Data protection is increasingly dominating the agenda when it comes to media law developments – from the Google Spain decision, to the protection of the much coveted journalistic exemption to a number of the key provisions in the Data Protection Act.

Earlier this month, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) released a guidance document entitled “Data protection and journalism: a guide for the media”, which is accompanied by a “quick guide”.

The quick guide contains all of the information that most journalists will need when it comes to the DPA, and should form part of every journalists’ toolkit.

From what I can see, the full guide does not bring anything new to the table – there’s not much to get excited or up in arms about. But what it does do is put the relevant parts of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) into readable and understandable language. It is no secret that the DPA is one of the most inaccessible pieces of legislation, and distilling the provisions that are relevant to journalistic activities is no mean feat.

It would be impossible to summarise the 53 page document here, and for most readers of this column, there probably isn’t a need to read the document in full. For many, the guide will be most useful as a reference tool.

However, the main area of interest has to be the application of section 32 – the journalistic exemption.

Section 32 allows journalists to handle data in ways that would otherwise be unlawful, as long as:

•     they are processing the data for the sole purpose of journalism, with a view to publishing the information;
•     they reasonably believe that publication is in the public interest, which justifies the intrusion into the subject’s privacy; and
•     they reasonably believe that compliance with the provisions of the DPA is incompatible with journalism.

The guide makes it clear that the ICO requires the journalist, or the publisher, to consider each element of the exemption. And it is not a blanket exemption – there is an obligation for the publisher to comply with the DPA as much as possible, rather than deciding that the exemption applies, then ignoring the DPA altogether.

When the ICO considers whether a publisher was right to use the exemption, it is important to note that the ICO does not need to agree with the publisher’s beliefs (as outlined in the second and third bullet points). The ICO just needs to think that the publisher’s decision was reasonable.

When it comes to defining ‘journalism’, the guide states that the term should be interpreted broadly. Journalism therefore includes “disclosure to the public of information, opinions or ideas by any means”, which encapsulates “the entire output of the print and broadcast media, with the exemption of paid-for advertising”.

The above principles are important, and it is useful to have them conveyed in a digestible way.

Interestingly, the guide states that the right to respect for privacy and the right to freedom of expression are “both important rights, and neither automatically trumps the other”. This assertion seems to be at odds with the ruling in Google Spain, in which it is made clear that in those circumstances privacy trumped freedom of expression. It will be interesting to see the ICO’s stance on this when those who are unhappy with Google’s ‘right to be forgotten’ decisions, advance their appeals to the ICO.

The guide is not ground breaking by any means, but it is helpful none the less.