The Investigative Journalists - Essay Example

Introduction The concept of protecting privacy and the laws used for political agendas, as well as journalism, is one that is debated. This is because of the contrast that is related to spreading information through the use of journalism, which moves against political concepts having too much protection. Sam North's statement about the law concerning privacy is one that can be agreed with. By individuals not having the right to know about specific ideals through investigative journalism is the inability to know about the current events and what is happening. Having privacy legislation does not allow journalists to fulfil their democratic role as it does not provide a sense of freedom of speech or the capacity to let others know and make informed decisions about current events. Having this privacy policy is a dangerous act that stops journalists from showing and expressing different angles of the truth while providing others with knowledge about the current events. Concepts of Investigative Journalism Investigative journalism is identified as one that shows the majority of the population what is taking place in culture, society and politics. It is specifically used to show legislative procedures within politics specifically to identify the laws being passed and the political agendas that are currently being defined. The concept behind this is to let others look beyond the facts presented in mainstream media and to provide details so others know what is occurring within the political realm. “They are prepared to look beyond what is conventionally acceptable, behind the interpretations of events provided for us by authority and the authoritative, and appeal to our sense of justice, or to the spirit of our laws if not the letter” (Burgh, 2000). This shows the main role of investigative journalists is to question the political agendas of others, and from this, inform the public about the political agendas, laws and concepts that are associated with actions being taken within the political system. Within this concept, is the investigative journalists desire to explain specific situations and to allow the public to make democratic decisions based on the details of political agendas. Because this is the main purpose of investigative journalists, it has become a question not only of what is reported, but also what should or should not be included in stories to move the public from one interest to another. This specific concern has led to an interest by politicians to control this aspect. This began in 1973 when Morrison stated that privacy was an interest, and not a moral or legal right. This instantly began debates, with politicians responding with the Privacy Committee Act of 1975. This stated that privacy should be available as to not interfere with an individuals life in the political realm. It was not until 1984 that the first privacy acts were passed to separate the investigative journalism field from the ability to have privacy for personal lives involved in politics (Forbes, Derek, 2005). By the year 1985, many began to question the need for privacy within the government. It was found that the government used the privacy acts to cover up agendas, such as passing a national identification card through chips, combined with welfare fraud and illegal immigration that the politicians of the time were taking part in. This led to politicians passing the Privacy Act of 1988, which divided levels of privacy to questions the public should know about. “The Act effectively entrenched a great many existing practices within the Commonwealth public sector, but did establish a range of controls over agencies' practices, and has led to a greater degree of openness and confidence among agencies in their dealings with the public” (Clarke, Roger, 2002). This has led to current practices which questions what the public should know, as well as what practices should be included in informing others through private and public sectors, which includes codes for privacy that are currently followed as well as access to specific documents and concepts that can be relayed to the public. Democratic Roles of Journalists Even though several privacy acts have been passed, many are questioning whether this is just or not, specifically because of past actions that were not made public which would have affected the Australian commonwealth. Because the investigative journalists role is to provide information to others, the concept of having privacy laws to stop this does not allow for informed decisions to be made. In terms of democracy, the freedom of speech, as well as the ability for the public to have the correct information about specific ideals is a necessary part of the field. This also includes freedom of the press being available to the public as a part of the democratic role. When this is done, it is expected that the investigative journalists are able to provide a complete democratic viewpoint, allowing the public to show their interest and to respond in an informed manner (Marjoribanks, Taylor, 2003). While this is the main agenda for a democratic role of journalists, the concept of privacy has begun to manipulate the ability to provide complete democracy for journalism. Having restrictions on the press is one that does not allow for correct or accurate information to be displayed, but only provides a control of what the public sees and how they respond. “In spite of the international recognition of press freedom, journalists and media organizations throughout the world continue to face obstacles in reporting. Obstruction is reflected in the presence of active censorship or restrictive regulations on journalistic work, limited or blocked access to official information, a legal landscape that inhibits the ability of journalists to inquire freely... and a censorious abuse of essential media services” (Peters, Bettina, 2002). Without the current and new push towards releasing a privacy document, is a known trend that journalists are unable to have freedom of the press because of the continuous censorship and legalities that are currently in full force. This shows that, with the addition of other privacy laws, is the inability for investigative journalists to report on the information needed, with a lack of information that can not provide democratic views within the press. Ethics Within Journalism The ethics that are involved in this context apply to the democratic viewpoints that are a part of the media. The main ethical consideration that most journalists have as a part of their investigation is to provide the public with the truth and to allow a complete picture to be available. “Journalism is all about seeking the truth and telling the world about it. Burgeoning regulation of the media stands in our way as we attempt to do that. Our complex, technological, postmodern world is sometimes tempted to discard historical notions of media freedom and open justice” (Pearson, 2007). The question of ethics becomes one of whether journalists can do their job by searching and offering the truth through complete freedom of the press and of speech to the public. Having restrictions and privacy acts stops the journalists ability to do this, causing misinterpretations and control over the general public, instead of offering choices. The other viewpoint to this is based on how investigative journalists would respond if there were no restrictions on privacy. This is the opposing viewpoint that is moving the policy into place. Many question what journalists would write about if given total freedom over the press and media. One conclusion is that the entertainment sector, which does not focus on investigations of the public, but instead offers what will entice individuals to buy the newspaper, would become the focal point. Finding things of interest, rather then depicting the entire truth is an ethical consideration that would have to be regulated. This is one of the basic problems with the privacy statements and the inability for investigative journalists to take a sense of responsibility with the work that is done. Knowing how to combat this, without causing investigative journalists to lose their freedom of speech and press is one of the main concerns that moves against the statement for politicians to regulate and censor the media (Bertrand, 2000). This main debate is moving several into the concept of where censorship should begin or end, especially in relation to regulations over privacy. The result is what is known as mediated voyeurism, which states information and images about others for the purpose of entertainment. This moves over acts of privacy, and instead exposes specific aspects of individuals that is not truthful, but causes politicians and others to lose a sense of privacy and discourse. The question of what should be revealed to the public, as well as what is being used for entertainment, is a main concern, especially when considering ethical elements of what should be advertised and what should remain private. “Mediated voyeurism, thrives when privacy is devalued and privileges spectating over interaction and discussion” (Calvert, 2004). The question of privacy, in this sense, refers to the individual privacy and the details about an individuals life that often cross into investigative journalism. Knowing where the line should be drawn for ethical standards, so individuals don't become a spectacle, but only so the facts about the politicians is revealed, becomes a central question when it comes to privacy laws. The two concepts of ethics including privacy becomes one of a double edged sword when debating where the lines come in. The movement against privacy for individuals and towards freedom of speech and the press become conflicting in trying to define where laws should regulate and censor what is available. From the political realm, it is the concept of democratic freedom, expressing rights and showing clear information. This same concept of freedom; however, includes other individuals rights and values that have the right to be protected. Knowing where this tolerance should be kept, as well as what stops individuals from finding out the truth, creates the need to find a balance (Waters, Nigel, 1998). The definition of the privacy law and what should be included comes back to the definition and role of the investigative journalist. When the journalist can keep the role of finding the complete truth about a situation, and becoming a watchdog for unfair practices in politics, then the ethical bounds are kept. This concept is known as the fourth estate, and includes the ethical role and function that journalists should have, especially with pertaining to communicating the truth. This is not reliant on a privacy policy that stops journalists from finding out the truth, but instead is an ethical code of practice that journalists should honor. Since the main questions center around a lack of individual privacy, which entraps others for the sake of entertainment, is not the need to change the laws for privacy, which could offer corruption within the political sector. Instead, it is based on regulating ethics to find legitimate information related to finding the complete truth, which should be the definition of the investigative journalists (Harrison, John, 2004). Conclusion The concept of investigative journalists, from it's root term, is based on finding truth so there is a sense of democracy among the public. Having the freedom of speech and press is the foundation to offering insight from politics, factual information and towards the public. The question of privacy is not one concerning the laws that need to be passed for political boundaries, but is based on ethical codes of practice that need to be adopted by the press. Revealing only the facts that are used for information and political agendas is the key issue, with the movement against this being based on breaking ethical considerations for the right to privacy. Because of these specific aspects, the privacy law as stated through Sam North, would be a hindrance to journalists. The focus instead, should be on ethical and moral codes of practice to show the truth about political movements within the field. References 1. Bertrand, Claude. (2000). “Media Ethics and Accountability Systems.” Transaction Publishers: New York. 2. Burgh, Hugo. (2000). “Investigative Journalism: Context and Practice.” Routledge: New York. 3. Calvert, Clay. (2004). “Voyeur Nation.” Westview Press: New York. 4. Clarke, Roger. (2002). A History of Privacy in Australia. Australian National University. 5. Forbes, Derek. (2005). A Watchdog's Guide to Investigative Reporting. Konrad: South Africa. 6. Harrison, John. (2004). If the Watchdog Bites, Is It Put Down? University of Queensland: Australia. 7. Marjoribanks, Taylor, Andrew Kenyon. (2003). Negotiating News: Journalistic Practice and Defamation Laws in Australia and US. University of Melbourne. 8. Pearson, Mark. (2007). “The Journalist's Guide to Media Law.” Allen and Unwin: Australia. 9. Peters, Bettina. (2002). The Media's Role: Covering or Covering Up Corruption? Global Corruption Report. 10. Waters, Nigel. (1998). Privacy and the Media. Privacy Laws and Policy Reporter. Read More