Week 9 - Minefields and Legal landmarks

I think, in general terms, the law favours those who can afford the many legal expanses that come with pursuing a matter through the courts. As journalists are constrained by the law, I therefore also think it is important that they don’t, as Marcus Westbury once stated, be strong on the weak and weak on the strong.

I joined a petition a couple of years ago for two journalists who were in contempt of court for not naming their sources. They were facing jail time, not because their articles were untruthful, but precisely because they were truthful and embarrassing the government. I think it had to do with the Federal government and Indigenous affairs. The government wanted the journalists to reveal their sources so they could punish the whistleblowers. I think these journalists should be applauded for the integrity and highlighting the indiscrepancies that sometimes exist between the law and the liberal democratic society the law is supposed to be protecting.

On the other hand, and unfortunately probably more common, journalists instead of focusing on challenging or critiquing the social structures and culture we live in, they use their privileged position to exploit individuals, or the ‘common person’ so to speak. I had a placement this year at a local council, where there was a fair bit of clandestine tension between the then communications officer and the management above him. I was aware that the communications officer was intending to hand his notice in. A couple months after finishing my placement, I read in my local paper explicit personal details of how his employment was terminated. They gave his full name, position and the circumstances that lead to him being asked to leave the building. (He published a faux media release, for training purposes on the internet, stating that the mayor had been asked to resign after throwing a chair at a fellow councillor. This ruffled a few feathers.) I still have no idea what relevance the article had to the general public, other than a little bit of scandal and humour at council. But even then names and positions didn’t have to be given. I was especially disappointed with the paper because the reporters there had a working relationship with the communication officer for years, and then they did that too him. It is dirty, lazy journalism. I can’t imagine the humiliation it would have caused the communications officer.

Journalism can be used for tremendous good, even when that includes breaking existing laws, or can lawfully wreck unnecessary havoc on the personal lives of individuals.