Our discussion group included: Sue Heseltine of Birmingham City University; Judith Townend of Journalism.co.uk, James Hatts of London SE1, Martin Moore of Journalism Standards Trust, Martin Belam, an information architect at The Guardian, Andrew Mackenzie and David Hayward of the BBC College of Journalism.
We started talking about privacy, which many on the panel felt was an issue of increasing significance for journalists and the general public. In particular, there was a feeling that social media poses a serious threat to any individual’s right to a private life.
It didn’t, however, take too long at all for the conversation to move on to the thorny issues surrounding libel law. There was a sense from some panel members that journalists’ ability to do their jobs might be increasingly undermined by what appears an evermore threatening and punitive legal climate.
The idea of “libel hanging over you” appears to be an issue for all practising journalists at the moment. In fact, one panel member said that libel law as it stands “does more to damage to freedom of information than it does to protect people.” It is exploited by the rich and leaves the poor - whether they are individuals seeking legal redress from a damaging story or a struggling, small-scale publisher - often powerless to protect their rights.
We then talked about how Facebook may be having a profound effect on peoples’ privacy. How does, for example, an individual’s use of Facebook affect that individuals’ privacy?
The same forces affecting our privacy are also having a significant impact on aspects of law, including Contempt of Court. We talked about how a Google search can uncover infinite information about someone who is being tried, and for a juror, that massive availability of information surely means that you cannot fairly fulfil your duties? Facebook and contempt of court are both separately and together very fuzzy grey area. Like, thick fog.
Many journalists don’t even know (or at least don’t practice) the idea that a case is active as soon as someone is arrested, not when it goes to court. The next area of discussion focused around the bodies; the NUJ and the PCC. The general consensus was that the Press Complaints Commission ‘mediates’ but doesn’t ‘regulate’. Being made a fool of, as a newspaper or news organisation, is still embarrassing, and more so than it used to be, but most of the high-end of the publishing industry lives often enough outside the law of the PCC. The NUJ on the other hand was a more constructive issue of discussion. Should they offer formal legal advice, and should they tackle the issue of protection of ISP? Legal advice does come from fellow journalists through the process of blogging your journalism experiences. But is it enough? Bloggers, and our group, admitted that when someone came sniffing at them about a story they weren’t happy about, it was very intimidating. More often than not, you are forced to sound a public retreat whether or not you feel you are spouting libel. And, I think, in one of the most rambling and disjointed ways ever, that is the discussion about Law, Ethics and Regulation. Thank you, and goodnight.
