Media reporting and child sexual abuse - Essay Example

? Media reporting and child sexual abuse The United Nation’s 1959 Declaration of the Rights of the Child s that the child needs special care andprotection including appropriate legal protection due to his physical and mental immaturity before and after birth (cited in Curtice and Tim, 2010, p.361). In the UK, children and young people are offered protection by two important pieces of legislation: the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Human Rights Act 1998.There have been plentiful and varied challenges involving children and young people, in particular under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act(Curtice and Tim,2010,p.361). The Children, Schools and Families Bill has taken some initiatives concerning publishing the family proceedings information. The measures are subject to controversy as there is need to strike the right balance between right of press to report court proceeding under Article 10 ECHR and right to privacy and its respect for children under Article 8 ECHR in addition to their best interest under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Relaxation of limitation on media reporting of family proceeding has raised concerns over limiting children rights and providing them insufficient protection (JCHR, 2010). According to media laws, accredited journalists are permitted to observe family court proceedings; however, they are under strict reporting regulations that allow certain level of details for print. The limitation of print reporting are imposed in order to ensure privacy and well-being of children involved in the cases (Silk, 2009).Furthermore, according to Justice Secretary, Jack Straw (cited in Silk, 2009) the limitation will be relaxed in an effort to convey the case substance while children identity and lurid details about family must not be published. The modifications will permit the publication of expert witness reports, including those incorporating details of child abuse. The relaxation will ensure transparency in family justice system and increased public confidence on its services. The legislation has broaden the amount of information that can be reported which include child or parent’s medical, psychological, or psychiatric details in addition to the  information given by a child to his or her parents. It permits the publication of information regarding the case which is not “personal sensitive information” but the limitations are not clearly defined. The act ensures that names and identities of parties involved remain hidden to maintain lifelong anonymity of children (Baksi, 2010). Recently, numerous high-profile celebrities have accused media of intruding into their privacy during their cases in UK. Most cases are reported against the stories by ‘kiss-and-tell’ tabloids and photographs taken by freelance paparazzi. For instance, celebrity footballer David Bekham and pop star Victoria Bekham and members of British monarchy consistently tried to limit press interference into their personal lives (Drake, 2007, p.220). Apparently, Privacy limitations seems to be defined clearly, however, there is no statute in either English or Scottish law that can be attributed as Privacy Act. In addition, the publicity or personality rights are also not evident. Contrary to defamation or copyright laws, under no specific law we can hold some newspaper responsible for intruding into any individual’s or celebrity’s privacy. This scenario has led to extending the existing legislation in order to contain privacy related cases and to establish the concept in English law courts (Drake, 2007, p.220). Lacking legislation triggered the attempts to define privacy in UK AND Calcutt Committee defined it as “the right of the individual to be protected against intrusion to his personal life or affairs, or those of his family, direct physical means or by publication of information” (1990, p.7 cited in Drake, 2007, p.221). Absence of a general law for privacy led to the utilization of common law in such cases. It includes; the 1998 Data Protection Act, 1997 Protection from Harassment Act and Law of Confidence which legislates against breaches in trust or the distribution of confidential information. It also includes establishing the nature of confidential information and whether the information is used in a way that is detrimental for the involved parties (Drake, 2007, p.221).Geofrrey Robertson and Andrew Nicol define it as “protection against the disclosure or use of information that is not publically known, and that has been entrusted in circumstances imposing an obligation not to disclose that information” (2002 cited in Drake, 2007, p.221).It is evident from the definition that it serve the purpose for cases of alleged intrusion of celebrity private lives by media dissimilation of such events among public. Therefore, it has some potential to control the public or private distinction in media coverage of celebrities (Drake, 2007, p.221). Moreover, there are some voluntary industry regulatory codes. It includes guidelines by Press Complaints Commission and European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and its addition to English law as Human Rights Act 1998 (Drake, 2007, p.221).According to Article 8 of the ECHR as cited in Your Rights, everyone is offered general protection for private and family life including his home and correspondence from subjective intervention by state (Anon., 2009). Darke (2009, p.221) states that: ‘Cases invoking this Convention have to balance the right to privacy against the need to protect protection of freedom of expression (defined in Article 10 of the ECHR), two rights which often seem to contradict each other in celebrity cases...case-law in the UK has yet to establish a clear set of precedents for dealing with privacy rights. Recent celebrity cases have thus been viewed as significant in attempting to establish a legal precedent.’ Numerous celebrity cases claiming intrusion of privacy have sought to summon it as a human right under the Human Rights Act 1998 drawn from ECHR. Several legal battles are fought in which celebrities attempted to prohibit newspapers and magazines from intruding into their personal lives. Two of such cases are, Douglas and Zeta Jones versus Hello, and Naomi Campbell versus MGN, owner of UK’s tabloid newspaper, the Mirror (Drake, 2007, p.221).According to Huge Tomlinson, cases like Anna Ford and Jamie Theakston have established that, “the courts will prevent publication of any private information obtained in circumstances where a reasonable person would think the information should be treated as private” (cited in Dyer, 2003). Paparazzi photographs that are taken on public places, such as beach are not considered as intrusion in private life while similar photographs taken in private vicinity will be considered an intrusion. Celebrities captured with discreditable behaviour or those who mislead media usually fail to hide their personal lives. Judges never support the development of privacy law with coming cases, however, the Human Rights Act oblige them for this. Justice Lindsay ruled Michael Douglas and Catherina Zeta Jones case and decided that they were victims of a breach of confidence when the wedding photos were published in Hello! Magazine, however, he refused to attribute it a privacy intrusion (Dyer, 2003).According to Justice Lindsay, subject of privacy is diverse and same are implications of a free-standing law in this area that it should better be left for parliament to decide(cited in Dyer, 2003). In 2001, Jamie Theakston who is a famous TV presenter was troubled by media when a brothel gave his pictures and story to press. The judge warned but permitted the story on the grounds that Theakston made his private and sex life public by will many time before the incident, furthermore, he has no right to ask for right to privacy just because publicity under consideration is not in his favour (Intelligence Squared, 2010). In 2002, footballer Garry Flitcroft’s case of right to privacy against Sunday newspaper for revealing his adulterous affairs was overturned by Court of Appeal and ruled that everyone has right to privacy but a public figure should expect public and media interest in his actions whether he courted exposure or not (Intelligence Squared, 2010). In 2003, Catherine Zeta Jones and Michael Douglas took legal action against Hello! Magazine for publishing unauthorized photographs of their wedding and breaching their rights to privacy, however, they had sold exclusive rights to other magazine OK! Both OK! Magazine and the couple received damages under privacy rights (Intelligence Squared, 2010). Supermodel Naomi Campbell filed a lawsuit against Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd for breaching her rights to privacy by reporting and publishing a photograph while attending drug addiction treatment which she publically denied before. Court of Appeal reversed the judgement on the ground of her misleading statement about her addiction in addition to newspaper’s right to do investigative reporting. However, House of Lords upheld the previous judgement as it is her private life (Intelligence Squared, 2010). Intelligence Squared (2010) reports: “In 2005,David and Victoria Bekham sought an emergency injunction to prevent the publication of revelations about their private lives-with allegations of extramarital affairs and marital discord-sold to the newspaper by a nanny they had employed under a confidentiality agreement.Mr Justice Langley refused to grant an injunction after the paper’s lawyers successfully argues that the Bekhams had “made millions pretending that they had a perfect marriage and that through their wealth, fame and position, they could be considered as “role models,” whose probity could be examined since they were effectively public figures.” Holsinger(1991,p.380) attribute privacy related questions to be harder than any other decision. It is important to note that abused children’s privacy is considered as perpetrator rather than victim of the crime. Young offender’s need for privacy are universally recognized on the basis that making young offender’s identity will stigmatize them in public and make it more difficult for them to go straight. Holsinger (1991, p.237) further argues that it is clearly established that young offenders should not be troubled throughout their lives for what they did in their young lives. The offender’s right discussion and identification of perpetrators in Bugler case in the UK has arouse intense debate (Franklin and Horwath, 1996). Etzioni(2006) considers privacy in a community context. It implies that privacy needs a shared moral culture in order to establish social order (pp.81-83). Moreover, he argues that privacy is just one good thing and its impact is dependent on societal responsibility and supervision (2007, pp.115-118). Etzioni (2000) argues that privacy laws have only amplified state’s intervention in the form of surveillance. According to Belsey (1992, p.77) privacy invasion complaints are most prominent among the issues on ethics of journalism. He argues that it is because society gives value to personal privacy on one hand, on the other hand, it “thrives on publicity”. While discussing media ethics, Christians et al. (1991, pp.139-140) draw three moral conclusion by considering some examples. Firstly, to promote decency and fair deal as invariable. Secondly, redeem social values for determining what private information can be published. Thirdly, press privilege or freedom should not be obtained at the cost of dignity of individuals. Privacy breaches are usually justified either for greater purpose of public good or some noble motivation that is more important than privacy protection (Brill, 1990, p.44).According to Goddard and Bernadette (2001), privacy is fundamentally examined from an adult standpoint. However, the arguments should be more forceful while it comes to the protection of child’s privacy. De Cew(1997,p.74) attribute privacy as a shield that guards them against the fear of being judged, mocked, scrutinized, pressurized, or exploited by other for any kind of benefit. Such concerns become stronger in case of child victims of abuse. In this regard, Patterson and Wilkins (1994, p.110) discuss that more emphasis is laid on the right to privacy; however, the other aspect which is “need to privacy” is equally compelling. Privacy is not an option or a privilege; it is basic component of democracy on which other values are built, such as, freedom, dignity, and independence. Numerous scholars have highlighted that the rights of victims are recently acknowledged (Fattah, 1986 and Crill 1987 cited in Goddard and Bernadette 2001). According to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) (Article 16), no child should be to arbitrary or illegitimate breach to his or her privacy, and it also considers to the child’s reputation. Evidence suggested that children blame themselves for the victimization; therefore, media issues become more sensitive in case of children. Despite media’s efforts to educate the public over this issue, this is high time for media to consider the risks to children from their reporting abuse cases. Abused children are often told that they were to be blamed for what has happened with them. Consequently, they internalize the feeling of guilt and self-blame. Media coverage may re-awaken whole experience for them. Treating it under law is extremely important, however, proper education and debate over the issue is crucial for children’s right to privacy (Goddard and Bernadette 2001). Aldridge (1994, p.70) analysed the print media coverage of UK during 1985-1991 for child abuse related deaths including Tyra Henry. Aldridge (1994, p.70) concludes that: “In its intimate relationship with the family and the state, social services work offers a multifaceted and very soft target for some section of the national press when intervention seems to have failed in certain specific circumstances...any intervention at all is constructed as a mistake and still others...” Increasing awareness on the issues of child abuse drew public attention throughout western world (Goddard, 1997a).British media, particularly newspapers published numerous articles on the dangers for children when an offender is released and that they(newspapers) will identify the perpetrators(Goddard and Bernadette 2001). According to Goddard (1997) review, tabloid newspaper conducted particularly graphic studies. Franklin and Parton (1991, p.9) conducted scholarly analysis of media coverage of child abuse and child protection and attributed the reporting as “uneven”. They explain that the language used to describe child abuse and a victim in media text needs to be reconsidered. Goddard and Saunders (2000a, p.39) suggest that lacking concern can partially be blamed for complexity of the issue. It is because, such analysis involve several disciplines, such as, philosophy, social and cognitive psychology, sociology, and linguistics. Moreover, Goddard and Saunders (2000a) cited examples from media where children attributed as abused, neglected or “at risk” may lose their gender as the whole story unfolds. Victim’s gender is clearly marked and then vanished. The identity is replaced by “it” and child becomes an object. The phenomenon is attributed as “gender slippage” and it is explained that it is emotional rather unconscious response to such happenings (pp.42-43). Goddard and Bernadette (2001) argue that textual analysis of child abuse cases revealed that usage of particular words reduce the seriousness of the offense. For instance, Goddard and Saunders cited the example of rape from The Guardian, “Man jailed for sex with girl, 10” (Sheffiel, 1997 as cited in Goddard and Bernadette, 2001).In the example, headline may state the seriousness of crime, however, textual analysis revealed that serious and repeated sexual assault is represented in a way that has reduced the impact (Goddard and Bernadette, 2001).Furthermore, sexual assault is named as an “affair”, perpetrator and victim are linked in “relationship” or they are called “the couple”. The situation is ironic because offenders use such language to justify their crime. Such media language reframes a serious offense against children as a relationship between adults (Goddard and Saunders, 2000a, p.43-44). Supreme Court ruled that sex offenders are obliged to inform the police about their movement from house or travel abroad throughout their life under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights and rights to privacy and family. Such registration system for offenders is not unique as registration is also requires in France, Australia (seven states), Canada, South Africa, and United States .However, there are provisions to review it(Wagner, 2011).Home secretary explained that parliament makes laws not courts. Rights of public are more important than those of criminals. There is framework that strikes a balance between the cases (cited in Wagner, 2011). UK Home Office has a Sex Offenders List (Legislated for under the Sexual Offences act). This list is private – not available to media – but some people (and prisoners) have argued that the list breaches their human rights. Sex offenders took a case to the EU Court of Human Rights and Britain was told to stop compiling this list. A couple of years ago The Sun tabloid newspaper published some of the names from the list. It was a huge story/event in the UK .Crazy parents started beating up their neighbours because they had the same name as the paedophiles – even though they were completely innocent. Mistaken identity is one of the biggest reasons why lawyers say that the Sex Offenders List should remain private or should be abolished. Publishing offender’s list or revealing their identity is wrong because they have already been punished by the State by being sent to prison. The State does not want vigilantism – people taking the law into their own hands. The third and final argument against publishing the names of sex offenders is that very often by disclosing the name of the attacker the victim is also identified. Most sexual attacks (you will need to find a statistic) on children are carried out by members of family or family friends. Therefore if you publicly identify the attacker you risk identifying the child as well. Maybe can also contrast the UK situation with the right to free speech of the US. Michael Jackson was convicted in the US media even though he was never found guilty by a court of child sex abuse. In the UK convicted attackers have their identity protected by the State but in the US people who are accused of child sex abuse, and not even convicted, can have the story reported in the press. There are some sexual abuses accusations are not based in the truth. This has led wrong victimization of innocent individuals. The famous example is child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson in 1993 which exposed in 2003. Jordy Chandler gained popularity in media a decade ago when he gave evidence in court documents(at 13 years of age) that he and Jackson had engaged in sexual acts, and also gave detailed description of what happened; the boy also got money from Michael, in order to solve the problem (Gumbel, 2003). This issue had put Michael Jackson back in the headlines long after his musical career slowed to a crawl. It was really sensational at the time, especially with the non-stop media coverage about the issue. However, media tended to described him in a very biased way. Such as, they called him ‘Wacko Jacko’; and made headlines like: ‘Accusing Jackson of sex abuse ruined the life of Jordy Chandler’ (Gumbel, 2003). All fingers pointed at Michael Jackson, and Jordy Chandler presented as a poor victim, even Michael was just a suspected child molester and the case had not convicted yet. To most of people, Michael Jackson was a charismatic star. But, child sexual abuse accusations had led to his public image declined and also becoming reliant on painkillers - a factor which is thought to have led to his untimely death. Now, in the wake of the 50-year-old legend's death, Jordy said the truth. The excessive report on the issue had brought huge trouble to Michael Jackson’s life; people were misled by the news coverage for many years. However, Michael’s reputation was finally getting back after his death; after Jordy’s admission of that he didn’t get abused. At that time, the media didn’t consider if the cases are justly accused but rather rush for the increased number of publications and viewers. It was actually rubbing salt into Michael’s wound, this made him more painful. Article 11 of Human Rights Declaration Act is very important with regards to the role of media as a ‘judge before the trial’. By exposing cases before conviction, media is damaging the right of the accused to be innocent until proven guilty. The innocent individual may permanently be labeled as monsters before even being convicted, this is unfair. Therefore, the journalism section should scrutinize what should be reported and how it should be done. Because, the wrongly accused victim of child sexual abuse is exposed by the media creates too much pain to the accused. Children right to privacy demands for keeping the identities of victims concealed. In some cases, it may help the victims. Such as, Natasha Kampusch (Susurro, 2010), an Austrian women who was kidnapped at the age 10 by Wolfgang Priklopil and escaped after eight years of torment and abuse. Kampusch gave several interviews after escape but she criticized media digging into her abuse history. In an interview with Sunday Times, she expressed her annoyance over people looking at the room in newspapers where she was kept during abduction. Furthermore, she said the media interest is far more than required (cited in Susurro, 2010). Same is the case of cellar incest victim Elizabeth Fritzl who is afraid of media and leakage of details about the horrors of 24 hours life in cell. While discussing the matter with Scotsman, she informed about her intent to take legal action against media (cited in The Indian News, 2008). Making the identities known make the life of such children makes more and more difficult. Most survivors hide themselves in order to heal emotionally and psychologically and escape from media. Elizabeth Fritzl experienced another ordeal from media when paparazzi invaded her privacy by entering in her kitchen and started photographing her. Such consequences of media publicity add to the injury and further traumatize the abused and tortured soul (McCarthy, 2009). In many instances of child abuse reported and identified victims lead to the murder of victims by offender. Such a case is Soham murders, the sexual abuse and murder of ten-years-old girls Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman by school care-taker, Ian Huntley in 2002.A civil servant, Michael Bichard identified that Huntley had a long history of abusive relationship with underage girls, rape, and violence. Poor level of communication among departments delayed his recognition until it was too late to know (Rogers, 2010). After this happened, the attitude toward child sexual abuse from the police, from parents, from schools – from society generally – changed dramatically. The publicity around the case led to a tightening of legislation banning paedophiles from working near children and in general increased security for children. Since 2002, reports are being published after every three years on “safeguarding children”. Under the Children Act 2004, safeguarding children boards are established for all local authorities. Education secretary announced that safeguarding children is government’s highest priority (2009, cited in Rogers, 2010). It is a responsibility of the media not to inflame certain sensitive issues which in many times lead to disastrous consequences. The main objective of the media is to appropriately inform the public on key areas required for human living. Information being necessary in any normal living, it should not be adulterated or blemished. Matters related to child sexual abuse are complex and should not be related to mere imagination when applying justice in custodies. The protection of human rights should be the responsibility of each and every individual and by doing so; we live cohesively (Baker, 1998: 54). Although, sometimes media lose its initial meaning of being a useful tool to increase public’s awareness towards the issue, it is still important for informing the public what is happening and the victims also need media to make their voice being heard by the whole community, in order to protect them from sexual abuse. So, the media will continue to play a pivotal role in reporting child sexual abuse. However, they need to focus more on the issue not the victim. References Anon., 2009.Your Rights: Article 8-the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence. [Online] Available at: < http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/privacy/article-8-the-right-to-respect-for-private-and-family-life-home-and-corresp.html > [25 February 2011]. Aldridge, M.1994. Making social work news. London: Routledge. Brill, A. 1990. Nobody’s business: Paradoxes of privacy. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, Reading. Baksi, Catherina.2010.Media reporting bill ‘threat’ to vulnerable children. [online] Law Society Gazette. Available at: [24 February 2011]. Belsey A. 1992. Privacy, publicity and politics. In A Belsey and R. Chadwick, eds. Ethical issues in journalism and the media. London: Routledge.pp.77-92. Curtice, M. and Tim H, 2010.’The Human Rights Act 1998: Article 8 case law and child and adolescent mental health services’. Journal of continuing professional development, vol.16, no.361, pp.361-369, viewed 25 February 2011, http://apt.rcpsych.org/ Christians, C.G. Rotzoll, K.B. and Fackler, M.ed., 1991. Media ethics: cases and moral reasoning. 3rd ed. New York: Longman. Dyer, C. 2003.Development of new privacy law boosted by Human Rights Act. The Guardian, [online] 17 June. Available at: [Accessed 24 February 2011]. Drake, P.2007.Who owns celebrity? Privacy, publicity and the legal regulation of celebrity images. In : S.Redmond and Su Holmes, ed. Stardom and celebrity: a reader. London: Sage Publication Limited, pp.219-229. De Cew, J.W.1997. In Pursuit of Privacy: Law, Ethics, and the Rise of Technology. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Etzioni, A.2006.Communitarism.In B.S. Turner, ed. The Cambridge Dictionary of Sociology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp.81-83. Etzioni, A.2007.Are new technologies the enemy of privacy. Know Techn Pol 20(115), 115-119 Available through Springer Science+Business Media [Accessed 25 February 2011]. Etzioni,A.,2000.A communitarian perspective on privacy. Connecticut Law Review, 32(3), pp.897-905. Franklin, B. and Parton, N. 1991. Social Work, the Media and Public Relations. London: Routledge. Goddard, C. and Saunders, B.J. 2000b.The role of the media. In Project Axis — Child Sexual Abuse in Queensland: Selected Research Papers, Brisbane: Queensland Crime Commission. pp.73-127. Goddard, C. 1997.Should parents shiver? Children Australia. 22(3), pp. 41-44. Goddard, C. and Saunders, B. J., 2000a.The Gender Neglect and Textual Abuse of Children in the Print Media. Child Abuse Review, 9, pp. 37-48. Gumbel, A.2003.Accusing Jackson of sex abuse ruined the life of Jordy Chandler. The Independent,[online]22 November.Availabel at: < http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:QP0GNlNCttMJ:www.independent.co.uk> [Accessed 25 February 2011]. Goddaed,C. And Bernadette, J.S.2001.Child abuse prevention issues 14.National Child protection clearinghouse. Available at :< http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/issues/issues14/issues14.html> [Accessed Feb. 26 2011]. Intelligence Squared, 2010. Public figures have a right to a private life. (Intelligence 2 Ltd) [online] Intelligence2 (Published 2010) Available at: < http://www.intelligencesquared.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/68172/Intelligence-Squared-Debate-of-the-Day-Public-figures-have-a-right-to-a-private-life.pdf>[Accessed 25 February 2011]. JCHR, 2010.Joint Committee on Human Rights Press Notice No.6 Session 2009-10.[Press notice],4 January 2010.Available at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-archive/joint-committee-on-human-rights/jchrpn06-040110/ McCarthy, A.2009.Incest rape in the media: from Elisabeth Fritzl to Mackenzie Phillips. globalcomment.com. Global Comment,[blog] 26 September, Available at: < http://globalcomment.com/2009/incest-rape-in-the-media-from-elisabeth-fritzl-to-mackenzie-phillips/> [Accessed 25 February 2011] Patterson, P. and Wilkins, L. 1994. Media ethics: Issues and cases. Wisconsin: Brown and Benchmark.Aldridge, M.1994. Making social work news. London: Routledge. Rogers,B.,2010.Why child protection has gone too far, Prospectmagazine,169[online]Avaialble at:< http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/tag/soham-murders/>[Accessed 25 February 2011]. Silk,Christie.2009.UK:Changes to media laws causes confusion in family courts, but reporting regulations will be relaxed.editorsweblog.org,[blog]27 July, Available at [Accessed 25 February 2011]. Susurro Prof, 2010.Telling to live: Natascha Kampusch new book.likeawhisper.wordpress.com Prof Susrruo blog,[blog] 10 September, Available at: < http://likeawhisper.wordpress.com/2010/09/10/telling-to-live-natascha-kampusch-new-book/> The Indian News, 2008. Elisabeth Fritzl may sue cops, doctors over media reports.[onlie] Available at: [Accessed 25 February 2011]. Wagner Adam, 2011.Right of appeal for sex offenders register. ukhumanrightsblog.com.UK human Rights Blog,[blog] 16 February, Available at : < http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/02/16/right-of-appeal-for-sex-offenders-register/> [Accessed 25 February 2011]. Read More