Compare the roles of responsibilities and constraints on journalists in your country of origin with those in the UK. Make reference to regulatory frameworks in those countries and include a literature review.
Marks will be awarded for knowledge, understanding, style, structure (academic conventions, introduction and conclusion, bibliography, citation) and accuracy (grammar, spelling, word use, punctuation).
Words: 2,927
In the name of Freedom
Introduction
Freedom of speech can only exist by respecting law, and law applies constraints on all.
In Western democracies, the main restrictive laws which journalists have to be aware of are contempt, libel, defamation, privacy and copyright. We will see how in France and the UK the “reach” of different acts can differ and we will focus on libel and privacy laws affecting journalists in both countries.
For most people, journalists are the principal source of information either on TV, radio, online or paper. Across several countries, codes emphasise the role and responsibilities of reporting. Most of those codes are based on three principles: freedom of the press, voluntary participation and ethical standards.
Part I – Legal constraints for journalists in France and the UK
No one should ignore the law.
The main reasons why journalists need to be legally aware knowing about specific laws are that some restrict publications and the fact that their articles may cover legal matters.
The legal constraints on journalists in the UK and France are mainly to be found in the Official Secrets Act of 1989, Contempt of Court of 1981, Human Rights Act of 1998 for the UK and the 1881 Loi sur la Liberté de la Presse (“Press Freedom Act”). Alongside a set of laws dealing with defamation and libel, privacy, copyright, obscenity, public order, racism and data. Two types of law stand out from the others: the civil libel/defamation laws (referred to “libel”) in the UK (England and Wales) and the laws related to privacy in France.
As per Frances Quinn, “Law for Journalists”: England’s [defamation laws] are considered to make life more difficult for the media than the laws in many other countries, [this] is one of the most important areas for a journalist to know” (p.181).
Defamation, also known as calumny, slander and most often by the press “libel” is a statement claiming, stating or implying a negative image. The English laws on the subject are so tough that (rich) individuals and companies from around the world bring their cases to the UK to clear their name and seek compensation.
In fact, journalists must be careful when making (false?) allegations and/or statements. Because the laws are so rigid in these matters and the number of cases are so high, it is very often referred to as “libel taylorism”.
An important fact to remember regarding the UK is what is often called “libel tourism”. Because the allegations can be read in the UK through published sources (print and Internet) even if the original document didn’t originate there, the claimant(s) can bring the case to court. Very often, the defence over libel is based on the reference to the European Human Rights Convention and the Freedom of speech.
The advantages of the defamation laws for UK reporters are summarised in ten points under the Reynolds/Jameel standards.
Responsible journalism is protected through effective defences as it is listed in the “1999 Reynolds criteria” of Lord Nicholls and updated in 2006 by the House of Lords in the case Jameel v Wall Street Journal (HoL 2006)[1]. Tom O'Malley in ”Regulating the press” (2007) sums up what is now known as the Reynolds/Jameel standards: “it encourages responsible and fair journalism in the public interest and provides a reasonable defence to journalists who make honest mistakes”.
Finally, the libel set of laws protect the journalists and act as a deterrent because of the costs, risks and consequences of losing libel actions as the cases of Jonathan Aitkens against the Guardian or the downfall of former Lord Jeffrey Archer can prove.
From the other side, however, the disadvantages for UK journalists regarding libel laws must set off alarm bells in any newsroom when an allegation is made. Firstly, the odds for journalists are low in front of juries. Secondly, the costs of winning libel action are dwarfed by the damages. The third paradoxical point is the fact that with the introduction of the Conditional Fee Agreements (CFAs), the number of people suing for libel has increased and consequently action against journalists and publishers too.
In France, in contrast to the other side of the Channel, the press is regulated through the 1881 “Loi sur la liberté de la presse” (“Press Freedom Act”) updated in 2010[2]. It defines the responsibilities and freedoms of the French press, imposing a legal framework on any publication, and public display. La Loi sur la Presse -as it is referred to- recognises the principle of a repressive control of publications by the judicial authority to sanction and to repair the damages under the “Abus de la liberté d'expression”(“Abuse of the freedom of speech”)). The law defines, libel, defamation and other matters under the “Délits de Presse” (“Press Offenses”) such as offending the President. It is very precise as the compulsory mention of the flanel panel (“L’ours”) in each publication. Moreover, the French Press Freedom Act states that the publisher is criminally responsible to the courts of the actions and writings of its employees and journalists.
Finally, the concept of “Exceptio veritatis” (latin for “Exception of the Truth”) in the 1881 law encapsulates most of the libel and defamation cases. The exceptio veritatis is the way of reporting the facts that have been recognized as defamatory and as such it can not always be reported. This is the case with regards to privacy.
The only important text relating directly to privacy in France is Article 9 of the French Civil Code (”Code civil français”) stating that: "Everyone has the right to respect for his privacy." There are also the article 226 et al of the Code Pénal (“Criminal Code”) which lists the penalties. Furthermore, the Constitutional Council considers that the right to privacy derives from Article 2 of the Declaration of Human Rights and Citizens of the French Revolution of 1789. But there is no legal definition of privacy as such.
However, with these legal texts the legislator is protecting the privacy of people and details of their private lives cannot be exhibited or published in public without their agreement. In other words, the breach of one’s privacy is a punishable crime. In France, journalists, editors and publishers are very aware of this. Added to the French taboo about looking at others private gardens, you have the legal and social barriers and this explains why celebrities’ personal lives do not make scoops.
As we can notice in France and in the UK, reporting constraining laws provide a legal framework in both countries. Very often these sets of laws “clash” with freedom of speech in two conflicting ways. First, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights of 1950 and the UK Human Rights of 1998 [3] permit restrictions on freedom of speech when necessary to protect the reputation or rights of others. The other side is found on the essence of the freedom of speech, where freedom stops and libel begins. Between both lie the codes of conduct and self-regulation.
Part II – Codes and self-regulation
In the UK, everyone can call themselves journalists without having proper and official training or a diploma. There are two general sector differences for journalists in the UK: the press and broadcasting.
There is no specific legal statutory control of the press in the UK. Instead it is self-regulated and follows a set of codes. In theory, it is assumed that journalists know these and follow them.
The UK press is regulated through the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) which is responsible to the Editors’ Code of Practice. This code has 16 clauses[4] listing general principles. The National Union of Journalists has set its own Code of Conduct[5] which includes 14 points to follow. Altogether, they cover in broad terms accuracy, attribution, the opportunity for reply, respect for privacy, harassment, intrusion into shock or grief, the interests and protection of children, entry into hospitals, the reporting of crime, the use of clandestine devices and subterfuge, the protection of victims of sexual assault, discrimination, financial journalism, the protection of confidential sources, payment for information for trials and to criminals.
In practice, journalists and newspaper editors ignore most of these non-legally binding codes. For example, both of the codes as PCC’s code iii) stipulates that “it is unacceptable to photograph individuals in private places without their consent.” NUJ point 5, “A journalist shall obtain information, photographs and illustrations only by straightforward means”. The number of times which “private” pictures are on the cover of the tabloid newspapers in the UK or the glossy Paris-Match magazine, may suggest otherwise. Recent developments in the “phone hacking” scandal hitting the News of the World demonstrates that the main points of the codes are ignored.
Because the PCC has no legal power nor can it impose fines, there is “a gentleman’s agreement” between the press and the Government on the fact that the press regulates itself by fear of the creation of a legal body to “frame” it.
On the other hand, broadcasting regulations are more binding. The Broadcasting Acts of 1990, 1996 and the Communications Act 2003 are enforced by OFCOM (formerly the ITC and Radio Authority) which ensures impartiality and “common sense” in terms of religion, politics and law. OFCOM has the powers to remove the licences from the operator as per the precedent of Med TV in 1999. In addition to those legal powers, OFCOM has developed lengthy codes which deal with content. Each code is very detailed and journalists in the private TV industry must follow these.
The BBC, however, has its own legal framework and code of conduct. Established by a Royal Charter in 1926, The British Broadcasting Corporation is a public service broadcaster (PSB) with its own code, the Producers’ Guidelines[6] which applies for all platforms (online, paper, TV, radio) in addition to 167 set of other editorial guidelines from “Access Agreements” to “Writing Commitments”. Furthermore, the BBC sets compulsory training sessions for their journalists. To sum it up, BBC hacks have to be impartial and use fairness and common sense.
To date, the new media and its associated platforms are not regulated specifically. But as publishers on legal terms, UK journalists and any member of the public are subject to the acts of law (see further Part I).
All broadcasting platforms (TV, cable, satellite and Internet) in France are regulated by the CSA, or Conseil Supérieur de l´Audiovisuel following the French Broadcasting Act of 1986. It issues new licences and has legal constraints on the radio and television stations about political pluralism, protection of minors, the French language and advertising. But it has no guidelines, chart or code of conduct for journalists.
However, regarding the profession of the journalists, there is an “identity card” specifically for journalists delivered by the “Commission de la carte d’identité des journalistes professionnels”, without which you cannot use the profession’s name.
As in the UK, there is a code of conduct put together by the Syndicat National des Journalists (SNJ), the Charter of Deontology, the “Déclaration des devoirs et des droits des journalistes” (“Declaration of the duties and rights of the journalists”) and the “Charter of the Duties of the French professional journalists”[7].
However, the most referred to document for journalists in France is the Charter of Munich of 1971.[8] It comprises ten duties that the journalists should follow from honesty and professionalism to protection of people privacy and their own social role. It lists as well the five rights of any reporter from freedom of speech to the right to have a decent income from the employer.
These codes of conduct are for all journalists across all the platforms (TV, print, radio, online). Finally, the freelancer journalists have since the Cressard Law in 1974, the same rights and duties of the professionals but without having the “Carte de presse”, the equivalent of permanent status.
In brief, the above French rules “road-map” the mission of the journalist: duty to inform, respect for the reader, the public interest, the right of knowledge and establish its credibility (independence against political and economic power, respect of privacy, protection of sources). As Sabrina Lavric, from the University of Nancy, in her article « Déontologie journalistique, simple formule magique ? »[9] crystalises it: “They are based on two fundamental principles: social responsibility and truthfulness, that is to say the intention is not to deceive its audience.”
We can see that there are similarities and differences in the responsibilities of French and British journalists in the general press and broadcasting sectors.
Similarities due to the fact that codes of conducts exist on both sides of the Channel on cover print and broadcast which cover the same matters. Similarities, as very often journalists ignore such codes like the disclosure of private matters about the French President’s wife, Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, and the recent phone hacking scandal (ref. above).
However, it appears that the French legislator through the “Press Freedom Act of 1881” and other structural controls of the profession provides more extensive regulations than their British counterpart. For the UK as Tom O’Malley et al noticed in Regulating the Press (2001, p.177), “statutory regulation of standards is neither new, nor easily resolved by appeal to the idea that such development would constitute a threat to press freedom”.
Having summarised the legal frameworks and codes of conduct for journalists, we have to consider the reporters ethics’.
Part III – At work and at heart: Ethics and moral issues in practice
In addition to this guidance at national level, journalists need to subscribe to the ethos, philosophy, house rules and style guides of their employer and/or commissioning party.
In the UK, for example, The Economist prides itself on the excellence of writing. Reuters defines its journalists through its “Standards and Value” section of their house Handbook[10]. In France, Le Monde has its Charter of Deontology and AFP is based on a law from 1957 that “defines its independence and the freedom of its journalists”[11]. These house rules provide another framework for the reporters and the line of thinking to follow. When these run out, the reporter is confronted with his or her own set: ethics, morals and self-censorship.
Nick Davies in “Flat Earth News” (2009) expresses the concerns that self-censorship is a constant in the news industry for two main reasons: costs of production and the need to increase the flow of revenue (p.114). This has produced a churnalism which he describes in nine rules to be avoided for the honest journalist. These range from the bias against truth (rule One), the need to run cheap stories to self-censorship (rule Three: avoid the electric fence). Indeed, the journalist in his search for truth needs to make some compromises whatever the causes (deadlines, budget, law, in-house rules or screaming editor!).
It is an even more difficult balancing act when the subject affects suffering. Alice Donald, Senior Research Fellow in the Human Rights and Social Justice Research Institute in London, stated that the “triangular relationship between the journalist, its audience and people suffering brings a moral and ethical responsibility to journalism”.[12]
Indeed, reporters need to suspend their emotion and listen to other people. Like Charlie Beckett’s (former Channel 4 News Editor) slip of the tongue revealed when commenting about the London 7/7 tragedy. In his own words: “When I arrived at my desk, I knew that this [the London bombings] was a great story”. The comment epitomises the balance between suffering, audience and reporting: a great story but not for everyone.
The three model concept (journalist-audience-suffering) runs in parallel with the distance, compassion and pity dynamics. The challenge for reporters is to find a fine line between the “compassion fatigue” of the audiences, a “journalism of attachment” (sympathy in reporting) and the “pictures’ morality”. This brings limits (or other horizons) when reporting atrocities, conflicts and privacy according to the platforms (broadcasting, press, online), the programme format and the owner of content (see Luc Boltanski, Distant Suffering: Morality, Media and Politics” Cambridge University Press (French: 2007 and English: 1999). It is subliminally the differences between empathy and sympathy.
Conclusion
A matter at the heart of the duties and responsibilities of any hack is the employer. As Andrew Marr famously wrote in My Trade (2004): “It’s not an invariable truth that every proprietor of a British newspaper is mad” (p.236) and we could broaden it, not only to the press but to the whole industry.
In both France and the UK, a set of laws and codes represents the frameworks for journalism, in theory. Despite these, most often reporters are faced with their own ethics, morale and very often demons.
From The Sun’s “Gotcha” cover (O4/05/1982) celebrating the sinking of the General Belgrano warship to Paris-Match’s pictures of François Mitterrand on his death bed, whatever the national borders, morality and ethics appear not to be the quintessential values of the press on print and online.
Television due to its immediate cognitive impact on its audience remains more prone to morality and sanity and even “sanitisation” (censorship of atrocities committed in conflict).
However, the aspiring and professional reporters in respecting ethics, fairness, honesty, impartiality, probity and public accountability can give journalism back its aura and democratic duty.
However, the aspiring and professional reporters in respecting ethics, fairness, honesty, impartiality, probity and public accountability can give journalism back its aura and democratic duty.
Bibliography :
Brookes, Heather (2006), Your Right to Know: A Citizen’s Guide to the Freedom of Information Act. Pluto Press
Beckett, Charlie (2008), SuperMedia: Saving Journalism so it can save the world. Oxford: Blackwell
Allan, S. (2004), News Culture. (2nd edition) Open University Press.
Allen, B. and S. (ed) (2002), Journalism After September 11 (2002), Prakash
Anderson, P. and Weymouth, A. (1999), Insulting the Public? The British Press and the European Union. London: Longman.
Bauman, Z. (2001), Whatever happened to compassion? in T. Bentley and D Stedman Jones (eds), The Moral Universe. Demos
Beer, de S. and Merril, J. (2004), Global Journalism: Topical Issues and Media Systems. Boston: Pearson.
Bell, A. (1991), The Language of News Media. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bell, A. and Garrett, P. (1998), Approaches to Media Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.
Berkowitz, D. (1997), Social Meanings of News. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage.
Boltanski, L. (2007), La Souffrance à distance. Morale humanitaire, médias et politique. Paris: Gallimard / Previous edition (1999) in English, Distant Suffering: Morality, Media and Politics. Cambridge University Press
Bourdieu, P. (1998), On Television and Journalism. London: Pluto.
Boyd-Barrett, O. and Newbold, C. (1995), Approaches to Media. London: Arnold.
Burgh, De H. and Curran, J. (2005), The Making of Journalists. London: Routledge.
Coates, Tim (ed) (2004), The Hutton Enquiry. London: Tim Coates Books
Code du Travail 2010. Paris: Dalloz
Cohen, S. (2005), States of denial: knowing about atrocity and suffering, Cambridge: Polity Press (especially Chapter 7)
Cohen, E. (1992), Philosophical Issues in Journalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chouliaraki, L. (2006), The Spectatorship of Suffering, London: Sage
Crook, T. (2010), Comparative Media Law and Ethics. London: Routeldge
Corner, J., Schlesinger, P. and Silverstone, R. (1997), International Media Research. London: Routledge.
Croteau, D, and Hoynes, W. (2005), The Business of Media. Corporate Media and the Public Interest. Thousand Oaks, Ca.: Pine Forge Press.
Curran, J. and Gurevitch, M (2005), Mass Media and Society. London: Arnold.
Derville, G. (1999), Le iournaliste et ses contraintes, Les Cahiers du journalisme no. 6 – Oct 1999 p.151
Downing, J., Mohammadi, A. and Sreberny-Mohammadi, A. (1995), Questioning the Media. Thousand Oaks (Ca): Sage.
During, S. (1999), The Cultural Studies Reader. London: Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (1995), Media Discourse. London: Arnold.
Fenton, N. (ed) (2009), New Media, Old News: Journalism and Democracy in the Digital Age. London: Sage.
Fowler, R. (1991), Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London: Routledge.
Franklin, B. (1997) Newszak and News Media. London: Arnold.
Franklin, B. et al (2005) Key Concepts in Journalism Studies. London: Sage.
Frost, Chris (2007), Journalism, Ethics and Regulation. Harlow: Pearson Longman
Gans, H. (2003) Democracy and the News. Oxford University Press.
Hallin, D. and Mancini, P. (2004), Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Keane, J. (1991,) The Media and Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Lichtenburg, J. (1990), Democracy and the Mass Media. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Manning, P. (2000), News and News Sources. London: Sage.
Marr, Andrew (2004), My Trade. London: MacMillan
Welsh, T. Greenwwod, W. (2005), McNae's essential law for journalists. Oxford University Press
Niblock, Sarah (2010), Journalism Oxford: One World
Rosenblum, Mort (1993), Who stole the news? John Wiley and Sons
McQuail, D. (2005), McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory. London: Sage.
Murphy Y. (1997), Journalists and the Law. Dublin: Round Hall Sweet and Maxwell
O'Malley, T, Soley, C. (2010), Regulating the press Imprint London : Pluto Press, 2000
O'Sullivan, T, Hartley, J, Saunders, D, Montgomery, M and Fiske, J. (1995),
Key Concepts in Communication and Cultural Studies. London: Routledge.
Key Concepts in Communication and Cultural Studies. London: Routledge.
Palmer, J. (2000). Spinning into control: News values and source strategies. Leicester University Press.
PCC 2009 Annual Review - June 2010
Quinn F. (2009), Law for journalists. Oxford University Press.
Sanders, K (2003), Ethics and Journalism, London: Sage
Schiller, H. (1989), Culture Inc. The Corporate Takeover of Public Expression. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schudson, M. (2003), The Sociology of News. New York: Norton.
Silverstone, R (2007), Media and morality: on the rise of the mediapolis, Cambridge: Polity Press
Silverstone, R (2007), Proper distance: towards an ethics for cyberspace in G. Liestol, A. Morrison and T. Rasmussen, Terje (eds), Digital Media Revisted, Cambridge MA: MIT Press
Sreberny-Mohammadi, A., Winseck, D., McKenna, J. and Boyd-Barrett, O. (1997), Media in Global Context. London: Arnold.
Thussu, D. (2000), International Communication: Continuity and Change. London: Arnold.
Tumber, H. (2000), Media Power, Professionals and Policies. London: Routledge.
Tumber, H. and Webster, F (2006), Journalists Under Fire: Information War and Journalistic Practice. London: Sage.
Tunstall, J. (2001), Media Occupations and Professions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tunstall, J. and Palmer, M. (1991), Media Moguls. London: Routledge.
Williams, G. (1999), Media Ownership and Democracy. London: Pluto.
Winston, B. (1998), Media, Technology and Society. London: Routledge
Zelizer, B. and S. Allen (ed) (2002), Journalism After September 11. Routledge.
Teleography
BBC, BBC1 Ten O’Clock News
BBC, BBC2 Newsnight
BskyB, Sky News
CNN
CNBC
France2, Le Journal du 20h
France24 (Audiovisuel Exterieur de la France – AEF)
ITN, ITV News at Ten
TF1, TF1 Le 20heures
Websites
Article 19, http://www.article19.org/
BBC, http://www.bbc.co.uk (Accessed: January 2011)
Le Club Presse http://www.clubpresse.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1115&Itemid=133http://www.droitdesjournalistes.fr/droit-du-travail-et-droits-journalistes-pigistes--Francais,s,272
CNN, http://edition.cnn.com/ (Accessed: January 2011)
CRFJ, http://www.crfj.ch/public/page13.php?sm=6
The Economist, http://www.economist.com/ (Accessed: January 2011)
France2, http://www.france2.fr/ (Accessed: January 2011)
France24, http://www.france24.com/fr/ (Accessed: January 2011)
Financial Times, http://www.ft.com/ (Accessed: January 2011)
Le Figaro, http://www.lefigaro.fr/ (Accessed: January 2011)
The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/ (Accessed: January 2011)
Juriscom, http://www.juriscom.net/int/dpt/dpt21.htm
Juritravail, http://www.juritravail.com
LegiFrance, http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr
Le Monde, http://www.lemonde.fr/ (Accessed: January 2011)
Polismedia, http://www.polismedia.org/workingpapers.aspx?id=20
Warwick University, http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/eslj/issues/volume3/number1/morris_randle/
[1] http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article668364.ece (accessed 28/01/11)
[2] For a full read, see official site (accessed on 01/02/11) http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070722&dateTexte=20110202
[3] http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html and http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/crossheading/introduction (accessed on 01/02/11)
[6] See Appendix 3, BBC Production Guidelines
[9] http://www.dalloz.fr/2008/04/deontologie-journalistique-simple-formule-magique/ accessed on 27 January 2011
[10] Reuters Handbook of Journalism
[11] http://www.afp.com/afpcom/en/content/afp/our-history (accessed 02/02/2011)
[12] Seminar on “Moral and Ethical Dimensions of Journalism” - 27/11/2010 London Metropolitan University
No comments:
Post a Comment