1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, .. 10 Point Test!

So, after a tiring walk from the hill to our class (where we were supposed to be) we were welcomed by a sign that told us we were in the lecture theatre for our lesson. This meant an even longer walk for us across the university in the cold wind with 5 minutes before Chris would start 'dead on 10am'. The lecture ended up in the room that had 'technical problems' the previous day, which appeared to not have been fixed. The lecture consisted of the lighting going on and off, bright and dark, the computer connection to the projector coming and going and the camera at Chris' deck zooming in and out (which did frighten Chris as he couldn't work out what was going on as he shouted 'what the hells happening'. Anyway regardless to all this, we did still come away with an understanding of something, helped by the use of an article in 'The Sun' the most popular being about the worst team ever.. Man U!

The 10 point test was invented by Judge Lord Nicholls, which is an indicator for all Journalists into what should be included in a media piece in order for it to be responsible Journalism. 

It came about in the appeal stage of Albert Reynolds vs Sunday Times (1999), when he defined protection against defamation, so long as the reporter was working without malice and as long as it was a matter of ‘public interest’ which means that it is not a private matter. Nicholls said 'The Press discharges vital functions as a bloodhound as well as a watchdog'  The court can conclude that if a publication is not in the public interest, the public do not have a right to know and can be taken libel. This includes politics and it's discussions. The 10 point test was designed as a curriculum for Journalism which covers to an extent legal protection if each point is covered.

1. Is the accusation serious (this determines the prosecution)
2. Nature of the information (is the matter of public concern)
3. The source of information (the more authoritative the source, the more you are entitled to report their allegations - would they have a reason to lie to me?).
4. The steps taken to verify the information ( try to get the accused side of the story)
5. Status of information (can't be an old allegation that has been previously denied or dismissed as this will no longer have protection).
6. The urgency of the matter (quickest source of news to be published)
7. Whether comment was sought for the claimant (try to get the other side of the story in order for them to say why it might be untrue which should be included in the report).
8. Whether the article contained the gist of the claimants side of the story (points 4&7).
9. Tone of the article (the source should be named, try not to put points across as facts)
10. Circumstances and timing of the publication (the allegations should be brought to public attention quickly).

The Galloway Case (Reynolds defence fails):

The Daily Telegraph attempted a Reynolds defence to an action from George Galloway after the broadsheet made serious defamatory allegations against him where there was no defence of Justification or Comment as they were reporting ‘second hand’ what had been said in court.The paper was said to have been quoting a source in which they trust. The Telegraph lost the case because the journalist failed the ’10 point test’ – mainly because the paper did not put all its allegations to Galloway for him to deny before they published the information step 7&8 (even though they did make a quick phone call to him). If the reporter had given Galloway the opportunity to see all the ‘secret documents’ it had been given, and allowed him a chance to persuade the reporter they were not true, then there may not have been a legal action.

If the matter is good for the public interest, the jury will decide

There was a recent case in 'The Sun' which I will review as an article claimed that the popular 'fish pedicure' treatment could spread HIV and Hep C. This article could claim to be in the public interest as it full fills one of the points that tell Journalists which sort of cases are in the public interest. This is not defined specifically anywhere however is mentioned in the PCC (Press Complaints Commission).

1.  Detecting or exposing crime
2. Protecting health and safety
3. Preventing the public from being mislead from an action or statement    

Therfore it can be proven that the fish spa article is in the public interest as it caters for their health, and if the facts are proven it can also prevent the public from being mislead by the allegation that fish spa's are good for your feet and can't put anyones health at risk.