» Press Freedom

CIoJ welcomes Judges’ ruling on Dale Farm disclosure orders

Posted on May 18, 2012 by CIoJ in CIoJ Press releases | Leave a comment

18 May 2012

The Chartered Institute of Journalists (CIoJ) today welcomed the High Court ruling that disclosure orders can never be granted as a formality.

Lord Justice Moses and Mr Justice Eady have quashed an order for media organisations to hand over footage shot during the Dale Farm eviction in October 2011. The written judgement cited that “police had failed to make a sufficiently strong case” and accepted the media’s joint position that it was a fishing expedition for evidence.

The application was granted by Judge Gratwicke at Chelmsford Crown Court in February whenEssex Police submitted the application claiming the footage was needed to pursue prosecutions.

Mr Justice Eady said disclosure orders “can never be granted as a formality” and that while the police should not be discouraged from seeking to obtain material in the future, “it is not easy to do so and it should not be easy.”

The fact that Judge Gratwicke was unable to justify the order he made “stemmed from the inadequacy of the evidence and the grounds advanced by the police”, the judgement recorded.

The CIoJ said: “We welcome the comments that have been made regarding disclosure orders. Handing over material without a fight would allow people to think that the media is part of the establishment or in league with public authorities.”

“This ruling sends a stark warning to anyone who thinks journalists are there to gather material for anything other than the reporting of fact. It is a clear message that journalists remain independent, impartial witnesses to events. The media organisations who challenged it and won will give heart to many others in the media, because communities like Dale Farm would never have trusted a journalist again.”

The Judgement is available at http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/bskyb-others-judgment-17052012.pdf

ENDS

Notes to Editors

1. The footage was shot during the operation to evict travellers from the site near Basildon on 19 and 20 October 2011 and included scenes of violence as bailiffs dismantled barricades.

2. The media involved – The BBC, Independent Television News, Channel 5, BSkyB, Hardcash Productions and freelance video journalist Jason Parkinson – joined forces to oppose the orders fearing it would blur the lines of independent journalism.

3. In the judgement Mr Justice Eady said it was difficult to dispute there was a real public interest in tracing people involved in public disorder or violence, but that has to be set against the level of interference with the media’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

4. “Because the cupboard was bare” when it came to demonstrating that the material would be of substantial value to the police investigation, the claimants were denied a fair opportunity to demonstrate to the (Chelmsford) court why much, if not the totality, of their material was unlikely to be of any assistance.”

5. Formed in 1884, the Chartered Institute of Journalists (CIoJ) is the world’s oldest established professional body for journalists, and a representative voice of media and communications professionals throughout the UK and the Commonwealth.

CIoJ warns Met over Filkin report

Posted on January 9, 2012 by CIoJ in CIoJ Press releases | Leave a comment

CIoJ PRESS RELEASE

9 JANUARY 2012

The Chartered Institute of Journalists has written to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, urging caution against over-zealous application of the Filkin report recommendations on socialising with journalists.

Amanda Brodie, chairman of the Institute’s Professional Practices Board, said: “We welcome large parts of the report which urges a more open and transparent connection with the media, but the way in which this is achieved should be left to the officers involved with the case. Restrictions on where, when, how or why contact is necessary do not need to be dictated.”

She added: “The report contains some advice to officers such as: ‘The offer of a pint of beer…… will usually be declined.’

“Instead the officers should meet reporters at the police station, and it encourages them to have a member of the police press office, or another officer present when possible. They are being told to keep a note on any conversation they have with a journalist, and these records will be audited on a random basis.

“The connection between journalists and the police needs to bear all the hallmarks of a good relationship. This simply cannot be achieved in the sterile way of procedural formality. The informal basis for contact has worked for many years and served both the media, and the police, well. The ‘loose tongues’ syndrome works both ways and many officers have benefited from the information exchange.

“The fear from our point of view is that the restrictions that seem to be advised will, in our opinion, work against the very principles that Filkin urges; more open and transparent dealings with the media.

“The police themselves use a system of informants which is unregulated, to get information they need. It seems unfair for them to seek to restrict any similar legitimate practice employed by the media.”

ENDS

Note to Editors

• Formed in 1884, the Chartered Institute of Journalists (CIoJ) is the world’s oldest established professional body for journalists, and a representative voice of media and communications professionals throughout the UK and the Commonwealth.

CLEGG’S COMMENTS ‘A SLUR ON OUR PROFESSION’ SAYS CIOJ

Posted on July 15, 2011 by CIoJ in CIoJ Press releases | Leave a comment

Press Release

14 July 2011

THE Chartered Institute of Journalists has reacted with concern to comments made by Nick Clegg today (July 14) on media regulation.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, the deputy prime minister said that the phone hacking scandal should be used as an opportunity to “clean up” the relationship between the press, politicians and police.

The scandal “clearly goes beyond News International,” he said, and was a “systemic” symptom of a “cosy” establishment.

He added that the rules on media plurality should be re-examined and the “entirely toothless” Press Complaints Commission looked at.

Amanda Brodie, chairman of the CIoJ’s Professional Practices Board, said: “As a professional institution which protects the rights of journalists, we are very concerned at this latest suggestion from the Government that such illegal practices as phone-hacking are so widespread within the industry.

“To suggest that illegal practices are endemic amongst the press is wholly wrong, and a slur on our profession. The vast majority of journalists are happy to subscribe to the Press Complaints Commission code of conduct and go about their business in a responsible and totally legal fashion.

“This kind of irresponsible comment leads to knee-jerk reactions.

“It is also disingenuous of the Government to start complaining about the ‘cosy’ relationship with the press, which so many politicians encouraged and benefited from, but are now condemning because it is politically expedient for them to do so.”

Amanda Brodie added: “During this interview, Mr Clegg also accused the PCC of being ‘in the pockets of the media it is supposed to be regulating.’ What evidence does he have for making this statement?

“The role of the PCC certainly needs to be looked at, but the Government has no power to do this since the PCC is not a government organisation. It can of course legislate to regulate the press perhaps by creating a new body, but who is to say this new body would be any more independent, especially if it is set up and administered by government?”

She added: “Mr Clegg said today: ‘Things always go wrong when you give anyone… a lot of power, and they’ve got no responsibility to answer for it,’ – and that is exactly what happened with the MPs’ expenses scandal – it was the press who made the politicians answer for it. We should not forget the vital role the press plays in protecting the public, and it must be free to continue to do this. Indeed, it should not be forgotten that it was, in fact, elements of the Press that kept the pressure on regarding illegal phone hacking, long after the police and the NoW had found no further need to re-examine the affair.

“However, we do welcome Mr Clegg’s comment that: ‘It is important that we do not let the free press be undermined by the out of control press’ and we hope this will be the government’s mantra as it seeks to determine any change in the laws of media regulation in this country.”

ENDS

Notes to editors:

Formed in 1884, the Chartered Institute of Journalists (CIoJ) is the world’s oldest established professional body for journalists, and a representative voice of media and communications professionals throughout the UK and the Commonwealth.

Contact: Amanda Brodie 07775 992563

CIoJ condemns sacking of NoW staff

Posted on July 11, 2011 by CIoJ in CIoJ Press releases, Press Freedom, Support | Leave a comment

NEWS ALERT

8 JULY 2011

The Chartered Institute of Journalists has condemned the sacking of hundreds of News of the World staff – both editorial and others.

CIoJ president Norman Bartlett said the union was appalled at the peremptory closure of the News of the World in a bid by Rupert Murdoch and News International to deflect flack over the hacking scandal.

Bartlett said: “This action, which closes a well-liked British institution, does not resolve the issue of despicable behaviour by a handful of journalists.

“It does, however, ruin the careers and finances of hundreds of hardworking employees, journalists and those following other trades and professions for News International.

“It is a cruel and unnecessary punishment on many innocent workers.

“The Chartered Institute of Journalists supports the highest standards in journalism, but deplores this action by News International.”

CIoJ general secretary Dominic Cooper has called on Prime Minister David Cameron to think very carefully before taking any action that threatens the future of the Press Complaints Commission.

This morning [Friday] Mr Cameron seemed to signal the end of the PCC’s system of self-regulation of the printed news media, saying: “The way the press is regulated today is not working”. He described the PCC as “ineffective and lacking in rigour”.

He said that an entirely new system, “truly independent” of both the Government and the Press, was needed.

At a time when everyone from Alex Salmond to the union Unite is calling for tighter regulation of the Press, Cooper warned that a knee-jerk reaction to the NotW scandal would not serve the best interests of Press freedom or the wider public good.

He said that while Mr Cameron had said a new regulatory framework should be independent of the Government, there was a serious danger that it would be nothing of the sort unless time was taken to fully and calmly assess exactly what went wrong with the PCC’s handling of the phone hacking case and how best to prevent such failures happening again.

“While the Institute appreciates the urgency of the need to look for a better system, that must be balanced by the need in a democracy to protect the freedom of the Press and to avoid introducing draconian rules that restrict the work of thousands of honest journalists who have never behaved illegally or unethically,” Cooper said.

Ends

Notes to editors:

Contact: CIoJ President, Norman Bartlett, 07711 550523

Danbury journalist honoured

Posted on January 24, 2011 by CIoJ in CIoJ Press releases, News, Presidential handover | Leave a comment

AT A RECEPTION at the National Liberal Club in London, Danbury journalist Norman Bartlett was installed last week (20 January) as the President of the Chartered Institute of Journalists.

He introduced Maldon MP, John Whittingdale, who spoke on the commercial and technical issues facing journalism and broadcasting today. He mentioned particularly the danger of investigative journalism being threatened by the courts.

“It is vital that the press is able to report on freely on abuses and failures,” he said.

Whittingdale is the Chairman of the Commons Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport.

Bartlett is a long-time Danbury resident whose journalism has taken him to many countries, reporting on travel, transport, engineering and information technology.

The Chartered Institute of Journalists (CIoJ) is the oldest organisation of its kind in the world. It was founded in 1884 and was awarded a Royal Charter in 1890. The CIoJ is a non-political membership organisation based in London but open to all professional journalists, editors and broadcasters worldwide.

INSTITUTE APPEALS TO SOUTH AFRICAN ICON TO RESIST APARTHEID MEDIA CONTROL LAWS

Posted on October 20, 2010 by CIoJ in CIoJ Press releases | Leave a comment

NEWS RELEASE

RELEASE TIME: 20 October 2010, 9.00am

Institute of Journalists Calls on Nelson Mandela to resist legislation

THE CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF JOURNALISTS has appealed directly to Nelson Mandela in an effort to stop Draft legislation to control and censor the media in South Africa, reminiscent of apartheid-era laws.

Following a formal letter to South African President Jacob Zuma, the President of the CIoJ, Liz Justice, and the Chairman of the CIoJ’s International Division, Alun Hill, have asked the former president to use his influence to halt this potential disaster in its tracks.

“Nelson Mandela knows more than most, the true cost of trying to remove this type of censorship once it has taken hold in government,” said Justice. “It is our hope that he will use his considerable influence to help the South African government see sense before it is too late.”

“The only people who have reason to fear the media,” said Hill, “are those who are incompetent, corrupt, dishonest, or do things that are against the interests of the country. Politicians who are honest and work in the best interests of the country have nothing to fear.”

Hill continued: “The reputation of the media in South Africa in the years since the fall of apartheid has been very good. It is now one of the more free and best in Africa. It would be a shame and a big mistake to reintroduce press censorship and controls similar to those of the apartheid era that would make it much more difficult for the media to keep the people of South Africa informed about what is going on in the country.”

The Institute is objecting to two proposed measures, the Protection of Information Bill and a Media Appeals Tribunal. The bill makes it much easier for South African ministers to classify measures and activities as secret or confidential, and it provides for severe penalties – up to 25 years in jail – for journalists or anyone else publishing information about measures or activities that have been classified.

The Media Appeals Tribunal would replace the Press Council and Press Ombudsman to decide what the media can and cannot publish. The present system, which many say works well, is an independent system run by the media and forcing publications to publish large corrections if something they print was untrue or misleading. Members of the ANC, the majority party in South Africa, some of whom have been criticised by the media, want a Media Appeals Tribunal under Parliament’s control to take over the powers of deciding what the media can or cannot publish and what punishment should be given to publications found guilty of printing untrue or misleading information. The Tribunal would be appointed by Parliament and have to report regularly to Parliament.

Ends+

Notes to editors:

It has members in South Africa and an interest in the interests of journalists worldwide.

APARTHEID MEDIA CONTROL LAWS RE-EMERGE IN SOUTH AFRICA

Posted on October 18, 2010 by CIoJ in CIoJ Press releases | Leave a comment

NEWS RELEASE

RELEASE TIME: 24 September 2010, 9.00am

Institute of Journalists Calls on President Zuma to block legislation

Draft legislation to control and censor the media in South Africa, reminiscent of apartheid-era laws, has been strongly criticised by the Chartered Institute of Journalists, London. A formal joint letter has been sent to South African President Jacob Zuma by the President of the CIoJ, Liz Justice, and the Chairman of the CIoJ’s International Division, Alun Hill, “to make sure that this proposed legislation never reaches the Statute Book”.

“Media freedom and independence are essential in a democracy,” write Ms. Justice and Mr. Hill. “The media is the fourth estate of a free democracy, and it needs to be free to perform its important function, to tell the public honestly what is happening in the country and in the world.”

The Protection of Information Bill gives very wide powers to a Government Minister to classify almost any information involving an organ of state, if it is claimed that classification is in the interests of national security. The bill also introduces “severe penalties” of up to 25 years imprisonment to anyone disclosing protected information, refusing to reveal their sources, or even attempting to uncover protected information.

The Institute warns that there is a great danger that the power to classify would be misused to hide incompetence and dishonest activities and to prevent the media publishing information about them. This is particularly so as the minister of state security may delegate the power to classify information or activities to other politicians or to senior officials.

In addition, the CIoJ complains that there are minimal controls on what can be classified, and that there is no public interest clause in the bill, which would enable the media to claim, and the courts to rule, that publishers may print information if it is in the public interest. This in fact makes the minister judge and jury as to what can be classified and what the media can publish.

“The only people who have reason to fear the media,” write Justice and Hill, “are those who are incompetent, corrupt, dishonest, or do things that are against the interests of the country. Politicians who are honest and work in the best interests of the country have nothing to fear.”

The reputation of the media in South Africa in the years since the fall of apartheid has been very good. “It is now one of the most free and best in Africa,” they write. “It would be a shame and a big mistake to reintroduce press censorship and controls similar to those of the apartheid era that would make it much more difficult for the media to keep the people of South Africa informed about what is going on in the country.”

Ends+

Notes to editors:

It has members in South Africa and an interest in the interests of journalists worldwide.

Institute urges release of British journalist

Posted on February 22, 2010 by CIoJ in CIoJ Press releases | Leave a comment

NEWS RELEASE

Release time: 19 February 2010

The Chartered Institute of Journalists (CIoJ) has written to Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and asked for the immediate release of film-maker and freelance journalist Paul Martin.

President of the CIoJ, Liz Justice said: “This was an unprecedented step against a foreign journalist who had properly requested papers to work in Gaza and was approved for a visa to work as a journalist in the country.

“To arrest someone who is willing to go to court to back up a colleague by explaining that they are working as professional journalists goes against everything the CIoJ supports. The freedom of the press to operate objectively and openly is vital to any democracy.”

The CIoJ has also pointed out that British journalists are working with their colleagues across the world to help identify the people responsible for the assassination of the Hamas leader Mahmoud al Mabhouh in Dubai.

“We have pointed out to the Prime Minister that Hamas also need to act responsibility in dealing with press freedoms in their own country. Specifically the International media is focusing on this murder, making it more likely that the perpetrators will be found and any Government behind such action will be deterred from operating that way in the future.

Martin was arrested as a suspect for “harming Gaza’s security” after he appeared at a military court to speak on behalf of Mohammed Abu Muailik. The two had been working together on a documentary about Gaza. Muailik was held in detention in June accused of collaborating with Israel.

Ends+

Notes for Editors:

NEWS RELEASE
Release time: 19 February 2010

Institute urges release of British journalist

The Chartered Institute of Journalists (CIoJ) has written to Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and asked for the immediate release of film-maker and freelance journalist Paul Martin.

Ends+

Notes for Editors:
Formed in 1884, the Chartered Institute of Journalists (CIoJ) is the world’s oldest established professional body for journalists, and a representative voice of media and communications professionals throughout the UK and the Commonwealth

NEWS RELEASE

Release time: 19 February 2010

Institute urges release of British journalist

The Chartered Institute of Journalists (CIoJ) has written to Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and asked for the immediate release of film-maker and freelance journalist Paul Martin.

Ends+

Notes for Editors:

CIoJ welcomes release of journalists

Posted on August 13, 2009 by CIoJ in CIoJ Press releases, News, Press Freedom | Leave a comment

THE CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF JOURNALISTS has welcomed the release of journalists Laura Long and Euna Lee from captivity and hard labour in North Korea.

“This is a positive step by the North Korean authorities,” said CIoJ President, Liz Justice, “and demonstrates recognition that the journalists’ mistake was genuine and was no threat to North Korea.

“However, this situation should be an example to all journalists of the potential risks when trying to get their story. It also serves as a reminder of the situations and circumstances that journalists encounter on a regular basis in order to keep the rest of us fully informed as to what is happening around the world.”

Having written to Kim Jong-un appealing for clemency, the CIoJ will write again congratulating this decision.

More barriers to journalists’ investigative rights

Posted on February 12, 2009 by CIoJ in Freedom of Information, OSCE, Professionalism | Leave a comment

John Szemerey reports from Brussels on the recent OSCE survey on freedom of information

Governments should give journalists a legal shield against over-enthusiastic prosecutors and judges who want to force them to reveal their sources. They should also ensure that free access to information was a reality and that the classification ‘secret’ was only used for a limited period and for real secrets whose unauthorized release would have serious consequences. These are the principle recommendations of the unprecedented survey, the first in the world, on access to information by the media. This survey is of the 56 countries of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).

The 450-page survey report was launched on May 2, the eve of World Press Freedom Day, at a press conference in Brussels, by Miklos Haraszti, OSCE’s Representative on Freedom of the Media. He was supported by Belgium’s ambassador to the OSCE, Bernard de Crombrugghe, and David Banisar of Privacy International who analysed the replies to the survey.

Societies have more access to information than ever before, said Haraszti in presenting the results of the survey. “But weak laws and prosecution against the media diminish journalists’ investigative abilities. In the past 10 years, most OSCE nations have passed good basic laws to balance the rights of the public to know with governments’ classification needs. However, in most countries this balance is upset when it comes to journalists’ daily struggle with secrecy.”

Four issues

The survey covers four basic issues relating to journalists’ access to government data. These are: freedom of information laws, classification rules (what is a secret?), punitive laws and practices in case of breach of secrecy, and protection of journalists’ confidential sources.

On freedom of information (FOI), Haraszti said that FOI laws are in vigour in 80 per cent of the 56 OSCE states, including established democracies like the UK, Switzerland and Germany, and new democracies like Armenia, Kyrgyzstan and Azerbaijan.

The report recommends that:

“All participating states should adopt freedom of information legislation that gives a legal right to all persons and organizations to demand and obtain information from public bodies and from those who are performing public functions. Individuals should also have a right to access and correct all personal information held about themselves.

“Public bodies should be required in law to respond promptly to all requests for information. Requests for information that are time-sensitive or relate to an imminent threat to health or safety should be responded to immediately. The process for requesting information should be simple and free or low-cost.”

Classification rules should be thoroughly revised so state secrets are defined as narrowly as possible, and the definition “secret” should be limited only to data that directly relates to the “security of the state and where unauthorized release would have identifiable and serious consequences.”

If secrets are too broadly defined, Haraszti added, “then you have a problem.”

Too many states do not differentiate between officials and others in “breach of secrecy” cases. In the view of the report’s authors, “criminal and civil code prohibitions should only apply to officials and others who have a specific legal duty to maintain confidentiality. The media and ‘whistleblowers’ who disclose secret information of public interest to the media should not be subject to legal and other sanctions. The test of public interest in publication should become an integral part of jurisprudence on disclosure of information.”

The irony about the principle of protection of journalists’ sources is that most nations recognize its importance and mention it somewhere in their legislation. “But this is mostly lip service”, said Haraszti, and in practice only some 20 countries have an effective shield to protect journalists from being forced to reveal their sources.

However, the survey discloses, it is in these 20 countries that prosecutors are most active against journalists.

The report’s position was clear: “Each participating state should adopt an explicit law on protection of sources to ensure these rights are recognized and protected.”

Opposite direction

While societies have more access to information than ever before, four OSCE countries were moving in the opposite direction, withdrawing openness. They are the USA, Ireland, the United Kingdom and Bulgaria. The UK government is among the worst offenders, in trying to reduce the media’s and the public’s access to information. (See the article in the March 2007 issue of The Journal.) Indeed, Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor, has been quoted as saying that “Freedom of information was never considered to be, and for our part will never be considered to be, a research arm for the media.”

The US is criticised by the report for its use of ‘Executive Privilege’ to reduce access to data on internal decision-making. It is also criticised for its failure to have a federal law that protects journalists from being forced to reveal their sources. In contrast, 49 US states have a law giving good protection to journalists. Congress is trying to resolve both these problems. An Open Government Bill is on its way through Congress to deal with the access to information issue. However, legislation to enact in law journalists’ protection of sources has for some time been blocked in the legislature.