has censured Chat magazine for printing a staged picture of a murder victim, realistic enough to fool one of the family. The magazine failed to make it clear that the picture of the murder vicitm, wrapped in bin liners and printed beneath the heading "Beaten, raped and brutalised" was staged. The PCC upheld the complaint of inaccuracy but went on to say: "But of particular concern to the Commission was the fact that, in using the misleading picture near to the first anniversary of the death, the magazine also showed a total disregard for the family of the dead woman."
They said that the magazine's "cavalier approach" was a clear breach of the PCC code.
http://www.pcc.org.uk/cases/adjudicated.html?article=NDgyNw==
They said that the magazine's "cavalier approach" was a clear breach of the PCC code.
http://www.pcc.org.uk/cases/adjudicated.html?article=NDgyNw==
BCC and the sound of crying
The BBC has run into another row about deception according to the Guardian of November 16, 2007.
John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford released video of recently-born quintuplets and the BBC used the video, adding its own soundtrack of crying babies. The BBC told the Guardian: "We received the film without sound and although we don't believe viewers were materially misled, we should not have added sound to the pictures."
This is the latest such ethical mistake in a growing list for the BBC that includes premium phone line abuses, faked footage of the Queen and has led to Director General Mark Thompson to try to ban 'noddies' - the method used by TV journalists to allow cutaways and give the impression the interview was filmed by two TV cameras instead of the one that is all news can afford to send on most stories these days.
Adding sound or new backgrounds to video these days is very easy, but careful consideration needs to be given before doing it. I was approached recently by a private group to film my views in a rebuttal of a BBC programme. I was surprised at the use of a white muslin background for the recording, but even more surprised at the sumptious study in which I was shown in the final edit. Chromakey had done its work to set me in this new environment and whilst no-one was materially misled, the recording was not recorded where it was shown to have been recorded.
It is very easy to say that these additions do not materially change the truth, but they are a slippery slope to other editing tricks that do substantially change reality. Putting me in a study befitting a university professor may not be too bad even if the reality is that my study looks more like a library dumping ground. But if the background gave the impression that I was chatting amongst friends, some of whom were later cut into the edit to give views that made it seem I was responding to their promptings, an entirely incorrect picture might have been painted.
The same is true of added audio. Adding babies crying to film of a neo-natal ward may not be too deluding. But what if that crying were added to a documentary about orphanages in Eastern Europe to give the impression that these orphanages were ill-treating their charges? The same is true of adding music. News traditionally does not have a music soundtrack, making it unusual for TV and radio. Ths is clearly because of the emotive effect of soundtracks - it would be impossible to claim that news is unbiased if a sound track were added. But many documentaries now add sound tracks of music, setting the scene and pointing the viewer in a particular direction, often without them realising it.
Adding additional sounds or music, or changing a video background as well as adding or deleting items in pictures or video should be avoided at all costs in order to prevent misleading the audience. Only if some far worse ethical incident would occur if one did not, should this be considered. There's always one surefire way to be accused of manipulating the truth and attempting to deceive and that's by deliberately manipulating the truth.
John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford released video of recently-born quintuplets and the BBC used the video, adding its own soundtrack of crying babies. The BBC told the Guardian: "We received the film without sound and although we don't believe viewers were materially misled, we should not have added sound to the pictures."
This is the latest such ethical mistake in a growing list for the BBC that includes premium phone line abuses, faked footage of the Queen and has led to Director General Mark Thompson to try to ban 'noddies' - the method used by TV journalists to allow cutaways and give the impression the interview was filmed by two TV cameras instead of the one that is all news can afford to send on most stories these days.
Adding sound or new backgrounds to video these days is very easy, but careful consideration needs to be given before doing it. I was approached recently by a private group to film my views in a rebuttal of a BBC programme. I was surprised at the use of a white muslin background for the recording, but even more surprised at the sumptious study in which I was shown in the final edit. Chromakey had done its work to set me in this new environment and whilst no-one was materially misled, the recording was not recorded where it was shown to have been recorded.
It is very easy to say that these additions do not materially change the truth, but they are a slippery slope to other editing tricks that do substantially change reality. Putting me in a study befitting a university professor may not be too bad even if the reality is that my study looks more like a library dumping ground. But if the background gave the impression that I was chatting amongst friends, some of whom were later cut into the edit to give views that made it seem I was responding to their promptings, an entirely incorrect picture might have been painted.
The same is true of added audio. Adding babies crying to film of a neo-natal ward may not be too deluding. But what if that crying were added to a documentary about orphanages in Eastern Europe to give the impression that these orphanages were ill-treating their charges? The same is true of adding music. News traditionally does not have a music soundtrack, making it unusual for TV and radio. Ths is clearly because of the emotive effect of soundtracks - it would be impossible to claim that news is unbiased if a sound track were added. But many documentaries now add sound tracks of music, setting the scene and pointing the viewer in a particular direction, often without them realising it.
Adding additional sounds or music, or changing a video background as well as adding or deleting items in pictures or video should be avoided at all costs in order to prevent misleading the audience. Only if some far worse ethical incident would occur if one did not, should this be considered. There's always one surefire way to be accused of manipulating the truth and attempting to deceive and that's by deliberately manipulating the truth.
Friday, 5 October 2007
PCC's new code
The PCC's new code on suicide found its first application recently with the Wigan Evening Post having a complaint against it upheld. The paper published a story from a coroner's court giving too many details about the death and "The Commission agreed with the complainant that the newspapers had included too much detail in describing how the suicide happened. " The PCC went on to say: "Inquests are held in public and newspapers are free to report their proceedings, but to abide by the terms of the Code – which sets out standards over and above the legal framework – the papers should on this occasion have been less specific about the method used".
Doubtless the newspaper published the adjudication as it is bound to do by the PCC's rules. However, it didn't take the issue seriously enough to take the story off its website, or to alter it and so at present date, it still remains available. The PCC took a decision in the early part of 2007 to take a regulatory responsibility for websites run by newspapers. Presumably, we can look forward to the Wigan Evening Post being not only the first paper to run foul of the new PCC regulations on suicide but also the first newspaper website to be castigated by the PCC.
Doubtless the newspaper published the adjudication as it is bound to do by the PCC's rules. However, it didn't take the issue seriously enough to take the story off its website, or to alter it and so at present date, it still remains available. The PCC took a decision in the early part of 2007 to take a regulatory responsibility for websites run by newspapers. Presumably, we can look forward to the Wigan Evening Post being not only the first paper to run foul of the new PCC regulations on suicide but also the first newspaper website to be castigated by the PCC.
Sunday, 11 February 2007
Dealing in private information
The Department of Constitutional Affairs has published the responses to its consultation on dealing with private information. The consultation was asking if the penalties for dealing in such information should be increased to include custodial sentences. Those found guilty of buying or selling such information could be jailed. It's a difficult issue. Much information that is presently sold by criminals and others should remain private and there should be severe penalties for those who deal in such information, but there seems to be a strong view that this new legislation should be aimed at journalists and that criminals or others who seek to invade our privacy by hacking into our computers or bank accounts are not the major target. Journalists should be careful when dealing in private information. Only if revealing the information in support of a story that is strongly in the public interest should they consider buying it. However, such stories are, thankfully, published often enough to make sure that there should be strict safeguards to ensure that journalists are not jailed every time someone influential feels that their power is under threat.
Select committee investigates self regulation
The House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport select committee has announced it intends inquiring into self regulation and the PCC code of conduct following the jailing of a News of the World reporter for accessing a royal voicemail and the paparazzi harassment of royal girlfriend Kate Middleton. The investigation will look at whether self-regulation of newspapers is working, whether the PCC code needs beefing up and how newspaper websites should be regulated. The PCC leapt into action, announcing that it would be regulating audio and video on newspaper and magazine websites (it already claimed to regulate text on such websites).
The likely message that the committee will hear from most of those who send them evidence is that there's little wrong with the PCC's code that actually applying it rigorously and with penalties wouldn't sort out. Since the Select Committee said much the same itself in 2003, it seems unlikely they will take a different approach now.
The Committee will act quickly with written evidence to be in by February 26th and oral evidence to be heard in March.
The likely message that the committee will hear from most of those who send them evidence is that there's little wrong with the PCC's code that actually applying it rigorously and with penalties wouldn't sort out. Since the Select Committee said much the same itself in 2003, it seems unlikely they will take a different approach now.
The Committee will act quickly with written evidence to be in by February 26th and oral evidence to be heard in March.
Tuesday, 6 February 2007
Inquiry launched
Pressure continues to build over concerns about media invasions of privacy. The Loreena McKennitt verdict in the Appeal Court has strengthened the use of breach of confidentiality in privacy cases and offers considerable guidance over how to handle intrusion and the direction the courts intend heading.
Meanwhile, MPs have become also become more concerned about privacy invasions and the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee has decided to hold an inquiry into Press self regulation to investigate the efficacy of the Press Complaints Commission. These concerns have been triggered by the recent illegal access to voicemail messages (see earlier post) and the treament of public figures by photographers - a clear reference to the paparazzi harassment of Kate Middleton. The inquiry will ask whether self regulation offers sufficent protection over privacy; whether the PCC code needs amending; whether existing law on the disclosure of personal information should be strengthened and what form of regulation (if any) should apply to online news provision. The inquiry will be quick with submissions invited by Feb 26 and oral evidence in early March.
It's difficult to tell at this early stage how significant this inquiry might be, but with the last inquiry only three years ago, the PCC probably wishes that the CMS committee would go back to worrying about gambling.
Meanwhile, MPs have become also become more concerned about privacy invasions and the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee has decided to hold an inquiry into Press self regulation to investigate the efficacy of the Press Complaints Commission. These concerns have been triggered by the recent illegal access to voicemail messages (see earlier post) and the treament of public figures by photographers - a clear reference to the paparazzi harassment of Kate Middleton. The inquiry will ask whether self regulation offers sufficent protection over privacy; whether the PCC code needs amending; whether existing law on the disclosure of personal information should be strengthened and what form of regulation (if any) should apply to online news provision. The inquiry will be quick with submissions invited by Feb 26 and oral evidence in early March.
It's difficult to tell at this early stage how significant this inquiry might be, but with the last inquiry only three years ago, the PCC probably wishes that the CMS committee would go back to worrying about gambling.
Monday, 29 January 2007
Jail for Goodman
At a time when the Home Office is struggling with prison places, it seems a little harsh to send Clive Goodman, the royal editor of the News of The World, to jail for tapping the phone of Prince William. However his four month sentence will be seen by many as a serious warning that unwarranted intrusions into people's privacy are likely to attract punishment from the courts and minimal sympathy from the public.
NoW Editor Andy Coulson later resigned, confirming the view of many that an editor should know what is going on in his paper and should not be condoning, implicitly or explicitly such intrusive journalism; journalism that is in clear breach of the PCC's code of practice.
No doubt some will see this sentence as an attack on the freedom of the press and the freedom of journalists to dig for stories. Of course it is nothing of the sort. Goodman's ethods were underhanded and deceitful, intended to dig out stories that would boost circulation rather than reveal information of public importance.
What may be worrying is that a rising revulsion about the methods employed by some journalists might allow the government to clamp down on freedom of information and to limit access to data that might be in the public interest, all in the name of protecting privacy. It is vital journalists behave professionally to prevent giving government the excuse to cut off access to those stories that matter.
NoW Editor Andy Coulson later resigned, confirming the view of many that an editor should know what is going on in his paper and should not be condoning, implicitly or explicitly such intrusive journalism; journalism that is in clear breach of the PCC's code of practice.
No doubt some will see this sentence as an attack on the freedom of the press and the freedom of journalists to dig for stories. Of course it is nothing of the sort. Goodman's ethods were underhanded and deceitful, intended to dig out stories that would boost circulation rather than reveal information of public importance.
What may be worrying is that a rising revulsion about the methods employed by some journalists might allow the government to clamp down on freedom of information and to limit access to data that might be in the public interest, all in the name of protecting privacy. It is vital journalists behave professionally to prevent giving government the excuse to cut off access to those stories that matter.
Friday, 19 January 2007
Big Brother row
The big story in Media Ethics today is the Big Brother row. It offers some difficulties to journalists in that reporting it risks repeating some of the material that has already drawn so much criticism. If the material is offensive or likely to spark racial hatred when transmitted by Big Brother, the offence is no less if reported by journalists. Most seem to have coped with this problem by concentrating on the row rather than the detail of what caused it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.JPG)
.JPG)