Mark Pearson's opening words of Chapter 13, A Question of Legality, describes this weeks topic very well.
"The journalist's relationship with the law is occasionally precarious, sometimes liberating, usually comfortable, and almost always negotiable. It ranges across this terrain because it involves the balance of rights and responsibilities in a complex, ever-changing social climate (198)."
In today's presentation Eben Foster also quoted Pearson, this time in regards to the relationship between the law and journalists: "a two headed beast or double-edged sword with each competitively fighting for the interests of the public."
But more interestingly again was this Pearson quote, again used by Eben today: "Journalists have no rights beyond those of ordinary citizens, although they are given some special privileges in order to faciltate their roles in bringing information to the wider citizenery."
At first thought, this seems utterly ridiculous, but on closer inspection it is also fair. The above summation is right in my eyes. Journalists are the same as ordinary citizens but they do need some help in getting that information quickly and accurately into the public sphere.
One thing, which has put to rest, not completely, the notion of reporting without fear or favour, is the era of litigation, suing and passing blame. It has also worked to the detriment of sources providing useful information as well.
"More and more, legal considerations are influencing, if not determining, day-to-day decisions in the media," according to the Cyber College website.
It describes many situations, which can potentially lead to hefty law suits, including: a TV news report quoting a police officer about a drunk driver who caused a fatal accident; a photo from a web page used in a student newspaper; and a mistake that associated the wrong name or home address with criminal wrongdoing.
A closer examination of this topic highlights the many day to day considerations individual journalists and media organisations face each and every day.
Pearson also deals with subjudice, defamation, freedom of information and the public interest defence, in chapter 13.
The most recent example of this is the current Brisbane Broncos sexual assault drama in the middle of their NRL finals campaign. A report released on heraldsun.com.au reveals a fourth player has been linked to the allegations. Click here for more.
This comes on the back of other legal cases this rugby league season including Cronulla five-eighth Greg Bird, Canberra halfback Todd Carney and Gold Coast Titans forward Anthony Laffranchi.
Should they be named straight away? What rights do journalists have in these situations?
I know I faced this immediately after the Bird drama broke and I saw him out on the beers in Maitland. It was only one week on and I just did not know what to do. Should I report it, should I talk to him, should I just let it go? What's legal? What's moral? What's ethical? What a minefield!
Any thoughts?
No comments:
Post a Comment