Meeja Law
Media law & ethics for online publishers, collected and written by Judith Townend (@jtownend). Please note that this site is no longer regularly updated.
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: jt.townend [at] gmail.com.
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
- RT @connieruthsmith: Making sense of #covidbillionaires and #fakenews in #kenya: fake debates and moral economies during the pandemic. Deli… 2 months ago
- RT @jo_under_wood: Great article from @NatalieByrom - why robust data collection is vital for our justice system lawgazette.co.uk/commentary-and… 3 months ago
- RT @TheLawSociety: We condemn a Home Office video referring to immigration lawyers who provide legal advice to migrants as ‘activist lawyer… 5 months ago
- RT @marcusryder: “I was the first ever black female Lobby journalist... And indeed, 18 years on, I remain the only black female Lobby journ… 5 months ago
- RT @EachOtherUk: "...racial diversity does not only alter your perspective on race, it can also alter your entire perspective on how you vi… 5 months ago
@meejalaw on Twitter
- Press Gazette: Police force behind Newsnight laptop seizure reveals BBC did not contest Terrorism Ac... bit.ly/1kWINpV #medialaw 5 years ago
- RT @JTownend: ...contacted by @igavels about inappropriate use of gavel in @meejalaw logo … there’s a Tumblr of course: http://t.co/o3EERPG… 6 years ago
- [Scotland] COPFS: Guidance on cases involving Communications sent via Social Media: bit.ly/1zgEoBh #medialaw 6 years ago
- [Scotland] COPFS release: Crown Office sets out social media prosecution policy: bit.ly/1zEniLY #medialaw 6 years ago
- RT @infolawcentre: New post: An open and linkable Leveson report… inspiration for legal and policy documents? bit.ly/1xWxXEC cc @ro… 6 years 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
- MediaWise
- 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
- An inappropriate gavel
- 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
Archives
- July 2015
- 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
The role of the “public mood”
In my research I keep bumping up against the confusingly thorny – if woolly – issue of the “public interest”, a concept at the heart of media debates, the Leveson Inquiry and recent privacy and libel cases. There is surprisingly little empirical research to draw upon, but I would commend this report by Morrison and Svennevig from 2002* to anyone interested in interpreting and defining the public interest: ‘The Public Interest, the Media and Privacy [PDF]‘.
Today’s encounter with the public interest came about in this Forbes post by Tim Worstall. He argues that the (wrongly) alleged deletion of the Milly Dowler voicemails by News of the World was “the crux of the allegations that led to the newspaper being closed down”.
How does he know? And was it “public mood” that did for NOTW?
Newspapers and their editors play a very significant role in defining the “public mood” that might justify or encourage the publication of certain information, and in turn influence commercial or political reactions.
As Daniel Bennett and I argue in a forthcoming book chapter about the newsworthiness of phone hacking, the Dowler voicemail revelations marked a tipping point in reportage of the scandal. The Times’ editor James Harding told the Society of Editors conference last November: “[Phone hacking] didn’t capture the imagination or the indignation in the way which it did after Milly Dowler.”
While we know (and are frequently reminded) that judges don’t necessarily deem what is in the public interest to be synonymous with what the public finds interesting, the concept of the “public mood” is relevant to the “public interest” defence or test.
In 2005, the (then) Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas suggested that public interest considerations in favour of disclosure might include “informing debate on key issues of the day“; “helping people understand and challenge decisions which affect them“; and “clarifying incomplete or misleading information” [See speech here].
It strikes me that these points are related to the “public mood”. While public mood is not always the same as the public interest, its influence should not be forgotten in the public interest discussion. What factors evidence it, in immediate form? As a start, we might look at:
In my view, the “public mood” plays as crucial role in media law and journalism as the “public interest” but is a complex and elastic concept subject to a multitude of influences and interpretations. Returning to Worstall’s piece, I would suggest it would be more accurate to say it was the media’s interpretation and presentation of the “public mood” that influenced the development of the scandal (especially in regards to the Guardian’s correction), rather than one “public mood”. [NB: I’m not sure how we would ever know whether it was the deletion detail that led to the tipping point, or whether the interception alone would have been as widely condemned.]
Thoughts around this welcomed, as I try and make sense of it all…
As a semi-related postscript, in my last post I flagged up things to look out for in 2012. I’d add this, which escaped my attention before Christmas: a green paper and draft bill will set out proposals for changes to parliamentary privilege. They are due to be published before the end of the Parliamentary session. Significantly (for this blog, and others interested in media law and public interest reporting) the Green Paper will discuss “whether there should be changes to the law on reporting of parliamentary proceedings in the media“.
Happy new year. Ideas, tips and suggestions to jt.townend@gmail.com please, or via @jtownend on Twitter.
*Hat-tip: Thanks to Martin Moore for alerting me to it at the end of last year.
Share this:
Like this:
Related