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."

Week 5: Globalisation vs Localisation

Joel Qin and Erika Lim, exchange students from Singapore, this week gave the Journalism class some valuable insights into the way that foreign media operates. In their presentation, they pointed out that the internet and globalisation is threatening laws that Singapore has in place, and provided a statement by the Minister Mentor, Lee Kuan Yew, in which he accepted that "we cannot stop this. If we stop this, we stop the progress. We are marginalised".

Having conducted research into the current censoring of media, particularly global, in Fiji for a university project, I was not surprised to hear of Singapore's similar stance. As Joel stated, the reasons for their ranking of 133 in press freedom is due to their banning of foreign magazines (The Economist and the Far East Economic Review) and the fact that their two main media outlets (MediaCorp and Singapore Press Holdings) are government-owned.

Like Fiji, and even China to a lesser extent, the prominent role of citizen journalism in Singapore has been to provide the local community with access to information that they would otherwise be unable to obtain. An example provided in the presentation included the wrongful hanging of Vignes Mourthi in 2003, which only came to light courtesy of The Online Citizen. However, the conundrum is that whilst Singaporeans are gaining valuable knowledge on such issues through citizen journalism and the internet, their local media is suffering due to a lack of freedom.

Personally, I believe that Singapore should embrace globalisation, rather than maintaining their localised laws. As Joel and Erika stated, it is up to the Singaporean government to determine whether or not to "retain probably-soon-to-be-obsolete laws, or strive to find a social equilibrium for media freedom". This blogger believes that for the sake of local media in Singapore, the government does need to allow less restrictions on the media, but traditional laws should still be respected.

Why do I believe that there should not be mass changes of traditional localised laws? I discovered, during research on the censoring of Google in China for a recent assignment, that many locals did not find it to be a negative thing, as censorship of the media is a part of their culture. In the Western world we believe it to be denying basic human rights, but this is clearly a biased opinion based on a differing of cultural structures. As Joel and Erika put to the class, would we challenge Singapore's 'media freedom' if we had lived with it in Australia our whole lives. I would have to say the answer to such a question would be a definite no.

Week 4: Who Pays For Journalism? Is It All About Money?

It was my turn to present to the journalism class this week and, working alongside fellow students Nick Scully and Ben O'Neill, we focused our attention on the above topic, who pays for journalism? It has been determined that whilst different mediums, such as newspapers and the internet, are earning revenue through advertising and subscriptions, a lack of funding overall is causing problems for the industry.

As Nick Scully covered in his presentation, Christopher Warren, in his report on the Future of Journalism summit, pointed out that more than 12,000 journalists lost their jobs in 2008 alone. This is due to an increased workload on journalists, who are expected to write articles for both print and online versions. So, in a figurative sense, journalists are paying with their jobs and livelihoods through the lack of revenue being generated.

Although journalism is currently struggling, the industry is not all about making money. As I mentioned in my presentation, there are not-for-profit, foundation-funded, organisations being set up, such as ProPublica, who are supporting the investigative element of journalism. Their aim is give the general public information which would otherwise not be possible, due to a fixation with commercial incentives. Therefore, without these organisations working to keep investigative journalism, the general public would also pay through a lack of knowledge and information.

But what is a plausible solution to the current crisis in the journalism industry? My fellow presenter, Ben O'Neill, offered the suggestion of a niche model, with journalists attracting audiences, and advertisers, through the quality of their work, not the quantity. Even though internet users can discover news for free on blogs and twitter accounts, courtesy of citizen journalists, many still prefer their information to come from a reliable, trustworthy and trained source.

With the increasing decline of newspapers and the uncertainty lingering over full-time job prospects, the internet appears to be the best way for journalists to make a profit. I'll refer once again to Christopher Warren's statement, that media companies and journalists need to invest in quality and the future, whilst attempting to "adapt to the economic and technological landscape, as it will be those companies that remember and nurture their core business that will survive."

Personally, I would be willing to try any alternative option, such as a niche model, in order to try and make a respectable living. Journalism is not all about money, the not-for-profit organisations are examples of this, and writing articles initially for little to no money (before a decent sized audience is reached) needs to be expected. However, like any profession, a profit has to try and be made eventually for us to be able to live in comfort.

Week 3: Citizen Journalism

This week's seminar presentation focused on the issue of citizen journalism, and whether or not it is beginning to diminish the impact and influence of professional journalism. The Online Journalism Review (ORJ) defines it as, "the collecting and publication of timely, unique, nonfiction information by individuals without formal journalism training or public affiliation."

A fellow student argued, in the discussion which followed the presentation, that citizens will never replace the role of professional journalists because of their lack of credibility and training. However, as Jason Stverak points out in his article for the ORJ, the "traditional news media reporters and editors are being devastated by a financial crisis, not a journalism crisis...those of us who work with citizen journalists in online news ventures know better than anyone what a tough, disciplined calling it is. That is why we hire professionals and rigorously train citizens."

The seminar presentation provided the 2005 London Bombings as an effective example of the increasing popularity of citizen journalism. As Arianna Huffington, co-founder and editor-in-chief of The Huffington Post, states, "with the expansion of the Web and the ever-decreasing size and cost of cameraphones and video camera's, the ability to commit acts of journalism is spreading to everyone, including you." But is all this technology transforming ordinary members of the public into scavengers and citizen paparazzi? Mark Glazer, writing for the ORJ, cites the blog of a surviver of the London Bombings, who identified himself only as Justin. In his personal account of the tragedy, Justin recalls that "as I stepped out, people with cameraphones vied to try and take pictures of the worst victims. In crisis, some people are cruel." People were easily able, and encouraged, to then upload this insensitive material within a few seconds onto photo-sharing websites such as Flickr.

Following this week's presentation, I have begun to undertake some research on my own seminar topic, due next week, on "Who pays for Journalism? Is it just about money?" A definition of journalism is provided by James Poniewozik, who describes it as, "a full time job paid for by newsgathering entities through a combination of subscriptions and advertising."
Though people have been subscribing to newspapers for decades, whether they will pay for online content is an issue which has been keenly discussed. Rupert Murdoch's decision to introduce a subscription fee to his Times Newspapers in June has been met with contrasting opinions.

Jeff Jarvis, who claims he worked for Murdoch's TV Guide in America, comments that by building his paywall around the Times Newspapers, Murdoch has "said no to new ideas to build advertising...he has no new ideas to build deeper and more valuable relationships with readers and will send them away if they do not pay."
Jarvis continues by stating that, "Murdoch does not use the internet, let alone Google, so he cannot possibly understand the dynamics, demands and opportunities of our post-industrial, now digital-media economy." However, others, such as myself, believe that a pay wall is important as it offers a stable influx of money for the Times, at a fee which is unlikely to scare away loyal readers (1 pound per day, or 2 pounds per week).

Further research will be undertaken on the history of payments for journalism and the influential role of the topic discussed at the beginning of my entry, citizen journalism, before the presentation next week.