This was written for the University subject, BCM113.
In journalism and in many aspects of the creation of media, the pitfalls that face creators are unlike any other industry.
Not only in terms of making something worthwhile or creative but, particularly in regards to journalism and film-making, making something credible and correct. Obviously, if one reports the news incorrectly without proper research, there could be very serious consequences for those written about in the piece and the person who has written said piece. Indeed - in journalism, nothing is taken more seriously or punished more harshly than violating ethical standards. Take, for example, the Australian Law Reform Commission’s post on Journalism Exemption. It makes clear that if “a private sector broadcasting service has breached, or is breaching, a relevant code of practice, it may issue a notice directing a person to take remedial action to ensure compliance” and “a breach of a licensing condition also could lead to suspension or cancellation of the broadcasting licence”. This could range from violations such as plagiarism or taking advantage of and not showing due respect and care towards someone who has undergone significant trauma.
However, the ethical issue I’ll be looking at today is the confidentiality of sources. Simply put, source confidentiality is the protection of someone’s identity who has provided information and wishes to remain anonymous. This respect of anonymity is not only extremely important to any individual journalist worth their salt, but also to media organisations. In the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance (MEAA) Journalist Code of Ethics, Clause 3 makes clear that, “Where confidences are accepted, respect them in all circumstances”. Of course, the clause also highlights that it’s important to consider why the source would want anonymity, but that’s beside the point. What’s important is that it is unethical to reveal a source which you have granted confidentiality under any circumstances.
Or…is it? Is it unethical?
I mean, really. What would be a instance where revealing a confidential source wasn’t unethical or in breach of any Code of Ethics? Would it be in the name of public interest? But, if that were the case, surely it would still be unethical because you still promised confidentiality. Luckily, in Australia, there are shield laws that are supposedly there to protect journalists from being forced to reveal their sources. Although, according to The Guardian, these shield laws vary from state to state in regards to what and who is protected. Largely, however, shield laws are there to help.
But are they?
Media Watch found that, prior to 2013, three journalists had been sent to jail for refusing to reveal their sources in court with three more journalists being “added to that list” after “Nick McKenzie, Richard Baker and Philip Dorling, award-winning journalists at the Melbourne Age” sought “leave to appeal a NSW Supreme Court order to disclose their sources in a defamation case”. This defamation case was the result of three articles about a Chinese-Australian businesswoman’s relationship with a Federal Labor MP. The Sydney Morning Herald reported that “Justice Lucy McCallum found a journalist's pledge to keep a confidential source “is not a right or an end in itself” and could be overridden “in the interests of justice’’”.
So, now we’re at a point where practitioners of journalism not only have to worry about their own morality and ethical standing, but now also about the shield laws that don’t really protect them at all.
Although, I guess all this goes to show why the confidentiality of sources in journalism is such a hotly contested and much talked about issue to this day.
Comments
Post a Comment