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.

The public interest means anything that is relevant to the lives and well-being of all of us, to society and our communities. It concerns the “common good”, meaning matters that affect our health, livelihoods, quality of life, security, and our governance.

The public interest does not mean what the public might find interesting. Broadly speaking, the difference here is between what is relevant to members of the public, as opposed to what might merely entertain, fascinate or titillate some of them.

News journalism is reporting matters of societal relevance. Not gossip and titbits about well-known figures, or about personal events and circumstances of others that do not affect broader society, but which merely pander to voyeurism. A journalist with a brief to report news should therefore apply a public interest test before deciding whether to cover a story.

In most cases it is clear what is and what is not in the public interest. But in some cases, such as stories concerning the private lives and actions of public figures in positions of power, the distinction is not clear.

The public interest is in having a safe, healthy and functional society. In a democracy, journalism plays a central role in that. It gives people the information they need to take part in the democratic process. If journalists are good at their job, they hold governments and other institutions to account.

All serious journalism, then, contains a public service ethic. To fulfil this public service role, journalists must build and retain the trust of their audiences by behaving in an ethical and professional manner.

A journalist must have compelling reasons to deviate from standard good practice: if it is the only way to bring an important subject to the public’s attention.

For example, journalists should be honest about who and what they are; they should always give their names, and say for which news organisation they work.
However, there are times when a journalist might have to go undercover and hide their true identity and the real reason for their actions. Such cases could include the investigation of crime or political wrongdoing.

This is an act of deception, which is generally to be avoided, but if it brings justice and an end to criminal activity, it may be justified in the wider public interest.

Journalists should not intrude into people’s private lives – but there might be a case for doing so if the person being investigated is a public figure whose private behaviour is at odds with what they advocate in public life, especially when their position can influence legislation.

In this case, media intrusion – normally an objectionable practice – could expose hypocrisy and dishonesty. However, such intrusion must be clearly shown and clearly seen to be in the wider public interest.

Things become more difficult when the story in question may actually involve a journalist breaking the law, or encouraging someone else to do so. Here you need to have a serious discussion with colleagues about the circumstances, the public interest benefit in covering the story, the risks involved and the likely consequences.

Some countries build “the public interest” into their legal systems. So if you want to publish a difficult or controversial item because it is “in the public interest”, you should check whether the legal framework gives you the protection you need in each and every case.

In some countries, those in power might actively oppose journalists revealing information which, although in the public interest, might threaten their control of society. In such cases the public interest test takes on another meaning. How those in power define the public interest might be more about control than freedom of information. Here, extra care is required.

Some public interest justifications

If the decision is taken to publish, it is likely to be because the story would do one of these things:

• Correct a significant wrong.
• Bring to light information affecting public well-being and safety.
• Improve the public’s understanding of, and participation in, the debate about an important issue relevant to our society.
• Lead to greater accountability and transparency in public life.

None of this is easy. Journalists grapple with these issues every day. Many factors at play have not even been considered here, but if you get the public interest test right, you will be fulfilling the highest purpose of journalism.

Related training module

Public interest – scenario

The post Journalism and the public interest first appeared on Media Helping Media.

You are a political news editor working for a large public-service broadcaster.

Parliament is debating proposed legislation that would relax laws on recreational drugs and decriminalise possession of small quantities of cannabis for personal use.

This debate is being covered in depth by the media.

A government minister is known for taking a tough stance on such issues. Your reporting team has been covering proceedings and has interviewed him several times.

A story breaks on the news wires claiming that the minister’s adult son has been questioned by police following a drugs raid.

The son is a 24-year-old teacher, working in a school for pupils with special needs. He no longer lives with his parents. He hasn’t featured in the news before.

The same news wires are received by all the national newspapers and broadcasters.

You suspect that some newspapers will go big on the story, and that it will go viral on social media.

How should you respond?

Should you:

• Assign a reporter to check the details of the wires story with police.
• Cover the story as set out in the wires report.
• Continue to cover the debate in parliament, but ignore the information about the son because he is not a public figure.
• Contact the government minister for a comment.
• Contact the son for his version of events.
• Contact the school where he works.
• Contact campaigners on both sides of the drugs laws argument.

The public interest test

This is one of those stories that is likely to generate great excitement in some news outlets.

They will probably draw comparisons between the son’s behaviour and the minister’s stance on drugs.

Once the story is out, radio and TV chat-show hosts will probably discuss the current legislation going through parliament, mention that the minister’s son has been questioned, and conduct interviews in the street along with phone-ins to try to gauge public opinion.

But is there public interest justification for doing the story in the next news bulletin?

The son is not a public figure. He is a private individual. He hasn’t made any public comments linking him to the current drug debate.

The fact that he has been questioned by police about alleged recreational drug use is probably interesting to the public, but does that mean that it’s in the public interest for you to investigate further?

Would you assign a reporter to dig deeper every time a 24-year-old is questioned by police about drugs?

Or does the fact that this is the minister’s son make a difference?

Conclusion

This story is of interest only because of the relationship between the arrested son and his father, the minister currently discussing legislation regarding drugs.

But it has no public interest purpose. See our module ‘Journalism and the public interest’ – link at the bottom of this scenario.

As a political news editor you would probably want to assign a reporter to talk to the police to find out whether what was contained in the news wires was accurate, but that would be for background research purposes only.

And such background material will help you explain your decision to your line manager, who will no doubt ask you about the story when it breaks on other outlets.

While you might apply the public interest test to your journalism, others might not apply it to theirs.

In such cases, once the story is in the public domain, it could develop, with new angles emerging that change the story, along with people adding their comments and opinions.

You could then come under increasing pressure to cover the story, not just because everyone else is, but because it has moved on from the original facts of the son being questioned.

So the story should be monitored in other media, but picked up with respect to the son only if a public interest angle emerges contingent on that relationship.

In such cases you will need to refer up and talk to senior editorial colleagues.

Related module

Journalism and the public interest

The post Public interest – scenario first appeared on Media Helping Media.