Sunday, 27 November 2011
Wednesday, 23 November 2011
Monday, 21 November 2011
Ali: Occupy London
Mikey: Uni round up
George: Libraries cuts
Monday, 14 November 2011
On November the 30th the WINOL team will be running a 6 hour programme covering LIVE the national demonstration in the South – delivering breaking news as they happen on the day.
This is to give everyone a vague idea of what is going to happen on the day, but I'm sure there will be many changes in the schedule. If you want to get involved in producing content please do, anything will be extremely helpful. We need to have A LOT of content in the hard drive in case the Outside Broadcast don't work, which is very likely to happen. If you're not happy with your job, please come to me and we'll try to sort it out. I will shortly give individual deadlines to anyone producing content.
Hana Keegan: Studio guests – Seb Miell, Mick Jardin, Tommy Geddes, Martin Tod
Becky Gray: on the day – coverage of London
Felicity Houston: on the day – coverage of London
Lou O'Brien: Interview with Patrick Davies (Winchester Labour) George Beckett (Winchester city council leader) Royston Smith (Southampton City Council leader)
On the day - coverage of Southampton
Ali Al-Jamri: On the day - coverage of Southampton
Michael Connolly: on the day - coverage of Winchester
Uldduz Sohrabi Larki: on the day – coverage of Winchester
Gareth Messenger: on the day - coverage of Basingstoke
Lee Jarvis: interview with Basingstoke city council leader / on the day – coverage of Basingstoke
Tom Morgan: Interview with Jeremy Moulton (Southampton city council)
Mikey Smith: pre-package: interviews with every SU presidents in the area – Southampton, Winchester and Southampton Solent, students vox pops.
London Met, Manchester and Buckingham universities will deliver news packages as well.
Production Editor: Domonique Jenkins
Director: Justina Chlad
Sound: Claire Lomas
Vision Mixing: Katie Rowles
Zoe Louise Anderson
Presenters: Hana Keegan, Cara Laithwaite, Aimee Pickering and Jake Gable and/or David Champion
Charlotte Clarke: Graphics
George Berridge: 2 way in newsroom – national overview of the demo
Sam Ashton, Dael Gornall and Henry Lewin-Titt: taking content from youtube (uploaded earlier during the day by reporters) and editing it.
Sunday, 13 November 2011
Thursday, 3 November 2011
Privacy – disputed territory between article 8 and 10
In the public interest – not just of interest to the public
public interest: pcc definition: detecting or exposing crime or serious impropriety, protecting public health and safety/ preventing the public from being mislead
confidentiality – official secrets act
The new act eliminated the public interest defence if you breach this act. There is no protection to the journalist just because the info was previously published
Leaked secret information to a journalist is potentially very dangerous.
Only one defence via the human rights act with article 10: freedom of expression
Official secret act 1911: offence – punishable by 14 years in prison to
approach or inspect a prohibited space
make a sketch, a plan or model that might be of interest to an enemy
obtain, collect or communicate info that may be useful to an enemy
common law secret: entitled to have secrets so long as it's not against the public interest, a right to pass on this secret and that it will be kept secret and won't be passed on to other people.
Someone who's not entitled to pass on our secret: lawyer or doctor for instance, employee or very close member of family – if someone reveal secret info to a journalist, it could be third party breach of confidence, which is a crime.
If someone can persuade a judge that a third party breach confidence is a bout to take place because of your article, that person can obtain an injunction to prevent the story being published. You should contact the concerned people/organisation before you publish the info, otherwise it will look like you haven't tried to check the info was true or not.
Quality of confidentiality
* has the necessary quality of confidence – this is important and not already known
was provided in circumstances imposing an obligation – when a reasonable person would think it would be kept secret
there was no permission to pass on the information
detriment is likely to be caused to the person who gave the information
if any of the above is missing, then it's not confidential and it can be revealed without breach
Personal secrets or privacy
article 8 states: everyone has a right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence
Common law: judges make the law as they go along...? statutory law is decided in parliament/house of commons
it can involve publishing the details of family life of any person, famous or not. Easy to obtain pictures, but do you have the right to publish them? Only if you have consent. Explicit/implicit consent and it has to be in the public interest.
Princess Caroline – case 2004
there is no legitimate public interest in knowing the whereabouts and behaviour of individuals generally in their private life despite appearing in public, regardless of their degree of fame.
A legitimate expectation of protection of one's private life is to be extended to be the criteria for assessment.
A fair balance is to be struck between the right to privacy and the freedom of press
Easy to get because the person who wants him claims that something illegal is about to happen (breach of confidence)
Be aware that injunctions with anonymity and super injunctions (not allowed to say anything) are different.
Super injunctions have been broken by MPs using parliamentary privilege – and journalists using qualified privilege.
Max Mosley case
in his judgement Mr Justice Eady said that Mosley had a reasonable expectation of privacy – in relation to his sexual activities – no matter how unconventional they were.
Wednesday, 2 November 2011
Saturday, 29 October 2011
Friday, 21 October 2011
Fair comment: you could defame so and so, “this guy is bad at football” which is a defamatory statement – but if you genuinely believe that this guy is bad at football, it is called called fair comment. You couldn't use this defence if malice was involved – it has to be based on facts.
Qualified privilege – common law qualified privilege and statutory qualified privilege (for court reporting)
Privilege in law means exemption of the law. Above the law.
The queen has absolute privilege. Judges have absolute privilege when they are sitting in court – in term of what they say. You can defame anyone in court, you cannot be sued for it.
Journalists, in court, have qualified privilege, to be able to repeat/report defamatory statements.
Lawyer has absolute privilege.
Journalist – qualified privilege: someone has privilege when they report a court hearing so long asit is contemporaneous and free from error and it is without malice. If you apply these rules, qualified privilege is as good as absolute privilege.
Always say that if the defendant pleaded guilty/not guilty. Always say “the case continues”. You must give equal prominence to defence/prosecution. Otherwise you'll be guilty of libel and contempt of court.
Other place for QP: Parliament. In exactly the same way, anything said in parliament is protected, so long as it's accurate fair and contemporaneous.
Robert Maxwell – he was running the funding of the labour party – was accused of being involved with the KGB
If someone in Winchester city council says the leader of the labour group is a cocaine addit, you cant print it unless you've got a full refutation.
QP in common law
ie: made by judges convention etc... not by statue
case: Toogood v Spyring
Clegg case (northern Ireland) British soldier who shot youths in Ireland who were pro IRA. The guy went to jail and there was a “free Clegg campaign” - some argued he was only doing his duty by shooting IRA terrorists. QP was then applied to this campaign in order for journalists to be able to report what they were saying without being sued.
Albert Reynolds vs Sunday Times
Child sexual abuse in a catholic church - before it was widely known. Probably the worst thing you can be accused of in terms of defamation.
The ST alleged that PM Reynolds was involved in covering up child abuse in the Catholic Church. He sued, and won the case. The Sunday Times appealed.
1 – the seriousness of the allegation – the more serious the more protection
2 – the nature of the information and the extent to which the subject matter is a matter of public concern
3 – the source of the information: the more authoritative the source, the more you're entitled to report the allegation
4 – The steps taken to verify the information – there must be a reasonable attempt in the time available to disprove the info.
5 – the status of the information
6 – the urgency of the matter: news is a perishable commodity – it needs to be urgent
7 – whether 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 timing
Do not print your story with “we couldn't contact them for comment”
the Galloway case (a Reynolds defence fails)
The Daily Telegraph made defamatory allegations against him, saying that he was a spy working for Saddam Hussein. There was no defence of justification. But it was a serious matter obtained from official documents. They phoned Galloway and he denied it. G. sued and he won. The DT attempted a Reynolds defence. The documents didn't constitute proof.
Was accused by the Wall street journal who said he was financing terrorism. They couldn't prove it but they thought it was true. They were only relying on QP – they hoped they had sufficient evidence to make this allegation. They lost the case in british court. They appealed and won.
No legal definition of public interest but the pcc has one:
-detecting or exposing rime or serious impropriety
-protecting public health and safety
-preventing the public being misled by an action or statement of an individual or an organisation.
- lower them in estimation of right-thinking people
- cause them to be shunned or avoided
- disparages them in their business trade or profession
- exposed them to hatred, ridicule or contempt
Defamation via pictures:
- common danger in TV
- careless use of background shots with voice over can be defamatory
Reputation and meaning
Reputation is precious, especially if you are in public life, have money or both
meaning as interpreted by reasonable man
inference = hazard
innuendo = hazard
assess the whole context
PUBLICATION +DEFAMATION + IDENTIFICATION = LIBEL
Justification: it's true and I can prove it
Fair comment: honestly held opinion based upon facts, also in public interest
Absolute Privilege: court reporting
Qualified privilege: police quotes, pressers
Bane and antidote: defamation removed by context
apologies and clarifications
Reynolds defence – it must be:
-in the public interest
-product of responsible journalism
-when you have no checked your facts
-when you haven't referred up
-when you have not put yourself in the shoes of the person you write about
-got carried away by a spicy story
-not bothered to wait for lawyer's opinion
-who am I writing about and could they sue?
-is what I'm writing potentially defamatory?
-do I have a defence?
Thursday, 6 October 2011
-names of defendants, ages, addresses, occupations
-charged faced or a close summary
-name of court and magistrate's names
-Names of solicitors or barristers present
-date and place to where case is adjourned
-Any arrangement as to bail
-Whether legal aid was granted
-When police make an arrest
-When an arrest warrant is issued
-A summons is issued by magistrates
-A person has been charged
Detention without charge:
-Police have 24hrs to question
-Senior officers can extend by 12hrs
-Magistrates can extend by 36hrs
-Cannot exceed 96hrs
-In suspected terrorism cases – up to 28 days
Categories of offences
-Indictable only – possible sentence of 5yrs+
-Either way – can go to crown court or Magistrates court
-Summary: stays with magistrates
-6 months jail – fines up to £5,000
-Community orders, binding over
-ASBOs (Anti Social Behaviour)
-Key prosecution witnesses
-key defence witnesses
-judge's summing up
-Jury sent out, deliberation and verdict
Law lecture 1 – chapter 1
Outline of the legal system (England and Wales)
Crime reporting and the courts
Libel and defamation
Investigative journalism and privilege
Confidentiality and privacy
Freedom of information
Copyright and codes of conduct
Lord Chief Justice Paul Judge (for England and Wales)
DPP: Director of Public Prosecutions (Keir Starma)
Ken Clarke: Justice minister
Outline of the court system:
Crown courts (Criminal law)
Magistrate courts (Criminal law)
County court (Civil law)
Coroners court (unexplained deaths?)
Employment tribunals (E.T.)
Monday, 2 May 2011
History... A topic particularly interesting for journalists since it deals with facts, figures and people‘s stories.
Can historians avoid interpreting History? Problem: Can historians be objective? How can history be a science?
There is no direct observation on history - only documents and people’s memory can reconstruct the events. From this point of view, historians cannot establish an objective truth about History. People who left the evidence were themselves biased - since they were going through the events -and therefore played an active roles, whether spectators or actors. Some documents are missing as well, which means that historians have to analyse partial and biased pieces of evidence. This issue would inevitably lead to interpretation.
There is also a problem linked to individuals: extremely biased people, like communists or Nazis would give a false account of their time in their writings. Some people would even deny that the Holocaust happened. How can historians deal with those issues in order to establish an accurate account of History?
A scientific reconstruction of History
a) Historians gather documents of the studied era, study and criticise them
b) Questionning of the authenticity, the source and value of the document
c)The historians must question the truthfulness of the document as well as the coherence of it. This is why it needs to be confronted with other documents of the same era. Like other sciences, History can improve with the new updates of database.
According to Popper, if all the available documents have been taken into account and if they allow historians to verify their facts and potential theories, then History has been reconstructed in a scientific manner.
But History is not really a science…
Historians consider the events in themselves, study different people, governements and eras and those cannot be simplified into a general rule like in science. History is not an exact science given that historians have to interpret the facts within their context.
Saturday, 30 April 2011
Art must represent something that already exists according to Aristotle, which distinguishes it from simple know-how. He believed that people had a natural tendency for representation of reality – poetry, plays – because it generates pleasure/joy. Aristotle wanted to give this natural dimension to pleasure: it can also be intellectual. In his theory he attacked Plato’s idea that separates imitation from truth and reason.
Art must involve genius, otherwise it is only a simple work, not a work of art. But philosophers had different ideas regarding the definition of genius.
According to Plato, genius is a phenomenon that cannot be explained, it’s a divine inspiration, a kind of surnatural delirium. The artist only becomes a medium between God and mortal people.
Kant believed that an artist had genius/talent when he was unable to explain how he made the work of art. If the “artist” follows determined rules, then he’s just applying general rules in order to make a product. The artistic product comes from talent and imagination. Technique and talent make the artist.
Stravinsky (XXth century Russian pianist) didn’t believe in genius. According to him, a work of art is made with technique/know-how and emotions. The creation process comes from inspiration, which is an emotion.
Nietszche demystified the idea of genius. The process of creation is a constant work, and the idea of genius itself is an illusion. The viewer has an impression that the result was easily achieved when watching the finished work of art.
Rules of art
Art revolutions don’t allow us to establish a knowledge/understanding of beauty.
Some works of art don’t suffer any change in rules/taste/fashion/current/genre. This is why we can empirically set rules of art – determined from the previous work of arts, what works and what doesn’t work, according to Hume.
Can anyone judge beauty?
Still according to Hume, a good judge must have an innate sensitivity, master a form of art, and must refuse any kind of prejudices.
Understanding, sensitivity and imagination are essential qualities when juding a work of art, according to Kant. Everyone is equal when it comes to art, it must generate pleasure without needing previous knowledge or concept.
Bourdieu disagreed with this idea: in his case he believed that the pleasure people get out of art is different according to which social class they come from.
If a group of people from various social backgrounds have a look at this picture - Hands of a farm woman by Russell Lee, it is quite likely that they will have different thoughts/feelings about it.
Friday, 11 February 2011
The idea is simple: according to Keynes, wages regulate demand. The State must inject money into the economy in order to boost consumption. If wages go up, the demand will grow, and therefore the production will restart, which itself will create new jobs. If wages go down, it's the opposite scenario: unemployment, weak consumption & production. Keynes was also opposed to excessive saving, which was due to pessimistic speculation on the economy. It would then result in a climate of financial uncertainty and the consumption would be affected.
This theory refutes Say's law, or law of the market. Jean-Baptiste Say was a French economist born in the 18th century. The main idea in the theory is that if the product is a good quality product the demand will create itself, not needing the help of the State. Pumping money into the economy will just boost the inflation, it will not create a real demand.
And here is a simple graphic that illustrates macroeconomics...