-
Meeja Law
Media law & ethics for online publishers, collected and written by Judith Townend (@jtownend)
Disclaimer: This site contains general information only. This site does not contain legal advice. This site is not responsible for the content of external sites. Enquiries should be made to:
-
Subscribe by email!
-
Subscribe by RSS
-
Research: Media lawyers, journalists and bloggers
Please get in touch with your views and experiences of libel and privacy law in England and Wales. -
Media Law for Bloggers
-
@jtownend on Twitter
- Analysis by @CampaignFoI on explicit mentions of FoI in party manifestos bit.ly/1PXm6wW 2 days ago
- Ponsford @pressgazette on Tory idea for bus. rates relief for local press: unless ringfenced for journ,likely go to shareholders via profits 2 days ago
- overview of media-related proposals in manifestos by @Domponsford @pressgazette - regulation, ownership, RIPA bit.ly/1PXimvy 2 days ago
- RT @arusbridger: The court reporting notebooks of @iancobain are locked up inside MI5 offices.You couldn't make it up gu.com/p/47t6m/stw 2 days ago
- .@GreensladeR on Argus re-vamp & Cameron guest piece #brighton: bit.ly/1DOMQe8 2 days ago
-
@meejalaw on Twitter
- RT @JTownend: ...contacted by @igavels about inappropriate use of gavel in @meejalaw logo … there’s a Tumblr of course: http://t.co/o3EERPG… 4 months ago
- [Scotland] COPFS: Guidance on cases involving Communications sent via Social Media: bit.ly/1zgEoBh #medialaw 4 months ago
- [Scotland] COPFS release: Crown Office sets out social media prosecution policy: bit.ly/1zEniLY #medialaw 4 months ago
- RT @infolawcentre: New post: An open and linkable Leveson report… inspiration for legal and policy documents? bit.ly/1xWxXEC cc @ro… 4 months ago
- RT @IndexCensorship: #PressRegulation in the #UK? Share your thoughts with @impressproject today 3-4pm GMT http://t.co/iwi8jFEpf6 5 months ago
-
Blogroll
- 5RB – media & entertainment law
- BBC College of Journalism – Law
- BBC Freedom of Information
- Blackstone's Statutes Media Law 3e – resources
- British Journal of Photography – campaigns
- Centre for Law, Justice and Journalism
- Channel 4 Producer's Handbook – Media Law
- City Legal Research
- CRITique commercial law blog
- David Banks
- David Price Guide to Media Law
- Delia Venables’ legal resources
- Digital Media Law (US)
- Digital Media Law Project
- Don’t Get Fooled Again
- Drawnalism
- EPUK resources
- George Brock
- Guardian Freedom of Information
- Guardian Legal Network
- Guardian.co.uk – media law
- Heather Brooke’s blog
- HMCS glossary of legal terms
- I’m a Photographer Not a Terrorist
- Index on Censorship
- Informationa Rights and Wrongs
- Inforrm blog
- IP Media Law
- Jack of Kent
- Jonathan Hewett
- Journal Local
- Journalism.co.uk – media law
- Law Bore
- Learn WordPress.com
- Learnmore
- LSE Media Law Policy Project
- Matt Buck
- McNae’s student resources
- Media Standards Trust
- MediaPaL@LSE
- Ministry of Justice
- mySociety
- Ofcom Watch
- One Brick Court – news
- out-law.com
- panGloss
- PCC – links to regulators
- Photo Legal
- Press Gazette – media law
- Recent decisions in England&Wales Court of Appeal (civil)
- Recent decisions in England&Wales High Court (Queen’s Bench)
- Reframing Libel Symposium
- Robert Sharp
- ScraperWiki
- TabloidWatch
- Talk About Local
- The Private Lives of Others
- The Small Places
- UK Human Rights Blog
- Wannabe Hacks
- WhatDoTheyKnow
-
Recent Posts
- Legal records and the ‘right to be forgotten': Google Spain blog series and event
- A sensible proposal for online recording of reporting restrictions
- The impact of libel and privacy on UK-based online journalists, bloggers and hyperlocals – some survey data
- SLS Media & Communications Section: Call for Papers 2014
- Promotion: IBC Defamation and Privacy Conference 2014
-
Archives
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
-
academic research access to justice blogging comment contempt of court courts data defamation digital open justice events freedom of expression freedom of information human rights journalism leveson inquiry media ethics media law media law mop-up media law resources media regulation newspapers phone hacking press freedom privacy public interest reporting restrictions social media social networking super injunctions Uncategorized
Cross-post: Press ‘omerta’ – How newspapers’ failure to report the phone hacking scandal exposed the limitations of media accountability
Cross-posted on the Media Standards Trust blog, by Daniel Bennett and Judith Townend
Tom Watson MP grabbed headlines last November when he accused James Murdoch of being a “mafia boss” and operating a code of silence, but he wasn’t the first to use the “media omerta” analogy in the phone hacking scandal.
The media’s treatment of developments had been markedly selective. Curiously, it was not just the News International titles that avoided certain avenues of inquiry, following The Guardian’s 2009 revelation of widespread voicemail interception.
In a chapter of a new book about phone hacking we examine Oborne and Rusbridger’s assertions that the press significantly under-reported the phone hacking scandal – a news story which would eventually lead to the demise of the News of the World, several high profile resignations and the ongoing Leveson Inquiry.
Despite significant revelations in July 2009 about the possible extent of phone hacking at the News of the World, coverage of the issue in the press was minimal. Exempting The Guardian and The Observer, a trawl of the articles published in the UK’s major national press titles between 10 June 2006 and 10 November 2011 reveals a failure to report the phone hacking scandal in a sustained and systematic manner.
As shown in our graphs here, there are distinctive patterns in levels of coverage and angles chosen by different national newspaper titles. Coverage only picked up after an investigation by the New York Times at the end of 2010 and the revelations of July 2011.
The story warranted very little newsprint before the major developments in 2011. Whereas The Guardian had written 237 articles by the end of 2010, The Independent had 83, the Daily Telegraph 46, and The Times 43. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the tabloids gave the story barely minimal coverage. By the close of 2010, the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday had written 38 articles, The Sun 17, and the Daily Mirror and the Sunday Mirror a mere 11 [more on methodology here].
At various times between 2006 and 2011, aspects of the phone hacking story were simply not reported by British journalists. In the words of Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger, they were apparently ‘blinded’ to ‘the significance of the issue’.
In our chapter we look deeper into the ways media covered the story. We argue that explanations for the non-reporting of the phone hacking scandal need to delve beyond simplistic, if valid, assertions of industry cover-up.
To understand why the majority of national newspapers didn’t regard phone hacking as newsworthy, it is necessary to unpick a tangled web of contributing factors.
We explore competing professional, political and commercial interests; the failure of other organisations – particularly the Metropolitan Police – to investigate the matter thoroughly; and the intimidating power of News International.
On this occasion, a large part of the media failed to deem its own industry’s scandal ‘newsworthy’ enough to warrant proper attention, which has ramifications far beyond the phone hacking scandal.
The inclination for journalists not to regard a scandal within their own industry as ‘newsworthy’ is hardly surprising, but other stories might also be suppressed for a similar combination of professional, political and commercial interests – a fact that ought to be considered by Lord Justice Leveson’s inquiry and other bodies considering the question of press regulation.
The vigour of journalism and healthy democratic debate is not merely dependent on the effective regulation of what is reported, it is also dependent on ensuring that harmful illegal activity is regarded as sufficiently ‘newsworthy’ to be investigated and reported.
A new system of regulation should not only end the abuse of self-regulation by the News of the World, it should also consider whether newspapers ought to be independently held to account for their editorial decisions regarding ‘newsworthiness’.
Our full chapter is available on the Social Science Research Network here. It is an extract from The Phone Hacking Scandal: Journalism on Trial, edited by Richard Lance Keeble and John Mair (Arima 2012). The book was launched at an event in London on Tuesday 7 February.
Share this:
Like this:
Related