Moral minefields: legal and ethical dilemma

With concerns to the relationship between law and the media, I agree with the point put forward in this week's presentation about FOI sometimes being seen to hinder rather than help the media in obtaining information that is in the public interest. much of the legislation seems more concerned with withholding information, rather than freeing it, demonstrated by the costs of making a Freedom of information claim, the time that it can take to be processed, the amount of important documents covered by exemption and the use of conclusive certificates by Ministers as a last effort to withhold important information from the media. These elements of the legislation make it increasingly difficult for the Australian media to make proper use of Freedom of Information laws. A study commissioned by the Australian Press Council in 2002 showed costs, delays and exemptions, and the use of Conclusive Certificates by Ministers, had made Freedom of Information legislation increasingly useless as a tool for Australian journalists and according to News Limited CEO John Hartigan:

“...media companies face exorbitant costs, endless delays, and spurious claims of exemption...”

One of the most significant sections of Freedom of Information legislation to the workings of the Australian media, and the role of Freedom of information in those workings, is section 29- Charges. Part one of section 29 states that “under the regulations, an agency or Minister decides that an applicant is liable to pay a charge in respect of a request for access to a document”. Therefore the amount payable for the access to a document is decided directly by the agency or minister from whom access to a document is requested. This part of the legislation is problematic to the workings of the Australian media, as it becomes very easy for the minister or agency in question to make the expense of such a request so substantial that many requests of this nature are withdrawn and the applicants are hesitant to put in further applications in the future.

In the Australian Press Council’s 2003 annual address, delivered by John Hartigan, Chairman and Chief Executive of News Ltd, Hartigan quoted the cost of one Freedom of information request made by Mckinnon, which was initially $605,284.72. This fee was later negotiated down to $284, bringing into question whether the high cost was only quoted to deter further Freedom of Information applications. (Hartigan, J., Press Freedom Under Attack, (2003), http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/apcnews/feb04/address.html, accessed 14.09.08)

With all these ways for the government to make using FOI laws increasingly difficult, it remains to be seen whether they will be used in the future as sources for investigative journalism, especially considering the breaking news nature of today's media world, with the increasing use of new technology.

In terms of the importance in the media following laws when it comes to revealing the names of victims and perpretrators of crimes, here is a YouTube video showing the reporter making a crucial mistake of this nature.

In the Public Interest: Public v Private

The Stott Report

Today Thomas Stott gave a presentation on privacy in journalism, focusing on celebrities and their rights to privacy in the media. Stott began the presentation by stating how controversial the topic of privacy is in society, especially due to often conflicting and blurry definitions. He concludes that public interest is news and information which the public is interest in, using the definition of well known author Rhonda Breit as evidence. According to Breit “there is public interest in revealing private information because it aids the formation of public opinion.” Stott goes on to state that public interest is heightened when people in the public eye are behaving badly and that traditional news values have shifted, with a strong emphasis on entertainment and private information about celebrities. According to Breit “public interest is often used to justify intrusions into the personal lives of people, particularly public figures.” Stott goes on to give examples of this change in news values, by using the example of “guru” of celebrity news, Harvey Levin, being asked to speak to students at the elite Graduate School of Journalism at Berkeley University in the USA, rather than a more “serious” journalist. Levin was allegedly offended when asked if his site would be reporting on more “serious” news in the future, stating that “the world of celebrity has become news and people genuinely have an interest in them.” This brings the presentation to Stott’s main issue, of whether the public have the right to know about celebrities and their private lives just because they are in the public eye. According to Breit “If a person has attained a great deal of fame via the mass media, then that individual’s privacy boundary is thin.” Using a case study on the celebrity blogger Perez Hilton winning a lawsuit against public figure Samantha Ronson, with the result being that the issues surrounding the report was of the affecting the public, Stott agrees with Breit; when celebrities put themselves in the public eye, what they do becomes the public interest when it affects the public.

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

I missed class today, but so I have looked at the powerpoints online and so far there is only one from the 1pm-3pm class, so I am going to talk about something I read in their presentation.

"A reporter is expected to be “objective” in his or her account of the facts. "

There is already a problem with truth and objectivity in this quote, because it is the account of that person's opinion of what are 'the facts.' I don't think that there is a lack of truth in the media, I just think that there are different truths. The fact that truth is and means different things to different people is a big part of the problem. There are hundreds of different definitions of truth flying around on the internet, and not to mention three different definitions in the one Oxford Dictionary alone. So if there are so many different definitions of the one concept out there, who are we to say that something is or is not true, when we are not looking at it from the same definition as the person writing it?

The fact that the truth is so hard to define, means that it is a concept that will continue to be taken advantage of by those who like to stretch the truth, and can probably find a definition that will back them up.

Online: a ‘new’ journalism, content and the rule of the search engine

Henderson Report

Today Mark Henderson presented a seminar on online journalism and in particular the effects of the internet on journalism, journalists and the media.

Henderson explained that the media environment is changing with the convergence of new and old media which combines the use different media forms and creates an environment where they can be used simultaneously. This convergence media covers many platforms including audio, visual, print, web production, photography, filming and graphics.

He went on to give examples of this convergence of traditional and new media, such as the ‘living story’ of Wikipedia’s coverage of the Swine Flu outbreak and the use of social networking sites like ‘Twitter’ for instantaneous news delivery.

Founder of Google news, Krishna Bharat, coined the term ‘living story’ when referring to the growing and changing of the story of Swine Flu on Wikipedia as the disease developed, grew and changed itself.

Henderson refers to ‘Twitter’ as an example of media convergence as it provides an outlet for breaking news twenty four hours a day and through the ability to attach web links to video, audio or other footage it has the potential to provide extra support and information for readers.

Henderson discussed the question of whether this media convergence will lead to the ‘death’ of the more traditional forms of media such as newspapers, however according to Tapsall “far from killing them, new technologies actually helped to save the newspapers and made them more profitable.”

While there are questions about the death of traditional media forms, Henderson also pointed out the fears for the death of journalism itself, stating “when you can go online and access what you want, when you want it, why would we cling to these ‘old’ forms of news?”

These are valid claims, as Richard Roth states “Digital put the audience in control.”

To conclude the seminar, Henderson left the audience with the question of whether the convergence of new technology and traditional media forms will result in journalism be improved by better access to information for the general public and therefore a better level of understanding of news events, or just the ‘same old.’’”