MEAA’s requirements for Journalists
- The conduct of public relations officials is regulated by the Public Relations Institute of Australia (PRIA) Code of Ethics. The officials are required to follow all the standards set under the Code. Accordingly, Officer Joe Chen would be required to act in accordance with the standards set under the Code. Rule 1 of the Code requires officers and members to act in fairness and honesty in terms of their dealings with their clients, employers, media and the general public. Joe Chen’s information to the media for helping find the missing woman is in compliance with rule 1 of the Code of Ethics as the information is honest and fairly communicated. The information was provided to the public with the consent of the family. Joe Chen was also following rule 2 and not taking any actions that would bring discredit to the profession. Any form of misleading information was also not provided by Joe Chen when he communicated to the public the name, age and Melbourne suburb where the woman used to reside. This implies that Joe Chen was also communicating with the public in accordance with rule 3 and not misleading them in any way. Thus, Joe Chen’s communication to the public and sharing of information to the media was ethical in accordance with the professional guidelines set under PRIA.
Media professionals and journalists are also required to follow the rules and standards set under the Media, Entertainment, and Arts Alliance Journalist Code of Ethics. Journalists working under a media-based organization would be exempted from the application of The Privacy Act 1988 in accordance with section 7B(4). Rather, they are governed as per their industry’s Code of ethics. Media professionals are required to follow the common standards of excellence set within their industry when performing their work (Borden and Bowers 2008: 353). MEAA Journalist Code of Ethics requires journalists to act with honesty and be respectful of the rights of others. Rule 8 of the Code requires media professionals to use fair and honest means to obtain any form of information for their journalistic practice. These means must be fair and responsible. The address was searched through the public directory. Since the directory is accessible to the public, Jean Harlow had used fair and honest means to find the address.
In Australia, invading the ‘territorial privacy’ of an individual is also an aspect of invasion of privacy. ‘Territorial privacy’ would be the intrusion into the domestic environment of the individual (ALRC 2010). As stated by the courts in the Hosking v Runting case, It is necessary for professionals to consider maintaining their ethical standards and respect the right of privacy of others, even though freedom of expression is an important right. This implies that the freedom of expression must be exercised while balancing it with the right of privacy of other individuals. Media professionals are required to act in fairness as per the MEAA Journalist Code of Ethics. Rule 3.5.1 of the CTV Code of Practice requires journalists to always act in public interest. If any material is publically available, it will not be considered to be an invasion of privacy. Journalists should not act for the purpose of their profitability but must follow ethical standards (Lidberg 2019: 15). Since, Jean Harlow and the Channel X crew found the address through the means of the public directory, and arrived at the address for fulfilling their role of public interest, their conduct was ethical and in compliance with the various codes and standards applicable on journalists.
- Section 7(B)(4) exempts journalists from The Privacy Act 1988 and requires that the standards of privacy for journalists be established under their respective profession’s Codes. Rule 11 of the MEAA Journalist Code of Ethicsrequires media professionals to be respectful of the privacy rights of individuals. Journalists are required to respect the privacy of individuals, even if they feel that the intrusion into privacy would be in the public interest (Pearson and Polden 2020: 412). Article 17(1) of the Convent on Civil and Political Rights also upholds the privacy rights of individuals. The CTV Code of Practice also states that broadcasters cannot invade the privacy of people. Furthermore, it also states that broadcasters may not publish any material related to the private life of an individual, provided under section 3.5.1. They require permission from the person prior to publishing any material related to the private life of the person. This principle of privacy was not followed by Jean Harlow and the camera crew of Channel X. In the Douglas v Hello! Ltd (2005) case recognized the right of privacy that the celebrity couple had over the photographs of their wedding. In the Jane Doe case (2007), the courts had held that the media had violated the privacy of the victim by publicizing her identity (Pearson and Polden 2020: 422). Therefore, by covering the story across the road from the house with the front door of the house visible, the channel X crew was publicizing the address of the missing woman and her husband, thus violating their right to privacy. While a general right to privacy is not expressly recognized in Australia, it exists through a number of torts, such as defamation and trespass on private property. This was also decided by the High Court in the Victoria Park Racing & Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor However, a common-law cause of action for breach of privacy was recognized by the courts in the case of Grosse v Purvis. There was a clear invasion of privacy by the media crew when they eached for an interview without any explicit permission on a prior basis. Media professionals entering the private property of an individual can comprise as trespass to privacy (Boeyink and Borden 2010: 83). Furthermore, in the TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd v Anning (2002) case, the court held that a media crew arriving at the personal property of an individual is capable of causing mental trauma to the individual and thus has been termed as a form of trespass to property. This implies that the choice of the crew to arrive at the house of the missing woman, as well as film in front of the door of the house, was not in accordance with the ethical standards set under the Australian legislation system for journalists.
While on the second attempt at the interview, Jean and the crew had arrived at the house with the permission of the husband, the question was offensive to the husband, which must have led him to end the interview and ask the crew to leave. However, rule 11 of the MEAA Journalist Code of Ethics states that journalists must respect the private grief of the person. In accordance with the rule, the personal question asked by Jean Harlow was not respectful of the personal grief of the husband of the missing woman. Media professionals are required to show a level of sympathy and sensitivity as a part of their professional conduct (Breit 2011: 40). The program was also broadcasted by Channel X later at night. This was done without the permission of the husband and was in contravention of section 3.5.1 CTV Code of Practice. Channel X should not have broadcasted the story without the permission of the husband, as they made aspects of his private life public through their story. Thus, it can be noted that Jean Harlow, the Channel X crew, and the organization itself were violating a number of ethical principles and standards through their reporting of the incident.
- After the husband was arrested by the court and the court passed a suppression order, a ‘sub judice’ contempt of court was operational. This prevents the publication of information that can influence the opinion of the jury or witness (Victorian Law Reform Commission n.d.). This prevents the challenge of jurors being exposed to prejudiced materials (Victorian Law Reform Commission n.d.), especially during the digital age when a range of information and discussions are easily available over various online platforms. Therefore, subjudice contempt orders are necessary for ensuring prejudice can be prevented, and a fair proceeding can be made possible (Butler and Rodrick 2012: 367). While the principle of ‘open justice’, which requires the court to be transparent during judicial proceedings, is departed from by the court through the passing of the suppression order, it is necessary for ensuring a fair trial can be made possible (Moran 2016: 225). These orders are passed by the court in the public interest, though they result in a departure from the principles of open justice (Moran 2016: 215). This has also been confirmed by the courts in the Pell v The Queencase, and the significance of suppression orders was asserted through the judgment. In the case, the court stated that these orders are necessary for ensuring the jury does not showcase prejudice in the second trial of the accused and thus help ensure the principles of fairness and justice are upheld during the trial. Journalists must act as per the principles of fairness, honesty and respect for the rights of others as per the MEAA Journalist Code of Ethics. This implies that journalists must also act in accordance with the suppression order of the court in the case of the missing woman so that their conduct is legal, thereby meeting the principles of fairness and honesty. Abiding by the order would also be helpful towards ensuring a fair trial is possible, and thus the journalists would also be adhering to the principle of respecting the rights of others. Furthermore, principle 6 of the Australian Press Council’s Statement of General Principles requires that publishers must avoid publishing information that may lead to the creation of prejudice (APC 2014).
News accounts can also be the cause for the creation of confusion amongst the general public in relation to the facts of the case and can create further biases and false perceptions amongst the readers (Craig and Zion 2015: 50). Accordingly, the Daily Speaker’s story was aligned with such principles and had the commentary section turned off on their published story. This would ensure that online discussions on the matter could be prevented, and biases would not be formed amongst the general public and jurists. In contradiction to this, Jean Harlow’s story provided commentary on the accused man by referring to his past convictions besides the publication of the story over the social media platform of Facebook. Jean Harlow’s commentary on the past accusations and trials of the man would likely create prejudice and bias amongst the public and could impact the fairness of future trials. Furthermore, sharing the story on Facebook could lead to further discussions over online platforms, and the bias created by Jean’s story would spread rapidly amongst the public. Thus, Channel X was not following the standards set under the Australian Press Council’s Statement of General Principles and the MEAA Journalist Code of Ethics.
References
ALRC, 2010, ‘The meaning of privacy’, Australian Government, viewed 9 April 2022, < https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/for-your-information-australian-privacy-law-and-practice-alrc-report-108/1-introduction-to-the-inquiry-5/the-meaning-of-privacy/>
APC, 2014, Statement of General Principles, viewed 9 April 2022, < https://www.presscouncil.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/GENERAL_PRINCIPLES_-_July_14-1.pdf>
Borden, S.L. & Bowers, P., 2008, Ethical tensions in news making: what journalism has in common with other professions, The Handbook of Mass Media Ethics, Routledge
Breit, R., 2011, Professional communication: Legal and ethical issues, LexisNexis Butterworths
Butler, DA & Rodrick, S., 2016, Australian Media Law, Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited
Convent on Civil and Political Rights
Craig, D. & Zion, L., 2015, Ethics For Digital Journalists, Routledge
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
