Journalism Now piece

The origins of television news in the UK and USA

In the UK, public broadcasts started in 1922 with the world’s largest broadcasting organisation, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). Radio stations dominated the late 1920’s to 1930’s and were the first media networks to publically broadcast news. The BBC broadcast its first radio bulletin from 2LO.[1] Soon after, a BBC Film Unit was set up to produce items on film. The BBC introduced a regular television programme in 1948, Television Newsreel, produced by Harold Cox. It was the first British news programme on the BBC Television Service until 1954 and featured newsreels from British Movietone News. The programme was shown on Monday, Wednesday and Saturday evenings at 7.30pm covering news and current affairs for the interest of the British public. Following its success, Children’s Newsreel was introduced in 1950 to interest a younger audience, much like the purpose of the modern Newsround on CBBC.[2]

The National Broadcasting Company (NBC) was the first major broadcast network in the United States of America. The network had a film exchange deal with the BBC; they would swap film reports they had already produced and would then feature the reports in the Television Newsreel. A weekly Newsreel Review of the Week was later produced in 1951. It was presented by Edward Halliday and showed highlights from the previous newsreel broadcasts.[1]


On July 5^th 1954, the first BBC News programme was introduced. The programme was presented by newsreader Richard Baker, who linked the news reports in a manner more similar to modern news broadcasts. The 20-minute bulletin was introduced as an illustrated summary of the news, followed by the latest film of events and happenings at home and abroad. The new service was described as more up-to-date with the inclusion of studio interviews. Sir Ian Jacob, BBC Director General, said: 

“This is a start on something we regard as extremely significant for the future.”[3]

The NBC was formed in 1926 by the Radio Corporation of America and was the first broadcast network in the USA. NBC radio stations were described as the most powerful and unique but during the 1940’s, Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) gained ground and dominated radio broadcasting.

In the late 1940’s, NBC introduced a 10-minute American television news programme called Camel Newsreel Theatre presented with the voice-over of John Cameron Swayze, a famous news presenter during the 1950’s. The programme was later lengthened to 15-minutes and was renamed, Camel News Caravan. In 1956, the show was succeeded by the Huntley-Brinkley Report presented by NBC news broadcasters; Chet Huntley and David Brinkley. In 1963 it was lengthened to 30-minutes and after Huntley’s retirement in 1970 it was renamed NBC Nightly News.[4]

In 1948 NBC’s rivals, CBS, launched its own television news programme called CBS-TV News, hosted by Douglas Edward. In 1950 the programme was renamed, Douglas Edward with the News. In 1962, the programme's name was changed to CBS Evening News, presented by Walter Cronkite who became famously known as the Anchorman. The programme increasingly gained popularity and became the dominant television newscast in America.[5]








Sources 
[1] http://www.radiorewind.co.uk/radio2/2lo_page.htm


[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC


[3] http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/5/newsid_3856000/3856397.stm

[4] http://www.high-techproductions.com/historyoftelevision.htm

[5] http://www.cbs.com/specials/cbs_75/timeline.shtml

Confidentiality

McNae's law gives a good definition of breach of confidence. It's based upon the principle that a person who has obtained information in confidence should not take unfair advantage of it.
Government and individuals use breach of confidence for the protection of privacy and information they regard as secret.

The following are the four main elements which determine whether a person is in breach of confidence. If any of the following do not appear in the circumstance then it is not confidential and it can be revealed without breach;

• The information must have the necessary quality of confidence. The information must have a level of importance and must not already be known to the public. For example, saying someone is changing their hair colour (even though that does make a good read for us girls!) does not have the necessary quality of confidence;
• The information was proposed in circumstances imposing an obligation of confidence. This means the information must have been given in a place of privacy where a 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 passed on the information. The person who gave the information must show how their status, reputation or occupation will be damaged if the information is revealed.

Breach of confidence has three areas of concern. They are: official state secrets, commercial secrets/common law confidentiality and privacy.

Official state secrets: The Official Secrets Act 1911 contains schedules of secret information. It is against the official secrets act to reveal any of this information and therefore, if this information reaches reaches pubication it is considered breach of confidence and is a criminal offence. Military or intelligence operations are protected under the official secrets acts. The military bases are therefore protected and any photography shots without permission are against the official secrets act.
An example an official secrets act breach was in 1986. Investigative journalist, Duncan Campbell, was working on a BBC television series called Secret Society. In the series, he revealed state secrets that were unkown to the public eye but of great public interest.
In 1986, Campbell discovered that the Government had planned to build a new space satellite which would enable GCHQ to eavesdrop on the Sovient Union. Word of Campbell's inquiries reached government and Nigel Lawson recounts in his memoirs that the government managed to lean on the BBC to ban the programme. Campbell was faced with an injunction and rushed his research into print in the New Statesman. The spy satellite and its code-name: Zircon, had been revealed.

Commercial secrets/ Common law confidentiality: In common law people have a right to keep secrets so long as it is not against the public interest. They also hav

e a right to pass on these secrets to others with the expectation that they will not pass them on to others. If a person who is not entitled to pass on our information for example, a doctor or lawyer, but does so, that person has committed breach of confidence which is a criminal offence.

Privacy: This is mainly a matter for tabloid or celeb journalism. The Human Rights Act 1998 Section 8,

guarantees the right to privacy and the 'normal enjoyment of family life.' The invasion of private life is a criminal offence and breach of confidence. In 2004, the House of Lords agreed that the supermodel Naomi Campbell, was entitled to damages after the Daily Mirror reported that she had a drug addiction, for which she was recieving treatment by Narcotics Anonymous. The paper gave details of the treatment and her reeaction to it, and published photographs of her emerging from a treatment session.

Piers Morgan, then Daily Mirror editor, said:

"This is a very good day for lying drug-abusing prima donnas who want to have their cake with the media, and the right to then shamelessly guzzle it with their Cristal champagne."

Now the best of friends, or in Piers Morgan's words,

"we kissed and made up a few years later."

"Gagging clauses" are in contracts of employment and this matter of secrecy could extend to matters of public concern. If a person is employed by another, they owe the employer a common law 'duty of confidence'. An emplyer also has 'confidence' that they can tell the emlployee secrets.

In 1990, Graham Pink was fired from the NHS for breach of confidentiality as he publically revealed the poor standards of care towards elderly patients at Stepping Hill.

In cases like this there are, there are duties to report it to the employer or to use internal greivance procedures. The idea is that things will go wrong from time to time in businesses anf the management of any business will put things right quickly and quietly if appropriate.

If somebody has a gagging clause, they are taking a huge risk in telling a journalist about their company without permission so many employees will refer you to the press office of their company or organisation.
An employee with a gagging clause can be instantly sacked without compensation for breach of contract or employment rather than confidence.
Therefore, a journalist must warn an employee they will face very severe penalties, if they are ever identified as the source. It is tge responsibilty of the journalist to protect that source.

Injunctions

A person who passes information to a journalist may have recieved it confidentially. If the confider discovers the information is ging to be revealed before the paper is published or the programme is broadcast, they can try to get a temporary injunction prohibiting publication of confidential matters.

It is easy for the person to get an injunction because they can say there's a danger of a crime hapenning, breach of confidence, and the injunction will prevent that crime. 

The Human Rights Act 1988 Section 12 intends to provide some protection against injunctions in matters involving freedom of expression. Section 12 says that if the journalist is not present when the application is made, the court must not grant an injunction unless it is satisfied the person seeking the injunction has taken all practicable steps to notify the journalist or that they are compelling reasons why the journalist should not be notified. 

In 1987 the Court of Appeal held that when an injunction is in force preventing a newspaper from publishing confidential information, other newspapers in England and Wales that know of the injunction can be guilty of contempt of court if they publish that information, even if they are not named in the injunction. 



Media law - Qualified privilege

Qualified privilege is an important defence for the publication of defamatory statements. This defence can be used in court reporting as an exemption from libel when repeating, publishing and/or broadcasting defamatory remarks. This privilege requires immediate publication which is fast, accurate and fair with no errors or evidence of malice in order for qualified privilege to apply.
Schedule 1 to the Defamation Act 1996 sets out in Part I a list of statements having qualified privilege 'without explanation or contradiction'
The following is Schedule 1 of the 1996 Defamation Act

Statements having qualified privilege without explanation or contradiction

1. A fair and accurate report of proceedings in public of a legislature anywhere in the world.
2. A fair and accurate report of proceedings in public before a court anywhere in the world.
3. A fair and accurate report of proceedings in public of a person appointed to hold a public inquiry by a government or legislature anywhere in the world.
4. A fair and accurate report of proceedings in public anywhere in the world of an international organisation or an international conference.
5. A fair and accurate copy of or extract from any register or other document required by law to be open to public inspection.
6. A notice or advertisement published by or on the authority of a court, or of a judge or officer of a court, anywhere in the world.
7. A fair and accurate copy of or extract from matter published by or on the authority of a government or legislature anywhere in the world.
8. A fair and accurate copy of or extract from matter published anywhere in the world by an international organisation or an international conference. 

Part II lists statements having qualified privilege but 'subject to explanation or contradiction.'  This means that, if required to do so by anyone who is defamed by a report protected by Part II, an editor who has published that report must publish a reasonable letter or statement by way of explanation or contradiction for the qualified privilege to continue to apply to the report.
Failure to publish this statement would destroy the defence of qualified privilege for the publication.



Privilege at common law
Qualified privilege at common law applies in certain circumstances where the law protects defamatory statements that are untrue, for the convenience and welfare of society. This means for the public interest. 
In the case of Toogood v Spyring (1834) 1 CM&R 181, 193, the judge said;

"The law considers such publication as malicious, unless it is fairly made by a person in the discharge of some public or private duty, whether legal or moral, or in conduct of his own affairs, in matters where his interest is concerned. In such cases the occasion prevents the inference of malice, which draws from unauthorised communications, and affords a qualified defence depending on the absence of actual malice. If fairly warranted by any reasonable occasion or exigency, and honestly made, such communications are protected for the common convenience and welfare of society; and the law has not restricted the right to make them within any narrow limits." 

Qualified privilege at common law occurs when a person makes a defamatory statement in the performance of a legal, moral or social duty to a person who has a corresponding duty or interest in receiving it.

An example of such a circumstance would be to suppose someone is seeking a job. The potential employer writes to the former employer to ask for a reference. The former employer has the duty to tell the truth even if that truth were defamatory however, the former employer cannot be sued for libel for what is said, even if the facts are wrong, provided the employer is not motivated by malice.

The Albert Reynolds vs. Sunday Times case is important to be aware of in relation to privilege at common law. In this case, the Sunday Times published that Irish Prime Minister, Albert Reynolds, lied to the Irish Parliament in order to cover up a child abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. The paper said they believed the allegations were true but they had no witnesses and no forensic or documentary evidence to show when Mr Reynolds asked for proof.

However, the judges at the higher courts thought the Sunday Times has not only a right but a duty to publish the allegations since they seemed to be reasonable and it was very much in the public interest that they be discussed as Albert Reynolds clearly was a public figure.

Lord Nicholls, the judge in the appeal stage of Albert Reynolds vs. Sunday Times, seemed to further define qualified privilege defence against defamation, so long as the reporter was working without malice, had taken reasonable steps (not reckless) and so long as it was a matter of public interest then this qualified privilege protection applied.

Lord Nicholls 10 Point Test of responsible journalism is important to know as it clearly identifies a journalist's degree of legal protection as shown below.

1. The seriousness of the allegation

The more serious the allegation, the more protection will be applied. Allegations which are merely embarrassing or purely private matters are not likely to have protection.

2. The nature of the information

The extent to which the publication is a matter of public interest or concern depends whether it would be protected. Matters which are of public concern and would benefit the public's interest would be protected.

3. The source of the information

The more authoritative the source, the more you are entitled to report their allegations, even if those allegations cannot be proved or even if they turn out to be incorrect.

Chequebook journalism (where people are paid to make allegations) would have less protection than allegations made by a responsible person with a reputation for honesty.

4. The steps taken to verify the information

It's crucial to try and put the allegations to the person being accused in order to get their side of the story. You must either get to the person to make the allegation, or show e-mails and phone calls as evidence you were determined to get their side of the story.

5. The status of the information

You need to be certain that you are not making an old allegation which has previously been denied. If the allegation had been previously dismissed by 'an investigation which commands respect' then it would have no protection.

6. The urgency of the matter

If the matter is urgent then the other checks in the code might be less stringent and might still have protection.

7. Whether comment was sought from the claimant

As a practical point it is always wise to get the other side of the story and have them point out how or why allegations might be untrue but the judge did say that putting allegations to the claimant was not necessary in every single case, if the case for protection on other counts was strong enough.

8. Whether the article contained the gist of the claimant's side of the story

Clearly self explanatory and mentioned in points 4 and 7.

9. The tone of the article

It is always important to attribute the allegations to a named source if possible. If not, there must a genuine and obvious reason for this.

10. The circumstances of the publication including the timing
The allegations should be brought to the public interest as soon as possible.

It's a WIN!

Watch the WINOL Bulletin


Ok, so i’ve just watched the latest winol bulletin and overall I think it’s fantastic. It really shows the students have put as much time and effort in as they can and it has definitely paid off! The bulletin altogether looks very professional visually and audibly and they truly deserve their BJT award!

When I started to watch the bulletin, the first thing I noticed was the broadcaster’s voice and introduction. He sounded very accurate and had a brilliant tone and pace, just like I’d hear from a professional broadcaster. I did notice the sport’s presenter that was covering the live football footage did sound slightly dull and could have included some more enthusiasm in their voice since football for many (personally not me, unless Frank Lampard is involved) is very lively and exciting news.

However, they did report the scores very clear and well although when reporting the Women’s Netball, the reporter’s voice does start to fade out slightly so the voices of the Netball players are a little louder than the reporters. I also noticed when the football scores appeared, spelling mistakes are made which makes it seem very unprofessional after brilliant reporting and camera footage.

Back on the topic of sound, the Queen’s speech was very hard to hear and the quality could have been improved to make it clearer. I also understand that this news topic has been included as the Queen being as famous as she is and Southampton being local, It may be of great interest to many people, however there was any relevance to this story for me and I did lose a little interest.

The interviews that were shown were very interesting, and the way the names and profession of the people being interviewed were displayed along the bottom left of the screen looked almost perfect. It would have been better to see the information on screen slightly bolder just to make it clearer.

The statements and quotes of people that were shown on screen as the reporter read them out were excellent, particularly the statement by Steve Brine. The fact that the statement was shown on screen over a moving image really made believe it’s professional as I’ve seen this occur in many television broadcasts. I really like this layout and I personally find it more appealing other than statements shown by Sky News, for example, on a plain blue background.

Overall the broadcasting was great, the two broadcasters worked brilliant together and quite often there are separate broadcasters for the main news and sports news so that was brilliant and their voices were perfect. The information and reporting was clear and detailed also the camera quality was very good.

Well done guys, I look forward to the next bulletin and being part of WINOL next year!

John Locke

John Locke is the apostle of the revolution of 1688. Its aims were modest, but they were exactly achieved. Locke faithfully embodies its spirit. His most important book in theoretical philosophy is the Essay Concerning Human Understanding. He completed his book just at the moment when the government of his country fell into the hands of men who shared his political view. In his second book of the essay, Locke shows in detail how experience gives rise to various kinds of ideas. I think the following statement has a sense of truth, and the only way to increase our knowledge is through experience, he says:

“Let us then suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper, void of all characters, without any ideas; how comes it to be furnished? Whence comes it by vast store, which the busy and boundless fancy of man has painted on it with almost endless variety? Whence has it all the materials of reason and knowledge? To this I answer in one word, from experience: in that all our knowledge is founded and from that it ultimately derives itself.”

Our ideas are derived from two sources, sensation and perception. Since we can only think by means of ideas, and since all ideas come from experience, it is evident that none of our knowledge can antedate experience.

Perception, he says, is the first step and degree towards knowledge, and the inlet of all the materials of it. In modern day, this is commonsense, however in his day the mind was supposed to know all sorts of things and the complete dependence of knowledge upon perception, which he proclaimed, was a new revolutionary doctrine.

Locke wrote his two treatises on government. The first of these two treatises is a criticism of the doctrine of hereditary power. It is a reply to Sir Robert Filmer’s Patriarcha. The King according to Filmer, is perfectly free from all human control, and cannot be bound by acts of his predecessors, or even by his own, for impossible it is in nature that a man should give a law unto himself. Filmer belonged to the most extreme section of the Divine Right Party.

Patriarcha  begins by combating the common opinion that mankind is naturally endowed and born with freedom from all subjection, and at liberty to choose what form of government it please, and the power which any one man has over others was first bestowed according to the discretion of the multitude.

Locke suggests if parental power is what is concerned; the mother’s power should be equal to the father’s. He lays stress pm the injustice of primogeniture which is unavoidable if inheritance is to be the basis of monarchy. Paternal power, he says, is temporary and extends not life or property. Hereditary cannot, according to Locke, be accepted as the basis of legitimate political power.

What I also found interesting when reading Locke is his state of nature and natural law. As Russell says some parts of Locke’s natural law are surprising. He gives the example; Locke says that captives in a just war are slaves by the law of nature. He says also that by nature every man has a right to punish attacks on himself or his property, even by death.

Locke’s idea of natural right is also very interesting. It is generally held that no man can be blamed for defending himself against a murderous assault, even, if necessary, to the extent of killing the assailant. He may equally defend his wife and children, or any member of the general public. In such case, the existence of the law becomes irrelevant, if, the man assaulted would be dead before the aid of the police could be invoked; we have to fall back on natural right. If you see a man making a murderous assault on your brother you have a right to kill him, if you cannot otherwise save your brother. In a state of nature Locke holds if a man has succeeded in killing your brother, you have a right to kill him. But where the law exists, you lose this right, which is taken over by the state. And if you kill in self-defence or in defence of another, you will have to prove to a law-court that this was the reason for the killing.

Descartes’ authority as a philosopher was enhanced, in his own day, by his work in mathematics and natural philosophy. But his doctrine of vortices was inferior to Newton’s law of gravitation as an explanation of the solar system. The victory of the Newtonian cosmogony diminished men’s respect for Descartes and increased their respect for England. Both these causes inclined men favourably towards Locke.

In the last times before the revolution, Locke’s influence in France was reinforced by that of Hume. In England, the philosophical followers of Locke, until the French Revolution, took no interest in his political doctrines. Berkley was a bishop not much interested in politics; Hume was a Tory who followed the lead of Bolingbroke.

What I found most interesting when reading John Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding Chapter 1 of Ideas in general, and their Original, was Idea is the object of thinking. Locke suggests here that every man whilst thinking, has ideas in mind, but he asks the question where do these ideas come from.                                                                                                                                                   All ideas come from sensation or reflection suggests that experience and observation is where we get the knowledge and ideas we hold in our minds.

Locke states our senses convey into the mind several distinct perceptions of things, according to those various ways objects affect them. For example senses such as hot, cold, hard and soft are called sensation.

Perceptions such as thinking, doubting, believing and knowing are described by Locke as the different acts of our own minds which we observe in ourselves. He calls this reflection.

I also find Locke’s observable in children statement interesting. Locke says that at a child’s first coming into the world, we have little reason to believe he will be stored with knowledge and ideas that will be the matter of his future knowledge. This is true because, how do we know what a new born infant is thinking at birth, we hear it cry but we can’t hear its thoughts. Then when we do grow older we can’t remember our feelings or thoughts or anything we saw or heard the day we were born. Instead, Locke says, we come to be furnished with ideas and thoughts.  As we grow older, we will start to gain our own ideas and experiences and from there we will start to store in our memory, our own understandings.

Second Reading of Bertrand Russell

Having now read chapters 10-17 of Bertrand Russell’s History of Western Philosophy, I now understand the connection between the theories of Spinoza and Hobbes. The first chapter explains how Spinoza’s political theory derives from Hobbes. He holds that in a state of nature there is no right or wrong, for wrong consists in disobeying the law. He holds that the sovereign can do no wrong, and agrees with Hobbes that the Church should be subordinate to the state which in other words suggests that the church should have less importance than the State’s impact on society.  Although he disagrees with Hobbes in thinking democracy is the most natural form of government. Spinoza holds freedom of opinion important however, has the opinion that religious questions should be decided by the state. Russell suggests he means that they should be decided by the State rather than the Church.

Everything, according to Spinoza, is ruled by an absolute logical necessity. There is no such thing as free will in the mental sphere or chance in the physical world. Everything that happens is a manifestation of God’s inscrutable nature and it is logically impossible that events should be other than they are. This leads to difficulties in regard to sin. A critic asks if everything is decreed by God and is therefore good, was it good that Nero should kill his mother? Was it good that Adam ate the apple? I believe these critics are trying to imply, if everything ordered by God is good then why do such negative and bad events happen.

Spinoza answers that what was positive in these acts was good, and only what was negative was bad but negation exists only from the view of finite creatures. In God there is no negation and therefore the evil in what to us seem sin does not exist when they are viewed as parts of the whole.

Spinoza believes that the knowledge of evil is an inadequate knowledge. God has no knowledge of evil because there is no evil to be known. Spinoza also says ‘a free man thinks of nothing less than of death; and his wisdom is a meditation not of death, but of life.' This makes me think he is almost saying live every day like it’s your last and don’t be afraid of death as nothing a man can do can make him immortal so don’t waste time fearing death. See it as a cause of nature that happens for a good reason.

Leibniz was influenced by Spinoza, and visited him in 1676. He spent a month in frequent discussions with him, and secured part of the ethics in manuscript. In later years he minimized his contacts with saying he met him once and Spinoza had told some good anecdotes about politics.

Leibniz’s has fur arguments for the existence of God:

1)      The ontological argument

2)      The cosmological argument

3)      The argument from eternal truths

4)      The argument from the pre-established

The ontological argument depends upon the distinction between existence and essence. Any ordinary person or thing on the one hand exists, and on the other hand has certain qualities, which make up his or its essence. In the case of God, defined as the most perfect being, St Anselm, followed by Descartes, maintains that essence does imply existence, on the ground that a Being who possess all other perfections is better if he exists than if he does not.

The cosmological argument is a form of the First-Cause argument which derived from Aristotle’s argument of the unmoved mover. It points out that everything finite has a cause, which in turn had a cause and so on. This series of previous causes cannot be infinite and the first term in the series must itself be uncaused. There is therefore an uncaused cause of everything, and it is God. This is trying to suggest that something already existed to create and cause everything else, and that is God but I think this is difficult to understand because surely God needed to be created so what existed before him, if he does exist?                                                                                                                                                    Everything has to have a sufficient reason according to Leibniz’s philosophy. Leibniz’s argument does not depend upon the view that the universe must have had a beginning in time.

The argument from the eternal truths suggests all statements that have only to do with essence, not with existence, are either always true or never true. Those that are always true are called eternal truths. Truths are part of the content of the eternal mind.

The argument from the pre-established harmony is only valid for those who accept his windowless monads which all mirror the universe. Since all the clocks keep time with each other without any casual interaction, there must have been a single outside cause that regulated all of them.

 Chapter 12 of Russell’s book three explains philosophical liberalism. Early liberalism stood for religious toleration. It was Protestant but of a latitudinarian kind rather than fanatical and it regarded the wars of religion as silly. It favoured the rising middle class rather than the monarchy and aristocracy. The divine right of Kings was rejected in favour of the view that every community has a right, at any rate initially, to chose its own form of government.

It was opposed to everything medieval, both in philosophy and in politics, because medieval theories had been used to sanction the powers of the Church and King, to justify persecution and to obstruct the rise of science.

Individualism penetrated into philosophy. Descartes' 'I think therefore I am', made the basis of knowledge different for each person, since for each the starting-point was his own existence, not that of other individuals or of the community.

Media Law - Defamation & Defence

After reading McNae's chapter 17, I now understand the meaning of the term Defamation. Defamatory statements are those written and published which affect the reputation of a person, company or organisation.

When explaining defamation to juries, judges tell juries that a statement is defamatory if does or tends to do the following:

• 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

The person suing/claimant does not have to show that the words actually did expose him/her to, for example, hatred. However, the claimant has to show the court the following three things when suing for libel:

• the publication is defamatory and so will damage their reputation
• identification
• publication

Identification
The claimant must prove that the published matter identifies him/her as the person defamed. It is dangerous to make half-hearted effort at identification, particularly in reports of court cases. This is because a person's name and details may be the same or similar to another's and can therefore, allow a person to successfully sue even if the publication was referring to another.
For example, the Daily Express reported that 'Harold Newstead, 30-year-old Camberwell man', had been sent to prison for nine months for bigamy. The paper was successfully sued by another Harold Newstead, who worked in Camberwell, and who claimed that the account had been understood to refer to him.
It was the duty of the paper to give a precise and detailed description of that person, but the paper had recklessly struck out the occupation and address of the person convicted.
Unless the court directs otherwise, a defendant's age, occupation and address, if mentioned in court, or provided by the court, should be included with his/her name in any report of the case.

A good example was given in the lecture this morning. Today's issue of The Sun featured the article headline "Farmer left to die by getaway gang". In this example, the statement is clearly defamatory as it is damaging the reputation of the gang to right-thinking members of society. It is also evidentially fact that this article has been published, however, there is no identification of the 'gang' or any of its members. In this case it is not considered defamation and therefore unlikely for any person/s to sue.

Publication

The clamaint must also prove that the statement has been published to a third person. There is no defamation if the statement and words complained of have only been addressed in speech or writing to the person they refer to. To substantiate defamation they must have been published or communicated to at least one other person. In terms of the news media, defamation is easily detectable as publication in this case is widespread.

The term 'publishers' refer to the reporter, the sub-editor, the editor, the publisher, the printer, the distributor and the broadcaster. The claimant is eligible to sue all of the previous as all have participated in the publishing of the defamatory statement and are regarded as 'publishers' at common law.

Although there is danger to journalists of being sued for libel, the law provides some defences against such lawsuits.

The main defences are:

• justification
• fair comment
• absolute privilege
• accord and satisfaction
• offer of amends

Justification
Justification is essentially telling the truth. It has been suggested it should be renamed truth as its requirement is that the publication complained of can be proved to be true. If this requirement is met, the defence provides complete protection against libel action.

An important example, mentioned in McNae's, is the Jonathan Aitken case.

In 1997 the Guardian risked the award of huge libel damages and costs when it defended a case brought against it by the former Conservative Cabinet Minister Jonathon Aitken. The paper had reported that he had allowed an Arab business associate to pay his bill at the Ritz hotel in Paris, in breach of ministerial guidelines. Aitken had resigned from the Cabinet in order, he said, to pursue the Gaurdian with the sword of truth and the sheild of fair play.

The Gaurdian embarked on a four-year investigation, which culminated in the production of vital evidence at a late stage in the trial, as Aitken appeared to be winning, and the former Minister dramatically abandoned the case. He faced costs bill of £2million and was later jailed for perjury. The Gaurdian later released the headline 'He lied and lied and lied.'

Fair Comment
This defence means the following:

• the published comment must be the honestly held opinion of the person making it
• the comment should be recognisable as opinion so it should not be worded to be perceived as factual allegation
• the comment must be based on true facts
• those facts must be recognisably stated in what is published with the comment
• the subject commented on must be a matter of public interest

Absolute privilege
Allows complete freedom of speech. It doesn't matter if the words are true or false and it doesn't matter if were spoken or written maliciously.
However, though a journalist may be reporting what is said on an occasion that is protected by absolute privilege it does not mean that his/her report is similarly protected.
Members of Parliament may say whatever they wish in the House of Commons without fear of being sued for defamation but the reports of parliamentary debates by the media only enjoy qualified privilege.

Qualified privilege
'Published in the public interest'.
This defence is available where it is considered important that the facts should be freely known in the public interest.
The Defamation Act 1996, lists the following categories of circumstances in which qualified privilege applies:

• court cases
• public meetings
• council meetings
• police statements

The requirements for qualified privilege defence to apply are:

• that the published report is fair and accurate, and published without malice.
• the matter published must be a matter of public concern, the publication of which is for the public benefit.

Accord and satisfaction
This is a plea that the matter has been otherwise disposed of, for example by the publication of a correction and apology which has been accepted by the claimant.

Offer of amends
This is an unintentional defamation. A good example of this in McNae's is the case of Artemus Jones. A journalist introduced a fictitious character into a descriptive account of a factual event in order to provide atmosphere - referring to what he thought of as his fictional character at the Dieppe motor festival 'with a woman who is not his wife'.
The name he chose was that of a real person, a barrister from North Wales. The real Artemus Jones sued and recovered substantial damages.

Defences such as the claimant has died or the claimant has agreed to the publication also occur in certain circumstances.

McNae's essential law for journalists

After reading chapters 1-7 of McNae's essential law for journalists, I am aware of the laws affecting journalism in the areas of crime and courts. It is essential for all journalists to have general knowledge of criminal law, for accurate reporting and to avoid committing contempt to court.
What is most important for journalists to distinguish between are the three main categories of criminal offences: indictable-only, either-way and summary.

Indictable-only

• These are the most serious crimes, punishable by the longest terms. Though processed in its early court stage by a magistrates court, such a charge can only be dealt with by a Crown court. A defendant who is found guilty or pleads guilty to such a charge will be sentenced there by a judge. Crown court judges have greater sentencing power than magistrates. 

Indictable-only offences include:

• Murder
• Manslaughter
• Corporate manslaughter 
• Causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult
• Infanticide
• Aiding suicide
• Rape
• Wounding with intent/inflicting grevious body harm with intent 
• Robbery
• Aggravted burglary
• Blackmail
• Causing death by dangerous driving
• Causing death by dangerous driving whe under the influence of drink/drugs
• Perjury
• Perverting the cause of justice

Either-way

• Such charges can be dealt with either at a Crown court or at a magistrates court. In this category, a magistrates court may decide a particular case is so serious that only a Crown court can deal with it, or if a magistrates court decides it can deal with the case, the defendant may exercise his/her right to opt for a Crown court trial. Generally, either-way cases are regarded as being of lesser magnitude of criminality than indictable-only crimes.

Either-way offences include:

• Assualt occasioning actual bodily harm
• Wounding or inflicting grevious body harm
• Theft
• Handling
• Fraud
• Aggravated vehicle taking
• Dangerous driving
• Causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving

Summary

• These are considered minor offences compared to the previous two categories and likely to be relatively straight forward to deal with. Summary chargs are almost all dealth with in magistrates courts. People charged with summary offences have no right of trial but benefit from being dealth with more quickly by the magistrates than defendants who end up at Crown court.

Sumaary offences include:

• Taking a vehicle without authority
• Careless or inconsiderate driving
• Driving under the influence of drink or drugs
• Driving with excess alcohol
• Wasting police time
• Kerb-crawling

It is important journalists understand the difference between these three categories particularly because if a media organisation fails to report an offence or charge accurately, it may be sued for libel by the defendant in that case.