Task 10

Factual Writing Copy
Task 10 – Responsible Journalism
Patrick Gouldsbrough

Social and cultural awareness
Writing about a group that the consumer don’t have first hand experiences of is something that is commonly done
in journalism. Even though you would think this would be an uninteresting news story, media producers will be
trying to communicate their ideologies on certain groups that may become a big issue in the UK and therefore, it
will be in the public interest. In this scenario, these journalists must ensure that they aren’t creating an untrue or
biased account of this group.
In news reporting, there has been many examples of where groups haven’t been portrayed in the best light and
therefore this group have been misrepresented to the consumer of that particular media product. Some examples
include:
Asylum Seekers
As you can see from the image on the top right, The Daily Telegraph have misrepresented Asylum Seekers in a bad
light and therefore hasn’t thought about social and cultural awareness when producing this story. This particular
news producer has published other stories on the matter and each time they have misrepresented the asylum
seekers. Even though this group might have a bad name amongst some British people, when reporting the news,
which should be in a factual manner, you can’t bring personal ideologies into the story. On the other hand, some
media producers look at it the other way and show how asylum seekers can be positive in terms of economy and
financial stability of the country. This is all well and good if it’s factual and hasn’t been take out of context.
Therefore, the right thing to do when trying to represent a group is what the Daily Express have done on this
occasion (bottom right) they have reported what is happening in terms of asylum seekers and is communicating the
situation in a factual manner.
Benefit claimers
Even though The Daily Express got it right in the last section, on this occasion, they have fallen short of representing
benefit claimers in a balanced and fair nature. This article by the media producer features no facts to back up their
claims and no expert opinions communicating some form of statistic to the consumer to try and make this headline
that The Daily Express have gone with more credible. Instead, the news report has jumped to conclusions and
reported the negative side to the story. Even though migrant benefits have been banned, they fail to mention that
some migrants can still claim benefits and some migrants actually earn an honest wage in some of the most highly
regarded sectors. Therefore, without any of these features, The Daily Express disregards any social and cultural
awareness in this article.

NUJ Codes of practice
If journalists are unsure if they have shown disregard for social and cultural awareness while writing a news article,
they can check the NUJ codes of practice. These are a set of rules that journalists choose to follow if they are in this
particular union. However, the problem is that journalists doesn’t have to opt into this union and can therefore
choose not to follow the codes and fall short of the ethical codes that journalists should follow, which sometimes
includes the legal codes also. The codes are as follows:
• “At all times upholds and defends the principle of media freedom, the right of freedom of expression and the right
of the public to be informed” – This means that a news story that is controversial has to be reported because it’s in
the public interest to do so, which means, the public needs to know. However, on very controversial stories,
journalists may have to break some later codes to get the story published. For example, media producers like The
Times, found it necessary to publish the story on tax avoiders, due to them believing that the general public should
be informed on the matter. This resulted in an angry, and most say rightful, backlash on the tax avoiders, due to the
working and middle class having to pay more in tax to make up for those that aren’t.
• “Strives to ensure that information disseminated is honestly conveyed, accurate and fair” – News stories can’t be
made up or the information can’t be taken out of context, it must be presented through facts and how it would be
seen if the consumers were actually there at the time. An example of this would be the story on the right hand side,
second from the top. This story communicated to the consumer that fans in the Hillsborough disaster picked the
pockets of the victims and were beating up police officers that were helping the victims. These allegations by The
Sun were later found to be false and dishonest. This story gave a bad name to the fans of both teams of the
Hillsborough disaster, as well as breaking this and a few other NUJ codes in the process.
• “Does her/his utmost to correct harmful inaccuracies” – This involves journalists correcting information that they
see or know to be false. This can be the editor of a newspaper/magazine that corrects a copy writers inaccuracies or
this can be a newspaper correcting facts and reporting the truth, even if they have received the distorted
information from another media outlet. Newspapers have to sell and be striking to the audience, they need stories
that are interesting. However, these stories must be obtained legally and ethically and must stick to the other NUJ
codes. On The Sun website, the media producer did correct the harmful inaccuracy that they had made by publishing
that story and apologised and put the record straight. However, this was too late, the damage to the fans and the
credibility of the newspaper was already done. On one hand, they broke this code because they failed to amend the
information before publishing the story, while they did correct it second time round, meaning they still broke the
code but tried to make up for it (Baring in mind, it wasn’t of their own accord, it was done because they were pulled
up about it from consumers and official publishing bodies)

• “Differentiates between fact and opinion” – This falls under the same bracket as biased information, which I covered in
Task 2. Journalists, according to the NUJ, are meant to report stories in a factual and unbiased manner and must not put
their own opinions in this piece of news reporting, which involves the journalist deciding whether a certain piece of
information they have received or collected falls in the fact or opinion category. The Daily Mail have broken this NUJ
code by been unable to differentiate between fact and opinion on this article (top right). From the headline of ‘The Mail
accuses these men ok killing. If we are wrong, let them sue us’ you can tell that the producer of this article has already
started opinionated and biased from the outset. As the article continues, the sheer biased nature also continues, with
the Mail accusing these five men of been murderers without any proven information, which isn’t then factual, or any
official quotes from people such as the police. Incapability to tell the difference between fact and opinion in news
reporting could lead to what the Mail expressed in the headline, a lawsuit.
• “Obtains material by honest, straightforward and open means, with the exception of investigations that are both
overwhelmingly in the public interest and which involve evidence that cannot be obtained by straightforward means” –
This means that information generated by the journalist must fit an ethical and legal specification and the information
hasn’t been found by illegitimate means. As the quote states, there ere some exceptions, which only apply f it’s very key
for the public to know about the story and if so, this information can be obtained through any means possible (this is
only in very extraordinary circumstances and it doesn’t happen often). The most notable breach of this NUJ code is the
phone hacking of the news of the world journalists, which then led to the Leveson inquiry to be set up. The code states
that information must be obtained using open and straightforward means, unless it’s overwhelmingly in the publics
interest. The hacking of high profile celebrities and dead schoolgirl, Millie Dowler’s phones was not an open means of
generating information and it wasn’t crucial for the public to know about it. Therefore, the news of the world journalists
(Clive Goodman, Glenn Mulcaire, Andrew Coulson and Rebecca Brooks) had broken this NUJ by hacking phones for the
media producer.
• “Does nothing to intrude into anybody’s private life, grief or distress unless justified by overriding consideration of the
public interest” – This is linked to the previous NUJ code and states that journalists should not intrude on people’s lives,
especially when they are in grief or distress. Like most NUJ codes, people think the line of intrusion is different and due
to the fact there isn’t a regulatory body on these NUJ codes, the media producer can’t be adjudged to have gone too far.
Some news outlets do step the wrong side of the line on occasion. A high profile case of this would be the Madeleine
McCann abduction news story. While it was reported factually at the time of the event and most newspapers managed
to follow the NUJ codes at the time of the abduction, since then, media producers have pestered and intruded on the
lives of Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann. This involved going round to the house, trying to generate
information while they were mourning the death of their daughter and multiple other forms of intrusion.

• “Protects the identity of sources who supply information in confidence and material gathered in the course of her/his work”
– Many newspapers choose to collect sources from people to back up and give their stories more content, while the consumer
may trust the story if they have information provided from someone in the know, whether this is an expert or a trusted
person. This also involves the newspapers giving those sources that wish to remain anonymous, anonymity. If they fail to do
so, their credibility as well as the person who has leaked the information to the media outlet will be challenged. Edward
Snowden, the man who leaked many US government and world secrets, had anonymity from the newspapers (The Guardian
in particular) when he first started to leak this information. When he first started to rendezvous with Guardian Journalist
Glenn Greenwald in 2012, The Guardian kept Snowden secret and only published the information that the American was
providing to the media producer. The newspaper headline on the top right proves that The Guardian were profiting on
information from Snowden at that time and producing various articles about world secrets before other news reporters from
newspapers like The Times and Telegraph, knew about them. Of course, Edward Snowden was eventually unmasked but this
had nothing to do with The Guardian outing him, he was eventually unmasked by the NSA, by which time Snowden’s period of
anonymity was over. For all that time, Glenn Greenwald and The Guardian had kept the secret, they had upheld this particular
NUJ code.
• Resists threats or any other inducements to influence, distort or suppress information and takes no unfair personal
advantage of information gained in the course of her/his duties before the information is public knowledge” – This means
that journalist should not take or give bribes in the form of money or threatening abuse to generate information for their
news stories. This, of course, would give them an advantage when collecting information and is one of the most serious NUJ
codes of them all. Continuing on from the news of the world hacking scandal, Journalists from this this particular news outlet
bribed senior officials and high up police chiefs to gain information for their stories. It was reported by The Guardian that
News Of The World journalists were paying these sources £100,000 to give them official and classified information. This
worked and the media producer published a few stories with this bribed information, before the corporation were found
guilty at the hacking scandal (formally The Leveson Inquiry) and eventually was shut down in 2011, with a few of the
journalists in question going to jail for this offence.
• “Produces no material likely to lead to hatred or discrimination on the grounds of a person’s age, gender, race, colour,
creed, legal status, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation” – While I covered this NUJ code in the social and cultural
awareness section, the code goes into more detail and documents every group that you can’t show discrimination or
prejudice against and what kind of hatred is not tolerated in news reporting. Even though journalists should be clear on
discrimination already, this NUJ jut reiterates what isn’t tolerated when reporting the news. Newspapers like this headline by
The Daily Express are exactly what this NUJ code is there to prevent. A racist and discriminatory statement about the beliefs
and dress of other religions and faiths is the main theme of this article and falls short of this NUJ code. This isn’t the first time
this media producer has fallen short of the codes, a few weeks before this article, they produced a similar story that had the
headline ‘Ban It’ on. Aside from the NUJ codes, this newspaper can be seen to break the legal and ethical requirements we
expect from a media outlet in the UK.

• “Does not by way of statement, voice or appearance endorse by advertisement any commercial product or service save for
the promotion of her/his own work or of the medium by which she/he is employed” – This means that journalists can’t
actively endorse products or companies in their articles or any other form of media. In print media, this mistake is rarely
made when mentioning a particular company but if a media producer does, they take the same approach as the BBC; they
normally state “other brands/products are available” and this will cover them legally as a media outlet.
• “A journalist shall normally seek the consent of an appropriate adult when interviewing or photographing a child for a
story about her/his welfare” – With celebrity culture such a huge part of news reporting these days, so too is celebrities
children. However, there are codes protecting the children of those celebrities, which involves consent been given to the
journalist by the celebrities, or if they are members of he public, parents. If this consent is not achieved, the adults can sue
the newspaper for publishing content without consent. Many celebrities have had their children pictured over time, some
have been done wit consent, while some have not. None other than Halle Berry had images of her daughter published in US
and UK publications without giving consent to those paparazzi, which led her to join the anti-paparazzi debate, which was
reported by The Guardian earlier this year (middle right)
• “Avoids plagiarism” – You would think this NUJ code would be always avoided by journalists. Copying someone else’s work
is the direct definition of plagiarism and in news reporting, copying the work and then not crediting the original owner is
also considered plagiarism too. Johann Hari, a journalist for The Independent, was caught up in a plagiarism storm when it
was pointed out by Private Eye in 2003 and again by Yahoo Ireland editor Brain Whelan in 2011 that his interviews were
similar to others that had been published by other journalists that had interviewed the same subject. What followed was an
investigation into Hari by The Independent and then Hari’s decision to leave the media producer in 2012.
Conscience clause
This new clause that was established a little after the Leveson Inquiry and states that journalists don’t have to produce work
that their editor or other members of seniority are asking them to produce because it breaches on of the twelve NUJ codes.
In addition, the NUJ website (https://www.nuj.org.uk/about/nuj-code/) states that: “The NUJ believes a journalist has the
right to refuse an assignment or be identified as the author of editorial that would break the letter or spirit of the NUJ code
of practice” before going on to say “The NUJ will support journalists who act according to the code” which means that the
NUJ will support journalists if they are punished for refusing a particular task they feel breaks the rules of the NUJ. This is
one advantage of been in the National Union Of Journalists. Like I mentioned earlier, you don’t have to be in the NUJ but if
you aren’t, scenarios where you feel you’ve been unfairly treated will have to be handled by yourself and not the union.

Connotation
Journalists have an important job in terms of conveying the news to the public; their words can shape our views on a certain
topic, group or person, it’s important they use the right words when reporting the news. If they select the wrong words, the
connotations of that word may misrepresent or lead to discrimination and hate toward that certain group. A connotation is
the feeling that a word or phrase creates as well as the denotation (the literal meaning of the word).
Connation in an every day sense is that the colour red may connote anger and rage, while black may connote sadness and
sorrow. While these connotation can be transferred to a media sense, there are stronger connotations in news stories than
colours. After all, the overall view of a group is in the balance when a media outlet is reporting on them.
The newspaper example by The Daily Mail on the top right uses the word ‘Asylum’ in the headline, this connotes that the
people who have immigrated here are here wrongly and should be sent back to their native country. Even though this whole
headlines should possibly be changed, the word asylum could have been substituted for a word such as immigrants. This
article may have prompted the viewer ship of The Daily Mail to have a negative view on immigrants and their impact on the
British economy.
Another example I have found of a newspaper article that connotes a negative view against a particular group of people.
This time, people who claim benefits are the target of this article. However, instead of using the phrase ‘people on benefits’
or ‘benefit claimers’ The Daily Express have used the word ‘scroungers’. This connotes the feeling that these people are
wrongfully claiming from the government and don’t deserve these benefits, while they are doing all the rest of the general
public a disservice by claiming these benefits, despite some people needing these said benefits to survive in this country, a
view that the media outlet hasn't thought about when producing this article.
The thing with connotation is that people interpret words in a different way to others. For example, some may see the
article on the bottom right and identify with the word ‘homo’, however, most of us would see this terms as derogatory and
discriminatory towards gay people. This 2007 newspaper article by The Sunday Paper uses the word which was extensively
complained about. Like the last example, this whole headline is wrong but because the particular word the media producer
has used has negative ties towards it and when teamed with the word in the headline, it makes it seem like it’s a problem in
society, when in actuality, this is a problem that a small minority in society has. A word such as ‘gay’ would have been less
offensive to the particular group and would have avoided much, but not all, of the discriminatory nature.
If news producers are unclear on the rules when news reporting, they can read the NUJ codes or consult the NUJ
themselves, through the phone line that the union have set up for journalists. If they have any queries on which words will
cause least offence and not be challenged legally, journalists will consult the materials available.

Alternative readings
Most media outlets have a target audience they have established through viewership statistics, but they must also account
for alternate viewers consuming their work also. While they don’t have to make their products accessible for other
demographics, they have to be open minded and not discriminatory against certain groups of people. Before publishing
their work, journalists have to think about the possibility of other groups reading their works and if the article is biased
toward a certain group or will hatred be generated toward a certain group if they publish it. Cultural theorist Stuart Hall
explored the use of alternative reading and reception theory and came up with the encoding and decoding model, which
helps to explain how a consumer decodes messages and connotations within media and other walks of life.
For example, different people may have a different view on an article, compared to another person from a different group.
A British male may not have the same reading as an African American male, while this is true for all different groups. It of
course depends on the certain persons experiences of life and what they have one through before they resd the article in
question, have they been a victim of a crime, gone through poverty or war or have they gone through mass tragedy, can
they link themselves to the article and understand what a certain person or group is going through because they have been
through the same ordeal, and some may not, some may not fully understand the extent and severity of certain subjects if
they have not been there themselves.
Newspapers will often report on the same story from a different viewpoint each time, this is to please all groups, however, I
would be much more simpler to generate a balanced argument that pleases all groups of people. As well as this, before all
the versions have been generated, there is always a particular group that will be discriminated against in the article, unless
they over all viewpoints in the same publication but on separate pages.
The information in the article in the top right is biased against mental patients and therefore an alternative reading can be
taken from it. They state that 1,200 people are killed by mental patients each year but they don’t state a balanced argument
or even an element of stating some form of sympathising element with the mental patients, instead, deciding to create this
hatred towards them, which may become part of the newspaper readers ideologies. If you put the encoding and decoding
model in place on this article, it doesn’t take long to decode the negative messages from the headline alone, you can tell it
will be a negative story towards the mental patients, while the media producer hasn’t even taken into consideration people
who have been or are going through mental illness reading this article.
As for the other article, it shows a disregard for anyone who is in the group that have been victim of this article. The Daily
Express state that if you’re an asylum seeker and gay, you will automatically be given preferential treatment. This leaves no
interpretation for readers in the affected groups and is generating hatred towards them. If the story showed some form of
proof with official statistics and toned down the headline, while reporting in a factual manner, this news story would be
following the NUJ codes and would be open to an alternative reading from certain group.

Credibility
The main attributes of a journalist should be trustworthy and reliable. If they are not, the consumer will
question the credibility of the journalists themselves and the media outlet they report for. It is in the
media producers interest to have credible journalists working for them, this can be the difference between
consumers buying and consistently buying the publication and consumers buying other, more credible
media products. If credibility isn’t achieved, it diminishes the value of the article that has been written, as
well as the future articles of this journalist and the company that this writer works for. For example, if a
journalist is reporting in a war zone and is writing the story without going right into the thick of the action,
they are making up some of the story and assuming some facts in the news story, therefore, if they re
found out, their credibility will be challenged.
To be credible, journalists must ensure that they follow and take into account the rules of:
•Objectivity
• Accuracy
• Truthfulness
• fairness and balanced arguments
Objectivity
For objectivity to be achieved, journalists must be impartial, unprejudiced and unbiased, with all these
functions been applied to every story they write. This often doesn’t happen, due to journalists and media
producers having political and other agendas and therefore aren’t objective 100% of the time. If this is the
case, journalists will disregard all information that doesn’t support their points and include sources and
information that does back their particular agenda. Doing this will not provide the consumer with an
independent view of the news story and will have lots of views and opinions of the journalist, instead,
which may lead to the consumer been swayed or influenced in some way by the stories this journalist is
producing. While this idea of journalists been objective exists, it’s far from the reality of news reporting,
due to the political agendas of most newspapers and media groups. For example, the left wing of labour is
backed by publications such as: The Guardian and The Independent, while the right-wing of the
conservatives is occupied by The Telegraph and the Express amongst others. These political agendas come
into play all the time but are the most strongest at election campaigns, where newspapers have been
known to massively impact the result of the future government. For example, in all of Tony Blair’s election
campaigns, the Sun’s backing, to the extent of them writing “The Sun backs Blair” can be seen as a massive
influence on the result and Blair’s eventual success in his elections.

Objectivity
In the 2010 election, most newspapers had political views, some changed sides from the previous 2005 elections, while many backed the
conservatives over the labour party (there was only one newspaper that backed the labour party, this was shown in the results as the
conservatives won by a landslide, but still had to form a coalition to overthrow the previous powers).
While the Times, who backed Gordon Brown’s Labour government in 2005, decided to switch allegiances and backed the conservatives in
2010. While The Times didn’t claim that they had won the election for David Cameron, like the sun did with Blair, their credibility as a media
outlet and the mass viewership they had definitely swayed the votes of the consumers and helped the conservative part on this occasion.
The only newspaper to back the labour government on this occasion was The Daily and Sunday Mirror. While they printed positive stories
about the labour government and negative stories about the other political parties, it wasn’t enough to sway consumers of The mirror or
readers of other media publications, the conservatives still won by a large margin. This might have something to do with the Mirror finding
themselves embroiled in more legal disputes than The Times, therefore the credibility of this media company is less than that of The Times.
Both newspapers had a political agenda during the 2010 election and
both wrote negative articles about the political parties that they hadn’t
pledged allegiance to (pictured left) While The Times had a big
impact on the election, the sheer volume of media output that backed
a conservative government also had a sizeable say on the next prime
minister (pictured below) despite many of these media outlets having
little credibility due to the printing of discriminatory stories, legal and
ethical issues and mass inaccuracy of articles on occasion (The Sun
and The Daily Express in particular)

Accuracy
Accuracy, amongst the other codes, is something journalists have to do in order to be taken as a credible and
highly regarded journalist. Things like names, dates, times and quotes, as well as other features that support
evidence in reports must be produced correctly, and in some cases, must feature in the article to further the
articles credibility. Adding a quote of an expert to a piece can add a trusting nature from the consumer to
your story. If you can then supply a name and a date to that quote, your credibility as a journalist, along with
the credibility of the article, will increase. For example, when reporting on fracking, The Guardian included a
quote from the energy minister, publishing the quote properly and keeping in context, while administering a
name to the quote also; this is how journalists keep accuracy in a story.
The stories that a journalist produces must also be accurate in nature. This requires the news reporting to be
of the facts and not of some libellous story or opinion of the journalist. If this function is not met, the story of
the journalist could cause harm or distress to the main focus of the story, which may lead to this person’s
public profile been destroyed. A recent example of this is that of Cliff Richard. In early October, it was
announced that the South Yorkshire Police had raided Sir Cliff Richards house for proof of an alleged child sex
offence, which it then unfolded that the BBC had gotten exclusive footage and had broadcast the raid on
television. This, along with The Daily Star’s choice to with the headline ‘Sir Cliff Richard Child Sex Shock’ which
suggests the pop star is guilty before the media outlet had established all the facts of the story, therefore
accuracy and credible journalism wasn’t achieved in this particular case.
If a person or group feels that a news story is inaccurate in any way, they can choose to submit a complaint to
the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), formerly the Press Complaints Commission. After this
stage, the press standards organisation will investigate the case and will force the media producer to print a
retraction or correction if required. The Hillsborough tragedy would be a key example of a correction in the
story. Despite this correction spanning more than 20 years, The Sun did correct a story they had initially
falsely reported on in 1989. Harm and distress was caused to the families of the 96 people that had died at
Hillsborough by reporting in an inaccurate fashion that vilified both the fans that lost their lives that day and
the fans who escaped from the crush. However, in 2012, the tabloid newspaper corrected their facts and
issued a apology to the families of the 96 fans. This is failing to be an accurate and credible journalist on a
monumental scale, not many inaccuracies are as big as this one.

Truthfulness
Truthfulness is one of the most key attributes when in journalism. Presenting truthful information to the
consumer is key to a journalists credibility, which will then reflect either positively or negatively on the media
producer they work for, dependant on if they are truthful and therefore credible. The journalistic field is all
about facts and truth, while staying away from libellous and untruthful information while writing a news
article.
If journalists are to break this truthfulness in their stories, they are writing in the fiction category instead.
Along with a journalists credibility been questioned, this aspect of credibility can have serious legal and ethical
repercussions if truthfulness is not met. Even though these consequences stand as a serious reminder for
journalists, this rule is constantly been broken by journalist and publications alike, due to these media
producers been desperate to grab the attention of the consumer and sell as many newspapers as possible.
Attached to this, there is also objectivity tied to this; newspapers may not be truthful because they have a
political agenda and are actively making up libellous and untruthful stories about the political parties they
have not pledged allegiance to. For example, the image on the bottom right depicts The Mail’s reporting of
the Andrew Mitchell ‘Plebgate’ scandal. While this looks like it was done truthfully, it was established that Mr.
Mitchell hadn’t asked for that sum of money and The Mail had made up statistics and figures in this news
story. While The Mail backed the conservative party in the 2010 election, they have printed a number of
libellous stories about the conservative party in the past years, which may suggest a shift in their political
agenda, however, truthfulness has still not been achieved by this news publication on this occasion.
As well as the overall viewpoint of the story been twisted, statistics and figures can often be twisted to back
up the points that the journalists have made and can potentially increase the credibility of the story, if they
are added in the correct context. However, due to all news publications using statistics to back up their
arguments, it’s sometimes difficult to establish the correct ones, unless the PCC or IPSO pull the media
producer up about it. Another example of where truthfulness hasn’t been met by journalists is The Daily
Mail’s false reporting of a mutant Ecoli been in Britain. The news outlet reported that after making it’s way
through other countries, it has found it’s way to Britain. Even though it is in the public interest to print this,
due to members of the public needing to be informed about public health risks, it wasn't a truthful story to
begin with, therefore, the credibility of the journalists and the newspapers was compromised again, along
with the Mr. Mitchell ‘plebgate’ incident.
Due to the confusion to establish the truthful and credible nature because of the way journalists twist facts,
it’s easy for media outlets to make allegations about people that have no basis in reality and didn’t actually
happen, which would be classed as untruthful, as well as potentially libellous.

Fair and balanced arguments
Journalism should be open-minded and should be approached with a non-discriminatory nature toward a group or certain person. The NUJ
codes that I wrote about in the previous sections states that journalists that are in the NUJ should not produce articles or news stories that will
lead to hatred or discrimination against a certain group or person (“Produces no material likely to lead to hatred or discrimination on the
grounds of a person’s age, gender, race, colour, creed, legal status, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation”)
To achieve credible journalism, the writing of journalists should be even, which involves giving a balanced account of both sides of the
argument, that then leads to the consumer been able to make up their own mind about the story, instead of the ideologies of the newspaper
or journalist. This is key, but is an ideal world, due to journalists stating their opinions in all forms of journalism (political in particular) to try and
gain an unfair advantage in things such as elections. Earlier, I used an example of The Sun backing Tony Blair, which included the news
publication emblazoning “The Sun Backs Blair” on the front of one of their 2005 newspapers. This example would also be relevant to this
section of credibility and would be an example of how a news outlet can be one sided and not balanced in their reporting of news events.
Like truthfulness, objectivity and accuracy, this is often overlooked by newspapers and journalists when reporting on news. Consumers might
like a fair and balanced reporting to be the way in journalism but the reality is that in journalism, all publications are likely to break the rules,
regardless of how highly they are thought of and how credible they have seemed in the past. As soon as an election is on the horizon, these
media outlets show their political agendas and write biased and unbalanced stories on various political parties, including the one that they are
backing. The bottom example from The Daily Telegraph shows how the newspaper has a political agenda, which is reflected in the main copy.
From the start, the news story is biased and isn’t balanced and doesn’t do anything for the publication or journalists credibility. They have also
used a technique that many try to try and convince the consumer and IPSO that their article is balanced; they have made the first 4 paragraphs
unbiased, while adding a balanced paragraph on the end, which many consumers potentially won't even read.
An aspect of fair and balanced arguments that links to alternative readings is the fact that news publications constantly give precedent to news
stories which will suit their target demographic. This aspect shows that newspapers will ignore those who aren’t in their target audience and
concentrate on the people who are; this includes the ideologies of the audience been reflected in the news stories, so the media company
don’t lose consumers, while they will also use a biased nature towards all aspect of their newspaper to try and keep the remaining viewers they
have. In addition, newspapers will use emotive stories to lead with and push the less interesting stories to later in the paper, after all,
newspapers see emotive subjects as a means of sales and increased sales. The Sun’s coverage of the Colonel Gaddafi killing was a prime
example of the emotive articles that publications use to boost sales of their newspapers. The mix of anger
and pain conveyed by The Sun may communicate a powerful message to the consumers and get them to buy
the newspapers, not only to read the story, but because the anger and pain aspects of the story is in
their own sets of ideologies. In terms of a balanced and fair argument, this news article doesn’t fit into this
article and instead states all the negative things about Gaddafi and not reporting on balanced grounds, which
is difficult when reporting on an evil dictator like Gaddafi, but must be attempted by journalists.
They don’t feature on piece of information that can’t be misconstrued to be positive, it’s all negative and
therefore it’s an unfair and unbalanced piece of journalism.

Defamation
In journalism, there are many legal considerations to think about before and during writing a news story.
These considerations must also be taken into account when been viewed by the editor. After all, the whole
publication will get sued by the person or group, in most cases, the journalist doesn't get personally sued.
Misrepresentation of a persons words or actions is one of the most common things for as journalist to
break, despite serious legal repercussions been taken if they carry defamation out. Defamation involves a
false accusation of an offence by the publication, which goes against the truth, fairness and accuracy of a
journalist, three things that a journalist should be according to the NUJ codes. This legal feature links
closely with libel, which defamation could lead to if it’s taken to the press standard organisation and then
to court.
Politicians and celebrities are the most common targets for a libellous story, however, defamation remains
one of the only legal obligations which can directly impact a member of the public. Sometimes, papers
who misrepresent general members of the public are taken to court by the person because they believe
the story written was a false one an done that defames them in some way.
Just one example of defamation was at the end of 2012 when The Sun reported that singer Tulisa had
stolen someone else’s boyfriend while she was pregnant, which misrepresented both Tulisa and the man
involved, footballer, Jay Simpson. After it had been established that this story was libellous by the courts,
the publication had adjudged to have misrepresented both parties in the story and were ordered to pay
both a substantial sum of money. Even though this seems like a serious case, there are loads of similar
cases all the time, especially in tabloid newspapers, who rely on sensationalised headlines to entice the
consumer to but their products. While it still happens in broadsheet, it doesn’t happen as often, due to
this kind of publication not printing celebrity articles in the same voyeuristic ways that a tabloid does.
However, the libel case can work both ways. Earlier this month, the policemen that had alleged former
chief whip Andrew Mitchell had called them ‘plebs’, were adjudged to have had “sufficient and accurate”
enough stories to have been telling the truth, a court ruled. As well as trying to clear his name, Andrew
Mitchell was also suing The Sun newspaper for libel, after the publication printed a story with the headline
“Cabinet minister: All police are plebs”. While the newspaper could have crossed some ethical obligations,
they were clearer of any criminal wrongdoing and instead of the publication paying out, the trial could cost
Mr. Mitchell £3m.

Copyright
A journalist, in no way, should attempt to use or copy work that is already in existence without permission
and correctly sourcing the owner on the final piece. This legal obligation protects the owner of the work
and ensures it doesn’t go uncredited. It also ensures that journalists and publications are punished should
they use this work and do not source the creator within the article.
Copyright also involves plagiarism in media production. You may not think that plagiarism happens in
journalism, but as I stated in the NUJ codes section, The Independent newspapers journalist Johann Hari
plagiarised peoples articles and interview pieces, while not crediting his sources. This led to him been
suspended by the news publication, while avoiding a copyright infringement, due to no charges been
brought upon the media producer or the journalist.
A high profile and historical copyright case is that of Walter vs Lane (1900). In 1899, reporters for The
Times newspaper took down shorthand notes of a number of speeches given by high profile politician the
Earl of Rosewood, adding corrections such as punctuation, before transcribing them in exactly the same
way in which they were spoken. After this, the publication published these speeches in their newspapers.
The fact that they had taken these notes wasn’t the breach of copyright, it was what followed that came
into question. The times reporters weren’t the ones in the wrong however, due to the respondent in the
case publishing a book that heavily featured the speeches from The Times. This meant that the respondent
could be prosecuted if the court found that The Times reporting of the speeches was original and
therefore the respondent would have broken a copyright infringement. The House of Lords took a vote
and found that the respondent was guilty and that the time, effort and skill used to take down the notes
by the reporters was enough to make them original and therefore making the opposing side guilty of
copyright.

Children and young people
A delicate legal obligation and one that must be handled extremely carefully by journalists. As a journalist, you must make sure
you put in various precautions to ensuring that you are legally and ethically carrying out work done with children and young
people. In any field of work, working with children can be a delicate matter, but in news reporting, it’s even more of a task.
Even though the NUJ don’t have a specific section on children and young people, the Editors code of Practice clearly states
how this sort of researching and reporting should be carried out. These codes cover children and criminal cases, as well as
consent of parents and photography of children in news publications. They are:
• “Young people should be free to complete their time at school without unnecessary intrusion” – This involves children been
quizzed about topics that aren’t relevant and work of their parents. Intrusion should be avoided, but some journalists do not
uphold this code. For example, Harry Potter author J.K Rowling’s daughter was subject to having notes put in her bag, with
various publications trying to get an interview with the famous author. This is a bad breach of the children and young people
laws and was brought to light as evidence in the Leveson inquiry in 2011, Rowling said she felt “under siege” from paparazzi
and her life felt “invaded”. The result of the Leveson inquiry of course, brought about the forming of IPSO (International press
standards organisation) Even though this example links to a celebrities child, this code can apply to members of the public and
their children, however, this won’t make much of an impact on consumers of a news publication if they are reading about a
general member of the public, which is why newspapers focus on celebrities; people are interested on this voyeurism of
celebrities.
• “A child under 16 must not be interviewed or photographed on issues involving their own or another child’s welfare unless a
custodial parent or similarly responsible adult consents” – This code makes it clear about the age a child must be when they
are past the age consent range for an interview or photograph. After this stage, it becomes standard journalism guideline; it is
up to the person themselves to decide if they want a photograph or interview of themselves conducted and then published.
• “Pupils must not be approached or photographed at school without the permission of the school authorities” – Even though
the past code covers children been photographed in general, when in the school premises, it is the decision of the school if the
photograph should be published. This sometimes extends to the school contacting the parents of the child and getting
permission or stating the situation.
• “Minors must not be paid for material involving children’s welfare, nor parents or guardians for material about their children
or ward, unless it is in the child’s interest” – Journalists can gain unfair advantages about celebrities through information
provided by their children. This involves journalists breaking a previous rule about interviewing children, while also straddling
the moral line, due to payment been made to the children by the news reporter. News publications can get round this code,
similar to the public interest code, by sating that it’s in the child’s interest.

Confidentiality
Occasionally, journalists may have to obtain information through talking to people breaking the law in various
ways and attending illegal events to try and establish some form of information for an investigative piece of
journalism. This will involve interviewing people in these illegal scenarios, which will be published in a media
publication. Through many obvious reasons, the journalist doesn’t reveal his source of information in the article
but includes the information and quotes from these people. Journalists are protected from having to reveal
sources and names of people involved in the story.
While the Editors Code of Practice says that, “Journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential sources
of information” a few moral obligations are thrown into the debate to counter-balance this code of practice.
While they should follow the Editors code of practice, not revealing their sources could lead to mass covert
crime and other problems for the police in the UK. While there are many other cases of confidentiality about,
the Edward Snowden NSA leaks is one that best links to this particular legal obligation. Edward Snowden began
working with Guardian Journalist Glenn Greenwald in 2012. During the time they worked together, the
publication that Greenwald worked for, The Guardian published some government and world secrets in their
newspapers.
Even though you would think this is a straight forward leaking case and Edward Snowden was linked to it all
along by the NSA, he didn’t actually reveal himself as the source of the information straight away, this came in
2013. Up until this time, the American had used fake aliases and had sent coded messages to Greenwald. In
June 2013, his identity was known to the world, when The Guardian revealed their source, at Snowden’s
command, however, if this wouldn’t have happened, many official government and presidential units would
have forced the publication to reveal it’s source, due to the severity of the secrets and leaks that Snowden had
masterminded.
Even though you would think confidential information would add to a news story and make it more credible, it
would actually do the opposite. Despite key information been added to the article, the media producer can’t
add a source to it and therefore people couldn’t be certain that someone had actually said this. If they do put
anything for confidential sources, they put “an eyewitness believes..” or “an unnamed source..” this is usually
met by understanding by consumers but by others, it makes the newspaper look like they have lost credibility by
making up a quote.

Official Secrets
National security and state secrets is protected by the official state secrets act. This prevents official
government and world secrets falling into the wrong hands, whether this is the media directly or
groups/individuals who pass this information to the media.
Before and after people work at or work for government/presidential companies, it is common for them to sign
a piece of documentation called the official secrets acts. This prevents people who have been in close quarters
or direct contact with world/national secrets and prevents the individual from sharing them, or they risk legal
challenges, which can lead to a long jail terms. Also, if an individual has leaked secrets from countries that aren’t
there own, extradition is a possibility.
In this particular legal obligation, there is no such things as the public interest, it’s all about the interest of
national security. In cases in the past, the official secrets act has been used to try and get a journalist or
publication to reveal their sources, which has led to uncovering things such as Edward Snowden and Wikileaks
founder, Julian Assange.
Assange, an Australian journalist rose to prominence in 2010, along with his website, Wikileaks, when it
published U.S military secrets on the web page. Even though Assange acquired these documents through a US
soldier, Chelsea Manning, who was convicted through the espionage act in 2013, Assange still published these
documents and secrets on the internet, therefore leaving himself open for the same imprisonment as Manning.
As well as the offences that the US want him for, the Australian is wanted in Sweden for sexual offences, with
the European country trying to extradite him in 2012. However, due to the mass complexity of these situation,
Assange decided to take refuge in the Colombian embassy in London, after the country gave him political
asylum.
As for Snowden, a former NSA employee, who leaked countless sensitive documents to newspapers and
publications around the world. After him work at the NSA had ceased, Snowden contacted Guardian journalist
Glenn Greenwald and said he had some official documents he wished to leak. By May 2013, countless numbers
of newspapers were publishing the leaked information, most notably; The Guardian, Le Monde and The New
York Times. Even though unlike Assange, Snowden directly released the secrets, the American hasn’t got
political asylum and is believed to reside in an unknown location in Russia, after applying for political asylum in
21 countries, including Germany. If he is ever found and returned to his country of origin, Snowden faces up to
30 years, if not life imprisonment.

Editors codes of practice
As well as the NUJ codes that I looked at earlier in this task, there are the Editors Code of Practice. Like the NUJ
codes, these rules give journalists guidelines to how they should behave when conducting their work and how
they should write.
Even though these codes, like the NUJ ones, only help the industry self-regulate itself and not legally punish
journalists, they still set an extensive list of codes that journalist and publications must follow. These codes
aren’t exclusively for the people in the media industry, it’s for members of the public also; if they feel a story is
offensive or causes harm, they need to know which codes the producer of this story has broken.
If a person feels that the journalist or publication has carried out any wrongdoing, they can complain to IPSO
(Independent Press Standards Organisation), formally the PCC (Press Complaints Commission)
However, due to the industry been self-regulating, some peoples interpretations of them is changeable and how
they are put in place can sometimes be variable depending on the case/story. From previous cases, such as the
phone hacking scandal, which led to the Leveson inquiry, showed that journalist had broken the editors/NUJ
codes on a daily basis.
The PCC was a regulatory body for the British newspaper and magazine print industry. It has no legal powers –
all the publications and corporations involved voluntarily contributes to the cost, which inn turn, they agree to
adhere to the codes of the PPC/IPSO; this makes the whole industry self-regulating. In July 2011, the PCC came
under extensive criticism after they failed to act on the News Of The World phone hacking scandal. This
approach to the scandal led to Prime Minister David Cameron calling for the PCC to be replaced by a new
regulatory body, which was IPSO in 2014.

The Editors Codes of Practice contains 16 codes and helps to keep journalists credible:
Accuracy - This directly links with credibility of a journalist, with all stories been in accordance to the accuracy section of the
editors codes of practice. Any reporting that falls short of this mark will be issued with a warning and correction of the
inaccuracy will be issued, as well as an apology from the publication in the wrong. An example of this would be The Sun’s
coverage of the Hillsborough disaster, which has already been covered in the credibility section of this PowerPoint. The
publication reported that the fans and police had part-taken in things that after were proved to be false, prompting the
newspaper to issue an apology many years later, as well as a correction of the information. Even though it meant very little,
due to the fans and victims of Hillsborough been reported in a negative light and were effectively blamed for the whole
disaster by the publication.
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due
prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published. In cases involving the Commission, prominence should be
agreed with the PCC in advance
Opportunity to reply – “A fair opportunity for reply to inaccuracies must be given when reasonably called for”. This involves
both the publications the right to reply to inaccuracies and either why they have made them or time to correct these
inaccuracies of stories. However, it also gives members of the public the right to reply to the inaccuracies, which includes
people who are victim of the stories the newspaper has published or people who are offended by the content of the stories.
Privacy – This code entitles everyone, which includes both members of the public and celebrities to have a private and family
life, without intrusion from the press. This is broken more commonly than you would think and it’s because the press are
trying to get a high profile story that will sell copies, but by doing this, they have compromised they’re integrity as a journalist
and have straddled the line of intrusion and curiosity, therefore bringing the journalistic field into disrepute. A high profile
case involved the former head of the automobile federation, FIA, Max Mosley. The News Of The World reported that Mosley
was involved in sexual acts with prostitutes, which is an intrusion of his private life. As well as the main copy that the
publication ran, a video accompanied it. The newspaper were ordered to pay Mosley £60,000; a small sum considering the
high profile nature of the case.
i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital
communications.
ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without consent. Account will be taken of the
complainant's own public disclosures of information.

Harassment (see examples on page 33)
“Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit” – Journalists will not use their powerful
status to intimidate anyone into giving away information to them or persistently carrying on to pester them for information.
The J.K Rowling example I gave earlier would be an example of a persistent pursuit and those journalists should have been
punished through these codes but no journalist faced action over this, although the Leveson inquiry was set up and a new
regulatory body was established from these problems and others similar.
“They must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to desist; nor remain
on their property when asked to leave and must not follow them. If requested, they must identify themselves and whom
they represent” – Some journalists do not desist when asked and this is what crosses the lone of intrusion through into
harassment. Even though the editors code states that journalists should say who they represent, few do. Although if you were
setting up an official interview, like journalists should, this would be discussed by the journalist and the individual(s) involved.
“Editors must ensure these principles are observed by those working for them and take care not to use non-compliant
material from other sources” – This sub-section of the harassment code is universal to all other codes, due to all editors
wanting to ensure that all the journalists been employed by the publication are complaint to the rules. However, due to
harassment been one of the biggest ethical obligations, this is why this sub-section is incorporated. As well as this, editors
must ensure that when using sourced material, such as quotes, information or imagery, they use material that hasn’t been
extracted using unethical mean, such as harassment or intrusion.
Intrusion into grief or shock (See examples and more information on page 32)
“In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and
publication handled sensitively. This should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings, such as inquests” – This means
that formal approaches to the family of the diseased must be approached for an interview. This does not mean that journalist
should try and acquire a story/information through illegitimate means such as gate crashing the funeral, bombarding the
family with messages or going to the family home to try and gain access.
“When reporting suicide, care should be taken to avoid excessive detail about the method used” – This should be an
assumed part of reporting on suicide. Releasing the method may cause added grief or distress to the family and of people
reading the publication. However, in celebrity cases, they often reveal the method but as a general term. For example, they
would state that the celebrity had died of an overdose but would not state the substance or how much of it they had
ingested.

Children (see legal obligation slide 17)
All the sub-sections of the editors codes of children were covered on page 17, which were:
•“Young people should be free to complete their time at school without unnecessary intrusion”
•“A child under 16 must not be interviewed or photographed on issues involving their own or another child’s welfare unless a custodial
parent or similarly responsible adult consents”
•“Pupils must not be approached or photographed at school without the permission of the school authorities”
•“Minors must not be paid for material involving children’s welfare, nor parents or guardians for material about their children or wards,
unless it is clearly in the child's interest”
The only one that wasn't covered on that slide was:
•“Editors must not use the fame, notoriety or position of a parent or guardian as sole justification for publishing details of a child’s
private life” – This is the PCC/IPSO’s way of stating that the position of a parent of the child is not a correct justification to start publishing
information about the child. Many newspapers fall into this sub-section, due to them reporting about the celebrity but also mentioning the
child too, which breaks this particular code.
Children in sex cases
“The press must not, even if legally free to do so, identify children under 16 who are victims or witnesses in cases involving
sex offences” – This is to protect the child from the media gaze, especially considering they will have to go through the
remainder of their life with that tag, should the press identify them, which is why these codes state that journalists should
not reveal this information.
“The adult may be identified” – Usually if the press don’t reveal the name of the child, they add the name of the adult to give
the story some added information and perspective. The publication may also add the name of the adult if other publications
haven’t, all newspapers are desperate to sell copies against their rivals, even if it means obtaining this sort of groundbreaking
information that no other news producer has.
“The word "incest" must not be used where a child victim might be identified” – It has negative connotations and it will have
a negative effect on the child identified for the remainder of their life, on top of the distress they have suffered already.
“Care must be taken that nothing in the report implies the relationship between the accused and the child”

Hospitals
“Journalists must identify themselves and obtain permission from a responsible executive before entering non-public areas
of hospitals or similar institutions to pursue enquiries” – Due to the amount of grief and shock the families of the sick and
Injured must be feeling, all journalists usually respect this rule and comply to identifying themselves. While some journalists
choose to identify themselves and interview people close to the people in hospital or wait until they go home and then
interview them through legitimate means, some choose to not identify themselves and try and gain exclusive information that
may not be meant for journalists eyes. An example of this when earlier this year, racing legend Michael Schumacher found
himself in a coma after a skiing accident. After he had been in the coma for a few months and information wasn’t been
updated by the hospital, one journalist took it upon themselves to covertly go into the hospital and collect the Germans files,
which breaks this and the next sub-sections.
Which is:
“The restrictions on intruding into privacy are particularly relevant to enquiries about individuals in hospitals or similar
Institutions”
Reporting of crime
“Relatives or friends of persons convicted or accused of crime should not generally be identified without their consent, unless
they are genuinely relevant to the story” – This is similar to the children in sex cases code. Under no fault of their own, these
people have found themselves branded with a negative light, despite been innocent, which is why it’s best not to name these
particular people because they are connoted with the criminals that they are related to, not known for who they actually are.
As well newspapers not allowing this, he family probably will not want to be named, unless this is a high profile case and it will
be eventually uncovered anyway or it has a public interest element to it.
“Particular regard should be paid to the potentially vulnerable position of children who witness, or are victims of, crime.
This should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings” – As well as the last part of the ‘reporting of crime’ codes, this
one also links to children in sex cases, due to the vulnerable predicament that you would put a child in of they were named in
the report. Even though it would be difficult to interview a person under 16 without the crime element added, it now would be
almost impossible, unless it’s overwhelmingly in the public interest to do so. As for the second part of this code, there is little
that will get I the way of reporting legal proceedings, unless the case is done behind closed doors, which is very rarely done.

Clandestine devices and subterfuge
“The press must not seek to obtain or publish material acquired by using hidden cameras or clandestine listening devices; or
by intercepting private or mobile telephone calls, messages or emails; or by the unauthorised removal of documents or
photographs; or by accessing digitally-held private information without consent” – A lot of the examples given in the
clandestine section of this code have been covered in this presentation already. Interception of private or mobile phone calls
links directly to the News of the World phone hacking scandal, which set up the Leveson inquiry, which, in turn, turned the PCC
into IPSO. As for the unauthorised removal of documents; this was covered on the previous page, with Michael Schumacher and
the removal of his hospital files after his Ski accident.
“Engaging in misrepresentation or subterfuge, including by agents or intermediaries, can generally be justified only in the
public interest and then only when the material cannot be obtained by other means” – The inclusion of this sub-section gives
publications a loophole when reporting. The editors will give the excuse that they could not obtain the information from
elsewhere and it cannot be proved either way, so the media producer will probably not have legal proceedings brought toward
them if this does happen.
Victims of sexual assault
“The press must not identify victims of sexual assault or publish material likely to contribute to such identification unless
there is adequate justification and they are legally free to do so” – This code completes the subjects that it is unlikely that a
publication will publish the names of the people that are victims of sexual assault, crime or children involved in sex cases. This is
due to the fact that in the media, it is a journalists job to report the news and tell the consumers the facts, while there would be
no benefit to the consumer or the media producer for revealing the name of the victim.
Discrimination (view the second page on social and cultural awareness)
“The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation
or to any physical or mental illness or disability”
“Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided
unless genuinely relevant to the story”

Financial journalism
“Even where the law does not prohibit it, journalists must not use for their own profit financial information they receive in
advance of its general publication, nor should they pass such information to others” – Despite it not been in the public
interest
and been inappropriate for any form of news report, journalist are prohibited from stating their financial wealth or the profits
they have made themselves from shares or other means. Due to it been such a niche topic of journalism, each publication tends
to have just one financial reporter who remains credible throughout their reports or they will be replaced with someone willing
to report credibly.
“They must not write about shares or securities in whose performance they know that they or their close families have a
significant financial interest without disclosing the interest to the editor or financial editor” – An example of where this sub-section
has been broken is when journalist Piers Morgan wrote in his articles, little tips for the consumers about which shares to
buy. However, it then transpired that Morgan had shares in these companies and sold them s soon as the consumers bought
shares in this company also, therefore making the journalist a lot of money.
“They must not buy or sell, either directly or through nominees or agents, shares or securities about which they have written
recently or about which they intend to write in the near future”
Confidential sources (view page 18 for the confidentiality information)
“Journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential sources of information”
Witness payment in criminal trials
“No payment or offer of payment to a witness - or any person who may reasonably be expected to be called as a witness –
should be made in any case once proceedings are active as defined by the Contempt of Court Act 1981” – This could have
serious repercussions especially if it is seen as the journalist trying to alter the outcome of the case. However, journalists may
not be able to obtain crucial information if they don’t pay witnesses for information in the trials. They have a brief window to
operate before it becomes illegal to pay for witness information, journalist have to act fast on these occasions.

Payment to criminals
“Payment or offers of payment for stories, pictures or information, which seek to exploit a particular crime or to glorify or
glamorise crime in general, must not be made directly or via agents to convicted or confessed criminals or to their associates
–
who may include family, friends and colleagues” – these codes are included in the Editors codes of practice to think of and
cover
any scenario, despite very few journalists even considering glorifying crimes and similar. However, there is a loophole in this
sub-section,
due to many editors passing off the information that they gained as either in the public interest or not exploiting crime
in
any way.
“Editors invoking the public interest to justify payment or offers would need to demonstrate that there was good reason to
believe the public interest would be served. If, despite payment, no public interest emerged, then the material should not be
published” – This is a big sub-section for editors in particular, due to the information that they collect been in jeopardy of not
been published, as well as the fact that they have paid for the information and therefore lost money on this story, which could
have detrimental effects for smaller national papers, while credible broadsheet newspapers and big tabloid papers wouldn’t
struggle, dependant ton the sum paid for information.

The public interest
As well as the code of practice, the PCC/IPSO have a whole section dedicated to the public interest. This is due to the mass
amount of cases that are seen involving the public interest, with IPSO making it very clear how and when you must use the
public interest to generate a story.
In addition to consequences of breaking the rules and how to prove it if you’re an editor or journalist, IPSO state the topics
which are mainly in the public interest and need publishing if these kind of stories are generated by journalists. These are:
i) Detecting or exposing crime or serious impropriety – This will go against the previous confidentiality legal obligation that I
covered, if it’s in the interest of the public and the public need to warned, the story is ran and in some cases, the sources are
released. This isn’t as serious as national secrets but it could stop covert and public criminality. An example of this would be
the 2010 cricket fixing scandal that the News of the World exclusively published on their front pages the day after the fixing
had taken place. However, this could have gone the other way, if the three Pakistani players that were alleged to have
carried out this crime were found innocent, the publication were open to a libel lawsuit. While this isn’t a huge example of
detection of crime in the media, it was still seen as in the public interest to do so.
ii) Protecting public health and safety – This is key not just for the newspapers to get a shocking story, it is important that the
public are informed about public health warnings and any other findings on the matter by the publications. The job of the
newspapers is to try and get the message to the masses and get the message of a public health warning out to the public,
which is why it’s important for all publications to run the same or similar stories (after all, many people continue to read the
same newspapers every day, it’s no good if it’s only reported in one publication that a minority will see). A very current
example of where the public interest was shown was the recent Ebola outbreak. While newspapers did not have a battle to
publish the information, it was still overwhelmingly in the public interest to publish this story. All the stories warned of the
virus and got out the public health warning in time to warn everyone of potential impending risk.
iii) Preventing the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or organisation – This could be any
individual, but they must be in the public eye or it wouldn’t be worth reporting on. As well as this, the group or organisation
could link to the political agendas of newspapers, due to various newspapers trying to prevent the public been misled by
picking what he publication would regard as a misleading political message. However, aside from political agendas, an
example of preventing the public been misled is the aftermath of the Leveson inquiry, which involved the News of the World
been closed by Rupert Murdoch. In that space after the inquiry, various publications printed stories of phone hacking and the
inquiry itself, which led to the public been informed that they had been misled by Rupert Murdoch and co, through the
invoking of the public interest clause.

The public interest
As well as explaining the main functions of public interest and when is it relevant to invoke the clause, it also goes onto
mention other clauses which helps a journalist determine whether their article is in the public interest or not. they are:
“There is a public interest in freedom of expression itself”
“Whenever the public interest is invoked, the PCC will require editors to demonstrate fully that they reasonably believed
that publication, or journalistic activity undertaken with a view to publication, would be in the public interest and how,
and with whom, that was established at the time.” – This is a key one because even if the journalist has acted in the public
interest, if an editor cannot prove they took the right measures in ensuring it was in the public interest. This processes
involves the editor of the publication explaining the whole story and the idea behind the story, if the newspaper had a tip
off, this might need to be considered, so revealing sources might need to be involved in this process.
“The PCC will consider the extent to which material is already in the public domain, or will become so” – The PCC must
determine whether someone's reputation will be destroyed if information is published by the publications, as well as the
consideration of how much harm/hatred it would potentially cause if it was released/a further piece was released. If this is
an exclusive story, sources will need to be revealed and all information will need to considered, with no possibilities or
scenario not been considered. The PCC sometimes fell short of this, and this, along with the Leveson inquiry showed why a
new regulatory body needed establishing; they didn’t consider a considerable amount of repercussions to the story and this
is why tabloid newspapers are allowed to print controversial/harmful stories without punishment on occasion.
“In cases involving children under 16, editors must demonstrate an exceptional public interest to over-ride the normally
paramount interest of the child” – It is rare that publications attempt to print a controversial story and claim it was in the
public interest, due to them knowing the consequences if they get this wrong. However, if it does happen, newspapers will
try and defend themselves in what way they can, but it’s much more difficult to claim the child case was in the public
interest, compared to the likes of intrusion or privacy cases.

Privacy
Like I stated in the codes of practice section of the presentation, privacy codes state that everyone is entitled to respect for
their private and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital communications. My previous example of
Max Mosley, the former chief of the FIA allegedly part-taking in what the media called “very specific” sexual acts. These
reports were never adjudged to be true or not, although video evidence suggested it was. However, this isn’t the privacy
intrusion part, the privacy intrusion part came when the PCC decided that The Sun had not acted in the public interest when
reporting this story and a money settlement were made between the publication and individual.
This example would have also been an issue if the NUJ codes were used in deciding the trial, due to the NUJ code stating
“Journalists should not intrude into anybody’s private life, grief or distress, unless justified by an overriding consideration of
the public interest”. A recent example of where the editors code of practice and the NUJ codes were broken by the press was
the case of Oscar Pistorius and the privacy intrusion of Reeva Steenkamp’s parents, Barry and June. Unlike the publication
pictured right, the media tried to gain information on the feelings of the parents by unethical and in some cases, illegal
means. They were pestered by the media, which broke the part of the editors code of practice that states: “everyone is
entitled to respect heir private and family life”. However, this privacy intrusion is very common when death has occurred to
someone, especially one with such a high profile as Reeva Steenkamp.
In practice, people’s privacy can be disrupted if the editor can prove that intruding a persons privacy, which may include
people in distress or grief, is in the public interest. However, there is a very fine margin between public interest and the
interest of the public. This line is consistently crossed and journalist are prosecuted, although, no one in the Barry and June
Steenkamp privacy intrusion case was arrested or charged, even if they did break a number of journalist codes by carrying
out their research for the story.
An example of the public interest is the middle example on the right hand side. When MP’s claimed expenses, which meant
that tax payers, or general members of the public, were paying for these politicians to live in tow homes and live luxurious
lifestyles. However in 2010, a number of newspapers, including the Daily Telegraph (pictured), published the story of the
expenses scandal, which wasn’t even challenged by the PCC and the public interest codes, instead, it gave the go ahead to
publications to name and shame those who claimed expenses.
A story that could have been in the public interest, but was adjudged to have been in the interest of the public was the Kate
Middleton exposed scandal. The Duchess of Cambridge was pictured sunbathing topless on the balcony of a villa in France,
which was then published by a French publication. After finding it’s way onto pages of the UK tabloids, the PCC decided this
story was in the interest of the public, however, no newspapers had to be changed, due to the media producers defending
the duchess and not glorifying the French magazine.

Intrusion
In terms of the editors code of practice, privacy and intrusion are similar, however, there is more emphasis on the grief
and distress elements when talking about intrusion. In fact, the heading of the intrusion code is ‘intrusion into grief or
shock’ which must be strongly considered by journalists when found in such events as reporting on the loss of an
individual.
Instead, cases involving grief and shock must be handled with official approaches and enquiries been made to the grieving
and the publication/journalist must handle the matter sensitively and without causing any further distress. However,
despite this discretion been taken, this doesn’t exclude journalists from reporting on legal proceedings, such as inquests.
Despite the Editors code of practice covering intrusion comprehensively, the NUJ has a code for intrusion also. The
journalism union states that: journalists should not “do anything to intrude into anybody’s private life, grief or distress
unless justified by overriding consideration of public interest”. Intrusion and privacy are the two big sections when it
comes to the public interest because even if a story is in the public interest, harassment of people in grief is strictly
prohibited, with very few journalists going to the lengths of harassment to get a story.
Even though this ethical obligation can be open and happen to any celebrity/member of the public, it usually happens to
an individual or a group when they have experienced loss, especially if it’s a high profile case (the more high profile, the
more newspaper sales the media producer makes when uncovering new and exclusive information).
Due to been closely linked, the privacy case of June and Barry Steenkamp would also apply to intrusion. Despite intrusion
been more severe than privacy, he methods that some journalists used when trying to interview the Stennkamp’s was
bordering on intrusion, if not legally classified as such.
As well as the Steenkamp example, another case that has been mentioned previously and fits into the intrusion category
is the Madeleine McCann case. Journalists consistently intruded on Gerry and Kate McCann during the widespread media
coverage of the first few months that Madeleine went missing. Even though media coverage has lowed down somewhat,
every time there is a development in the case, the media intrudes on the parents and tries to gain access to an interview
with them through unethical and sometimes illegal means.
Due to newspapers intruding on individuals/groups so often, there are many relevant examples I could give. However, a
high profile example of intrusion is the 2013 case of two Mail on Sunday journalists gate crashing Ed Miliband’s uncles
funeral. The tow journalists who attended the service, caused added distress and grief for those also in attendance and
was followed with an apology from the publications editor, Geordie Greig, who said:”it was a terrible lapse of judgment”
before going on to state “it’s completely contrary to the values and editorial standards of the Mail on Sunday”

Harassment
The editors code of practice is very clear about harassment, due to the severity of carrying it out if you’re a
journalist. Along with reporting on children and children in sex cases, this is one of the worst codes to break as a
journalist. Intrusion can be warranted if it obtains information in the public interest, however, even if relevant
information is obtained by journalists by doing this, they will have gone through such unethical and illegal means
that it would be punishable by IPSO.
Harassment has a wide spectrum and can include many things, such as; intimidation, harassment itself or
persistently pursuing someone. Once asked by the individual, journalists must stop contacting or photographing
the person. In media, harassment is an issue because people have different interpretations of when intrusion
turns into harassment, although, it can be agreed that the line has been crossed if the journalist is still persistent
after the person has asked them to stop. Some journalists try and prove it was in the public interest, but it's very
difficult to prove this; much more difficult compared to privacy and intrusion.
There are so many examples, due to the consumer wanting a voyeuristic look into celebrities lives and the media
producers have to provide them with this information, through images and copy. It’s common for celebrities and
paparazzi to have altercations, which then leads to lawsuits towards these journalists, due to them pursuing the
celebrity, despite telling them to stop.
High profile cases include Sienna Miller in 2008, when she sued a member of the paparazzi for making her life
“intolerable” by a “campaign of harassment”. The legal proceedings against Big Pictures photography came after
a lengthy spell of harassment and invasion of privacy. This wasn’t the first time Miller had launched a lawsuit on
a media company, she sued The Daily Star in 2007 after they published images of her without her consent; which
resulted in Miller receiving £15,000 from the publication. Not forgetting that it was Miller who also had her
phone hacked in the 2010 News of the World phone hacking scandal. The model featured in the Leveson inquiry
and was eventually granted £100,000 in damages from the phone hacking scandal.
An even more recent example of harassment within the media is the breach of paparazzi on pop star Harry
Styles. The One Direction singer was granted a court order against four paparazzi that are yet to be identified
after a representative of the singer stated that: “it is the method or tactics which have been used by a certain
type of photographer”. This court order prevents paparazzi from “pursuing the singer by car or motorcycle,
placing him under surveillance, loitering or waiting within 50 metres of his place of residence to monitor his
movements or take photos of him in such circumstances”. Despite the four paparazzi been unidentified at this
present time, four cars were identified and the owners of these vehicles are been tracked by the DVLA and the
metropolitan police.

Task 10

More Related Content

What's hot (13)

Viewers also liked (8)

Similar to Task 10 (20)

More from PJG123 (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Task 10