- 3) Privacy, but the video was uploaded to youtube by the child so it's already on the public domain due to his own actions.
- 6) Children, but in public interest to publicise the serious anti-social behaviour of the 15 year old.
CASE STUDY 2: A man v Zoo magazine
- 3) Privacy, but the people were in a public place at a football match so this doesn't apply.
- 6) Children, but the young girl was with her dad and if he was worried about how she would be percieved, he shouldn't have let her make such obscene gestures in the first place.
CASE STUDY 3: A man v The Sunday Times
- 6) Children. the Code says that children should be able to complete their time at school without unneccesary intrusion, so the journalist should have not persisted. The child was also paid, which is a breach of the clause.
- However, there was no photo or article published.
CASE STUDY 4: A woman v The Independant
- 1) Accuracy "The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures" - they published inaccurate information about the actress' pregnancy being the reason for her leaving roles.
- 2) Privacy, she should have been allowed to tell people about the pregnancy before the publication.
- The journalist didn't know that this wasn't public information and the article has been removed and a letter and apology made so they can't really do much more they can do now.
CASE STUDY 5: A woman v The Sun
- 5) Intrusion to grief or shock, although the matter was very sensitive, the coverage was 'brief and factual' amd didn't dwell on details of suicide.
CASE STUDY 6: A woman v Eastbourne Gazette
- 4) Harrassment, the journalist was clearly told to dissist but ignored this and is wrong.
- 8) Hospitals, after being told that the man did not want to talk, the journalist still went and did not make his identity known so is even more in the wrong
CASE STUDY 7: A police officer v The Sunday Telegraph
- 10) Clandestine devices and subterfuge, as subterfuge had been admitted there was a definite breach of this clause but since the woman is a police officer in the public eye, this could be overruled by public interest especially since her job is to investigate racial crimes and her husband is a Nazi.
- Also, since the husband had been 'caught out' before and said he would never talk to a reporter, it was a bit thoughtless to let someone into his house and take photos, even if they had not revealed their real identity.
NOT UPHELD
CASE STUDY 8: Paul McCartney v Hello!
- 2) Privacy, this was a clear intrusion into Sir Paul's personal life. Even though he is in the public eye, Notre Dame where anyone should be allowed privacy as it's a place of worship.
No comments:
Post a Comment