The main reasons for having codes of practice is that they provide a benchmark for behaviour and maintain professional standards in journalism. Codes of practice are important for guiding journalists through ethical issues like how far can a journalist go to get a story and what practices are legitimate to use. An example of this would be breaking the law to exploit a criminal, is this a legitimate practice? If the journalist could demonstrate that the story is in the public interest then it quite possibly is!
The key areas are covered in all codes of practice are ethical behaviour, fair treatment, the respect for privacy and the requirement for accuracy and impartiality. Most codes of practice will also include a code to protect vulnerable groups in society like children; for example identifying a child through jigsaw identification might be a breach of a code even though the child wasn't explicitly identified.
The three main regulatory bodies for codes are as follows -
PCC (Press Complaints Commission)
The PCC regulates newspapers and magazines. It is a self regulatory body and is seen as a toothless tiger i.e. not very fierce. Their code doesn't really mention impartiality and that is why newspapers do not have to be balanced. This can be showed by the sun for example who have a clear political allegiance towards the Conservatives and never include real balance in politics stories. Most of the PCC's polices can be breached if it is demonstrated to be in the public interest.
Ofcom
Ofcom regulates broadcasters so TV and radio. In comparison to the PCC Ofcom are very fierce and have a lot of power. They can order a programme not to be repeated, they can impose fines and even have the power to revoke broadcast liscences. Also if a broadcaster does breach one of Ofcom's policies then it must stated in another public broadcast normally with an apology.
The most famous Ofcom breach or recent times is the Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross scandal where they phoned up Andrew Sachs and left obscene messages on his answer pone referring to his granddaughter. Ofcom fined the BBC £150,000 for this. Other large fines have been imposed by Ofcom for competitions fixes and fake phone-ins. ITV were fined a record £5.675million because viewers were phoning in on premium rate numbers when the competitions were already fixed.
Ofcom enforces impartiality as a requirement for broadcasters but not for newspapers (as mentioned above). They also insist on an absence of bias or preconception all broadcasters must consider the 'axis of debate'.
BBC Code
The BBC code is a guide for BBC employees. It protects the BBC and like the PCC is self regulating and so not as harsh as an independent body such as Ofcom.
Thursday 25 November 2010
Thursday 18 November 2010
Media Law - More on the Freedom of Information Act
The basic principle of the Freedom of Information Act is that "any person making a request for information to a public authority is entitled... to have that information communicated to him" The idea behind it was that taxpayers pay (through tax) for the information to be produced therefore they own the information and should have access to it.
Over 130,000 public bodies are covered by the act and over 100,000 FOI requests are made a year at an estimated cost of £34million. Official figures state that of these 100,000 FOI requests only 12% of them come from journalists. However since you do not need to state that you are a journalist when requesting information critics would that journalists just lie as you would probably get a different answer if you say you are a journalist. Therefore the actual figure of journalists requesting information may be a lot higher.
Tony Blair introduced the Freedom of Information Act in 2005 and when reflecting back on it he said: "You idiot. You naive, foolish, irresponsible nincompoop. There is really no description of stupidity, no matter how vivid, that is adequate. I quake at the imbecility of it." He later explained why he thought it was such a bad idea; "If you are trying to take a difficult decision and you're weighing up the pros and cons, you have frank conversations... And if those conversations then are put out in a published form that afterwards are liable to be highlighted in particular ways, you are going to be very cautious. That's why it's not a sensible thing."
Right now, we are in the golden age of freedom of information. Anything that is written down can be requested and everything before 2005 was written down so all those years of information are highly accessible. However now everything is spoken so there is no access to it.
Freedom of information requests have to be in writing but email is fine. FOI requests can be refused if obtaining the information would exceed £600 or the information is exempt. There are two types of exemptions:
After putting in an FOI request, the relevant authority has 60 days in total to provide the information but they must contact you within 20 days, for example they may just say, "We have received your request." If after 60 days they have not provided the information then you can go to internal review, if that fails as well then you can go to an information commisioner, if you still have no luck you can go to an information tribunal and your last resort is the high court. This would take a lot of money and determination though. Funnily enough this is how the MP's expenses scandal story made it's way into the headlines, as the Daily Mail did not give up and eventually obtained the information and published it.
Over 130,000 public bodies are covered by the act and over 100,000 FOI requests are made a year at an estimated cost of £34million. Official figures state that of these 100,000 FOI requests only 12% of them come from journalists. However since you do not need to state that you are a journalist when requesting information critics would that journalists just lie as you would probably get a different answer if you say you are a journalist. Therefore the actual figure of journalists requesting information may be a lot higher.
Tony Blair introduced the Freedom of Information Act in 2005 and when reflecting back on it he said: "You idiot. You naive, foolish, irresponsible nincompoop. There is really no description of stupidity, no matter how vivid, that is adequate. I quake at the imbecility of it." He later explained why he thought it was such a bad idea; "If you are trying to take a difficult decision and you're weighing up the pros and cons, you have frank conversations... And if those conversations then are put out in a published form that afterwards are liable to be highlighted in particular ways, you are going to be very cautious. That's why it's not a sensible thing."
Right now, we are in the golden age of freedom of information. Anything that is written down can be requested and everything before 2005 was written down so all those years of information are highly accessible. However now everything is spoken so there is no access to it.
Freedom of information requests have to be in writing but email is fine. FOI requests can be refused if obtaining the information would exceed £600 or the information is exempt. There are two types of exemptions:
- Absolute exemptions - For example, national security and military opertions information and court records.
- Qualified exemptions - For example, ministerial communications and commercial confidentiality.
After putting in an FOI request, the relevant authority has 60 days in total to provide the information but they must contact you within 20 days, for example they may just say, "We have received your request." If after 60 days they have not provided the information then you can go to internal review, if that fails as well then you can go to an information commisioner, if you still have no luck you can go to an information tribunal and your last resort is the high court. This would take a lot of money and determination though. Funnily enough this is how the MP's expenses scandal story made it's way into the headlines, as the Daily Mail did not give up and eventually obtained the information and published it.
Thursday 11 November 2010
Media Law - More on Copyright
Without copyright protection journalism never would have flourished. Copyright maintains exclusivity which gives our product value. Respect other people's copyright in the hope they respect yours.
Getting it wrong will cost you money, embarrassment and stress and reputation for competence. Newspapers have been 'lifting' each other's storys for years, they are able to do this but only under strict criteria. The concept of fair dealing is used in newspapers for the purpose of reporting current events. This allows newspapers to lift stories from rival newspapers and even quotes; but they would have to attribute the original newspaper and display them in a way similar to "Ian said to The Sun..." Under the concept of fair dealing the story must also be in the public interest, which it probably is anyway if another newspaper has already reported it. The usage obviously must also be 'fair' hence the term 'fair dealing'.
Not only does fair dealing allow wider reporting of stories in public interest, but I mentioned in my previous blog regarding copyright, it allows criticism and review of copyright material and allows the broadcast of news orbits of film stars so you can also use famous movie clips for free.
Photographs are never subject to fair dealing unless they have a creative commons license, see my other blog about that here. The danger area is the internet, for example YouTube. In the past many people used to make videos with copyrighted songs as the soundtrack however record labels soon put a stop by this by claiming breach of copyright and forcing youtube to remove the audio from the video. YouTube has now found it's own way to get round this too by adding links to download the song from the video. See the screen shot below for an example of this.
The key points to remember about copyright are as follows -
Getting it wrong will cost you money, embarrassment and stress and reputation for competence. Newspapers have been 'lifting' each other's storys for years, they are able to do this but only under strict criteria. The concept of fair dealing is used in newspapers for the purpose of reporting current events. This allows newspapers to lift stories from rival newspapers and even quotes; but they would have to attribute the original newspaper and display them in a way similar to "Ian said to The Sun..." Under the concept of fair dealing the story must also be in the public interest, which it probably is anyway if another newspaper has already reported it. The usage obviously must also be 'fair' hence the term 'fair dealing'.
Not only does fair dealing allow wider reporting of stories in public interest, but I mentioned in my previous blog regarding copyright, it allows criticism and review of copyright material and allows the broadcast of news orbits of film stars so you can also use famous movie clips for free.
Photographs are never subject to fair dealing unless they have a creative commons license, see my other blog about that here. The danger area is the internet, for example YouTube. In the past many people used to make videos with copyrighted songs as the soundtrack however record labels soon put a stop by this by claiming breach of copyright and forcing youtube to remove the audio from the video. YouTube has now found it's own way to get round this too by adding links to download the song from the video. See the screen shot below for an example of this.
The key points to remember about copyright are as follows -
- Recognise copyright issues early
- Contacting rights holders takes time
- Tell others if you have copyright cleared
- Don't lift material without referencing it up
Friday 5 November 2010
Media Law - Copyright and Freedom of Information
Copyright
Copyright protects intellectual property. This means something you have done or made yourself. You can't copyright an idea until you have actually started work on it and you can show that someone has copied you. If you work for someone else then generally the copyright belongs to your employer unless there is some sort of special agreement. Also any work that I do for my university course is considered property of the university. The general rule is do it yourself and you own it and it will be protected under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
There is a concept called 'fair dealing' in which you can use certain parts of copyrighted material for reviewing purposes or similar uses. Fair dealing is used in the news all the time when they show football highlights, which in most cases is just the goals. In the corner of the screen you will often see something like 'Pictures from Sky Sports'. This comes under fair dealing and in most cases you will have to credit the person that the copyrighted material belongs to, not doing so will give you less protection under the law. If you wanted to show a film you would have more fair dealing protection if you showed someone watching the film in an over the shoulder shot. For reviewing a film or a video game you would be able to show clips of it as long as you were talking over it and you were only showing the clip for critical or reviewing purposes.
During the production of the WINOL news bulletin this week we encountered a copyright problem which we used fair dealing to get around. To introduce our guest Chesney Hawkes on to the show we wanted to show a clip of his only hit, 'The One and Only' so people would know who he was. We used a 5 second clip of the music video and had a caption saying 'Property of EMI records' over the video which I think is enough to be considered as fair dealing.
For copyright free images there a method of licensing called 'Creative Commons' where you can use images that belong to someone else as long as you credit them and link to their website. There may also be other restrictions like no cropping/editing of the image etc. For more information about Creative Commons see this video interview with Esther Wojcicki, chairperson of the board of Creative Commons.
Freedom of Information
The Freedom of Information Act (2000) is a statute which requires all public authorities to publish all their internal documentation on demand and publish a schedule of all the information that they have. If you put in a FOI request then the authority must provide you with the information in a reasonable time with the absolute maximum amount of time being 60 days at which point you can take your request to an information enforcer. The only excuse for not providing information is that it would be too expensive to do so. All national security and military operations information is exempt.
The website whatdotheyknow.com is a massive online database of Freedom of Information requests and you can also make requests from the website. The great MP's expenses story all started with a Freedom of Information request so this proves that FOI requests can be very useful in providing great public interest news stories.
Copyright protects intellectual property. This means something you have done or made yourself. You can't copyright an idea until you have actually started work on it and you can show that someone has copied you. If you work for someone else then generally the copyright belongs to your employer unless there is some sort of special agreement. Also any work that I do for my university course is considered property of the university. The general rule is do it yourself and you own it and it will be protected under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
There is a concept called 'fair dealing' in which you can use certain parts of copyrighted material for reviewing purposes or similar uses. Fair dealing is used in the news all the time when they show football highlights, which in most cases is just the goals. In the corner of the screen you will often see something like 'Pictures from Sky Sports'. This comes under fair dealing and in most cases you will have to credit the person that the copyrighted material belongs to, not doing so will give you less protection under the law. If you wanted to show a film you would have more fair dealing protection if you showed someone watching the film in an over the shoulder shot. For reviewing a film or a video game you would be able to show clips of it as long as you were talking over it and you were only showing the clip for critical or reviewing purposes.
During the production of the WINOL news bulletin this week we encountered a copyright problem which we used fair dealing to get around. To introduce our guest Chesney Hawkes on to the show we wanted to show a clip of his only hit, 'The One and Only' so people would know who he was. We used a 5 second clip of the music video and had a caption saying 'Property of EMI records' over the video which I think is enough to be considered as fair dealing.
For copyright free images there a method of licensing called 'Creative Commons' where you can use images that belong to someone else as long as you credit them and link to their website. There may also be other restrictions like no cropping/editing of the image etc. For more information about Creative Commons see this video interview with Esther Wojcicki, chairperson of the board of Creative Commons.
Freedom of Information
The Freedom of Information Act (2000) is a statute which requires all public authorities to publish all their internal documentation on demand and publish a schedule of all the information that they have. If you put in a FOI request then the authority must provide you with the information in a reasonable time with the absolute maximum amount of time being 60 days at which point you can take your request to an information enforcer. The only excuse for not providing information is that it would be too expensive to do so. All national security and military operations information is exempt.
The website whatdotheyknow.com is a massive online database of Freedom of Information requests and you can also make requests from the website. The great MP's expenses story all started with a Freedom of Information request so this proves that FOI requests can be very useful in providing great public interest news stories.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)