Media Law and Ethics in the UK - Essay Example

? Media Law and Ethics [Supervisor’s Media Law and Ethics Media plays an electable role at every part ofthe world and it is found in varied form in different countries. The Great Britain history of media laws have been reformed as the country move towards the formation of liberal domestic government. Princess Diana and Milly Dowler incidents play an important role in changes of media laws and regulations. The paper attempts to describe those events in light of the part played by journalists in death of Princess Diana and Milly Dowler. The paper also discusses changes in the media regulations due to stemming of these events and describes preventive measures that have been taken by British government to ensure safety of their people. In today’s modern world where there is the rule of information, Media holds a huge responsibility in the aspect of State politics, culture and economics. The role of media cannot be separated from masses living out in a multi-cultural system. In UK, where media holds a distinctive position, have a close relationship with customs of the State. Media which exercise the right of freedom of speech, uncovers all the special events taking place in the general public, in the parliament or in the secretariat office (Kieran, 1998). It automatically becomes the responsibility of journalism and journalists to deliver the right message and right information to the public, in order to avoid any misinterpretation or create big misunderstandings. The role of media in UK has always remained under criticism, as there had been events in the past which portrayed the negative image of journalism and journalist’s rule in the region. There had been stories which brought curiosity into the public (Kieran, 1998). Princess Diana before her death had been a continuous target for media intrusion in her life to which she confronted to the British press that she wanted privacy in her private life of her sons and herself. The press was anxious to take pictures of Princess Diana with Dodi Fayed who was the son of Mohammad Fayed, a wealthy owner of Harrods. Princess of Wales had claimed before that she had been harassed by freelance photographers who would sell photographs to media and then they would leak their picture which was clear intrusion in her private life. Even after the divorce from Prince of Wales, Princess Diana did that entire she could do to appeal from journalist to leave her and her children alone to get along with their lives. Princess Diana was so irritated with journalists’ intrusion that she jumped out of the car and took the ignition key from the journalist bike from preventing them from following. Even in the night when Princess Diana died, the reason for her death was the chasing of the media journalist of her car. The presence of Paparazzi in the place of the incident and tried to take photographs of Princes Diana raised concerns over privacy laws and freedom for press in Great Britain (Crook, 2010). The case of Milly Dowler, a thirteen year old girl, who got kidnapped and murdered, is one of the main incidents which can never be forgotten. The story raises a lot of questions that never had been answered by the journalism’s community in the true essence (Peck, 2010). An investigation made by the Surrey police in 2002, reported strict involvements of journalists in the murder of the 13 year old girl, Milly Dowler. After Dowler’s disappearance, her phone got hacked, and nobody knew where the girl was and she was not even answering the phone (Leigh, 2012). News of the World Journalists became part of the story, when Surrey Police identified them as distracters of the ongoing investigation. There were many journalists who were found guilty on the hacking of Dowler’s phone and the deletion of instant voicemail messages (Get Surrey, 2012). It brought a serious questioning on the face of media of that time and still today has been set as a weird example for the rest of the journalism community (Leigh, 2012). The deliverance of information comes under rules and regulations of media. Since the happenings of Princess Diana’s accident and Dowler’s kidnap, there have been steps taken from the Government to restore changes in the media regulation. To control the disinformation status, the regulations are passed on to manage the controversies falling aside with the UK’s media prospect (Word Press, 2012). According to the changes made in UK’s media regulation after the two major incidents took place were based on the subject of “freedom of expression”. The regulations by which how media will broadcast became the subject of consideration. It was in 1998 when “Broadcasting Standards Commission of London” paid attention onto the photographing section. Restrictions were brought in the regulations to mitigate the filming activity, in order to avoid any human exploitation at the time of news feed and expression (House of Commons, 2003). Exploitation of incidents was under the discussion too, and high penalties were intruded, if any media channel is found guilty with the similar objection. The clean way of expression got decided, and more penalties were introduced in laws for any further violation of the media law and regulation. These were the influential changes brought in the electronic media concern (House of Commons, 2003). Amendments were made in the print media section, subjected by the Press Complaints Commission to mitigate the laws in the print media concern. Responses on Diana’s accident and Milly Dowler’s murder were on the big number. Hundreds of newspapers were sold on the hype of the incidents that exploited several codes of freedom of expression. The “Press Complaints Commission” subjected the regulations with controversies prevailing in the Milly Dowler’s case. The proper monitoring section was on the discussion, and strict laws were introduced on the photography section. Protecting the right of human exploitation, several steps were taken by the Press release commission. Implementing the laws, it was insured that further violation will cancel the license of the newspapers, the broadcasters if found guilty under any analogous objection (House of Commons, 2003). The privacy law and the reformed version of media laws were frequently been activated to prevent harassment from media and to secure the privacy for all UK citizens. Privacy in itself means the right to be left alone as Judge Cooley describes. But this definition was reformed in further years and it was described as a right of a human being to protect or control the information, either by communicating the information or by keeping it to themselves. The individual’s right is to be protected with intrusions in their personal life either directly or by transference of information (The National Archives, 1997). The House of Commons took a great time in understanding the actual meaning of the term privacy and incident and then laws and legislations were passed to make changes in the current media laws. The first privacy law was announced in a Queen’s speech in 1997 in which rights were given to the general public for their privacy. The explanation of privacy was given by the UK government to the National Heritage Select Committee in which it described the following two points: a. Individual has right to be free from harassment and molestations from the media. b. Individual has the privacy for their personal information and documents (The National Archives, 1997). The act from the protection of harassment was proposed in 1997 in its complete form which was then enacted by the House of Commons and then by the Queen itself. The amendments were enforced in England and Wales which comprised of many points which focuses on the prevention of harassment and their punishments for anyone involved in the act of harassment. Firstly, the act was to define the prohibition of harassment and its conduct. It was pursued that a person should not be involved in any act of harassment or should not force intrusion in to any personal matter or their life affairs. The person would be responsible for their own acts if they found harassing others or making intrusions in the life of other people. It is clearly visible in the law that if a person gets accountable and guilty for harassing other person by any means then they shall be imprisoned for a maximum time of six months or they shall be fined, or both penalties may occur (The National Archives, 1997). Similarly, in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 it was made unlawful for any person to intrude or intercept any other person without the permit of lawful authority at any place in United Kingdom. The law made it clear that it would be a serious offense for a person if anyone found with charges of intrusion or interception particularly with intentional purposes to harm another person. A person would be considered in the section of a criminal if they try to pursue any means of using telecommunication services to trace the location of a person or by any other means without orders from the lawful authorities. The media law has also been amended that a person does not have any authority of controlling the operations of another person without their consent. There must me a mutual agreement between the two parties in communication, but if not, then a person would be actionable his that he has committed (The National Archives, 2000). The secretary of State was also been mentioned in the law which described that they shall not provide any assistance to any person that are seeking consent of permission for intrusion or intercepting another person without proper investigation. A person would only be allowed to intrude with a warrant that shall be received from the lawful authority after thorough investigation. It is clearly stated in the law that if a person is guilty of intrusion then he shall be convicted for imprisonment for maximum two year or he shall be fined or both can be applied (The National Archives, 2000). This law was appropriate for journalism that tries to hire freelance photographers to unlawfully make intrusion in personal matters of anyone without their consent. The main focus for the Investigatory Act and Harassment Act were targeted to the Media and specifically to journalist due to their acts of intrusion and intercepting in the personal life of UK citizens (Crook, 2010). The Princess Diana’s case was related to the intrusion of her privacy to which she wanted freedom and told his brother Lord Spencer that she wanted to get away from England due to the harassing of journalists. This was the serious matter in hand because people want to enjoy their lives with no interception from strangers. This incident raised the concept of forming privacy laws which are still being enacted for the betterment of the people. The code of conduct of Media and journalism ethics also advise journalist to strictly avoid interfering in the lives of an individual without their consent. But their argument arises that they could not take consent of the general public which has been gathered in a place like railway station or a shopping mall. The media believes that in these cases, they are not accountable for taking permissions for filming or taking pictures of the general public which relates to these situations (British Broadcasting Corporation, 2012). Regulations were brought into media considerations, but real practices did not show much similarity. After incidents of Princess Diana and the Milly Dowler case, more controversies were seen on the height of media and journalism (House of Commons, 2003). In the year 2002, the trend of personal investigation became common in the journalism practice. The channels brought secret investigators who got attached with confidentialities of victims. Victims were mostly the famous people, like people who belonged to the Royal families of the State, the Government officials and those who belong to the law and enforcement agencies. In year 2002 violation of privacy followed the trend of journalism, which brought attention of the media law and enforcement authorities. Not all but few got arrested on the media crime conviction (Word Press, 2012). The trend in the media mismatched the law and regulations several times and constantly prevailed in the later aspect of time. Due some black sheep presence, the whole media got under criticism. The public projected complains, and much pressure was given to the media, journalism and the journalist’s rule (Word Press, 2012). Controversies followed with the News International, a subsidiary of “News Corporation” were of the similar nature. The accusations included phone hacking and police bribery activities in which several employees were found convicted. In the pursuit of publishing stories, the media anchors violated the basic media laws and regulations. In the period of 2003 and 2004 several anchors were investigated under the charge of phone hacking activities. The phone hacking activities were associated to politicians, celebrities, sports persons and members of the Royal Family. In the hour of exploitation, the media personnel followed the old customs where law seems to be solely violated (Kieran, 1998). Several reports in the year 2005 highlighted the negative image of the News International. News International got surrendered with criticism, when the phone hacking activity was also accessed in 7/7 London bombing incident. With intense public pressure the News International was not able to take over the British Telecommunication Company, with a reason floating that the corporation could hack the regular communication activity (The New York Times, 2012). One additional story came up when a reporter James Weatherup of the News of the World associated got picked under objection. The claim was that Weatherup discussed State’s fiscal issues in his articles, which had directly violated state laws and also fundamentals in the media regulation. He used to politicize the budget management issues in his articles, for which he received a charge of illegal expression. Weatherup was an assistant to news editor Ian Edmondson, who also got arrested in the case of politicized publications (Kieran, 1998). In the hour of 7/7 London Bombings, a couple of reports indicated the similar phone hacking activity at the time of the incident took place. Victims were found accessed with the voice mail messages. Investigators brought News of the World under questioning, as the phone hackers who got convicted belonged to the same journalist group. Survivors of the bombings revealed that police warned them on phone assessment, which indicated that the illegal phone hackers had tapped their phones in the couple of instances the incident took place (The New York Times, 2012). The period of 2005 to 2006 was contradictory in which media partners were attached to the personal affairs of the Royal Families. Violated the basic laws of media the private investigators came forward in the pursuit of publishing stories. News of the world leaded the front and published an article expressing the private meetings that took place between Prince William and Tom Bradby (royal correspondent). Prince William tried to figure out the reason of the leak, as he knew two other men who could be involved in such activity. In the later aspect of time, Prince William and Bradby realized that there voice mails got hacked and leaked the information which was only associated to the Royal family members. Peter Clarke (Deputy Assistant Commissioner) got appointed for the investigation. News of the world was brought under custody and asked to report on the Metropolitan Police Station. Clarke on investigation found that Glenn Mulcaire (a chief investigator from the News of the World) was involved in the phone hacking activity of the Royal families. Mulcaire was convicted under the offence of section 79 (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000). He was brought into questioning which highlighted the presence of black sheep in mass media and journalism circle (The New York Times, 2012). John Prescott (former deputy Prime Minister) brought more evidence to the public. It was one “direct evidence” which surprised the higher law and administration authorities. According to the former deputy Prime Minister’s evidence, The Sunday Times was one major group involved in illegal information gaining activities. Former Prime Minister Gorden Brown’s son Fraser was also one of the Royal victims. It was the year 2000 when The Sun (print media partner) gained the private medical information of Fraser and tried to make it a story on the public. On the occasion, the former prime minister didn’t want this to get exploited on the public and for which forced The Sun to issue an apology on the response (Kieran, 1998). According to BBC’s report, 20th May 2011, the number of phones got hacked by the media groups is generally more than it was thought to be in the previous aspect of time. The report projected several journalist groups involved in the personal phone hacking activity. Both print media and electronic media groups were found as suspect. The High Court got aware on the notebooks that belong to the private media partners. The notebooks were contained cell numbers and personal identification numbers that brought immense surprise for the law and enforcement authorities (House of Commons, 2012). The various regulations have been enforced on media by UK government in their code of conduct which is compulsory for all the media groups to follow the same. The code prohibits for a certain type of contents which can be harmful or might cause the privacy of a person in doubt. However, due to today’s complex world it is difficult for the code and laws to describe all events and regulations to cover the matter. The laws made sure that journalist does not have the right to interfere in any personal matter of a person without their wanted intention (Varney & Feintuck, 2006). After Princess Diana’s death, many journalists and media officials needed to define their roles and responsibilities so that they could not be blamed for the mishap. People were pointing fingers because they had lost their Princess and they were upset. A survey was conducted in which 95% of the people answered that the Princess had an unfair incident in which journalist are involved in her death. About 805 of the people believed that people’s privacy has been diminished by these media and they do not care of their privacy in their social life. Only after two weeks of that incident, UK officials were concerned to make changes in laws of media and to make them restricted in some activities that they would not be allowed to make life of a person a living hell. They wanted to prove intrusion of privacy in the lives of people as a federal crime and wanted to put an end over it (American Journalism Review, 1997). In the House of Commons there had been a long debate over licensing the journalists because many freelancer photographers sell their pictures to media officials to which they get handsome amount of money. Legislators tried to find out the way for journalists to limit their access and to those media officials who wanted to abuse freedom of citizens by exposing them. There was an outburst from the local citizen to make changes in the law after Diana’s death which shows their reaction that it was very fragile and they wanted some changes. The human rights Act of 1998 challenges the role of media but in the other hand it also support the freedom of expression of journalist. The complexity develops in a way that there are no proper guidelines which has been defined to protect the privacy of the people (Crook, 2010). The implementation of laws in which amendments were made with respect to the incidents of Princess and Milly Dowler should be observed to verify the strength in these laws which were provided through legislations. There are many cases reported still in which journalist are involved in the intrusion of private life of people. The technology has allowed media to trace people and to monitor their movements with their smallest of cameras. It is clearly mentioned in the Human Rights Act 1998, that the conversation of journalist with any person is not prohibited and they should record it if they like. But if a journalist plants bug or hidden cameras then it would be considered as a federal crime and the person should be dealt with severity. In United Kingdom, laws have been generally behind from different new technologies because it does not mention of any laws that would be appropriate to the use of new technology to intrude in lives of UK citizens (Varney & Feintuck, 2006). Similarly to Princess Diana incident, a famous television actor Gordon Kaye was injured and was in hospital in serious condition. The journalist took pictures of celebrity ignoring that their entry was prohibited in the vicinity of the hospital. The case went up to the judge and he examined that taking pictures had been a crime for privacy and intrusion. However, there were no charges implemented on those journalists because the law did not provide any such conditions or state which involved privacy in the hospital. However, in 1993 a stance was taken by Lord Chancellor’s department in which it was defined that the intrusion privacy would be called a federal crime when it creates a substantial distress to a person. This was rejected by UK government that this law would not be authentic to provide rights of privacy to people (Bourne et al., 2000). Working of a free press had raised concerns over the legislative parties and they were forced to come up with strong legislations that could limit the access the role of media in the lives of people. The Harassment Act of 2000, the Human Rights Act of 1998 and the Act of Investigatory Powers are the legislations that have enforced some restrictions on journalist and have restricted their powers to some extent. But these laws have been in vain because there are many cases that prove the intrusion of media in personal lives of the general public and the government does not have any answer to those unresolved cases (Keller, 2011). Media is a central functioning authority in any democratic state or country. In laws of the World’s Top Democratic societies like UK, the role of media is at its highest definition. Rules and regulations are there on the legislation, but the implications show the difference on the grounds of practices being adapted. Major incidents like the incident of the Princess Diana and the incident of Milly Dowler’s kidnap show how majorly journalism accepts negligence on the practices. Incidents give a perception that media often forgets its sense of responsibility, for which strict laws need to be implemented (Kieran, 1998). After those incidents that took place, substantial amendments were brought in the UK’s media regulation. It was a challenge, but still the law and enforcement authorities found it essential to improve the entire media concern. After Diana’s death 1998, the laws got extensively applied, but as time passed by and breached the Milly Dowler’s controversy, phone hacking activity prevailed in the journalism circle (Word Press, 2012). The years 2004 and 2005 brought a couple of stories on the journalism spectrum. Several news partners, media anchors, private investigators and media groups were found guilty with the phone hacking activity. 7/7 London bombings, Royal phone hacking scandal and the controversy of the former Prime Minister Gorden Brown were instances where role of media got under objection. The secrecy of the media and press groups brought curiosity in the public, where the phone hacking and police bribery activities continued in the later aspect of time. This showed that there is much space left in the complete implementation of media laws and regulations in the region (Get Surrey, 2012). UK being the world’s top most democratic society, media is a central functioning authority in the region. Being a vital section of a society, it is a definite responsibility of the journalist community to implement the basic laws of media regulation. After the death of Princess Diana and the controversy of Milly Dowler, it was expected from the media groups to bring utmost change in their practices. News laws were there on the regulation and were thought to be applied in terms of changing the practices, but still today the exercises of journalism group in UK raise a lot of questions in the general public. Since 1998 up till now, there have been several objections coming up in the journalism community. Which needs to be corrected or else more chances are there in the future in which incidents can impart due irrational attitude and behavior of the media concerns (Kieran, 1998). List of References American Journalism Review, 1997. The Diana Aftermath. [Online] Viewed at: [Accessed 29 August 2012]. Bourne, F. et al., 2000. Chapters in the History of British Journalism. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. British Broadcasting Corporation, 2012. Privacy and Consent. [Online] Viewed at: [Accessed 29 August 2012]. Crook, T., 2010. Media Law for Journalists. New York: Taylor & Francis. Get Surrey, 2012. Journalists charged over Milly Dowler 'phone hacking'. [Online] Viewed at: [Accessed 29 August 2012]. House of Commons, 2003. Privacy and media intrusion fifth Report of Session 2002-03. Research report. London: House of Commons. House of Commons, 2012. News International and phone-hacking: eleventh report of session 2010-12. London: The Stationery Office. Keller, P., 2011. European and International Media Law: Liberal Democracy, Trade, and the New Media. 1st Ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Kieran, M., 1998. Media Ethics. New York: Routledge. Leigh, D., 2012. Phone hacking: News of the World journalists lied to Milly Dowler police. [Online] Viewed at: [Accessed 29 August 2012]. Peck, N., 2010. Press “damaged and hindered” Milly Dowler disappearance investigation. [Online] Viewed at: [Accessed 29 August 2012]. The National Archives, 1997. Protection from Harassment Act 1997. [Online] Viewed at: [Accessed 29 August 2012]. The National Archives, 2000. Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. [Online] Viewed at: [Accessed 29 August 2012]. The New York Times, 2012. British Phone Hacking Scandal. [Online] Viewed at: [Accessed 29 August 2012]. Varney, M. & Feintuck, M., 2006. Media Regulation, Public Interest and the Law. 1st ed. London: Edinburgh University Press. Word Press, 2012. News: Leveson Inquiry, Week 18 – Rebekah Brooks, Andy Coulson and the Milly Dowler deletions – Natalie Peck. [Online] Viewed at: [Accessed 29 August 2012]. Read More