Week 8: The Justice Gap

On Monday the biggest breaking story on the Today programme was the announcement that internet companies Google and Microsoft were going to block 100,000 search engine results relating to images of child abuse. This was the top story for most papers, and certainly breaking news for online websites. We agreed in the Skype conference that we had covered a lot of miscarriage of justice stories, and that we needed to add variation to the website. Therefore, I suggested to the editor that I could cover this topic with it being a big current issue. To move the story on from the new changes made I wanted to get the angle that addressed the victims involved, I did this by contacting children's charities to get their view on on the new changes. After speaking with the media team at the NSPCC I was in contact with the head of Child Saftey Online, following the phone interview I transcribed what she said and wrote my article up that outlined what changes she felt still needed to be done. To view the article click the headline link below.

This week was a good example of how to address the people that are affected by the story rather then the story itself and move it on. This is something the editor has always been in favour of so rather then leading with the story about Google blocking child porn, I lead with the reaction by the leading children's charity. Every story in journalism has to engage human interest, if no one is affected by it no audience will want to read it, therefore getting the reaction to the initial story is really important in addressing a fresh article.

More networks spreading ‘poisonous’ child abuse imagery need to be tackled

Also this week I was covering a sexual offence court report on Winchester News Online. After speaking with the victim support group a few weeks back regarding the changes to the victims code I thought it would be good to do a follow up and re-address this story using the court report as a case study. The man was convicted of 20 offences including rape over a period of eight years, he abused women who he was seeing and therefore this was a big case whereby the victims had to come forward in court and re-live these terrible experiences. I think it's important to address the bravery of the victims as speaking up in court is a difficult process. I used the interview from the victim support group and the officer leading the case to write an article about the significance of impact statements, but to move the article on, I got the view of a defence barrister to find out how beneficial they thought this new right would be and whether it gives victims unrealistic expectations. Speaking with the barrister was really interesting to hear it from a different perspective. Although the Government have introduced this new right, the barrister pointed out how victims have always been considered throughout the process, just not in a way that exploited to the public exactly how they were feeling. That is not to say they were not considered by the judge, they always have been. The benefit of reading the statements aloud in full in court raised doubts in the barristers mind. To read the full article click the headline below.

Impact statements may raise ‘unrealistic expectations’ for victims