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.

After broadcasting your report, the radio station receives a letter of protest from the lawyers representing the shipyard, warning 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.

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, The Jolly Boozer has applied for a licensing extension which would allow it to remain open until the early hours of the morning.

The reporter finds the exact wording of the application on the local council’s website and takes a screen-shot to go in the article.

They then visit The Jolly Boozer to take some pictures.

While there, the proprietor asks the reporter what they are doing. The reporter explains, and asks for a comment about why those running the pub want an extension.

The proprietor says it’s to meet ‘local demand’. He then offers to email the reporter with more on the background, which he does.

The reporter  returns to the office and writes an article along the following lines…

The Jolly Boozer applies for a licence extension

The proprietor of the recently reopened The Jolly Boozer on West Lane, Sleepinghyde, wants to extend the hours the pub can open 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 screen-shot of the application from the local authority website showing the official listing.

They then include four paragraphs of factual information about the extension application, four paragraphs quoting the proprietor setting out the case for the application, and two paragraphs saying what the public can do in response, should they have any concerns.

They also embed a document, provided by the local authority, showing how people can make representations if they so wish.

The article is checked by a senior colleague and published. The reporter then shares the item on social media – as they do with every story produced by the news organisation.

Two hours later they get an email from the proprietor of The Jolly Boozer threatening legal action and claiming that the reporter had been involved in “coaxing negative representations” to the licensing office.

The email calls on the report to cease and desist in any “negative campaign” against the business. It also demands that the article be edited to include some “positive spin” about the extension application.

The reporter replies, denying any coaxing or campaigning, and refuses to make any changes to the article.

An hour later they receive a second email from the proprietor which 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.

So, what should the reporter do?

Should they:

1. Edit the piece in line with what the proprietor of The Jolly Boozer requests, adding “positive spin” and removing any elements of the story that explain how people can make ‘representations’ against the pub’s licensing extension application.
2. Delete the piece and delete all mention on social media.
3. Talk to their editor, explain the background to the piece, show them what was written, and take advice from the news organisation’s lawyers.
4. Stand firm, refuse to be bullied, and leave the article as it is.

Suggested answer

A mixture of options 3 & 4.

In any situation where you are threatened with legal action you should consult 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. Those living close to The Jolly Boozer 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 necessary, seek legal advice.

Further reading

You might want to refer to the following modules on this site for more background information.

Accuracy in journalism

Accuracy in journalism

Integrity and journalism

Integrity and journalism

Is our journalism ethical

Is your journalism ethical?

Unconscious bias and its impact on journalism

Unconscious bias and its impact on journalism

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