पत्रकारिता (मीडिया) का प्रभाव समाज पर लगातार बढ़ रहा है। इसके बावजूद यह पेशा अब संकटों से घिरकर लगातार असुरक्षित हो गया है। मीडिया की चमक दमक से मुग्ध होकर लड़के लड़कियों की फौज इसमें आने के लिए आतुर है। बिना किसी तैयारी के ज्यादातर नवांकुर पत्रकार अपने आर्थिक भविष्य का मूल्याकंन नहीं कर पाते। पत्रकार दोस्तों को मेरा ब्लॉग एक मार्गदर्शक या गाईड की तरह सही रास्ता बता और दिखा सके। ब्लॉग को लेकर मेरी यही धारणा और कोशिश है कि तमाम पत्रकार मित्रों और नवांकुरों को यह ब्लॉग काम का अपना सा उपयोगी लगे।
रविवार, 21 सितंबर 2014
Media : Court reporting and social media
Twitter has transformed the
business of court reporting by allowing journalists to share information
from court faster than ever. Accuracy is crucial. BBC correspondent
Dominic Casciani discusses the impact of social media.
This is a general
guide for journalists. It is not a comprehensive account of the law, nor
should it be relied upon to make any judgment about the legal aspects
of a story. BBC journalists should always take specific advice from the
BBC’s legal team.
news journalist worth their salt should be familiar with the basics of
court reporting: sit quietly in court and accurately note what you hear;
at a suitable moment, leave court to write or broadcast your story.
fact, other than the advent of broadcasting, the trade has remained
largely unchanged since the 17th century. If you want to see what I
mean, see the digitised court reports of witchcraft trials and
hangings-a-plenty at the extraordinary Proceedings of the Old Bailey website.
Justice and the public
late 2010 the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Judge,
sanctioned a tweeting pilot largely to see if it aided public
understanding of justice.
journalists initially saw the pilot, which covers any form of
electronic text communication, in limited terms: they could fire
information back to the news desk without having to leave court. There
was a benefit too for the court: it meant fewer potential distractions
as reporters come and go.
the power of Twitter as a court-reporting service started to become
clear at the end of the inquests into the 7 July London bombings of
In May 2011 the
coroner, Lady Justice Hallett, delivered a comprehensive – and at times
very moving – series of verdicts. I tweeted every key quote or line. As I
did so I realised that a live online audience was coalescing around my
words, waiting for the next tweet to follow. They, in turn, retweeted
what I was reporting.
It was a digital version of the pub conversation. Colleagues using Twitter on other big court stories had similar experiences.
Stephen Lawrence trial
it was the overwhelming public interest in the Stephen Lawrence murder
trial which confirmed that live social media reporting was now at the
heart of the job.
opened with an application by the prosecution to ban the use of social
media out of fear of prejudicial commentary. The following morning,
after a BBC challenge, the judge accepted that Twitter was not a means
for journalists to comment but a means to report court cases as they
happen, informing both the public and their colleagues in the newsroom.
it came to the verdicts and sentencing of Stephen Lawrence’s murderers,
the interest on Twitter was phenomenal. During the sentencing, all of
us who were reporting the trial saw new followers flocking to find out
more. Each of our feeds also played a wider role, with live broadcasters
relaying the tweets to TV and radio audiences – and websites such as
the BBC and The Guardian integrating tweets into live pages.
Lord Chief Justice has now permanently approved court tweeting, and the
courts in Northern Ireland and Scotland are expected to do so soon.
fide reporters do not need permission to communicate from court because
it is assumed that their tweets are accurate reports of proceedings,
rather than comments suggesting the bloke in the witness box is dodgy.
can still ban tweeting for broadly the same reasons as you would expect
them to restrict any form of reporting – where it interferes with
justice. There could be cases, for instance, where the judge is
concerned that a witness waiting to give evidence may change their story
because of what they picked up beforehand.
overall, is live text reporting on Twitter or elsewhere a good thing
for journalism? I would say yes, but with some important observations
allows journalists to share information from court faster than they
could through traditional means – it beats hands down any organisation’s
news production system. But Twitter’s audiences are still small
compared to the BBC’s main outlets. Tweeting should not be at the
expense of colleagues producing the main news content. Many news
organisation have adopted the principle of ‘share first, tweet second’.
are some real questions relating to the potential workload around
tweeting and the way journalists traditionally take notes in court. If
you tweet everything of importance – as I did during the Lawrence
sentencing – it makes it hard to take a full shorthand note.
if you need to check something later, you better make sure that your
tweets are accurate and reliable. Don’t paraphrase unless it’s clear
from your tweet that you have done so and, critically, it does not
change the meaning.
tweet in haste and regret at leisure. Tweets take on a life of their
own. You don’t want to be responsible for the incorrect tweet that then
needs to be withdrawn.
What about the social element? Should court reporters reply to their followers?
Lawrence, I received some tweets written by people who just wanted to
have a rant. Others asked legitimate questions about the legal process
that I wouldn’t normally have time to explain during a news report.
Just like you would not comment on a case live on air, don’t do so on Twitter.
The College of Journalism offers face-to-face and online courses for BBC staff:Law & Standards
BBC training is available to non-BBC staff on a commercial basis.