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or agency in question to make the expense of such a request so substantial that many requests of this nature are withdrawn and the applicants are hesitant to put in further applications in the future.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.