Fictional Scenario - Assignment Example

FIСTIОNАL SСЕNАRIО BАSЕD ЕSSАY Name Student ID Course Instructor Date Fictional scenario Paragraph 1 Ethical issue In this case, the reporter receives anonymous information about something happening in a certain location named Brunswick. The reporter from FBS named Doug Trench does not solely relay on the information as provided to him. He decides to do the most ethical thing that is to get down and look for the information. This would ensure the credibility of the information is established before going on to publish it (Australian press Council, statement of privacy principles, 2014 privacy principle 3). His call to police media relations indicates responsible journalism on the part of the FBS reporter. The police PR on giving the information, gives the reporter an obligation not to disclose the name of the victim. This in itself is an aspect of privacy which information dispersed may cause distress to the woman’s family. It is therefore paramount to have the identity of the woman not revealed, at least until the whole issue is communicated to the family in Germany through the relevant channel. Paragraph 2 Trench follows the principle of privacy; however, channel 9 has already disclosed the name and her photo, and much worse, a shot of the house. Ethical issue This in is major violation of the privacy of the victim and her family. Details such as the photo of her house should not be released since the victim at this point, the woman is still missing. This poses a danger even to the husband and unnecessary media attention on the husband. Information that may bring harm to persons associated with the person receiving media attention should not be revealed as such may result to people intruding in their privacy or even bring a security threat information provided by the media should only be that which is sufficient to identify persons reported on the media (Australian press Council, statement of privacy principles, 2014 privacy principle 2). This is aggravated by the fact that the safety of the woman is also in question as the report states. The media house therefore erred in releasing the photograph of the house and the details of her husband. The question of whether the information released benefits the public arises. Is the information by any chance, by any measure over and above the need to keep the details of the husband and their house confidential? Here without a doubt, it can be agreed that such information needed not get to the public. The moral obligation here is to ensure the safety of the woman and the husband. It may be argued that the identity of the woman should be released but not that of the husband or photos of their house. The name of the woman may help the public in the search of the woman. More information than that will lead to intrusion of the couple’s privacy and may even prejudice the safety of the husband. On the second aspect, Trench decides to add the name of the woman and adds the quote by police. Ethical issue This action by Trench does not violate the privacy principles since at the time; the information is already of public knowledge. He is therefore reporting what a majority of the public already know from other sources. He however has a responsibility to ensure that the information he is to share is accurate, especially the information of which he had received first hand. (Fincham, 2013, p. 220) Trench further takes a step to go to the ground to collect information on his own. This ensures the quality and the accuracy of information collected. He however has a responsibility to ensure that he does so without intruding into the privacy of others which collecting his information through the interviews and the footage. (Australian Press Council, statement of privacy, 2014 privacy principle 1) Paragraph 3 Ethical issue The use of the CCTV footage of the suspect is well within the legal confines. The information in this case is necessary to ensure that the suspect is apprehended. The public would easily help the police by giving them relevant information in case they get to cross paths with the suspect. Furthermore, the police have given the go ahead to have the video used by media for the appropriate assistance from the public. The fact that someone else had updated the information before does not affect the situation. The videos would anyway have been released to the public with the consent of the police. The second video upload however by Camera spy is an intrusion to the neighbour’s privacy. Furthermore, the footage poses a security threat to the neighbour. It also jeopardises the investigations by police by releasing information on the people being questioned by the police. The footage further makes mentions the husband, this information need not be revealed to the public since it may lead to intrusion of Karl’s privacy. Camera spy is also subject to media code of conduct (Little, 2013 p. 25). The interview by Dough Trench acts to put the lives of the neighbours in danger since what really happened has not been established. Putting them in the limelight therefore serves to even negate their privacy. Despite the fact that the public may want to know what happened. Such information may serve to hinder the investigations by the police. Trench may claim accurate reporting as his defence in this case. He also interviews the co- workers to the woman. This violates the confidentiality of the employees (Public Relations Institute of Australia (PRIA) Code of Ethics 2001). It is hard for journalists to follow the code of ethics since most of them are unwilling to be bound. They feel that they are being forced into following the rules (Simper, 1995). It is much simpler for journalist to run big stories, putting in mind that such stories pay their bill. This is what leads to a need for a code of conduct. (Elger, 1996, p. 1). Legal issue The police on the other hand had an obligation to report the incident to the parents. It is not right for them to learn of the information on the news like the general public. The police therefore erred to authorise the release of the information to the public before the parents could be informed. The police are subject to Information Privacy Act as provided in section 9 of the Act. The act provides in section 4 that information is said to be in possession of an organisation if it has control of such information. This is stated in section 4. Objects of the Act include responsible handling of information and balancing that with public interest (Information Privacy Act 2000 (Cth) s 5). Paragraph 4 Legal issue The filming of the location where the body is dumped is gross and may lead to disturbing images which should not be aired on a live television. However, the rest of the information has been dispersed as was provided by the police and does not therefore lead to any form of violation by the media houses. Journalists should be sensitive in relation to interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief (Fincham, 2013, p. 212).The information that maybe distressing should not be broadcasted unless it is permitted by the licensee as being of public interest. The same must be accompanied by warning to the viewers that such information is disturbing (Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice, 2010).The reaction by the family is a violation of the family’s piracy. Unless they give consent, such information need not be broadcasted. The media should respect personal grief (Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance Journalists’ code). In any event where there is contravention of the code of ethics, the same can be reported to ACMA (Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth) s 23). Paragraph 5 Legal issue The issue at hand should not form part of the public debate unless on proceedings which have already taken place. This serves to ensure that there is no contempt of court. It has also been some people’s opinion that some comments might influence the jury in the kind of conviction that they may give. The persons commenting on social media should be held responsible for sub-judice provided that they are the ones who are in control of the sites (Harkianakis v Skalkos (1997) 42 NSWLR 22). The only information which maybe commented to is that which has already been discussed in the court of law. However to be on the safe side generally, comments on on-going cases in court should not be made. Such persons may however claim that the comments they made were well before the court proceedings started. Legal issue 2 The comments on the post amount to defamation since a conviction has not been obtained against the accused. There is also an imputation of a criminal offence for which Bundy had not been convicted for; that is, murder. The person responsible for the site may therefore be held for defamation. The person needs to have proof of conviction (Defamation Act of 2005(Cth) s 42). This is listed in the Act and would include a court record from Australia indicating a conviction. In the absence of that, the person in charge of the site should not make reference to Bundy having committed murder in the past since it will result to defamation. Any person who, without lawful excuse, publishes matter defamatory of another living person knowing the matter to be false or without having regard to whether the matter is true or false and intending to cause harm to that or another person is guilty of a misdemeanour. (Defamation Act 2005 (Cth) s 365) .The person may however raise a defence of honest opinion. (Defamation Act 2005( Cth) s 31). In this case, the person controlling the site must show that the statement was an expression of an opinion rather than a statement of fact. It could also be shown that information related to an issue which is public interest. There is however a need to look into issues of freedom of expression and try to establish a balance (Justice, 2005). Ethical issue Easy access to internet has led to people to aspire to practice journalism and many update stories all over the world. Such is also covered under the digital aspects of ethics (Muller, 2014). Social sites users and bloggers have the same responsibilities as journalists to follow the principles laid down to be used in the media industry (Dwyer, 2012 p. 59). This therefore means that even people using social sites should exercise responsible dissemination of information. They may not be allowed to broadcast information that is not true or which its truth they cannot be in a position to ascertain. Legal issue 3 The 3ZB on the other hand, gives a list of the accused’s convictions and also makes a statement which clearly amounts to contempt of court. The statement that the public need to know whom the Victoria’s parole system lets out of prison too early, is in itself contempt of court since it is meant to influence the court to give a long sentence. The statement further serves to demean the system, it creates a notion that the system will mostly give the Bundy, if convicted only some few years to serve in jail. This statement interferes with the system and does not give due regard to the information that may be presented in court as evidence. The forms of criminal contempt most commonly committed by media organisations and journalists are: Publishing material that is calculated to undermine public confidence in the judicial process and to lower the authority of a judge or court ("scandalising contempt") (Butler & Rodrick, 2012). The statement results to contempt of the court .They portray the system as one incapable of giving out sound judgements. They are therefore to be held accountable for their actions as having done contrary to the common law practice of not undermining the Authority of the system handling justice. The integrity of judicial system must be protected to ensure that orders so given are respected. Unless reason can be given that it falls within the purview of information that may as political speeches ( Christians et al., 1995). Bibliography Australian Press Council (2014 ) statement of privacy, press council, Sydney. Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth). Butler, D & Rodrick, S (2012) Contempt of Court; Australian media law (4th Ed) Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited, Rozelle, N.S.W Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice, 2010 Christians, C.G., M. Fackler & K.B. Rotzoll (1995), Media Ethics: Cases and Moral Reasoning (4th ed). New York: Longman. Defamation Act (No 55) 2005 (Cth). Dwyer, T (2012) Defamation and the protection of reputations; in Legal and ethical issue in the media , Palgrave Macmillan, London; New York . Elger k (1996) The MEAA’s new code of ethics and practical workplace reform Fincham, K( 2013) Toward a new code of ethics: social media in journalism Harkianakis v Skalkos (1997) 42 NSWLR 22. Information privacy Act 2000 (Cth). Justice R Sackville, (2005) How Fragile Are the Courts? Freedom of Speech and Criticism of the Judiciary, Monash University Law Review 191 at 206-207. Little J (2013) Journalism ethics and law: stories of media practice, Oxford, London. Available from: < http://deakin.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=1986014 >. [16 April 2015]. Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance Journalists’ code. Available from: < www.alliance.org.au/code -of-ethics.html >. [16 April 2015]. Muller D (2014) Journalism Ethics for Digital Age. Available from: < http://deakin.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=1699073 >. [16 April 2015]. Public Relations Institute of Australia (PRIA) Code of Ethics (2001) as amended in 2009, Board of Public Relations Institute of Australia, Sydney. Simper, E. (1995), Culture of integrity sets media ethics ,The Australian, 8 September: 17 Read More

Ethical issue This action by Trench does not violate the privacy principles since at the time; the information is already of public knowledge. He is therefore reporting what a majority of the public already know from other sources. He however has a responsibility to ensure that the information he is to share is accurate, especially the information of which he had received first hand. (Fincham, 2013, p. 220) Trench further takes a step to go to the ground to collect information on his own. This ensures the quality and the accuracy of information collected.

He however has a responsibility to ensure that he does so without intruding into the privacy of others which collecting his information through the interviews and the footage. (Australian Press Council, statement of privacy, 2014 privacy principle 1) Paragraph 3 Ethical issue The use of the CCTV footage of the suspect is well within the legal confines. The information in this case is necessary to ensure that the suspect is apprehended. The public would easily help the police by giving them relevant information in case they get to cross paths with the suspect.

Furthermore, the police have given the go ahead to have the video used by media for the appropriate assistance from the public. The fact that someone else had updated the information before does not affect the situation. The videos would anyway have been released to the public with the consent of the police. The second video upload however by Camera spy is an intrusion to the neighbour’s privacy. Furthermore, the footage poses a security threat to the neighbour. It also jeopardises the investigations by police by releasing information on the people being questioned by the police.

The footage further makes mentions the husband, this information need not be revealed to the public since it may lead to intrusion of Karl’s privacy. Camera spy is also subject to media code of conduct (Little, 2013 p. 25). The interview by Dough Trench acts to put the lives of the neighbours in danger since what really happened has not been established. Putting them in the limelight therefore serves to even negate their privacy. Despite the fact that the public may want to know what happened.

Such information may serve to hinder the investigations by the police. Trench may claim accurate reporting as his defence in this case. He also interviews the co- workers to the woman. This violates the confidentiality of the employees (Public Relations Institute of Australia (PRIA) Code of Ethics 2001). It is hard for journalists to follow the code of ethics since most of them are unwilling to be bound. They feel that they are being forced into following the rules (Simper, 1995). It is much simpler for journalist to run big stories, putting in mind that such stories pay their bill.

This is what leads to a need for a code of conduct. (Elger, 1996, p. 1). Legal issue The police on the other hand had an obligation to report the incident to the parents. It is not right for them to learn of the information on the news like the general public. The police therefore erred to authorise the release of the information to the public before the parents could be informed. The police are subject to Information Privacy Act as provided in section 9 of the Act. The act provides in section 4 that information is said to be in possession of an organisation if it has control of such information.

This is stated in section 4. Objects of the Act include responsible handling of information and balancing that with public interest (Information Privacy Act 2000 (Cth) s 5). Paragraph 4 Legal issue The filming of the location where the body is dumped is gross and may lead to disturbing images which should not be aired on a live television. However, the rest of the information has been dispersed as was provided by the police and does not therefore lead to any form of violation by the media houses.

Journalists should be sensitive in relation to interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief (Fincham, 2013, p. 212).

Read More