Law Lecture 4 - Privacy and Confidentiality

Privacy and confidentiality is probably the second most important thing (legally) a Journo must be aware of after defamation. Under Section 8 of the Human Rights Act, even citizen has a right to privacy. However, whilst people have this right, that doesn't mean reporters are suddenly prevented from reporting about celebrities and other public figures.

There are no problems with publishing pictures (for example) of people for a couple of reasons. Firstly, if that person is on a clear public duty. One famous example in regards to privacy issues related to this. The Princess Caroline of Monaco, legally prevented photographers from taking her picture. One exception to this was if she on a clear public duty (the example used was if she was handing over the trophy at the European Cup final).

Secondly, it's okay to publish pictures if there's consent. This can come either as implicit or explicit. Implicit is when there hasn't been a signed contract, but when someone has posed for the camera or given some hint that they're okay with being photographed. Explicit is when there has been a verbal or written agreement that pictures are okay to be published (such as during fashion shoots etc).

Confidentiality is something that everyone has unless they have signed it away. It's applicable where people to have a reasonable expectation to confidentiality, such as at the doctors or in a private meeting. Curiously, parents are expected to maintain a degree of confidentiality with things their children tell them, but it is not the same the other way round.

Unlike defamation, which is easier to prove, breach of confidence is harder. For something to be confidential, there has to be:

The necessary quality of confidence

AND circumstances imposing an obligation (i.e. a reasonable person would expect something to be kept in confidence such as medical issues at a doctors)

AND there is no permission to publish the information

AND there is a detriment likely to be caused to the person who gave the information (they have to PROVE they've been damaged).

Law Lecture 3 - Defamation

Defamation is the act of either slandering or libelling someone. There are four criteria in which this is measured:

*Causing someone to be lowered in the estimation of right thinking people

*Causing someone to be shunned or avoided

*Disparages someone in their business, trade or profession

*Exposes them to ridicule, hatred or contempt.

As such, it makes it very easy to sue for defamation as all you have to do is prove one of those points. However there are some defences:

*Justification: What you say is true and you can prove it.

*Fair comment: Honestly held opinion based upon facts or priveleged material in the public interest.

*Absolute privilege: Reporting accurately what is said in court.

*Qualified privilege: Police quotes, press releases etc.

*Bane and antidote (defamation removed by context): Removing defamation later on in a story.

*Apologies and clarifications.

You have no defence when:

*You've not checked your facts

*When you've not referred up

*Not putting yourself in their shoes

*Get carried away by a spicy story

*Not bothered to wait for a lawyers opinion

It's crucial to be able to recognise risk as a journalist. Recognising risk can save you a lot of aggravation and potentially a lot of money. Consider who you're writing about and whether or not they're capable of suing. Chances are a postman in some county miles away isn't going to sue (although that doesn't give you an excuse to defame him), but someone like Elton John probably would. If you must write it, be certain you have a defence. If you aren't sure, ask a lawyer. More often than not, they aren't going to mind.

A Tale of Tuition Fees

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times", especially if you're a Liberal Democrat. On one hand, high profile members of the party such as Nick Clegg and Vince Cable occupy cushy Cabinet roles. On the other hand, failure to back up their pre-election pledge on tuition fees has seen support for the party collapse. A YouGov poll from this weekend puts the Lib Dems on a miniscule 10%. Compare this to their pre-election highs of 20%+ (when they were boosted by the live TV debates) it's been a spectacular fall from grace.

A lot of the press regarding the tuition fees protest last week quite

rightly focused on the damage to the Conservative party's HQ at

Millbank. What the press didn't focus on so much was the chants from the crowd before the violence. Among the more polite was: "Nick Clegg we know you, you're a fucking Tory too!"

It's fair to say that students feel as though they've been betrayed by the Lib Dems. This fact was compounded by the leaked documents that revealed that the Lib Dems wouldn't be able to maintain the tuition fee pledge if they were elected. To say that Nick Clegg is, politically, a dead man walking would be one heck of an understatement.

To make matters even worse for Clegg and the Lib Dems, the National Union of Students have revealed they will launch a campaign to remove Clegg and other top Lib Dems from office. Even IF the coalitions lasts the distance and survives five years and IF these dreadful past few months are forgotten by the public, it sure as hell won't be forgotten by the Labour party. They'll ensure that there's no easy ride and all this will get dragged back into the limelight to show the the Lib Dems can no longer be trusted.

For Nick Clegg, life is bleak. Hated by students, not trusted by his party, seen as a lapdog to the Tories by the public and little more than a teaboy to the Tories themselves. Clegg's political life, which promised so much before the election, has now stumbled its way to a masochistic dead end.

Law Lecture 2 - Prejudice

Prejudice leads to contempt, contempt leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering! Ahem...sorry.

So yeah, we learnt some more about prejudice and what you can report and when. A key aspect of this was learning when a court case becomes active. For the record, this is:

When the police make an arrest

Issue a warrant

Magistrates issue a summons

When a person is charged

As a journalist, this greatly restricts what we can and cannot report. Before a person is arrested, there isn't much in the way of restriction for a Journo. That's because there isn't a person that can be prejudged and no courts to be held in contempt of. Once a person is arrested however, there are a whole bunch of restrictions that slam into place. This is to ensure that a person gets a fair trial (and to prevent you from getting chucked into jail for contempt!) Once a trial has commenced, the only things a Journo can report on are:

The names of the defendant, their age, address and occupation

What they're charged with or a close summary

Name of the court and the magistrates name

Name of solicitors/barristers present

Date and place court is adjourned to

Bail arrangements

The legal aid that's been granted

It's also important to remember that isn't isn't just the Crown Prosecution Service that can prosecute people. While they may do the bulk, organisations like the RSPCA, Health and Safety Executive etc can also prosecute and there are also some private prosecutions.

Perhaps the most important aspect of court reporting is to remember that it has to be fast, accurate and fair. You can't keep a juicy days court reporting locked up for a slow news day in a weeks time. By that time it's out of date and no good. Plus, it may well land you in some trouble!

Law Lecture 1 - Overview

The first law lecture of the year was more of an overview as to what the course would involve. To me, it was very similar to stuff that we'd already learnt in the first year (which I guess is a good thing).

The key theme of this course is how the law affects journalists, both for the better and for the worse. An understanding of the law makes you a better journalist and also manages to keep you out of prison!

Perhaps the key skill to take from law, even if the exact details are forgotten, is to recognise risk. Say you're working on a murder case, the risk of contempt of court is very high. Not only do you risk the case being thrown out, but you also risk being sent to jail yourself.

To me, law for a journalist is a handy tool to keep in mind and up to date. I guess I'd better go out and buy the latest McNae's...

WINOL Week 8!

I think people were concerned that this wasn't an especially good bulletin. Personally, I think we did okay considering the pressure we were under, what with the BJTC being here.

Luckily it seems they were very impressed with the set-up we have in Winchester. It appeared to me that they were taken aback with what we've done. In particular, they were very keen on our election coverage. I think they also liked that we weren't given an easy ride. The semi-pro method of working was also something I don't think they were expecting.

As for the bulletin itself, I thought it was okay. We've certainly produced better, but also a lot worse. As was pointed out in our de-brief, our links and script are none too great. There was also a breakdown in communication at one stage, as our bulletin ran over time in the rehearsals.

Despite this, we were able to get back on track with a hasty re-edit of some packages just before we went live. I like to this this shows how well we work as a team now as it was done calmly and with minimum fuss.

Now that we've done the hard work and finished our genuine news broadcasts, it's time to kick back, relax and do a best-of package for this coming Wednesday. The end is nigh...

WINOL Election Coverage!

WINOL's first ever election broadcast was a fantastic success. It wasn't flawless, but nothing is. What we have to look at is what we accomplished and the context in which we managed that.

To an outsider, the task we set ourselves would have seemed insurmountable. Here we were, a collection of students, giving live election coverage with outside broadcasts and news packages to provide context for the viewers.

This is, as far as I can tell, no different to what Channel 4, the BBC or Sky News provided for their viewers. The only difference was the failings of modern technology. In terms of journalistic integrity, we were no worse off than any of the big guns.

I think we may have tried to go a bit too far with our Skype link to Austria. While a nice idea in principle, the technology wasn't good enough and having an expert who couldn't speak English also proved to be a bit too much of a hinderance.

Presenting was a consistent strong point. Graham Bell is a total pro and Claire did excellently, especially considering she had no script and everything went a bit Pete Tong around then. On a personal note I was absolutely bricking it about being on camera, but as soon as I answered that first question I felt far more comfortable and even wanted to answer more questions!

It seems likely that we'll be having another election soon. If that results in another WINOL election night, I think we can bank on another success and hopefully an even better show!