In this scenario we look at a situation where a journalist is faced with breaking the law in order to gather essential information for informing the public debate.

You are a radio reporter in a maritime city where shipbuilding is a major source of employment and wealth.

The local shipyard has announced 800 job losses on top of 800 announced a few months earlier.

In an effort to save their jobs, 37 workers decide to occupy a gas accommodation platform and a frigate, which are moored in the river adjacent to the shipyard.

Their protest has been going on for almost 14 weeks. Police and pickets surround the gates of the yard and the ramps leading to the occupied vessels.

For more than three months local media has received news releases and statements from the shipyard management, politicians, and from the union representing the occupying workers – but nobody has heard directly from the workers taking the action.

The only contact with them is via handwritten notes which are smuggled off one of the vessels, the gas accommodation platform, by messengers who, under the cover of darkness, dodge the police lines and use ropes to swing over barbed fencing and across the water between the accommodation platform and the shore, and then scramble aboard with the help of the occupying workers.

One morning, speaking live on your radio station, the union representative claims that management has turned off the water supply in an effort to end the occupation.

The representative says conditions on the occupied accommodation platform are bad and that some of the occupying workers are unwell. Their families express concern on your radio station’s morning phone-in. Many are distressed.

You have been reporting events since the start, and one obvious angle not yet covered is what life is like on the occupied platform. You have heard second-hand, but feel it’s important that you see for yourself the living conditions of the striking workers so that you can report the situation accurately.

Your news editor agrees, and it’s decided that you should try to board and interview the men. You know you will be trespassing, and could face legal action, but you go ahead anyway.

You meet union representatives on the quay next to the rig at 2am and, with the help of a rope thrown down by the occupying workers, scramble aboard. You are carrying a small transmitter called a ‘Cubi’ (these are the days before mobile phones were common). You also carry a tape recorder.

For the next few hours you talk to the occupying workers and record interviews. At 11:30am you broadcast live in the mid-morning news and current affairs programme including interviews you had recorded earlier.

After broadcasting your report, your radio station receives a phone call from the shipyard’s management threatening legal action unless you leave the platform immediately. The following day a letter from their lawyers warns against any further attempt to gain access to the vessel and interview the occupying workers.

Questions

• Is it ever right to defy the law in order to gain access to information?
• Should the radio station apologise to the shipyard management for the trespass?
• Should the radio station continue to use the material gathered during the trespass?
• Or should the radio station management instruct reporters to leave the story alone for fear of the shipyard taking legal action?
• Does the editorial motivation to get the whole story replace your duty of care to those whose words you broadcast?
• Is trespassing in order to talk to those occupying the vessel in the public interest?

Suggested responses

As journalists we will frequently face obstacles when news-gathering.

Public relations and communications officers will always be happy to feed you the side of the story that suits their needs. This is their job.

However, it is not always that easy to explore, understand, and articulate those elements of the story that are hidden behind legal barriers.

And, without all the facts, it’s difficult to relay a complete version of events to your audience.

Journalists need to be able to paint the fullest picture possible of what is really happening, without putting themselves, or those they are interviewing, in harm’s way.

In this particular case the decision to trespass in order to talk to the occupying workers face-to-face, and to see first-hand the conditions they were living under, was taken on editorial grounds after careful consideration by senior editorial staff.

Together, they decided the risk of arrest for trespass was worth taking in return for hearing a perspective on a major local news story that, for 14 weeks, had not been told.

One major consideration was whether scrambling on to the occupied rig to hear from the occupying workers was in the public interest.

So it’s important always to refer up to your line manager in all cases where you feel you need to take actions that could be legally dangerous.

Your line manager will need to decide whether the information you hope to gather is in the public interest, and your organisation’s legal team will assess the risk to you and to the company.

Summing up

This text describes a situation where a local shipyard’s significant job losses have led to a 14-week occupation of a gas accommodation platform and frigate by 37 workers. The workers are protesting the job losses, but their voices have been largely unheard, with communication limited to smuggled handwritten notes. A radio reporter, aware of the lack of direct information and concerned about the workers’ well-being (especially after allegations of the water supply being cut off), decides to board the occupied platform to interview them and report on their living conditions. This action, while potentially illegal trespass, is deemed necessary by the reporter and their editor to provide a complete and accurate account of the situation to the public. The text then raises ethical questions about defying the law for information, the station’s responsibility, and the balance between editorial drive and duty of care.

This scenario presents a classic ethical dilemma faced by journalists: the conflict between upholding the law and fulfilling the public’s right to know.

Key elements:

• Public Interest:
  • The shipyard’s job losses have a significant impact on the community, creating a strong public interest in understanding the situation.
  • The workers’ occupation, their conditions, and the alleged management actions all contribute to this public interest.
• Lack of direct information:
  • For months, the public has received information from limited sources (management, politicians, unions).
  • The perspectives of the occupying workforce – the heart of the story – remains unheard.
• Humanitarian concerns:
  • The workers’ alleged lack of water and deteriorating health raise serious humanitarian concerns.
  • These are important considerations which, unless checked cannot be confirmed.
• Journalistic duty:
  • The reporter feels a strong obligation to provide accurate and firsthand information about the workers’ living conditions.
  • This is a local story involving local residents being covered by a local reporter working for a local radio station. The journalist’s role is to inform that audience with accurate and reliable information.
• Legal risk:
  • The reporter and the radio station are aware that boarding the occupied platform constitutes trespassing and could lead to legal action.
  • It is a decision not taken lightly and is the result of the reporter having first ‘referred up’ to ensure that senior editors approved of the action.
• The power of first hand reporting:
  • The first hand reporting allows the public to make a more informed decision.

Analysis:

• The scenario highlights the limitations of relying solely on official sources or press releases. Sometimes, journalists must take risks to uncover the truth and provide a balanced perspective.
• The reporter’s decision to board the platform, while legally questionable, is driven by a desire to fulfil the core journalistic function of informing the public.
• The use of a hidden transmitter and tape recorder emphasises the need for journalists to be resourceful and innovative in gathering information.
• The reaction from the shipyard management shows the tension between the press and powerful organisations.
• The fact that the information was broadcast live, shows the urgency of the situation.
• The use of the radio phone in by the families, shows the power of the radio medium to give a voice to those who would not normally have one.

Issues:

• Ethical considerations:
  • This scenario forces us to consider the ethical boundaries of journalism.
  • Is it ever justifiable to break the law in the pursuit of truth?
  • How does one balance the public’s right to know with legal obligations?
• The importance of unbiased reporting:
  • The scenario underscores the importance of seeking out diverse perspectives and avoiding reliance on biased (or one-sided) sources.
  • Multiple perspectives are important when covering any news story.
• The role of journalism in holding power accountable:
  • By exposing the workers’ living conditions and the alleged management actions, the reporter is acting as a watchdog, holding those in power accountable.
  • This is a fundamental role of journalism.
• The power of radio:
  • In a time before wide spread mobile phone usage, radio was a powerful tool in getting information out to the public.

This scenario presents a complex ethical and legal dilemma faced by a journalist. The reporter’s decision to break the law is driven by a strong sense of public duty and a desire to provide accurate and firsthand information. The scenario highlights the importance of unbiased reporting, the ethical considerations involved in journalism, and the role of the media in holding power accountable. It also shows the power of radio as a medium for communicating information quickly and efficiently.

The post Trespass and journalism – scenario first appeared on Media Helping Media.

A local newspaper reporter has been assigned the task of monitoring licensing applications.

Their job, as set out by the news editor, is to check the weekly list of new applications submitted to the local council, contact the licensing department in order to find out the details, and then write a report.

Such stories usually cover premises wanting temporary permission to serve alcohol, existing premises wanting to stay open longer, or premises applying for a change of use.

The articles are meant to be simple, public information reports written to a formula.

They typically set out what has been applied for, include why the application has been made, and explain how anyone with concerns can register them.

While going through the latest licensing applications the reporter finds that a local pub has applied for a licensing extension which would allow it to remain open until the early hours of the morning.

The reporter copies the exact wording of the application and adds the text to the article. They then walk past the pub to take an exterior photograph.

The proprietor sees the reporter taking the photograph and asks them what they are doing. The reporter explains, and asks the proprietor to confirm the opening hours extension application.

The proprietor says it’s to meet ‘local demand’. He then admits that there will be some objections to the plans, but urges the reporter to add some “positive spin” to the report and offers to buy him a pint and lunch in the pub.

The reporter rejects the kind offer of refreshments – as is the newspaper’s policy – and returns to the office where he writes an article along the following lines (the name of the pub and location have been altered) …

The Jolly Boozer applies for a licence extension

The recently reopened Jolly Boozer on High Street, Sleepinghyde, wants to extend opening hours to 2am on Fridays and Saturdays and half midnight the rest of the week.

The pub’s proprietor says the change is aimed at meeting local demand.

Anyone concerned about the increase in opening hours has until Friday 21 March to make their representations.

The reporter then includes:

• the details of the application taken from the local authority’s official listing
• a quote from the proprietor about why they have applied for the extension
• and a paragraph about the public’s right to response.

The article is checked by the news editor, signed off by the editor, and published.

The next day, after the newspaper is published, the proprietor of the pub contacts the editor threatening legal action and claiming that the reporter had been involved in “coaxing negative representations” to the licensing office.

The proprietor demands an end to the “negative campaigning” against his business and calls for an article to be published in the newspaper to include the “positive spin” he had given the reporter about the extension application.

The editor calls the reporter into her office. The reporter denies any coaxing or campaigning, and explains that they were simply following normal procedure using a format used by the newspaper for all planning applications.

The editor agrees and calls the proprietor back explaining that she is satisfied that the article if fair, accurate, and in line with normal procedure.

The proprietor is not happy and accuses the reporter of being involved in a personal crusade to attack the business and says the matter has now been passed on to the company’s lawyers.

What should the editor and reporter do?

Should they:

1. Publish a new story including “positive spin’ in line with the proprietor request while leaving out the part which explains how people can make ‘representations’ against the pub’s licensing extension application.
2. Take advice from the news organisation’s lawyers.
3. Stand firm, refuse to be bullied, and reject the demand for a follow-up article.

Suggested answer

A mixture of options 2 & 3.

In any situation where you are threatened with legal action you should first talk to your line-manager. You may also want to talk to the news organisation’s lawyers just to be sure. However, you will probably find that their advice is to refuse to be bullied.

In the case above the reporter has done nothing wrong. Their article is a straight piece of public information reporting. It follows a format used by the newspaper for many years. Those living close to pub need to know what the pub is planning. They deserve the chance to make representations if they are unhappy. It is part of the role of a local news organisation to share such information.

There will often be those who try to limit media freedom for their own ends by making legal threats. Their hope is that the journalist will become frightened and comply with their demands. But you must never be influenced by demands for “positive spin” or by false accusations of ‘coaxing’ or ‘campaigning’.

Always refer up and, if legal action is threatened you should seek advice from your news organisation’s lawyers.

Summing up

A local newspaper reporter, following standard procedure, wrote a factual article about a pub’s application for a licensing extension, including details of the application, the proprietor’s reasoning, and how the public could register concerns. Following publication, the proprietor threatened legal action, accusing the reporter of negative campaigning and demanding a “positive spin” article. The editor, after confirming the reporter followed established journalistic practices, should stand firm against the proprietor’s demands, refusing to be bullied or publish biased content, while also consulting the news organisation’s lawyers for guidance on handling the legal threat and to make them aware of the unfolding situation.

This scenario powerfully illustrates the crucial role of local journalism in upholding transparency and public access to information, while also highlighting the pressures journalists face from those seeking to control the narrative.

Analysis:

• The core function of local journalism:
  • The reporter’s task underscores the essential function of local news in disseminating public information regarding planning and licensing applications. This ensures citizens are aware of changes that might affect their community.
  • The “formulaic” nature of the reports is vital for consistency and impartiality, preventing bias from creeping into the information provided.
• The importance of impartiality and accuracy:
  • The reporter’s adherence to factual reporting, using the official application details and a direct quote, demonstrates journalistic integrity.
  • Refusing the proprietor’s offer of “positive spin” and free refreshments upholds ethical standards and prevents conflicts of interest.
• The threat of “positive spin” and censorship:
  • The proprietor’s demand for “positive spin” reveals a desire to manipulate public perception and suppress potential objections. This is a direct attack on the public’s right to know.
  • The attempt to silence the reporter by accusing them of “coaxing negative representations” is a classic tactic used to intimidate journalists and discourage scrutiny.
• Legal threats as a tool of intimidation:
  • The proprietor’s threat of legal action is a common tactic used to silence journalists and discourage critical reporting.
  • It highlights the importance of news organisations having strong legal support to protect their journalists and uphold freedom of the press.
• The editor’s role in protecting journalistic integrity:
  • The editor’s support of the reporter and refusal to be bullied demonstrates the crucial role of editors in defending journalistic principles.
  • Her decision to stand firm and reject the proprietor’s demands reinforces the importance of upholding accuracy and impartiality.
• Public right to know vs. private interests:
  • This scenario presents a clear conflict between the public’s right to know and a private business’s desire to control its public image.
  • The reporter’s actions prioritise the public interest by providing accurate and unbiased information, enabling citizens to participate in the democratic process.
• The importance of the provided answer:
  • The suggested answer of a mixture of taking legal advice, and standing firm, is the correct action.
  • It is important that a news organisation does not bow to pressure from those who wish to manipulate the news.
  • It is also important that any legal threat is taken seriously, and that legal advice is sought.

In essence, this scenario is a microcosm of the ongoing struggle to maintain a free and independent press. It underscores the importance of:

• Upholding journalistic ethics and standards.
• Resisting attempts to manipulate or suppress information.
• Protecting the public’s right to know.
• Supporting local journalism.

The post Legal threats – scenario first appeared on Media Helping Media.