- Clause 6 - A child under 16 must not be photographed. The boy featured in the stills was 15 and should have been protected as they didn't have the parent's consent.
- Public right to know - The video contains footage of teenagers committing a serious crime, so it's in the interest of the public to be aware of their behaviour.
- Clause 3 - Everyone is entitled to respect for his private life. The fact that the boy decided to upload the video onto Youtube, which can be accessed by the public, meant that this clause had no effect.
- Does the publication of the video on the newspaper's website and of the stills in the print version improperly identify a 15 year old boy? I don't think it does, as this boy decided to take a video of his actions and therefore, should have been aware of the consequences and people's opinions.
#2 - A Man V Zoo Magazine
- Clause 6 - A child under 16 must not be photographed. The girl featured was 10 years old.
- Clause 3 - Everyone is entitled to respect for her private life. Were photographed in a public area, at a Premiership football match.
- However, as she was only a child, her face should have been blurred, which all the other publications did, as it wasn't in the public interest.
- Should the magazine have obscured the child's features? Yes, because she is still a child, and I think the photograph would have been as effective if her face was blurred, as the audience would have still been able to recognise that it was a child doing this which was the most shocking part.
- Did the father's behaviour suggest that that he did not want to draw attention of the press to his child? The behaviour of the father suggested that he wasn't preventing drawing attention to his daughter, and should have been responsible and more concerned before making rude gestures.
#3 - A Man V The Sunday Times
- Clause 6 - Pupils should not be approached without the permission of the school authorites. As this incident was related to the school, the journalist shouldn't have made any contact with the boy.
- Clause 6 - Minors should not be paid for material involving children's welfare. Asking for a photograph of the suspect went against this code, as it involved the suspects welfare.
- Clause 4 - Journalists must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing individuals once asked to desist. We don't know if the boy rejected the journalist from giving any information.
- Does this mean there is no complaint to answer? Has the code been breached? I think that yes, the code has definitely been breached based on the fact that the journalist was trying to obtain information about the suspect through a pupil attending at the school.
#4 - A Woman V The Independent
- Clause 3 - Everyone is entitled to respect for her private and family life, home, health... The fact that she only told three people whom she assumed that she could trust, showed that she didn't want the public to know.
- Clause 1 - The press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information. Even though they might have been told by one of those three people who knew, they shouldn't have published anything until it was confirmed by the actress herself.
#5 - A Woman V The Sun
- Clause 3 - Everyone is entitled to respect for her private life... This image was taken in a public area, and the fact that there were other people present meant that the lady wasn't concerned about people not knowing.
- Clause 5 - When reporting suicide, care should be taken to avoid excessive detail about the method used. It was pretty clear from the images about how this lady killed herself just from the photographs. However, they should have considered reactions from people who personally knew the lady, as they would have been affected to see someone that they knew in the newspaper, killing themselves. But the newspaper treated this tragic event appropriately, and they didn't dwell on unpleasant details.
#6 - A Woman V Eastbourne Gazette
- Clause 3 - Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individuals private life without consent. This journalist entered the hospital without identifying himself. He had no permission as well, as the family had firmly denied it previously.
- Clause 4 - Journalists must not engage in intimidation harassment or persistent pursuit. The fact that the journalist kept wanting to speak to the family, leaving messages, and again telephoning suggested that he was being persistent breaching this code.
- Clause 8 - Journalists must identify themselves and obtain permission from a responsible executive before entering non-public areas of hospitals. He entered the hospital without identifying himself and questioned the man despite his fatal condition.
#7 - A Police Officer V The Sunday Telegraph
- Clause 3 - Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individuals private life without consent. The fact that they entered the house without clearly identifying themselves suggested that they intruded. However, based on the fact that the Nazi memorabilia belonged to the policewoman's husband, meant that it was in the publics interest based on the role that the policewoman had within the community, especially because she was responsible for investigating racially-motivated crimes.
#8 - Paul McCartney V Hello!
- Clause 3 - Everyone is entitled to respect for his private and family life. This was an intrusion into his private life, as they were pictured near a cathedral in a distressed time as he paid respect to his late wife.
- It wasn't in the public's interest to know, as this was a very private matter even though he is a celebrity and should be expected to have been taken photographs of.
- Clause 5 - Intrusion into grief. They were paying respect to their late wife/mother.
- The newspaper should have been more considerate and been more respectful to him as he was going through a hard time.
0 comments:
Post a Comment