Moral minefields - legal and ethical dilemma

The final seminar presentation for the semester was conducted by Siobhan McAlary and Belinda De-Lasheras. A quote by LeMay (2003) was used at the beginning of the presentation which pointed out that "journalists are the ones who must daily consider both law and ethics in making judgements about what they publish." Such laws that LeMay is referring to includes the issue of defamation - journalists must consider whether their story will damage an individual or company's reputation, in terms of exposing them to hatred or ridicule. Furthermore, the issue of protecting sources was mentioned - in which journalists share information with the public, but also respect their sources wishes of privacy.

This was particularly evident in the feud that erupted last month between Fox Sports football presenter Robbie Slater and Socceroo Harry Kewell over the latter's apparent negative effect on the Australian team at the World Cup. Whilst Kewell demanded his source be exposed, Slater argued that the story was in the football public's interest and that he would respect the privacy of his source. The contents of the article could clearly have been deemed to have defamed Kewell's reputation and, if he followed through with his threat for legal action, Slater would have been forced to reveal his source or face contempt of court and a possible fine and/or jail time.

The above example not only highlights the legal dilemmas that confront journalists, but also the ethical ones. Slater should have acknowledged the effects that the story could not only have on Kewell in terms of his popularity and status, but also on the game in Australia. Another ethical issue, which was brought up by Belinda, is that of chequebook journalism. Whilst the industry is cut-throat and offering money could be the difference between getting valuable quotes on a lead story or not, I am of the opinion that it is not entirely ethical.

Although it claims to be justified in the search for the truth and public interest, I feel that these aren't always revealed anyway, as the interviewees could feel inclined to enhance their story as a result of being paid. A journalists reputation is their most important asset, therefore the legal and ethical dilemmas which could result from a particular story need to be considered and adhered to.

Week 8: Truth and Objectivity - Post-modern casualties or victims of PR piracy?

This week's seminar presentation focused on an issue which confronts all journalists - whether or not to report truthfully and objectively. Emma Bradbury, Jenna Hancock and Amy Saunders explained to their fellow journalism classmates that media objectivity means to be free of bias. Jenna highlighted that there are three stages that need to be followed in order to report objectively: reactive (initial observations and information), analytic (starting to look at other areas of investigation) and reflective (societal trends and approaches).

She used the Daily Telegraph's reporting of the Black Saturday bushfires as an example, where 108 people were initially reported to have lost their lives. A few days later this number jumped to the final number of 173, with a mention of 24 fires still being out of control. Finally, the story of former chief commissioner, Christine Nixon, emerged (who had left her post to go and have a pub meal, being uncontactable for three hours in the process).

Emma pointed out that before the 20th century, unbiased reporting was not the norm, and the style of objective reporting has only really come to be the main method of writing due to a post-modern society which lives in such a fast-paced environment. Furthermore, Amy rightfully argued that PR has a huge effect on the way in which the news is reported in relation to agenda-setting, the partial truth and bias.

This brings me back to a statement which I have personally examined when watching, listening or reading the news, and which was reinforced through this presentation, which is that the audience is presented the truth, but it is A truth. As Tapsell and Varley (2001) put it, "truth is central to the process and practice of journalism...But what is truth? And how important is it?" I believe that we aren't casualties of postmodernism, but rather we are victims of sensationalist reporting which has become synonymous with the journalism and PR industry.

It is clear that the audience is rarely told untruths by the media, just different versions of the truth, which serve a purpose in selling newspapers, gathering television ratings or promoting a response. A clear example of this, which was pointed out by Amy in the presentation, was the images of birds and other wild life stuck and covered in polluted water as a result of the BP oil spill.

Week 7: Privacy - Where do you get it?

The seminar presentation for this week focused on the issue of privacy within the journalism industry, and the ethical dilemma that surrounds it in relation to what is and is not in the public interest. One of the presenters, Madeline Leitch suggested that the division over what is considered ethical has come about as a result of it no clear cut definition.

The recent case that was discussed during the presentation, which involved former transport minister David Campbell, is an interesting example of the journalism industry going beyond ethical boundaries. There should be no doubt that Campbell's gay club visits came to the public's attention for no other reason than to sell newspapers and make a profit. As was pointed out in the seminar, the media has played on the public's interest in a scandal. Arguments for the release of such information centred on the public having the right to know that their tax-paying dollars were being used for Campbell to drive to and from the gay clubs. But it has since been revealed that he had the right to drive the government-owned car for his own private use.

However, media lawyer Justin Quill points out that, "you hear a lot of people talking about privacy...but unless their talking about some moral right to privacy, they're talking about something that doesn't exist in this country." He's right of course, as was shown in the media following Campbell, which leads me back to defining question of this week. Where do you get privacy? Evidently, privacy is something which is acknowledged, but not respected.

Though many believe that celebrities such as Lindsey Lohan, Madonna and even Campbell (a representative of the government), are in the public eye and therefore deserve no privacy, ordinary members of the public are given the same treatment. The best example that comes to mind was the Victorian bushfires, where reporters chose to shove a microphone into the face of shocked and emotional survivors, instead of allowing them to grieve privately and come to terms with the disaster that had literally just unfolded. However, it could be argued that this is a naive perspective, and that the journalism industry flourishes through images of emotion and carnage. Herein lies the problem. As a result of there being no clear definitions or outline of ethical boundaries, many journalists feel inclined to simply do whatever it takes to get a story, regardless of the effects that it has on the lives of those they interview.

Week 6: Journalism and its negotiation of online, the blogosphere and social media

This weeks seminar, presented by Ellie McDonald, Lauren McDermott and Matt Bryant, focused on whether or not the journalism industry needs to embrace Twitter and other social networking sites in order to move forward. Statistics which were shown to the class highlighted that there is still a divide between those who believe Twitter is an important tool and those who consider it to be an unnecessary distraction. It was pointed out during the presentation that a survey, conducted on 371 journalists last year, exposed that only half of the respondents were actively using Twitter. It has been portrayed by certain media commentators, such as Alana Taylor, as the saviour of the industry. Taylor said that it "is the hope for the future. It is promise of change. Twitter is journalism's Obama."

Personally, I agree with one of the presenters, Lauren McDermott, who stated that whilst Twitter shouldn't be seen as a saviour, it could offer an interesting alternative if used correctly. However, as shown in the presentation, some journalists will not, and already have not, been able to resist the temptation of Twitter. In a skit for The Daily Show, technical correspondent Samantha Bee demonstrated the distracting nature of Twitter in 'tweeting' what the host, Jon Stewart, was saying to her.

A further example provided by the skit was through images of politicians twittering whilst in meetings, to which Stewart questioned, "Why weren't you paying attention?" This brings me to another interesting point which was mentioned in the presentation. John Bergin, a digital director for Sky News Australia, expressed concern that politicians will "use the likes of Twitter in an effort to bypass journalists and commentators and communicate directly with the public."

I'd just like to point out that if I was a current journalist, I would not have a Twitter account because of the conundrum over what should be considered personal and professional. This was evident recently with opposition leader Barry O'Farrell labelling Prime Minister Julia Gillard a "ranga" in what he thought was a private comment on Twitter. Such a mistake can cost individual careers and, in this case, damage the reputation of the Coalition, whom O'Farrell was representing.

Therefore, though digital technology may be the future for the journalism industry, Twitter should not be fully embraced until it has been established as an influential element of news reporting. As News Limited's editorial boss Campbell Reid stated, "we don't want to spend a lot of time on developing policies...and in three month's time everyone's realised it's another way of having fairly boring conversations."