I have analysed a week’s worth of political content in the Daily Express and I have studied both the overt and covert political biases within the newspaper. I have also undergone some research to help me understand the newspapers ideologies and the affect this has on its target audience.
Firstly I am going to look at the main strands of overt political bias within my paper. Overt bias is generally unhidden – some might say ‘obvious’ bias. The ‘Daily Express’ could be seen as a very right wing newspaper and may therefore, when writing political articles for example, include certain ideologies that their audience is familiar with. The general public often require their newspaper to report about politics in a way that is comprehensive, relatable and easy to understand. In general this is why readers stick to the same newspaper or format of receiving news, as some articles may be phrased in a way which makes it difficult to interpret, which leads to assumptions being made on the pivotal points of the said article.
On the 14th of April, the headline read ‘Tax and Pension Joy for Millions’ and in this article in particular the ratio from expert comments to hard news is reasonably balanced. An example of this ratio would be the short paragraph on the front of the paper, which continues on to the next page, then at the end of the article it emphasises an opinion page towards the back of the newspaper, showing which elements should be the readers’ priority. What is included in the article, for instance, certain wording and the use of selected quotes, often have other meanings of their own which can emphasise certain points. For example, this article mentions that Chancellor George Osborne said earlier this year that ‘his officials were studying the possibility of cancelling a 1p fuel duty rise in April’ but then goes on to say (also ending the article), ‘but he has refused to confirm his plans ahead of budget day’. How this article has ended could suggest overt bias as it seems the papers ‘wording’ suggests doubt in the chancellor’s decision.
In order to communicate, people will always come to their own conclusions about what has been presented to them. This was made more apparent because it was mentioned Mr. Osborne may cancel a 1p fuel rise, however when ending the article, stating that the chancellor would not confirm this could suggest that there is a chance that it may not happen at all. When the media print an article or inject any message into the public, people will draw two inferences: the language that has been used to tell the story and our knowledge about the world. The facts which we understand about the world could continually be consumed through this one paper – therefore certain ideologies could be adopted. Some mediums have stereotypical view points of the world; consequently the paper will only include what the public would normally expect in such circumstances.
What do we expect? Well within any political party most people will question what they are being told. With the coalition government and many officials not sticking to their word, it would be fair to make the assumption that people would reject Mr. Osborne’s ‘idea’.
Another controversial story of the week is about Health Secretary Andrew Lansley breaking his pledge. This story is situated on the fourth page of the newspaper and offers a great deal of both hard news and opinion; there are many quotes featured from health officials expressing their anger about where the money is coming from. Mr. Lansley pledged, before he came into power, to put £2 million into a new cancer drug fund. However after a letter from the NHS medical director Sir Bruce Keogh was found, explaining that £140 million of this was taken out of existing budgets within UK Primary Care Trust. Some of the ‘selected’ quotes here are quite obviously bias and completely negative towards Mr. Lansley. For example, a professor said “I feel ¬completely betrayed. This means other people will be suffering for cancer patients. This is not what we were led to believe” and another saying “So much for new money for cancer treatments when what he’s doing is ¬taking services away from other patients with long-term conditions. This is yet more evidence of David Cameron saying one thing on the NHS, and then doing another”. These are just two examples of the negative quotes throughout the story, there are no quotes included that balance the story, just quotes on the outrage of professionals and patients.
On the other hand, covert bias is bias that is less visible or less obvious. In many forms of media, especially newspapers, it would be appropriate to presume that they will rely on covert bias to inject ideologies, keeping the audiences with a certain viewpoint, without making it so obvious. However, having said that people will create different meanings from a single word, the message that arises may differ for each individual. In theory the concept of language as a tool of deciphering covert bias could be argued to be more blatant than first apparent, language is merely a tool and the meaning of the said word cannot be hidden as the meaning of the word lies alone in how it is used.
Could we say that there is such a thing as hidden meaning? Or is it the way we as an individual interpret what is there – making us assume there is a hidden meaning? Alternatively, what must be taken into consideration from this is that newspapers could find a quote and make maximum use of this in an article, which could help contribute to an idea they may have or have had for a long time. Often what they include and, equally important, what they don’t, can suggest hidden agendas resulting in covert bias. In the same week an article about students looking for work abroad, as there are ‘not enough prospects’ here in the UK. This suggests that with the other articles in the newspapers throughout the week, regarding the cutting of jobs and rises in other aspects of the economy, this could be down to the government and officials not sticking to pledges which is ‘forcing’ the public to turn to alternative means of employment. This article includes mainly hard news facts and plenty of statistics; the wording also seems quite negative and doesn’t offer unconventional opinions. For example, wording such as ‘lack’, ‘unemployment’ and ‘forcing people out’ are used throughout the article. There are no public or professional comments what so ever, unlike stated above were the newspaper emphasises an opinions page. It could be suggested that as newspapers tend to assume that the reader is somewhat aware of similar stories, they tend to exclude some information.
A trend that has developed over the course of the week shows that articles that include negative stories about the government seem to be less informative. On average the editorial piece contains 300-350 words, as stated above the story about Mr. Osborne cutting the 1p increase made the front page and was at least 600 words, including images. Sunday 20th March, ‘The Sunday Express’ paper included an article about the ‘potential’ MP’s pay freeze but at this stage it has only been planned and will be voted upon this Monday. The mere 150-200 words on this topic suggest that the newspaper is weary of making this a pivotal story as there is a chance that the validity of the article could become questionable. This could be seen as covert bias as the absence of information can be as imperative as the information that has been omitted.
To conclude, it is reasonable to argue that if a profound absence of information exists within any article, then that is just as relevant as the information that has been printed and unquestionably contributes to different degrees of bias. In regards to the details provided within the articles, it could be found that certain words or selected quotes often depict the meaning of the story, helping to contribute to the consumers’ ideas and viewpoints of what is being read.
Friday, 8 April 2011
CONTEMPT OF COURT - for journalists
“On the one hand, journalists are given important protection from contempt of court, providing their reports of legal proceedings are ‘fair, accurate, and contemporaneous’. On the other hand, this freedom to report fully can easily be sidestepped because courts have at their disposal the power to make various orders, the effect of which is to restrict what may be contained in journalists’ reports.”
In this essay I am going to discuss the statement above in regards to contempt of court. I will start by providing a brief outline of what contempt of court is following this I will then start to explain the law and how it can affect a professional journalist while reporting on legal proceedings.
Contempt of court is really put in place to protect the legal proceedings that happen within a court of law. The main concern of the law of contempt of court is to preserve the integrity of the legal process . Having this law in place gives the high court (as magistrates do not have the power to punish contempt of court by publication), the powers to punish any person(s) that interferes in any way with the proper functioning of the court system.
“Anyone who, for example, is disruptive or threatening in a courtroom can be punished immediately for contempt, by being sent by the magistrates or judge to the court’s cells, and in some cases subsequently to jail – because contempt is a criminal offence.”
Journalists should be both wary and educated with specific sections of the contempt of court act 1981, one section in particular is section 1 – this part is in relation to journalists and the media. Within this section it states that publishing material or information that could create a great and substantial risk of prejudice and adversely affect a fair trial within active legal proceedings is contempt of court.
Such information can be in all forms of the following material; written, spoken, broadcast and any other forms of communication that is accessible to the public. The media has the power to influence the jury through its many mediums and with online resources becoming more popular archive material is also at easy access. In some cases, were facts are for example brutal or shocking this can often lead the information to be ‘memorial facts’, in such cases as the John Venables case archive material when ever his name would be mentions would be easy to access, this is of course extreme cases.
Although there are restricting areas within this law, for example section 2 of this act there are areas the journalist can report while the case is still active. A case becomes active when the person is a) arrested b) issue of warrant or arrest c) issue of a summons, or d) a person being charged orally. The people that have been arrested can be named, however wording here is important. For example you CAN say “John Smith, from Preston was arrested yesterday in relation to a burglary”, you COULDN’T say “A burglar was arrested today...” as well as being defamatory this kind of statement is also assuming the guilt of someone. A journalist would also be in contempt if they included any names of any victims within a case. Juveniles (anyone under the age of 18) are given full anonymity at all times according to section 49 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. There are other facts that can be reported that wouldn’t cause any prejudice towards a potential jury, this could be where the crime took place or what time. When the case in active, the defendant(s) must been seen by the court and if applicable the jury as guilty. Any one in court should been seen as a first time offender and other offences should not be taken into consideration – hence why it is important that the media do no publish such information.
In the case of a journalist having a report including any of the above and it being published there are some protection in the form of defence. Section 3 of the act basically is the defence that the journalist simply did not know that the proceedings were active when the report was published. As with all defences the journalist would have to provide evidence in court that they did not know. In addition to that, the information provided in articles must come from accurate sources and it is the journalist’s responsibility to select information from appropriate sources. Normally any source with authority would be valid.
If a journalist is accused of contempt than they must prove that “all reasonable care was taken” when the report if written up just to protect themselves from being in contempt. To allow a journalist to have full advantage of section 3 they would have to be sure that the case was definitely not active, as it states in McNae’s “a journalist reporting a crime story must check regularly, especially prior to a deadline, with the police to discover whether there has been an arrest or charge” , as said above when the case does become active this is when reporting restrictions come into place.
As stated in the title above “journalists are given important protection from contempt of court, providing their reports are ‘fair, accurate, and contemporaneous’.” Section 4 of the Act provides another defence it states that a person cannot be found guilty of breaching the ‘strict liability rule’ if their report is of a court hearing that was held in public, a fair and accurate report of the public hearing, and if it was published contemporaneously . This defense does not, however, protect those journalists publishing reports on private court proceedings. If for example, the report was on a private hearing then this would not be in contempt under The Administration of Justice Act 1960, exceptions to this would be if the case involved children or the report gave details of mental health e.t.c
Section 5 of the contempt of Court Act 1981 is another defense that may be used by journalists. This simply is the defense for discussions in good faith of public affairs were the risk of prejudice is merely incidental to the discussion , basically meaning it would be considered to be in the general public’s interest.
Journalists should be well educated about both the law as a whole and also the defences in which they could use in they were found to be in contempt. As well as this they should also be aware of the orders that various courts can make that will effect certain restrictions and news reports.
Also within section 4 of the contempt of court act is an order for the report and its information to be postponed. Having said that, if there is no section 4 order made then it is very unlikely that it can be in contempt, although as it states in McNae’s “...it may incur the displeasure of the judge if the information is disclosed which the jury ought not to be made aware of before the end of the trail” . As stated before an example of this would be when the media can deliberately mention certain facts that will emphasis certain issues.
Courts can also impose a section 11 order. This gives the courts the power to allow a name or other matter to be withheld from the public, to prohibit the name of the publication of that name or matter in connections with the proceedings, as appears to the court to be necessary for the purpose of which it was withheld .
To conclude this essay, I feel I have included all judicial order that I consider most relevant and significant to journalists. I have covered what the dangers are when reporting any court case, what would be allowed and what wouldn’t. I have also illustrated what could happen if a journalist were to be in contempt and what defenses they may use. It’s also important to remember certain powers which courts have that will affect journalistic reports.
In this essay I am going to discuss the statement above in regards to contempt of court. I will start by providing a brief outline of what contempt of court is following this I will then start to explain the law and how it can affect a professional journalist while reporting on legal proceedings.
Contempt of court is really put in place to protect the legal proceedings that happen within a court of law. The main concern of the law of contempt of court is to preserve the integrity of the legal process . Having this law in place gives the high court (as magistrates do not have the power to punish contempt of court by publication), the powers to punish any person(s) that interferes in any way with the proper functioning of the court system.
“Anyone who, for example, is disruptive or threatening in a courtroom can be punished immediately for contempt, by being sent by the magistrates or judge to the court’s cells, and in some cases subsequently to jail – because contempt is a criminal offence.”
Journalists should be both wary and educated with specific sections of the contempt of court act 1981, one section in particular is section 1 – this part is in relation to journalists and the media. Within this section it states that publishing material or information that could create a great and substantial risk of prejudice and adversely affect a fair trial within active legal proceedings is contempt of court.
Such information can be in all forms of the following material; written, spoken, broadcast and any other forms of communication that is accessible to the public. The media has the power to influence the jury through its many mediums and with online resources becoming more popular archive material is also at easy access. In some cases, were facts are for example brutal or shocking this can often lead the information to be ‘memorial facts’, in such cases as the John Venables case archive material when ever his name would be mentions would be easy to access, this is of course extreme cases.
Although there are restricting areas within this law, for example section 2 of this act there are areas the journalist can report while the case is still active. A case becomes active when the person is a) arrested b) issue of warrant or arrest c) issue of a summons, or d) a person being charged orally. The people that have been arrested can be named, however wording here is important. For example you CAN say “John Smith, from Preston was arrested yesterday in relation to a burglary”, you COULDN’T say “A burglar was arrested today...” as well as being defamatory this kind of statement is also assuming the guilt of someone. A journalist would also be in contempt if they included any names of any victims within a case. Juveniles (anyone under the age of 18) are given full anonymity at all times according to section 49 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. There are other facts that can be reported that wouldn’t cause any prejudice towards a potential jury, this could be where the crime took place or what time. When the case in active, the defendant(s) must been seen by the court and if applicable the jury as guilty. Any one in court should been seen as a first time offender and other offences should not be taken into consideration – hence why it is important that the media do no publish such information.
In the case of a journalist having a report including any of the above and it being published there are some protection in the form of defence. Section 3 of the act basically is the defence that the journalist simply did not know that the proceedings were active when the report was published. As with all defences the journalist would have to provide evidence in court that they did not know. In addition to that, the information provided in articles must come from accurate sources and it is the journalist’s responsibility to select information from appropriate sources. Normally any source with authority would be valid.
If a journalist is accused of contempt than they must prove that “all reasonable care was taken” when the report if written up just to protect themselves from being in contempt. To allow a journalist to have full advantage of section 3 they would have to be sure that the case was definitely not active, as it states in McNae’s “a journalist reporting a crime story must check regularly, especially prior to a deadline, with the police to discover whether there has been an arrest or charge” , as said above when the case does become active this is when reporting restrictions come into place.
As stated in the title above “journalists are given important protection from contempt of court, providing their reports are ‘fair, accurate, and contemporaneous’.” Section 4 of the Act provides another defence it states that a person cannot be found guilty of breaching the ‘strict liability rule’ if their report is of a court hearing that was held in public, a fair and accurate report of the public hearing, and if it was published contemporaneously . This defense does not, however, protect those journalists publishing reports on private court proceedings. If for example, the report was on a private hearing then this would not be in contempt under The Administration of Justice Act 1960, exceptions to this would be if the case involved children or the report gave details of mental health e.t.c
Section 5 of the contempt of Court Act 1981 is another defense that may be used by journalists. This simply is the defense for discussions in good faith of public affairs were the risk of prejudice is merely incidental to the discussion , basically meaning it would be considered to be in the general public’s interest.
Journalists should be well educated about both the law as a whole and also the defences in which they could use in they were found to be in contempt. As well as this they should also be aware of the orders that various courts can make that will effect certain restrictions and news reports.
Also within section 4 of the contempt of court act is an order for the report and its information to be postponed. Having said that, if there is no section 4 order made then it is very unlikely that it can be in contempt, although as it states in McNae’s “...it may incur the displeasure of the judge if the information is disclosed which the jury ought not to be made aware of before the end of the trail” . As stated before an example of this would be when the media can deliberately mention certain facts that will emphasis certain issues.
Courts can also impose a section 11 order. This gives the courts the power to allow a name or other matter to be withheld from the public, to prohibit the name of the publication of that name or matter in connections with the proceedings, as appears to the court to be necessary for the purpose of which it was withheld .
To conclude this essay, I feel I have included all judicial order that I consider most relevant and significant to journalists. I have covered what the dangers are when reporting any court case, what would be allowed and what wouldn’t. I have also illustrated what could happen if a journalist were to be in contempt and what defenses they may use. It’s also important to remember certain powers which courts have that will affect journalistic reports.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)