Week Nine: Is it legal? Is it ethical? Is it in the public interest? Or is the public just interested?

This week’s seminars focused on the potential legal and ethical implications for journalists. Many hairy hypothetical scenarios were concocted and we were asked, as budding journalists, what we do?

While journalists are bound by the internal codes of the organisation they work for and the Australian Journalists Association code of ethics, it was suggested that a journalist’s guiding principal should be the public interest. But, as we’ve learnt in previous seminars, is the question what’s in the public interest, or what’s the public interested in? According to Pearson (2001, p. 212) the public interest is, in this case served in two ways: “in the judicial process being publicised and in it being allowed to operate unhindered.” It’s imperative that a journalist does two things: separates fact from opinion and strives for accuracy in their reporting.

(Image sourced from: http://weblogs.jomc.unc.edu/talkingbiznews/?p=4463)

We also concluded that what’s ethical and what’s legal are sometimes two different things. For example, while it’s legal for a journalist to accept gifts off someone they’re reporting on, or reviewing, it may not always be ethical. Therefore journalists must combine a solid knowledge of the legal frameworks they operate within and those most applicable to them (defamation, contempt and freedom of information), with personal morality.

This point is especially relevant considering the modern media landscape. With globalised media, journalists must be aware that while something may not be against the law in the state or country it’s originally published it, it may be illegal in other countries. As so many news articles are published online, this poses serious implications for journalists.

Since the beginning of semester we’ve looked at the changing face of journalism and this week was no exception. While journalists don’t have separate rights from ‘everyday’ citizens, they have responsibilities in their work (Pearson, 2001, p. 212). Only when journalists accept a transparent and accountable work mode, that’s acknowledged internationally, can the evolving role of the journalist be truly recognised (Breit, 2001, p. 229).

References:

Australian News Commentary. (2010). Australian journalists code of ethics. Retrieved 23 September. 2010, from http://www.australian-news.com.au/codethics.htm

Talking Biz news. (2008). Business journalism ethics questions << Talking Biz News. Retrieved 23 September, 2010, from http://weblogs.jomc.unc.edu/talkingbiznews/?p=4463

Tapsall, S. & Varley, C. (2001). Journalism: Theory in Practice. South Melbourne: Oxford.

Week Eight: PR and journalism… A match made in heaven or uneasy bedfellows?

Is PR really the enemy? How often have we heard the term ‘the dark side’? And how many of us have thought about crossing over?

There has been an increasing reliance on public relations (PR) as a source of news; a study by Mcnamara (2003, cited in Conley & Lamble, 2006) found that 31% of news stories in a variety of outlets were based ‘wholly or partly’ on media release. (In 2010 that number is even higher.) While in the modern media sphere, the number of public relations practitioners heavily outweighs the number of journalists – sometimes two to one (Conley & Lamble, 2006). Combine this with tight deadlines, corporate and commercial responsibilities and depleting staff numbers and it’s no wonder a number of media releases are being seen in the news.

Truth and objectivity are being questioned when journalists are forced to pump out story after story; when time is limited facts can be neglected to be checked. While media releases are a good starting point for stories, they should never be accepted as ready-made news stories; facts should be checked and thorough research conducted to ensure public relations piracy is not the outcome.

As Kellie, Renee and I conducted our seminar presentation this week, I have come to appreciate the complexity of this issue. We debated if PR affects truth and objectivity in journalism and questioned those key terms… What does it really mean to be truthful and objective in journalism?

It is hard to determine an accepted definition of ‘truthful’. While some think of truths as universal, others believe that reality is constantly changing, or perhaps there can’t be just one opinion. Ultimately, everyone views situations differently; it’s up to the journalist to be as thorough as possible with their facts and only use verifiable evidence, and at the end of the day, personal judgement is required.

In relation to the ‘friendship’ between PR and journalism check out Media Watch’s Diagnosis: Gullible (that I used in our presentation) or the YouTube clip below.

References:

Conley, D. & Lamble, S. (2006). The Daily Miracle: An introduction to journalism (3^rd ed.). South Melbourne: Oxford.

Johnston, J. & Zawawi, C. (2004). Public Relations Theory and Practice (2^nd ed.). Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.

Media Watch. (2010). Diagnosis: Gullible (20/07/2010). Retrieved 13 September 2010, from http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2951428.htm

Media Watch. (2010). PR to the Max ((06/09/2010). Retrieved 13 September 2010, from http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3004110.htm

Radio National. (2002). Lifelong Learning: Culture of Journalism. Retrieved 12 September 2010, form http://www.abc.net.au/rn/learning/lifelong/stories/s1174631.htm

Tapsall, S. & Varley, C. (2001). Journalism: Theory in Practice. South Melbourne: Oxford.

YouTube – PR vs Journalism (Mac / PC Spoof). (2007). Retrieved 12 September 2010, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CbiMXV8U4M

Week Seven: The public's right to know or just taking it too far?

If you hold a position that puts you in the public eye does that mean you lose your right to privacy?

Journalists and celebrities have a symbiotic relationship, one cannot realistically survive without the other. Audiences love to tune in and see what their favourite ‘celeb’ is up to, while if no journalist reported on a movie star’s latest film chances are box office figures would plummet. Celebrities like Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian rely on the media to fuel their career.

But is this in the public interest?

Belsey (1992) outlines three groups of public figures the media would be interested in: personalities who are created and sustained by publicity (such as Hilton and Kardashian), people who do not choose to live in the public eye (like disaster victims) and those who hold a position of power in society. He claims that personalities such as politicians and sports stars should credit the media for their success (Belsey 1992).

According to the Australian Journalists Code of Ethics (2010, n.p.), journalists exist to serve the public’s right to know. However, what the public wants to know and what they need to know are sometimes two different things. But who decides this?

My view is that if a public figure’s private life impacts on their public life, it should be reported. For instance, if a member of parliament is using taxpayer dollars to fund an affair then yes, I think the public has a right to know.

I believe special consideration should be taken when reporting on issues that affect a public figure’s family, or individuals who do not choose to live in the private eye, such as the first example given in the set text (where a photo was published on the front page of The Age that depicted two murdered policemen). Surely it is not fair for the police officer’s family to see that. I know if that was my father, boyfriend, brother, son, friend I would not want to wake up to that. But, as Richards (2001, p. 187) says, it’s possible to see this as straight-talking journalism.

Where do you stand?

References:

Alliance Online – Media Alliance Code of Ethics. (2010). Retrieved 30 August, 2010, from http://www.alliance.org.au/media_alliance_code_of_ethics/

Belsey, A. (1992). Privacy, Publicity and Politics. In A. Belsey & R. Chadwick (Eds.), Ethical Issues in Journalism and the Media (pp. 77 – 91). London: Routledge. CMNS2270 Media, Law, Ethics Course Reader Semester Two 2009, University of Newcastle.

Richards, I. (2001). Public interest, private lies. In S. Tapsall & C. Varley (Eds.), Journalism: Theory in Practice (pp. 187 – 197). South Melbourne: Oxford.

Week Six: The Changing Face of Journalism

Tapsall (2001, p. 235) poses the question, “How likely is it that the average journalist of 2010 will be a multi-skilled, multiple-media performer, individually delivering high-quality and effective text, sound, vision, and on-line copy for a global audience?”

If we’ve learnt anything through University, the answer would be very likely. We’re forever being told that it is no longer good enough to have good news-sense and be a good writer; we now have to be multi-skilled, with talents that cover all of the media outlets, be it text, broadcast (audio and visual… and both) or online. However the key phrase is Tapsall’s question is “high-quality”. While journalists may be required to fulfil the multiple-media requirements, a question of quality is raised. If the journalist becomes the scriptwriter, camera operator, sound technician, editor, online publisher, while remaining the journalist, will the quality of news be compromised?

Tapsall (2001, p. 252) suggests that technology is only a temporary solution for the current state of journalism; journalists must ensure that passion and integrity is alive, at all levels of the news organisation, otherwise “journalism will continue to struggle for respectability and acceptance”.

The essential underpinnings of what makes a ‘good’ journalist haven’t changed, despite the changes in the way news in delivered. However, if the journalist is “stretched too thin”, the resulting news may suffer. Do you agree? Or is this simply the changing face of journalism?

Image sourced from:  http://web-hosting.tophostingcenter.com/?p=69

Reference:

Tapsall, S. (2001). Technological Talespinning. In S. Tapsall & C. Varley (Eds.) Journalism: Theory in Practice (pp. 235 - 253). South Melbourne: Oxford.