Media Law and Ethics: Fictional Scenario - Essay Example

Media Law and Ethics: Fictional Scenario Name Institution Course Instructor Date Journalists have a duty to inform the public about various issues in the society. However, they must do it within the confines of the law and media ethics. When journalists produce stories for publication, they must be aware of possible causes of action that can be taken against them in case there is a breach of confidence, defamation, copyright infringement or trespass. Moreover, journalists can also be sued when there is a breach of privacy, for misleading or deceptive conduct. The publication of Max Volume that called the Treasurer “a bull terrier” can be regarded as defamatory. In Australia, Defamation Act of 2005 took effect from January 2006 across each state and territory in the country (Dwyer, 2012, p. 56-57). The Defamation Act was introduced in similar terms and enables the existence of a national consistent approach to publications that are defamatory. The reference of Joe Hockey as “a bull terrier” by Max Volume can be regarded as demeaning to his status and various meanings can be deduced from this assertion. It may not have been intentional on the side of Volume to let people think of Hockey in a negative way, but as a journalist, it is a requirement that they publish materials that are not defamatory or they are sued for defamation. In fact, defamation can result when a publication is made and it causes damage because of its implication or what an ordinary and reasonable person thinks by reading “between the lines” (Banki & Lawrance 2013, p. 303). Ordinary and reasonable members of society can think less of Hockey after Volume called him a “bull terrier”. A bull terrier is a dog, and as such, it may be interpreted that Volume relate Hockey to a dog, and in its basic sense, demeans him. The Code of Ethics contained in the Journalism section of the Media Entertainment Arts Alliance acts as a guideline to journalists when they are undertaking their duties. One of the Codes in the Code Points provided by the organization is the number three Code point which requires journalists to aim at attributing information they get to their sources. In case the source seeks anonymity, journalists are advice not to bluntly agree but they should first consider the motive of the source, and, if there is any source that the information can be attributed to. In the scenario, the ‘Instant News’ newspaper repeated the ‘bull terrier’ comment by Max Volume and it did not attribute it to its source. The newspaper broke this code as the story should always be credited to their source as part of ethical practices in the media industry. The same code was broken by Holy Moly website after it reproduces transcript of the questions that Joe Hockey was asked at ABC. Its story did not credit this source or carry any information indicating that ABC did the interview hence being unethical in its journalistic activities. Defamation concerns with damage of individual reputation. It occurs when an individual publishes material that led to a person being avoided or shunned by others, expose him or her to ridicule or make other ordinary and reasonable members of a community to think less of that person (Banki & Lawrance 2013, p. 303). Volume in his column that was published online and in print compares Hockey’s wife to former United States president Bill Clinton wife concerning the treasurer’s schemes and budget success. This statement may have intrudes on the privacy of Hockey’s family by making comparisons of his wife to other people and the role she plays in the treasurer’ schemes and budget success. The actions of Volume may be thought to be of public interest and was just informing the public of what is going on at the treasury. On the other hand, the comments of the reader that Hockey will be made rich by his friends in finance department may be defamatory. The readers’ comments on Volume’s column did not mention anybody by name in the finance. However, the friends of Hockey may be interpreted to include his wife and close friends that are well known. The comment damage the reputation of Hockey as right thinking and ordinary members of society will think of Hockey as a person that has been controlled by his wife. This comes from the comment stating that Hilary was the real president when Bill Clinton was the US president. In this case, the publication asserts that Hockey’s wife is the “real” treasurer and just follows the actions of his wife. This is defamatory as it belittles his authority and reputation as a person capable of executing his duties. He may look down upon by other members of the society. In Australia, publishing defamatory materials of any kind is actionable without the need to proof for any special damage in all the jurisdictions (Barnett & Harder 2014, p. 132). In fact, damage that results from defamation is compensable. The defamation in Australia was enacted in order to protect the reputation of individuals (Frost 2011, p. 119). Defamation is about reduction of human dignity. A statement by the reader seems to have defamatory meaning and people are likely to think of Hockey in a lesser manner. It is also likely that Hockey will be exposed to ridicule and tends to lower him in the esteem of the members of the society having right-thinking minds. This is applicable in their personal life, work and also his professional life as a treasurer. In order for materials that are published to be defamatory, it needs not be words only. Diagrams, cartoons and photographs can be considered to be defamatory. Moreover, even placement of headlines and pictures alone in one page can give rise to the defamation. Instant News run the headline “Treasurer Mines Mates” and it included a photograph of Hockey and Rinehart shaking hands. The headline creates an imputation by inferring that Hockey looks for an equal “partner” in Rinehart who is the woman in Australia. This may be interpreted to mean that Hockey is rich and looks for rich people to associate with. Defamation occurs when the material published causes a person to be avoided in the society (Sawer, Abjorensen, & Larkin 2009, p. 224). In this case, Hockey may be shunned by other members of the society as the headline seems to point to the fact that Hockey associates with some kind of people- the rich only. Journalists publish material that is potentially defamatory for two reasons. The first one is freedom of expression that give people a right to talk about other people like Hockey and Rinehart as well as events that have effects on the people’s lives. However, this is not a good reason on its own to publish information that has potential of damaging their reputation and puncturing their reputation even in cases where the information published is true (Frost 2011, p. 119). As per this analogy, it is defamatory and unethical for Instant News to publish a headline and photograph of Hockey and Rinehart that can be lead to the treasurer being shunned by other members of the society simply because they want to inform the public. The second reason for publishing information that has the potential of being defamatory by journalists pertains to the public interest (Frost 2011, p. 119). In the scenario, the repeat by the Instant News of the “bull terrier” comment by Volume and without providing the source can be regarded as malicious and aimed at tainting the reputation of treasurer Hockey. The newspaper can, therefore, be sued by Hockey for publishing defamatory material. The audio that was included in the report was “secretly recorded” infringe on privacy on the parties involved. In Australia, each state has legislation relating to secret recording. However, there is no statutory right of action in relation to breaches of privacy in Australia (Cade & Dang 2010, p. 16). Nevertheless, there is an extensive privacy and legislation in the country but the law pertaining to privacy and internet is still not certain (Cade & Dang 2010, p. 17). Protection of people’s privacy information is afforded through various pieces of legislation, and notably the Privacy Act. This act protects personal information regardless of whether it is true or false and whether it was recorded in material form or not (Harder 2012, p. 117). The information audio that was secretly recorded breached the provisions of this Act and as such, Instant News is liable to punishment according to the provisions of the Act. This can occur if Hockey and Rinehart institute legal proceedings against them. Professional communicators are expected to self-regulate their own practice in keeping up with the spirit of media freedom. On the other hand, various laws have been enacted in ensuring that media carries out its work within the confines of the law and in an ethical manner. Moreover, the media law function to ensure that we have a civil society. The assertion that the media is its own master by Mr Hockey points to the fact that the media self-regulate itself through various codes of practice. Self –regulation in most cases refer to the codes of practice which the media industry has some responsibility for enforcing, updating and maintaining them (Dwyer 2012, p. 122). In Australia, examples of ‘pure’ self-regulation include the Press Council’s Statement of Principles (PCSP) and the Australian Association of National Advertisers’ Code of Practice (AANACP). In fact, Australian print media is basically considered to be mostly self-regulating (Johnston 2007, p. 23). This process is carried out by an organisation such as Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance and Australian Press Council. Self-regulation is often undertaken within the context of the application of various general media laws. This can be thought as co-regulation. For example, AANA codes of practice have to be “approved” before they become operational under the broadcasting laws, and, in particular, the 1992 Broadcasting Services Act. PCSP is made up of general advice for the media practitioners that is relied upon in complaints adjudication (Dwyer 2013, p. 190). The treasurer’s assertion that the media is its own master also includes tenets of press freedom. Journalists normally carry out their activities through principles of press freedom. In recent years, the Australian High Court has given series of decisions that recognise an implied freedom to communicate on various government matters. For example, in late 2001, High Court was tasked with applying implied freedom of communication in a case which a media organisation wanted to use a video footage that was obtained illegally by trespassing animal liberationists (Pearson & Polden 2011, p. 36). This is a notable case as it shows that High Court may be unwilling to prevent a publication from occurring even in case the broadcast results from an unlawful act. This illustrates the extent of media freedom. Defamation laws offer some redress when defamatory materials that are published damage the reputation of the individuals concern. Damage to reputation in Australia is covered under the uniform legislation that was enacted in 2006. It is for this reason that Mr Hockey says that his lawyers are preparing writs to sue for defamation in an interview with Leigh sales. The modern Australian defamatory law offers protection for various reputational interests such as reputation as property, reputation as dignity and reputation as honour (Rolph 2013, p. 84). Defamation law exists in order to create and enforce uniform societal norms. Mr Hockey will be seeking damages which are the primary remedy for defamation (Clark 2010, p. 316; Gillies & Selvadurai 2008, p. 164). Compensatory damages, exemplary damages and aggravated damages are the principal damages that are awarded to an individual that successfully sued for defamation. Social media has become an important tool used by journalists to disseminate information to the public. In particular, Facebook has performed an important role for journalists such as connecting with audiences and dissemination of information outside formal story structures. The same laws and restrictions that are applicable in the traditional forms of media publication and broadcasting apply to social media. There are risks that can meet someone who uses social media to publish defamatory materials or spread hatred messages. The post of Max Volume in his Facebook page about an interview of Mr Hockey at ABC could be interpreted to mean that he is calling Hockey a corrupt person. As such, Volume may be sued for defamation by Hockey. However, defamation law protects people if the materials or information that is published are true facts or it is an honest opinion based on true facts (George 2012, p. 125). Although Volume may have implied that Hockey is not a corrupt person just because he shakes hands with a rich person, Gine Rinehart, he may still be sued for defamation. Other people may ‘read between the lines’ and asks questions about the truth in that statement and questions his reputation as a ‘clean’ man. Media performs its work without much intrusion by the government in Australia through its various self-regulatory frameworks. In United States, freedom of the press is guaranteed in the constitution. In contrast, freedom of the press in Australia operates by convention as opposed to operating through constitutional guarantee (Sawer, Abjorensen, & Larkin 2009, p. 208). In fact, general legal instrument protecting press freedom is non-existent. However, Freedom of political communication and decisions of the High Court has recognised that Australian Constitution has some implied right to freedom of the press. The comment of Holy Moly about media freedom and Australian media to be allowed to publish what it likes about politicians is misleading. Although the media is generally not gagged in what it can publish, they must publish information that is not defamatory or hateful messages in their social platforms or any other form. There exist various laws that address these issues when they arise and make sure that media carry out its activities within the confines of the media law and ethics. References Banki, P & Lawrance, D 2013, ‘Defamation: When Private Reputations Collide with Creative Endeavour’, In L. Sayer-Jones (ed.), Media Law for Non-Lawyers, Pret a Porter Publications, Double Bay, N.S.W. Barnett, K & Harder, S 2014, Remedies in Australian private law, Cambride University Press, Port Melbourne, Vic. Cade, A & Dang, K 2010, ‘Internet: Laws and Regulatory Regimes’, In D Campbell (ed.), Australia, 2nd edn, Juris Publishing, New York. Clark, E. E 2010, Cyber law in Australia, Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands. Dwyer, T 2012, Legal and ethical issues in the media, Palgrave Macmillan, New York. Dwyer, T, 2013, ‘Visible ‘Evidence’ in TV News: Regulating Privacy in the Public Interest? In J Petley (ed.), Media and Public Shaming: Drawing the Boundaries of Disclosure, I.B Tauris Publications, London. Frost, C 2011, Journalism ethics and regulation, 3rd edn, Pearson, Harlow, England. George, P. T 2012, Defamation law in Australia, 2nd edn, LexisNexis Butterworths, Chatswood, N.S.W. Gillies, P & Selvadurai, N 2008, Marketing law, Federation Press, Sydney. Harder, S 2012, ‘Gain-Based Relief for Invasion of Privacy’, In D Dorr & RL Weaver (eds), The Right to Privacy in the Light of Media Convergence: Perspectives From, Walter De Cruyter & Company, Berlin. Johnston, J 2007, Media relations: Issues and strategies, Allen & Unwin, Crow's Nest, NSW. Karlekar, K. D & Marchant, E 2008, Freedom of the press 2007: A global survey of media independence, Freedom House, New York. Kenyon, A. T 2012, Six years of Australian uniform defamation law: Damages, opinion and defence meanings, University of New South Wales Law Journal, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 31-69. Pearson, M & Polden, M 2011, The journalist's guide to media law, 4th edn, Allen & Unwin, Crow’s Nest, N.S.W. Rolph, D 2008, Reputation, celebrity and defamation law, Ashgate, Aldershot, England. Sawer, M., Abjorensen, N & Larkin, P 2009, Australia: The state of democracy, Federation Press, Annandale, N.S.W. Read More

Volume in his column that was published online and in print compares Hockey’s wife to former United States president Bill Clinton wife concerning the treasurer’s schemes and budget success. This statement may have intrudes on the privacy of Hockey’s family by making comparisons of his wife to other people and the role she plays in the treasurer’ schemes and budget success. The actions of Volume may be thought to be of public interest and was just informing the public of what is going on at the treasury.

On the other hand, the comments of the reader that Hockey will be made rich by his friends in finance department may be defamatory. The readers’ comments on Volume’s column did not mention anybody by name in the finance. However, the friends of Hockey may be interpreted to include his wife and close friends that are well known. The comment damage the reputation of Hockey as right thinking and ordinary members of society will think of Hockey as a person that has been controlled by his wife.

This comes from the comment stating that Hilary was the real president when Bill Clinton was the US president. In this case, the publication asserts that Hockey’s wife is the “real” treasurer and just follows the actions of his wife. This is defamatory as it belittles his authority and reputation as a person capable of executing his duties. He may look down upon by other members of the society. In Australia, publishing defamatory materials of any kind is actionable without the need to proof for any special damage in all the jurisdictions (Barnett & Harder 2014, p. 132). In fact, damage that results from defamation is compensable.

The defamation in Australia was enacted in order to protect the reputation of individuals (Frost 2011, p. 119). Defamation is about reduction of human dignity. A statement by the reader seems to have defamatory meaning and people are likely to think of Hockey in a lesser manner. It is also likely that Hockey will be exposed to ridicule and tends to lower him in the esteem of the members of the society having right-thinking minds. This is applicable in their personal life, work and also his professional life as a treasurer.

In order for materials that are published to be defamatory, it needs not be words only. Diagrams, cartoons and photographs can be considered to be defamatory. Moreover, even placement of headlines and pictures alone in one page can give rise to the defamation. Instant News run the headline “Treasurer Mines Mates” and it included a photograph of Hockey and Rinehart shaking hands. The headline creates an imputation by inferring that Hockey looks for an equal “partner” in Rinehart who is the woman in Australia.

This may be interpreted to mean that Hockey is rich and looks for rich people to associate with. Defamation occurs when the material published causes a person to be avoided in the society (Sawer, Abjorensen, & Larkin 2009, p. 224). In this case, Hockey may be shunned by other members of the society as the headline seems to point to the fact that Hockey associates with some kind of people- the rich only. Journalists publish material that is potentially defamatory for two reasons. The first one is freedom of expression that give people a right to talk about other people like Hockey and Rinehart as well as events that have effects on the people’s lives.

However, this is not a good reason on its own to publish information that has potential of damaging their reputation and puncturing their reputation even in cases where the information published is true (Frost 2011, p. 119). As per this analogy, it is defamatory and unethical for Instant News to publish a headline and photograph of Hockey and Rinehart that can be lead to the treasurer being shunned by other members of the society simply because they want to inform the public. The second reason for publishing information that has the potential of being defamatory by journalists pertains to the public interest (Frost 2011, p. 119).

Read More