During my time studying Journalism, I have found learning about the aspects of media law to be one of the most interesting. I quickly leaned that it often brings up fierce debates between freedom of speech and the public right to privacy.
Looking on the Press Gazette website, I came across a very recent case that was dealt with by the Press Complaints Commission (PCC).
The PCC has censured the Bristol Evening Post for intruding on the funeral of a suicide victim. The paper published a story with the headline "Farewell to our darling son" alongside images of mourners attending the cremation of Mark Cattermole.
The mother of the deceased filed the complaint against the newspaper, claiming that on the day of the funeral a photographer was "hiding in the bushes outside the crematorium" and had to be asked to leave.
However, the newspaper told the PCC that "cremations were public events and the photographer HAD behaved in a sensitive manner."
They also said that "out of respect, he had decided to remain between the main gate and the chapel, and was shielded from mourners by a hedge. He was not ‘hiding' in the bushes."
The ruling by the PCC went in favour of the family and it stated that the paper’s behaviour was not appropriate in this context.
Factors of the child's age, the way he died and the fact that the paper wasn't able to prove they paid appropriate regard to the feelings of the family all contributed to the final decision by the PCC.
However it also said that "newspapers have an important role to play in the reporting of tragic events, which it did not wish unduly to restrict."
This brings up an interesting debate.
Although the ruling by the PCC went again them, the newspaper WAS operating entirely with the law and so it can be argued that the journalist was well within her right to take and publish the photos.
However some would argue that any journalist, operating within the law or not, has no right to publish pictures of a grieving family at a funeral.
A key factor in this case was that the publication didn't get consent from the family before filming, had it taken these steps the ruling may have been very different.
It is also important to remember that whether the paper SHOULD have taken the pictures down to moral reasons is an entirely new debate.
0 comments:
Post a Comment