Given the many constraints on journalists, how can we talk of a free media? Discuss with reference to relevant legislation and guidelines.
Historical views on the media have emerged from such ideology as the fourth estate; it is the traditional ideal which many journalists who wish to enter the profession form their foundations on. It is the ideal that the profession is founded on high morals which are used to regulate those that control our state through news and investigation.
“The eighteenth century claim that the press was entitled to its own independent standing in the political system, as the Fourth Estate, has become an ideal which continues to influence the attitudes of those working in the late Twentieth century news media as well as politicians and citizens.” (Schultz, 1998:15)
Schultz (1998) talks of the ‘Fourth Estate’ which is a principle applied to the media as an entity whose job it is to regulate those that govern the country. It implies that journalism is a very noble profession, entrusted with telling the rest of the world about heinous crimes and reporting for justice. She also suggests that this is a trait which has been carried through to the present day and a reason why many seek to enter the profession in the first place.
Although the foundations of the free media are built on those of high morals, it is safe to protest that the freedom of the media has been compromised in present times. For example the introduction of certain laws which seek to protect the individual rather than provide knowledge to the masses.
A free press can be defined as a press not restricted or controlled by government censorship regarding politics or ideology.” (dictionary.com, 2010) However, more recently there is more evidence to suggest that the press has been restricted and in some cases controlled.
The rise of laws like the Freedom of information Act 2000 has enhanced opportunities to find stories because anyone (not just the journalist) can request information.
“The Act gives the public a general right of access to information held by public authorities. The Act also requires public authorities to have an approved publication scheme, which is a means of providing access to information which an authority proactively publishes. (ICO.co.uk, 2010)
However, requests have to be very precise and can take time to process which is very difficult considering the increased pressures on journalists surrounding deadlines. The Act itself seems like a positive, but in, practise it is just as difficult to secure this information and can result in the story trail going dead.
There are also valid reasons for withholding information, which are known as exemptions from the right to know. However, if exemptions are made, then it is even more difficult for the press to be ‘free’. How can the press be free if there are exceptions made? This must mean that the press can never truly be ‘free’ because it is written into British law and the press is still controlled by or censored by government.
Many times when Freedom of Information requests are made, the information can come back as PDF forms that do not include a ‘search bar’. This means that there could be pages of information that will have to be thoroughly read and without being able to navigate quickly this could be incredibly time consuming. The company’s supplying the information know this and will also try to bury certain things deep in the document, hoping that the journalist will not have the time to look through it all.
However, the right to information does not necessarily mean a right to publish information. Frost (2000) argues that: “When we talk about a free media we are not necessarily talking about the media’s right to publish anything they like, but that people, including journalists, should have a right to spread information and ideas which can be justified morally in order to support the public’s right to know – in other words, information published in the public interest, not merely information to sate the public’s curiosity or desire to be entertained.” (P42)
Frost (2000) implies that many elements of the media hide behind the public interest guise. Evidence does suggest that hiding behind the public interest defence rarely works. In cases such as Max Mosley suing the News of the World, the public interest defence was used. It was quite rightly ignored too, no one really knew who this man was until the News of the World broke the story.
The British press has its own regulatory body, the Press Complaints Commission (PCC).A body which is made up of editors of national, local and regional press and magazines. (pcc.org.uk, ND) It has been argued that, although it sets out guidelines, it has little or no power to actually prosecute or even fine those wayward journalists and so many choose to ignore it. According to McNae’s Essential Law for Journalists (2007), “[The PCC] Codes of conduct attempt to encourage or enforce ethical standards in the media.” (P445)
They have no real power to fine journalists which in itself does not seem like a real deterrent. One of the better features of the PCC does seem to be that it contains guidelines which are reinforced by law in the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Data Protection Act 1998.
Stricter privacy laws seem to be the biggest threat to free media. Many people can use the guise of right to privacy as a way of gagging the press from publishing certain articles. Crucial information can go unpublished because the media is afraid of being sued.
A case was reported online at Telegraph.co.uk: “Media organisations in the UK acceded to a request from Buckingham Palace not to publish the pictures, but they appeared in the German press...The Queen is said to be increasingly angry about press intrusion and the use of telephoto lenses to capture members of the Royal family in private situations.” (Singh 2010)
The Royal Family are considered ‘fair game’ when it comes to reporting because of their standing in Britain. People are interested in the Royal Family because they are ‘national property’. However, by the UK media pandering to their requests are they in effect jeopardising free media? It could be argued that they are because they are in essence controlling what is printed about them. The media has been compromised because they are in effect accepting that they are not to report certain stories because they have been asked not to. This again goes against the ideals set out in the Fourth Estate because they are adhering to pressures from governmental factors.
Karen Sanders (2003) says:
“Privacy is a necessary good for all human beings, however famous and powerful. A less extreme view considers that there is a trade-off between fame and power on the one hand and reduced privacy on the other. This view holds that there is a price to be paid by those who court publicity or wield power. What might the reasons be for this?” (P86)
Karen Sanders (2003) believes three different reasons why the privacy guise could be ignored. Self-immolation, those who seek publicity ‘invade’ their own privacy. By placing their own private lives’ on the record they cannot complain when the media delves deeper. Integrity, those who have power must uphold a certain standard of public behaviour. So, we are entitled to know if their private behaviour contradicts their public conduct. Hypocrisy, when a person who is guilty of a private vice and publically expounds a contradictory set of values should be exposed as a hypocrite.
Libel laws are biased towards the claimant in the UK, where the defendant is seen as guilty until proven innocent. This presents a lot of difficulty for the press because it is harder to prove your innocence when it is easy to damage people’s reputations.
Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones successfully sued Hello! Magazine for publishing pictures of their wedding. In 2005 the Court of Appeal stated that photographs of the wedding portrayed aspects if the Douglases’ private life and fell within the protection of the laws of confidentiality, as extended to cover private or personal information. It is also important to recognise that there is no real privacy law in Britain but it is a development in case law which has led to there being more constraints in journalism. The judges themselves use each other as a benchmark on ruling for later cases.
Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 states that: “Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers….”
Yet, Article 8 contradicts the notion of Article 10 which casts a grey area on the reportage, “When the Human Rights Bill was before parliament, the media were worried that it would give the opportunity to wealthy and powerful villains to get last-minute injunctions against the publication of exposés on the ground that such publication would therefore contravene article 8.” This again means that justice is essentially held by those who shape the law rather than those who wish to report on it, which in turn adds to the constraints on a truly free media.
In response, the Government amended the Act to introduce a provision that applies if a court is considering whether to grant ‘relief’ (principally an injunction) which affects the exercise of the right to freedom of expression.
“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 steps to notify the journalist or that there are compelling reasons why the journalist should be notified.” (McNaes, 2007:428)
This clearly seeks to provide a protection on free media but it does not serve as well because there will still be biased judges making the call on whether there is a public interest in particular stories anyway.
According to McNae’s (2007), Libel law exists to protect the reputation of the individual from unjustified attack. In civil law it is a tort- that is, a civil wrong for which monetary damages may be claimed.
Samson (2010) argues that libel laws should change and be similar to those in the US. Samson believes if the ‘burden of proof’ had to be shifted to the claimant then it would deter Libel tourists.
“A libel defendant is guilty until proven innocent, resulting in a disproportionate number of libel cases both from British citizens and "libel tourists" who sue their critics in London. Libel tourists know that forcing the defendant to prove his innocence may lead to a retraction of the alleged libel and discourage other writers from publishing similar statements – known as the "chilling effect" on free speech.” (Elizabeth Samson, 2010)
This also means that a lot of publishers will just back down without trying to prove that they were right because of the huge costs they might have to take-on if they are disproven. This can only be seen as a massive hindrance on free media because media outlets cannot just take a chance with such high stakes.
The Terrorism Act 2000 has also constrained journalists. Under the act police can seize material which reveals journalists’ sources. This can result in potential whistle-blowers staying silent. People would be unlikely to speak out about certain events if they were no longer anonymous. Consequently, journalists cannot write credible material without ‘proof’ thus the Act restraining the media from doing its job.
“It is a matter of personal principle that a reporter does not reveal his source of confidential information. The journalist’s job is to discover and record news. Where ever he looks he will find people with vested interests trying to prevent him from doing so.” (McNae’s 2007: 332)
Material can be seized without notifying the writer which goes directly against the ideal of the Fourth Estate. It is a direct constraint on free media because there is no defence for the journalist. How can they regulate those that govern us if the police can just seize research? Failure to comply with the Act can also mean that the journalist can be tried for Contempt of Court which can mean a jail sentence of up to two years imprisonment. This adds to the constraints on free media because certain events which may come to light can be ignored because without a source willing to go on the record, there is no proof and without proof a journalist cannot write his articles.
One could also argue that the Contempt of Court Act hinders the right of free media because publications that hold information on specific cases must hold on to their knowledge until after a trial. If the press was truly free, they could choose when they want to publish stories without time constraints.
In effect, it would be hard to conclude that there is a truly free media in the UK because laws that are there to protect journalism are also the obstacles that hinder its progression. It could also be noted that the foundations on which the noble profession was built on are also flawed in the sense that the Fourth Estate is an ideal. The most basic definition of an ideology is: The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
Ideology behind journalism seems to have prophesised that those wishing to be part of it are always truth-seeking and looking for the moral high-ground; which is correct if we look to events like the Watergate scandal. However, policies and legislation has done little to provide us with the intention of making the job of journalism easy, so it would seem that the journalist is forever pushing against the hand of the law and there is no sign of it letting up.
Bibliography
Books
• Sanders,K. (2003) Ethics & Journalism. Sage, London.
• Frost,C. (2000) Journalism Ethics and Regulation. Pearson, London.
• Harcup,T. (2007) The Ethical Journalist. Sage, London.
• Branston,G. Stafford,R. (1996) The Media Student’s Handbook. Third Edition. Routledge, London.
• Randall,D. (2000) The Universal Journalist. Second Edition. Pluto Press, London.
• Schultz, J. (1998) Reviving the Fourth Estate: Democracy, Accountability and the Media. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Davies,N. (2008) Flat Earth News: An Award-winning Reporter Exposes Falsehood, Distortion and Propaganda in the Global Media. Random House, London.
• Welsh, T (et al.) (2007) McNae’s Essential Law for Journalists. 19th Edition. Oxford University Press, UK.
• Kovach, B & Rosenstiel, T. (2001) The Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople should know and the Public should expect. Three Rivers Press, New York.
• Currah, A. (2009) What’s happening to our news: investigation into the likely impact of the digital revolution on the economics of news publishing in the UK. Reuters Institute for the study of Journalism, London.
Websites
• Freeman,H. (2009) Celebrity scoops are not always in the public interest. The Guardian [Online] Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/05/celebrity-interviews-hadley-freeman [Accessed: 21/03/2010]
• Gaulin, P. (2007) Are Ethics Missing in Citizen Journalism? [Online] Available at: www.associatedcontent.com/article/221308/are_ethics_missing_in_citizen_journalism.htm [Accessed: 12/03/2010]
• Singh, A. (2010) Kate Middleton wins damages from paparazzi agency. The Telegraph [Online] Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/7488676/Kate-Middleton-wins-damages-from-paparazzi-agency.html [Accessed: 11/03/2010]
• Samson, E. (2010) The Freedom to speak Truth to Power. The Guardian [Online] Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/apr/20/libel-law-tourism-reform [Accessed: 26/04/2010]
• Hanson, J. (2010) Chaos Vs Order:The root of Ideology. Big Think [Online] http://bigthink.com/ideas/19011 [Accessed: 10/05/2010]
Journals
• Papandrea, M. (2007) Citizen Journalism and the Reporter’s Privilege. Minnesota Law Review [Online] Vol.97. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=932681 (Social Science Research Network) [Accessed: 12/03/2010]
• Witschge, T. Journalism: A Profession under Pressure? Journal of Media Business Studies [Online] Available at: http://eprints-gro.gold.ac.uk/2128/1/Witschge_Nygren_Journalism_as_profession.pdf [Accessed: 16/03/2010]
• Nardi, A. (et al.) (Dec 2004) Why we blog. The Blogosphere. Issue 12, Vol. 47. Pp41-46 Publisher: ACM [Accessed: 16/03/2010]
• Salter, L. (2005) The Communicative structures of Journalism and Public Relations. [Online] Available at: http://jousagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/6/1/90
[Accessed: 26/04/2010]
Legislation/Guidelines
• The Freedom of Information act 2000. (http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/freedom_of_information_guide.aspx)
• The Press Complaints Commission: Code of Practice.
• The Human Rights Act 1998; Articles 8 & 10
• The Terrorism Act 2000
• Contempt of Court Act
