Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Why are Journalists Sources Protected? Investigative journalism relies on information from individuals. Without confidentiality, many sources would simply not be prepared to supply information. Without protection, the safety of some who provide information may be jeopardised. Others whose lives may not be directly threatened, still face the possibility of sanctions such as loss of their job.
Citation preview
Journalists’ Sources19th November 2015
Why are Journalists Sources Protected?
- Investigative journalism relies on information from individuals.- Without confidentiality, many sources would simply not be prepared
to supply information.- Without protection, the safety of some who provide information may
be jeopardised.- Others whose lives may not be directly threatened, still face the
possibility of sanctions such as loss of their job.
Unesco Research – Laws affecting protection of sources
Africa – Limited protection legislationArabian Region – 6 out of 7 introduced mass surveillance provisionsAsia Pacific – 18 of 24 countries have weakened protectionEurope and North America – 25 out of 38 countries introduced significant changes that weaken protection.Latin America and the Caribbean – 17 out of 20 have introduced new provisions weakening protection.
(UNESCO – World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development: Special Digital Focus 2015)
Whistleblowers – Saints or Sinners?
Sandra Haynes Kirkbright
(www.dailymail.co.uk)
Sandra Haynes Kirkbright
The Protection of the Information Source
Editors Code of Practice:
Clause 14 – ‘Journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential sources of information.’
The case of Nick Martin-Clark
Clifford Mckeown Michael McGoldrick
Shield LawContempt of Court Act 1981 – Section 10
‘No court may require a person to disclose, nor is any person guilty of contempt for refusing to disclose, the source of information contained in a publication for which he is responsible, unless it be established to the satisfaction of the court that disclosure is necessary in the interests of justice or national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime.’
National SecuritySecretary of State for Defence v Guardian Newspapers (1985) – the material itself may not be of importance for national security, but the leaker may be.
Sarah Tisdall
(Picture by Graham Turner)
Interests of JusticeX v Morgan Grampian (1991) – William Goodwin fined £5000Goodwin v UK (1996) – Art 10 breach
Ashworth Security Hospital v MGN Ltd (2002)Mersey NHS Trust v Ackroyd (2006)Mersey Care NHS Trust v Ackroyd (2007)
Legislation allowing seizure of material
Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984Various Official Secrets ActsTerrorism Act 2000Financial Services Act 1986Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005Criminal Justice Act 1987Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
