Rupert Murdoch vs Facebook: Round 1!

Considering the success of Facebook it's unsurprising that it keeps popping up in the news, as it's such a large part of people's lives, editors know they can instantly connect with a larger audience by mentioning it. Potentially all eleven million UK Facebook users could be effected and pick up the paper to find out more.

The big tabloid story of the day is a seventeen year old girl who was allegedly kidnapped and murdered by a man she met on Facebook. The Daily Mail, Daily Mirror and the Sun all led with it, the story is a natural progression from the chat room pedophile scares that arguably became a moral panic earlier this decade.

The Sun has taken it a step further by plastering the Facebook logo on the front page and is stronger for it. The striking blue, recognisable logo stands out amongst the red tops and is sure to draw more eyes. Rupert Murdoch is notorious for taking an active role in the editorial process of his papers whenever the fancy takes him, and being the owner of Facebook's biggest rival Myspace I'm sure he took the opportunity to stick the knife in.

The connotations of placing 'Facebook' right before 'Sex Killer' are pretty clear. The only way they could have made the implication that the social networking site is directly responsible for her death stronger would be by inserting the words 'is a' in there too.

To be honest I'm surprised there hasn't been a social network witch hunt already, it's absolutely perfect moral panic material: it's popular, successful and lots of grumpy old people don't understand it. The Mary Whitehouse brigade must be napping.

When Murdoch attacks, he never does so half heartily and journalism is often his medium of choice. I think we'll see many more column inches on the subject this week.

Miscarriages of Justice, the Guildford Four and Innocence Network UK

In October 1975 Paul Hill, Gerald Conlon, Patrick Armstrong and Carole Richardson were convicted of murder and other charges and given life sentences. It would be 15 years before the convictions were successfully appealed and their innocence admitted.

For our final year project, instead of a standard dissertation, journalism students in my year at Winchester university will be starting an Innocence Project. We will be taking on cases like the Guildford Four in an attempt to find new evidence that might help the accused win an appeal.



The Guildford Four were tried and convicted of two pub bombings in a time of political tension surrounding Ireland and the IRA. The conviction remained upheld despite new evidence coming forward. A witness provided an alibi for Carole Richardson that was collaborated by photographic evidence, but the prosecution developed a dubious possible sequence of events by which Richardson could have been traveled at high speed across town to still commit the bombing. Soon after, four confirmed IRA members were caught and convicted for other bombings but confessed to the Guildford bombings too. This too was dismissed as a conspiracy to release the Guildford Four. It finally took evidence that the police had doctored notes used in court to cause the judges to rethink the case.

Along with the case of the Birmingham Six it was a shocking reminder to the public that our criminal justice system is fallible. It also raised many questions about police procedure and put doubts in many minds as to the honesty and integrity of the police service in the 1970's. There were accusations that the police used beatings, intimidation and threats against family and friends to illicit confessions from the accused. These confessions were central to the prosecution's cases and in the Guildford Four trial was essentially the entire case after the other evidence was called into question.

If these convictions were wrong, how many other people could be falsely imprisoned right now?

It was because these high profile court rulings were quashed that the government created the CCRC (Criminal Cases Review Commission), an organisation with the intention of reviewing cases with possible grounds to appeal. According to the CCRC's website as of 30th September 2009 they have received 12109 applications. 398 of these made it to court and 116 were upheld. This means that under 1% of applications result in a successful appeal.

There are two possible reasons for this. Firstly, the system works. Our prosecution system is strong and we get the right people convicted of the right crimes, there are just a tiny number of cases that fall through the cracks and those people are saved from wrongful imprisonment by the appeals process. Or secondly, mistakes are being made and the process for rectifying them is flawed. Obviously the first option is infinity more appealing and probably much more likely, but without constant checking and questioning we can't be certain this is the case. The Innocence Network UK and student innocence projects are other checks we can use.

INUK was started in September 2004 by Dr Michael Naughton and was inspired by a similar project that proved successful in America. Naughton teaches criminal law at the university of Bristol and specialises in miscarriages of justice. He started the first dedicated innocence project in the UK.

The students in my year will split into small groups of three or four and be assigned cases that meet certain criteria. The person we will be working with will have received a life sentence, effectively meaning they were convicted of either murder or rape. Our job will be to test the strength of that conviction. This will be real opportunity to do some investigative journalism.

When given a life imprisonment, usually parole is only granted once the individual admits their guilt. If the chance occurs and they still maintain their innocence then that person is either a dedicated (and foolish) liar or they genuinely believe their own innocence, choosing to remain imprisoned purely on principle. It is these cases we will be especially interested in.

This promises to be an extremely exciting project and I can't wait to get started.

Simon Singh and Libel Law in the UK

In our law lectures at Winchester University we are constantly being reminded that defaming someone is dangerous if you do not have a defence. If something we as journalists publish could damage someone's reputation then we have libeled them. Which is fine. Because hopefully what we wrote will have been either completely true and justifiable (i.e. we can prove it), fair comment (clearly just an expressed opinion) or have qualified privilege (quoted from a court of law or session of parliament). The United Kingdom's libel laws are particularly strict and we're being trained to spot potential pitfalls in everything we write.

It seems remarkable that science writer Simon Singh is standing up and putting his reputation on the line to challenge libel laws regarding comments he made about the British Chiropractic Association. This is a fascinating case, English law is created almost entirely by precedents, if he wins then it could cause great changes in the way libel law is enacted, albeit specifically in the field of science and research.




In 2008 he wrote an article questioning some chiropractic beliefs, such as asthma, ear infections and other childhood ailments could all be cured by back adjustments. He accused the BCA of promoting 'bogus treatments' and hey presto lawsuit. They chose to sue Singh as an individual rather than the Guardian that published the article. And Singh chose to fight. He sums up the case well himself here and Allen Green writes an excellent blog that keeps up with all the latest developments.

Singh is trying to use the defence that his statement was fair comment and despite not having much initial luck (it was initially ruled he had made a factual statement) has just been granted an appeal. His case has drawn a huge amount of attention that really can't be giving the BCA good publicity, I wonder if perhaps they have spectacularly shot themselves in the foot here.

Importantly a charity has started a campaign to reform libel law that already has many people involved, you can show your support by signing a petition here.

As my lecturer has said: almost every good piece of journalism is defaming somebody. But why take the time and expense to do investigative journalism to expose wrong doing or problems in society when you'll more than likely just be sued for doing so? Much easier to just throw another celebrity gossip story onto the front page.

Singh sums it up wonderfully: "This highlights the dreadful problem in the English libel system. Even large publishers are intimidated by the huge expense of fighting a legal battle. This means that articles that should be defended are dropped, and articles that should be written are shelved before they are even published because of potential libel action."

I wish him the very best of luck.

Obama's Nobel peace prize: Deserving or not... how better could he have handled it?

The coverage and backlash against Obama being awarded the Nobel peace prize continues, in an unusual move one of the judges has come forward to defend him and states he 'didn't look happy' about receiving the award.

Comment columns around the world have leaped all over Obama and many have taken the opportunity to try and knock him down a peg or two. The decision has been called 'a mockery' that's purely a political tool, that he shouldn't have accepted it at all and even that his humble approach is an act and he's reveling in the glory.

Disregarding the argument of whether he deserved the award altogether and even ignoring the question of what his receiving the award will achieve - I don't think he could have handled it any other way.

Obama has proven himself an intelligent President and he's handled difficult situations well in the past, he recognizes that America (and the world) is sick of a certain type of aggressive government and is offering an alternative, albeit one that had to make concessions when faced with the reality of leading the most powerful and vulnerable nation on the planet. He fought an election campaign based on his own principles rather than attacking his opposition and even admits when he makes mistakes, something his predecessor would have struggled to pull off and appear honest.

He's brought that considered approach to receiving the prize. If he had said no, then no matter how graciously he did so he'd appear arrogant, we'd say 'Thinks he's too good for it does he?' And if he'd accepted it with huge fanfare there would have been even more uproar and backlash, the articles calling him undeserving now are mild in comparison to what we'd see had he appeared deserving. The only thing we dislike more than someone undeserving of an award is someone who deserves it and knows they do.

He seems to have found a good middle ground and while the award perhaps isn't doing him too many favours right now, it could have been a lot lot worse.

Berlusconi

The lowly but heroic journalist tracking down the truth and revealing it to the public, shining a light into the darkest corners of society and shouting to the rest of us "Look! Look what I've found!" It's a naive, romantic idea but I love it, I think we all do.

Perhaps the most applaudable role of the journalist is that of the white blood cell, when those in authority abuse their power or make a mistake the media point it out and society as a whole can only benefit from this. Checks and balances.

I think this is why I've been so interested in the rumours and accusations that have been flying through the Italian press about Silvio Berlusconi. Regardless of whether he is guilty of any wrong doing or not, he's running a country and his laundry should be whiter than white when the press snoops through it. It can only be a good thing that he is subject to the same laws and now the same consequences as any of his citizens.




It's doubly important because Berlusconi is a media mogul himself and that's a dangerous thing. I don't personally believe someone should have the ability to set the news agenda and then profit from it. Men like Berlusconi and Rupert Murdoch have the power to influence governments, we should constantly be looking at them and asking ourselves what are their motivations? Is what they are doing right? Any change in law that makes them more accountable is a breath of fresh air.

And it's great to see that the Italian press (and specifically the publications not owned by Berlusconi) are doing well from the whole fiasco as well.

The Papers 08/10

As well as the papers, I try to catch the Today show on BBC Radio 4 whenever I can. If nothing else I think I'm learning a lot about having an aggressive interview style and not letting the interviewee dictate the agenda. In particular, I enjoy James Naughtie's style.

So, the papers. The biggest stories today seem to be the Royal Mail strikes (in the Telegraph and accompanied horribly on the front page of the Guardian with an ugly moist close up of a letter box), Sharon Shoesmith's challenge of her dismissal and continuing coverage of the Tory party conference.

The tabloids have thrown in a few good unique headlines that broaden the scope of coverage. The Daily Express scaring us with claims that anti ageing creams might cause cancer and the sun has Robbie William's confession that he nearly died from drugs. A classic red top crowd pleaser, a well known and loved celebrity and a 'drugs are bad' message can't go wrong.

The coverage of the Sharon Shoesmith trial differs in the broadsheets and the tabloids. Both the Sun and the Daily Mail choosing to attack the council for initially supporting her before turning her into a scapegoat. The Times and Guardian both emphasising her revelation that she considered suicide. Regardless of whether it's true, she must really want to make herself appear the victim to make a personal confession like that.

Front page of the day goes to the Times for leading with Berlusconi and choosing a suitably morbid picture of Shoesmith in all black with a black background to go with their tag: 'Furore over baby P left me suicidal'. Now that Berlusconi has lost his Presidential immunity from prosecution it hails the start of more turmoil in Italy that will surely signal lost more headlines to come.

Conference Tweeting

All political eyes are on the Tory conference right now, it's a showcase for the next government and we're watching and judging. The BBC have shown themselves to lead the way when it comes to new mediums and technology, by getting on board early with the internet and digital television they've benefited greatly by the change in our media consumption habits and probably even influenced them. iplayer is another success story that is being replicated worldwide. So it's not entirely shocking to stumble across a BBC reporter twittering live from the Tory conference, it doesn't get more current and relevant than that. Bitesize news chunks work well, after all aren't twitter pages just a list of news headlines anyway?

The Papers 05/10

Reading he papers is more than just a good habit for a journalism student to be in, when there aren't any in 20 years time we can annoy our kids and grand children about the good old days when everything wasn't online. Not that I'm planning to have grand children in 20 years time.

Anyway.

As well as reading two papers a day, whenever possible I'm going to grab all the papers together and compare their leads. Based on the front pages, which would I buy today?


The Independent - A lovely beach ball like picture of a stem cell and the story of how research is being 'driven out' of the UK. The left wing connotations of it being wrong and unfair are plain to see. Oh and Monty Python too, a bit of culture always sells well.

Daily Telegraph - Looking very blue today and not just the banner at the top. Boris Johnson has his comment 'I bet a fiver it wont be President Blair' and the main story is Cameron making promises. It's clear that almost everyone has accepted he'll be the next PM now, attacking benefit frauds is a nice safe bet, about the only people less defensible in the public eye are pedophiles. And lets face it, he doesn't want his name and pedophile in the same headline.

In an odd coincidence both the Daily Express and local Daily Echo are leading with breakthroughs in cancer research, albiet one in New York and the other at Southampton University. The Echo is celebrating Southampton FC's first big win of the season, if you're a fan then clearly this is the paper to get, which national would devote this much time to a fallen club? There are great niches that local papers can fill.

The Mirror wins the pun of the day award (by default!) with 'Fright Said Fred', the story being Gary Lineker and Freddie Flintoff being caught near a Taliban attack. Throw in some pictures of said celebrities in protective army gear and it's a winner. The Mirror is still keeping its celeb focus, I still haven't quite gotten over how many weeks in a row they managed to have Jordan on the front page.

But I think the best front page today has to be the Sun. They've managed to track down the mother of the child Elton John is trying to adopt and plastered a picture of her looking very much the victim with 'I wont let Elton take my baby!'. What a thief! What a villain! And that picture of him kissing the child is just creepy! Drama sells, celebrity drama doubly so.

A Thousand Bayonets

"Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets" - Napoleon Bonaparte

The Sun, The News of the World, The Times, The Sunday Times. Sorry Gordon, it's not looking good.