英国广播的公正性

Q2 Social Sciences
T. Gibbons
{"title":"英国广播的公正性","authors":"T. Gibbons","doi":"10.1080/17577632.2022.2092170","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Television service providers in the UK are required to preserve due impartiality as respects all matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy. In RT v Ofcom, in a judicial review of the regulator’s decisions that the Russian owned television station RT had breached the rules, the Court of Appeal upheld the regulator’s application of the rules and rejected claims that it should have taken account of the balancing effect of a ‘dominant media narrative’ and of RT’s other programming. The court also rejected the claim that the enforcement of the impartiality regime was an infringement of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, holding that the regulator's action was necessary in a democratic society in the interests of the protection of the rights of members of that democratic society in general and the viewers of RT in particular. This comment discusses the case and its implications.","PeriodicalId":37779,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Media Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impartiality in United Kingdom broadcasting\",\"authors\":\"T. Gibbons\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17577632.2022.2092170\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Television service providers in the UK are required to preserve due impartiality as respects all matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy. In RT v Ofcom, in a judicial review of the regulator’s decisions that the Russian owned television station RT had breached the rules, the Court of Appeal upheld the regulator’s application of the rules and rejected claims that it should have taken account of the balancing effect of a ‘dominant media narrative’ and of RT’s other programming. The court also rejected the claim that the enforcement of the impartiality regime was an infringement of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, holding that the regulator's action was necessary in a democratic society in the interests of the protection of the rights of members of that democratic society in general and the viewers of RT in particular. This comment discusses the case and its implications.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37779,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Media Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Media Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2022.2092170\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Media Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2022.2092170","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

英国的电视服务提供商被要求在所有政治或工业争议问题以及与当前公共政策有关的问题上保持应有的公正性。在RT诉Ofcom一案中,在对监管机构认定俄罗斯拥有的电视台RT违反规则的决定进行司法审查时,上诉法院支持了监管机构对规则的适用,并驳回了监管机构应考虑到“主流媒体叙事”和RT其他节目的平衡效果的主张。法院还驳回了执行公正制度违反《欧洲人权公约》第10条的主张,认为在民主社会中,为了保护民主社会一般成员的权利,特别是RT的观众的权利,监管机构的行动是必要的。这篇评论讨论了这个案例及其影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Impartiality in United Kingdom broadcasting
ABSTRACT Television service providers in the UK are required to preserve due impartiality as respects all matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy. In RT v Ofcom, in a judicial review of the regulator’s decisions that the Russian owned television station RT had breached the rules, the Court of Appeal upheld the regulator’s application of the rules and rejected claims that it should have taken account of the balancing effect of a ‘dominant media narrative’ and of RT’s other programming. The court also rejected the claim that the enforcement of the impartiality regime was an infringement of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, holding that the regulator's action was necessary in a democratic society in the interests of the protection of the rights of members of that democratic society in general and the viewers of RT in particular. This comment discusses the case and its implications.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Media Law
Journal of Media Law Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: The only platform for focused, rigorous analysis of global developments in media law, this peer-reviewed journal, launched in Summer 2009, is: essential for teaching and research, essential for practice, essential for policy-making. It turns the spotlight on all those aspects of law which impinge on and shape modern media practices - from regulation and ownership, to libel law and constitutional aspects of broadcasting such as free speech and privacy, obscenity laws, copyright, piracy, and other aspects of IT law. The result is the first journal to take a serious view of law through the lens. The first issues feature articles on a wide range of topics such as: Developments in Defamation · Balancing Freedom of Expression and Privacy in the European Court of Human Rights · The Future of Public Television · Cameras in the Courtroom - Media Access to Classified Documents · Advertising Revenue v Editorial Independence · Gordon Ramsay: Obscenity Regulation Pioneer?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信