I’m going to refer back to my days as a broadcast journalist once again for the introduction to my log this week.

I used to look after more than 60 reporters and editors who were spread across 27 radio stations and one of my responsibilities, as the group head of news, was to provide legal advice to stations.

Usually it was guidance about how far the envelope could be pushed, but it was often to help out when the station had got into trouble. 

Reporters would ring and say ‘I said in the 3pm news that our local mayor’s limo had been seen parked up outside a strip club in the red light district of town and now he’s on the phone saying he’s going to sue for libel … what do I do?’

‘Hire a bloody good lawyer’ was my usual response.

The other issue was contempt of court.  For me, contempt of court is the fine line between being able to report on a really juicy story and not annoying the judge to the point where they send you to jail as well.

We got it wrong once and I had to face a really angry judge at Winchester Crown Court who wasn’t at all pleased that we ‘had threatened his trial’ with some rather inaccurate reporting at one of my stations.

I won’t bore you with the detail, but as they say, it was a real ‘squeaky bum’ moment as I stood in the dock and waited for His Honourship (no, I didn’t call him that) to decide my fate.  In the end he let me off, but it was a lesson hard learned.  It’s an experience I wouldn’t wish on anyone else.

Anyway, newspapers, radio and TV stations often publish or transmit loads of detail about crimes before the suspect(s) go to trial.  As the date of the court case approaches, the level of detail comes down and of course, when the trial is underway, the reporting has to be really ‘tame’ in order to ensure that the accused gets a fair hearing free from any ‘influence’ from the media.

I’ve always been interested in the debate about fair trials – is a jury really capable of erasing from their minds what they’ve read about a case in the newspapers, or watched on the TV?

A couple of years ago, the then director of public prosecutions publically said he was convinced they could.  They were, he argued, able and should be trusted to only make up their minds about someone’s guilt based on the evidence that was put before them and the court.

This was a crucial pronouncement because it sort of meant the media could almost publish ‘what it liked’ in the run-up to a trial and not influence the jury’s thinking – well according to the DPP anyway.

I’ve never been convinced about his argument and I remain dubious now.

It brings me to a modern twist on this tale, but this time it’s social media.

I acknowledge there are ‘grey areas’ with social media – nothing is truly black and white, but here’s a question.  Can social media ‘consumers’ tell the difference between the person and the profession?

Not everyone agrees.  Even in our office there were a range of views.

It’s an important point though, because for people, who let’s say use Twitter, for both personal and professional purposes, there’s a danger.

Take me for example.  I’m on Twitter.  I don’t have loads of followers, but there are a number of significant people who choose to read what I have to say.

Paul Napier is one of them.  He’s the editor of the Yorkshire Evening Post.  Is he following me as Andy Carter, head of communications or just Andy Carter?

What about the two councillors who are ‘signed up’ to my tweets?  Are they following me because of my professional or my personal reflections on life?

I don’t know to be honest, I’ve not asked them – but I think it does mean care is needed.

If you’re using social media – think carefully.  An innocent tweet or Facebook status update has the potential to be misunderstood, especially if what you say is in that grey area and it isn’t clear whether you’re being personal or professional at that point.

Having said all that – social media is a fantastic tool and should be used where appropriate.