Drugs timeline, main 10 points

1. 1900-1914 cocaine, ecstasy and opium start to appear in films.
2. 1916 : BBFC's regulations start to include the deletion of films that include drugs.
3. 1930's films start to show drugs in comedic way.
4. 1949: Robert Mitchum jailed for weed possession.
5. 1955: Frank Sintra startles audiences by playing a drug addicted character.
6. 1967 : LSD and weed are admitted to being the main drive of some music celebrities creativity. Mick Jagger and Paul McCartney arrested for possession.
7. 1984: the video recordings act passed, with a special regard for home viewing.
8. 1997: Liam Gallagher says taking cocaine is like having a cup of tea.
9. 2000's: Films still contain drug taking, however these are bad effects shown, and high age rating.
10. 2005: magic roundabout passed as a U despite the drug references, on the fact that children don't understand the reference

Cheque book journalism

Cheque book journalism is a method of journalism in which money is involved. For example it could a newspaper paying a witness for an exclusive story so that they would have it before any other paper. Another way could be a journalist taking the witness and pay for there dinner whilst they tell them there story. Finally it could also be when there papers buy stories familiar to the first method.

Reasons why it could be banned are because it intervenes with grief after someone's death- Or because its paying criminals money to get there story and finally because its spawns the paparazzi trying to get money in immoral manners.

Keeping it however would mean that stories can reach the public eye which would mean there of public interest and if you were a witness with a story and wanted some extra cash you could effectively cash in on the story. =)

Do current regulations need to change?

Current media regulations are supposed to regulate what goes to print and is fed to worlds people. Current regulations are meant to stop things that breech several codes of practice getting into the open. However with examples such as the phone hacking scandal and in particular the molly dowler whose phone was hacked and thus leading her family to believe she was still alive. This broke many media regulations and yet still found its way into the spot light with this uncovered many more phone hacking scandals were discovered all of which were carried out by news of the world and broke privacy policies this points to the answer that media regulations do need changing so that things like this this do not happen and can be regulated so that papers do not need to conduct illegal and ill moral activities that brake several codes of practice .

Tom watson

Tom watson the mp for west bomich and a member of government select commitee investigating the phone hacking scandel. Tom Watson demanded that murdoch senior account for his failure of governance in allowing criminal activitys whithin his companies. He is particularly bitter towards murdoch and sets up queations to humiliate rather than extract new information.

Articles from the Daily Mail

Front page article- Get back on the ship... That is an order! - A coastguards call to get the captain of a cruise liner that he crashed to get back on the ship and help the others that hadnt escaped rather than being the first of. this is in response to poeple questioning not only what happened but why the captain did not stay on the downed vessel. this article doesnt have much ideolical presence becuase it is about a disaster. iT does appear to be biased on the side against of the captain explaining how he should of stayed on the boat and that it seems dishonerable of him to leave.
Middle page article- Is an article discussion wether carly simons lure jeremy irons into an affair, this in my opinion is not news and is private to the poeple involved and happened a while ago with no relevence to news.
Back page is sport in particulary its cricket rather than football which makes a change. its looking into allegations that a pakistan bowler bends his arm and illegally bowling. this is only being said because he was doing quite well on that day and england lost which is why they are claiming this not very important to me but cricket fans looking to find an excuse for why they lost its very important.

The P.C.C.

The P.C.C. or the press complaints commision.
The pcc are the group that monitor complaints made about the press and it is them that would deal with the complaint.

The pcc have codes of practice such as;
Accuracy, Opportunity for reply, Privacy, Harrasment, Intrusion into grief or shock, Children, Children in sex cases, Hospitals, Reporting of crime, Clandestine devices and subterfuge, Victims of sexual assualt, Discrimination, Financail Journalsim, Confidential sources, Witness payment trails, Payment to criminals. If any of these are tampered with then the pcc have right to look into the case. Although the pcc doesnt actually have the power to prosocute but instead can force them to make an apologie and then give teh evidence to a client so they may make the prosecution.
In my opininon the pcc isnt very succesful with media regulation because most of gets through and into papers such as the phone hacking and super injunctions. Besides they dont even have the power to do anything afterwards other than asking for an apologie.

PCC example complaint case.

COMPLAINANT NAME:
Ms Susan Thomson

CLAUSES NOTED: 5

PUBLICATION: Daily Record

COMPLAINT:

Ms Susan Thomson complained to the Press Complaints Commission that an article headlined "Arthur's Seat body find", published in the Daily Record on 13 June 2011, had intruded into her family's grief in breach of Clause 5 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors' Code of Practice.

The complaint was upheld.

The article reported that a body had been found on a footpath close to Arthur's Seat in Edinburgh and was accompanied by a photograph of the deceased wrapped in sheeting. The complainant, the aunt of the deceased, said that the newspaper's use of the image was insensitive and had caused distress to family and friends: while her nephew was covered loosely, the outline of his arms and body could clearly be seen. The complainant said that her nephew was not a celebrity and the newspaper should have exercised a level of restraint rather than publishing such an explicit photograph which had upset and shocked the many who knew him.

The newspaper apologised to the complainant and her family for the distress and upset caused by the publication of the photograph, which had been removed from the online version of the article. It did not accept a breach of the Code, however: its duty was to inform the public of such tragic events and there was always a difficult balance to strike. In this case, the decision to publish was not taken lightly; rather, the body was covered and visible to the public and, in those circumstances, the publication was a matter of editorial judgement. Such photographs were unfortunate, but not uncommon. That said, the newspaper was willing to publish an apology to the family.

The complainant did not accept the sincerity of the newspaper's apology. She did not take issue with the reporting of the tragedy: it was the graphic photograph which had caused the upset. In addition, she said that the body was not publicly visible as it was 300ft up on the side of a cliff, which, she said, led the police not to erect a privacy screen.

DECISION:
Upheld

ADJUDICATION:

Newspapers are fully entitled to report on tragic events which take place in public, some of which - by their very nature - will cause distress and upset to family and friends. This will often include the taking and publishing of photographs. The overriding requirement under Clause 5 of the Editors' Code is that publication must be "handled sensitively" at times of grief or shock.

The Commission recognised that the choice of photographs to accompany stories of deaths can be an extremely difficult editorial decision. The full context of the article and level of information contained in the image will generally be key factors. In this case, it agreed that it was legitimate for the newspaper to report that a body had been found, and noted that it had occurred at a well-known location, in a public place.

However, in all the circumstances, it did not think that this was sufficient to justify the specific nature of the photograph. In the Commission's view, the outline of the body through the sheeting would have been visible to readers. It quite understood why this had caused the complainant and her family such distress. The Commission considered that the use of this type of explicit image did not meet the Code's requirement of handling publication "sensitively".

While the Commission welcomed the newspaper's offer to apologise, it upheld the complaint.

DATE PUBLISHED:
24/10/2011