The document discusses several topics related to journalism guidelines and regulations: 1) When reporting on stories involving minors, the BBC must ensure the child's welfare and dignity is protected. Content must be suitable for the target audience and not breach broadcasting codes. 2) Contempt of court refers to disobeying or disrespecting a court through actions that oppose its authority. It includes recording proceedings without consent or publishing such recordings. 3) Libel and defamation allow individuals to sue if damaging material is published about them that harms their reputation, regardless of intent to defame. Libel specifically refers to defamatory statements in print. 4) During elections, the BBC must remain

1. Handling of stories involving minors
When it comes to handling stories which involve minors, the BBC Editorial Guidelines state
that they “must ensure that the physical and emotional welfare and the dignity of children
and young people are protected during the making and broadcast of our content.” This gives
minors the right to speak out and to participate within content, this means that the content
that children (someone is under the age of 15 years, Young people are those aged 15, 16
and 17 years old) consume content which is suitable for the target audience which does not
break the OFCOM’s broadcasting code. Section Two of OFCOM’s broadcast states that
content from TV and Radio Services must not cause harm and/or offense to the audiences.
This is one of the BBC’s main focuses for the BBC as the children and young people
contribute and interact with the BBC in many different ways, whether this being actors,
presenters or as the audience.
Contempt of Court
Contempt of court can often be referred as the offense of being disobedient or disrespectful
towards a court of law and its officers in the form of behaviour that opposes or defies
authority, justice and dignity of the court. Contempt is seen as a criminal offense, with there
being two types of contempt: Statutory and common law which both involve interfering with
legal proceedings in the UK. In the form of journalism, it is seen as contempt of court for
anyone i.e. the public or the press to use or take into the court for use, a tape recorder or
any other form of recording device without consent from the court, in addition to this it is
seen as contempt to use or publish such content. However, it is with discretion that the court
may allow such recordings to be made. Alongside recording, taking photographs, filming and
sketching (if this intended for the public eye) is also seen as contempt of the court and this
does not just include the courtroom, it includes the entirety of the building and its precincts.
However, even though sketching in court is prohibited if intended for publication, attending
the court, memorising and then making the sketch afterwards is permissible.
Libel and Defamation
Defamation is the communication of a false statement which harms the reputation of an
individual person, group or business. This allows Indi duals, companies or even firms to sue
for the damage caused to their reputation by material which had been published which
makes defamatory comments towards one’s self. If the publisher didn’t intend to defame
someone, it wouldn’t matter as it could have already caused damaged, it is all dependant on
how readers or viewers interpret it. In the form of journalism, Libel is defamation which has
been expressed on print, this can range from newspapers to signs. Whereas libel refers to
statements or visual depictions in the form of print, slander refers to statements and
gestures.
Coverage of Elections
Regarding elections many stations and newspaper state which party they are in favour of,
like for example during the 2015 election. Radio stations like Capital FM which appeal for a
younger and middle to lower class audience best appeal to Labour supporters whereas
upper class radio stations like Classic FM would appeal more to the conservative supporters.
However, as the BBC appeals to all audiences they have to keep their preference unbiased
and support all parties within the United Kingdom.

2. Official Secrets Act
It is with the Official secrets act 1989 which makes it a criminal offence to obtain or publish
any private information from a serving or former member of the security and intelligence
services which disclosure would result in damage. One of the reasons behind the act is to
keep certain information secret from the public eye which ensures the democratic process
runs fairly and that public figures are held accountable if they abuse this, in the release of
such disclosed information could place the entire country at risk which can be seen as a
justification to keep such information secret. However, the metropolitan police’s attempts in
order to force The Guardian Newspaper to disclose their sources due to the phone hacking
scandal, the metropolitan police claimed that several sources could have been breached by
national security in order to disclose information which had sparked outrage from the public.
Although this act can be seen as heavily controversial because it allows the government to
keep things secret from the public, it is without a doubt that it is in use to defend the country
for national security purposes.
JAMIE VARDY DAUGHTER THREATS STORY
There are news stories which only affect people regionally such as
house fire, and then there are news stories which can affect
viewers nationally and even sometimes internationally depending
on the news story at hand. For example, the recent events of
Jamie Vardy who is a football player for Leister city Football has
reported that he has received vile tweets from users towards his
young daughter. According to The Independent, internet uses
targeted the England player’s daughter after the player’s fiancé had
shared a picture with their daughter wearing the kit of Leicester
city, after the player re-tweeted the image, his fiancé had received
graphic rape and death threats targeting their daughter. This news
story comes under as a serious news topic as rape and death
threats are serious and are not to be joked about, which usually
results in police involvement. It is in the public’s interest for them to
be aware of this topic, as many people whether it be adults or children look up to him as
football is a way of connecting everyone, so when the public are made aware of a news topic
like this then they would be outraged by the fact that there are users who would make vile
comments towards their favourite players daughter. I believe that publishing stories like this
that are in the public interest is a way of getting the public on the side of the victim. You can
also state that this news story is seen as an invasion of privacy for the couple, by sending
death threats to the couples child it invades their privacy by creating unwanted attention to
the family and therefore making national news. As football is seen as an international topic
and with Leicester city breaking records by coming close to winning the league, it is no doubt
that a topic like this would be covered nationally, or possibly even internationally as many
countries support English teams although the news story is mainly domestic to English
football. I would not state this news topic as an urgent matter over international news due to
the domestic feature of this news topic, I wouldn’t see this news topic being covered for long,

3. however with it being an domestic news topic I believe a news topic like this would be
covered immediately due to the fact it is in the public interest and that the public would want
to know what is going on, but not to the point where it invades their privacy. As this is a new
news story which was released at the beginning of April, there has been no new reports
regarding the case however in recent news there was a news topic regarding the player for
diving but this is not linked towards this news topic, however the player has been accused of
diving quite frequently so this is what may have sparked users out of anger to comment
about the players daughter. Even though this news story was published nationally, the main
target audience for this story was the region of Leicester so you would not expect much in
the form of audio and visual however even though this was covered by numerous
newspapers, it wasn’t big enough to be broadcasted live via radio or TV. Though it is
possible that a radio station like a talksport or a local station in Leicester may have covered
the news story, unfortunately I could not find enough evidence to prove this. I believe this
can be relatable to some readers due to unfortunately receiving vile comments such as
these, this is why a news story like this may appeal to victims of hate comments to ensure
that they don’t go through the same stress as they did, and there is also public interest which
is appeal of an article to the general public. I believe that the public would want to be aware
of a news topic like this as Jamie Vardy is a character in which the public look up to and to
hear this regarding their player would be seen as hurtful.
The next story is David Cameron as he as
admitted that he has profited from his father’s
panama offshore trust fund, in this article he
stated that he had benefited from a panama-
based offshore trust set up by his late father.
The Prime Minister stated that he owned shares
in the tax haven fund, in which he sold for
£31,500 just before prime mister in 2010.
Recently after the leak, he admitted that it had
been “a difficult few days” as he held the shares
together with his wife, Samantha, from 1997 and during his time as the Leader of the
opposition and it is with this fund that his father avoided paying tax in Britain. With a massive
headline like this, you would expect a news story like this to be covered nationally and quite
possibly even internationally. Websites such as BBC News and the guardian which have
quite broad and huge audience covered this topic which helped alert audiences into the
situation and keep readers up to date with the latest news on the topic at hand, this was an
important headline due this being about the Prime minster of the United Kingdom, the public
would lose their trust in the man due to having covered this up since before becoming prime
mister. The immediacy of this topic quickly spread from article to article due to the
importance of tax avoidance within this country which could be considered as ironic as the
man in charge of the country has been seen benefiting from an offshore trust fund. I believe
the reason that this article spread so quickly was due to the shock of the public in which
many supporters had their trust in him and for this to happen could be seen as the break of
trust. There were many articles which shortly followed up after, for example one news topic
from the guardian compared the earnings of David Cameron from being the Leader of the
opposition to being the Prime Minster in order to give readers a clearer understanding on the
situation. Following the leak, David faced many interviews such as one for ITV in which he
stated he did not have “anything to hide” and that it had been a “fundamental misconception”

4. in which the trust fund had been set up to avoid tax. One thing in which stood out about this
news topic was about the comedian Jimmy Carr who was criticised by David Cameron in
2012 over his tax affairs, Jimmy Carr Stated that it would be “Morally wrong” to pass
comment on another individuals tax affairs, therefore echoing words used by David Cameron
when he condemned him for his tax affairs.