It is good as trainee journalists to watch how the reporters work their way around the restrictions of what they can/can't say during court stories on the news. I watched the court trials that are current at the moment last night on the BBC and noticed that they used the word 'alleged' over and over again so that the public do not get the wrong idea. Sometimes they say that they 'cannot report due to legal reasons' as it is safer to say this than go into details and get sued for it.
The key thing when reporting is to recognise any potential risk your story may have. If you think you are heading into trouble and you are working for a large company such as the BBC then run it past the lawyer to make sure that you are safe. The Judicial Review is the administrative part of the High Court where campaigners for example can try and make the ministers think again about a decision they are making. Ofcom, PCC, BBC Editorial Guidelines and the code of conduct are all things in place to give you rules and advice on how you should behave ethically. This has become an important part of reporting now since The Leveson Enquiry.
There is a debate in the media at the moment as to who will regulate the written press. The PCC failed when it came to the phone hacking so now there is a decision between the government, politicians VS the newspapers. There will be a regulation that doesn't include statutes; whereas regulation is settled in broadcast now.
Dave Lee Travis, Bill Roache and Rolf Harris are all current big court news stories that are taking place at the moment and should be followed. On the news on Tuesday 14th, it was the start of Dave Lee trial so you get the prosecution opening which is always great for journalists. This is where they list all of the bad things the suspect has done and as it is said in court; can all be reported. There is an interesting point to rise here that the public do not generally know this; we only do as journalists. Therefore when reporting as the BBC did, it can come across to the general public that they are stating this person has done all of the things listed wrong. They will then think that this person is guilty because the way the news has portrayed them.
There is also the debate as seen in the 'Nigella case', where they were a witness but believed they should also have a lawyer representing them. In a working news room, everyone is always looking for legal issues and the way their package is worded. Last year a new law of libel and defamation was put into place which may reduce the risk of journalists getting into trouble. The claimant will now have to show that there was 'serious harm' done to them. It was said that the Act would provide clearer, better protection for people publicly expressing opinions.'
This new law should stop any future cases similar to that of 'Mclibel' which was when two campaigners were handing out leaflets against McDonald's food explaining how bad it was for you. These people could not afford lawyers when McDonald's sued them, but did well in keeping them in the courts which cost the company a lot of money. With the new law in place these people would never have been taken to court as there is no evidence that a couple of people can affect the reputation of a world wide corporation.
Journalists have absolute privilege over anything that is heard in court, meaning they can report whatever the jury are told. There is also qualified privilege which means if a good worthy source such as a policeman gives a press conference, we can report what has been said if its believed to be true even if several months down the line it appears to be untrue.
Parliament also has a lot of privilege as they can name people which can also be reported by the press as in the case of Ryan Giggs. There is a confidentiality and privacy law that journalists also need to take into account. The NSA and wiki leaks are a key case to this as is the Snowden case where it was believed to be in the public interest as the people were breaking the law. 'Everyone has the right to privacy' (Human Rights Act) but journalists need to be aware of how far they can go before they are breaching someones privacy. To some extent the Royal Family are always on public duty as this is their job so they can be filmed almost everywhere to some extent.
When Naomi Campbell was papped leaving a narcotics meeting of some sort she sued and won the damages as there is a high chance she was not there for herself. It was an invasion of her privacy which to some extent could have ruined her reputation. You need to make a safe judgement as to weather it is in the public interest or not.
Freedom of Information (FOI) is another way you can get information to make a great news story. There have been a couple of good examples this week in the news such as: the health authorities in A&E not being able to find enough doctors and the other one that revealed some people visit A&E over 50 times a year with drink and drug problems which is taking up a lot of other peoples waiting time. These FOI need to be sent off in advance as they can take a long time to get back to you; and may not actually give you the answers you are looking for.
Copyright is another important aspect of journalism, we need to always look at where our images are from and if we can use them. There was an example last year in Southampton with the pub being named 'The Hobbit' being sued by someone from the film makers; however the pub still has the name as someone payed out the damages. There will be a lot of restrictions when it comes to reporting the European elections in May. It will be interesting to see how the reporters go about reporting it and how they keep it fair by giving equal air time etc to all parties.
By knowing about legal issues around stories gives you a head start above everyone else when it comes to working in the profession. You should think about what will happen next and how what you do or report may affect the family or victims of the person. For example Milly Dowler's mum was affected largely by the hacking of her phone from the News of the World as it lead her to believing her daughter was still alive.
Alison Saunders was the first ever women DPP- director of public prosecutions. She decides weather to proceed with public prosecution and if there is enough sufficient evidence. The DPP are in charge of the CPS- Crown Prosecution Service and decides weather it is in the public interest to prosecute.
There are many historic case abuse cases in the media at the moment as mentioned above; however the question arises as to how far back you go. When is it too difficult or legally incorrect making it an unfair trial for the prosecutions. I personally think that there needs to be a law as to how many years back cases can go. It makes me wonder what evidence there is from all of these years ago and how much to an extent the defendant can twist words and exaggerate once the case is in the courts etc. On the other hand the legal system is a lot better today so there may be ways in which they can still cover cases and be certain on facts from all of these years ago.
The Attorney General advises the government and is a politician on legal matters. The MP's are usually lawyers generally speaking. Dominic Grieve is interesting to journalists as he monitors the press broadcasting output and notifies you if you are pushing your legal boundaries.
Supreme Court
|
Court of Appeal
|
High Court
(different divisions)
-Family
-Business (chancelling)
-Queens bench(criminal appeals but mainly civil)
| |
Crown Court
| |
Coroners Court Magistrates Court (ordinary people are magistrates)
(inquests- source of news)
|
| Tribunals (lawyers legally trained)
Mainly civil- losing job, employment, civil
County Court
(civil route to sue someone like a builder-
contract where you lose money.)
The Supreme Court is the highest court and has 12 justices at its place in Parliament Square. Their website actually allows you to watch live.
I have just watched the BBC News at 6pm 16/01/14 and where there was yet again coverage from the sex abuse cases. There wasn't a lot that came out from the David Travis as the news reader gave a brief over view but used words such as 'witness', 'the court told', 'denies all charges'. This is to make it clear that the information is from the court and its case.
However in the William Roache case similar words were used 'witness' 'he denies' etc. What is interesting to me is that they had filmed the house that William used to live in where the women was allegedly raped. They did make it clear that he does not live in this home anymore but they would have had to have consent to film this house wouldn't they to be saying that a rape took place there? It made me wonder as when they went to another house they only show a little bit from above of the street and then focus on the rooftop. I am unsure why this is and makes me wonder as to weather the person living there did not want it filmed. They used drawings on screen to explain what happened in court along with quotations on screen showing what the lady was saying. They end the package with 'he denies all charges' to even out the package and make sure that they aren't portraying that he is or isn't guilty.
0 comments:
Post a Comment