Every day journalists are faced with moral, legal and ethical dilemmas when reporting to the public. It is a balance of the interests of the public and the public interest.
Journalists have a responsibility to report fair, balanced and objective stories, no matter what the medium is. Pearson (2001, p. 198) argues that ‘it is precarious where journalism challenges the boundaries of the law, particularly when a new law is being tested or law-enforcement agencies are under political pressure to rein in the behaviour of the media.’
When journalists are aware of the laws they are working within, an example is copyright, their job becomes more efficient and of a higher standard.
Pearson (2001) discusses that the law is a fickle thing that is subject to whims of the powerful and no two cases are ever the same.
Journalism law is an entity of its own and derives from having to report and publish. Journalism has to cover what can or cannot be mentioned legally in an article across all media outlets, whether it is broadcast, print or radio. The internet is proving to be more complicated, as it extends globally and each country has different legislation.
Pearson (2001, p. 199) summarises the laws to include those related to ‘defamation, court reporting, contempt of court and parliament, obscenity, media regulation, freedom of information legislation, intellectual property, trespass, and breach of confidence among others’, copyright is also important for journalists because they must always accredit if the work they use is not their own.
When dealing with legal issues it is important for journalists to remember that they actually have no rights and are viewed as ordinary citizens. At times there are exceptions due to the nature of a journalist’s role in society- to bring information into the public domain. Considering the nature of a journalist’s role they are only viewed in court as a citizen and while they are expected to report on matters with freedom of expression, to photograph in public places and attend court hearings all these rights are very restricted. The freedom of expression has limitations – such as you cannot defame a person, or use language that is not appropriate, such as swearing. ‘Put simply, journalists are afforded such rights if they perform their roles responsibly. When they begin to perform them irresponsibly, the balance of the law normally shifts in favour of the other citizens whose rights are being infringed’ (Pearson 2001, p. 200).
Sub judice ‘is just one version of the ancient law of contempt of court, which renders illegal any behaviour impairing or threatening the administration of justice’ (Pearson 2001, p. 210). Sub judice is a complicated process that all journalists should be aware of to avoid tarnishing a trial. Basically the idea is that a person cannot be prosecuted by ‘trial of the media’. During this time journalists can only report the bare facts, those that could be known by any eye witness, such as, were a body was found, that a bank was robbed, etc.
Freedom of Information ‘is a law designed to allow greater public access to information held by government departments’ (Pearson 2001, p. 203). While FOI can be helpful especially to investigative journalists the exemptions that are placed on some documents means that nearly all of it is blacked out. As journalists can claim that a story was published due to public interest, those withholding documents can claim that parts are not in the public interest. For a journalist this can make obtaining information a lengthy and frustrating process.
An obvious one and the most common is copyright law. Just like students can be punished for plagiarism a journalist can be as well. If a journalist uses the work of another author they must acknowledge the source. Journalists should be very rigorous in ensuring that all their work is their own because when you are publishing to a mass audience someone, somewhere will pick it up. IP Australia has very useful information about copyright and intellectual property.
Reference
Pearson, M 2001, ‘A Question of Legality’, in S Tapsall & C Varley (eds), Journalism: Theory in Practice, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 198- 212.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Sunday, September 14, 2008
In the Public Interest: Public vs. Private
The seminar demonstrated that the lines between public and private are blurring. The term ‘celebrity’ has become a term used loosely because what the public are interested in has changed. There is a difference between the public interest and what the public are interested in. Australians are protected by the Privacy Act, but there exemptions for reporting providing that journalists subscribe to the specific industry codes of practice. There are no clear rules or guidelines for journalists.
An example used was Princess Diana who reached celebrity status and became ‘the people’s princess’ and she was constantly in the public eye. Her death in 1997 had paparazzi taking her photograph in her last moments and this became an invasion of privacy.
Celebrities, politicians and their families have a right to privacy in their own homes because this is a private place, not a public one. The more the public crave the celebrity gossip the further reporters and photographers push the boundaries.
Journalists should be reporting for the greater good and in recent years the concept of greater good has changed. Public and private are heavily influenced by law and ethics. The ethics of journalists plays a role in the information they are willing to obtain. While journalists have a duty to convey information and animate democracy the privacy of an individual does not mean secrecy.
The case study of Derryn Hinch was an example used by one of the presenters. Derryn Hinch is a journalist who received 28 days in jail for contempt of court. Each situation is different and journalists must take precautions.
The MEAA Code of Ethics clause 13 states that ‘Accept the right to privacy of every person. Public figures’ privacy may be reduced by their public role. Relatives and friends of those in the public eye retain their own right to privacy.’
Journalists are faced with issues of privacy almost every day. It is their job to assess the legal, ethical and moral dimensions associated with every report and make a decision that is fair, honest and balanced.
An example used was Princess Diana who reached celebrity status and became ‘the people’s princess’ and she was constantly in the public eye. Her death in 1997 had paparazzi taking her photograph in her last moments and this became an invasion of privacy.
Celebrities, politicians and their families have a right to privacy in their own homes because this is a private place, not a public one. The more the public crave the celebrity gossip the further reporters and photographers push the boundaries.
Journalists should be reporting for the greater good and in recent years the concept of greater good has changed. Public and private are heavily influenced by law and ethics. The ethics of journalists plays a role in the information they are willing to obtain. While journalists have a duty to convey information and animate democracy the privacy of an individual does not mean secrecy.
The case study of Derryn Hinch was an example used by one of the presenters. Derryn Hinch is a journalist who received 28 days in jail for contempt of court. Each situation is different and journalists must take precautions.
The MEAA Code of Ethics clause 13 states that ‘Accept the right to privacy of every person. Public figures’ privacy may be reduced by their public role. Relatives and friends of those in the public eye retain their own right to privacy.’
Journalists are faced with issues of privacy almost every day. It is their job to assess the legal, ethical and moral dimensions associated with every report and make a decision that is fair, honest and balanced.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Truth and Objectivity
Truth and objectivity are important elements in the media and should be practiced by journalists and media corporations. Truth is important to the public. Tickle (2006, p. 90) states that ‘journalists face the task of truthfully representing in words, numbers, sound, and pictures, events that have occurred at a particular time and in a particular place.’
An example is the documentary ‘Out Foxed’ as a case study, which is about Rupert Murdoch’s company News Corporation. The documentary portrays how on a daily basis, the News Corporation journalists have to follow the agenda of Mr. Murdoch. This removed truth and objectivity from their reporting. Mr. Murdoch was asking his journalists to be subjective and ultimately bias. This creates problems for the journalists because journalists have a responsibility to communicate truth to the public. As a consequence of Mr. Murdoch having an agenda, the public does not receive an honest ‘truth’. As Tickle (2006, p. 91) argues ‘news media producers reject claims that they cannot represent the truth in their news stories, while the cultural theorists say that it is futile to try to represent the truth because it is a situational and subjective construction of reality.’
News Corporation is not the only media outlet guilty of blurring the ‘truth’. Photographs have been tampered with changing an image and distorting the truth. This is usually done to sensationalise a story often found in celebrity magazines. This is also the case with footage being edited to show a particular point of view. An example is that Bill O’Reilly.
Journalists decide what the ‘truth’ of a story is by selecting which facts to include and those which need to be left out. This process of reporting the important facts should not misrepresent what actually occurred; just provide the most vital information, as Tickle (2001, p. 95) argues ‘journalists must also exercise their judgement; that is, they must select from among many choices the crucial elements of the story and structure it appropriately.’ Journalists should ensure that all their stories have balance and fairness.
Using words such as ‘allegedly’ can also warp the ‘truth’ of a story and journalists may believe that using such words are a protection from defamation, etc. A journalist should be clear and concise and provide many points of view. Journalists should ensure that the three stages of enquiry are covered and these are reactive reporting, analytical reporting and reflective reporting.
Tickle discusses the post-modern view of journalism stating that ‘for the post-modernist, all truths and assumptions must be continually subjected to direct testing with the understanding that knowledge is relative and fallible, rather than absolute or certain’ (2001, p. 92). Another post-modern perspective is that audiences create their own truths through the material they are presented with. Creating a universal truth is hard because everyone lives in a different social and cultural context. What one person accepts as true is what another person questions.
How would you define truth?
Do you think that journalists are truthful?
Reference:
Tickle, S 2001, ‘The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but…’, in S Tapsall & C Varley (eds), Journalism: Theory in Practice, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 89- 101.
An example is the documentary ‘Out Foxed’ as a case study, which is about Rupert Murdoch’s company News Corporation. The documentary portrays how on a daily basis, the News Corporation journalists have to follow the agenda of Mr. Murdoch. This removed truth and objectivity from their reporting. Mr. Murdoch was asking his journalists to be subjective and ultimately bias. This creates problems for the journalists because journalists have a responsibility to communicate truth to the public. As a consequence of Mr. Murdoch having an agenda, the public does not receive an honest ‘truth’. As Tickle (2006, p. 91) argues ‘news media producers reject claims that they cannot represent the truth in their news stories, while the cultural theorists say that it is futile to try to represent the truth because it is a situational and subjective construction of reality.’
News Corporation is not the only media outlet guilty of blurring the ‘truth’. Photographs have been tampered with changing an image and distorting the truth. This is usually done to sensationalise a story often found in celebrity magazines. This is also the case with footage being edited to show a particular point of view. An example is that Bill O’Reilly.
Journalists decide what the ‘truth’ of a story is by selecting which facts to include and those which need to be left out. This process of reporting the important facts should not misrepresent what actually occurred; just provide the most vital information, as Tickle (2001, p. 95) argues ‘journalists must also exercise their judgement; that is, they must select from among many choices the crucial elements of the story and structure it appropriately.’ Journalists should ensure that all their stories have balance and fairness.
Using words such as ‘allegedly’ can also warp the ‘truth’ of a story and journalists may believe that using such words are a protection from defamation, etc. A journalist should be clear and concise and provide many points of view. Journalists should ensure that the three stages of enquiry are covered and these are reactive reporting, analytical reporting and reflective reporting.
Tickle discusses the post-modern view of journalism stating that ‘for the post-modernist, all truths and assumptions must be continually subjected to direct testing with the understanding that knowledge is relative and fallible, rather than absolute or certain’ (2001, p. 92). Another post-modern perspective is that audiences create their own truths through the material they are presented with. Creating a universal truth is hard because everyone lives in a different social and cultural context. What one person accepts as true is what another person questions.
How would you define truth?
Do you think that journalists are truthful?
Reference:
Tickle, S 2001, ‘The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but…’, in S Tapsall & C Varley (eds), Journalism: Theory in Practice, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 89- 101.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
