.png)
The Blue Highway Beacon: Vol. II, NO. 1
- Blue Highway Advisory
- Jan 13
- 8 min read
Updated: Feb 19
Where Facts? Journalism, Politics, Facts, Justice.
By Amanda Harcourt
Blue Highway Advisory Lead: International Copyright, Contracts and Rights Administration
Rights Administration
Entering into 2025 and a new US presidency, Meta has followed Musk’s X and announced the removal of the fact-checking safety protocols from its Facebook, Instagram and Threads feeds in the United States. Despite pushback from civil liberties groups, the move was justified by Meta’s Press Senior Counsel as working in the interests of free speech. Nora Benavidez, Director of Digital Justice and Civil Rights said "[c]ontent moderation has never been a tool to repress free speech; it is a principle that the platforms themselves developed to promote dialogue and protect truth for users." This lifting of prohibitions against some hate speech on Meta’s platforms means that users will now be able to liken formerly protected characteristics including "race, ethnicity, national origin, disability, religious affiliation, caste, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity" to inanimate objects, property, or even diseases.
In addition, the delivery of political content will see a change as well. The short-lived suspension of proactive recommendations of political content to users on Instagram and Threads is over – globally. Users of Threads and Instagram will not be able to opt out of seeing political content from accounts that they do not follow. Instead of there being strict guidelines around political posts and discussions, Meta has decided that, again purportedly in the interests of free speech, the policy change will allow users to see content that aligns with their existing preferences. Concerns are that this will lead to echo chambers where users see material that reinforces their existing world view – irrespective, seemingly, of whether the material flooding their inbox is actually true. Or, given the increasing use of the absurd phrase ”[my] truth” – which is of course a synonym for “what I think” – perhaps the concerns should be about facts.
In the UK and in some European countries, there is a degree of statutory regulation over what social media can show. The UK’s Online Safety Act of 2023 has inevitably drawn the ire of Mr. Musk, who has been vocal in criticising the new duties placed on social media companies and search services. The Act makes these companies more responsible for their platform users’ safety, and the Act’s regulatory body also has powers to take appropriate action against all companies, no matter where they are based, when their services have links with the UK.
And as for facts, those increasingly elusive commodities in many social media feeds, it is absolutely arguable there is an even greater need for first class, accurate and in-depth reporting of important news, of public policy and matters of public interest.
Where journalists are researching such stories, there can, with certainty, be sensitivities. As we know, vigorous reporting on sensitive matters can be unpopular with our leaders and with powerful vested interests. And for reasons of their own safety, sources may wish to remain confidential, and whistleblowers may wish to reveal abuses without stepping into the public gaze. Modern technological capabilities and the wholesale harvesting of citizens’ data present a genuine challenge across the world, most especially in regard to the need to avoid surveillance when developing important news stories.
The UK has statutory whistleblower protections, as does the USA. But when it comes to law enforcement, a relatively new UK statutory framework works alongside traditional legal protections for journalists. The Investigatory Powers Act of 2016 now provides a framework for the use by security and intelligence agencies, law enforcement and other public authorities, of investigatory powers in obtaining communications and communications data.
As these new realities take hold quickly, I will be leading a two-day post-graduate event at the Faculty of Laws’ Institute of Brand and Innovation Law at University College London. This is Year Nine of this educational series. Each year, the event takes a cross-disciplinary approach with a combination of law and practice. Exploring both is, we believe, critical for taking the practical implementation of privacy, data protection and data security seriously. Some themes feature every year, and others are introduced in response to legal and policy developments or current events.
In the 2025 event (set for the 18th and 19th February), there are two presentations related to facts and their increasingly precarious existence in our news. One will look at whistleblowing, and one will explore the key themes of the Investigatory Powers Act from the perspective of a telecommunications operator potentially facing obligations under the law, while giving practical tips on what one might do if one is on the receiving end of a request for assistance.
The two-day event is only available in person, and bookings can be made here:
The University also hosts a related public lecture to launch each year’s two-day event. This will be available online for those who might not be able to attend in person.
On 11th February 2025 at 1800h (GMT), I will be chairing a public lecture entitled Journalism, Politics and British Justice. Two journalists and their barrister will discuss their fight back against the police and intelligence services; a fight that they entered into while simply doing their jobs. The journalists were arrested following their investigation into a loyalist paramilitary massacre that occurred within the complex and sensitive political conflict that was Northern Ireland.
BHA Beacon Readers can book her for the online public lecture:
Journalism, Politics and British Justice
Searching for the truth behind the 1994 loyalist paramilitary massacre in Loughinisland, County Down, two journalists fought to protect their sources. This became an encounter with the British justice system that ended at the Court of Appeal, 30 years after the massacre. Shortly before Christmas 2024, the UK Investigatory Powers Tribunal ruled against the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the London Metropolitan Police.
Background: Loughinisland is a small County Down village; a close-knit community of a little over 200 people. Until one Saturday evening, when the Ireland football team was playing Italy in Giants Stadium, New Jersey in their opening game of World Cup finals, Loughinisland was a village largely untouched by “The Troubles”. But on June 18th 1994, a little after halftime with Ireland winning one-nil, two men burst through the doors of the tiny Heights Bar and indiscriminately opened fire with assault rifles upon the occupants. Six innocent Catholic men died and five more were wounded. The bereaved families were assured by the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) that they would “leave no stone unturned” to identify the killers.
Sharing the frustration of the bereaved families, an experienced and respected Northern Ireland journalist, Barry McCaffrey and his colleague, documentary film maker Trevor Birney, began digging. The result was the 2017 award-winning film No Stone Unturned from Oscar-nominated director, Alex Gibney. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuZfe5iyaXw
The film confirmed there had been collusion between the RUC and the loyalist terrorists behind the killings. It named the terrorist suspects and included evidence from an internal Police Ombudsman report. Unbeknownst to the bereaved families, the police and, it was alleged, Special Branch, had known the identities of the killers and the driver of the getaway car by the morning after the massacre. And it subsequently appeared that one of the three may have been an active police informer. Crucially, prior to the film’s release, the filmmakers informed the RUC and the three men allegedly guilty of the crime that their identities would be made public in the film.
But within a year, Barry McCaffrey and Trevor Birney had been arrested, their homes and offices searched and their computers seized. In what became clear was a tactic to identify the journalists’ sources, the two men were arrested on suspicion of breaches of the Official Secrets Act, the theft of confidential documents and, allegations were made that they had compromised the safety of the perpetrators of the terrorist killings!
Using the legal tools designed to protect the journalists from surveillance and interference with investigations, McCaffrey and Birney fought back.
Even now, thirty years after the massacre, nobody has been arrested or charged for the events of that night in 1994.
The Institute of Brand and Innovation Law in the Faculty of Laws at UCL is delighted to welcome Barry McCaffrey, Trevor Birney and their barrister, Ben Jaffey KC. Barry and Trevor will share their professional and personal experience of this long battle. Ben Jaffey will speak to the legal tools that were employed by the two journalists at each step in their challenge; tools which are, in law and in theory, available to any journalist seeking to secure the privacy and confidentiality of their sources when reporting news or investigating matters of public interest.
Speakers Biographies:
Barry McCaffrey
Barry McCaffrey was a senior reporter on The Detail, an investigative news and analysis website dedicated to in-depth reporting on issues of vital public interest. The Detail's core areas of investigation include health, education, politics, justice and crime, government accountability, and the legacy of conflict in Northern Ireland. McCaffrey’s training began in 1996 at the Down Democrat. McCaffrey moved in 1998 to the North Belfast News and in 2001 to Irish News where he remained for 10 years. He has written for the Sunday Times, Ireland on Sunday, Sunday Business Post and Irish Voice. In 2013 McCaffrey was awarded the overall award in the Attorney General’s prestigious Justice Media Award by the Law Society of Ireland for his investigation of the use of solitary confinement in Northern Ireland prisons. In the same year, Barry was named CIPR Digital Journalist of the Year.
Trevor Birney
Trevor Birney is an Emmy-nominated producer, award-winning director, and the founder of Fine Point Films. In 2023, he produced the Cyndi Lauper documentary, “Let The Canary Sing” which premiered at Tribeca Film Festival. Previously, he produced the Critics’ Choice Award-winning and Sundance hit film The Go-Go’s directed by Alison Ellwood. He directed the RTÉ television documentary series, “Quinn Country” which aired in 2022. His slate also includes Emmy-nominated film No Stone Unturned directed by Oscar-winner Alex Gibney, Sundance World Competition film Gaza, Emmy-nominated Elián for CNN Films, Netflix Originals Documentary Mercury 13, George Best: All By Himself for ESPN and BBC, Wave Goodbye To Dinosaurs in collaboration with Abigail Disney’s Fork Films, Bobby Sands: 66 Days and HBO’s Emmy-winning Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God directed by Alex Gibney. In 2020, he directed The Dakota Entrapment Tapes which premiered at Hot Docs and was released on Sundance Now. He is also the founder of the television production company Below The Radar and the multi-award-winning investigative journalism website The Detail.
Ben Jaffey KC
You can book here: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/events/2025/feb/journalism-politics-and-british-justice
© Amanda Harcourt, 2025
Blue Highway Advisory
Comments