Lead Sussex Police story - including geo-code map

Woman charged with Lewes stabbings is remanded in custody

Rose Spanswick, 59, of Hawkenbury Way, Lewes, has been remanded in custody by Lewes Magistrates' Court this morning (24 November) after being charged with two counts of GBH with intent and one of aggravated burglary with intent.

The charges followed an attack on a couple in their 70s in their home in Hawkenbury Way on Monday afternoon (November 22).

She entered no plea at the hearing this morning and is due to appear at Lewes Crown Court on 5 February.
http://www.sussex.police.uk/news-and-events/news/2010/11/24/woman-charged-with-lewes-stabbings-is-remanded-in-custody

Online News

The BBC were coming under a lot of criticism today in our seminar because of the effect they are having on the online news industry. Some argue that they are a broadcast medium and they should stick to that. I don't agree, since the web is a platform for multimedia and can serve online videos  and audio the same benefits of immediacy, convenience and consumer selectivity about what we choose to consume, that it offers to print media.

The issue of fairness is a valid point though. How can other news outlets compete with the BBC, given that it is publicly funded? Various experiments have been underway to try and make online news generate revenue.

Online advertising is one way - an area that has seen phenomenal growth in recent years at the expense of other mediums (like newspapers). As we discussed however, newspapers do not dominate the web and the lion share (60%) of online ad spend is taken by Google. As of yet online is yet to make up for the loss of earnings from print.

Rupert Murdoch has created a pay wall for the Times - an experiment which has performed badly according to his latest figures released in the week. So what is the answer and will other organizations ever be able to compete with the BBC? If not, will it lead to the death of big news corporations as we know it?

Dr An suggested that maybe in the future we may see a time when you are charged by your ISP to your internet bill for visiting certain sites, or you may get subscriptions to certain online services (such as news) as part of your monthly deal.

Whatever the future holds, it's fairly safe to assume that no one has the answer at this point. As was stated in our readings, we are living though a technological revolution at the moment and with that brings a great deal of uncertainty.

Freelance Journalism & Marketing

John Jenkins came to speak with our group last week about earning a living through freelance journalism. He was very encouraging and gave us numerous examples of students he has worked with in the past who have made money before they have even qualified.

In many respects the emphasis is on the marketing more than the writing. We went over the rights we have over any material and to make sure we don't agree to exclusive deals that would shut out other potential markets. It's possible to sell the same article again and again globally. If you can provide pictures you can also generate more income.

Since our session last week I've contacted Heat magazine and The Big Issue with feature ideas. Twice the Heat email as been returned due to the recipient inbox being full. Pretty unprofessional but no surprises there. It's easy to get sucked in by the glossy pages of magazines, in my experience behind closed doors things aren't always as polished as they might seem.

In the current climate freelance work could prove your bread and butter and as John Jenkins said, give you that extra boot of confidence when you are in employment.

Privacy laws - A threat to press freedom?

The subject of privacy was discussed today in relation to the Human Rights' Act and the PCC Code. Article 8 of the Human Rights' Act states that everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, his home and his correspondence. There is a similar clause in the PCC code. The counterbalance of Article 8 is Article 10 - Freedom of Expression and the "get out of jail card" that is Public Interest.

We watched the News of the World video clip of Max Mosley's S&M orgy followed by the Panorama program "The End of Kiss and Tell" which looked at some of the most high profile privacy law suits.

The privacy laws have been dubbed the new libel because you don't need to prove it's not true - only that it is private.

The concern is that the privacy laws are now threatening the freedom of the press. Journalists and media owners are going to have to think much more carefully about certain investigative work before deciding to publish or even pursue a story.

Media lawyers are already known for exercising too much caution internally, contributing in part to the "dumbing down" of the press. Media owners don't want to risk getting sued and loosing - being forced to pay out large lumps of money. The threat has been made worse by many "no win no fee" lawyers who charge extortionate fees that the media owners have to pick up.

What was interesting in the Panorama program was the case of the MP Mark Oaten who was exposed as having an affair with a male prostitute (he is married). Mark Oaten said that despite the huge embarrassment he still valued the freedom of the press:

"I concluded that actually, however awful it may be, it is better to have a press which can expose MPs' private lives because it means we have a free press…it means we can expose corruption."

I agree with Mr Oaten. The scandal of Max Mosley however,  I consider purely entertainment.  I don't agree that it's in a public interest to know what he gets up to in his sex life.

Like many people, I just hope some of these high profile privacy cases don't hinder "serious" journalism in the future.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_8095000/8095258.stm

Developing a patch - local reporting

A former newspaper  Editor / reporter came to see us today. He was giving advice on how to build up your contacts and to cultivate your patch. It strikes me as no different to developing my patch when I worked for Archant as a Senior Display Field Sales exec. I used to speak to all the same types of people within the community, bar perhaps the police. All the principles are the same, making people feel relaxed, probing them for information, looking for an angle (in this case a story, previously it was a hook to sell them into the mag), not relying on them to call you and staying organized by keeping up to date records. 

I'd like to think if anything - it's an easier job from a reporter point of view since nobody likes a sales man on first encounters! It often took months before someone would "let you in" and start opening up to you about their business and their thoughts on the magazine etc. In my role at Archant I was also the "ears and eyes" within the community for the Editor. Quite often I would speak to potential clients about editorial ideas way before I dropped the question about how they marketed themselves. 

Due to commuting from London I've not been able to put much time into my Kemp town patch. I've been around the area a few times, people are definitely more friendly in Brighton than I've experienced in London.

Court Reporting - America V's England???

Should our jury system change towards an American system? This is where the media are free to report on "active" trials.

In my opinion it seriously hinders what we refer to as "a fair trial" in this country. There are already far too many instances of innocent people being convicted of crimes they didn't do and of many criminals walking free. Anything that increases the risk of either of those eventualities should be steered well clear of.

The only benefit would be to the media owners who could enjoy the heightened media frenzies and subsequent increased profits. The OJ Simpson trial is the most prominent example of this, followed by the 19 year old English nanny who was accused of killing the baby she was looking after.

In the case of the nanny, part of the reason she was convicted was that she hadn't shown enough emotion, which divided public opinion. It is crossing the boundaries between justice being served and entertainment. Nor would the American system stand up to a "public interest" argument.

Someone mentioned that a system whereby the pubic voted would be good. I think that is also highly risky, as it would leave those on trial potentially open to prejudice or bias dependent on potential factors such as their race, religion, gender and appearance (far more if Joe public was sat in the judgment seat!)

The challenge for the contempt laws in this country as we know it is that as a result of the internet anything is available. This questions the fair jury concept. Again though, there is a difference between pro-active information seeking and passive information receiving through mass media channels, which can be almost impossible to avoid.

The American system may be great for media revenue but it would be at the cost to justice, which is priceless!

Contempt of Court Act & Power of the Media?

As part of our NCTJ qualification we are looking at areas of media law and restrictions on reporting. We’ve been looking at the Contempt of Court Act which states that a journalist must not report on anything that poses a serious risk of prejudice (bad character references, language of guilt, witness statements…..anything that may influence a jury).

The media however, do not always fully abide by the Contempt of Court Act, since they know that at particularly points in the case they can get away with a more casual approach to the rules, often relying on the argument of the “fade factor”. This was well documented in the case involving the Kray Twins. Their lawyer argued they wouldn’t be able to get a fair trial due to adverse media coverage – this was over-ruled by a judge who said: “I have enough confidence in my fellow countrymen to think that they have got the newspapers sized up. The public’s recollection is short, and secondly, that the drama of a trial almost always has the effect of excluding from recollection that which went before.”

More recently in an article written in the Times in December 2006, a journalist called Magnus Linklater, quite rightly pointed out the coverage of the Sussex strangler suspects had been breaking all the rules of the Contempt of Court Act. What was interesting is that he speculated that the reason that no one had come down on the press was due to the Government not wanting to damage relations with the media at a time when it needed their co-operation so badly.

He wrote: “A more likely reason for Lord Goldsmith’s silence is that he is unwilling to challenge the power of the media at a delicate time. They are allies in a larger war- against international terrorism – and the last thing he wants is to clamp down on them just at the point where their voice is needed to keep the public on the alert.”

This raised a question in class that we didn’t really have time to elaborate on: “Is the media more powerful than the government?” This is an age old question and definitely has a lot of grey areas. Although much of the news is controlled, much of this is down to the way the government manages it’s relationship with the media, as opposed to an act of dominant power. For much of the time the media is seen to co-operate and in some ways controlled by the government.   

In the same instance however, it could be argued that the media are just lulling the government into a false sense of security, playing the game until they have whatever ammunition needed to launch an attack. Classic examples include the Watergate scandal, Murdoch’s on and off allegiance with the conservative party and the leaked documents about the war in Afghanistan that have just surfaced due to Wikileaks.

In truth the relationship is certainly not black and white, more of a slippery marriage of love and hate and make up and break up, both wearing the trousers from time to time. Ultimately only one side can be the main bread winner and my vote is the media. We also can’t overlook the rise in citizen journalism and the use of the internet, that further add weight to this argument.