The News of the World and Popular Journalism:
The News of the World was first published on October 1st 1843. [1] It was and still remains a Sunday newspaper to which it’s aim is to entertain the working classes. When Sunday newspapers were first introduced, they emphasized that the working people could expect entertainment from their weekly reading, not simply political or didactic instruction.
Around 1850 it was said that journalism was an important means of collecting and communicating social information due to the improvement of technology, distribution and financial stake. However, John Stuart Mill thought differently on the subjected and stated:
"…Our daily and weekly writers are the lowest hacks of literature which…is the vilest and most degrading of all trades because more of affectation and hypocrisy and more subservience to the basest feelings of others are necessary for carrying it on…from that of a brothel-keeper." [2]
This viewpoint on journalism did not prevent the News of the World from becoming an extremely popular Sunday newspaper. It was not until the Stamp Duties were abolished that the News of the World became one of three Sunday newspapers to dominate in the era of mass readerships and the New Journalism. The other two weekly newspaper launched around the same time were, the Lloyd’s Illustrated London Newspaper and Reynolds’ Weekly Newspaper.
The News of the World had a compelling impact on popular journalism due to the content of its pages. Popular Journalism is that which discovers stories of entertaining value for its readers, associating itself with gossip, celebrity scandals, news and sensation. The News of the World appealed to its targeted audience, the working classes, because it concerned itself with these topics ensuring its aims were always achieved. It’s headlines and pictures are always capturing to their readership and its sensationalism illustrates why, on its launch, it claimed to be, ‘The Novelty of the Nations and the Wonder of the World – the cheapest, largest and best newspaper’. Being one of many ‘Red Tops’, readers of the News of the World are aware that their weekly read is not going to be strongly political or extremely educational because ‘Red Top’ newspapers are associated with popular culture rather than high culture and therefore lower market.
The News of the World had a circulation of 6,250,000 in the 1960’s due to the breaking news of the Profumo Affair. Within this story it was revealed that the Conservative Secretary of State John Profumo and Yevgeny Ivanov were sharing the prostitute, Christine Keeler. This story reinforced the radicalism of the newspaper. [3] A way in which the News of the World stands out from other ‘Red Tops’ is with its anti-paedophile campaign. This began in 2000 after the case of Sarah Payne, to which the newspaper wanted to name paedophiles to the public in an attempt to shame them. This controversial campaign led to dangerous acts towards suspected paedophiles by members of the public. The campaign was dropped after it was said to be ‘grossly irresponsible’. Although in this case the News of the World is seen as individual, there is an aspect which presents it differently.
The fact that this Sunday newspaper is now a subsidiary of the Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation suggests it is no longer one of a kind, which reinforces its association with popular culture as it is now part of mass media.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_of_the_World
[2]Journalism - A Critical History Martin Conboy
[3]Journalism - A Critical History Martin Conboy
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Confidentiality - Media Law Week 5
This week we were looking at the concept of ‘confidentiality’ within media law. There are three main areas within this topic: State Secrets, Commercial Secrets and Privacy.
State secrets are also known as official secrets, which will come from the military or intelligence operations for example. The law on state secrets is set out within the Official Secrets Act 1911. This contains schedules of secret information and revealing any information can lead to criminal prosecution. Reporting from a military base can be dangerous and lead to an Official Secrets Act breach because a story could give away (directly or indirectly) the disposition of troops.
In common law people have the right to keep secrets so long as this is not against the public interest. If a secret has been passed on when it has not been permitted to do so, the crime is called ‘breach of confidence’. An example of this is where a doctor passed on confidential information about you to a family member when you have given consent for such action to take place.
As journalists we may be inclined to provoke someone to reveal a secret, however if we do so and then publish the secret we may have committed a ‘third party breach of confidence’. ‘Confidentiality’ partly depends on the type of secret information at stake, and partly on the expectation of the person imparting the information that it will be kept a secret. The information being passed on must have the necessary quality of confidence to which it cannot be already known; it must have been provided in circumstances imposing an obligation; there cannot have been consent and detriment must be likely to be caused to the person who gave the information. These aspects must all be present in order for there to be a breach of confidence.
When starting some new jobs the employer will go through what is known as a ‘gagging clause’. A ‘gagging clause’ is a clause set out in the employment contract of an employee. It prevents the employee from discussing certain details considered important or sensitive with third parties. If someone has a ‘gagging clause’ they are taking a risk in speaking to a journalist about their company without permission.
Different professions require different amounts of confidentiality. Doctors have to keep all information, which patients have disclosed, to themselves. The only time they are permitted to share such information is if the patient has given their consent. If the doctor passes on information, for example, but they have not received consent then they are in breach of confidence. Journalists can also be guilty of a third party breach of confidence in this circumstance as well, if they have then published or broadcast the information, which was not consented.
Section eight of the Human Rights Act regards itself with privacy of family life. This is the third area to ‘personal secrets’. This clause mainly affects tabloid newspapers and celebrity journalism. We have a right to publish photographs of celebrities in various situations if we have consent and if there is a public interest, however if there is lack of consent we do not have the right to publish the photographs.
The next aspect of this topic is injunctions. An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order whereby a party is required to do or refrain from doing certain acts. In relation to journalism, a person or company can easily get an injunction to prevent a secret about them from being published or broadcasted. Injunctions are easily obtained because that person will say there is a danger of a crime occurring and the injunction will prevent that crime. Looking at it from a public view point, an injunction is a positive thing because once an injunction has been made against one media organisation, it is an injunction against all publishers.
The final aspect of this topic is celebrities and privacy. The rule regarding this is, if there is a picture of a person in your newspaper/TV station website, make sure you know who they are, what they are doing and whether they have consented to having their picture taken and published.
State secrets are also known as official secrets, which will come from the military or intelligence operations for example. The law on state secrets is set out within the Official Secrets Act 1911. This contains schedules of secret information and revealing any information can lead to criminal prosecution. Reporting from a military base can be dangerous and lead to an Official Secrets Act breach because a story could give away (directly or indirectly) the disposition of troops.
In common law people have the right to keep secrets so long as this is not against the public interest. If a secret has been passed on when it has not been permitted to do so, the crime is called ‘breach of confidence’. An example of this is where a doctor passed on confidential information about you to a family member when you have given consent for such action to take place.
As journalists we may be inclined to provoke someone to reveal a secret, however if we do so and then publish the secret we may have committed a ‘third party breach of confidence’. ‘Confidentiality’ partly depends on the type of secret information at stake, and partly on the expectation of the person imparting the information that it will be kept a secret. The information being passed on must have the necessary quality of confidence to which it cannot be already known; it must have been provided in circumstances imposing an obligation; there cannot have been consent and detriment must be likely to be caused to the person who gave the information. These aspects must all be present in order for there to be a breach of confidence.
When starting some new jobs the employer will go through what is known as a ‘gagging clause’. A ‘gagging clause’ is a clause set out in the employment contract of an employee. It prevents the employee from discussing certain details considered important or sensitive with third parties. If someone has a ‘gagging clause’ they are taking a risk in speaking to a journalist about their company without permission.
Different professions require different amounts of confidentiality. Doctors have to keep all information, which patients have disclosed, to themselves. The only time they are permitted to share such information is if the patient has given their consent. If the doctor passes on information, for example, but they have not received consent then they are in breach of confidence. Journalists can also be guilty of a third party breach of confidence in this circumstance as well, if they have then published or broadcast the information, which was not consented.
Section eight of the Human Rights Act regards itself with privacy of family life. This is the third area to ‘personal secrets’. This clause mainly affects tabloid newspapers and celebrity journalism. We have a right to publish photographs of celebrities in various situations if we have consent and if there is a public interest, however if there is lack of consent we do not have the right to publish the photographs.
The next aspect of this topic is injunctions. An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order whereby a party is required to do or refrain from doing certain acts. In relation to journalism, a person or company can easily get an injunction to prevent a secret about them from being published or broadcasted. Injunctions are easily obtained because that person will say there is a danger of a crime occurring and the injunction will prevent that crime. Looking at it from a public view point, an injunction is a positive thing because once an injunction has been made against one media organisation, it is an injunction against all publishers.
The final aspect of this topic is celebrities and privacy. The rule regarding this is, if there is a picture of a person in your newspaper/TV station website, make sure you know who they are, what they are doing and whether they have consented to having their picture taken and published.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Qualified Privilege
There is a law which exists to protect the moral and professional reputation of the individual from unjustified attack. This is defamation. Defamatory statements are those that; expose the person to hatred, ridicule or contempt; cause the person to be shunned or avoided; lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally or disparge the person in his/her business, trade, office or profession. There are two types of defences for the charge of defamation which are, absolute and qualified privilege. Privilege is a defence against an action for libel which attaches to reports produced from certain events, documents or statements.
The defense of qualified privilege permits persons in positions of authority or trust to make statements or relay or report statements that would be considered slander and libel if made by anyone else. As a journalist if you are reporting in Parliament or courts you have a defence of qualified privilege automatically when repeating, publishing, or broadcasting defamatory remarks. In order to have the defence of qualified privilege, you must have published something immediately with no errors or malice. (Fast, accurate and fair.) Absolute privilege is not available to journalists, however if, in practice, your report is free from error and if it is published immediately then the qualified privilege confers a similar degree of protection.
If, as a journalist, you are attending a public event such as a local government meeting, then the defence of qualified privilege is available to you, just as long as you allow the defamed person to deny allegations in the same report.
The other point which is very important in regards to the defence of qualified privilege is the Reynold's 10 point test for journalists. The 10 point test was established in the case of Albert Reynolds vs The Sunday Times. In this case the Sunday Times stated that the Irish Prime Minister (Ablert Reynolds) lied to the Irish Parliament in order to cover up a child abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. The paper could not prove the allegations when challenged by Reynolds as they had no witnesses and no evidence. However, when the case went before the higher courts, the judges stated that the Sunday Times had not only a right but a duty to publish the allegations because they seemed to be reasonable and it was in the public interest to be published. The 10 points that were established as a result of this test are:
1) The seriousness of the allegation.
2) The nature of the information.
3) The source of the information.
4) The steps taken to verify the information.
5) The status of the information.
6) The urgency of the matter.
7) Whether the comment was sought from the claimant.
8) Whether the article contained the gist of the claimant's side of the story.
9) The tone of the article.
10) The circumstances of the publication, including the timing.
If a journalist covers all 10 points of the Reynolds Test and they have the public interest, then they may have a qualified privilege in making defamatory allegations outright without quoting someone who is protected by absolute privilege.
This is an interesting case of qualified privilege:
Connecticut Supreme Court Limits Employer's Qualified Privilege in Defamation Actions:
http://www.jacksonlewis.com/legalupdates/article.cfm?aid=1730
The defense of qualified privilege permits persons in positions of authority or trust to make statements or relay or report statements that would be considered slander and libel if made by anyone else. As a journalist if you are reporting in Parliament or courts you have a defence of qualified privilege automatically when repeating, publishing, or broadcasting defamatory remarks. In order to have the defence of qualified privilege, you must have published something immediately with no errors or malice. (Fast, accurate and fair.) Absolute privilege is not available to journalists, however if, in practice, your report is free from error and if it is published immediately then the qualified privilege confers a similar degree of protection.
If, as a journalist, you are attending a public event such as a local government meeting, then the defence of qualified privilege is available to you, just as long as you allow the defamed person to deny allegations in the same report.
The other point which is very important in regards to the defence of qualified privilege is the Reynold's 10 point test for journalists. The 10 point test was established in the case of Albert Reynolds vs The Sunday Times. In this case the Sunday Times stated that the Irish Prime Minister (Ablert Reynolds) lied to the Irish Parliament in order to cover up a child abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. The paper could not prove the allegations when challenged by Reynolds as they had no witnesses and no evidence. However, when the case went before the higher courts, the judges stated that the Sunday Times had not only a right but a duty to publish the allegations because they seemed to be reasonable and it was in the public interest to be published. The 10 points that were established as a result of this test are:
1) The seriousness of the allegation.
2) The nature of the information.
3) The source of the information.
4) The steps taken to verify the information.
5) The status of the information.
6) The urgency of the matter.
7) Whether the comment was sought from the claimant.
8) Whether the article contained the gist of the claimant's side of the story.
9) The tone of the article.
10) The circumstances of the publication, including the timing.
If a journalist covers all 10 points of the Reynolds Test and they have the public interest, then they may have a qualified privilege in making defamatory allegations outright without quoting someone who is protected by absolute privilege.
This is an interesting case of qualified privilege:
Connecticut Supreme Court Limits Employer's Qualified Privilege in Defamation Actions:
http://www.jacksonlewis.com/legalupdates/article.cfm?aid=1730
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Yesterday's Mail
There were a couple of things that concerned me within yesterday's Daily Mail.
The first was, "What a way to treat our heroes". It was so shocking to believe that teenagers, or people in general for that matter, can be so disrespectful towards people who have died fighting for our country. A 19-year-old lad urinated on a memorial wreath laid down but a soldier's family, whilst drunk on a night out. He is said to be making a public apology to family members of the soilder but I don't think this is enough. Regardless of whether or not he was drunk he was aware of what he was doing, enough so to aim specifically for the memorial wreath. I know that our culture has changed significantly in comparison to say my parent's childhood, but when did this become acceptable or funny?
The other story that I found hard to understand was, "How could any mother have been so callous?" A son of eight was confined to a wheelchair and eventually hooked to a drip after his mother made him undergo countless surgical procedures in order for her to reap the benefits. Why would a mother be so evil just for money? Does it really mean that much?
The first was, "What a way to treat our heroes". It was so shocking to believe that teenagers, or people in general for that matter, can be so disrespectful towards people who have died fighting for our country. A 19-year-old lad urinated on a memorial wreath laid down but a soldier's family, whilst drunk on a night out. He is said to be making a public apology to family members of the soilder but I don't think this is enough. Regardless of whether or not he was drunk he was aware of what he was doing, enough so to aim specifically for the memorial wreath. I know that our culture has changed significantly in comparison to say my parent's childhood, but when did this become acceptable or funny?
The other story that I found hard to understand was, "How could any mother have been so callous?" A son of eight was confined to a wheelchair and eventually hooked to a drip after his mother made him undergo countless surgical procedures in order for her to reap the benefits. Why would a mother be so evil just for money? Does it really mean that much?
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Madness
How can Gordon Brown be making promises to get our country out of this recession if he played a huge part in getting us into it? It has been announced that he paid £6,500 over 26 months through his brother for a cleaner who worked for both of them. However, now our Prime Minister is introducing a firesale of national assests such as the Tote, student loans, the Channel Tunnel rail link and a Thame river crossing, in an attempt to pay off Britain's huge deficit. I find it amusing that he can spend a large amount of money himself on just a cleaner and expect money from the Dartford crossing to provide money to pay off the deficit.
It was emphasised today that there is a huge difference between comment and fact when reporting stories. Fair Comment is a defence for libel so long as a journalist makes it clear that what was said was in fact a comment as oppose to fact. 'Comment is cheap - fact is priceless'. Journalists can say hurtful or controversial things due to the principle of 'freedom of speech'. The word 'fair' however means the honest opinion of the journalist which does not make it balanced or moderate.
Libel is made up of three apsects:
1) Defamation
2) Publication
3) Identification
A statement is defamatory if it lowers the repuation of someone, so as to expose them to hatred; cause them to be shunned or avoided; discredit them in their trade or business or generally lower them in the eye of right minded people.
The test for indentification is whether the defamatory statement would lead people acquainted with him/her to believe that they are the person being referred to.
The piece must have been published to which it must have been communicated with at least one other person.
The most important defence for libel is Justification. This is a complete defence if the statement is true and you can prove it with witnesses, who would be prepared to appear in court because you must not only believe it to be true but you must be able to prove it. For the defence of justification to be successful, the matter must be proved on 'the balance of probabilities'.
A libel case was won in April this year by a woman with the same name as Sacha Baron Cohen's fictional girlfriend in Ali G. Here's the link if you wanna take a look...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/apr/22/ali-g-libel-win
It was emphasised today that there is a huge difference between comment and fact when reporting stories. Fair Comment is a defence for libel so long as a journalist makes it clear that what was said was in fact a comment as oppose to fact. 'Comment is cheap - fact is priceless'. Journalists can say hurtful or controversial things due to the principle of 'freedom of speech'. The word 'fair' however means the honest opinion of the journalist which does not make it balanced or moderate.
Libel is made up of three apsects:
1) Defamation
2) Publication
3) Identification
A statement is defamatory if it lowers the repuation of someone, so as to expose them to hatred; cause them to be shunned or avoided; discredit them in their trade or business or generally lower them in the eye of right minded people.
The test for indentification is whether the defamatory statement would lead people acquainted with him/her to believe that they are the person being referred to.
The piece must have been published to which it must have been communicated with at least one other person.
The most important defence for libel is Justification. This is a complete defence if the statement is true and you can prove it with witnesses, who would be prepared to appear in court because you must not only believe it to be true but you must be able to prove it. For the defence of justification to be successful, the matter must be proved on 'the balance of probabilities'.
A libel case was won in April this year by a woman with the same name as Sacha Baron Cohen's fictional girlfriend in Ali G. Here's the link if you wanna take a look...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/apr/22/ali-g-libel-win
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Criminal Proceedings
All criminal cases in England and Wales begin in the Magistrates Court. Indictable-only offences such as; murder, manslaughter and aiding suicide, must be sent for trial at the Crown Court.
Offences such as; assault occasioning actual bodily harm and wounding or inflicting GBH are either-way offences and can be tried summarily at the Magistrates Court or sent for trial at the Crown Court. This decision is down to the evidence and the seriousness of the offence. If a case does get sent to the Crown Court, a jury trial will take place.
To prevent potential jurors from being influenced by reporters, there are restrictions as to what can be reported. The following aspects are what can be reported about an active case; name and age, address and occupation, charge(s), date and place of court hearing, bail and legal aid conditions and the names of counsel.
This is the main proceedings we need to know for the law exam in December.
In the Guardian today there was the story of Anton Du Beke from Strictly Come Dancing, who is said to have made a racist remark about his dance partner. He stated she looked like a 'paki' because she was wearing fake tan. I understand completely that the term 'paki' is racist and should not be used but I do think the whole political correctness thing in this country has gone too far. He was at risk of losing his job for something he meant as merely a joke. My question is, would it have been worth it just for the sake of being politically correct. He was not intending to be rude, he was joking with someone who he had been bantering with previously.
Offences such as; assault occasioning actual bodily harm and wounding or inflicting GBH are either-way offences and can be tried summarily at the Magistrates Court or sent for trial at the Crown Court. This decision is down to the evidence and the seriousness of the offence. If a case does get sent to the Crown Court, a jury trial will take place.
To prevent potential jurors from being influenced by reporters, there are restrictions as to what can be reported. The following aspects are what can be reported about an active case; name and age, address and occupation, charge(s), date and place of court hearing, bail and legal aid conditions and the names of counsel.
This is the main proceedings we need to know for the law exam in December.
In the Guardian today there was the story of Anton Du Beke from Strictly Come Dancing, who is said to have made a racist remark about his dance partner. He stated she looked like a 'paki' because she was wearing fake tan. I understand completely that the term 'paki' is racist and should not be used but I do think the whole political correctness thing in this country has gone too far. He was at risk of losing his job for something he meant as merely a joke. My question is, would it have been worth it just for the sake of being politically correct. He was not intending to be rude, he was joking with someone who he had been bantering with previously.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Our Society is Getting Worse
I can't even begin to understand how people can be so sick. How could Vanessa George treat children that way. Her profession would suggest that she is there to aid children's learning and help working parents by offering a service of child minding. But in effect she has caused much more harm than good. She must have traumatised those children, who she is refusing to name. Plus, she has probably caused so much hurt, anger and indescribable pain to the parents of those children, which becomes even more shocking to think that this is from a mother herself!! I just hope that she receives a sentence that reflects what she has caused.
Another issue I have with society is the fact that people can cause such pain and show no remorse. Headline in 'The Sun' today reads; 'Girl sees brother, 10 die in hit-run crash'. The boy was on his way home from the cinema when he was hit by a transit van. To which the driver abandoned the vehicle at the scene. My question is, how can people be so cruel as to leave the family of this boy, unaware of who caused their pain? They are being selfish not thinking of the people picking up the pieces. I really don't understand how people can be so cruel.
Moving on...I was reading through the Mc Nae's Law for Journalists and was intrigued to find that Causing Death by Careless or Inconsiderate Driving is an Either-way offence. (Which means; one triable either summarily at Magistrates Court or before a jury at a Crown Court.) I realise this is still very serious, however assault, common assault, battery and assault by beating are all either-way offences also. Does this mean in some way the cases are likely to be treated in the same way or is this simply 'the' proceedure to follow? I only ask because causing death by careless driving is, in effect murder, which is an indictable-only offence. I regard both of these offences as the unlawful killing of another human being. I guess the difference between them is the mens rea within each offence; murder is seen to be 'with malice aforethought', however the defendant who caused death by careless or inconsiderate driving, may not have had the intention to kill.
Another issue I have with society is the fact that people can cause such pain and show no remorse. Headline in 'The Sun' today reads; 'Girl sees brother, 10 die in hit-run crash'. The boy was on his way home from the cinema when he was hit by a transit van. To which the driver abandoned the vehicle at the scene. My question is, how can people be so cruel as to leave the family of this boy, unaware of who caused their pain? They are being selfish not thinking of the people picking up the pieces. I really don't understand how people can be so cruel.
Moving on...I was reading through the Mc Nae's Law for Journalists and was intrigued to find that Causing Death by Careless or Inconsiderate Driving is an Either-way offence. (Which means; one triable either summarily at Magistrates Court or before a jury at a Crown Court.) I realise this is still very serious, however assault, common assault, battery and assault by beating are all either-way offences also. Does this mean in some way the cases are likely to be treated in the same way or is this simply 'the' proceedure to follow? I only ask because causing death by careless driving is, in effect murder, which is an indictable-only offence. I regard both of these offences as the unlawful killing of another human being. I guess the difference between them is the mens rea within each offence; murder is seen to be 'with malice aforethought', however the defendant who caused death by careless or inconsiderate driving, may not have had the intention to kill.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Highest Court in the Land Opens Today!!!
The Supreme Court officially opened today! It has been said however that the judges within the Supreme Court are due to be faced with scrutiny regarding who they are and their backgrounds...is this right? Maybe, because when the House of Lords was the highest court within the UK the public were unaware of the Law Lords and may have held biased opinions of them based on romours they had heard. But the judges from the Supreme Court have under gone a selection process to which they have been questionned very closely in regards to their political choice and their interests. Due to the public, for the first time, being able to observe cases by broadcasts and watch the judges at work, I think people should have concern for the characteristics of these judges within the highest court.
In The Times today Lord Phillips stated that; ‘the object [of the Supreme Court] is to give formal effect to an important constitutional principle – separation of powers, by transferring the function of the highest court from technically being a function carried out by Parliament, to a function carried out by a court of judges’.
Although I do believe the Supreme Court will have many advantages, I do wonder if this change will bring any advantages to the law itself.
In The Times today Lord Phillips stated that; ‘the object [of the Supreme Court] is to give formal effect to an important constitutional principle – separation of powers, by transferring the function of the highest court from technically being a function carried out by Parliament, to a function carried out by a court of judges’.
Although I do believe the Supreme Court will have many advantages, I do wonder if this change will bring any advantages to the law itself.
Introduction to Journalism
Understanding what philosophy had to do with a BA Journalism course has made aspects clearer to me. As journalists we question every aspect of a story, yet in order to question something we should know where ideas and questioning were first exercised.
Within his book, ‘History of Western Philosophy’, Russell stated, ‘it is not what the man finds that distinguishes him, but why and how he believes it’. Copernicus believed that the sun was the centre of the universe and that the earth had a twofold motion. However, Tycho Brahe held that the sun and the moon orbit the earth but the planets orbit the sun. Both philosophers must have had reason to believe what they did.
I find it interesting to note that journalists have the capacity and responsibility to enhance democratic debate because only a minority of people can participate directly in discussions and decisions which affect society, so it is therefore journalists’ responsibility to alert and inform the public about matters of importance.
Journalists have a convention to follow to which Article 10 is the most important. This article states that ‘everyone has a right to freedom of expression’, to which their right to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas will not be interfered by authorities. However, journalists exercising their rights should be aware of Article 8 within the same convention, which is based on privacy being protected, as this will effectively argue against them.
Within his book, ‘History of Western Philosophy’, Russell stated, ‘it is not what the man finds that distinguishes him, but why and how he believes it’. Copernicus believed that the sun was the centre of the universe and that the earth had a twofold motion. However, Tycho Brahe held that the sun and the moon orbit the earth but the planets orbit the sun. Both philosophers must have had reason to believe what they did.
I find it interesting to note that journalists have the capacity and responsibility to enhance democratic debate because only a minority of people can participate directly in discussions and decisions which affect society, so it is therefore journalists’ responsibility to alert and inform the public about matters of importance.
Journalists have a convention to follow to which Article 10 is the most important. This article states that ‘everyone has a right to freedom of expression’, to which their right to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas will not be interfered by authorities. However, journalists exercising their rights should be aware of Article 8 within the same convention, which is based on privacy being protected, as this will effectively argue against them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)