Moral minefields: legal and ethical dilemma

What a complex and interesting topic. Our group chose this as our presentation topic and I’m glad that we did. In my section I delved into the ethical dilemmas journalists face.

We don’t have the best reputation, regularly having our integrity ranked below that of politicians, and just slightly above those selling used cars. Our job requires a great deal of ethical consideration.

In Briet it notes that as journalists ‘we are faced with choices where no amount of calculation is going to render an unambiguous answer’.

Because words have such power to influence the way in which we regard people or events we must be constantly assessing the implications of what we say and write. We must not only consider ethical obligations but also consider if our work could lead us into legal problems.

Some of the most common legal issues journalists run into are defamation; sub judice contempt where excessive media commentary on a case could cause prejudice as well as disobedience contempt where journalists refuse to reveal their sources in court.

When it comes to legal territory journalists can always seek a lawyer’s advice before publishing a story – however ethical advice isn’t so easy to come by.

The Journalism industry is self regulated – and there are not always specific ethical rules for journalists to follow. There are two types of ethical codes that most Australian journalists are exposed to: the internal codes of individual media outlets and the Australian Journalist Association’s code of ethics.

While most journalists see the AJA code as a useful tool, it is not enforceable. The AJA code of ethics takes as its overriding statement that ‘Respect for truth and the public's right to information are fundamental principles of journalism’. The code has 12 clauses which are to do with upholding Honesty, Fairness, Independence and Respect for the rights of others.

Some of the major ethical issues that journalists face are to do with upholding accuracy and objectivity. I have learned recently that a lack of accuracy in a journalists article can sometimes be the fault of the sub editor who may add in facts to the story which they assume are true. Even if a journalist has thoroughly checked their work , there is no certainty to what will appear in the paper the next day. There is also the question of whether objectivity exists. If three journalists were given the same article , all three articles would most likely be framed from different angles.

 There are also the complexities surrounding grieving families.  My journalism lecturer often speaks about her first ‘death knock’. The story always sends shivers down my spine. How far is too far? Her natural reaction was to stop the camera rolling when the victim’s brother broke down in tears. Back at the office she got in trouble off her boss for not capturing the boy’s break down on tape. I’m afraid of the way journalist’s can be expected to suppress their natural human instincts in order to grab a good story.

Gifts and bribes are another major issue. Receiving gifts can be legal, but is it ethical? We also need to be careful when reporting on minority groups and suicide.

I’m doing my placement at the newspaper at the moment and so often I think, I bet no one even reads my articles. Then my boyfriend said that he saw a random person reading one of my articles. Then it hit me that The Newcastle Herald has a huge readership and there are probably a lot of people who have been reading my work. Sometimes as a journalist you can forget the number of people your work can influence and affect. We have a great reasonability upon us to report accurately, fairly and to know when the public’s right to know outweighs the ethical and legal standards we must usually abide by.

Truth & objectivity: post modern casualties or victims of PR piracy?

Truth is a tricky concept. Journalism is all about decision making. If we were to give three people the same story – no matter how straight the story we would most likely end up with three different angles. So where do truth and objectivity lie? Or do they exist at all? I believe that of course we can strive towards truth and objectivity but perhaps achieving fairness is more realistic than achieving totally objectivity.

To achieve fairness and strive towards objectivity in our reporting we need to get the whole story. To do this we need to talk to as many people as many people as we can and keeping asking and re-asking questions. We need to take our ‘blinkers’ off and get as many viewpoints as we can.

There is concern that these days Journalists don’t spend the time needed to look at what’s behind a PR release. While a good media release can be a great foundation for a story – we need to verify the facts. Now, more than ever, there is information going straight into news from PR releases without verification of the facts. In fact a study by Mcnamara found that 31% of news stories in a variety of outlets were based wholly or partly on media releases. We must remember that PR companies have the invested interest of getting their stuff on the news and in the papers. As journalists it’s important we don’t blindly trust what they write. We can never cross-check too many facts!

As Tapsell and Varley point out in Journalist Theory in Practice ‘in order to present the while story, journalists must dare to move beyond reactive reporting – and seek deeper truths…enquiry must go past the purely knew-jerk reactive type of reporting, through an analytic phase- and on to a reflective stage.’.

Privacy versus the public interest

Privacy versus the Public interest- this would have to be one of the most debated topics throughout my communications degree. As Tapsell and Varley explain in Journalism Theory in Practice there is ‘the uncertain boundary between the public’s right to information and the individual’s right to privacy’.


The students who presented their seminar in class this week made the important point that ‘what the public is interested in is not always in the public’s interest’. They also highlighted that it’s important to weigh up the good your reporting will serve to the public versus the harm it will to an individual.


This is such a broad topic with endless scope for discussion – for this reason I’m going to look at a specific example in this blog.


In 1997 it was revealed that Senator Bob Woods, a Liberal frontbencher was having an extra-marital affair. It was also revealed that he’d been claiming travelling allowance for being in Canberra on nights that he was with his mistress in Sydney. The Prime Minister at the time, John Howard, was aware of the irregularities in Bob Wood’s expenditure but chose to ignore it.


In February 1997 The Daily Telegraph printed a salacious front page story with images taken of Senator Woods and his wife in tense discussion in the backyard of their home. There was much public debate surrounding whether the photographs should have been published in the newspaper. Some believe the photos, taken from the roof of a car with a long lens camera, were an unethical invasion of privacy. Others, however, ague that a Senator, who was committing adultery, while simultaneously advising the Prime Minister on Family Policy, deserved the negative publicity and that publishing the photos was in the public interest.


Personally I think that what Bob Woods did was morally wrong and my immediate reaction was that he deserved the coverage. However I also recall the words of Belinda Neil, whose husband had an affair last year. When speaking on ABC’s Q&A show she explained how the media should stay out of adultery matters because they don’t know what goes on in people’s private lives and that a marriage is a very personal thing. She believes that it is the husband and wife who know each other best and that the media could never give an accurate portrayal.


I don’t feel that stalking Bob Woods and his wife at their home and plastering it on the front page of the newspaper was morally permissible, but rather a way to sell more papers. I do, however, believe it was in the public interest to expose Bob Woods. As a powerful man who was advising the Government on Family Policy, he should have been holding up at least some moral values. Philosopher David Archard agues that we shouldn’t expect our politicians to be angels, and I can agree with that, but they are serving our country and I feel we have a right to know what kind of people we’re voting for. It was also very much in the public interest to reveal that Bob Woods was misusing his travel allowance- using tax payer’s money- and that John Howard chose to ignore it. Such things should be made public so that society can make up their own mind. I think that perhaps front page coverage and stalker-like photos were too extreme, and invasive.


This case also makes me think about the way fame tends to be associated with a significant loss of privacy. At the same time we must remember that Senator Wood’s wife was not famous, so should she have to out up with stalker-like photos being taken of her and her husband in private discussion in their own backyard? Or does her marriage with a public figure mean she loses her right to privacy too?


Tapsell and Varley highlight the argument journalists have put forward that ‘by entering public life, individuals surrender any claim to person privacy: accordinly, they are ‘fair game’ for enquiring journalists’. I wonder what the term ‘fair game’ implies? While in some cases it seem fair to expose the misbehaviour of public figures, is it really ‘fair game’ to have accompanying salacious photographs?


This discussion could go on forever. What about grieving families? The newspaper will naturally report hit and runs, murders, car crashes and other various accidents. However, it worries me how far reporters are expected to go in order to get quotes off the grieving family.


All in all there are no clear answers. Every story is unique. I suppose journalists must use their common sense and weigh up how valuable the information really is to the public.

We're all a Twitter!

We now live in a society that demands instant gratification. Many of us crave the instantaneous spread of news and expect to be immediately informed about any major issue happening around the world. I know that this is true for me. I feel lost if someone is not updating their Facebook status every few minutes and I know I felt totally out of the loop when I didn’t hear about the recent New Zealand earthquake until around 6 hours after it happened.



As Quinn and Lamble point out in Online News Gathering - newspapers are static. And while we still value them for their in depth analysis of news stories - the news is not updated regularly. This is why breaking news through social media websites and online blogs has really taken off over the last few years. As Quinn and Lamble note “In a world of information overload people want online news that they can consume quickly and easily” . This is where social networking sites such as twitter come into play. Twitter only allows 140 character messages. This means that news updated via twitter is a fast hit of information. Although I have noted that The Newcastle Herald will write a breaking news story on twitter then provide a link to the full story on their news website.


I follow a number of news outlets on my twitter which makes me feel very connected and in tune with what is happening locally, nationally and internationally. Not everyone agrees, however, that twitter is the best medium for breaking news. Michael Arrington at TechCrunch points out that that the accuracy of twitter which allows “anyone with a cell phone instantly update the world with what they see and hear, via the simple and ubiquitous text message” needs to be questioned. Tom at Tom’s Tech Blog uses the example of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai which spread via twitter before mainstream news coverage to illustrate a similar point. He notes that early reports on Twitter said there were explosions or attacks at the wrong hotel. He asks readers to imagine, if they were someone who had family or friends at the hotel that was said to be under siege and how scared out of their mind they would have been over information that was completely false.

This is a valid point and breaking news via social netwoking sites and blogs does raise such issues but this can happen in other mediums too. When an event is actually taking place there is often confusion surrounding it and wrong facts do get transmitted in broadcast and even print journalism as well. Twitter can be seen as a rough draft of history. It’s important , however, not to accept all you see on Twitter as gospel. I am more likely to be more trustworthy of Tweets from credible news outlets, however even then I keep a healthy scepticism and make sure I conduct further research.


I realise we must be cautious of breaking news on such mediums but I also think these mediums are an important factor in our changing medium landscape and are a fairly effective way of keeping citizens informed about breaking news

I also found this interview with the co-founders of Twitter interesting

Globalisation Vs Localisation

Are global media giants threatening our media ecology? New media technologies have undoubtedly changed our media landscape but for better or for worse?


The international economy is now ‘dominated by a few megacorporations, increasingly global in the production, distribution and consumption their goods and services’ (Schiller in Thussu, 2006, p 59). In general media flows now move from the core- the Western word- to the periphery. Some media theorists believe that such patterns have led to the proliferation of Western – and in particular American – cultural products with their associated values of individualism and consumerism.

Globalisation of the media also poses a threat to local languages. UNESCO notes that there is a current trend of biodiversity loss and degradation in terms of language. They predict that up to 3000 languages word wide are endangered. English tops the hierarchy of international languages. It is becoming increasingly accepted that ‘English, preferably American English…is the accepted vehicle of global communication’, rendering other languages irrelevant (Satchidanandan cited in Thussu, 2007, p 163).


In terms of news reporting there are concerns that local news is being overlooked in place of easy standardised global content. This is a real issue as to be able to participate in community life and make political choices, citizens rely heavily on information. It is important that citizens know what is going on in their local area. While I read the Sydney Morning Herald every morning I also read my local paper, The Newcastle Herald, as I believe it is so important to be informed about the current issues in my local community. When I don’t read the local paper I feel really out of the loop. For example at the moment The Newcastle Herald is playing an important role in informing Novacastrians about the future of the Newcastle CBD. I also really value the local ABC radio station which won a Walkley Award for their reporting on the 2007 Newcastle floods. During the floods we had 1233 on all day and night, listening for any important updates. If there were only had centralised production centres it would be a real loss for local communities. We can already see this starting to happen - for example our ‘local’ news from Prime and Southern Cross Ten come from Canberra-based studios.

While all these factors definitely raise alarm bells for me – it is important to look also at the positive effects of am increasingly globalised media. We must remember that mediums such as the internet allow consumers to ‘cherry pick’ information. This allows consumers to browse alternative media sources and to have a healthy scepticism about what is reported in the mass media. It also allows for citizen journalism and the increased freedom of speech. For example Natalie Devlin mentioned in her seminar that an Iraqi girl who goes by the name of Sunshine has a blog about her everyday life in war torn Iraq. This is not something she could have published in her local media but the internet allows her to share her life story with the world. Here is a link to her blog http://livesstrong.blogspot.com/. It can also help give increased awareness to global issues as people are becoming more aware of what is going on at an international level.


Having said this we must also be aware that while we may be more conscious of what is happening at in international level this does not necessarily give us any more analytical tools. There may be a lack of analysis and as my tutor pointed out the globalisation of media not only allows a message to travel around world but it can also allow the an incorrect message to travel around the world.


Another interesting point that was made by my tutor was that perhaps social media has come about as a result of people feeling disconnected from their local communities? I would be interested to look into this more. Here is a great video that delves into the idea of online communities emerging as a way to fulfil a hunger for a sense of community.


If this video is too long for you to watch one of the more interesting points to take away from it is the idea that ‘there’s this cultural inversion going on where we are becoming increasingly individualised yet still have this really strong desire and value for community. We are becoming increasingly independent while longing for stronger relationships. We see increasing commercialization around us and yet we long for authenticity.’ (Wesch, 2008). This video really shows that human craving for a strong community. I believe local media is one factor that helps people feel a sense of connection.

In conclusion I think it’s important to note that there absolutely needs to be a balance between local, national and global media for a well informed public. Each play a vital role and I don’t believe a healthy democratic society can exist with any one of these forms of media absent.

Who will pay for Journalism?

The landscape of Journalism is changing dramatically - there’s no doubt about that. But it’s not the first time. As The secretary of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance Christopher Warren points out: “From moveable type to linotype, from print to broadcast – each shift has opened new opportunities for communication. Each shift has also transformed the economic model that underpinned journalism, often in ways that could not be foreseen”.

The current changes we’re witnessing in the media environment are opening unprecedented opportunities for communication. New media technologies allow news stories to reach more people at a much faster rate than ever before. Communication is no longer one way with the audience being able to respond in a matter of seconds. Not to mention the amount of choice readers have online in terms of news sources. The internet also has the power to combine all three major news mediums: Print , radio and television.


The burning question is, however, who will pay for this new style of journalism? Readers have the assumption that online news should be free and that this is a basic right. As more readers source their news and entertainment online the circulation of print publications is declining and advertisers are going online - this as warren points out - is ‘shaking their (print publications) business model to the core’.


Roy Greenslade, one of Britain’s leading media commentators, went as far as to predict the death of newspapers at the 2008 Future of Journalism summit - “newspapers, are dying and will die. They have no future whatsoever. I’m sad to see newspapers go. I worked on them for 40 years.” If this were to be the case (and fingers crossed it isn’t , as it’s one of those beautiful pleasures in life to sit down with a newspaper in hand over breakfast or a warm cup of tea) then It is vital that consumers pay for quality online Journalism. Will they be willing to do this though? Apparently not according to a survey from the International World Internet Project which found 70% of respondents wouldn’t be willing to pay any money at all for online news. You can read more about the survey here http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/01/13/murdochs-grand-paywall-experiment-will-aussies-pay/.

So people aren’t willing to pay at the moment, but what would happen if a charge actually came in? A girl in class yesterday argued that there would be ways to get around it and that people would just find other news from other sources which are free. Given the endless scope of the internet I realise there always seems to be another option but what if these other options weren’t quality news? This I believe poses a threat to society. We could end up with a very misinformed public if people are sourcing their information from random news blogs or sites.


Journalists are an asset to our society. We have learned the art of interviewing, how to go about getting the story and the absolute importance a verifying the facts and then verifying them again and again! I don’t think the need for good quality journalism will die there’s always going to be a market for quality news. Our media model will undoubtedly change but in the end I think people will budge and pay for top quality online news from our major news outlets.


For the meantime I shall continue savouring my papers in the morning.

Journalism as a Public conversation in the 21st century; what is the role of the citizen?

The boundaries of what is journalism are constantly being redefined. This can be seen particularly in relation to the rise of citizen journalism. Citizen journalism is all about the general public creating their own news content. This has largely been spurred by the public feeling detached from what is being reported and concerns that the mainstream media are framing the news. There also seems to be an understating amongst citizen journalists and those who support it that you don’t have to have a degree to have something to say. Those who presented in class this week showed a video which was particularly effective in explaining citizen journalism  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QU5LonkXbCE


Stephen Quinn in Online Newsgathering: Research and Reporting for Journalism outlines two types of citizen journalism. The first being where ‘members of the public who are not professional journalists contribute content that is published on traditional media’. The Second being where citizens act as reporters through mediums such as blogs and podcasts.

The idea of citizen journalism has generated a lot of controversy. While personal news blogs can be an interesting alternative news source there are a number of issues that arise. Firstly the issue of trust – it takes a lot of time to build up a strong relationship with your audience. It is much more difficult to prove the authenticity of anonymous bloggers as opposed to news from a major outlet. There is also no regulation to assure that the information is accurate. Good quality Journalism needs to consist of reliable, verified and balanced information.


I realise that while people crave to browse alternative sources to see the news from another perspective at the end of the day I believe they want to be told what is and isn’t news - to sit down in from of the 6pm news or read a newspaper with their coffee. As mentioned in Online Newsgathering: Research and Reporting for Journalism the traditional gatekeepers of news have important skills such as news sense and an understanding of the audience. They also argue that ‘most people lack the time, discipline and skill to sustain blogs and podcasts beyond an initial period of enthusiasm.’


I think that as journalists we must remember that news is a two way street and that it’s important listen to the public. As pointed out in the presentations and readings this week, citizen journalists play and important role in times of crisis such as the Indian Ocean Tsunami or the London bombings. Dan Gillmor points out in We the media: grassroots journalism by the people, for the people that in relation to the reporting on the 2004 Tsunami ‘the mass media did powerful work covering the catastrophe , but blog postings and tourist videos of the waves washing ashore also become part of the journalism that will survive in humanity’s collective memory’. People’s imagines recorded off video cameras and phones along with their personal recounts of what happened are an extremely valuable addition to the news. Those who were there at the time of major crises often have the images that the journalists were unable to capture. There are of course dangers with citizen journalism. We only have to think back to the chk-chk boom girl in Melbourne. Journalists still have an important job of making sure the news comes from credible sources


There are definitely many positives in relation to the audience becoming more active within the media environment. For years I have watched Insight on SBS – where a forum discusses current issues in society with, the host, well respected Journalist Jenny Brockie. The format of the program has changed this year to accommodate the more active role citizens play in our media environment. Insight now has a Facbeook page http://www.facebook.com/InsightSBS?ref=ts#!/InsightSBS?ref=ts&v=wall  and a twitter  http://twitter.com/insightsbs and during the show people comment on these sites with their personal opinion about the live discussion in the studio. Throughout show they cross live to one of their producers who summarises what is being said by citizens online. This is a great way to engage the public and make them feel like they play a more active role during the discussion.


I have also noticed similar changes in ABC’s Q&A show which is also a forum style program where current affairs are discussed among a studio audience and a panel of prominent journalists, politicians and other significant people. Twitter posts pop up on the screen throughout the program and Skype questions are often sent in. This, I believe, is a great way to allow the general public to participate the in discussion of current affairs while still leaving the journalists with an important role to play. We have the trained journalists and producers creating a credible, intelligent and well run programs yet the public do not have to remain passive. One person on twitter even commented that last weeks Q&A show was like a ‘good old fashioned family dinner table discussion’. As a journalism student I find it rather inspiring to see this new form of ‘public conversation ‘entering the journalism realm. Citizens don’t have to be passive observers in the lounge room, which is great, as many of them have important perspectives and ideas. Citizens playing a role such as this makes me excited about the future of journalism.