Legal and Ethical considerations when working in the Creative Media Sectors

Legal Considerations

Within the media , there are 3 main legal laws/acts that producers must follow. These laws consist of: Libel Law, Copyright /Intellectual laws and Privacy laws. Laws are written, approved and enforced by the government. If a law is broken a series of consequences can occur. The 3 legal acts are: Health and Safety Act  , Obscene Publications Act 1959 and the Official Secrets Act 1989 . An act is also covered by legal and the act is in place as a guideline. If this guideline is broken then it could come into the other laws. Overall, breaking an act only means you will be fined as a producer.

If a producer fails to meet the law then the producer could be fined and court cases /police arrests may occur as a result. Producers will often also be fired from their job and may well be no longer accepted in the industry. This if often controlled by a judge in a hearing of your punishment/ fining. It is important that these acts and laws are followed to not only protect the audience; but to also protect those who produce the program or film. 

(Image from)

Privacy Law

The privacy law is a set regulation that allows a person by right to be left alone, this means that people can live their lives without being scrutinized by being inspect/examined , by the public.
The privacy laws are defined as the right of the individual to determine when, how, and to what extent the person will reveal personal information. The only expectation to this is the government recording the situation to provide evidence to whether a crime has been committed or not. Which helps prove whether the person is guilty or incident. 

This can affect the production of your work in a series of ways. You must consider the content you're publishing when talking about people, you cannot tell people private information if someone is holding it back. If you do reveal information you must get clearance from the person involved before you do so. You must not snoop into peoples lives and try and get information out of them if they refrain from giving it to you. You must also not get information in illegal ways, such as hacking computers and phone calls. Most importantly, you must inform the person involved that what your recording is for a specific purpose, I.E an interview. Your right to privacy comes under the Human Right Act.

(Image from: http://images.ischoolguide.com/data/images/full/374/jennifer-lawrence.jpg)

There have been many cases of when privacy laws have been broken. The most recent example that illustrates this is the Icloud  hacking scandal; which released several nude photos of Jennifer Lawrence online. Whilst many people enjoyed this event, it personally affect Jennifer Lawrence who didn't make a statement for a couple of days. In her statement she states :  “I was just so afraid. I didn't know how this would affect my career.” Although there was no direct punishment to apples system as there services were hacked. Many twitter users got into legal troubles for re-posting the images after they were initially took down. Such as their accounts being removed and fined for the re sharing. This also applied to the website Reddit, after the images were took down; a series of users re uploaded the images. These images were shared and downloaded by millions; the post was then shut down and punishment was awarded to the uploader. Although many people lace over this event, Jennifer Lawrence still feels the effects to this day. There is no reason to why somebodies privacy should be exposed and means that this law applies to everyone, including celebrities.

Another prime example of when privacy laws have been broken, was the News of The World royal phone hacking scandal. This occurred  between 2005-2007 around the hacking of voice mails relating the royal family by a private investigator. On the 13th of November an article appeared in the News of The World claiming that Prince William was in the process of loaning a portable editing suite from  ITV royal correspondent, Tom Brady . After the story was publish, the two met and tried to figure out how the story was published as they had not spoken to the press. They concluded it was found out by listening in to their voice mails. This caused a mass investigation by the government and lead to 3 mean being arrested. Two men Goodman and Mulcaire were charged with hacking under offence of of section 79 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers act 2000. Goodman faced 4 months in jail after admitting he was guilty. This was the prelude to a massive scandal in the News of The World, where they hacked into a murdered girls phone to find out what had happened. Which ultimately lead to the paper being shut down.

(Image from)

The closure of the News of the World was a massive event that occurred due to a series of phone hacking scandals. Instead of reporters going and asking the people involved face to face, out of fear they would not reveal personally information. Instead they would tap into phone calls and listen to their voice mails in order to get a "Juicy" story. The scandal start a while back with the two men we looked at previously, which was 4-5 years before the closure of the paper.

Although this all kicked off in early 2010, when the Royal hacking trial from 2006 was reinvestigated , this investigation was entitled "Operation Weeting". Which began to hint at the idea that there was attempts to pay public officials for information and a new series of computer hacking cases. Furthermore, the biggest turning point in the lead up to the shut down was when the Guardian, reported that TNOTW had hacked the phone belonging to a murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler. In which they did so to try and get more information about the case, as she was abducted on the way home from school. On the 21st of March 2002 and was murdered as a result. Her body was only discovered in September which is 6 months after the abduction. It turned out that TNOTW had hacked her voicemail whilst she was missing.

(Image from)

Not only did the scandal focus on the public, it focused on: politicians, celebrities, actors, sports players and the victims who were in the 7/7 bombings. 8 people from the company were charged with phone hacking. Charlotte Church was also one of the victims, who had 33 voicemails articles based on information gathered from her parents voicemails being hacked. As compensation, her and her family received £60,000. 

(Image from)

 Another person who was targeted was Hugh Grant, he was told by the police that his personal details were found under an investigation. It included a recorded voice phone conversation between him and Paul Mcmullan, who use to be an editor. It was state by Grant, that McMullan had talked about hacking by the media, and was told that the Mail on Sunday had hacked his phone. All of this, along with many other victims caused the ultimate closure of the News of The World.

(Image from)

Although, several people were still not happy about the closure. Such as Ed Miliband who states:

"What I'm interested in is not closing down newspapers, I'm interested in those who were responsible being brought to justice and those who have responsibility for the running of that newspaper taking their responsibility and I don't think those two things have happened today." As although the paper was closed, those who published the stories and were involved in the phone hack did not all face justice. Another person, Ken Clarke (Tory MP) states:  "All they are going to do is rebrand it". (According to the BBC).

This sums up perfectly why company's have to be very careful what they publish, as they can break several laws by the content they release. Ranging from court-cases, to arrests and leading to a shut down of a company.

Libel Law

The libel law is broken when someone publishes in print/ or broadcasts (Through TV, Radio or Film) ; something that is incorrect and may cause damage to a person's reputations. This may also bring the disapproval and hatred of the public who will then target said person. The print/broadcast must be in a statement format that claims to be 100% true/ a fact and is not an opinion. Social media often comes into this as a status update or tweet could possibly be libellous if it causes damage to somebodies reputation.  This can cause the organisation to be open to a lawsuit for damages by victim who can prove the statement is wrong.As as producer it could affect your work in a series of ways.

(Image From)

You must consider the content you publish, it is about somebody make sure your facts are correct before you go an make presumptions. You must also make sure that if you are not sure on the facts make your point into an opinion and not a fact; to avoid breaking the law.  The editor must also be careful on how others are presented, if the edit makes a scenario become out of context the person may well speak out publicly about it.  Last of all, your should follow the guide lines set and should not cause encouragement on social networks. There has been several scenarios where the libel law has been broken.

Lord Mcalpine

(Image from)

Lord McAlpine, Robert Alistair McAlpine was a British politician who was an adviser to previous Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. He was born on May the 14th in 1942 and died in early 2014 at the age of 71.

In 2012, Mcalpine was involved in a libel law feud as it was alleged he was a peadophile and a child abuser. This feud began in 2012 when Mcalpine was said to be involved in a North Wales child abuse scandal, which the BBC Newsnight claimed was a "Senior Conservative; although no names were mentioned several rumours began and Mcalpines name started to appear on social networking. Although the people who were commissioned to write the story were not aiming to name McAlpine the guardians states: "they were not pursuing new evidence against Lord McAlpine, nor did they intend to name him. The goal was to look at the failings of previous police investigations and the supposed failure of an official inquiry into the scandal " 

(Image from)

It occurred after a debate in the Oxford Union, people there were Michael Crick who was Channel 4's political correspondent and  Iain Overton BIJ's editor amongst others. Overton began to boast about how Newsnight was about to expose a senior Tory as a pedophile. Crick pushed Overton who revealed the name as Lord McAlpine. Overton took to social media and tweeted  "If all goes well we've got a Newsnight out tonight about a very senior political figure who is a pedophile."

The final statement made on the show was "A Newsnight investigation into the abuse of boys at children's homes in Wales can reveal that two victims say they suffered sexual abuse at the hands of a leading Conservative politician from the Thatcher years." The day after the broadcast the Guardian news paper denied the rumors and made clear that McAlpine was a victim of mistaken identity ,although they didn't reveal his name. A week after McAlpine went on to say that the victim , Messham , was mistaken and the allegations were false.  This was confirmed by Messham after seeing a photo of McAlpine and stated he was not the abuser. As a result of this the director general,George Entwistle , resigned and the BBC paid £185,000 in damages. Which means that we as a UK citizen were fined as we publicly fund the BBC. 

Not only were the BBC fined, but ITV also. As "This Morning" presenter Phillip Schofield handed a list of alleged peadohiles to David Cameron who was being interviewed at the time. But the list was a name of rumoured names that came from the internet. It was said that some of the names on the list could be seen when viewers pressed the live pause button.

Although, this story had only come out after the Newsnight broadcast. If this programme hadn't made the story out to the public then the matter would of never escalated. ITV, Schofield and McAlpine settled the libel claim and apologised and paid £125,000 in damage costs. McAlpine then went on to focus on "high profile"/ celebrity tweeters who had broke the libel law. One celebrity who paid a fine was Alan Davis, who is a regular on the panel show QI.

(Image from)

After the BBC broadcast Alan Davis tweeted "Any clues who this Tory paedophile is...?". After this he received a series of links to websites and tweet saying "lord mcalpine some would say." The reason Davis was pulled over was because he retweeted the reply. Because of his status, this meant that it had a great influence over the public which made them believe even more that McAlpine was the culprit. Prior to this, Alan Davis apologised for the "Great damage and distress" he caused to him. To make amends he paid  £13,000 to the NSPCC to which McAlpine accepted his apology. He also warned others of the dangers of retweeting.

Any other tweeters over 500 followers were also fined. As anyone with under 500 followers doesn't affect the public as much with thier posts ; whereas celebrities tweets/comments have more viewers that causes a greater influence.

Ofcom heard the complaints by viewers of the BBC and ITV. They ruled that the claims made during internet speculation led to the false claim of McAlpine being a child abuser. Not only does this show a great example of the libel law being broken, but shows how easily it is to break. So when I come to produce content in my career, I will be careful and stick to the law. 

Social Media 

 As we saw in the previous example, libel laws can be broken on social networking. In this next example social networking is also the cause of the libel law being broken. In 2007 Keele University told students : "They could face legal action from staff for defamation and harassment". In fact “A number of students have already been written to by the university warning them of the unacceptable nature of their comments on Facebook and that any further activity of a similar nature will be dealt with severely,” Although the university is putting a policy in place as legal action may not be the best route to go down.  

(Image from)

In a separate case a former teacher (I will leave names out of this, for names see links) sued an ex-pupil over libel claims after making comments on Friends Reunited which was an early social network site. He was given £1,250 in libel damages as the pupil made comments such as " ______ was dismissed from Ridgewood Comprehensive for making rude remarks about girls" and comments relating to strangling a pupil. Although the comments where removed when Murray could prove he was innocent as he retired in 1983 and was not fired whatsoever.

Other Cases

(Image from)

Author and blogger Zoe Margolis won a libel case after newspaper company, The Independent, called her a "hooker" in one of their headlines. The headline was created by the paper after she wrote the article. Her articles and books often revolve around her sex life. The headline claims "I was a hooker who became an agony aunt". After the error the Independent published an apology they state "The wording of the headline was a mistake and seriously defamatory of Ms Margolis. We offer our sincere apologies to Ms Margolis for the damage to her reputation and the distress and embarrassment which she has suffered." Zoe accounts at the time that "It was devastating: within moments of the article going live, news alerts on my name were aligning my writing, and my career, with sex work. " Not only does it reveal that breaking the libel law can be really damaging to a person, but the number of those who see the claim is often a large amount of people who add to the ridicule. Which further builds upon to how libel law can affect a media production. Most importantly, before publishing any content I will check that the information is correct and will not cause damage to those involved; unless they are actually guilty. 

Copyright and Intellectual Property Law 

Copyright is a legal document/right that protects the creators work from being plagiarized by others. Copyright allows the creators to do what they like with their work and receive money for their content. This means only the creator can use the work, so if anything was copyright such as music or video footage I could not use it in my work. For example for a short film I wanted to use some music from YouTube, I would not be legally allowed to do so as the work is not created by myself. Anything that is protected under copyright displays the following symbol:

(Image from:)

In short, intellectual property is something that is original to you, for instance you physically created some thing. An I.P is not an idea but your creation written or in a physical form. Copyright is a type of intellectual property that protects your creation. By being informed on what your rights are and you have the right protection you can stop people from stealing your creation, invention, design, trade secrets or any of your written work. 

(Image from)

After all the law was created to protect a wide variety of content produced by: authors, artists, musicians, film makers and inventors. Which is controlled by a federal law, but the state may also get involved. It is used to encourage content producers  to continue to create original ideas without others plaguing their work. Other things such as trademarks protect noticeable features of a product such as a brand name or packing design.

(Image from)

As a producer I will make sure all my productions use original content , that is not others work. If their work is used I would make sure I ask for permission before use, after using it I would also credit the original  artist giving them full credit. To get permission I would make sure I got a verbal and written clearance, and any product placements will be placed with a P (see ethical section for more).  If the content producer wants a fee for their work being used, I will understand their needs and pay the sum if I want to 100% use their content. If I go to use public domain content I will make sure that it falls into this category before use; again any creative commons footage will be doubled check for permission and fees. Although there has been times when producers have broken the copyright and intellectual law: 

BuzzFeed 

Social media website BuzzFeed, which is an internet news company , was sued for $3.6 million/ £2.3 million. The lawsuit came from a photographer who's photo of a women heading a football was used without his permission. Not only was it used on BuzzFeed's website, but over websites that used the photo after it had been on the website. The image is not very interesting and was deemed as boring by the media; here is the photo:

(Image from)

BuzzFeed not only was sued for the lawsuit they also took down the photo which was part of a "30 Funniest Header Faces" which after being removed turned into "29 Funniest Header Faces". The image was found on over 30 different websites after the photographer searched the web ; after being angry that BuzzFeed had used his photo. The photographer states that BuzzFeed is : "unequivocally responsible both directly and indirectly for all subsequent infringements" 

(Image from)

The photographer wanted BuzzFeed to pay him $150,000 in damage fees for each of the sites that went on to use his picture. He then also demanded for $150,000 for contributory infringement. He also states:"It is time for creatives to stand up and say 'This is enough'. We work hard at our crafts and others should not be able to profit from our talents without compensating us."

(Image from)

The founder reacted by saying that the photos used in these are used in fair use, as each image is reproduced exactly as they are and in high quality. Which means  in short that he though  if the original is kept the same and hardly has a description, then they are allowed to use it. Although the photographer thinks that sharing is fine as long as the right actions are put into place. If BuzzFeed had asked for permission first then this case would never have occurred. It also shows how much money it can cost a business when it breaks the law. So as a producer I will always check the permissions before using copyrighted photographs or products; which will stop any law suits from occurring.  I would also credit anyone, if I used their work in my program/content. 

Apple VS Samsung

Since the creation of smartphones, mobile giants Apple and Samsung have been battled several copyright and intellectual  cases over the design and features of their products. When the first iPhone was brought out Apple filed a patent for 4 designs. Which would cover the basic shape and dimensions of the iPhone. There was also graphical interfaces , layout on a smart phone screen, that were patented. These are often used to use against Samsung when Apple claims they have broken the copyright and intellectual property  law. In 2011 Apple put in a complaint that state that Samsung s Android devices such as phones and tablets broke Apples intellectual property.

(Image from)

In a German court, Apple was also trying to sue Samsung for using a similar design  and interface as there well known Ipads. In this case Apple won and has kept the ban on selling the new Galaxy Tab 10.1. Justice Johanna Brueckner-Hofmann stated that "The court is of the opinion that Apple's minimalistic design isn't the only technical solution to make a tablet computer, other designs are possible, " Apple also made the comment that Samsung's is stealing the look and the feel of the Iphone and Ipad with their Galaxy range of products.

(Image from)

Another trial held in the US had Apple claim that Samsung had violated/broken 4 patents. Although the jury present only saw 2 patents being broke. One was to let users make calls from within an email and the auto-complete/correct function. The other 2 claims were one was the slide to unlock, which the judge deemed guilty in the trial and for Samsung innocent; for violating a patent similar to Apples voice command feature Siri. Apple was given $119.6 million pounds in damage for this, but they did not stop Samsung from selling the device in the USA. Although it was also convicted that Samsung had two of its patents broken, one of them was agreed and they were paid $158,000 in damages.

(Image from)

Trails like these still go on today and both sides have won cases. The main thing to take away from this is that  time and money is being wasted, breaking a copyright and intellectually property. As staff from both company's will have to attend the court session, Jury and court staff will also be required. Each trial can take up to 2-5 days long to reach a settlement and there are often many trials. There is at least 10 countries that have hosted these trials and is a global war. So as a producer I would be very careful to what I create, so that a war would not start like this. The best way to do this, is to create original content and to copy ideas from present productions.

Health & Safety Act

This act applies to all work in the media industry in the UK. .Under the health and safety act a producer must provide and maintain safety equipment and safe systems of work. All devices must be stored , handled, transported and used properly. You must also have a system for managing health and safety, define the responsibilities and duties, assess and manage risks and review the risks before and after.

Define the responiblites and duties means that the producer puts up a system so the the employees can control the risk to others and themselves. The system for health and safety normally depends on the size of the company and cannot be delageted to anyone else apart from the employeer. To make sure that safety is kept you must: provide a safe working enviroment where equipment is checked and maintains its safety features, provide information, training and supervision in the work place, look after the safety of others and to take care of your own health. We also must manage the possible risk in an area; in order to manage the risks producers will use a risk assessment, but what is a risk assessment?

Risk Assessment 

A risk assessment is document that highlights the risks, dangers and precautions before filming commences. Each risk is given a severity rating which ranges from Negligible- Very Severe,  a likelihood rating  ranging from very unlikely- very likely. These factors then combine to create a risk factor  up to 5.  A rating 5 means that immediate action is needed. This process makes production safer as it sets up the plans to remove risks that could be potentially dangerous.It is often a requirement in order to receive insurance and can prevent companies from various law suits if an accident occurs on set. These risks are then further assessed on the day of filming and is kept in mind during shooting.

According to the HSE website, The producer/production company must " produce a written health and safety policy statement, including an arrangements section, including the procedures for risk assessment and monitoring of performance"  they must also " ensure that any concerns with the health and safety performance of employees, freelance staff and are addressed and communicated as appropriate" The main way the companies deal with this is by producing the risk assessment. Which underlines all the possible risks at the location and how they are dealt with, which reassures any questions the staff have. It also contributes to the written health and safety policy, so in terms the risk assessment is a legal document and the company could be at fault if they do not have one. The assessment is in place to not only protect a presenter or actor but to protect everyone involved in the production.

(Image From: )

My own Risk Assessment

For instance as a young film maker for every film I created I will need a risk assessment. In my one minute film I had several stunts and scenes which could of caused extreme risk. By producing a risk assessment it means that I can prepare for the worse and reduce the level of risk present. As a result of this no one was harmed in my production. Which not only made it a success in health wise, but also in money wise. As I've something had happened it would be my fault as a producer if I didn't have a risk assessment. Which could cause me to lose my job, face a law suit and a potential court case. Although there has been causes where the health and safety should of been improved. This risks must also ne reviewed before and after to see if the correct precautions have been made. Overall a risk assessment is done to protect everyone involved in the production and to avoid possible law suits.

For instance if we take the show "Game of Thrones" there are a series of dangers that could harm the cast and crew. Lets take a look at a scene and I will break down the possible dangers:

For a start the whole scene is based around combat. Because the actors are not trainned proffesionals it is more that likely that these are stunt doubles; although the danges are still there. If the fight scene isn't well praticed or tried that people can still get hurt. They are also wearing heavy and warm armour, which could mean the actors could over heat. In order to do this they would need to have lots of breaks and cooling systems between takes. The location also offers lots of tripping hazards such as rocks and uneven ground; combined with height if the two occur somebody may fall off the ground. Which would cause serious damage. There is also the risk to the camera man as all he can see is whats through the lenses, not whats around him.

The show is also known for having horses and other animals in there scenes, so animal trainners and handlers would be needed on set. One to protect the animals themselves, but two so the actors known how to horse ride in the correct and safe manner. Another risk that also poses a danger is open flames as the main source of light is candles and lanterns so any flamable materials will need to be kept away from them. This is why risk assessments are put into place to avoid the danger to the cast and crew.There has been many examples where health and safety has not been up to scratch:

The Conqueror

A prime of example of where the safety precautions weren't though through were on the film "The Conqueror" . When filming on location in near Utah , 91 out of the 220 cast and crew managed to contract cancer. Including the main lead, John Wayne.  There wasn't a full explanation but nearby there had been US atom bomb tests in Nevada and could of been the source of radiation. If the location had been checked properly the 46 that had died, could of lived. 

(Image from: http://www.oddee.com/item_96604.aspx)

The Dark Knight

Another incident relating to poor risk assessing, occurred during the filming of "The Dark Knight". Special effects technician, Conway Wickliffe died after sitting in the back of a Nissan when the car crashed into a tree at 20mph. At the time he was operating a camera out of the window, filming a stunt car which was opposite the Nissan. The collision with the tree was due to the fact the driver had missed the turn at the end. "Instead of turning on to the service road it carried on and I saw it impact the tree. It appeared to be a glancing blow." - Ian Mitchell , colleague of Conway.

If the driver had followed the risk assessment and knew what he was doing by practicing the shoot, then a live could of been saved. A vital live lesson is to actual use the risk assessment during production and not just completing the document for the sake of doing one.

(Image from)

Deadly 60

In the second series of the CBBC TV show Deadly 60  , a wildlife documentary aimed for children;  host Steve Backshall was injured during filming. Whilst out looking for the the dangerous snake, the anaconda. After coming across a bog, he finds something moving so he unmounts his horse and inspects the area.  He cannot see through the murky water so he does not know what is hidden underneath. His foot comes across something so he keeps tapping it, only to find it is a Caiman ,  a type of crocodile/alligator.

As he a result he was bitten in the leg and had to cancel the rest of the hunt. He had the right treatment afterwards so he didn't get his leg infected. Although this could of easily been prevented if he was wearing the right protection, in this case it would of been leg protection. He shouldn't of also kept hitting the object under ground as he could not see what it is, another thing that could of been done was to inscpet the area for what wild life is around. So he could of been aware a Caiman was around.

Anthea Turner

During  a live broadcast of the children TV show "UP2U" Andrea Turner was involved in a pyrotechnic accident. Turner was doing a piece down in Londons Earl Court for the show. She was going to present a piece about a motorbike display, and would reveal the bikes when she gave the right cue. She was sat on the tail gate of a lorry, which had a backing of black paper which the bikes where hidden behind.

When the cue was given the bikes would emerge. Although the controller had mixed up the cue for Turner to speak and told the bikers to leave. This all happened whislt she was still sat down. This was down to a last minute change which had not been explained very well. Viewers saw life what happened to Turner but someone stepped in to say she was ok. The injuries she received came from when the biker had knocked her into a pyrotechnic; which set fire to her hair and her clothing. She had then fell off the tail gate as a result. This could of been avoid if the last minute check was explained and the stunt was praticed. As if they had practised then the people involved would of knew the cue and the mix up would not of happened.  

Official Secrets Act 1989

(Image from)

This act means that people are legally obliged to maintain secrecy; even if there is a public interest defence you are not allowed to publish to content.  This applies to all employees in government, including the armed forces and civil services. This covers the disclosure of information and if this act is broken it can have serious consequences; depending on the type of secrets disclosed. A person found guilty of breaking the act may be convicted to jail for 2 years/more or  a fine or both. The act came into place to replaced the official secret act of 1911. It sums up that any one with official information who discloses it without lawful consent. The type of information that is covered is:

• Security 
• Defence
• International Relations
• Foreign Confidences 
• Information of Crimes

Official information means that the person has received any information,article or document during their role in their job. As a producer I would make sure that the content I release is public information and is not under the official secrets act.  To do this I would check the history of my staff, so they do not reveal any content from their previous jobs. That may well come under the act. I would also check with the authorities to make sure that the information is given to go to be released; if not I will not publish the content. There has been many cases by Ex's SAS members and other people have broken this act:

Edward Snowdon

(Image from)

Edward Snowden is an American who is a proffesioanl in computers. In June 2013 he leaked secret information relating to the National Security Agency. His jobs have ranged from being a system administrator in the CIA to being a counterintelligence trainer at the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency. He was put in a NSA outpost in Japan for the firm Booz Allen Hamilton.  In 2013 he released infromation from the NSA to several outlets, which he gained access to from his NSA past.  The information was a series of leaked documents from vairous global surveillance programs; which most of them being run by the NSA and various telephone compaies ran by over goverments.

(Image from)

Snowdon became a figure of conteoversy as the information he revelaed was for the public intrest; although as we saw earlier this till breaks the law. His leaks also caused big debates over mass surveillance and the balance between the security of the nation and the information privacy. In the May of 2013 Snowden started to notice the goverment programs used by the NSA spying on Americans phone calls and internet histroy. So he began to opy the documents at work, with some coming under a program called PRISM. Which was the documents with all the vast information on the things Snowden began to notice.

(Image from)

After leaving his job he flew to Hong Kong to meet with journalists to get the documents printed. He would remain in China during the early stages of the reveal. On the 5th of June newspapers (Guardian in particluar) released the docuemtns given from Snowden.  The Washington Times also released the information on PRISM the US goverment were split between the choice of finding out more about it or arresting Snowden. Snowden stated "I'm willing to sacrifice [my former life] because I can't in good conscience allow the U.S. government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they're secretly building,".

(Image from)

On June the 14th 2013, he was filed with a criminal complaint which charged him with goverment theft andtwo counts of breaking the US espionage act. The charges could of made him be in jail for at least ten years for each charge (which was 3).Snowden remain in hiding for a while afterwards and tried different countys, asking for Asylum. It was reported that Snowden was offered asylum in Venzezuel.Nicaragua and Bolivia.  In the October of 2013 is was made clear that he no longer had the leaked documents on him. When asked for mercy, the U.S goverment rejected him. Snowden currently resides in Russia.

Richard Tomlinson 

(Image from)

Was a previous MI6 officer who was sentenced to pirson for a year in 1997, for giving away confidnetal secrets to an Australain publisher.  At the court case the chief prosecution witness, claimed that Tomlinson "had gravely damaged national security" and "had put agents' lives at risk". After 6 months in jail he was sent back to his native homeland, New Zealand. It was also attempted to be arrested in Paris in 1998 but was released as there was a lack of evidence. In order to stop Tomlinson breaking the act even more, an injunction was placed on him.

(Image from)

After living in exile, he start to work towards a book called "The Big Breach" which was realeased in most countrys but the UK in 2001. Although was made avaible in the UK after failed attempts at blocking it. Although after the publication of the the UK goverment created an order to remove all proffit created from the book, as the content belonged to the goverment. It took 7 years until MI6 released the procceds to Tomlinson. Tomlinson is now free to travel in the UK. For some more examples of shorter cases check out the link. Such as:

Cathy Massiter

As the former MI5 officer told Channel 4 , in a documentart, that MI5 had been illegally putting bugging devices on phones of politicians, human right protesters and groups of people for the campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

Obscene Publications Act 1959 

The overall concept of the obscene publications act is to not publish any content which may 'deprave and corrupt, those who read/see it. Things such as torture, child abuse , violence and beastiality may come under the corruptible and depraved description. It is one of the acts used to strengthen the law against pornography and to strengthen previous laws for preventing the publication of obscene products (portrayal of sexul content). Which is normal deemed offensive or disgusting by accepted public standards.

(Image from)

 
The act was first introduced to fix problems where obscene legislation could be applied to literature. The purpose was to clarify the laws and "provide protection of literature". To break the act the work as a whole must corrupt and deprive the audience. Although in part of the act works such as science, literature and art became exempt; and the act did not apply to them. Although the act was made to cover the works of literature, it was brought across that the BBFC (British Board of Film Censor) was covering the same areas as the act. So the act also put films under the act as well as books/literature. As a result of this any BBFC-approved film has never been pulled up for being too obscene or corruptible. This was act was improved in the year 1964. The BBFC is a film board that is a non governmental organisation responsible for the national classification (of film/video game ratings) and censorship for film in the UK. 

(Image from)

The main thing to note is that a film as a whole must be deemed as corruptible and depraved and not scenes on their own. Meaning they can not be judged out of context of the film. A film labelled obscene is allowed to be shown if " it is in the interests of science, art, literature, or learning or of other objects of general concern".

(Image from)

As a producer I will chose to avoid having whole films focus on sexual nature that is deemed as obscene, depraved or corruptible. To do this I would get my film approved by the BFFC before public release and I would also watch the content to make sure if its appropriate. To do this things such as screening tests could be used ; if the overall content is not appropriate I may consider scrapping the content or editing the production in a way which no longer approves of the corruptible content.In the a previous year the BBFC issued 1,159 films with an age rating of 18, 27%  of the total 1,159 , which is 313 films rounded up, required cuts.There has been many occasions where films have broken the obscene publications act:

Human Centipede 2

(Image from)

The sequel to the first Human Centipede, which featured a large chain people being stitched mouth to anus to create a large "Human Centipede",  was banned by the BBFC as it was "just too horrible to show" and "poses a real risk to cinemagoears".  They denied the film to have an 18 certificate because of its obscene content. The affect of this meant that it could not legally be supplied to anyone or anywhere in the United Kingdom. The film focus's on a man who becomes sexually interested in the first event and wants to try the idea for himself. Which is already a red light as it is promoting horrible events of torture and corruption. 

Some of the scenes involve rape, which is inflicted by the male to a women on the end of the centipede whilst his privates are covered in barbed wire. The BBFC sums up the film as the "sexual arousal of the central character at both the idea and the spectacle of the total degradation, humiliation, mutilation, torture and murder of his naked victims". The decision was made that not only would it not get the certificate but also that no amount of cuts would make the film better. This was done by the BFFC to prevent the film from breaking the act as it has very good chances of doing so. If the BBFC hadn't have stepped in then this film could of had a huge , negative, impact on the audience. 

 This film was also banned in Australia for a while and in New Zealand; but after some thought and 32 cuts were made the film was given its 18 certificate in the UK. Which removed 2 minutes and 37 seconds from the original film. For a full list of scenes that were cut check out the link here (at your own expense): link.

A Clockwork Orange 

After the release ,of Stanley Kubrick's 1971 "A Clockwork Orange" a series of violent crimes relating to murder and horrific activities occurred. As a result the film  Kubrick took the film out of cinemas in 1973 and stated that it may only been seen after his death. In order for a British person to view the film you would have to buy a VHS from another country. In 1993 a cinema club in London screened the film without Kubrick's permission so Warner Bros sued them and caused them to become bankrupt.  After his death in 1999 the film was re classified from a rating of an 18 by the BBFC. The film was brought back out in cinemas in 2000 and was brought out on DVD and VHS later that year. So the film wasn't available for the years between 1973 and 1999.

(Image from)

The series of crimes included a 16 year old boy murdering a tramp, another 16 year old who dressed like a gang member from the film stabbed a younger boy. The last one, was gang rape which involved a Dutch girl and a group of males from Lancashire who sang "Singin' in the Rain" whilst doing so. When the one of the 16 year old males was sentenced the judge described it as a "horrid trend ' caused by "this wretched film". Kubrick received death threats for this and got warned by the police to do something. So as a result it was kept from UK cinemas like we looked at earlier.

(Image from)

This didn't have a good effect though, as when it was released again it led to another spree of crimes. The most known one was by the "Clockwork Orange" gang.  This was were a gang of youths were found guilty for killing a bar manager. Which was why the film was deemed that the movie inspired a copycat behaviour due to the films overall content. Which is why this example comes underneath the obscene publication act.  Another film that was also band was the The New York Ripper from the years 1982-2002.  Which to this day is still censored for its content.

Summary

Overall, in this section we have look at the acts and laws that affect the world of media. Not only are these laws to protect the audience, but the creator and the producer. If any of these acts or laws are broken serious consequences can occur. From the arresting of those involved, to fines, to court cases, to closing of a company and your reputation as a producer.  Which highlights the importance of why we have laws and acts in the first place, everyone is treated fairly in these circumstances. The examples we looked at  further illuminate this statement. 

Ethics 

Ethics and law are very different. The main difference is that ethics is not a legal matter and is not the law. Ethics is a rule of conduct and responsibility that a producer must stick to. Ethics involves what is right,equitable,fair,dutiful and responsible. If you break an ethic code , often set up by the company's guidelines , that you will be made to act with disapproval from other colleagues and your place of work. Therefore, it is your duty as a producer to take ethical considerations seriously and into account when creating products for media.  To reduce the risk of breaking a code of conduct, you must make sure your are working within "social norms"; what the generally public think is accepted. 

(Image from)

The sort of ethical considerations you must take into account are:

• Not causing anyone harm or offence - A key point is to not target minors (those who are under 18) as they are not of age to be mocked and ridiculed. These means in my products I cannot make aim to cause harm/offence to anyone.

• Respectful of people’s sensitivities - Things such as those who have been involved with alcohol problems may take offence. As the story line maybe unbelievable and causes stereotypes to alcoholics that are not true.  So in my productions, I will have to take other peoples view points into consideration and not just my own.

• Language/violence/sex - Some viewers may not wish to see this on TV or film, so warnings are often put at the start of programmes to make the audience aware. This means my productions cannot be overly violent, use constant vulgar language or constant sex scenes. Unless a warning is put in place, which will reduce my programmes target audience. 

• Product placement - Programs that feature placed products must display the P symbol (See chapter 1 for more details). As without it the audience can be psychologically tricked into buying a product. This is unethical because it is similar to brainwashing, the audience may not want the product but are being forced by the perception on the TV show. So the P tells the audience that they may be trying to sell them something in the programme. This means I cannot misuse the trust of a viewer in my products.

• Stereotypes  - The stereotyping of people must be true and cannot portray a situation/group of people in an absurd way. So when trying to make a statement from my view point, I will have to be sensitive in the way in which people and events are set up to be like in my production.

• Representations - People and subject matters must all be represented in the same way. If the show was a reality show, everyone must be treated the same and in a fair way .As you cannot favour some over others.

(Image from)

So if I wanted to create any media product, I would have to make sure I take into account of these considerations, all of which affect my product (See above). Otherwise,if you break an ethical code, the result will often be that you are fired. This will cause you to get a reputation and depending on the severity, you may not be allowed back into the industry. The company may also receive a fine and those also involved in the production may be fired; such as presenters or editors.  

Although in some roles in media, by taking ethical risks it can often create profit. If you were working as an editor of a newspaper, your job is to make money by selling papers. Sometimes in certain situations you can generate a piece, which will get papers selling.

For instance, a well known celebrity has just had a baby. As a producer I could either send a group of photographers to wait outside her house for photos; or I could wait a while until the celebrity has settled back down into her life. Things such as emphasising extremely thin and unhealthy bodies for women in the media is conisded unethical. Although, here is no right or wrong to this and is often why ethics can be difficult to deal with. To help stick to ethics, a series of broadcasting/guidelines where introduced:

Ofcom - Broadcasting Code

(Image from)

Ofcom/Office of communications is a communications regulator in the UK. They regulate TV,Radio,Phone Lines,Mobiles,Postal Services and the communications of wireless devices. They operate from a series of Acts of Parliament and must act within the legislation. They are funded by fess from the industry and has a grant-aid from the government. They main legal duties are to "ensure:

• the UK has a wide range of electronic communications services, including high-speed services such as broadband;
• a wide range of high-quality television and radio programmes are provided, appealing to a range of tastes and interests;
• television and radio services are provided by a range of different organisations;
• people who watch television and listen to the radio are protected from harmful or offensive material;
• people are protected from being treated unfairly in television and radio programmes, and from having their privacy invaded;
• a universal postal service is provided in the UK - this means a six days a week, universally priced delivery and collection service across the country; and
• the radio spectrum (the airwaves used by everyone from taxi firms and boat owners, to mobile-phone companies and broadcasters) is used in the most effective way."

Although they are nor responsible for regulating: arguments between you and a communications provider, mobile phone text services and ringtones, content of adverts, complaints of accuracy in BBC programmes,the BBC license fee,poster offices or newspapers and magazines. Through this they have set up a broadcasters code , which professional bodies like the BBC and Channel 4 follow. The code is a rulebook for which any TV or Radio station must follow and sets rules for programs and broadcasters. It was created to protect audiences and listeners from harmful and offensive content, whilst producers/broadcasters have the freedom to make challenging programmes. In fact, Ofcom covers nine key areas:

•Protecting the under-eighteen's
•Harm and offence
•Crime
•Religion
•Due impartiality
•Elections and referendums
•Fairness
•Privacy
•Commercial references in TV programming

If we look at Privacy for example, there are 7 rules a producer must follow. For instance rule 8:22 states "Practice to follow 8.22 Persons under the age of sixteen and vulnerable

people.A child of five has a very different view and understanding of the world around it than a 15

year old teenager has. Questions need to be appropriate to both age and development

whether the child or young person is taking part in a factual programme or an entertainment

programme.Care must be taken to not to prompt children and that they should be allowed to speak for

themselves. Questioning that is likely to cause distress should be kept to a minimum. " 

(Image from)

Rules like these are regular brought up to broadcasters as they are told:“Broadcasters are reminded of the legislative background that has informed the rules, of the principles that apply to each section, the meanings given by Ofcom and of the guidance issued by Ofcom, all of which may be relevant in interpreting and applying the Code. No rule should be read in isolation but within the context of the whole Code including the headings, cross references and other linking text.” Which means that each rule is significant and can link to other sections of the code as well. Which highlights to the broadcaster that you need to stick to code carefully.

Although, a company may broadcast some explicit/pornographic material, even if some find it offensive. Although, it needs to be proved it was justified in the edit, the audience were told and they are given the right information. The code also follows areas such as impartiality,accuracy, sponsorship, product placement, privacy and fairness. The code has a huge section dedicated to protecting minors. Such as the 9pm watershed slot on TV, timing of programmes, age restrictions due to violence,sex and swearing; or any material which may influence children to copy the events.

(Image from)

When an audience complains about a programme, Ofcom will check the report against the code. If the programme breaches the code, they write a decision/recording of the breach. The result of the breach is then published on the website, under Broadcast Bulletin. If a broadcaster commits a serious offence, Ofcom has the legal right to impose consequences. Which can include fines, or removed the permit from the company. Removing the permit means they are no longer legally allowed to broadcast material.

We will now look at some guidelines by professional bodies such as the BBC and Channel 4. A professional body must: do the right things, work for the public's benefit, have moral values and judgements, have a high professionalism, follow rules and guidelines, provide guidance and have a professional duty. We will look the BBC producer guidelines first.

 BBC Producer's Guidelines

The BBC puts the audience first and listens to their opinions, whilst producing good quality content. They respect the privacy of the audience and do not make the details of the public widely available/ available at all. They need to be fair with the audience and not make rash decisions, they must also not cause offence to the audience. Last of all, one of the main responsibilities is to protect the audience from harm. To maintain these responsibilities, the BBC put into place some guidelines they must follow, along with Ofcom on top. Here are the BBC guidelines from the previous link:

       —1.2.1 Trust – independent, impartial and honest
—1.2.2 Truth and Accuracy
—1.2.3 Impartiality – fair and open minded
—1.2.4 Editorial Integrity and Independence – decisions not influenced by outside sources
—1.2.5 Harm and Offence – to protect our audiences from this
—1.2.6 Serving the Public Interest – the truth
—1.2.7 Fairness – fairness, openness and honesty
—1.2.8 Privacy – respect privacy
—1.2.9 Children - safeguarding
—1.2.10 Transparency – be transparent and let our audiences make informed decisions
—1.2.11 Accountability - be fair and open with our audiences
—1.3.1 Royal Charter
—1.3.2 - "to ensure that controversial subjects are treated with due accuracy and impartiality"
—1.3.3 - Forbids any BBC service funded by the licence fee or grant-in-aid from carrying advertising or sponsored prgrogrammes.

(Image from)

Channel 4 Producers Guidelines 

Like the BBC, Channel 4 also have a producers handbook so they do not break the boundaries of ethics. The hand book is a useful guide so the program makers and online producers making content for Channel 4 editing staff, can do so without upsetting the audience. The handbook covers the main areas of the law that apply to the making and broadcasting of TV programs featured on Channel 4 and their website. All producers are told that all staff/themselves must read the guide and understand them before producing content.

(Image from)

The guide has 10 sections that make up the producer handbook they include:

1.Factual Programme Guidelines
2.Competition Guidelines
3.Secret Filming Guidelines 

4.Fair Dealing Guidelines
5.Hostile Filming Guidelines
6.Live Programme Guidelines
7.Producer Data Protection & Security Guidelines
8.Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) Guidelines
9.Working and Filming with Under 18’s Guidelines

10.Viewer Trust Guidelines

For example if we look at section 10, Channel 4 have to do the following. Never stage, construct or re-enact scenarios and pass them off as real and original content. They must not mislead the viewers which would break the viewer trust. They have to provide a duty to their audience, whilst being honest, open and trustworthy. I will now look at another section and see how it would affect the content I produce. Out of the 10 sections, lets look at how as a producer I would need to set up the right documents and protocols for a secret filming TV program. Which comes under the section "Secret Filming"

(Image from)

SECRET FILMING - Code of Conduct

Using the channel 4 producer guidelines, I will now list all the things I would need to do as a producer for secret filming. The secret filming must be done in public and in sight of other people. Every camera you use must have a detailed diary of what has been shot on that day. They must agree on a cover story before they start to film. A new camera operator must have checks done on them before hand. This must be approved by Channel 4 in advance in writing before and after the filming/ before broadcast. The written report must be detailed. 

They must consider the proposals of section 8:13 and must be relevant to the program. There must also be talks with the editor and a lawyer about what you are doing.  An adequate logging system for secret filming must be provided. The date of time of filming, the place and what was filmed with who needs to be in this system. Other things such as the time the company received the program and the date of when it was viewed by producers. 

(Image from)

The guidelines are put in place to stop people from being misrepresented, to protect those making/starring in the show. To set up a legal system so people are no being punished for minor events. To create challenging content that causes no offense and harm to those who watch.



Since both of the companies follow Ofcom, they can receive the following punishment: an order not to repeat a program, charge the company with a fine, suspended/shorten a broadcasting license and a maximum fine of 1/4 of a million pounds/ £250,000. The only differences between the two is that Channel 4 adversities/places products in programs and the BBC does not and that the decisions made are not influenced by other sources.

Reality TV  - Code of Conduct

(Image from)

Apart from these guidelines, show formats may have to follow their own code of conduct for instance, lets look at the C.O.C for a reality TV show format:

• Aftercare and counselling – up three months afterwards participants must be allowed to seek professional help if needed.

• Limits on alcohol – will not use footage of people drunk/over the limit. 

• Minors - no children under 18, to help protect minors.

• Medical care – qualified physicians and first aiders must be on site.

• Sleep requirements – 6 hours of pure sleep must be allowed 5/7 days a week.

• Limits and isolation – able to speak to family and friends once a week for 10 minutes.

• Background checks – full background checks 10 years prior to filming this will cover medical history and criminal history.

• Damage to reputation- participants who feel they have been misrepresented can appeal to an external company for assistance.

• Incapacity -  happens to a participant then no footage will be shown without permission from the persons family.

Although these guidelines and regulatory bodies have been put in place, products can still break ethics and cause action to be taken. Although this reality guideline has been broken before.

(Image from)

In the reality TV show Big Brother they let a contestant on who had a record with mental illnesses, Nikki Grahame. During her teenage years she was in psychiatric care and at the age of 12 was in a coma after trying to attempt suicide. Stories about her life were published by papers when she was on the show; in which Big Brother was told off for allowing a contestant on with a history of mental health issues. As not only is she in a confined space for a period of time, but with strangers whilst the outside world gets to watch every move she makes.  This could of been done to a fault such as not checking her background history, or the shows producers could of allowed her in any way. The sorts of illness she faced was eating disorders, mainly anorexia. Although she faced no troubles during her time on the show, something could of easily gone wrong. But the whole scenario is another example of the sorts of things you need to challenge as a producer. As what you see as ok, may seem wrong and irresponsible to others; but there are no right or wrongs.

We will now look at 4 cases, where the ethics of the program/content have been challenged/ some cases fined.

Frankie Boyle

Frankie Boyle caused controversy after one of the jokes, he made on his Channel 4 programme "Frankie Boyle's Tramadol Nights" ; In this episode he had an audience of 1 million. The following clip , above, shows Boyle performing the jokes that targeted Katie Price and her son. On the show Boyle said: "Apparently Jordan and Peter Andre are fighting each other over custody of Harvey, well eventually one of them'll lose and have to keep him." he then added: "I have a theory that Jordan married a cage fighter (Her partner at the time, Alex Reid) cause she needed someone strong enough to stop Harvey from f******' her."

(Image from)

Although  I didn't find the comments offensive myself, this was considered unethical in a series of way. With the main one being that Boyle targeted a minor, as Harvey Price was only 8 at the time and has done nothing to make him a victim. This also meant Boyle was not aware of peoples sensitivities, as he was making a joke about the boys disability; which may also offend various others who have a condition that may be watching. And overall, the jokes were seen to cause harm and offence, mainly to Katie Price and her family.

As a result, 500 viewers complained to Ofcom, with one of those being Price herself. With her comments being ,that the jokes were 'discriminatory, offensive, demeaning and humiliating'. Ofcom themselves stated that Boyle's comments " directly target and mock the mental and physical disabilities of a known eight-year-old child who had not himself chosen to be in the public eye”.

(Image from)

Ofcom ruled the content to be under violation of the broadcasting code, but no serious sanction occurred; and let Boyle off with a light telling off. This meant that neither the show or Channel 4 had to give an apology, put a warning at the start of the show or pay a fine. Which lead Price to state:

"'While I am pleased that Ofcom have ruled against Channel 4 and I understand that they consider this ruling itself to be a sanction against the broadcaster, I am amazed that Ofcom have not required, at the least, an apology to be broadcast.

So in my content, I will have to be careful to what is said. As I cannot target one person, one of the reasons Boyle may have been let of as he is a comedian, Who targets everyone for his gags and not just a select few. Although, my content wont be well known, so any comments made will have to stick to the guidelines of my production company and Ofcoms broadcasting code. 

Sachsgate

The following clip is from the radio broadcast of the Russell Brand Show , featuring Johnathon Ross. The clip was prerecorded and was released on the 18th of October 2008, which was a Saturday. The broadcast came under controversy after the contents of the broadcast were deemed unsuitable, and has the potential to cause harm and offence. This was because the pair, Russel and Ross, were going to interview actor Andrew Sachs (Famous for Manwell in Fawlty Towers). Although after being unable to contact Sachs, as he was busy else where, they decided to leave a series of messages on his answer phone.

Instead of being polite and respectful comments left on the machine, it was quite the opposite. They not only targeted Sachs for mockery but his granddaughter, Georgina Baillie who was a member of the group Satanic Sluts at the time. Comments left ranged from "I had a go on his daughter" from Brand who had a relationship with Baillie in the past, to "He f****** your granddaughter... I'm sorry I apologise. Andrew, I apologise, I got excited, what can I say - it just came out." which was said by Ross. Over comments that ranged from a series of 4 messages left were She was bent over the couch...", Ross and then Brand burst out into a song of mockery with lyrics including "I said some things I didn't of oughta, like I had sex with your granddaughter...". There was also insults towards Sachs himself with comments like "I’m sorry Mr Fawlty, I’m sorry, they’re a waste of space" ,“You only ever played Manuel . . . ” Yes! We’ll just sing to him and ‘Hello, Manuel is not in right now. Leave your message after the tone.’ For a full transcript check out the link here.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/02/08/article-2554398-028D4550000005DC-897_634x388.jpg

As a result Georgina and Andrew were left shocked and offended as there relationship could of been jeopardized after hearing the broadcast. Baillie states in an interview that "After the [prank] phone call, Russell and Jonathan [Ross] left me a voicemail immediately. It was Russell saying, "Erm, I've just left a voice mail on your granddad's phone. I think you should break into his house and destroy his answering machine." and" I got a call from my granddad, after [the broadcast] had gone out, saying, "It's awful, I'm going to make a complaint to the BBC." " and this was her response when asked about the last time she and her granddad spoke, "Quite a long time ago. Time needs to go by before I can face my family. My grandparents are from a different generation. Things that are acceptable, or almost acceptable, to me are not acceptable to them, so it's going to be difficult for a while."

(Image from)

There was a total of 37,500 complaints to the BBC but, there was only 2 straight after the broadcast aired. This was due to an article in the Mail on Sunday a corporate brand, which tried to point holes in the BBC so those who are against the state system could make a point. There was also a string of criticism from various figures including Gordon Brown who states it was "clearly inappropriate and unacceptable". As a result Ofcom were involved and found that they breach 3 rules:

• Rule 2.1 – generally accepted standards must be applied to programmes 
• Rule 2.3 – offensive material must be justified by the context 
• Rule 8.1 – the ‘standard’ requiring adequate protection for members of the public from unwarranted infringements of privacy 

For breaking both 2.1 and 2.3 a total of £70,000 per fine was given and an £80,000 fine for breaching rule 8.1. Which due to being part of the public state funding came straight out of the general public's pocket. Which got viewers/Brits furious, which seriously let down the BBC as a whole. Not only were there fines they also had to produce a list of high risk programmes, so this doesn't happen again. Russel Brand also quit his show whilst Jonathon Ross was suspended for 12 weeks without pay. Lesley Douglas, Radio 2's head of compliance, also resigned. Ross was not heard on radio again, until recently when he stepped in for a show one week. 

(Image from)

This broadcast also allowed viewers to point out flaws in the programme and the BBC. If the programme was pre recorded, why did no one listen through the content to make sure it was suitable for air? They should of also got more than one person to listen, as everyone has different tolerances when it comes to humor. Also, because it was prerecorded they could of arranged another interview which would of avoided all the chaos. They could of also cut the content after the first message was left, instead of adding insult to injury by playing all 4 messages. Ross had stated that he only wanted to broadcast to go live if both Sachs and Baillie gave permission, yet the BBC had not been able to communicate properly and thought they had the green light. When in fact, neither of them gave permission. 

(Image from)

Although the presenters had said sorry, it took several days/weeks before the BBC actually gave an apologetic statement. Last of all, if the BBC had put in the correct guidelines then this case would never of happened. So as a producer of my own content, this highlights why it is important to stick to the guidelines given. So my presenters, myself and the viewers are not ethically harmed and that my production does not get controversy or fined as a result. For a full time line of events, check out the link here.

Dapper Laughs

(Image from)

The comedian, Daniel O'Reilly also know as Dapper Laughs was made to cancel his tour, character resignation and did not get a second series of his TV show; due to controversial statements. As ITV decided to axe the show "Dapper Laughs: On The Pull" after a series of petitions against the comedian. In the show the aim was to get men to get with women for the aim of "procreation" , which women thought was down grading and offensive. For an example of his content check out the video below:

Which such lines in the programme being: "Just show her your penis. If she cries, she’s just playing hard to get” and “If she’s looking at me and playing with her hair, by the end of the night she’ll need a wheelchair”. There was also an incident where the comedian said a women was "Gagging for a rape" and later tweeted "Remember, it's only sexual harassment if she's more attractive than you". For a clip of the incident, check out the video link here. Last of all, there was also an incident on one of his albums singles where he states a homeless man "stinks of s***"

The call came to axe the show when an online petition had over 60,000 signatures to end it now. O'Reilly also stated "Dapper Laughs is gone"; which is no longer true as in December 2014 he brought back the character. It is also interesting that before the petition was involved, Ofcom received 37 complaints from viewers that found it degrading to women and thought about a formal investigation.  ITV also had 29 complaints which foreshadowed the events of the cancellation. So in my productions I will need to be very careful on the way I use my language; and do not push it to the extremes by using themes such as rape. Otherwise, I will gain an unwanted reputation and could have the risk of my content being cancelled by the favoring of the public and the TV company. 

Phone Hacking & The iCloud Hacking 

(Image from)

Although we looked at these examples in the first part of the guide, they can also be used as ethic examples. As those who were apart of the iCloud hacking could feel violated and offended that they have been targeted, such as Jennifer Lawrence who we looked at earlier. In extreme cases, in a recent snapchat leak thousands of teenagers pictures were released which is causing harm and offence to minors. It could also could harm and offence to the family of those involved, as they are disgusted by the item that one of  there relatives has been targeted and violated. The details released could also be very personal and disrespectful to the persons sensitivities. I.E if a celebrity is struggling with an alcohol problem they will not want it all over the news.

Although there was jail time for phone hacking, there was no direct punishment for the hacking of the iCloud. Which means justice has not been served to those involved, and who may well still feel violated by the event. Which no person should ever have to deal with in their lives. Which is why we put in place the guidelines and laws to protect people as a whole. 

Extra

Human Rights Act

(Image from)

Human rights guarantees anyone and everyone the basic rights that are considered necessary for a free and happy life. As humans we have the following rights:

—Right to life
—Prohibition of torture
—Prohibition of slavery and forced labour
—Right to liberty and security
—Right to a fair trial
—No punishment without law
—Right to respect for private and family life
—Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
—Freedom of expression
—Freedom of assembly and association
—Right to marry
—Prohibition of discrimination
—Protection of property
—Right to education
—Right to free elections
—Abolition of the death penalty

End of Chapter