The press and the public interest

Author(s):  
Joachim Allgaier
Keyword(s):  
1981 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-7
Author(s):  
Andrew Tettenborn
Keyword(s):  

2018 ◽  
pp. 47-59
Author(s):  
Claire Francis ◽  
Ben Patten
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Jens Elo Rytter

QUAL LIBERDADE DE IMPRENSA? A IMPRENSA CONCEBIDA COMO UM “FÓRUM ABERTO” OU COMO UM “CÃO DE GUARDA PRIVILEGIADO” WHICH FREEDOM OF THE PRESS? THE PRESS CONCEIVED AS AN 'OPEN FORUM' OR A 'PRIVILEGED WATCHDOG'  RESUMO: O artigo examina o significado histórico e contemporâneo de “liberdade de imprensa” no direito constitucional e nos direitos humanos. Existem duas concepções diferentes, a concepção restrita define a liberdade de imprensa como a liberdade de cada um para publicar sem censura prévia, a concepção mais ampla define-a como uma liberdade privilegiada da imprensa organizada para reunir e informar sobre informações de interesse público. Essas duas concepções têm respostas muito diferentes para a questão de saber se a imprensa deve desfrutar de algum privilégio de isenção da legislação ordinária, quando tal legislação restringe o limite da imprensa para informar o público a respeito de questões de interesse público. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Liberdade de imprensa; Liberdade de expressão; Regulação da mídia; Privilégios da imprensa. ABSTRACT: The article surveys the historical and current meaning of "Freedom of the Press" in constitutional and human rights law. Two different conceptions exist, the narrow one defining freedom of the press as the freedom of every one to publish without prior restraint, the broader one defining it as a privileged freedom of the organised press to gather and report on information of public interest. These two conceptions have very different answers to the question of whether the press should enjoy some privilege to be exempt from ordinary legislation when such legislation restricts the access of the press to inform the public on matters of public interest. KEYWORDS: Freedom of the press; Freedom of expression; Media regulation; Press Privileges.


2019 ◽  
pp. 763-780
Author(s):  
Lila Luchessi

Social networks have modified the activities of the press, the actions of audiences, and the perceptions of societies. The strategies displayed to avoid losing consumers aim at fulfilling the audience's needs and the gap between the producers' and the consumers' interests tends to widen. This leads to a crisis point in news financing, affecting the traditional logic of the media industry; while advertisers are now able to reach their audiences without its mediation, viralization and instantaneity force the media to publish information incompatible with the public interest as considered by the press. In this way, traditional newsworthiness criteria are replaced by other criteria that redefine the concept of information. The aim of this chapter is to analyze the way in which instantaneity and viralization have affected not only the journalistic activity but also the information selection criteria and the audiences' input on the web.


Author(s):  
Lila Luchessi

Social networks have modified the activities of the press, the actions of audiences, and the perceptions of societies. The strategies displayed to avoid losing consumers aim at fulfilling the audience's needs and the gap between the producers' and the consumers' interests tends to widen. This leads to a crisis point in news financing, affecting the traditional logic of the media industry; while advertisers are now able to reach their audiences without its mediation, viralization and instantaneity force the media to publish information incompatible with the public interest as considered by the press. In this way, traditional newsworthiness criteria are replaced by other criteria that redefine the concept of information. The aim of this chapter is to analyze the way in which instantaneity and viralization have affected not only the journalistic activity but also the information selection criteria and the audiences' input on the web.


Author(s):  
Stavroula Karapapa

A number of copyright exceptions and limitations aim to promote the production of new copyright works and new authorship, and the protection of the public interest in gaining access to information and knowledge embodied in copyright-protected works. Most of these exceptions are premised on a fundamental human rights justification, such as freedom of speech or freedom of the press, or the right to access protected works without discrimination on grounds of disability. These include, for instance, reproduction by the press for the reporting of current events, quotations for criticism or review, and uses for the purpose of caricature, parody, or pastiche. They also include exceptions and limitations available to persons who are blind, visually impaired, or otherwise print-disabled. Although these exceptions and limitations are express manifestations of fundamental human rights, their scope remains relatively narrow and their legal nature and status against contractual overridability is not settled. Indeed, the permissibility of the relevant activities is subject to a number of internal limitations that may not work well in light of modern uses of materials in the online context. These include purpose limitations, such as the requirement that some uses ought to be non-commercial, scope limits (e.g. the doctrinal requirement that parodies have to be an expression of humour and mockery to be lawful), or restrictive principles that are inherent within copyright, like attribution to the source of the original work.


2018 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 562-567
Author(s):  
Claudio Schuftan

Historically, political elites adopted the idea of human rights if, and only if, it could foster their interests. Today, it is thus public interest civil society organizations, and not states, that are left to contribute most to the protection of and the struggle for human rights. Despite human rights being enshrined in constitutions, nowadays they can primarily be effectively claimed by those with access to the courts and by the press, i.e., those in power. Public interest civil society organizations and social movements are the only ones left to play this crucial role. The need for the global human rights movement to bridge the gap that has opened up between itself and the majority of the public is clear. Communications in the human rights domain simply have to become less legalistic and more hands-on. To claim their rights, those rendered poor need real power. Those who have been left poor and oppressed do not ever get to actively claim their rights. Instead they ask for mercy, expect charity, and seek benefits from benevolent masters.


Author(s):  
Keith B. Alexander ◽  
Jamil N. Jaffer

Leaks of highly classified information, popular views of government national security efforts, and changes in the media environment in recent years have resulted in a significant decay in the relationship between the government and the media and public trust in both institutions. To correct this harmful trend, a significant recalibration of the government-media relationship and the establishment of a new compact between them would best serve the public interest. The government should be more transparent about its national security efforts and more self-critical in classification decisions and should explain national security activities it undertakes, defending and justifying classified programs in detail whenever possible. The press must likewise be willing to afford the government fair treatment, including noting government efforts to protect national security, and to appropriately balance civil rights and privacy. It is important that these institutions work together to establish new mores on classification, government transparency, and a more responsible approach to classified disclosures.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document