To start this blog, I am going to review from a Journalistic perspective a students work about 'rat infestation' in the West End theatres. This work appears to be good and entertaining, however there are a lot of problems concerning the law that are evident.
The video starts with an immediate invasion into peoples privacy as they are clearly identified by the general view shot that has been used. This was mentioned by Valene Nazareth who is the head lawyer for the BBC as the most common problem with Journalists work. Throughout the video there are many shots that identify different theatres in the West End that Holly claims to have an infestation of rats. This is libel for defamation towards the managers of the theatres as it will stop people from going to watch shows. The theatres have been clearly identified through the use of image and naming them individually. The piece has clearly been publicised as it is broadcast on YouTube as a newsworthy story to a 3rd person.
There are also no defences that will help Holly as she has no justification of evidence that this is true as well as no reliable sources. It cannot all be viewed as comment as she has tried to use people that are higher up to try and make her story seem more realistic. There is also no qualified privilege as this case has not been taken to court and she has not quoted people directly. Therefore this piece of work is libel to being sued for by many different people for obvious mistakes that even I can pick up on as a 1st year journalist.
Something that I find extraordinary about this piece of work is the identification of a local pub that Holly claims has had rats for over 6 months without reporting it to the local authority. The pub has been clearly identified with its name as well as its street number and street location (which she deliberately zooms in on!) This is extremely defamatory to its owners as everyone watching this will believe this pub is full of rats and fleas meaning they will avoid it and wont eat or drink there anymore.
Following this claim that the pub is also infested as well as the theatres with no source to speak on behalf of the pub or any facts to prove this allegation comes an interview. Looking at this interview being a journalist, straight away it came to my attention that the source was 'protected' as Holly claimed. However immediately after telling the audience this, the source is shown whilst being interviewed. This is a big mistake to make in journalism as if a source is 'protected' they will not ever be identified by image. Using a blind source, which means they don't want to be shown is dangerous to journalists as the person can then say anything they want to. To be safe, their name should be revealed as this way they need to be careful with what they are saying which means it is more likely to be true. This source we discovered is in fact a friend of Holly's from her journalism course that faked the interview. She did not work in theatres and had no experience of theatres or what they are like backstage. This is one of the worst possible things a journalist could ever do as they have scripted what this 'source' should say in order to make her story more accurate.
We are not even a minute into this video yet and we are introduced to even more problems such as copyright of images (which you can be sued for if the person says they can be used if they are credited) as well as an exaggerated 'survey' to try and make her story more accurate. Although the survey may not have been made up entirely, there is no source of where this information has come from or who has conducted this survey which yet again makes her information less believable.
She does have an interview with an assistant general secretary, Martin Brown which yet again makes her story seem more efficient. However he doesn't appear to discuss the matter of rats being in theatres and instead talks about theatre in general. This makes us question what sorts of things she has asked this secretary to use in this story to make it appear more professional and true. She also has the voice of Terry Clark who is a Pest Exterminator that is a positive thing despite the fact he doesn't mention having any cases to deal with in the West End theatres. The interview is also played over a montage of images that clearly have copyright issues as they are not her own and have not been credited.
She then goes on to interview members of the public where she tells them about the rat infestation and asks them about their time at the theatre. Funnily enough they all go against her idea of rats being in the theatres and tend to generally disagree. In some cases they even make a joke out of her news story and find it funny that there are supposed to be rats amongst them in the theatre. This film is only just over 2 minutes long and has so many points that Holly could be sued for, so how did this ever receive an award? All we know is that is has helped us to pick out and understand crucial law mistakes which is what Valene Nazareth believes to be a main skill that a journalist needs to be able to do.
This idea was also taken from a newspaper article in the The Telegraph that talks about the conditions back stage in theatres. Holly has then decided to take the idea of rat infestation and exaggerate it based on no evidence that rats infest the London theatres.
0 comments:
Post a Comment