Legal and moral questions
The appearance on YouTube of footage taken by a camera phone during a case at the High Court in Glasgow brought into sharp focus what I believe to be a significant dilemma for the 大象传媒.
The clip showed three young men, who later admitted beating a man to death, in the dock. The judge is seen in the background.
The video had been entitled: 鈥淭he troops in the high court鈥 and there were accompanying posts boasting about the killing.
The story first appeared on the front page of a Scottish newspaper and was followed up by many media outlets, the 大象传媒 News among them.
The issue for us was whether or not we should provide a link directly to the video on YouTube.
On one hand, we should - providing we鈥檇 undertaken sufficient checks to ensure that the video was in fact genuine. But if we鈥檇 been able to establish that, would we have come close to colluding with a criminal or criminals? Section 9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 makes it an offence to use in court any sound recording instrument 鈥渆xcept with the leave of the court to do so鈥.
The video is pivotal to the story therefore we should direct readers to it, so this argument goes. Part of the 大象传媒鈥檚 online remit is to provide clear signposts to other web content. If we don鈥檛 provide the link, the reader will ask why it鈥檚 not there and go straight to YouTube to find it (not always an easy task).
On the other hand, we shouldn鈥檛. Again, assuming that the video is genuine, clearly a crime had been committed and would a link from the 大象传媒 News website have a) made it appear that we were 鈥渃onspiring鈥 with the commission of that crime and/or b) tacitly endorsing the crime and glorifying it by saying: 鈥淗ere it is, come and click on it!鈥?
In these circumstances, is our disclaimer: 鈥淭he 大象传媒 is not responsible for the content of external internet sites鈥 below links on stories sufficient to distance ourselves from any criticism?
There are legal and moral questions here. The former is about the recording and storing of the video, the latter is about the 大象传媒 being seen as a publicly-funded stage on which law-breakers can perform.
In this case, we took the view based partly on legal advice from a 大象传媒 lawyer in Glasgow that we should not link to the video. I think that was the right decision, taking into account the reaction of the mother of the dead man. She described the footage as 鈥渟ickening鈥.
We did not include it in our television news coverage of the story either. STV, the commercial channel in Scotland, made extensive use of it.
We have to bear in mind an increasingly complex set of factors as the internet generation becomes more sophisticated, and sometimes the 大象传媒 will have to be brave in rejecting what other media outlets perceive as a 鈥済ood鈥 story if it breaches our Editorial Guidelines.
I recently turned down a reporter鈥檚 offer to write a story about a clip appearing to show the dashboard of a performance car being driven at 155mph on a road in Scotland notorious for accidents. It seemed a clear-cut case of glorifying speed and encouraging others to try the same feat.
The story later appeared in a newspaper. Was I wrong to knock it back? Discuss.
As a final thought on the same subject, we鈥檙e seeing an increasing use of Facebook and other social networking sites following fatalities involving young people. Their friends post tributes and the media lift the words and pictures for our reports. Simply because information has been published into the public domain does that make it acceptable for the media to exploit its existence?
It raises the public/private question as well as the issue of copyright ownership. There are bald legal answers but perhaps the most difficult area to negotiate is the moral one, where there are not only 鈥渂lack and whites鈥 of opinions but many shades of grey in between.
Comments
I personally think you are right not to publish direct links. Okay, if people want to find these things, they will always find a way. But would, as an example, publishing a link through to a 'happy slapping' video not be a big 'pull factor' in getting more people to post such videos ? They would, of course, be taken down in due course, but I think you have to tread warily here.
Of course, there is going to be a wider debate about whether you should link to some rather trashy US/Australian sites with details of a certain member of the Royal family. This is a developing debate, but I think it is wise to lag behind the other media, to try and avoid the law of unintended consequences.
When the Danish cartoon controversey was in the headlines, it was important to see the actual cartoons to have an an informed opinion on them, but the 大象传媒 would not link to any website with them and removed posts on its message boards that contained a link to them. The cartoons weren't illegal, so looking back does the 大象传媒 consider that was a bad day for fair and balanced news coverage?
An interesting article. WHY should you provide the link? The story here is "someone videos inside of court", which is illegal. What they actually filmed is largely irrelevant (as far as I can see): it was the act of filming which is the crux of the matter, so including the link would seem pointless to me. It is enough that you report what happened without providing the link.
The argument "Part of the 大象传媒鈥檚 online remit is to provide clear signposts to other web content" is completely facetious. If the video clip was, say, a beheading of a hostage you wouldn't go posting the link to that just on the basis of a strategy to flag up internet content. If people want to go and search Youtube themselves, that is their prerogative (though you'd think Youtube will remove it soon if they haven't already done so), but that's not a reason for you to feel the need to direct everyone there. Neither is the "everyone else is doing it argument", commercial or not: do things you think YOU should do, not what everyone else in the business is actually doing. Don't be the sheep. You made the correct decision not to post the link.
As long as you hint that the footage is available, you don't really need to do anything else. The censorship of the past is gone. The British government used to have more direct control (via D-Notices if necessary) over the media but that can only work when there are a few channels of information.
With the internet things like D-Notices became useless, and yet the skies have not fallen.
Remember when the 大象传媒 was raided by M15 over the documentary about the Zircon Spy satellite? These days angry 大象传媒 workers would probably have posted backups (stored on their I-Pods) to Youtube within hours.
I get particularly annoyed by the constant reporting of terrorist-related material from 'islamic websites' whose location is never reported.
It being distasteful is no barrier to publishing links original content - not after you broadcast the Saddam hanging anyway.
The footage is illegal, so the 大象传媒 was right not to follow STV down the toilet by using it.
But the poster above who points out that the 大象传媒 should have published the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons is also correct.
An article on the bbc website today says it all really. At the most basic level.
"Liverpool star's payslip on web"
The 大象传媒 reports that:
"An inquiry has been launched by Liverpool Football Club after a top player's payslip, detailing a 拢139,634 monthly wage - was put on the internet"
Instead of just reporting the incident as justified news and stopping there the bbc just couldn't help revealing all the juicy details about the players personal financial details in tabloid fashion.
I might as well read the Sun.
As Robert McKay says, the story is about someone illegally filming in court and then broadcasting this for others to view.
The brief description of the clip provides context, stakeholders views are presented, and the 大象传媒 'analysis' educates the reader. The content of the clip is irrelevant, as is providing details of how to access it. Specifying that the video sharing website was YouTube seems equally irrelevant, unless the article is looking to cover YouTube's attitude towards privacy/copyright issues.
'Providing clear signposts' to web content is laudable if it provides credibility or context, or allows the audience to learn more about a topic of interest. Publicising the content would only glorify or encourage it... and provide a broken link once it has been taken down!
I believe you were correct not to post the link. There are some very valid reasons why details from inside a court should not be recorded, most of which centre around people not being able to speak freely for fear of being taken out of context; a two minute video clip does not accurately convey a 3 day trial, much as the popular press would like to think it does.
It is not just in courts that the problem occurs. The seemingly daily leaks from inside government are particularly concerning. How can we have workable system of rule when people cannot speak with some degree of confidentiality?
大象传媒 people defraud callers to phone in competitions, sit glued to Facebook and Wikipedia on 大象传媒 computers during working hours and reproduce Press Association and other agency copy word for word without acknowledgement or tweak it a little if it doesn't totally fit the 大象传媒's lefty agenda.
What original stuff you do produce is so paralysed by PeeCee bias through distortion and omission of facts that it's not worth the attention of anyone who wants the news straight and wants to be treated as an adult with the ability to make up his own mind on any issue.
So here's the question: what do we need the 大象传媒 for?
Congratulations on making the right decisions. If in doubt, leave it out. That is not the same as censorship. The 大象传媒 has the unique ability, and duty, to be different to the rest of the media and avoid the descent to the bottom of the moral sea. Too often your content is identical to the commercial outlets that feel obliged to sex up the story in order to sell it. I suspect the 大象传媒 ethical code has been contaminated by employing too many journalists from other less worthy organisations who just don't seem to be able to control themselves. Presenting facts is more important than getting the latest scoop.
Delighted to see you check material is genuine, which is probably impossible for the type of product under discussion. So don't agonise so much in future, we will understand.
Not only you were right not to publish the link (why in the world should you ? Do you link to bomb making instructions in annex to reporting a terrorist attack ?), you should not have given the name of the video. With the name, go direct to Youtube and find the video in, say, 3 seconds. BTW, as of 1st Nov. at 13.50, it's still there.
There are similarities with the issue of the name of the recent 'royal' blackmail victim. Of course one can find the name on the net. That's a totally different situation than having it plastered all over the tabloids (which these days of course include 'The Times', but that's another story).
You were spot on - linking does provide some tacit credibility to a site, however unintentional that is, and in both this case and the selfish person driving at an unsafe speed in Scotland you were correct.
Always publish. The truth, with links and, of course, your own analysis. Free press = free society.
I work for a newspaper and we recently had exactly the same dilemma with regards to Facebook.
A young person died in a car crash and tributes from friends were posted on a Facebook page, on which there were also several pictures.
The family had clearly stated that they did not wish to have any communication with the press about the accident.
We decided not to use the picture - not purely for copyright reasons, but for the moral argument.
Just because the victim posted pictures on the site, it doesn't give us free rein to plunder them and use them for our own means - especially in light of the family's wishes.
It would be the equivalent of us sneaking into someone's bedroom and stealing a picture from their personal photo album - which is clearly wrong on all levels.
No way. I'm a huge supporter of free speech, and particularly the importance of a free press, but in this case posting the link is encouraging people to enjoy the fruits of an illegal act. If you were to report on an antiques-theft ring being broken up by the police, would you finish the report with, "And you can visit Mr. Smith's antiques shop at 34 the High Street"? If you were reporting on video piracy, would you mention that there's a chap selling dodgy DVD's out of his car boot between 10 and 12, Friday mornings on Portobello Road? If you were to decide there was some public-interest reason to do so, I would stand behind your right to make that call, but I think in most cases you'd decide not to.
This case is no different. Reporting, "Somebody has illegally obtained some video footage: you can find it at..." is just the same as 'linking to' a shop where you can buy stolen goods.
Yes - publish it. In the age of instant mass media, web 2.0, and blogs we are fortunate to have many 1st and 3rd party factors available for quick reference when reading a story.
Post the link with an accurate description and warning. Let the reader decide for himself whether or not to view. Anyone with a sound mind would realize the actions in the video are deplorable, and those that view the video would realize the horror which conveys more than words.
When I read a story I want as much information as i can obtain from all angles. I appreciate the information, and can monitor my viewing for myself
All the best - james
The elite loses control again. Good.
On the use of facebook images and content. Does anyone read the guidelines on the site? The copyright issues are right there when you upload your own photos. There are terms and conditions that also pertain to publishing their content elsewhere.
Readers understand meta information. When you face an ethical dilemma and decide not to publish something, simply include a short note at the end of the article saying that the 大象传媒 decided that elements of this story should be withheld because of concerns about/for public safety/legality/good taste/bereaved relatives. Delete as applicable. You then leave the reader to decide whether it's something that they want to pursue.
This has to end, these ludicrous attempts to prosecute people for simply linking to content that might be deemed illegal.
A 'linker' is no different than someone who says to a friend 'if you go down such and such a street at such and such a time you will see prostitues.'
I am talking about the case of a man who was recently arrested and had his website 'https://www.tv-links.co.uk/ taken down becuase the website gave links to TV series on providors such as youtube, google video or daily motion.
Where is the logic in this? What crime has he committed? Why aren't youtube etc being prosecuted rather than the linker?
Its the equivelent of arresting the man who tells his friends where prostitutes ply there trade and allowing the prostitutes themselves to go about there business unhindered.
Total insanity. Whats next? A Witness in a murder trial being sent down for 20 years for telling people about what they saw and the murder himself being let off scot free?
In todays digital era, just about every person has a hand held media capturing device in their pocket, capable of sending an image, video or sound clip to anywhere in the world within seconds. Where this media ends up, and for what use is a problem that will only ever get more complicated. If someone cleverly videos a robbery taking place on their camera phone that leads to an arrest, they are praised - but can this evidence by properly used in court?
It is so, so easy to report on illegal immigrants isolated stories of mistreatment. Look, they are illegal, i.e. criminals. Why doesn't the media concentrate on real issues rather than inflamining racial tensions? But then, never let basic facts get in the way of a printable story................