myosotis
Proud Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2009
- Messages
- 4,224
- Points
- 48
I think that the 'Star' has removed the story from it's internet pages now, but it is still available in full on the Daily Mail online page even though a number of 'commenters' on their internet have pointed out the complete inaccuracy concerning the background to the ownership of Morphline.
At the very least this contravenes the principles of the UK NUJ code of conduct, which includes:
A journalist:
1.At all times upholds and defends the principle of media freedom, the right of freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed.
2.Strives to ensure that information disseminated is honestly conveyed, accurate and fair.
3.Does her/his utmost to correct harmful inaccuracies.
4.Differentiates between fact and opinion.
6.Does nothing to intrude into anybody’s private life, grief or distress unless justified by overriding consideration of the public interest.
11.A journalist shall normally seek the consent of an appropriate adult when interviewing or photographing a child for a story about her/his welfare.*
http://www.nuj.org.uk/about/nuj-code/
* but it seems that using someone else's photo of a child in a false story is acceptable???? There are FIVE photos of Blanket in the Daily Mail online article, one of which appears to be from the recent holiday in Hawaii
I was under the impression that UK journalists should not even name children in journalistic stories, unless eg approved by court orders.
it is not just that the story draws attention to the nature of the film, but on the Daily Mail site at least, almost every caption under every screen-capture from the film mentions Blankets name in an outrageously defamatory way. It is hard to calculate how many viewers this has reached over the last 2 days, and how much potential damage this has done to all of Michael's children. (let alone the fact that the article rehashes all the old stories about the childrens parentage, wearing masks ets etc.) Unless a stand is taken, there will be no end to this, as the tabloids obviously see the family as very easy fodder.
At the very least this contravenes the principles of the UK NUJ code of conduct, which includes:
A journalist:
1.At all times upholds and defends the principle of media freedom, the right of freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed.
2.Strives to ensure that information disseminated is honestly conveyed, accurate and fair.
3.Does her/his utmost to correct harmful inaccuracies.
4.Differentiates between fact and opinion.
6.Does nothing to intrude into anybody’s private life, grief or distress unless justified by overriding consideration of the public interest.
11.A journalist shall normally seek the consent of an appropriate adult when interviewing or photographing a child for a story about her/his welfare.*
http://www.nuj.org.uk/about/nuj-code/
* but it seems that using someone else's photo of a child in a false story is acceptable???? There are FIVE photos of Blanket in the Daily Mail online article, one of which appears to be from the recent holiday in Hawaii
I was under the impression that UK journalists should not even name children in journalistic stories, unless eg approved by court orders.
it is not just that the story draws attention to the nature of the film, but on the Daily Mail site at least, almost every caption under every screen-capture from the film mentions Blankets name in an outrageously defamatory way. It is hard to calculate how many viewers this has reached over the last 2 days, and how much potential damage this has done to all of Michael's children. (let alone the fact that the article rehashes all the old stories about the childrens parentage, wearing masks ets etc.) Unless a stand is taken, there will be no end to this, as the tabloids obviously see the family as very easy fodder.
Last edited:
uke: 