Embedded Files
Please familiarise yourself with the Publishing Risk Guidelines so that you know what articles should be raised to the Editors-in-Chief and the SU. If you're ever unsure about anything, please do ask - we'd rather you be too cautious than let something slip through the cracks!
MEDIA LAW WITH ADAM LINDSAY, AUGUST 2020
Notes by Imogen Usherwood and Toby Donegan-Cross
Introduction to media law - this is a huge subject, this session will not cover everything but provides useful key elements which are essential for publishing anything. If you know the intricacies, you will know what you can get away with as a journalist, but student papers don’t know that much detail so should err on the side of caution!
Defamation (libel/slander)
Most common risk to journalists, because there is not a black and white law written on it. Getting it wrong can get you (and the SU) into a lot of trouble - the law makes no distinction between professional journos and amateurs in this context, so ignorance is NOT a valid defence.
Definition:
Law designed to protect a person, organisation or company’s personal and professional reputation from UNJUSTIFIED attack.
Stops people picking on others with no basis and damaging their reputation.
‘Freedom of speech’ is a myth in the UK - we have laws in place that stop you saying exactly what you want about anyone, especially if that is on TV, in a newspaper etc.
Costs of damages for a guilty judgement on defamation can be huge, as are the costs for defending action. Hence it has been called a ‘rich mans’ law’.
It is student media’s role to expose wrongs and inform the public of undercover misconduct (i.e. if the VC was doing something dodgy), but we have to go about it in a certain way. The DSU is responsible for what Pal publishes, so it has a right to stop us publishing things if they consider it irresponsible or dangerous. If we do things correctly, stories can be published and both the union and Pal can stay safe.
Avoiding the publication of defamatory material MUST be at the centre of how Palatinate operates. Plans should also be in place on how to respond if defamation action is taken against us.
A statement is defamatory if it seriously harms (or could seriously harm) someone’s reputation by:
Exposing them to hatred, ridicule, contempt
Lowering them in the estimation of right-thinking members of society
Disparaging them in their business, trade, office or profession (i.e. affecting someone’s ability to make money).
Worth noting that ‘people’ also means companies and organizations, who can be defamed in exactly the same way.
If you are writing something about a person who has the capacity to sue (i.e. has a lot of money), you should tread very carefully. Play it by the book and stay safe!
In order to sue, a company must SHOW that the statement has caused it, or is likely to cause it, serious financial loss
‘Right thinking members of society’ is now ‘a reasonable person’ = judges consider how such a person would read the content you have published and how it would affect their judgement of the person/company. In court, the meaning of anything you publish is NOT how you intended it, it is ONLY the way in which this ‘reasonable person’ would interpret it. This ‘reasonable person’ is:
Not rash - reasonableness is their defining feature
Not naive/stupid, but not unduly suspicious
Will not automatically select the worst meaning, when other non-defamatory meanings are possible
The intention of the publisher is irrelevant. If you have written something poorly where people haven’t read as the author intended, that is YOUR fault.
‘Bane and antidote principle’
Defamatory meaning can be removed by context. Previously, you could isolate sentences/headlines, and claim defamation. Now, however, the WHOLE article must be taken into account. (EG if the headline is defamation, the first paragraph might give the context to explain that it’s not)
However, headlines and pictures carry more weight than other parts of the articles, so efforts should be made at all times to be consistent, and to not mislead. A headline alone could be enough for defamation.
The context to pacify the risky bit should come as close as possible to the risky part - articles split across numerous pages are problematic, because the reader might not make it past the first page.
How is defamation decided?
‘Reasonable reader’ is representative of those who would read the publication in question.
At Palatinate, our ‘reasonable reader’ is the average Durham student - this means that they are probably more educated, affluent, and more likely to have been privately educated than the rest of the country. This means that our reasonable reader is probably more likely to be suspicious than the average reader - so we have to be extra careful. When we publish, we ask: ‘would this article lower the reputation of X in the eye of the average Durham student?’
How to avoid defamation action
It is a civil, not a criminal offence.
The best thing to do is avoid the risk of being taken to court in the first place.
Most common cause of defamation is if a journalist fails to apply professional standards of accuracy and fairness in their work.
The best way to protect yourself from defamation is TRUTH - make sure that the story is correct. No assumptions, no jumping to conclusions, no cutting corners - put in the hard work to keep yourself covered.
Don’t make any accusations that you don’t know for certain to be true! It’s not enough to take what a mainstream media organisation has published as truth - you don’t know what process they’ve been through to get there. If you read a great story that’s potentially defamatory, fact check it first!
Golden rules to avoid defamation
Do not make or repeat accusations that you do not know to certainly be true
Avoid calling someone a liar/cheat/fraud unless you are absolutely certain! This is akin to calling someone a criminal.
Do not allege professional misconduct unless you have evidence to support it! You are most likely to be sued by a wealthy or professional individual, so this is dangerous.
Do not call someone a criminal or allege that they have committed a crime, unless they have been found guilty in a court of law - they have not committed a crime until they are found guilty.
Inform the legal checker (Kirsty and Ellie at the DSU) or Comms department if you have planning to run anything risky. Speak to the Editors-in-Chief about this if you think an article needs a legal check or requires comment from the University, and they will send it on. The earlier the legal team and notified the better, flag things early (before you start writing).
‘Irrefutable evidence’ - you have to weigh up whether the evidence you have is reliable enough. You might want multiple examples to corroborate the evidence, or ask a witness’s contacts if they know this person to be reliable. Screenshots are good but can easily be doctored, so do some digging on who sent you the screenshots - does that person have a personal reason to have said something to you (such as an ongoing dispute with a person involved)?
What must the claimant prove to charge you with defamation? Three things:
DEFAMATION - the story has/will cause serious harm to their reputation.
IDENTIFICATION - may reasonably be understood to refer to them
PUBLICATION - that it has been published. Deleting something does NOT mean it hasn’t been published! Once something has been published online/on social media, you can’t stop someone finding it - deleting it makes it harder to find but it doesn’t make it impossible.
They do NOT have to prove that the statement is false or had an intention to cause harm!
Anybody who was involved in the publication can be sued. Writer, Editor-in-Chief and any sub editors involved in commissioning/proofreading it (even if it was just for SPaG), publisher responsible (DSU), and anybody who repeats the libel (including sharing it on social media). A claimant could choose to sue any one or all of these people - if they sue you personally as writer/editor, the DSU isn’t obliged to help you.
This is why COMMUNICATION is key - if all the relevant editors have a meeting about commissioning a piece, everyone involved in that meeting is liable to be sued. You’re only safe if you raised any concerns during that meeting - if you’re ever in a meeting about something like this and are concerned about the legality of something, please raise it, even if you aren’t sure! It’s not worth the risk, so if you aren’t sure please say something.
Any resharing of the content counts as a fresh libel case - this applies to personal social media accounts, not just public ones. Even just retweeting something on your personal twitter can see you sued for libel. EG - the BBC defamed Lord McAlpine by saying he had abused children (this proved not to be true). A BBC twitter account tweeted about the story, and McAlpine sued EVERY person who had retweeted it.
NB - putting ‘RTs are not endorsements’ or ‘views my own’ in your twitter bio is not a defence against libel. Especially as an editor, if you tweeted something about a Pal story, it’s possible that the DSU could be sued. ‘Views my own, not those of Palatinate’ is for reputational reasons, not legal ones.
What constitutes ‘identification’?
The law: ‘Whether it would reasonably lead people acquainted with them to believe they are the person being referred to’
Therefore, beware of ‘jigsaw identification’ of people you choose to make anonymous - if even ONE person can correctly identify that person, including someone who knows them really well, then they are identifiable.
Mistaken Identification: a claimant can also claim that they are identifiable even if it’s not actually about them! EG ‘John Smith, 41’ - any 41-year-old called John Smith might choose to sue for defamation. This is why we give ages, professions and addresses of individuals - it’s unlikely there are too many ‘John Smith, 41, a physics lecturer from Durham’ for example.
Mistaken identification can arise as a result of:
Using the wrong photo/caption
Using a photo in a defamatory context
Not revealing enough information about the person
Shared jobs/positions - there used to be 2 MEPs representing the southeast called Alexandra Philips, but one was UKIP and the other Green. The UKIP one used to work for Cambridge Analytica, so it was essential to mention that she was a UKIP MEP in stories about her involvement in CA.
Defaming a whole group: if we report ‘a member of DURFC racially abused a student on a night out’. That could be ANY member of the DURFC team, so one of them might sue you on the basis that they could be mistakenly identified. The general rule is that groups of 20 or more are fine, so ‘an English student at Durham’ is safe, but ‘a member of Castle JCR’s Exec’ might not be.
Juxtaposition - if a picture of one story is too close on the page to another one, this risks defamation. EG a picture of Meghan Markle next to a different story about an abusive mother might prompt Markle to sue.
Spent criminal convictions
Most criminal convictions become ‘spent’ or expired a certain length of time after punishment is served.
Spent convictions cannot be published UNLESS it is in the public interest.
Even if it’s true, a claimant may win action if they can prove that the story was published after expiration.
Defences of Defamation
Have your defences ready to go PRIOR to publication. Defences should be at the front of writers’ and editors’ minds when planning/writing/editing/publishing anything.
TRUTH - absolute complete protection, except when we’re dealing with spent convictions. Must be proved true ‘on the balance of probabilities’. A genuine allegation, which has a basis of truth to it and looks credible, you can say ‘the alleged incident’ etc - it didn’t definitely happen, but it’s alleged. However, just saying ‘alleged’ doesn’t make you safe - only a word to use when credited allegations are being made.
HONEST OPINION - applicable to opinion/comment/editorials. The following must ALL be true:
It’s the honestly held opinion of the writer, so don’t write comment articles that you don’t actually agree with! If someone can find a social media post on your account that contradicts your opinion in the article, or if someone close to you says that you don’t believe it, then it’s proved not to be your honestly held opinion.
It is recognisable to readers as opinion, not fact. If it’s clearly in the comment section this shouldn’t be an issue. Don’t put comment pieces on the same page/spread as news, for example. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/ is an excellent example.
It is based on a provably true fact - you must have evidence.
The article must indicate the fact/information on which the potentially defamatory comment is based.
EXAMPLE: If I write an article saying ‘Boris Johnson is a bad person’, they can sue me. If I write an article saying ‘Boris Johnson is a bad person because he said muslim women look like letterboxes’, then that’s ok.
Be careful with headlines in opinion pieces, don’t put the defamatory opinions in the title.
Reviews, humour, satire and irony are all covered by this. Also April Fools’ news stories - either they shouldn’t mention anyone, or are so ridiculous they can’t be true.
PRIVILEGE - the public interest determines that some material can be published with complete freedom, even if it is defamatory/untrue.
Absolute privilege: matters of parliament (but not the reporting of them), matters of court and any tribunal/body exercising judicial power of the state.
Qualified privilege: press conferences, parliamentary proceedings, public meetings, council meetings, scientific conferences, AGMs. Also documents published by the government, councils, police, other government agencies. It’s ‘qualified’ because the defence has a qualification - it only applies if it is published without malice, is a matter of public interest, AND anyone defamed is given right of reply. If the person declines to reply, just put ‘X declined to comment’ in the report.
ACCORD AND SATISFACTION - the matter has already been resolved by the agreed publication of a correction/apology. Any agreement of this nature should be led by the DSU’s senior management (Gareth Hughes), in consultation with lawyers. If someone comes to you asking for a correction or apology, go straight to the EiCs to will go to Kirsty, who will escalate it if needs be.
OFFER OF AMENDS - if you make a genuine mistake, make a fair written offer to settle the matter and agree to pay suitable damages and legal costs. If the claimant refuses this fair offer, they risk losing the case in court. Again, go to the EiCs who will go to Kirsty/Garteth, please don’t do this yourself.
LEAVE AND LICENCE - if the claimant has previously given permission for the material to be published. Get watertight written or recorded permission. This doesn’t include the right of reply! If someone then asks you to take something down that they originally gave permission to, they can’t sue you. NB, do consider your duty of care here.
LIVE BROADCAST - if you took reasonable care and didn’t know a defamation would occur. This also takes into account a person’s previous conduct. Once, Oxford had to shut down its student radio station when they interviewed Nick Griffin (BNP) - he spouted hate speech live on air. The station’s license was taken away because Griffin had a history of hate speech and they chose to interview him live with no provisions being made.
ONLINE COMMENTS - you need to have a physical/written policy approved by the DSU on how to deal with defamatory comments posted by readers and how to deal with complaints. Consider if an article should have comments disabled for example.
DEATH - you can’t libel the dead! This is how everything came out about Savile in 2011.
LIMITATION PERIOD - unless a court rules otherwise, a claim has to be made within 12 months.
PUBLIC INTEREST - aim of the public interest defence is to make publishing of risky investigative material easier. Therefore, it shifts the emphasis away from demonstrating absolute truth, so long as responsible journalistic practice has taken place (i.e. you have done EVERYTHING possible to establish truth). Because the emphasis is on the PROCESS of publication, this must be well documented. This defence replaced the common law Reynolds defence, which no longer exists but provides historical guidance on what counts as ‘responsible journalism’.
The public interest defence must show:
That defamation is ‘part of a statement on a matter of public interest and that he/she reasonably believed that publishing was in the public interest’ of your readership! For Pal, a matter but be of interest to the average Durham student.
The piece represents ‘responsible journalism’, using an audit trail of evidence of how the process was carried out (emails, meeting minutes etc)
What is ‘responsible journalism’?
This can form part of a defence against defamation.
The more severe the accusations/, the more effort should be made to ensure the story’s accuracy.
Extent of public concern - your defence is weakened if the matter is of lesser public concern. This must be in relation to your readership (ie Durham students)!
Qualified, accurate sources, including reasonable steps to check the reliability of these sources, are required.
Take steps to verify information. Even if someone is a reliable witness, they may have an agenda.
If a reputable agency - the police, courts, etc. - has already found an allegation to be not true, a journalist must have a strong reason to suspect otherwise.
Urgency - was there a clear need to publish quickly? The paper’s own deadline is artificial and doesn’t matter in the eyes of the court, who care that you have taken the time and effort to make sure it was fit for publication. You should always prioritise proper publication standards over rushing to meet a deadline.
Right of reply - EVERY person/group about whom you make any sort of accusation or allegation must be contacted and given time to get back to you about it. Give them at least 24 hours (there is no hard and fast rule on this), but industry standard is about 48 hours - the stronger the allegations, the longer you should give them.
Fair and balanced - was the claimant’s side of the story published, even if they haven’t taken up the right of reply?
Tone - is it measured and balanced? Are rash allegations and opinions stated? Take care to be neutral, use unemotive and non-loaded language.
Timing of publication - was the publication timed to cause unfair damage to the claimant? You should publish as soon as it’s ready, rather than delaying it for the sake of specific timing. It might be that the timing works out well anyway, but you need email correspondence etc to prove this.
What is NOT a defence against defamation?
Inference - ‘a statement with a secondary meaning which can be misunderstood by someone without specific knowledge’. Using deliberately vague/double meaning language which could allow a reader to read between the lines is defamatory and cannot be disputed otherwise.
Innuendo - ‘seems innocuous to some but is defamatory to people with specific knowledge’. A claimant must be able to prove that the special facts which create the innuendo exist, and that they are known to the people who published the article.
Famous example of inference: Liberace v Daily Mirror
How to handle defamation, in summary:
Ensure you are always undertaking responsible journalism, and defences are always in your mind when working on any story.
Put the work in, and keep an audit trail.
Ere on the side of caution.
Alert your union’s comms team and legal checker BEFORE starting work on a risky story.
Alert the union as soon as any complaints are received.
Court Reporting, Active Criminal Cases, and Contempt of Court
Breaching this is a criminal offence and can see you sent to prison. It’s not as big a risk as defamation, but the punishments are far more severe.
Crime and Justice Reporting
A complex, difficult, and expansive subject. Getting it wrong could result in a criminal prosecution, a fine and even a prison sentence.
The law makes no differentiation between professional journalists and others, so ignorance or amateur status are not a valid defence.
The risk is prejudicing a future trial by violating identification rules.
Court Reporting
Active court reporting should NOT be attempted by anybody without professional training - a thorough knowledge of the whole legal system and its rules / restrictions in different courts in essential.
At any rate you wouldn’t be allowed into press benches without accreditation from a recognised mainstream media outlet.
HOWEVER - if you want to run a story on a court case (e.g. a Durham lecturer is on trial, something students would want to know about), there is a limit to what you can do, but it is possible.
Take your lead from respected media outlets / news agencies
Double source material to ensure accuracy.
Publish contemporaneously (at the earliest possible opportunity - your next edition)
If you are running a story about one aspect of the trail (e.g the DU connection only, say the VC is giving a witness statement), you must also cover opposing aspects and the conclusion at some point over the course of your coverage of the trial.
You MUST stick ridgingly to certain basic principles, and not omit or expand on them in any way.
The stages of criminal reporting
Pre-arrest
This is the stage at which you should definitely be reporting - if there is a crime in Durham, students should know. You can report on the crime without covering the rest of the process.
Stick to accurate, non-emotive reporting of the incident and current state of police investigation.
Steer clear of speculation, reaching your own conclusions about what may have happened, or lines of inquiry that deviate from statements made by official bodies.
You must NOT identify any suspects, UNLESS the police or government agency have formally done so.
Do not name anybody involved who qualifies for anonymity.
Importance of titles - using just somebody’s surname implies improper conduct or criminality (this applied in all types of news, not just crime). ALWAYS use somebody’s full name, or title and surname, unless they have a formal title. Boris Johnson is Mr Johnson, Keir Starmer is Sir Keir - they are never just Johnson or Starmer. Some outlets are very lax about this, but it’s a risk.
Example in Palatinate, March 2020: Man found with stab wound on Mitchell Street
Anonymity
The following are entitled to lifetime anonymity:
Anyone under 18. If someone is a victim aged 15, they have a right to remain anonymous about it for the rest of their lives, unless they choose to waive that anonymity. The same applies to criminals under 18, unless the crime is so heinous that the court rules otherwise, for example the Murder of James Bulger.
Victims of sexual offences - anything with a sexual angle to it (including grooming) applies here.
Victims of human trafficking
Victims of FGM
ANYBODY involved in a family court trial, including lawyers, are granted lifetime anonymity which CANNOT be waived.
Teachers accused of crimes by pupils are entitled to anonymity until they are charged - this does NOT apply to University staff and students, as everyone involved is an adult.
To waive the right to anonymity, a victim must be at least 16, and not be obtained under any duress. Parents cannot waive this right on behalf of someone under 16.
Jigsaw identification - this is even more important in judicial matters, as you could lead to someone guilty getting off, ruining a victim’s life, etc.
Any information which could cause an anonymous person to be identified by somebody ACQUAINTED with them must be handled carefully. This jigsaw can also be assembled with various outlets release different information about the same person, which can be put together if someone reads across several publications.
Naming a defendant, witness or their relationship to a child involved could also identify them. Example, Death of Baby P, Peter Connelly was dead but his name was kept anonymous (‘Baby P’) because he had a living sibling, and naming him would have identified that other child.
Active Proceedings
Proceedings become active when an arrest is made, or a warrant or summons is issued. From this point onwards, contempt of court laws come into force, and proceedings remain active until:
The arrested person is released without chance
No arrest is made within 12 months
The case is dropped
The defendant is acquitted or sentenced (unless it is tied to later trials)
...and can become active again if an appeal is lodged.
Contempt of Court
It is an office to publish material ‘which creates a substantial risk of serious prejudice or impediment to active legal proceedings’. This includes:
References to a suspect or defendant’s previous convictions
Suggestions of dishonesty or bad character
Any evidence linking someone to the crime
Any suggestion of guilt
Private court proceedings
Material liable to stop a witness from appearing in court
Jury deliberations
Identifying any members of the jury (even after the case is closed etc)
Breaching a court order
Basic court reporting principles
Pre-trial hearings - very little detail, mainly procedural
Full trial - fair, accurate, neutral account
Contemporaneous - plan ahead
Appropriate coverage must be given to the whole case - you can’t cherry pick what you want to write about
Defendant’s plea ALWAYS needs to be stated (guilty or not guilty) - also, remember that context carries weight, the plea should be somewhere early in the article.
‘The case continues’ must be stated, so as not to give the impression that a verdict has been reached.
Reporting and Justice - Summary
Take extra care when reporting on crime/trials
Student journalists should NEVER attempt to publish reports on an active trial independently.
Caution will help protect you from contempt
Beware jigsaw identification
Follow proper processes if a victim chooses to waive anonymity (check their age, make sure it’s legitimate)
Do EVERYTHING you can to ensure that you know the current status of all proceedings before publication.
Election Reporting
Laws dictate what can be reported during elections to ensure they are fair
An election period begins on the day an election is called, and ends when polls close
This covers parliamentary, council, PCC and mayoral elections
Rules on referenda are different and can vary
Breaching any of these rules is a criminal offence - punished with an unlimited fine (i.e within your remit - Murdoch would get fined billions, the DSU a few thousand) and possible jail sentences for the publishers, so be very careful
The law states that you must not ‘publish a false statement of fact about the personal character or conduct of a candidate’. It doesn’t have to be defamatory, just false, but honest opinions are ok.
Usually, saying something false but not defamatory doesn’t get anywhere in court (see this article about Robbie Williams - Robbie: I'm NOT gay), BUT regarding a political candidate it is an offence.
You also must not publish a false claim that a candidate has withdrawn, as this can affect results.
WHILE POLLS ARE OPEN, nothing about election issues can be published anywhere, including exit polls.
Copyright
Copyright law protects the creators of artistic and intellectual material - this includes journalism, books, photographs, films, plays, music and sound recordings, TV and radio broadcasts and speeches all covered. Even public transport timetables and maps.
‘Anything worth copyrighting is usually worth protecting’ - anything that requires some element ‘skill, labour and judgement’ is subject to copyright law.
Artistic merit is not taken into account.
Something is not necessarily free to use just because it is in the public domain - just because you can play a song on Spotify for free, doesn’t mean Trump can use it at a rally without asking.
Copyright is owned by an outlet if created specifically for an assignment for that outlet. EG - if the Editors meet and decide to run a piece about teddy bears and ask John to write it, John does not own the copyright - Palatinate/the DSU does. Articles pitched by students directly to Pal are owned by the student who pitched them.
Photos and films - if ‘created for private and domestic purposes’, they are owned by the photographer, but cannot be used without the commissioner’s permission.
Incidental use is not an offence - if a photo is hanging up in the DSU and I take a picture of a friend so that photo is in the background, fine. If I go up to the photo and take a picture of it specifically, I have broken copyright law. If I record an audio of my friend speaking to me in the DSU cafe with a song in the background that’s fine, but if I go up to the speaker and record the song itself, I’ve broken copyright law.
Copyright also applies to journalism.
There is no copyright for facts, news, ideas or information - BUT copy, photographs and video used to broadcast them ARE covered.
Stories can be lifted from elsewhere, but must be significantly changed. Copying verbatim phrases and quotes, or just changing a few words, is a breach of copyright.
Material can be ‘licensed’ for use by agreement with the copyright owner.
Within journalism, agreement is often agreed verbally. However, outside journalism you should obtain WRITTEN permission, to avoid a u-turn later. (this includes text messages, whatsapp, facebook messages)
Readers’ letters/letters to the editor - these are automatically licensed for initial publication, but if you wish to republish again you will have to seek permission.
Speeches and interviews:
Speeches are covered as soon as they are recorded on tape or notes, with or without permission. The speaker owns the copyright, however you can use this provided it meets the following criteria:
Recording is a ‘direct record’ (i.e. not doctored/edited - even if it doesn’t make grammatical sense, just put [sic.])
Speaker needs to not forbid the recording
It does not infringe any existing copyright - for example, reading a novel aloud
The type of use wasn’t forbidden by the speaker before recording (if they have said it is only allowed to be republished for the next week, for example)
Made with the authority of the person who made the recording - for example, the BBC does an interview with the PM, to quote it you need permission from the BBC and the government / Conversative party.
Fair Dealing - a clause which allows you to use clips/extracts (similar to HIGNFY)
The use of copyright material is allowed ‘for the purpose of reporting current events’
‘Sufficient acknowledgement’ is required - you must cite the work’s title or an identifying description AND the creator’s name
Only publish the amount needed
This does NOT apply to photos.
Historic recordings apply, when it is relevant to current events - for example, if someone famous dies you can use clips of things from their life.
Material can be used for criticism or review if it is legally available to the public AND you have acknowledged it.
Fair deadline also allows for reasonable purposes in caricature, parody or pastiche (this is how Have I Got News for You, Mock the Week etc get away with it)
Applies to quotations in work available to the public - you can’t quote ‘more than is required by specific purpose’
Public interest
This allows for the exceptional use of photos and has a very specific definition. The photo must:
Expose immoral work
Expose damage to public life, health and safety or justice
Expose an incitement of immoral behaviour
Be directed to assist a government body
Broadcasting
If you plan to broadcast anything live, you should follow these rules (not entirely applicable to Pal except the podcast, any live streams etc). The OFCOM Broadcasting Code is available for free online.
Protecting under 18s
Must not broadcast anything that might damage the physical/mental/moral development of somebody under 18 - this includes drugs, smoking, solvents, alcohol, violence, swearing, sexual material, and the occult
The watershed is 9pm-5:30am, but the change to less child-friendly material must be GRADUAL, no violence at 9:01pm.
There is no watershed for radio, but you must consider when children are ‘likely’ to be listening.
Harm and Offence
Harmful material must be avoided unless there is valid context, and warnings are given in advance. Harmful material includes:
Depictions and sounds of distress, humiliation or violation of human dignity
Offensive language
violence
sex
Discriminatory language or material
Exorcism
Epilepsy warnings - must give warnings of flashing images and sounds both audibly and on screen.
Crime
Material likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or lead to disorder cannot be broadcast.
Description of criminal techniques must not be broadcast (e.g. picking a lock).
Material that could endanger lives or prejudice the success of any attempt to deal with hijack or kidnapping should not be broadcast.
Witness payments
Payments or offers should not be made to witnesses while proceedings are active
Must not make offer to somebody likely to be witness before proceedings become active
Must not make offer to somebody later called as a witness must be disclosed to prosecution and defence and the witness should be aware when agreeing
Payment cannot be dependent on verdict
Payment to criminals
Criminals cannot profit from a crime
Payments cannot be made to their associates for their story
Stories or photographs that glamorise a crime cannot be paid for.
Religion
Views and beliefs of those belonging to a particular religion/denomination must not be subject to abuse
Any programmes that claim a living person to have special powers/abilities cannot be broadcast when significant numbers of children are watching or listening.
Due impartiality and accuracy
News must be totally impartial (broadcast, but not in print)
All programming must be fair when the intended audience is considered
Impartiality in programming is allowed to be achieved across your outlet’s output. If there is a phone in, ‘alternative views must be encouraged’
The show host must be qualified to offer their opinions and judgments
Fairness:
Avoid unjust and unfair treatment of individuals or organisations.
Broadcasters and programme makers should be fair in dealings with potential contributors, unless doing otherwise is justified.
Informed consent (unless in public interest not to)
Under 16s can only appear in broadcast media with parental consent (particular concern for minors on marches, for example - can only talk to those whose parents are with them to consent)
Right of reply! If wrongdoing, incompetence or other significant allegations are made, those concerned should be given an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond
If they refuse, the broadcast should make this clear and give that person’s explanation if it would be unfair not to do so
Privacy
The location of somebody’s home or family should not be disclosed without permission
Victims of accidents/emergencies/tragedies should not have their privacy infringed
Permission must be granted to record outside ‘public spaces’ but incidental use is ok - for
example, don[‘t record outside someone’s house
Doorstepping - you can turn up at someone’s house/place of work if they decline to reply, and as they step out you can ask them the question. EG - Dominic Cummings at his London home.
Privacy in social media:
Take care when using anything found on social media
Copyright, defamation and accuracy are obvious concerns, but so is privacy. Think about this criteria:
How personal is it?
Has the person tried to restrict access? If so, they have created a private domain and you can’t access it.
Are they responsible for posting it?
Is publication ethical? Is that person suicidal, for example - would publishing this do them serious harm.
If the account is locked or private, public interest is the only defence
Commercial References
A distinction must be made between any editorial and advertising content
Certain types of programme can’t be sponsored - news and current affairs
Do NOT make investment recommendations.
THE END
N.B. This is not a fully comprehensive guide to media law! It’s a subject that takes years to learn in full and this doesn’t answer everything, but is a very good foundation for a student journalist. Any further questions, refer to the Editors-in-Chief and/or the deputies.
Page updated
Report abuse