Media ethics is usually seen to be concerned with the conduct of journalists and those who employ them and publish their work. But does it also extend to the conduct of those who attack them – and the social media companies that facilitate such attacks?
A loss-making Asian community station was sanctioned by Ofcom for accidentally playing a song that sexually mocked Muslims. Only two people heard the online broadcast after midnight, but one complained. Kanshi Radio said suspending its licence would effectively close it down permanently. Read the full ruling here
A columnist in The Hindu argues that media stings do not constitute real investigative journalism and actually uncover little information. Read more by A.S. Panneerselvan here
An article on the Kerala Media Academy website gives a useful insight into the ethical issues surrounding media stings and privacy from an Indian perspective. Find it here
A couple who were filmed from a police helicopter, having sex on their patio, should be regarded as victims of voyeurism and entitled to lifelong anonymity, warned the legal team prosecuting the officer who shot the footage. A local editor declined to publish screen grabs despite “lively debate” among colleagues. Read more
However, the judge in the case said it was for editors to decide whether they were actually victims of a sex offence, given they knew they were being filmed. Those who published would risk prosecution. The couple refused to give evidence, meaning they were not entitled to protection as witnesses in the case. Read more
Legal expert Cleland Thom says the Independent website was wrong to justify lifting facts from court copy on the basis that there is no copyright in news as long as it is re-written. Retaining just 11 consecutive words can be a breach. But it is legally unsafe for other reasons too, as well as raising ethical questions. Read more
The Mail Online agreed to take down a video showing a bullying attack on a schoolgirl after the mother of one of the alleged bullies said it breached her daughter’s right to privacy. The Editor’s Code section on photographing children was also considered. The decision avoided the need for an IPSO ruling. Read more.