Journalism, the law and you

IF ONLY!







As aspiring journalists nothing is more scary than the prospect of being sued! The main issue dealt with in today's seminar was defamation. Wikipedia defines defamation as 'the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image.' (www.wikipedia.org/wiki/defamation)

For journalists attempting to 'uncover the truth' defamation is something that must always be at the forefront of our minds- for one person's 'truth' is certainly not another's.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/04/2208010.htm

Above is the case of the Australian Olympic Committee head John Coates against serial offender 2GB's Alan Jones. It is reported that 'Mr Jones was discussing the collapse of the Olympic rower, Sally Robbins, in the women's eight final in Athens that year. The jury found he implied Mr Coates ordered a cover-up, bullied the crew and was a poor leader. Justice Michael Adams has found the remarks were not true.'

Now Mr Coates walked away with $360 000 in damages from those remarks. $360 000! All from something said on radio - from someone who is paid to express opinions.

Now Jones is a special case, he is not likely to lose his job over something like this. For a young journalist, however, this could be a career killing situation.

It highlights the importance of verification. It also highlights why we are taught to go over every word and sentence before submitting work. Wording a sentence in the wrong way could land you in hot water very quickly- particularly if you are lucky enough to be picked up by a large news organisation, where messy journalism is highly penalised, let alone illegal journalism!

John spoke in his presentation and then later in discussion the way the internet is creating more room for error in this situation. Once again the concept of immediate news and incredibly tight deadlines in light of the technological age made an appearance in class discussion- highlighting the increasing difficulty of carrying out qulaity investigative journalism. Legally this has much more serious personal consequences for the journalist than any of the other issues faced in class.

Each week I seem to return to the importance of that V word... verification! But the more we go on the more class discussion is beginning to convince me that I may have to accept that due to the tech age high quality journalism is just about out of our reach.

Week 8 Article

Blog altered for report...

Information regarding a person’s private life should only be made public if it relates to their role in the public sphere and consequently affects a considerable amount of people, Tom Stott said today.

Stott, a journalism student from the University of Newcastle, today discussed with his fellow students an issue that effects modern journalism: To write or not to write? Should Journalists risk stepping over the line of privacy in the name of public interest? And how do we draw this line?

Writers Glenda Cooper and Stephen Whittle (2008) say 'There is currently a battle around the point at which freedom of expression and the public interest meet the right to privacy.’

Stott introduced to his listeners an example of this battle with Hollywood columnist Perez Hilton and his coverage of a car accident involving celebrity Lindsay Lohan, who was found to be under the influence of drugs whilst driving.


Hilton made speculation that the cocaine, which was found in the vehicle at the time of the accident, could have been owned by passenger of the car Samantha Ronson.


Following Stott's example the audience divided.

Many students began advocating the right to privacy- stating that this incident shouldn't have been reported – and the remaining half declared the actions of a public figure or celebrity should be public knowledge due to their public status.

'To apply Tom's [initial] statement to celebrity their private lives aren't at all in the public interest,' student Brooke Lees said.

'Then why do these stories remain at the forefront of the news,' asked Lecturer in Journalism Christina Koutsoukos.

According to Stott this is because the public is interested - they want to know. They do not, however, have the right to know - and this is where the difference lies.

Privacy and the Public Interest

The issue discussed in class this week is one that all Journalists will encounter at some point in their career. To write or not to write? Do we risk stepping over the line of privacy in the name of public interest? And how do we draw this line?


'There is currently a battle around the point at which freedom of expression and the public interest meet the right to privacy,' writers Glenda Cooper and Stephen Wittle said.

As an example of this battle Tom Stott discussed hollywood columnist Perez Hilton and his coverage of a car accident involving Lindsay Lohan, who was found to be under the influence of drugs whilst driving.

Hilton made speculation that the cocaine, which was found in the vehicle at the time of the accident, could have been owned by passenger of the car Samantha Ronson.


Heated discussion followed this example, with half the class advocating the right to privacy- stating that this incident shouldn't have been reported - and half the class declaring the actions of a public figure or celebrity should be public knowledge due to their status.

Stott stated that 'Information regarding a person’s private life should only be made public if it relates to their role in the public sphere and consequently affects a considerable amount of people'

Applying this statement to celebrity it would appear that their private lives are, in fact, not at all in the public interest. However they will remain at the forefront of the news whether quality journalists approve or not. This is because the public is interested - they want to know. They do not, however, have the right to know - and this is where the difference lies.

Truth and objectivity

Like it or not, PR officers and Journalists must work together- despite the various implications of this fact. Jo Bowman states that ‘The relationship between journalists and PR practitioners is not usually a happy one. There is mutual distrust, neither has a good word for the other, yet they are forced to work with each other’ (Bowman 2002)

When two professionals with such contradictory roles are forced to work together there is no doubt that ethical workplace issues will occur.

In our most basic form a Journalist exists to communicate the truth - or as close to the truth as possible- to the community. A PR professional exists to promote. Whether it be a product, celebrity, company or football team they will continually skew the truth to suit their purpose.

The main way PR professionals promote is to communicate with the media, that's why News Rooms will see several media releases faxed and emailed through to their offices on any given day.

With the rise of the internet and the economic downturn news rooms are getting smaller while dealines are getting tighter. This results in Journalists coming to all but rely on media releases, written by PR companies and professionals, for part of their daily news service. The issue here is clear- how can one attempt to communicate the truth when the news sources being used exist to distort the truth?

There is no simple answer here. We cannot go without the presence of PR, nor would we want to, when their job is done properly they can be an asset to your news service- by providing contacts, media conference information and general story verification. However I believe as Journalists we must push through the initial PR barrier to get at the guts of a story. We need to be constantly aware of the position PR plays in your news service- and play that card accordingly, never settling for a press release before making verifiying the story from as many angles as possible. It all comes down to our number one priority- maintaining objectivity.