LEGAL CONSTRAINTS
Government legislations are put into place to help control the creative media sector, ethical constraints also apply. A question of ethics can get difficult when It is important to maintain responsibility while having the power to influence public opinion. The following are laws that promote order in the media industry and have otherwise changed broadcasting and publishing permanently. The following legislations are:
· Broadcasting Act of 1990*
· Official Secrets Act 1989*
· Obscene Publications Act (Est) 1959
· Race Relations Act (Est) 1976
· Human Rights Act 1998*
· Privacy Law*
· Copywright and Intellectual Property Law*
and last but not least...
and last but not least...
· Libel Law*
Each one of these legislations was created to regulate or deregulate in order to bring about a change in approach and discourage unlawful practises in the media industry.
Breaches of this legislation will usually lead to an inquest or subsequential trial and/or fine as a penalty for such ethical misconduct. Victims of such libel misconduct will usually be entitled to some sort of compensation for any upset/damage caused by the media. This usually is either an agreed legal settlement i.e. penalty/fine or a out of court settlement that both parties will agree on, if the sum is sufficient compensation.
The Broadcasting Act of 1990
The broadcasting act of 1990 was a reformation of television and radio licensing which led to the reinstatement of two regulatory bodies. The act is seen as a key factor of Thatcherism as the legislation incorporated market ideology into British broadcasting. This has effected television production permanently. The two reinstated regulatory bodies are The Independent Television Committee and the Radio Authority. This act required all ITV franchises to be put up for sale and to be awarded partly on financial grounds. The Independent Television Commission set up to regulate all TV services in the UK, with the exception of the BBC and eventually Channel Four.
Also introduction of programme sponsorship was established and continental companies were allowed to bid for licenses or take over license-holders. Companies were allowed to own more than own license.
Some rules in the act were introduced on cross-media holdings to prevent ownership being concentrated in too few hands. The main downfall with cross-media ownership is objectivity journalists and their publications are supposed to counteract corruption and deceit that could pollute our basic rights and freedom. However this is difficult to regulate when the same publications are owned by media conglomerates who are causing such devastation to people's lives, this is a controversial subject as they have objected and covered up such unlawful practises especially those surrounding the phone hacking scandal at the News of The World. A new independent free press would probably be the only solution to avoid such unethical practises again.
National newspaper owners were prevented from holding more than a 20% stake in TV companies, with similar restrictions on cross-ownership between commercial TV satellite TV and national radio stations. A loophole in this section of the act controversially protected Rupert Murdoch on the basis that Sky was defined as a non-UK service.
The Official Secrets Act of 1989
The Official Secrets Act of 1989 was first introduced to ensure people who are or had been enlisted to work in security or intelligence agencies don't mishandle or leak any disclosed information to the public, such failure to adhere to the act would result in a fixed jail sentence no longer than six months or a fine not exceeding Level 5 on the standard scale. In section 8 of the act it identifies safeguarding obligations
"Section 8 - Safeguarding of information
This section makes it a crime for a crown servant or government contractor to retain information beyond their official need for it, and obligates them to properly protect secret information from accidental disclosure."
In section 15 it also includes any provisions abroad
"Section 15(1)(a) provides that any act done by a British citizens or crown servant, which would be an offence under any provision of the Act other than sections 8(1) or 8(4) or 8(5) if done by him in the United Kingdom, is an offence under that provision.
This is intended to cover espionage (where someone travels to a foreign country and discloses secret information to a foreign power) and cases where someone travels to a foreign country and discloses secret information, perhaps to a newspaper.
Section 15(1)(b) provides that any act done by any person in any of the Channel Islands, or in the Isle of Man, or in any colony, which would be an offence under any provision of the Act other than sections 8(1) or 8(4) or 8(5) if done by him in the United Kingdom, is an offence under that provision. Section 15(3) confers a power on the Queen to extend, by Order in Council, any provision of the Act, subject to any exceptions, adaptations or modifications specified in the Order, to any of the Channel Islands, or to the Isle of Man, or to any colony."
This ensures no breach of such legislation such as leaks to foreign publications or organisations that could endanger our national security.
This law mostly applies to secret serviceman or figures of authority who are aware of highly confidential information. A famous case of a breach in the law regarding the Official Secrets Act of 1989 was the trial and arrest of Richard Tomlinson the New Zealand born former British Secret Intelligence Service agent (MI6) in 1997. His book revelling secret information during his service at MI6 'The Big Breach' was published in Moscow in 2001. The chief prosecution witness John Scarlett claimed that Richard Tomlinson "had put agents’ lives at risk" and had "gravely damaged national security". Tomlinson also revealed that MI6 did previously plot to assassinate Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic by using a powerful strobe light to blind the driver; he suggested that MI6 could have used this plot to kill Diana Princess of Wales and Dodi in 1997.
Obscene Publications Act (Est) 1959
The Obscene Publications Act of 1959 was first established in 1959 further legislation was added in 1964 to strengthen obscenity laws prohibiting obscene material to appear in articles and programming. Obscenity laws were originally governed by the Hicklin test, which had a zero tolerance on obscenity and would authorize the destruction of obscene books regardless of its artistic or literary merit. The act was introduced to parliament after being made viable by Roy Jenkins and was given the Royal Assent in July of 1959. New legislations gave police powers to obtain material from the offender and act further where necessary. The legislation was to protect the public from any immoral pollution the act would allow banning any texts, programmes or films that had the "tendency to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences"
In 1960 Penguin books were taken to trial in the United Kingdom for its publication of DH Lawrence's novel 'Lady Chatterley's Lover' the trial was a milestone in censorship law and was a major public event receiving mass press coverage. The term "there is no such thing as bad publicity" did apply to this trial, even if most press reports were condemning the book, over a period of three months the novel sold 3 million copies proving that such controversy in the public sphere only leads to interest within the public sphere. The trial held witness to E.M. Forster, Richard Hoggart, Helen Gardner and Raymond Williams the prosecution called for Rudyard Kipling in the event that the magistrate would need an expert to persuade him to "keep the empire" pure. The prosecution were ridiculed in the press for being too subjective and extreme moralists and were ridiculed in the press for being "out of touch". Whereas the defence had a more logical and liberal outlook the verdict the literary English scholars refuted the prosecution's suggestion that the work was no more than a string of sexual encounters and defended Lawrence's use of four letter words, adding that it was integral to the novel's literary effect. On November 2nd 1960 after a period of three hours the jurors returned with a verdict of 'not guilty' leading the way to legalising the distribution of the novel, claiming the book was in the 'public good'. This has become a staple point in British Society ending the taboo on sexual displays where art and entertainment is concerned.
Provisions in the Obscene Publications act of 1959 detail:
Subject as hereinafter provided, any person who, whether for gain or not, publishes an obscene article or who has an obscene article for publication for gain (whether gain to himself or gain to another)] shall be liable—
(a)on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months;
imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months;
on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or both.
(b)
Police Powers legislation included n the Obscene Publications act of 1959:
Powers of search and seizure.
(1) If a justice of the peace is satisfied by information on oath that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that, in any premises in the petty sessions area for which he acts, or on any stall or vehicle in that area, being premises or a stall or vehicle specified in the information, obscene articles are, or are from time to time, kept for publication for gain, the justice may issue a warrant under his hand empowering any constable to enter (if need be by force) and search the premises, or to search the stall or vehicle and to seize and remove any articles found therein or thereon which the constable has reason to believe to be obscene articles and to be kept for publication for gain.
(2) A warrant under the foregoing subsection shall, if any obscene articles are seized under the warrant, also empower the seizure and removal of any documents found in the premises or, as the case may be, on the stall or vehicle which relate to a trade or business carried on at the premises or from the stall or vehicle.
Race Relations Act 1976
The Race Relations Act of 1976 was an act established in the United Kingdom under James Callaghan's Labour government. The act was originally established as The Race Relations Act of 1965. However the original bill did not include provisions on healthcare, education and social security on the grounds for discrimination. The new act was introduced to re-establish and enforce further legislation. And encourage equal opportunities and tackle discrimination. These acts also lead to establish the non-departmental affiliated body, the Commission for Racial Equality. Its purpose was to promote better inter-ethnic relations and racial equality in Great Britain. They also obtained legal powers from the relations act using them to combat further discrimination in a court of law. Its first chairman was Conservative MP David Lane who fronted the organisation from 1977-1982. Consequences for breaching this law where employment is concerned could result in an employment tribunal after any unsuccessful mediation in the victim's workplace. The act has helped promote good ethics and morals for culture and the community this has been recognised through film, radio and television. As a result of police brutality at the Brixton 1981 riots, after alot of bad publicity and a long inquiry, the police complaints committee was formed.
More recently on August 4th 2009 an article was published on the BBC's website http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8181486.stm the tagline for the article was 'Migrant Workers Face Rental Block'. The story uncovered a disturbing level of discrimination against migrant workers from letting agency representatives and private landlords in the UK. It gained it sources and information using methods of investigative journalism. The article even includes a short excerpt of undercover footage cementing their judgements furthering provisions to house migrants.
The Human Rights Act 1998
The Human Rights Act of 1998 first derived from the European Convention of Human Rights which was first established in 1953. However amendments needed to be made due to the fact that a victim breached of their human rights waited on average of five years for a trial to commence. And it cost on average £30,000 of the tax payers money to trial these cases.
In 1997 Labour home secretary Jack Straw put forward a draft on a bill "The Rights Brought Home: The Human Rights Bill". The bill was successfully negotiated at both the Commons and the Lords as The Human Rights Act 1998 and was enforced legally on the 2nd of August 2000.
The bill makes it illegal for any public body to act on anything that is incompatible with the Convention. Some articles in the bill include: the right to education, torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, monitoring and surveillance (privacy laws) freedom of right, freedom of expression, free assembly and association, freedom of thought conscience and religion.
The act has since become controversial and has been criticized by senior Labour politicians as well as due to its incompatibility for the fight against terrorism a key factor to such criticism of the bill would be the '2006 Afghan hijackers' case. On the 6th of February 2000 nine members of the Taliban hijacked an Arianha Afghan Airlines plane that contained 180 passengers and seven crew members. After making various stops one of which was in Moscow. The hijackers scheduled their destination by landing the plane at Stansted Airport in Essex, United Kingdom. The hijacking lasted a period of four days with the siege ending on the 10th of February 2000.
The nine hijackers were originally charged with false imprisonment and hijacking in 2001 and were sentenced to five years imprisonment but such convictions were overturned when the court of appeal worked in their favour in 2003. This was due to breaches in The Human Rights act of 1998, the judge was said to have misled the jury, acting under duress.
In July of 2004 adjudicators claim that returning the nine men to Afghanistan as they risk being attacked or even killed by the Taliban. David Blunkett MP was quoted on this instance calling the division "mind boggling". This allows them certain British freedoms such as short-term employment and maybe even benefits under the 1971 immigration act. In 2006 Labour home secretary John Reid goes to the court of appeal to fight the ruling but the home office's appeal is dismissed.
This has been seen as a key flaw in the human rights act where terrorism or any future threats are concerned in the UK. However further legislation has been published such as the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, which was ousted by a number of Human Rights advocate groups. The act restricts any terrorism involved individual the use of their mobile phone(s), restriction of internet access, detaining the individual's passport and more prohibitions are included. It’s also believed that the Identity Cards Act of 2006 in the United Kingdom may contradict article 8 of the Convention in regards to respecting privacy of the individual.
Other suspected breaches of this act feature in high profile court cases with public figures like Naomi Campbell Sienna Miller, the murder of Phillip Lawrence and independently regulated journalism (Murdoch's press, not complying with article 8 of the Convention).
In November of 2011 the BBC investigated claims that carers for the elderly from both public and private agencies had been breaching the human rights act. These issues were brought forward after the home care review stated around 50% of the people who had given evidence had been satisfied with their care however a substantial ammount of complaints were becoming increasingly common. These complaints featured cases of neglect, financial abuse (money taken over a period of time) disregard for privacy or dignity, patronising behaviour, verbal and violent physical abuse towards elderly individuals. The problem seemed to be a lack of common sense from some carers and compassion to. Although local councils are covered under the human rights act, it is unclear how efficient care is to the elderly, one in three councils at this point had already cut back on care for the elderly a further one in five are planning to. The solution would be to invest more money in care for the elderly and provide better training for care agency staff.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15836500
Privacy Law
Privacy Law is legislated to protect the informal privacy of citizens in the United Kingdom and the unauthorized disclosure of any such information belongs to the individual. Privacy law has been criticized in the UK, leader of the opposition Ed Milliband MP had called for tighter restraints on Britain's free press, and the introduction for a new regulatory, independent press regulation. There are many notable supporters of a new independent press regulator, after the News of the World phone hacking scandal Hugh Grant launched the 'Hacked Off' campaign this is to protest the unethical practises of investigative journalists and a press medium that continues to regulate itself so freely. However Liberal Democrat MP Mark Oaten defended the right to a free press "I concluded that however awful it may be, it's better to have a press which can expose MPs' private lives because it means we have a free press… it means we can expose corruption." EU bosses are also set to crackdown on Google since they are failing to comply with privacy laws; they were warned in October of 2012 to revise their new confidentiality policy, after a year of investigation no action has been taken by the internet firm.
Nick Pickles the director of privacy and civil liberties group Big Brother Watch quoted "'After a year of investigation it seems consumers are no closer to seeing any action taken against Google, despite regulators deeming its privacy policy to undermine their rights".
Copyright and Intellectual Property Law
The Statute of Anne was the world's first step in copyright law, an act passed by British parliament in 1710, the Statute of Anne laid the foundations for the United States Copyright Act of 1790. Amendments were made so universities could copyright their books for educational purposes. However the Statute only concerned the publication of books, and no other forms of intellectual property. Intellectual property law gives the rights to an individual or group or organisation (brand names, original designs) they secure the rights to the owner and any unlawful and unauthorised use of copyright such materials are lawfully prohibited.
The IPR work as a legal monopoly any patents that register will be backed for a period of 20 years these are most common with technological inventions and innovations. The PRS are a regulatory that works in the interests of musicians and performers obtaining and enforcing any royalties for the use of their material. The intellectual property office is the official government body who examine, issuing or rejecting patens including those in business, media and sport in the UK. In the event rights to a patent are infringed the IPO can take action alongside the patent which could result in penalties. Copyright infringement is also covered as well as original designs and trademarks. They do advise mediation this is where both parties come to a verbal agreement or an out of court settlement, if an agreement is not met by either party the case will often be taken to trial.
There are many famous cases of copyright infringement such dating back to the case of Isaac Newton v Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz did Newton really create the mathematical science of fluxions? Or was this a coincidence? Nowadays with copyright infringement the penalties are costly with damaged reputations in music there was the case of A & M Records v Napster (2001) Mattel Inc. v MGM Entertainment Inc. (2008) Dowling v United States (1985) and Adidas America Inc. v Payless Shoesource Inc (1994) the latter of which concluded in Addidas being awarded a multi-million dollar pay-out from Payless Shoesource Inc.
Libel Law
Libel Law or English defamation law was first founded by the British it is stipulated legislated action for damages date back to as early as Edward the I's reign (1272-1307) was the law has now been adapted into the Commonwealth nations including the republic of Ireland and the United States of America. This law ensures no one can print or publish statements that defames or discredits an individual often in the event of this the defendant could lose their trade and could damage their personal lives and cause a reasonable person to think less of him or her. Journalists in particular need to make precautions as it could cost them their career, when an unjustified article or broadcast is made public, their would be serious consequences that would follow. In October 2012 controversial comedian Frankie Boyle was compensated £54,650 in damages after the high court found The Daily Mail had libeled his act by brandishing him a "racist comedian". It has since become a taboo subject in our society, but if a joke is told correctly and has the ability to entertain its not malicious. In 2008 The Sunday Mirror awarded damages of an undisclosed five figure sum to Kerry Katona, after printing a libel article claiming she worked as a prostitute before she found success in Atomic Kitten the Sunday Mirror went on to print an apology after the incident.
ETHICAL CONSTRAINTS
The media are responsible for maintaining a reputation to the public and such reputations may be tarnished if a producer fails to comply to the code of practise.
It is also important in news coverage to report the journalistic truth as anything other than the journalistic truth is largely considered deceptive and unsavoury and could break libel laws. When working within the TV industry it is essential that you have a good understanding of the ethical and legal issues surrounding your programme. If your programme touches on sensitive issues such as race discrimination, discrimination against those with physical and/or mental disabilities and homophobia in a negative context or in a distasteful fashion, it can not only cause social uproar but could cost you your career. This is due to the fact that the public are a broad spectrum, full of differing cultures and personalities although marketing departments will generalise the target audience as a disparate group of people, it is important to consider the sensitive nature of these issues and avoid such consequences by using a correct code of ethics. Public figures and celebrities can face scandal when faced with such misconduct. An example of this would be the Robert Kilroy-Silk scandal. Kilroy-Silk quit after 17 years of presenting his talk show at the BBC after an article of his slating "Arabs" simply entitled "We Owe Arabs Nothing" was published in the Sunday Express in January 2004. This resulted in the BBC pulling the plug on his show and from that day forward Kilroy-Silk was no longer a representative of the BBC.
It is also important in news coverage to report the journalistic truth as anything other than the journalistic truth is largely considered deceptive and unsavoury and could break libel laws. When working within the TV industry it is essential that you have a good understanding of the ethical and legal issues surrounding your programme. If your programme touches on sensitive issues such as race discrimination, discrimination against those with physical and/or mental disabilities and homophobia in a negative context or in a distasteful fashion, it can not only cause social uproar but could cost you your career. This is due to the fact that the public are a broad spectrum, full of differing cultures and personalities although marketing departments will generalise the target audience as a disparate group of people, it is important to consider the sensitive nature of these issues and avoid such consequences by using a correct code of ethics. Public figures and celebrities can face scandal when faced with such misconduct. An example of this would be the Robert Kilroy-Silk scandal. Kilroy-Silk quit after 17 years of presenting his talk show at the BBC after an article of his slating "Arabs" simply entitled "We Owe Arabs Nothing" was published in the Sunday Express in January 2004. This resulted in the BBC pulling the plug on his show and from that day forward Kilroy-Silk was no longer a representative of the BBC.
Picture of Richard Kilroy Silk after 'Islamic' attack for his convictions on Islam
His article condemned "Arabs" and other ethnicities in the Middle East for their hatred towards white British members of the public. And furthermore the article seemed to be motivated by anger, convicting Islam, such strong statements can be misunderstood and do appear to intentionally whip up racial tensions whether Kilroy-Silk realised this or not, it was completely unethical for a man of his stature. Faisal Bodi a columnist for The Guardian called for him to be prosecuted for incitement to racial hatred. A bucket of manure was also emptied on Kilroy-Silk in December 2004 when he was slated to appear on BBC Four's radio programme 'Any Questions?' such public uproar is apparent and now he works mainly as a novelist enjoying little Television or Radio airtime.
Other notable incidents are Ron Atkinson a sports commentator for ITV after a racial slur referring to footballer Marcel Desailly was broadcast on air resulting in his media career coming to an abrupt end. Andy Gray yet again another sports commentator fraught with controversy after his sexist comments criticising female football official Sian Massey during a Wolverhampton Wanderers' match. And also Richard Bacon's contract being terminated by Lorraine Heggessey (head of BBC Children's programming) after News of The World published a report detailing Bacon's cocaine and cannabis use (at the time he was 22 years old). However Bacon did make a comeback and as a result retained his media career as a broadcaster he currently presents his own show on BBC Radio Five Live.
The depiction of violent and sexual acts is often regulated and under persistent scrutiny and any such materials in entertainment media are subject to rating systems and supervision from institutions and agencies. In the press room it’s more likely to discuss whether something is legal rather than ethical, but there are standards to follow to remain a dependable source for reading, watching or listening.
Racial discrimination is protected under the Race Relations Act it is important however to realise that stereotypes in the media industry are of constant debate. It can be a highly sensitive subject however in the entertainment industry satirical comedy can sometimes play on otherwise controversial subject matter such as racism, homophobia, paedophilia and drug use by parodying this in a questionably amusing tongue-in-cheek fashion. Brass Eye, Chris Morris's satirical comedy series for Channel Four, received a number of complaints from viewers during its television debut due to its direct satirical humour and its bizarre dramatizations on what some would consider sensitive topics. Although I am a big fan of Chris Morris I can realise how some people may feel estranged or even offended when watching programmes like The Day Today, Brass Eye and Jam.
However he is praised by his peers, Charlie Brooker and Steve Coogan in particular and comic critics alike for his brilliant satirical style, and his parodies on media and political personalities. One occasion that fuelled moral outrage in middle England was Brass Eye's 'Paedogeddon' special, the feature was blatantly a parody on paedophilia in Britain, during and after its broadcast more than 1,500 complaints were made by members of the public thereafter the Independent Television Committee (ITC) took action and ordered Channel 4 to make a public apology. Despite such an apology Channel Four stood by its decision to screen the programme, and said it raised some "valuable points around the sensationalism surrounding the issue of paedophilia in Great Britain". Channel Four had to set up a special complaints line to cope with the inundation of caller complaints to the institution.
Photo of Phil Collins from the programme who was "tricked" into believing the programme was in fact factual
Ricky Gervais also garnered controversy from his latest solo effort writing/directing producing and starring in his own comedy Channel Four comedy Derek. The character Gervais plays appears to be learning disabled and works as a care home assistant. His candid use of words like "retard" "spaz" and "mong" via twitter has cemented this and Nicola Clark a disability rights campaigner called for Ricky to stop using these slang words on Twitter and wrote an article explaining her dissapointment for The Gaurdian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2011/oct/19/ricky-gervais-mong-twitter
Multi-million dollar american comedian and actor Charlie Sheen probably best known as Charlie in hit televiison sitcom Two and A Half Men underwent a heavily publicised meltdown in 2011. After a series of violent incidents involving his ex wife and current wife with the authorities and several health scares, Charlie Sheen enrolled into a substance rehabilitation programme in an attempt to curb his addiction to crack cocaine. His afflictions for drugs and alcohol had previously been reported in the tabloid press. This was his third attempt at rehabilitation in a year. A month later american television network CBS announced its cancellation of the four remaining episodes of the eight series of Two and Half Men, after a number of derogatory comments were made by Sheen concerning writer/director and creator of the show Chuck Lorre. This is due to a case of bad ethics and bad publicity, if it wasn't for Sheen's aggressive, egotistical and erratic behaviour he may still star in the show today. There are consequences no matter what fame or sallary you gain, the executive directors and producers hate a 'loose cannon' and deter from any involvement with anyone who reputes to be a liability.
Charlie Sheen retaliated calling his co-stars and producer 'trolls' he later uploaded video rants on youtube and claimed he was intent on suing both CBS and Warnerbros. The media continued to cover stories on Sheen's meltdown daily, he did make a comeback after starring in 'Anger Management' a TV series based on the 2003 film of the same name starring Jack Nicholson and Adam Sandler. It gained a mixed reception but its television debut holds the record for the most watched television series debut in american history.
One could argue that these characteristics prove entertaining to consumers, but also tragic, as there is a underlining truth to most of the statements Sheen made to the media, concerning personal life struggles, alcoholism, drugs and infidelity. The american media is so saturated, some network television is bias and unforgiving upholding middle class morality and scaremongering with anything that continues to threaten american civil liberties or pollute america's youth. Meanwhhile other networks or community/independent programmes objectify Sheen as a entertainer and a free-thinker.
Good Ethics...
Good ethics will always be detrimental to any part of creative media production, failing to follow the code of practise would only hamper an institutions potential and would fail to produce anything the public would deem reliable and worth subscribing to. The BBC are an open and honest medium often publishing all their terms and conditions that apply with programming online, via the BBC's website under the commissioning tab the following ethical guidelines read as follows...
Professional Body Codes of Practise - The BBC's Commissioning Guidelines
12.1 The BBC is an equal opportunity employer and seeks to ensure that all the independent producers we work with take seriously their responsibilities with regard to Equal Opportunities and in addition Health and Safety during the course of commissions. The BBC therefore requires that all independent producers comply with all current anti-discrimination legislation, and Health and Safety legislation and the respective Codes of Practice related to such legislation. The BBC may request a written statement of the independent producers own equal opportunities and Health and Safety policies and relevant details of how the policy is implemented in practice.
This is an agreement that an independent producer must adhere to in order for the programming to be established and produced successfully. By doing so commissioning will pose no significant problems, it also agrees that if any objections should be made within reason, so there will be.
12.2 We expect independent producers to apply the highest professional and ethical standards in their dealings with BBC staff. In return, BBC staff will apply the same ethical standards of objectivity, integrity, confidentiality, fairness and honesty in dealing with independent producers.
12.3 Alliance for the Protection of Copyright Code - the BBC is a signatory to the APC Code and all independent producers commissioned to make programmes for the BBC need to abide by the principles set out in that code for as long as the BBC remains a signatory.
12.4 The BBC supports comprehensive training across the industry.
This statement to the public referring to the BBC's code of practise reads as follows:
'Our Code of Practice sets out our principles as Trustees. We are committed to the highest standards of integrity, impartiality and objectivity. We promise to be open, responsive and accountable to licence fee payers.'
This is an agreement that assures the BBC's devotion to remaining objective and existing as a truthful source.
No comments:
Post a Comment