A reporter has told how an unnamed court clerk tried to stop him reporting the knife crime trial: wrongly claiming there was a reporting restriction in place, and wrongly saying this meant the reporter could not cover the case at all. A Section 45 order was subsequently imposed to protect the teenage defendant’s identity: the reporter said that when he tried to challenge it, the clerk ignored his request to address the judge. The reporter won the day: the judge lifted the order so the 17-year-old could be named. Read more here (note that the facts in the story have not been verified for this website).
David Mascord, media law lecturer at Bournemouth University, shares tips on protecting your copyright – including putting a watermark on your social media images – on the journalism.co.uk website, here.
A judge declined to lift a temporary injunction preventing the media from naming two girls who carried out a brutal murder when they were only 13 and 14. Both had now turned 18, the age when teenagers’ right to anonymity would normally end. They were tried in an adult court with no automatic anonymity, but an injunction was put in place to protect them. The Press Association applied to have it lifted, but a judge extended the ban pending psychiatric reports. The court heard one of the girls had tried several times to kill herself. Read more.
Emily Bell, one of the world’s most highly respected commentators on media, has written a post for the Columbia Journalism Review that draws together strands of important thinking on the dilemmas involved in terrorism fed by social media, and the emerging wisdom on the ethics involved for mainstream media in following it. Messages include: “Do not report facts until they are verified, do not focus on the perpetrator over the victims, do not use sensational language that might glamorize the terrorist.” Read it here (and find many more internationally-focused articles on the media in the same place).
Lots of angles for any 2006MAPA students looking at ethical fallout from the New Zealand terror attack in the excellent Columbia Journalism Review newsletter: “For Australia’s ABC, Rashna Farrukh, a Muslim woman who worked in a junior role at Sky News Australia, explains that last week’s mosque massacre in New Zealand drove her to quit the channel, which she characterizes as a platform for incendiary right-wing rhetoric. Sky is owned by Rupert Murdoch. In the aftermath of the attack, Sky New Zealand said it removed Sky News Australia from its platform while the latter was still showing clips from the mosque shooter’s video. New Zealand’s chief censor subsequently made it illegal to view, possess, or share that video.”
Google and YouTube were working with governments to confront violent extremism online, wrote Google lawyer Kent Walker. Thousands of people were being enlisted as trusted flaggers of offensive content. But “a video of a terrorist attack may be informative news reporting if broadcast by the BBC, or glorification of violence if uploaded in a different context by a different user.” Read his op-ed piece here.
Days after the New Zealand mosque shootings, copies of the killer’s live web footage were circulating online, despite attempts to remove it. Wired magazine said detecting such footage using artificial intelligence was “a lot harder than it sounds”, hence the use of human moderators trained to look for warning signs in Live videos, like “crying, pleading, begging” and the “display or sound of guns”. Facebook was tagging all footage removed to prevent it being reposted but Google said it would not take down extracts deemed to have news value, putting it, said Wired, “in the tricky position of having to decide which videos are, in fact, newsworthy”. The piece goes on to look at the ethics of YouTube and Facebook policies that mean offensive footage may be removed, unless posted by a news organisation. YouTube has been criticised for removing videos of atrocities that were valued by researchers. The article points to the lack of regulation, or “big stick” incentives for social media companies to solve the problem. Read the piece here.
“A video of a terrorist attack may be informative news reporting if broadcast by the BBC, or glorification of violence if uploaded in a different context by a different user.” – Google lawyer Kent Walker, writing in 2017. Read his op-ed here.