Other
Media Law revision notes
- Course
- Institution
Media Regulation Contempt of Court Reporting Restrictions Protection of Journalist Sources Media ownership and control Privacy Libel
[Show more]
13 reviews
By: ameliaplatton69 • 3 year ago
By: nellagal876 • 5 year ago
Concise
By: lethabopjsithole • 6 year ago
By: pradeepta24sarkar • 6 year ago
By: hannahdunn • 6 year ago
By: spyrosspyrakos0 • 6 year ago
By: nansy_kondelidou • 6 year ago
Seller
Followdobrien312
Reviews received
Content preview
MEDIA LAW REVISION1. Self- Regulation and the Media
3 models of regulation of media within the UK at the moment and a
debate rages over which one should dominate:
- Industry self-regulation- IPSO (independent press
standards organisation which replaces PCC (Press
complaints commission). Another example is the ASA
(advertising standards authority)
- Co-Regulation- such as BBFC and the regime under Royal
Charter
- Staututory Regulation – OFCOM (office of communications)
- Latter, like OFCOM before they were given statutory power in 2003, are
Quangos and Regulators who derive power from ministerial department
but work at arms length—although most don’t have legal powers to
impose fines they have intercepted and done a lot of important work:
- Prevented continued Harrassment of Kate Middleton
in 2007
- Ensured conviction of NOTW worker Clive Goodman
for trying to intercept communications of royal
family
- Involved in many News Corp operations, including
the phone hacking scandal, their merger with BskyB
and apparent bias of its papers towards political
parties such as the Sun
- 1991- PCC established in response to the Calcutt Report which looked
into protecting individual privacy from the press and said that a self-
regulator must be established within 18 months or a statutory system
would be
- 2013- PCC lead by 6 editors of leading newspapers and had all major
ones underneath it, made up of an Editors Code Committee, an
Independent Board for Finance and a general bodyPCC Code of
Practice—adhered to by industry, set out rules for practice, set out
rights of the individual and the public and defined what “public interest
was”
- Important Provisions of the PCC Editor’s Code of Practice:
- Clause 1-Accuracy and Clause 2- right to reply
- Clause 3- Privacy and Clause 8-on hospital intrusion
- Clause 4- Harassment and Clause 5- intrusion into grief
and shock
- Clause 6 and 7 on children rights
- Clause 10- Clandestine Devices and subterfuge
- THE PUBLIC INTEREST EXCEPTION which acts as a
justification for all above actions
, Revised in 1997 to update views on certain provisions and in 2007 to take
account media in the digital world
- Sir Ray Meadow – Times did article about him in Sally Clark case
criticising his expert evidence as bias and how it was unreliable—she
later acquitted on unreliability of his evidence- he rejected right of
reply paper offered himhe complained under Clause 1
(accuracy)PCC rejected his complaint as it was an opinion piece
based on fact and judgement and he had rejected right to respond
- Jan Moir- piece in Daily Mail titled “why there was nothing natural
about Stephen Gatelys death” – received 23,000 complaints (highest
ever) she writes apology at PCC request but stands by a lot of what
she said PCC protect her and say they have twin duty to uphold
freedom of expression
- Vernon Kay v Reveal Magazine – said he was “walking on eggshells” in
marriage 2 years after he had admitted to flirtatious texts—said was
breach of Clause 1 and Clause 2 (accuracy and right of reply)PCC
found a breach of editors code because although press can have
confidential sources need some evidence
- Rosemary McLeod v The Scottish Sun –Chris Hoy uncle funeral picture
published of grieving widow—PCC gross breach of Clause 5—only
power they have is to order apology from paper
- 2012 Report on PCC- average lifespan of complaint was 5 weeks, and
there had been 7300 complaints with over 1700 issued rulings and
solutionsdespite this was criticisms that it was not good at handling
and dealing with complaints and letting press get away with it
- 2003 House of Commons Parliamentary Committee on “culture, media
and sport” Invesitgate reform of PCC needed as there are so many
complaints2010 FINDINGS is that common law remedies available so
leave PCC as it is
- Mr Justice Tugenhadt QC-no need for reform as all defects had been
cured by additional protection of HRA 1998, DPA 1998, Protection from
Harassment Act 1997 and the Campbell Confidence and Peck decisions
- Peck v UK (2003)- comitt suicide and Brentwood CC distribute footage
to news broadcasters who publish itcomplainant applies to
Broadcasting Standards Comission (BSC), Independent Television
Comission (ITC) and gets apology and gets NOTHING from PCCECtHR
rule that there is Breach of Article 8 right to privacy, that the PCC is
completely inadequate as does not have legal powers to deal with
issues and that he had no effective remedy
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through EFT, credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying this summary from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller dobrien312. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy this summary for R141,38. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
79751 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy summaries for 14 years now