Memo #RSF Paris: Australian media freedom at risk from anti-terror laws

By MARK PEARSON

[Research assistance from media freedom intern Jasmine Lincoln]

Memo to: Benjamin Ismail, Bureau Asie-Pacifique, Reporters sans frontiers (RSF – Reporters Without Borders), Paris.

From: Mark Pearson, RSF correspondent, Australia

RSFlogo-enI regret to advise that several events and policy proposals have impacted negatively on the state of media freedom in Australia.

They are highly likely to threaten Australia’s ranking on your forthcoming RSF World Press Freedom Index.

A raft of new laws and policies proposed by the conservative Abbott Government has placed its stamp on media law and free and open public commentary.

The initiatives follow in the steps of the prior Labor Government that had proposed a new media regulatory regime with potentially crippling obligations under the Privacy Act.

In the course of its first year in office the Abbott Government has:

- imposed a media blackout on vital information on the important human rights issue of the fate of asylum seekers;

- initiated major budget cuts on the publicly funded ABC;

- used anti-terror laws to win a ‘super injunction’ on court proceedings that might damage its international relations (see your earlier RSF release on this, which I cannot legally reproduce here for fear of a contempt charge);

- moved to stop not-for-profits advocating against government policy in their service agreements, meaning they lose funding if they criticise the government;

- slated the Office of the Information Commissioner for abolition, promising tardy FOI appeals;

- proposed the taxing of telcos to pay for its new surveillance measures, potentially a modern version of licensing the press;

- proposed ramped up surveillance powers of national security agencies and banning reporting of security operations (See Prime Minister’s August 5 release here);

- proposed increased jail terms for leaks about security matters (you issued a release on July 22 the impact for whistleblowers);

- mooted a new gag on ‘incitement to terrorism’;

- proposed new laws reversing the onus of proof about the purpose of their journey for anyone, including journalists, travelling to Syria or Iraq.

Major media groups have expressed their alarm at the national security proposals in a joint submission stating that the new surveillance powers and measures against whistleblowers would represent an affront to a free press.

Over the same period the judiciary has presided over the jailing of a journalist for breaching a suppression order, the conviction of a blogger for another breach, and several instances of journalists facing contempt charges over refusal to reveal their sources. There have also been numerous suppression orders issued, including this one over a Victorian gangland trial.

Other disturbing signs have been actions by police and departmental chiefs to intimidate journalists and media outlets.

  • The Australian Federal Police raided the Seven Network headquarters in Sydney in February, purportedly in search of evidence of chequebook journalism, triggering an official apology this week.
  • Defence Chief General David Hurley wrote to newly elected Palmer United Party Senator Jacqui Lambie in March, warning her not to use the media to criticise the military.
  • Freelance journalist Asher Wolf received a threatening letter from the secretary for the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP) Martin Bowles following her co-written article for the Guardian Australia on February  19, 2014 titled ‘Immigration Department data lapse reveals asylum seekers’ personal details.’ The public service mandarin’s letter implied Wolf had obtained the material on which the article was based by ‘dishonest or unfair means’ and demanded Wolf agree not to publish the contents and ‘return all hard and soft copies of the information’ including any her storage devices. See the letter here: WolfDIBP to The Guardian – A Wolf. The Sydney Morning Herald later reported that the DIBP was hiring private contractors to trawl social media and order pro-asylum seeker activists to remove their protesting posts.

I am sure you will agree that these developments are not what we would expect to be unfolding in a Western democracy like Australia where media freedom has previously been at a level respected by the international community.

Kind regards,

Mark Pearson (@journlaw)

—–

Sources for further detail on the national security reforms:

(6 August, 2014). Inquiry into the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014 Submission. Retrieved from: file:///C:/Users/jasmine/Downloads/17.%20Joint%20media%20organisations%20(1).pdf.

Criminal Code Act 1995 (Qld) s. 5.4 (Austl.).

Grubb, B. (19 August, 2014). Anti-leak spy laws will only target ‘reckless’ journalists: Attorney-General’s office. Retrieved from: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/antileak-spy-laws-will-only-target-reckless-journalists-attorneygenerals-office-20140818-1059c7.html.

Grubb, B. (30 July, 2014). Edward Snowden’s lawyer blasts Australian law that would jail journalists reporting on spy leaks. Retrieved from: http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/consumer-security/edward-snowdens-lawyer-blasts-australian-law-that-would-jail-journalists-reporting-on-spy-leaks-20140730-zyn95.html.

Hopewell, L. (17 July, 2014). New Aussie Security Laws Would Jail Journalists for Reporting on Snowden Style-Leaks. Retrieved from: http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2014/07/new-aussie-security-laws-would-jail-journalists-for-reporting-on-snowden-style-leaks/.

Murphy, K. (17 August, 2014). David Leyonhjelm believes security changes restrict ordinary Australians. Retrieved from: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/17/david-leyonhjelm-security-changes-restrict-australians.

Parliament of Australia (15 August, 2014). Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, 15/08/2014, National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014. Retrieved from: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Fcommjnt%2F2066f963-ee87-4000-9816-ebc418b47eb4%2F0002;orderBy=priority,doc_date-rev;query=Dataset%3AcomJoint;rec=0;resCount=Default.

The Greens (1 August, 2014). Brandis presumption of terror guilt could trap journalists, aid workers. Retrieved from: http://greens.org.au/node/5617.

 

© Mark Pearson 2014

Disclaimer: While I write about media law and ethics, nothing here should be construed as legal advice. I am an academic, not a lawyer. My only advice is that you consult a lawyer before taking any legal risks.

2 Comments

Filed under free expression, national security, Press freedom, terrorism, Uncategorized

MsLods’ news round-up: law + technology

journlaw:

Another great curation of media law and technology law cases and articles here from @mslods . It starts with a particularly useful Storify from @mslods debating whether it is reasonable to use the term ‘copyright theft’ when talking about copyright infringement. Any media law geek should subscribe to this blog.

Originally posted on MsLods:

Copyright

Is copyright infringement theft?  | MsLods storify | https://storify.com/MsLods/theft-and-copyright-law

You’ve got 1 week! Input sought on online copyright infringement proposals.  | Australian Digital Alliance | http://bit.ly/1AJTMG2 & my collection of #copdis resources: http://bit.ly/1oJVhjr

How many jobs does IP actually create? A US analysis. | Mercatus Center | http://bit.ly/1txKnhn

Anti-piracy firm wants to fine Canadian and Aussie file-sharers. | TorrentFreak | http://bit.ly/1vaZS1R

New Zealand: Another alleged music pirate pinged under ‘Skynet’. | Stuff | http://bit.ly/1BR1nns

Village Roadshow no-show for online piracy forum. | ZDNet | http://zd.net/1qCG9RJ

Defamation & media law

North Coast Children’s Home Inc. v Keith Martin, the perils of digital defamation, by Yvonne Kux. | INFORRM | 

Careful with your coverage of the Redfern murder case – especially pics. | Journlaw | http://bit.ly/1t3Mig3

Financial services group WCS serves online forum Whirlpool over negative post. | The Age | http://bit.ly/1pcvHTP

Privacy & information security

iiNet on mass data retention: is…

View original 202 more words

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Court restrictions on identifying children in Australia – a guide for journalists

By MARK PEARSON

We have removed the comparative reporting restrictions tables from the  fifth edition of The Journalist’s Guide to Media Law (Allen & Unwin, 2014) which will be published later this year.

Co-author Mark Polden and I have decided to move these comparative tables on reporting restrictions throughout Australia across to this blog – journlaw.com – so we could free up space in the new edition to discuss other important issues such as media law for public relations consultants and the implications of digital and social media.

We will work to update the reporting and publishing restrictions tables over coming months, but for the moment I am publishing them as they stood at the date of our fourth edition in 2011.

As I upload them over coming weeks I would appreciate any students or colleagues using the comments section below to advise of any updates in your jurisdictions and I will act to update the tables accordingly.

Looking forward to your collaborative input!

——

Restrictions on reports of proceedings involving children

Note: NO identification of parties or witnesses in any way under the Commonwealth Family Law Act s. 121.

Jurisdiction Law  Exceptions  Legislation 
ACT  Reports of proceedings: Media allowed to report. ID: Cannot be identified. Cannot publish account of family group conference— None mentioned.  Criminal Code 2002, s. 712A. Children and Young People Act 2008, s. 77. 
NSW Reports of proceedings: Media allowed to stay and report. ID: No ID of child mentioned or otherwise involved (including victims and witnesses) living or dead, during or after proceedings, or their siblings.— Court may close proceedings. Court may allow ID or children aged 16 or over can authorise.(Seek legal advice on this.) Or senior next of kin or court (if deceased).

 

Children (Criminal Proceedings)Act 1987, s. 15A; Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998, ss. 104 and 105; Young Offenders Act 1997, s. 65. 
NT  Reports of proceedings: Open court and reports allowed. ID: No restriction.— Magistrate may close court or order suppression.  Youth Justice Act 2005, ss. 49, 50. 
Qld  Reports of proceedings: No. ID: No ID of child accused without court’s permission. No ID of child witness in sexual matter. ID of child witness okay in other matters unless ordered otherwise. Cannot ID authorised officer or police officer in matters with child witnesses. No ID info about child victims. No ID of children subject to allegations of harm or risk of harm or in state custody or guardianship.— Judge may order publication of identifying information for heinous crimes. Court can permit reporting when otherwise prohibited.Child victim can consent after becoming adult if fully informed of publication matter, audience and reason. Youth Justice Act 1992, ss. 234, 301. Child Protection Act 1999, ss. 189, 192, 193. 
SA  Reports of proceedings: Court open to ‘genuine representatives of news media’. No family care proceedings reports. ID: No ID of child parties, witnesses or victims,or other persons other than in official capacity without their permission, including name, address or school. Documentaries may be approved under strict conditions.— Courts can authorise some reports and ID.  Youth Court Act 1993, s. 24; Young Offenders Children’s   Protection Act 1993, s. 59, Children’s Protection Act 1993, s. 13; 59A. 
Jurisdiction  Law  Exceptions  Legislation 
Tas Reports of proceedings: No provision for media to be present without permission of court. ID: No ID of youths or youth witnesses.— Permission of court.  Youth Justice Act 1997, ss. 30, 31; Magistrates Court (Children’s Division) Act 1998, ss. 11, 12. 
Vic Reports of proceedings: Open court and media allowed to report. ID: No identification of child accused or any witnesses to case. No mention of court venue. Long list of banned ID particulars for children and witnesses including: name, title, pseudonym, alias of the person, home or work address or localit0, school or locality; physical description or style of dress; occupation or calling; relationship to identified others; interests or beliefs; real or personal property. No photos.— Permission of court.  Children, Youth and Families Act   2005, ss. 523, 534. 
WA  Reports of proceedings: Yes ID: No ID on child involved in proceedings in any way. No ID of child subject of a protection application or order.— Court can exclude persons. Supreme Court can authorise ID of child.  Children’s Court of Western Australia Act 1988, ss. 31, 35, 36, 36A. Children and Community Services Act 2004, s. 234 

—————

Disclaimer: While I write about media law and ethics, nothing here should be construed as legal advice. I am an academic, not a lawyer. My only advice is that you consult a lawyer before taking any legal risks.

© Mark Pearson 2014

Leave a comment

Filed under blogging, contempt of court, courts, media ethics, mental health, social media, Uncategorized

Careful with your coverage of the Redfern murder case – especially pics #Wran

By MARK PEARSON

A media scrum gathered outside a Sydney court this morning where Harriet Wran – the youngest daughter of the former premier of New South Wales Neville Wran who died this year – was charged with murder and other offences.

I will not go into the details of the crimes Harriet Wran is alleged to have committed with a co-accused – to which she is pleading not guilty – but they relate to the death of 48-year-old Daniel McNulty and the stabbing of another man, Brett Fitzgerald, at an inner Sydney apartment block on Sunday night.

Celebrity is a driving news value and leads reporters into dangerous territory in cases like this, as co-author Mark Polden and I explain in the fifth edition of The Journalist’s Guide to Media Law, to be published later this year.

I have already seen numerous images of the accused – which is problematic if identification of either accused has any likelihood of being at issue in the trial. Any potential impact on witness identification – or any indication of the guilt of an accused – can be deemed sub judice contempt of court over which publishers can face hefty fines and jail terms if a court deems their coverage represented a real risk of prejudice to a trial.

The Latin phrase sub judice literally means ‘under or before a judge or court’ and applies to the period during which there are limitations placed on what the media may report about a case. The restrictions start from the moment someone has been arrested or charged.

In this case that period is well and truly under way, with court proceedings having commenced.

The courts have attempted to balance the competing rights and interests of those involved in court cases and those reporting on them by restricting what may be published about a case while it is before the courts. The restrictions are considered necessary to avoid ‘trial by media’, where free speech interferes with the usual safeguards of the legal system with dire consequences for the case at hand and for the public confidence in the administration of justice.

The practical concern the courts have here is the potential influence such a media trial might have on prospective jurors (and, to a lesser degree, on witnesses). The fear is that their judgment (or testimony) might be tainted by media coverage of the case before or during trial, to ‘poison the fountain of justice before it begins to flow’, as one judge expressed it in Parke’s case in 1903. The courts place stringent tests on the admissibility of evidence and respect certain rules of procedure known as ‘natural justice’, protocols that have no tradition in media coverage.

There is a ‘public interest’ defence – but that is highly unlikely to apply in a case where the only real public interest is the fact that one of the accused happens to have come from a famous family.

When deciding whether a publication is in contempt, the courts look to its ‘tendency’ to interfere with pending proceedings. As the NSW Law Reform Commission expressed it in 2000:

To amount to contempt, a publication must be shown to have a real and definite tendency, as a matter of practical reality, to prejudice or embarrass particular legal proceedings.

When considering whether the publication has the ‘tendency’ to interfere with proceedings, the courts gauge the potential effect of the sub judice material, not whether the material actually caused harm, with the test applied at the time of publication rather than at some later date. Even if the accused in the publicised trial eventually pleads guilty or even dies before the trial, the publication can still be held in contempt.

The courts take into account a number of relevant factors in determining whether there is such a real possibility of prejudice, including the prominence of the item printed or broadcast; the images accompanying it; the time lapse between publication and likely trial; the social prominence of the maker of contemptuous statements; and the extent or area of publication. In other words, a prominent sensational account of an imminent trial published in a major newspaper in the very area from which the jury would be selected would be much more likely to be held in contempt than a sober account in a small community radio news bulletin in a provincial town, some distance from the likely trial venue. This should not be taken as advice to knowingly publish a contempt in such cases. On the contrary: there is a tendency for prosecuting authorities to charge all media outlets that published contemptu­ous stories at the same time as the main sensational item that prompted their action.

Internet and social media coverage complicates the matter of course – particularly when publishers from far afield are publishing into the very jurisdiction where the jurors and witnesses live.

Watch those images of the accused

In 1994 Time Inc., publisher of the magazine Who Weekly, and the magazine’s editor were both fined for publishing on its front cover a photo­graph of Ivan Milat, the man accused (and later convicted) of murdering seven backpackers.

The publication came in another crucial time zone—after Milat had been arrested and charged but before his trial. Identification was going to be a crucial issue. In finding Who Weekly in contempt, the NSW Supreme Court held that the photograph tended to interfere with the due course of justice in the prosecution of Milat. It ran the risk of polluting the recollection of witnesses in that they may not be able to distinguish between what they had witnessed at the crucial time and their recollection of the image in the photograph.

While it was unlikely to have influenced the two key witnesses, who were overseas at the time of publi­cation, the photograph ran the risk of affecting the testimony of witnesses who had not yet come forward. Even if the publication prompted new witnesses to contact the police, their testimony would be questionable because it had been influenced by the photograph.

The court ruled that publication of a picture of an accused person would normally be regarded as carrying a risk of interference with the due course of justice, unless the iden­tification were so clear-cut that neither party would dispute it.

And don’t think that because everyone else is doing it you’ll be safe. In the Mason case in 1990 the NSW Attorney-General charged two newspapers and four television stations with contempt over their coverage of an alleged murderer’s confession to police after he had been charged, but before the trial. The outlets with the less sensational reports attracted lower fines ($75,000 as against $200,000), and the question arises: would they have been charged at all if their competitors had not published these more sensational accounts?

It is vital that media outlets work within these time zone restrictions when reporting on newsworthy cases like this one.

Screen Shot 2014-08-14 at 1.00.09 PM

Table: Crime reportage time zones, from Pearson, M. (2007) The Journalist’s Guide to Media Law (3rd ed, Allen & Unwin, Sydney)

Disclaimer: While I write about media law and ethics, nothing here should be construed as legal advice. I am an academic, not a lawyer. My only advice is that you consult a lawyer before taking any legal risks.

© Mark Pearson 2014

2 Comments

Filed under blogging, citizen journalism, contempt of court, free expression, journalism, media ethics, media law, Media regulation, social media, sub judice, Uncategorized

Sexual offences publishing restrictions in Australia – a guide for journalists

By MARK PEARSON

Our fifth edition of The Journalist’s Guide to Media Law (Allen & Unwin, 2014) goes to the printer this week for publication later this year.

Co-author Mark Polden and I have decided to move some of the comparative tables on reporting restrictions throughout Australia across to this blog – journlaw.com – so we could free up space in the new edition to discuss other important issues such as media law for public relations consultants and the implications of digital and social media.

We will work to update the reporting and publishing restrictions tables over coming months, but for the moment I am publishing them as they stood at the date of our fourth edition in 2011.

As I upload them over coming weeks I would appreciate any students or colleagues using the comments section below to advise of any updates in your jurisdictions and I will act to update the tables accordingly.

Looking forward to your collaborative input!

 

Sexual offences publication restrictions

Jurisdiction  Law Exception Legislation
ACT Complainant must not be identified by name, ‘reference or allusion’, including allowing someone to find out their ‘private, business or official address, email address or telephone number’.


 

Complainant may consent. (Seek legal advice on proving consent.) Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1999, s. 40.
New South Wales
Complainant must not be identified, even after proceedings disposed of. With permission of court. Consent of complainant aged over 14. (Seek legal advice.) With consent of court for   complainants aged under 16.


 

Crimes Act 1900, s. 578A; Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987, s. 15A.
Northern Territory
Complainant must not be identified at all. Accused cannot be identified until after committal. No mention of ‘name, address, school or place of employment’ for either.


 

With permission of court. Sexual Offences (Evidence and Procedure) Act 1983, ss. 6, 7 and 11(2).
Queensland Complainant must not be identified at all. Accused cannot be identified until after committal. No mention of ‘name, address, school or place of employment’ for either. With permission of court.Protection for accused only applies to ‘prescribed sexual offences’:
(a) rape;
(b) attempt to commit rape;
(c) assault with intent to commit rape;
(d) an offence defined in the Criminal Code, section 352.1. Seek legal advice about other offences.


 

Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978, ss. 6 and 7.
South Australia Case and related proceedings including identity of accused cannot be reported until accused has been committed for trial. Complainant must not be identified at any stage.Publishers must publish prominent report of result of proceedings they have covered at earlier stage when accused has been identified.


 

  • Pre-committal reports can be made with permission of accused. (Seek advice.)
  • Complainant can be identified with his/her permission or order of court unless child victim.
Evidence Act 1929, ss. 71A and B.
Tasmania Complainant and witnesses other than defendant must not be identified, even if dead. Also bans ‘any picture purporting to be a picture of any of those persons’.


 

Court may allow identification ‘in the public interest’. Evidence Act 2001, s. 194K.
Victoria Complainant must not be identified, even if proceedings not pending. If proceedings not pending, with permission of court or complainant (seek legal advice) or on proof that no complaint of offence had yet been made to police. If proceedings pending, with permission of court only.


 

Judicial Proceedings Reports Act 1958, s. 4.
Western Australia Complainant and their school must not be identified. With authorisation in writing by complainant aged over 18 and mentally capable of making decision. (Seek legal advice.)


 

Evidence Act 1906, s. 36c.

—————

Disclaimer: While I write about media law and ethics, nothing here should be construed as legal advice. I am an academic, not a lawyer. My only advice is that you consult a lawyer before taking any legal risks.

© Mark Pearson 2014

Leave a comment

Filed under blogging, contempt of court, courts, media ethics, mental health, social media, Uncategorized

When ‘off the record’ becomes ‘I am secretly recording’

By MARK PEARSON

We heard this week that Victorian Labor Party staff destroyed an Age reporter’s dictaphone earlier this year after listening to its contents and hearing secretly recorded conversations.

Screen Shot 2014-08-01 at 7.58.49 PMAs I blogged in NoFibs, The Conversation and Mumbrella this week, it is a sad day when senior political figures steal a journalist’s recording device and destroy its contents. But it is an even sadder day when we hear a major newspaper – The Age – justifying a senior reporter secretly recording their conversations with sources.

That newspaper’s editorial thundered at state opposition leader Daniel Andrews:

Here is a lesson in the law, Mr Andrews: it is not illegal in this state to record people without their consent if you are a party to the call.

The journalist involved – Sunday Age state political editor Farrah Tomazin – went even further in her account:

It is not illegal or against our code of ethics to record private conversations for the accuracy of note-taking – but it was my responsibility to keep that information secure.

While I accept the mea culpa on the lack of information security, I am sceptical that the newspaper and the reporter are on solid ground legally or ethically. But before we go into a quick review of the relevant law and ethics let me tell you why I think it is such a sad day.

There is not much new that the community has learned about its politicians and their minders from this mess: they cheat and lie for political advantage. The far more newsworthy – and depressing – news in this story is that journalists’ sources can never be sure whether their trusted reporter is secretly recording their telephone or face-to-face conversation.

We are coming to expect that of our federal policing and security agencies, particularly as they are given progressively more legal powers to do this, but there are laws, ethical codes and damn good reasons to stop journalists doing it.

This kind of practice is selling out the brand of quality journalism as we knew it – that trust between a journalist and a source was a two-way street and that a contact could confide in a reporter with background or off-the-record comments or information knowing it was as safe as houses. They would go to jail to keep it secret.

We continually hear that the future of the legacy media is in the trust capital they have earned with audiences over centuries of fair and accurate reporting. This incident seriously erodes that – particularly when we hear a major newspaper excusing it as acceptable practice for its journalists.

In that commentary, I proceed to analyse the journalist’s actions in recording the conversations secretly in the context of The Age’s own Code of Conduct and the MEAA’s Journalists’ Code of Ethics.

I then proceed to consider its legal implications, federally under section 7(1) of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, and under Victorian legislation at Section 11 of the Surveillance Devices Act 1999.

Interested in my analysis? Feel free to read the full blog at NoFibs, The Conversation or Mumbrella.

Thanks to colleagues for being so welcoming of my analysis.

© Mark Pearson 2014

Disclaimer: While I write about media law and ethics, nothing here should be construed as legal advice. I am an academic, not a lawyer. My only advice is that you consult a lawyer before taking any legal risks.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

New Australian Press Council standards start August 1

Guest report from JASMINE LINCOLN, Griffith University media freedom intern

THE Australian Press Council (APC) has released its new Statement of General Principles as part of its Standards Project where it is reviewing its Standards of Practice and creating new ones.

It applies to all print and online news material from August 1, 2014.

Mark Pearson ( ) recently had the chance to interview Australian Press Council chair Professor Julian Disney on the role and direction of the Council.

In this interview he discussed the recent reforms to the Council, the move to improve its editorial standards, and the future for media ‘self-regulation’ as broadcast, print, online and social media formats continue to converge.

(12 mins, recorded 17 March 2014). Apologies for some audio sync issues!

The Council states on its site:

The revised Statement of General Principles does not seek to change substantially the general approach which has been taken previously by the Council. The main purposes are to ensure that the Principles accurately reflect that approach, are as clear as possible and are succinct.

Amongst other things, the new Statement of General Principles clarifies

• the principle that reasonable steps must be taken to ensure that factual material is accurate and not misleading applies to material of that kind in all types of article;

• the principle of reasonable fairness and balance applies to presentation of facts (including presentation of other people’s opinions) but not to writers’ expressions of their own opinion.

The Principles focus on four sets of key values:

• accuracy and clarity;

• fairness and balance;

• privacy and avoidance of harm;

• integrity and transparency.

The first phase of the Council’s ongoing changes has involved a review of the General Principles and the development of Specific Standards.

The next phase of the project includes a number of developments, including reviews of Privacy Principles and new Specific Standards on technological media outlets.

Also amongst these developments is a “systemic monitoring of compliance” (Australian Press Council, 2014) regarding the practice of the new standards.

This will directly affect the work of journalists because they will have their articles examined by the APC.

According to Press Council chair Professor Julian Disney, there are two main reasons for this Standards Project: so that the Standards of Practice are clearer and so they appropriately reflect the modern media context.

As a result of this project, the APC hopes that the new standards “will deal more effectively” with numerous complaints that they receive each year.

Sources:

Australian Press Council (2014). The Standards Project. Retrieved from: http://www.presscouncil.org.au/the-standards-project/

Robin, M (July 2014). Higher standards for opinion writing as Press Council refocuses for digital age. Retrieved from: http://www.crikey.com.au/2014/07/22/higher-standards-for-opinion-writing-as-press-council-refocuses-for-digital-age/

© Jasmine Lincoln 2014

Disclaimer: While this blog is about media law and ethics, nothing here should be construed as legal advice. I am an academic, not a lawyer. My only advice is that you consult a lawyer before taking any legal risks.

Leave a comment

Filed under free expression, journalism, media ethics, Media freedom, Media regulation, Press freedom, Uncategorized