CLEARED

[John Wright]

57 minutes ago, ecobob said:

 They may have a duty to report but they also have a duty to any accused person. There is absolutely no doubt that this man was put at risk due to the nature of this reporting decision. 

Maybe the risk isn’t caused by the paper but by a vigilantism that’s developing whereby some people seem to think it’s right to take things into their own hands, knowing none, or few facts, rather than relying on the law.

 

[Neil Down]

36 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Maybe the risk isn’t caused by the paper but by a vigilantism that’s developing whereby some people seem to think it’s right to take things into their own hands, knowing none, or few facts, rather than relying on the law.

 

How did the facts and relying on the law pan out for the poor guy accused?

[John Wright]

9 minutes ago, Neil Down said:

How did the facts and relying on the law pan out for the poor guy accused?

He was acquitted

[Lxxx]

55 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Maybe the risk isn’t caused by the paper but by a vigilantism that’s developing whereby some people seem to think it’s right to take things into their own hands, knowing none, or few facts, rather than relying on the law.

 

If so it means it is even more irresponsible journalism than first appeared.

[John Wright]

34 minutes ago, Lxxx said:

If so it means it is even more irresponsible journalism than first appeared.

You can’t blame a factual report of what a witness said in court for the way some people miscomprehend and want to take the Law into their own hands. That’s a very different matter.

I think that sort of reaction is a result of disempowerment and lack of inclusion and estrangement from the norms of society. And when that happens, heightened by austerity and zero hours, and the haves getting visibly richer, that’s when demagogues take advantage and push “populist” agendas.

Ive twice raised the important question, what should reporting be, total freedom of speech or protection of complainants, and defendants, before, during, and after trial. No one has tried to debate it here. It’s a very important debate

[Andy Onchan]

14 minutes ago, John Wright said:

You can’t blame a factual report of what a witness said in court for the way some people miscomprehend and want to take the Law into their own hands. That’s a very different matter.

I think that sort of reaction is a result of disempowerment and lack of inclusion and estrangement from the norms of society. And when that happens, heightened by austerity and zero hours, and the haves getting visibly richer, that’s when demagogues take advantage and push “populist” agendas.

Ive twice raised the important question, what should reporting be, total freedom of speech or protection of complainants, and defendants, before, during, and after trial. No one has tried to debate it here. It’s a very important debate

Was the headline factual. Was that actually said in court?

[Lxxx]

15 minutes ago, John Wright said:

You can’t blame a factual report of what a witness said in court for the way some people miscomprehend and want to take the Law into their own hands. That’s a very different matter.

I think that sort of reaction is a result of disempowerment and lack of inclusion and estrangement from the norms of society. And when that happens, heightened by austerity and zero hours, and the haves getting visibly richer, that’s when demagogues take advantage and push “populist” agendas.

Ive twice raised the important question, what should reporting be, total freedom of speech or protection of complainants, and defendants, before, during, and after trial. No one has tried to debate it here. It’s a very important debate

There is a third way. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. It’s called responsible journalism. We live on a small island and like it or not the media has even more influence within a small community here than somewhere like across for example. 

There was nothing to be gained from sensationalist reporting like this. An editor could look at the facts involved and use a little discretion, based on the reality of it yet to go before a jury. 

[John Wright]

16 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

Was the headline factual. Was that actually said in court?

Neither of us were there. But look at it logically. No newspaper is going to publish an article with a lurid “it was him what done it” headline, unless, they had the privilege of reporting the exact words spoken in court, so they can’t be sued or they had incontrovertible evidence. Just reporting what a witness or family member tells them could get them into big trouble.

 

13 minutes ago, Lxxx said:

There is a third way. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. It’s called responsible journalism. We live on a small island and like it or not the media has even more influence within a small community here than somewhere like across for example. 

There was nothing to be gained from sensationalist reporting like this. An editor could look at the facts involved and use a little discretion, based on the reality of it yet to go before a jury. 

The responsible journalism boils down to regulating what they can and cannot publish, because responsible, like common sense, is not a shared or universal absolute, it changes with the decades, countries, political systems and views plus with whose shoes you are standing in.

As for your second point, that’s just it. It was in front of the jury. They were reporting exactly what the jury was hearing as evidence. There are some on here bray loudly if that doesn’t happen, imagine the conspiracy theories if there had been a conviction but no reporting. There are others who become all indignant because of what happened here. The two extremes don’t help.

We need a debate to agree a concsensus about what can, and can’t be reported, in what situations.

[Declan]

7 hours ago, John Wright said:

Tony Pass is an ex museum employee and then was Chairman of the Trustees. His comment about whether there really has been proper safeguarding training is the real killer.

Ive been a museum trustee, twice. I resigned on the second occasion because the trustee body was unfit for purpose, an accident in corporate governance waiting to happen and was effectively ignored by professional staff.

I hope this time it has the courage to hold the director to account.

That's a shameful letter. A member of the establishment seeking to divert attention from the courts and police's mishandling of the case onto the messenger. 

[P.K.]

7 minutes ago, Declan said:

That's a shameful letter. A member of the establishment seeking to divert attention from the courts and police's mishandling of the case onto the messenger. 

Care to explain how?

Serious question. Because the police have SOP's to follow. If they haven't then they should have.

[Declan]

If there was so little evidence that it was dismissed so quickly it shouldn't have been bought. You may be right though and the blame is probably with the prosecutors rather than the police. 

[thesultanofsheight]

3 hours ago, John Wright said:

Maybe the risk isn’t caused by the paper but by a vigilantism that’s developing whereby some people seem to think it’s right to take things into their own hands, knowing none, or few facts, rather than relying on the law.

 

I think that’s a big part of it. The paper can’t guarantee that won’t happen once they publish someone’s name and address so it’s probably irresponsible to publish his name and address knowing the sort of idiots who are about. 

Shameful letter? Those media folk really stick together! 

[yootalkin2me]

2 hours ago, P.K. said:

Care to explain how?

Serious question. Because the police have SOP's to follow. If they haven't then they should have.

But that first statement is bullshit John and you well know it. Printing apologies or settling out of court for erroneous reporting is the norm....just like a lack of proof reading at Johnston Press.

[Lost Login]

4 hours ago, John Wright said:

Maybe the risk isn’t caused by the paper but by a vigilantism that’s developing whereby some people seem to think it’s right to take things into their own hands, knowing none, or few facts, rather than relying on the law.

 

In cases like this and with social media I think an innocent person is in a no win situation. If it goes to trial, is reported and acquitted then moan about the matter being made public and the risk of vigilantism. I think the risk is there as soon as an accusation is made as if it does not go to trial the risk is the name of the accused gets out there by accident or design and there are accusations of a cover up. It is easy to get a whispering campaign going and at least this way it is said very publicly the person is innocent although I am sure they would have preferred it not to have happened.

I am sure it could have been reported more sensitively, but that is with hindsight. If in a similar case similar accusations were made, proved and the relevant party found guilty the public would complain if the media did not report. I don't think there is any easy answer unless you are physic and no the outcome of a case in advance 

Once you have been accused, even if totally innocent, it must be horrific as whether it goes to trial there will always be a small minority who point fingers 

[Lxxx]

3 hours ago, John Wright said:

Neither of us were there. But look at it logically. No newspaper is going to publish an article with a lurid “it was him what done it” headline, unless, they had the privilege of reporting the exact words spoken in court, so they can’t be sued or they had incontrovertible evidence. Just reporting what a witness or family member tells them could get them into big trouble.

 

The responsible journalism boils down to regulating what they can and cannot publish, because responsible, like common sense, is not a shared or universal absolute, it changes with the decades, countries, political systems and views plus with whose shoes you are standing in.

As for your second point, that’s just it. It was in front of the jury. They were reporting exactly what the jury was hearing as evidence. There are some on here bray loudly if that doesn’t happen, imagine the conspiracy theories if there had been a conviction but no reporting. There are others who become all indignant because of what happened here. The two extremes don’t help.

We need a debate to agree a concsensus about what can, and can’t be reported, in what situations.

Come on John. Publishing an innocent man's name and address (as he was at that stage) was completely unnecessary. By all l means report on the case but on a small island, in light of your vigilante comment, it was inappropriate and potentially dangerous.