The International Forum for Responsible Media, (Inforrm for short) was set up to debate issues of media responsibility.
We believe in an independent, strong, free and responsible mass media. The media has important privileges in the public interest to enable it to perform its role as a public watchdog. But with those privileges go responsibilities. The media’s right to freedom of expression must be properly balanced against the rights to privacy and reputation which are an essential part of human dignity.
- The media should take reasonable steps to verify the truth of the stories that it publishes. Anybody who is going to be the subject of media allegations of misconduct should normally be given the opportunity to comment on them first.
- If stories which are published turn out to be false, the media should publish prompt and appropriate corrections and apologies. In appropriate cases, proper compensation should be paid.
- The media should respect people’s dignity and autonomy, it should not invade privacy without having good reasons in the public interest. Anybody whose privacy is going to be invaded by the media should normally be informed in advance and given the opportunity to respond.
Responsible media are an essential part of a healthy social and political system. The striking of the proper balance between expression, privacy and reputation is in the interests of all. We will campaign for practical and legal measures which are designed to ensure that this balance is properly struck.
The Inforrm blog has now been running for over five years. We have had over 3000 posts from dozens of contributors from around the world. By the end of April 2014 we had had 2.8 million page views – from 4 continents. After the United Kingdom our biggest readership is in the United States, Australia, Canada, India and Ireland – with large number of readers in Europe and across the rest of the world.
We invite suggestions for seminars and events and contributions to the Inforrm Blog. Our purpose is to provide a forum for debate, to be inclusive rather than exclusive. If you want to contribute, please let us know.
I have been asked to find out how your Blog is archived. I have checked the history of your blog and it goes back to Jan of this year. Is this when the blog was started? Did you start blogging before this? Does the information on your blog disappear after a while? What is your policy on archiving the information?
It is an excellent resource and it would be a shame to lose the information that has been entered.
The blog archive is complete. The blog only started in January 2010.
Probably the best blog re a wide range of media law topics.
One thing – your print link never works.
please could you say who you are. You use the ‘we’ word but I am unable to see the names of those running this blog. Perhaps I have missed the information on your blog – either way could you please say who you are and who is backing you.
I, too, would like to know who is behind this blog. One I know – Hugh Tomlinson QC but anyone else? If accountability and transparency are so important then why not put your names behind what you print? Shouldn’t you be setting the standard for responsible media?
I too am suspicious of who you are and your secret agenda. If you have nothing to hide, say who you are.
I wonder who else uses the argument, “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”. The answer is if the source is anonymous, then you can downgrade your reliance on the content. It could be that the writer is anonymous because of they can’t have their work attributed to them for some reason or other.
I have found your statistics on the number of privacy injunctions in 2012. Do you have any statistics on the number of libel injunctions there have been granted in recent years at all?
Interim libel injunctions are extremely rare – as a result of the application of the Rule in Bonnard v Perryman. The only interim libel injunction granted in recent years that we are aware of was that granted in the case of ZAM v CFW & Anor  EWHC 476 (QB) (07 March 2011).
I’m aware of two cases of libel injunctions in 2010 Ann mazzola v rick kordowski and Juliet Farrall v rick kordowski. Is the ZAM case the only injunction granted in 2011? And are there Any cases to your knowledge from 2012?
My previous most awaits moderation. Your work and your dedication is exceptional. Thank you,
I have a question. Will you post a press release from an Organization who is being targeted with a false media campaign that is inciting hate?