journlaw

January 18, 2024 · 11:20 am

The Communicator’s Guide to Media Law and Ethics – A Handbook for Australian Professionals

My latest book has been published, covering both media law and ethics for communication students and practitioners.

The Communicator’s Guide to Media Law and Ethics – A Handbook for Australian Professionals (Routledge, London and NY, 2023) offers an introduction to the key legal and ethical topics confronting Australian journalists and strategic communicators both at home and internationally and offers a suite of reflective techniques for navigating them.

It starts by positioning morals, ethics, and the law in their historical and philosophical frameworks by tracing the evolution of free expression and professional media ethics. Media law and ethics are then contextualised in their modern international human rights framework.

Readers are equipped with a skill set for reflecting on the law and ethics of professional media dilemmas – including mindful reflection, the Potter Box, journaling, concept mapping, and discussion.

Such approaches are then applied to key topic areas, including free expression; reputation; confidentiality; privacy; justice; intellectual property; national security; discrimination and harassment; and conflicted interests.

Each is examined in terms of its philosophical underpinnings, relationship to human rights, professional ethical context, international examples, legal principles, key Australian laws, legal cases, and strategies for applying reflective practice techniques. It concludes on a confident note – imploring communicators to engage in constructive and mindful strategic communication with the authority and confidence that results from a working knowledge of media law and ethics.

This handbook is for professional communicators and students in all fields, but particularly in journalism, public relations, corporate communication, media relations, and marketing.

Academics can request inspection copies here.

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 2024 – the moral right of the author has been asserted.

2 Comments

Filed under censorship, communication, cyberbullying, defamation, First Amendment, free expression, global journalism, journalism, journalism education, libel, media ethics, Media freedom, media law, Media regulation, online safety, Press freedom, social media

Tagged as communication-law-and-ethics, cyberbullying, defamation, ethics, free expression, freedom to communicate, investigative journalism, journalism, journalism education, Journalist's guide to media law, law, legal education, mark pearson, media, media law, news, online safety, professional values

May 23, 2023 · 12:49 pm

Abuse of Stan Grant highlights law and policy of cyberbullying and online harassment #MLGriff

By MARK PEARSON Follow @Journlaw

The debate surrounding indigenous journalist Stan Grant standing down after harassment from some traditional media and cyberbullying underscores the importance of our research into the online safety of diverse journalists.

The research project by our joint team from Griffith University and Macquarie University was titled ‘Online Safety of Diverse Journalists’.

It was commissioned by Media Diversity Australia (MDA) and funded by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), Meta (Facebook), Google News Initiative, the e-Safety Commissioner and Twitter.

The main findings were well explained in this Conversation piece by my research colleagues Bronwyn Carlson, Susan Forde, Madi Day and Faith Valencia-Forester.

My role in the project was to write a law and policy summary about cyberbullying and online safety of diverse journalists and a 15,000 word appendix to the report.

The extended policy report (see Appendix A of the report) reviews the legal, regulatory and self-regulatory landscape of the online safety of diverse news media workers/journalists in Australia – that is, media workers living with disability, culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD), Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, and/or LGBTQIA+. It benchmarks those policies against comparable Western democracies.

The summary of the policy landscape in the area contains 28 key law and policy measures with varying utility and availability, ranging from international human rights instruments down to criminal laws of particular jurisdictions.

© Mark Pearson 2023 – the moral right of the author has been asserted.

Leave a comment

Tagged as Bronwyn Carlson, cyberbullying, defamation, diverse journalists, ethics, Faith Valencia-Forester, free expression, freedom to communicate, investigative journalism, journalism, Journalist's guide to media law, law, Madi Day, mark pearson, media, Media Diversity Australia, media law, online safety, professional values, stan grant, Susan Forde

May 11, 2023 · 3:50 pm

Former ombudsman offers insights into defamation #MLGriff

By MARK PEARSON Follow @Journlaw

A former ombudsman who sued a major newspaper for defamation offers his insights into the experience in Episode #009 of our occasional Griffith University SMALL podcast – Social Media and Law Livestream.

Griffith University Media Law students Emily Soccol and Anna Swann interview Professor John McMillan AO about his successful defamation action against the Canberra Times in 2016.

Mr McMillan has held positions of Commonwealth Ombudsman, Integrity Commissioner for the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, Australian Information Commissioner, NSW Ombudsman and a member of the Australian Copyright Tribunal.

He is also a legal consultant and an Emeritus Professor at the Australian National University. Drawing on his expertise over a five decade career, Professor McMillan offers his perspective on defamation laws and the legal risks associated with publishing damaging material.

The case was settled after mediation. The court judgment on the imputations can be viewed at https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/act/ACTSC/2016/286.html. [McMillan v The Federal Capital Press of Australia Pty Ltd [2016] ACTSC 286 (22 September 2016) ]

[Listen here: 14:26 min].

If you are a communication professional wanting to study in this area, please consider enrolling in our online courses Social Media Law and Risk Management (postgraduate, fully online) or Media Law (undergraduate, available online or on campus).

© Mark Pearson 2023 – the moral right of the author has been asserted.

Leave a comment

Filed under blogging, communication, contempt of court, defamation, Internet, journalism, journalism education, libel, media law, media literacy, online education, open justice, podcast, public relations, reflective practice, risk, risk management, social media, social media law, strategic communication, sub judice, suppression, Whistleblowing

Tagged as AJ Brown, Australian media, communication education, communication law, confidential sources, defamation, free expression, freedom to communicate, international law, journalism, journalism education, Journalist's guide to media law, law, mark pearson, media, media law, podcast, privacy, social media, social media law, social media law podcast, social media risk, social media risk and law, Transparency International, whistleblowers

November 1, 2022 · 9:22 am

New public interest defamation defence the subject of chapter in investigative journalism book #MLGriff

By MARK PEARSON Follow @Journlaw

A forthcoming book on changes to investigative journalism across three key liberal democracies features a chapter I have written on the new Australian public interest defence to defamation.

Investigative Journalism in Changing Times – Australian and Anglo-American Reporting, is edited by University of Southern Queensland lecturer Dr Caryn Coatney, who has written five of the 12 chapters.

The book offers new insights into the crucial role of investigative journalism at a pivotal time of technological changes and upheavals.

It surveys innovations and unexpected impacts of the field, from past and present challenges, and what may be in store for the future of the industry.

It is due for publication by Routledge on December 30, 2022.

As explained in its cover notes, the book starts by exploring the increasingly investigative innovations in political and independent reporting, along with a comparison of the rhetoric and reality of a so-called “golden era” of investigative journalism in the past and the present.

The book proceeds to analyse the growth of creative and sports investigative reporting, as well as the ability of contemporary conflict journalism to overcome surmounting challenges.

It also examines the capacity of groundbreaking investigations, including data reporting, to expose injustices involving women, indigenous communities and other minorities.

It features interviews with key industry and research professionals, presenting the reactions of four media experts to the crises faced by investigative journalism in a digital environment of escalating disinformation, legal restrictions and popular interest in the news.

The book concludes by reflecting on previous and current challenges and offers insights into the prospect for investigative journalism of the future.

Presenting unique views on the diversity, resilience and transformative power of investigative journalism, this book will be a valuable resource to students and scholars of journalism, communication, media and politics, as well as professionals already operating within the field of journalism.

My chapter examines the fourth estate principle of the ‘public interest’ as informing important reforms to defamation law in Australia.

It offers an historical and international context to the law around investigative and public interest journalism and tracks some of the financial and legal hurdles investigative journalists and their publishers face when defending defamatory material in their reports.

Shortcomings of the key defences to defamation are highlighted with case examples.

It then details an important recent defamation law reform in Australia – the introduction of a new ‘public interest’ defence modelled on a 2013 UK predecessor – and considers the extent to which it might benefit the enterprise of investigative journalism using historical and international comparisons.

The chapter concludes by speculating how the new defence might have applied hypothetically to a current high-profile trial as a means of examining its potential utility for public interest journalism.

© Mark Pearson 2022 – the moral right of the author has been asserted.

Leave a comment

Filed under censorship, communication, defamation, First Amendment, free expression, global journalism, journalism, journalism education, libel, media ethics, Media freedom, media law, Media regulation, national security, Press freedom, reflective practice, social media, Whistleblowing

Tagged as caryn coatney, defamation, ethics, free expression, freedom to communicate, investigative journalism, journalism, Journalist's guide to media law, law, mark pearson, media, media law, professional values, reflective practice, trauma

June 6, 2022 · 12:06 pm

Retired magistrate offers advice to court reporters #MLGriff

By MARK PEARSON Follow @Journlaw

Decades of experience as a magistrate and lawyer inform the advice offered to court reporters in Episode #008 of our occasional Griffith University SMALL podcast – Social Media and Law Livestream.

Retired magistrate Antoine Bloemen. Photo: Anne Bloemen.

Griffith University Media Law student Elizabeth Heseltine interviews retired Western Australian magistrate Antoine Bloemen about the traps faced by novice court reporters, with some fascinating examples.

He draws upon his 40 years of expertise as a legal professional to share his insights into courtroom etiquette and the potential legal ramifications of a poorly researched and written article [Listen here: 14:26 min].

© Mark Pearson 2022 – the moral right of the author has been asserted.

Leave a comment

May 26, 2022 · 10:52 am

Podcast offers rare inside view of FOI process

By MARK PEARSON Follow @Journlaw

Episode #007 of our occasional Griffith University SMALL podcast – Social Media and Law Livestream – looks at Freedom of Information processes from a different perspective – that of a lawyer managing the Commonwealth Government’s FOI approvals and exemptions.

Griffith University Media Law student Mia Durnan interviews Senior Lawyer Rodney Durnan about Freedom of Information laws (FOI); covering basic topics like ‘what is FOI?’, the process of an application, some of the exemptions that can apply and how the FOI laws interact with privacy laws from a practical perspective.

Mr Durnan is part of In-House Counsel for a large Federal Government agency.

With more than 15 years of experience, he and his team specialise in administrative law which includes Freedom of Information and Privacy. [15:25 min] Find Mia’s interview here.

© Mark Pearson 2022 – the moral right of the author has been asserted.

Leave a comment

March 8, 2022 · 2:21 pm

Our SMALL podcast guest: Whistleblower expert Professor AJ Brown

By MARK PEARSON Follow @Journlaw

In episode #006 of our occasional SMALL podcast – Social Media and Law Livestream – I speak with academic whistleblowing expert Professor A J Brown.

Professor Brown is leader of the Centre for Governance and Public Policy’s public integrity and anti-corruption research program in Griffith University’s School of Government and International Relations.

He is on the global board of the world anti-corruption organisation Transparency International and a leading expert on public interest whistleblowing. He talks about the legal framework for whistleblowers and the implications for journalists and their confidential sources. Find our interview here [21:49min].

© Mark Pearson 2022 – the moral right of the author has been asserted.

Leave a comment

February 23, 2022 · 12:52 pm

Latest SMALL podcast gets Amy Remeikis’ take on social media law

By MARK PEARSON Follow @Journlaw

Episode #005 of our occasional SMALL podcast – Social Media and Law Livestream – features Guardian Australia political reporter Amy Remeikis talking media law with tutor Susan Grantham.

From court and police rounds, to reporting on Australian federal politicians, Amy (pictured below) discusses how she navigates legal risks while reporting in a wired world.

Leave a comment

Tagged as ABC, Amy Remeikis, Australian media, communication education, communication law, defamation, Dylan Voller, free expression, freedom to communicate, Guardian Australia, international law, journalism, journalism education, Journalist's guide to media law, law, mark pearson, media, media law, podcast, privacy, risk management, social media, social media law, social media law podcast, social media risk, social media risk and law, susan grantham

February 9, 2022 · 11:16 am

‘Global Justice, Factual Reporting and Advocacy Journalism’: my chapter in global ethics handbook

By MARK PEARSON Follow @Journlaw

The long awaited Handbook of Global Media Ethics, edited by the internationally lauded Professor Stephen Ward, has now been published and includes my chapter on global justice, factual reporting and advocacy journalism.

It sits among 71 chapters by media ethics experts including Australia’s own Susan Forde, Kristy Hess and Ian Richards, Cait McMahon and Matthew Ricketson, Johan Lidberg, Beate Josephi and Jahnnabi Das, Kerry McCallum and Lisa Waller, Andrew Fowler and Catriona Bonfiglioli.

My chapter argues global justice can be a legitimate ethical objective of journalism, requiring factuality as a platform, achievable in some situations through advocacy journalism.

It explores definitional boundaries and ethical dimensions of the three terms ‘global justice’, ‘factual reporting’ and ‘advocacy journalism’.

It compares and contrasts legal and jurisprudential notions of global justice from its meanings to international journalism, offering examples of some works of investigation and reportage that might pursue global justice goals but which have been contested in the courts over their factuality or partisanship.

It explains that while judicial cases are only one approach to the analysis of underlying ethical issues, their systematic approach based on laws and precedents offers some useful insights.

The chapter explains that some works of advocacy journalism might fall outside the law, or broadly accepted journalism ethical guidelines, but perhaps still encourage ‘ethical flourishing’.

Indeed, as Ward argues, some stories require journalists to “adopt the perspective of global justice and to consider what is best for the global community”.

The chapter explores the notion of ‘factual reporting’, distinguishing it from false news and from a legal standard of factuality, and introduces a taxonomy of factuality in ethical reporting, which includes a spectrum of fact sourcing, selection, verification, inclusion, exclusion, ordering, ramifications and revisiting. It examines the dimensions of ‘advocacy journalism’ and exemplifies how the notions of factuality and advocacy are not mutually exclusive.

It links this with the mindful exploration of intent and livelihood suggested in the foundational principles of ‘mindful journalism’.

I explain there:

Purposive reflection on one’s intent – and one’s livelihood – is examined in the relatively new area of ‘mindful journalism’, where Buddhist ethics and phenomenology are applied to journalism. Such structured meditation on these considerations – sitting to reflect upon the intent of a work of journalism, taking into account the implications for a range of stakeholders, along with a mental review of where the particular assignment and techniques sit with one’s livelihood – together form three of the eight steps involved in the mindful journalism approach.

The chapter offers an approach for reporters and editors to examine carefully the motivational roots (‘intent’) of a work of journalism to identify the source of any advocacy and its purpose, and to reflect upon how this sits with their professional identity and values.

It suggests all journalism is by some definitions ‘advocacy journalism’, but that not all advocacy journalism meets aspirational standards of global justice or factuality.

If the mindful journalism approach is adopted, then the journalist’s perception of their livelihood and its professional ethical framework is crucial to the examination of intent and to the decision over the ethics of a particular course of action. The protagonist must decide whether they are first and foremost a journalist or an advocate. Central questions include: Are you a journalist using a factual base to advocate for a human right? Or, alternatively, are you an advocate using some journalistic techniques to advocate for a human right? This self-identification with a particular occupation or profession invokes a particular ethical framework to the investigation and publishing enterprise. If the self-perception of livelihood is that of a journalist, then the protagonist should abide by a journalistic ethical code such as the MEAA or SPJ code. If, however, the methods are journalistic but the protagonist identifies as an advocate, then other ethical frameworks might be invoked, such as professional ethics of activist organisations (such as Greenpeace), governing bodies (like the UNHRC) or a public relations association like the PRIA.

The mindful examination of intent must begin with the acceptance that all journalism has elements of advocacy journalism, but that it can be alleviated by disclosing agendas and allegiances and being transparent about funding and influences. Such an approach can assist the ethical journalist in carefully navigating the fault lines of global justice, factual reporting and advocacy journalism.

The chapter includes examples of international works of journalism involving advocacy for global justice, premised upon factual reporting, which navigate the ethical fault lines inherent in the hybrid term ‘advocacy journalism’.

Leave a comment

Filed under Eightfold Path, global journalism, journalism, journalism education, media ethics, media law, mindful journalism, online education, reflective practice, social media

Tagged as advocacy journalism, Andrew Fowler, Beate Josephi and Jahnnabi Das, Cait McMahon and Matthew Ricketson, Catriona Bonfiglioli, emotion, ethics, factual reporting, free expression, freedom to communicate, global justice, interventions, Johan Lidberg, journalism, Journalist's guide to media law, Kerry McCallum and Lisa Waller, Kristy Hess and Ian Richards, law, mark pearson, media, media law, meditation, mindful journalism, mindful teaching, mindfulness, mindfulness pedagogy, moral injury, professional values, reflective practice, Susan Forde, trauma

December 16, 2021 · 11:47 am

Latest SMALL podcast looks at Israel Folau matter

By MARK PEARSON Follow @Journlaw

Episode #004 of our occasional SMALL podcast – Social Media and Law Livestream – is now available for listening.

This latest episode [15:00 mins] – published on The Source News – is hosted by Griffith University Media Law student Brandon McMahon.

Brandon talks with Attwood Marshall lawyer Laura Dolan about the discrimination, religious freedom, unfair dismissal and contract dimensions of the case involving former Test rugby union player Israel Folau and his social media posts. [SMALL #004].

Enjoy!

Leave a comment