Which clauses of the Code are relevant to these cases?
Do you think that the Code of Practice was broken in any of these cases, if so why?
Could a public interest justification be made in any of these examples?
1. Clauses number 3(privacy) and 6(children) apply however the public interest can overide these. It mentions that the PCC will consider the extent to which material is already in the public domain and the video was uploaded onto Youtube by the boy himself
2. Clauses number 3(privacy) and 6(children) apply however they were already in a public place and drawing attention to themselves. It does however seem unsuitable for a childs face of age 10 to appear in a lads magazine
3. Clauses 6(children) and 4(harassment) apply. The Code says 'journalists must not engage in persistent pursuit' and 'they must not persist in questoning, telephoning individuals'. It also says 'minors must not be paid for material involving children's welfare' and 'a child under 16 must not be interviewed on issues involing their own or another child's welfare'. There is clearly a breach of the code.
4. Clauses 1(accuracy) and 3(privacy) apply in this case. The Code states 'the press msut take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information and that 'everyone is entitiled to respect for his or her private and family life'. Even though the actress is in the public eye, she had not even told her family about the pregnancy.
5. Clause 5(intrusion into grief of shock) applies. The Code states ' approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion' and 'when reporting suicide, care should be taken to avoid excessive detail about the method used'. The photos show the woman standing on the ledge outside a window about to jump and another one during her fall therefore showing detail of the method used and therefore being in breach of the code. Also the fact that they were published before the woman's identity was announced shows there was little sensitivity towards family and friends
6. Clause 4(harassment) and 8(hospitals) apply. The code says 'journalists must not engage in persistent pursuit'. The journalist left messages and telephoned even after being told that the family would call him. The Code also says 'journalists must identify themselves before entering non-public areas of hospitals'. The journalist did not do this and therefore is in breach of the Code.
7. Clauses 3(privacy) and 10(clandestine devices and subterfuge) apply for this case. The Code states ' everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life and home' and 'it is unacceptable to photograph in a private place'. This clause was breached as photos were taken within a private place. Also the journalists gave a misrepresentation this also breaches clause 10.
8. Clauses 3(privacy) and 5(intrusion into grief or shock) apply. It says in the Code that 'private places are public or private property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy'. The photograph was taken in the cathedral which is a place where one would expect privacy so therefore the code has been breached. The code also states that' in cases involving grief or shock, enquiries and appeoaches must be made with sympathy and descretion' which they were not.
