DB15 Constraints on radio news production
Handling of
stories involving minors:
There are strict guidelines that the BBC and Ofcom enforce
when it comes to the handling of stories involving minors. News programmes
coverage of minors must uphold their dignity and show respect in an appropriate
way for the situation in which the minors are involved. Under section 9 of the BBC’s guidelines ‘Children
and Young People as Contributors Principles’, the BBC state that:
“We must ensure that the physical and emotional welfare and
the dignity of children and young people is protected during the making and
broadcast of our content, irrespective of any consent given by them or by a
parent, guardian or other person acting in loco parentis. Their interests and safety must take priority
over any editorial requirement.”
This is basically stating that young people MUST be protected
during broadcast involving them, as they are more emotionally and physically
vulnerable than adults, which means that more care must be taken into
consideration. Their dignity must be protected during broadcast and their young
age mustn’t be exploited during broadcast. It is also saying that no matter
what level of consent that parents give to the broadcaster, certain levels of
protection are ensured. The BBC goes on to say that they must ensure that “children
and young people are not caused unnecessary anxiety or distress by their
involvement in (their) output.” The involvement of children in a broadcast must
be editorially justified and appropriate consent must be given by a carer,
parent or someone in authority.
There are two cases of the handling of stories involving
minors that I am going to compare. The first is the James Bulger case, where in
Liverpool in 1993, a two year old boy was killed by two ten-year old boys. The
boy was abducted, tortured and subsequently murdered, before being left on train
tracks to make it seem like an accident. The two boy’s names were released,
which was due to extreme public interest in the crime and the heinous nature of
it. Their mugshots were also released and can be found anywhere. Once they were
released in around 2001, they were given new identities and have been given an
appropriate level of safety due to a real and significant fear of vigilante
attacks. Sixteen years later in 2009, 2 boys were also attacked by 2 other
boys, being horrifically tortured with knives and lighters. They survived and despite
the interest in the story, none of the boys names involved in the case were
released. This was probably due to s the Bulger case, where there have been
incidents where the convicted boys safety has been compromised.
Defamation is saying or writing something about someone that is not true and damages their reputation. Libel is writing or recording something false and damaging about someone and is a form of defamation. Under common law, to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false and have been made to someone other than the person defamed. Some common law jurisdictions also distinguish between spoken defamation, called slander, and defamation in other media such as printed words or images, called libel. Defamation can also be know as slander.
Libel law allows people to take actions for libel in a court against any published statements which may defame them or harm then in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession and causes any number of people to think worse/differently of the person. The published piece may seriously damage a person’s reputation and loss of respect by people and so this law is taken very seriously by newspapers, who seek to limit how much they defame someone. The defamation act 2013 was the most recent change to libel laws in the UK, which gives better protection to people expressing their opinion. An example from where libel has been used recently is from the ‘plebgate’ scandal. Andrew Mitchell attempted to sue The Sun for libel, claiming that he did not call police on Downing Street ‘f-ing plebs’. On the other hand, a police officer involved in the case has attempted to sue Andrew Mitchell for £200,000 for libel, claiming he lied about not using the insult. Mitchell had been sacked due to the affair and was looking for both libel and compensation. Sometimes a media organization will weigh up the pros and cons of running a story that isn't fully true or has murky details. For example, if a newspaper was to be fined £20,000 for a false story but the profits they gain from increased sales exceed that, they may still elect to run the story.
Coverage of Elections:
Certain aspects of the broadcasting media, such as the BBC and other TV channels, must always remain impartial during elections and not be politically bias. Television channels have great power in that they can reach millions in a single broadcast and if something was politically biased, then thousands could be swayed in the election. This would harm the democratic process. A broadcaster such as the BBC must give a fair amount of coverage to each party involved in the election. Some parties will have more than others, but this will be due to the fact they have more popularity than others. For example, the Labour Party will have more coverage than a party such as the Green's as they have more followers, more interest and are the opposition (due to second most amount of votes at the last election). A broadcaster must not show a clear bias, as it could deny a party votes. The BBC has been accused of harboring a left-wing bias, due to some of their editorial content. The news of political parties must also remain un-biased. So, a broadcaster could not constantly broadcast negative news about a party, but blend the positives with the negatives.
The official secrets act is a parliamentary act that stops people from disclosing certain information to any other parties. The information concerned will often be of a national security nature and it's release would result in a possible threat to the nation. Under the most recent 1989 Official Secrets Act, it has become an offence for a crown servant, Government contractor or member of the public who has official information to disclose any information in the following categories without lawful permission:
An example of an individual breaking the official secrets act can be seen from an incident in 2011. Royal Navy officer Edward Devenney, 30, gave secrets about a nuclear submarine to MI5 agents posing as Russian spies. In doing so, he breached the official secrets and put the country at risk, as he clearly made no hesitation in sharing defence secrets with a foreign nation. Devenney admitted the breach and was jailed for 8 years.
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20693785
This particular story is hugely within the public interest. He is often shown in the media and, along with his alliterative name, he has become a widely-known villain in a sense. Since he first appeared in a beheading video, people have wanted to know his name. 2 Britons, 3 Americans and 2 Japanese hostages have been killed by him and have each received extensive coverage. As his face was always covered during the beheadings, he has been a somewhat mysterious figure. People therefore want to know more about him, such as who he is, where he lived and why he is there, among other things. The particular news story on the topic I looked at was on The Daily Mail:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-2970259/IS-executioner-Jihadi-John-named-media.html
The story is of priority to both foreign and national locations. However, it can also be of priority to local places. For example, one of the victims was Alan Henning, who resided in Eccles and is where I live. I have followed the story with great interest as the story is quite close to home. I know that many other residents of Eccles will also be interested in the story. The immediacy of the story is quite high, as it is the sort of news that is likely to engage people and capture their attention. It was breaking news on the major 24/7 news channels (Sky News and BBC News) and it remained there for quite some time. The Daily Mail constantly updated the article throughout the day and released more articles. The story was breaking news on The Daily Mail's website and remained there for a couple of days as the headline at the top of the page.
The Daily Mail is a right-wing newspaper and therefore this sort of news will feature on the site. Unlike left wing newspapers which will try and play down the threat, the Daily Mail will openly show 'Jihadi John' as an evil monster.
There are many follow up angles that can and have been taken for this story. Firstly, there will be people who want to know who he is so a story may be about his young life living in London and an in-depth look at his background. There were also the inevitable stories about how he became radicalized, the culture of extremism among some young British Muslims and how he was able to go to Iraq. There are also stories such as how he was able to 'slip through the net' and how his family knew/didn't know about his extremism.
On several newspaper websites, there is available audio with visual packages. Some involves interview with people who knew him (CAGE charity workers) and soundbites of Emwazi himself, during the beheading videos. The newsroom policy would have been to display the news of Emwazi in a way that didn't cause some form of tensions. For example, they could not point blame at Muslims, because this could incite racial hatred. They may also decided on what to and what not to display on their news format. It is quite a tender subject which involves brutal murder, so editors and journalists would have to take care in order not to upset or offend. However, the Daily Mail has a right wing agenda and therefore will most likely put some right wing spin on the story. As mentioned, the story is getting quite a large amount of attention and therefore would be quite high on the public interest agenda.
A story that has gained an fair amount of coverage is the trial and sentencing of the former pop star Gary Glitter to 16 years in prison. Ever since the outing of Jimmy Savile as a prolific sex offender, many celebrities have been convicted of various sex offences. These have included Rolf Harris, Fred Talbot and various MP's. When he was sentenced, 24/7 news channels Sky News and BBC news provided live coverage of the events. The story was also headline news on that evening's 10 o'clock news programmes. The following morning, many national newspapers reported o it. However, the story was somewhat overshadowed by the news story about the naming of Jihadi John (above).
The story was reported in many media outlets, though I will be looking at the story from Sky News:
http://news.sky.com/story/1435401/gary-glitter-jailed-for-16-years-over-sex-attacks
Also, throughout the trial, Sky News provided updates throughout his sentencing:
http://news.sky.com/story/1435229/live-updates-gary-glitter-learns-his-fate
This story is generally within public interest, as people are interested in the whole series of sexual scandals involving celebrities. The news story is serious as it involves very serious charges and crimes, though it may have element of sensationalism due to the involvement of a celebrity. Celebrities have been being sentenced quite a lot over the past 3 years and many people have been following the events. To see someone who was once commonly in the public eye and a popular celebrity in court for such serious crimes is quite a big event and almost acts as a spectacle.
The story is national news as Gary Glitter is known across the nation as a prominent, though infamous, celebrity. Ever since his early convictions for child sex offences nearly 20 years ago, he has appeared frequently in the news for various crimes. He was prominent as an offender before the Savile inquest and Operation Yewtree, so unlike other celebrities he had a previous record. In a way this makes the story slightly less interesting, as it hasn't really come across as a MASSIVE shock. The news will generally be confined to the nation, as Glitter is not generally a big celebrity outside the country.
There was a high level of immediacy about the sentencing, as it is generally a big story. The story was constantly being updated on the Sky News website and once he received his sentence, the story was headline news on the website. This was because at the time, it was the biggest and most prominent news. However, unlike the Jihadi John story, the Glitter story quickly died down and within a couple of days it wasn't even a smaller link on the site. However, this may be due to the fact that the story does not have any follow up angles nor any lasting appeal.
In the news story, pictures of Gary Glitter's life were included. This is to provide a visual demonstration for readers of the story. It is also to show Glitter's route from pop-star to paedophile. There were not any follow up angles, as there is not really anything to report as mentioned above. However, I think this may be due to the different media format. The Daily Mail for example may have many follow up angles on the case yet Sky News would not. This is because Sky News only presents key, essential news and often doesn't dig too deep into their stories. The Daily Mail has room for manouevre as it is a newspaper website and therefore has a different to a news website for a TV channel.
I think that this story has a moderate to high ranking in the public interest agenda, as it isn't as big as other stories, though it will still be of interest. As mentioned, there are many people who will be interested in this news story and therefore that is why I believe that it will be ranked approximately moderate to high. Though Sky News is quite a large broadcaster and would therefore perhaps be expected to be rather neutral, they are owned by Rupert Murdoch who also owns The Sun and The Times- right wing newspapers. So, I believe that Sky News may have a somewhat right wing agenda. The newsroom policy of the editors therefore may be right wing and show Gary Glitter in an even more negative light than other news sites.
Contempt of
Court:
Contempt of court or simply ‘contempt’ is an offense committed
in court in which an individual is disobedient or disrespectful towards a court
of law and its officers (prosecutors, lawyers, judges, police officers). The
official law commission states that contempt of court “covers a wide variety of
conduct which undermines or has the potential to undermine the course of
justice, and the procedures which are designed to deal with them.”
Source: http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/areas/contempt.htm
The behaviour that
will make someone found contempt of course will be one in which they are
directly opposing and defying the authority, justice and the dignity of the court.
Contempt of court can either be a criminal or civil offense and carries a
sentence of up to two years. Examples of behaviour that would find someone
contempt of court include: shouting out in the court, insulting the judge,
disclosing information to others (if you are a jury member and reveal secrets
from the case, for example).The media may be held in contempt of court if they
clearly defy a court’s order to not report a specific piece of a case.
Subsequently, they could face a large fine.
An example of a juror being found guilty of contempt of
course if from a case in 2011 when a woman contacted a defendant through the
social media site Facebook. Though he had already been acquitted in a drugs
trial and the jury having been discharged, she was found to be in contempt. She
admitted the online contact took place but denied it amounted to an offence.
However, she was sentenced to 8 months in prison.
Libel and Defamation:
Defamation is saying or writing something about someone that is not true and damages their reputation. Libel is writing or recording something false and damaging about someone and is a form of defamation. Under common law, to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false and have been made to someone other than the person defamed. Some common law jurisdictions also distinguish between spoken defamation, called slander, and defamation in other media such as printed words or images, called libel. Defamation can also be know as slander.
Libel law allows people to take actions for libel in a court against any published statements which may defame them or harm then in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession and causes any number of people to think worse/differently of the person. The published piece may seriously damage a person’s reputation and loss of respect by people and so this law is taken very seriously by newspapers, who seek to limit how much they defame someone. The defamation act 2013 was the most recent change to libel laws in the UK, which gives better protection to people expressing their opinion. An example from where libel has been used recently is from the ‘plebgate’ scandal. Andrew Mitchell attempted to sue The Sun for libel, claiming that he did not call police on Downing Street ‘f-ing plebs’. On the other hand, a police officer involved in the case has attempted to sue Andrew Mitchell for £200,000 for libel, claiming he lied about not using the insult. Mitchell had been sacked due to the affair and was looking for both libel and compensation. Sometimes a media organization will weigh up the pros and cons of running a story that isn't fully true or has murky details. For example, if a newspaper was to be fined £20,000 for a false story but the profits they gain from increased sales exceed that, they may still elect to run the story.
Coverage of Elections:
Certain aspects of the broadcasting media, such as the BBC and other TV channels, must always remain impartial during elections and not be politically bias. Television channels have great power in that they can reach millions in a single broadcast and if something was politically biased, then thousands could be swayed in the election. This would harm the democratic process. A broadcaster such as the BBC must give a fair amount of coverage to each party involved in the election. Some parties will have more than others, but this will be due to the fact they have more popularity than others. For example, the Labour Party will have more coverage than a party such as the Green's as they have more followers, more interest and are the opposition (due to second most amount of votes at the last election). A broadcaster must not show a clear bias, as it could deny a party votes. The BBC has been accused of harboring a left-wing bias, due to some of their editorial content. The news of political parties must also remain un-biased. So, a broadcaster could not constantly broadcast negative news about a party, but blend the positives with the negatives.
Official Secrets Act:
The official secrets act is a parliamentary act that stops people from disclosing certain information to any other parties. The information concerned will often be of a national security nature and it's release would result in a possible threat to the nation. Under the most recent 1989 Official Secrets Act, it has become an offence for a crown servant, Government contractor or member of the public who has official information to disclose any information in the following categories without lawful permission:
- Security and Intelligence
- Defence
- International Relations
- Foreign Confidences
- Information which might lead to the commission of crime.
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20693785
Case Study, News Story 1: 'Jihadi John'
A story that has gained an overwhelming amount of coverage
in the media over the past week is the naming of the Islamic State militant ‘Jihadi
John’. Named as 27 year old Mohammed Emwazi from London, he is the hooded
figure seen in the beheading videos of Western hostages. All of the major newspapers featured some form of front-page news the day after the announcement and each took different angles to the discovery. Some of the red top newspapers were calling for his death (Daily Star) and calling him a loner and loser (The Sun). However, some of the others newspapers simply reported the news.
This particular story is hugely within the public interest. He is often shown in the media and, along with his alliterative name, he has become a widely-known villain in a sense. Since he first appeared in a beheading video, people have wanted to know his name. 2 Britons, 3 Americans and 2 Japanese hostages have been killed by him and have each received extensive coverage. As his face was always covered during the beheadings, he has been a somewhat mysterious figure. People therefore want to know more about him, such as who he is, where he lived and why he is there, among other things. The particular news story on the topic I looked at was on The Daily Mail:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-2970259/IS-executioner-Jihadi-John-named-media.html
The story is of priority to both foreign and national locations. However, it can also be of priority to local places. For example, one of the victims was Alan Henning, who resided in Eccles and is where I live. I have followed the story with great interest as the story is quite close to home. I know that many other residents of Eccles will also be interested in the story. The immediacy of the story is quite high, as it is the sort of news that is likely to engage people and capture their attention. It was breaking news on the major 24/7 news channels (Sky News and BBC News) and it remained there for quite some time. The Daily Mail constantly updated the article throughout the day and released more articles. The story was breaking news on The Daily Mail's website and remained there for a couple of days as the headline at the top of the page.
The Daily Mail is a right-wing newspaper and therefore this sort of news will feature on the site. Unlike left wing newspapers which will try and play down the threat, the Daily Mail will openly show 'Jihadi John' as an evil monster.
There are many follow up angles that can and have been taken for this story. Firstly, there will be people who want to know who he is so a story may be about his young life living in London and an in-depth look at his background. There were also the inevitable stories about how he became radicalized, the culture of extremism among some young British Muslims and how he was able to go to Iraq. There are also stories such as how he was able to 'slip through the net' and how his family knew/didn't know about his extremism.
On several newspaper websites, there is available audio with visual packages. Some involves interview with people who knew him (CAGE charity workers) and soundbites of Emwazi himself, during the beheading videos. The newsroom policy would have been to display the news of Emwazi in a way that didn't cause some form of tensions. For example, they could not point blame at Muslims, because this could incite racial hatred. They may also decided on what to and what not to display on their news format. It is quite a tender subject which involves brutal murder, so editors and journalists would have to take care in order not to upset or offend. However, the Daily Mail has a right wing agenda and therefore will most likely put some right wing spin on the story. As mentioned, the story is getting quite a large amount of attention and therefore would be quite high on the public interest agenda.
Case Study, News Story 2: Gary Glitter
The story was reported in many media outlets, though I will be looking at the story from Sky News:
http://news.sky.com/story/1435401/gary-glitter-jailed-for-16-years-over-sex-attacks
Also, throughout the trial, Sky News provided updates throughout his sentencing:
http://news.sky.com/story/1435229/live-updates-gary-glitter-learns-his-fate
This story is generally within public interest, as people are interested in the whole series of sexual scandals involving celebrities. The news story is serious as it involves very serious charges and crimes, though it may have element of sensationalism due to the involvement of a celebrity. Celebrities have been being sentenced quite a lot over the past 3 years and many people have been following the events. To see someone who was once commonly in the public eye and a popular celebrity in court for such serious crimes is quite a big event and almost acts as a spectacle.
The story is national news as Gary Glitter is known across the nation as a prominent, though infamous, celebrity. Ever since his early convictions for child sex offences nearly 20 years ago, he has appeared frequently in the news for various crimes. He was prominent as an offender before the Savile inquest and Operation Yewtree, so unlike other celebrities he had a previous record. In a way this makes the story slightly less interesting, as it hasn't really come across as a MASSIVE shock. The news will generally be confined to the nation, as Glitter is not generally a big celebrity outside the country.
There was a high level of immediacy about the sentencing, as it is generally a big story. The story was constantly being updated on the Sky News website and once he received his sentence, the story was headline news on the website. This was because at the time, it was the biggest and most prominent news. However, unlike the Jihadi John story, the Glitter story quickly died down and within a couple of days it wasn't even a smaller link on the site. However, this may be due to the fact that the story does not have any follow up angles nor any lasting appeal.
In the news story, pictures of Gary Glitter's life were included. This is to provide a visual demonstration for readers of the story. It is also to show Glitter's route from pop-star to paedophile. There were not any follow up angles, as there is not really anything to report as mentioned above. However, I think this may be due to the different media format. The Daily Mail for example may have many follow up angles on the case yet Sky News would not. This is because Sky News only presents key, essential news and often doesn't dig too deep into their stories. The Daily Mail has room for manouevre as it is a newspaper website and therefore has a different to a news website for a TV channel.
I think that this story has a moderate to high ranking in the public interest agenda, as it isn't as big as other stories, though it will still be of interest. As mentioned, there are many people who will be interested in this news story and therefore that is why I believe that it will be ranked approximately moderate to high. Though Sky News is quite a large broadcaster and would therefore perhaps be expected to be rather neutral, they are owned by Rupert Murdoch who also owns The Sun and The Times- right wing newspapers. So, I believe that Sky News may have a somewhat right wing agenda. The newsroom policy of the editors therefore may be right wing and show Gary Glitter in an even more negative light than other news sites.