'Ratty' Journalism

This piece of broadcasting journalism was created by Holly Wallis. She has won the award for the  young Journalist of the year accredited by the BJTC. Her voice is professional and pleasant and I can see how she is successful in this area. However in this story about 'rat infestations in the West End,' there are many legal issues surrounding privacy,defamation;and libel issues .

The broadcast begins with a shot of Covent Garden. The image identifies members of the public as the shot includes there faces. This breaches section 8 of the Privacy act, as I'm sure she hasn't been given consent from all the passers by. Winol overcomes this issue by filming the legs of people rather than the whole body.

She identifies many theatres and claims they are all infested with rats. This is defamatory as the theatres have been identified as she uses close up shots of them. It has been published on YouTube. This statement will cause people to avoid the theatre and 'shun' them. She also uses footage showing a pub. You can clearly see what the pub is called and where it is as the camera focuses on the road name. The theatres and the pub could sue for libel.

After defaming the pub there is a vox pox interview with a source that claims she has witnessed the rats in the theatre. The witness does not what to be named. However she completely goes against this by recording her face therefore she has been identified. Off the record sources are not very good to use, they only work good in stories based on something that has a level of secrecy to maintain for example from the armed forces. The source then goes on to tell us where she had worked. This is a breach of confidence, the employee should has signed a contract with the employer that explains the legitimate expectation of confidentiality.

The survey that is used is real but it is from another source, The Telegraph. They have used this poll in there article on the same story. This is an issue surrounding plagiarism.

It just seems that the sources used have been guided as to what they should say. The interview with the couple who claim they had been to the theatre the night before is unrealistic, why would they be standing outside the theatre the next day?

This story is newsworthy as it is in public interest and it has been covered by other news corporations. But this cover of the story has too many issues and as a Journalist we need to be able to spot these issues while producing work.

Ratatouille! Attributed to Michael Sauers

1 comment:

  1. good analysis - but there are no contempt of court issues --- maybe contempt for the audience though.