Freedom of Information Act 2000

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 is a journalist’s best friend, and a politician’s worst nightmare. Okay so maybe not all politicians but still, I suggest the majority should probably stop reading this and go retreat to their den with a cuppa and a biccy, it will only cause upset.

This is the ultimate treasure hunt for journalist’s, you know the gold is out there, you just need to work out how to get to it. You need to know exactly what information it is that you’re after, being specific will only ever work in your favour because your creating less work for the people at the other end.

Now why is this the source of gold I hear you ask? Well if you look back at headlines over the past 9 years you will be surprised just how many are a result of freedom of information requests. I say 9 years because although the act is dated 2000 it didn’t actually come into full effect until 2005 under labour government- boy did Blair regret that one! Think I’m joking? Go have a read of his memoirs – “Freedom of Information. Three harmless words. I look at those words as I write them, and feel like shaking my head till it drops off my shoulders. You idiot. You naive, foolish, irresponsible nincompoop. There is really no description of stupidity, no matter how vivid, that is adequate. I quake at the imbecility of it.”

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 any person, whether you’re Tom, Dick, or Harry, can request and receive information from a public body. This doesn’t only apply to public files, but also information on video, tape and that which is held electronically. When you request an FOI you do not have to state you’re a journalist, in fact it would probably be more of a hindrance than a help if you did choose to tell them. You don’t even have to give them your real name- whoever you are is entirely irrelevant.

The government allows this act because it gives them legitimacy and accountability, it’s all about give and take, they expect certain behaviours from us as a public and in turn we get access to information. Tony Blair originally supported FOI (boy how things change) stating “unnecessary secrecy in government leads to arrogance in government and defective policy decisions”.

The basic principle of FOI is “any person making a request for information to a public authority is entitled to have that information communicated to him”. However, as with everything, there are exceptions.

Authorities must supply the information without financial charge as long as it cost them no more than £600 (for national government departments, £450 for local councils) to find and collect it. The act covers around 100,000 major and minor public sector bodies. A public authority must normally respond within 20 working days, either supplying the information or explaining why it cannot be supplied.

Reasons why they may say no:

1) Public Authority doesn’t hold that information
2) Request would exceed the cost limits
3) The information is covered by exemptions under the act, so need not be supplied

Absolute Exemptions:
1) information is reasonably accessible via other means
2) information is relating to bodies dealing with security matters
3) court records
4) personal information
5)information given to the public authority in confidence by another party
6)information which is forbidden to be disclosed by other law (e.g. Data Protection Act)

Under the act information may only be withheld if the public interest in withholding it is greater than the public interest in releasing it. The act does not define what is meant by “public interest” but the Information Commissioner listed a few of the many factors which should encourage public authorities to disclose information:

*Furthering understanding and participation in the public debate of issues of the day
*To promote accountability and transparency by public authorities for decisions taken by them
*To promote accountability and transparency in the spending of public money
*To bring to light information affecting public health and safety
*Allowing companies and individuals to understand the decisions made my public authorities affecting their lives.

There is a difference between what is in the public interest and what is in the interest of the public, for example “how many NHS nurses have criminal convictions?” would be in the public interest, but “how many NHS nurses are divorced?” is merely interesting to the public.

Natural disasters are the other big players in the journalism world, but even they can run thin, let’s face it, there is only so much flooding and journalists in wellies that the public can take. 

Defamation and Libel

This is a big danger area in reporting crime… correction… huge danger!

Defamation occurs when a statement:
1)Lowers a person in the minds of right thinking people
2) Exposes a person to hatred, ridicule, or contempt
3) Causes the person to be shunned or avoided
4) Disparages the person in their business, trade, or profession

Reputation is precious, especially if you are in the public eye, have a lot of money, or even both, so if a publication has somehow managed to damage their reputation, they will go after them.

Inference is a massive hazard, you need to consider how the content is interpreted in the context of the whole article. Different people infer different meanings so ask other people to check your article, the more brains you get involved the checking process then the more likely it is that someone will spot libellous content.  

Some publications are a little bit cheeky and use “bane and antidote” as a way to publicise otherwise defamatory material. Bane and antidote is where a defamatory statement is then removed by the context of the whole article. For example publications often superimpose celebrity faces on actors bodies in questionable scenarios, which at first glance would be incredibly defamatory. The publication then saves itself by outlining its use of actors and clarifying these are not the celebrities actual actions. However this is risky as often readers won’t look much further than the headline and picture, so may never actually read the “antidote” section of the article.

Defamation is a big worry for journalist for one main reason…money. Defamation cases can result in huge damages being paid, costing the publication a lot of money, and that’s without considering the legal costs on top of that.

An example of a recent defamation case is Chris Jefferies 2011 as mentioned in my “reporting crime” blog post. Chris Jefferies was awarded substantial libel damages after newspapers repeatedly published defamatory material about him which proved to be untrue.Chris Jefferies receives libel pay out This kind of mistake is an embarrassment for the media, an expensive embarrassment.

There is a constant risk of libel for the media at the minute, due to the seemingly never ending list of celebrities being accused of sexual offences. Journalists have to be very careful how they cover such a high profile sex offence case as the accusations are extremely defamatory to a person’s character. Even when a person is proved innocent, the public often fail to distant themselves from the allegations that were made, which is no fault of the media, but highlights how damaging these claims can be. An example of this is Michael Le Vell who plays Kevin Webster, a mechanic on Coronation Street. Michael Le Vell was accused of 19 charges of child sex offences and was cleared of all the offences. However his reputation in the public mind was severely damaged.

Journalists also have to be aware of the risk of defamation via pictures which is a common risk in broadcast journalism. The careless use of background shots teamed with a voiceover can be very defamatory depending on the context. People and companies should not be identifiable in certain contexts such as child abuse or fraud.

There are defences in place to protect journalists from libel:
1) The statement must cause “serious harm” – harm to the reputation of a body that trades for profit is not “serious harm” unless it has caused or is likely to cause “serious financial loss”.
2) The statement is true (previously known as justification)
3) Honest opinion (previously known as fair comment). The defendant must show that it is a an opinion that could be held by an “honest person” based upon a known fact at the time of writing. There must not be any malice as this will completely undermine your defence. As a journalist you should be distantly disinterested.
4) Public interest (previously known as Reynolds defence) “the statement complained of was, or formed part of, a statement on a matter of public interest; and the defendant reasonably believed that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest”.
5) In web publication it is a defence for the operator to show that it was not the operator who posted the statement on the website.
6) Absolute privilege – court reporting
7) Qualified privilege – police quotes, press releases etc.
8) Bane and antidote
9) Apologies and clarification
10) Single publication rule

There is no defence when you have not checked your facts! There is no time for laziness in this game! Refer up and get your facts checked. If you do not wait for a lawyers opinion or get carried away by a spicy story then you only have yourself to blame.