Category Archives: free expression

April 8, 2014 · 9:21 am

On Skype with @journlaw – barrister and co-author Mark Polden on #defamation basics: #MLGriff

Exactly what is defamation and how does it apply to your average journalist or blogger?

That’s what I asked barrister Mark Polden in this short interview on defamation basics. Mark Polden was in-house counsel at Fairfax Media for many years before going to the Bar, and is my co-author of The Journalist’s Guide to Media Law (Allen & Unwin).

Here he offers a lay definition of defamation and gives some examples of how journalists, bloggers and other professional communicators might write to minimise the threat of legal action.

———–

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.

Leave a comment

Filed under blogging, contempt of court, courts, free expression, media ethics, Media freedom, media law, Press freedom, sub judice, suppression, Uncategorized

Tagged as Adrian Bayley, contempt of court, court reporting, courts, Derryn Hinch, disobedience contempt, Jill Meagher, judges, juries, law, legal education, media law, press freedom, social media, social media law, sub judice, suppression orders, Supreme Court of Victoria

April 3, 2014 · 9:45 am

15 mins with @journlaw – Peter Gregory on the art of court reporting #MLGriff #medialaw

By MARK PEARSON Follow @Journlaw

What is the secret to good court reporting? Highly experienced court reporter and academic Peter Gregory [@petergregory17] – author of Court Reporting in Australia (Cambridge University Press, 2005) – tells @journlaw the essential techniques needed by a journalist wanting to cover the court reporting round.

Gregory explains how he recently returned to duty when he filled in to cover the sentencing of Adrian Bayley for the murder of Jill Meagher – in a marathon 12 hour shift!

He discusses the court reporter’s difficulties in writing fair and accurate reports of trials, particularly when they might be unfolding in different courtrooms at the same time.

He also gives tips on how a journalist might stand up in court to oppose a suppression order being imposed by a judge or magistrate.

Useful viewing for journalism and law students – and for anyone wanting an insight into the work of the court reporter.

———–

1 Comment

Filed under blogging, contempt of court, courts, free expression, media ethics, Media freedom, media law, Press freedom, sub judice, suppression, Uncategorized

Tagged as Adrian Bayley, contempt of court, court reporting, courts, disobedience contempt, Jill Meagher, judges, juries, law, legal education, media law, press freedom, social media, social media law, sub judice, suppression orders, Supreme Court of Victoria

March 24, 2014 · 11:28 am

15 mins with @journlaw – Peter Gregory on ‘contempt and the court reporter’ #MLGriff #medialaw

By MARK PEARSON Follow @Journlaw

We hear about the many types of contempt affecting the role of the court reporter – but how does a journalist manage this in practice?

That is exactly the issue I raised with veteran court reporter (now academic) Peter Gregory [@petergregory17] in this interview covering the main types of contempt of court affecting court reporting – contempt in the face of the court, disobedience contempt, sub judice (prejudicial reporting) and interference with the deliberations of jurors.

Gregory – author of Court Reporting in Australia (Cambridge University Press, 2005) – explains how court reporters might be affected by such forms of contempt, offers examples from his own career, and suggests how journalists might adjust their own practice to minimise risk.

He looks at the impact of new technologies – particularly social media – in the courtroom. Finally, he assesses the dynamics of social media and traditional media at play in the major Victorian trial of the murderer of Irishwoman Jill Meagher (Adrian Bayley) which resulted in the jailing of blogger Derryn Hinch on a contempt charge after disobeying a suppression order.

———–

Leave a comment

Filed under blogging, contempt of court, courts, free expression, media ethics, Media freedom, media law, Press freedom, sub judice, suppression, Uncategorized

March 21, 2014 · 2:56 pm

Threatening letters from officialdom chill free expression – @journlaw blog #MLGriff

By MARK PEARSON Follow @Journlaw

[With research assistance from RSF interns Toni Mackey and Eve Soliman]

Intimidating letters sent by two of Australia’s most senior public servants in recent weeks sound alarm bells for free expression and a free media.

The first – from the secretary for the Department of Immigration and Border Protection Martin Bowles – was directed to freelance journalist Asher Wolf following her co-written article for the Guardian Australia on February 19, 2014 titled ‘Immigration Department data lapse reveals asylum seekers’ personal details‘.

The database Wolf had sourced via the Department’s own public website contained personal details of one third of all asylum seekers held in Australia – almost 10,000 adults and children.

The department secretary’s letter implied Wolf had obtained the material on which the article was based by ‘dishonest or unfair means’. She says the data was simply sitting on the department’s website. Bowles demanded Wolf agree not to publish the contents and ‘return all hard and soft copies of the information’ including any her storage devices.

You can view the letter here: WolfDIBP to The Guardian – A Wolf.

And in this 11 minute interview Wolf explains the episode in her own words:

On advice from her lawyers she wrote back, refusing to provide the department with anything and cited her ethical obligation as a journalist to protect her sources. To date there has been no further word from the department since that February 26 reply.

Wolf explained to @journlaw: “The response from the Government was to reframe the issue rather than sort of saying ‘whoops we made a mistake, sorry, let’s fix it up’. It was to frame it as though it had been illicitly accessed, that the confidential information had to be given back, that the files had to be given back.”

The second intimidating letter was to a politician rather than a journalist, but is no less alarming for its potential chilling effect on free expression – and all the more alarming because it involved a military chief writing direct to a senator-elect.

Chief of the Australian Defence Force General David Hurley wrote to Palmer United Party senator-elect Jacqui Lambie on March 7, following the Tasmanian politician’s claims in a media release that sexual abuse in the military was ‘an intractable problem’.

His letter stated he was disappointed she issued a media release before raising her concerns with him and encouraged her to first provide him an opportunity to reply to any such claims in the future. See the letter here: HurleyToLambieLetter

In her response (LambieReply to Australia’s Chief of Defence’s letter of complaint), Lambie – a former soldier – described General Hurley’s letter as disrespectful, condescending and improper.

“For you as the head of our defence force to take the unprecedented and extraordinary step of trying to influence an elected member of parliament by sending a letter with such a patronizing and condescending tone is a disgrace,” she wrote.

She raised the possibility of the letter constituting a contempt of parliament as an improper interference “with the free performance by a senator of the senator’s duties as a senator”.

Of course, that might be too long a stretch, but it is certainly of concern when top military and immigration officials start writing direct to journalists and politicians chiding them for their public statements and implying some wrongdoing on their part.

It is spin and ‘media management’ gone way too far – and is symptomatic of nations far lower down Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index than Australia’s.

Both Immigration Secretary Bowles and General Hurley undoubtedly have a host of excuses for penning those letters. Bowles was clearly trying to limit the damage from the privacy leak, and indeed has obligations under the Privacy Act to demonstrate his department has done what it can to retrieve leaked information and minimise any damage caused. Hurley was clearly frustrated by a politician’s insistence on making unspecified claims of abuse when there were inquiries and other avenues for complaints to be made.

But many other strategies were available to them to deal with these issues short of writing stern reprimands from their own desks, directly to a journalist and a politician. The democratic doctrine of ‘separation of powers’ is somewhat blurry in Australia, and it is made all the more so when senior members of the executive engage in public spats with the media and politicians.

I cannot imagine that such high level officials would not realise, or be advised, that their intimidating letters would not reach the public domain. If they thought they would remain secret, then we must ask important questions about how frequently this technique is being used. If they understood their letters would likely go public, then the threat to free expression is all the more chilling.

© Mark Pearson 2014

Leave a comment

Filed under free expression, Media freedom, Media regulation, Uncategorized

Tagged as Code of Ethics, media freedom, media law, media relations, Press Council, press regulation, privacy, public relations, Reporters Without Borders, RSF, separation of powers, spin

March 17, 2014 · 11:37 am

Ten minutes with @journlaw – Anne Stanford from @SCVSupremeCourt talks open justice #MLGriff

By MARK PEARSON Follow @Journlaw

In this week’s interview (actually 14 minutes!) I chat with the Strategic Communication Manager at the Supreme Court of Victoria, Anne Stanford, about open justice, suppression orders and general court reporting guidelines.

Listen to Supreme Court of Victoria Strategic Communication Manager Anne Stanford on open justice.

———–

Leave a comment

Filed under blogging, contempt of court, courts, free expression, media ethics, Media freedom, media law, Press freedom, sub judice, suppression, Uncategorized

Tagged as contempt of court, court reporting, courts, judges, juries, law, legal education, media law, press freedom, social media, social media law, sub judice, suppression orders, Supreme Court of Victoria

March 14, 2014 · 1:41 pm

#Hinch (@HumanHeadline), #Morcombe and open justice – lessons in media law

By MARK PEARSON Follow @Journlaw

It is timely that in the space of a week we should see the Human Headline (@HumanHeadline) Derryn Hinch released from jail for a publication offence and a serial offender receive a life sentence for the sex murder of teenager Daniel Morcombe.

CatchingTheDevil(Morcombefrontpage14-3-14)C-M

Courier Mail front page 14-3-14

We learned yesterday after Brett Peter Cowan was convicted of that 2003 crime that he had served time twice earlier for similar offences.

He is exactly the kind of individual that Hinch wants placed on a public sex offender register for exactly the reason most talkback callers and social media commenters are asking this question: How can we release such individuals anonymously into our communities when we cannot be sure they will not strike again?

Hinch asked it again this morning:

The Morcombe Message – http://t.co/DxEXdX3RkM
The brutal criminal history of Daniel Morcombe’s killer gives weight… http://t.co/bsq2EZhD1N

— Derryn Hinch (@HumanHeadline) March 14, 2014

Hinch became the first Australian journalist jailed this millennium for a publishing offence when he was jailed for 50 days refusing to pay a $100,000 fine for breaching a suppression order on the prior convictions of Adrian Ernest Bayley – the accused sex murderer of ABC worker Jill Meagher in Melbourne in 2012.

In 2011 he was sentenced to five months of home detention for publicly naming two sex offenders at a rally and on his website in defiance of such anonymity orders.

In 1987 he was jailed on a contempt of court charge after broadcasting the criminal record of a former priest Michael Glennon accused of child sex offences and implying his guilt in his high rating Melbourne radio program.

It was only by a 4-3 majority that the High Court later stopped short of overturning Glennon’s conviction on those sex charges on the grounds of Hinch prejudicing his fair trial. (Glennon died in jail this year.)

Journalists and media law students have much to learn from the events of the past week.

While the crimes themselves left a trail of human destruction, the Hinch and Morcombe stories make for ideal case studies in a media law module covering open justice, contempt of court and court reporting – the exact module my students will be starting next week.

They will get to research and debate these kinds of important questions that arise from the week’s events:

What public policy issues are at play that see a journalist jailed for reporting the past convictions of an individual convicted of a high profile crime?

What does such a penalty say about Australia’s standard of media freedom?

Why is Australia’s approach to this level of suppression different from that applying in the United States?

Why should the mainstream media be prevented from reporting such material when social media platforms and certain websites are full of it?

Why would Hinch’s blog and Twitter feed where he breached the suppression orders over Bayley not represent a ‘real risk of prejudice’ to the trial, when mainstream media coverage might do so?

How can juries be quarantined from such information and – if they can’t – why shouldn’t the media be allowed to publish it?

Do other methods of dealing with juries – judges’ instructions, training, sequestering etc – mean we no longer need to suppress such material?

Are the past offences of such criminals matters of such overwhelming social importance and public concern that suppression of the details should be considered contrary to the public interest?

Should the Courier-Mail’s front page heading of February 21, 2014 – ‘Daniel’s Killer’ – have forced the trial to be aborted? Should it be grounds for a sub judice contempt charge? Should it be grounds for Cowan’s appeal?

How can a journalist report upon such proceedings in an interesting and timely way while navigating the various restrictions that apply?

How ‘open’ should ‘open justice’ be in such high profile trials? Should cameras and smartphone recordings be allowed in court? Should tweeting and other social media usage be allowed in court?

Is it appropriate in the modern era of communication that a major television network has to rely on a presenter standing outside a courthouse relaying sentencing information to the audience from a court reporter on the inside via telephone?

How much social media commentary should be tolerated about such cases while an accused is facing trial?

I’m sure many other questions arise too – and would be keen for other educators, journalists, lawyers and students to use the Comments section here to pose them so my students can take them up in lecture and tutorial discussions.

———–

Leave a comment

Filed under blogging, contempt of court, courts, free expression, media ethics, Media freedom, media law, Press freedom, sub judice, suppression, Uncategorized

Tagged as Australian media, censorship, contempt of court, daniel morcombe, Derryn Hinch, ethics, free expression, jailed journalists, journalism, law, mark pearson, media, media law, open justice, press freedom, sub judice, suppression orders

March 3, 2014 · 9:29 am

The Human Headline legacy – the jailed Hinch, suppression and free expression

By MARK PEARSON Follow @Journlaw

Broadcaster, tweeter, blogger and veteran journalist Derryn Hinch – the self-proclaimed ‘Human Headline’ – has been released from jail after serving a 50 day sentence for breaching a suppression order.

Derryn Hinch’s ‘Human Headline’ blog – Countdown to Freedom

Hinch had refused to pay a $100,000 fine over his blog and Twitter comments including suppressed background material on Adrian Ernest Bayley, accused of the Melbourne murder of Irish woman Jill Meagher.

Hinch has been jailed twice, fined and sentenced to home detention for his contemptuous reportage and commentary about sex offenders over more than a quarter of a century.

While much of the coverage of his prosecutions and trials has focused on his cavalier and principled stance in the vein of his ‘Human Headline’ moniker, he has also been responsible for a body of case law covering sub judice contempt, the naming of a child sexual assault victim and the defiance of suppression orders – in his television and talkback radio programs, blogs and Twitter feeds.

I am preparing a paper for the ANZCA conference in Melbourne in July, reporting on a legal and textual analysis of eight key Victorian and High Court cases involving Hinch as a party in 1986, 1987, 1996, 2011 and 2013.

It reviews these key cases involving Hinch as a defendant and an appellant since 1986 – including Magistrates, Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and two High Court judgments – and identifies the key media law principles shaped in the process.

It concludes that the Hinch legacy is far more significant than his shallow ‘Human Headline’ title suggests – and ventures into important human rights questions arising in the complex legal and moral terrain where free expression, the ‘public interest’ and the ‘public right to know’ compete with an accused’s right to a fair trial, an ex-prisoner’s right to rehabilitation and a child’s right to protection from sexual predators.

For example, Hinch’s appeal to the High Court over his contempt conviction in 1987 was unsuccessful but resulted in a broadening of the public interest defence to sub judice contempt.

His latest case offers an excellent summary of the relevant factors considered in deciding whether there is a real risk of prejudice to a trial, because Hinch was acquitted on a second contempt charge that his blog ‘had a tendency, or was calculated, to interfere with the due administration of justice in the trial of Bayley’.

Victorian Supreme Court Justice Stephen Kaye ruled that three factors combined to reduce the tendency of Hinch’s blogging to prejudice potential jurors: the small readership of the article, the period of delay between the publication of the article and the likely trial date of Bayley, and other prejudicial material about Bayley circulating in the media and social media at the time (para 114). While ‘highly prejudicial’, Justice Kaye had a ‘reasonable doubt’ in light of those three factors that the article would have prevented Bayley getting a fair trial.

I will post updates on this paper as the research and writing unfolds. Meanwhile, no matter what you think of Hinch’s bravado in his naming and shaming of sex offenders, at least this week we should be able to celebrate the release of an Australian journalist from jail.

———–

3 Comments

Filed under blogging, contempt of court, courts, free expression, media ethics, Media freedom, media law, Press freedom, sub judice, suppression, Uncategorized

Tagged as Australian media, censorship, contempt of court, Derryn Hinch, ethics, free expression, jailed journalists, journalism, law, mark pearson, media, media law, open justice, press freedom, sub judice, suppression orders

February 8, 2014 · 10:43 am

‘Right speech’, media law and mindful journalism – a work in progress

By MARK PEARSON Follow @Journlaw

Media law is much more than a set of edicts in the form of cases and legislation as presented in many texts and as taught in many courses.

Professional communicators and students can gain insights into the law as it stands – and into how it might be reformed – by tracing it to its origins, revisiting it in its modern context, and by applying fresh perspectives to its analysis. It can also inform their newsroom decision-making on legal and ethical matters.

Gunaratne’s seminal text – The Dao of the Press. A Humanocentric Theory

Defamation is a good example. Historically, people’s reputations were seen as part of their spiritual beings. As such, defamation proceedings were often brought in the ecclesiastical courts of the Church of England before the Reformation (Rolph, 2008, pp. 39-48.

A stab at someone’s reputation was viewed as an attack on their soul – to be judged only by God’s earthly adjudicators, the clergy. From the 16^th century, defamation actions were increasingly brought in the common law courts, with the courts developing a list of allegations with which they would deal, without needing proof of actual damage being caused by the defamation (Morison & Sappideen 1989, p. 173). Yet even today the Catechism of the Catholic Church lists ‘detraction’ (essentially gossip – or disclosing ‘another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them’) as a sin – or an ‘offense against truth’.

Modern defences to defamation – like truth and qualified privilege – have been shaped by changing cultural, philosophical and political values, with truth as a defence heavily influenced by libertarians like Locke, Mill and Jefferson.

My recent work has involved the investigation of the ways Buddhist ethics might offer a useful framework for both journalism and media law. You can find an excerpt on my paper on ‘mindful journalism’ I presented to last year’s IAMCR convention in Dublin here.

I am not a Buddhist but I have seen the value of its application to modern phenomena and clinical situations like ‘Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy’ where meditation techniques have assisted with the treatment of anxiety and depression (Segal et. al, 2013).

Back in 2005 I attempted to use the Tibetan Buddhist mandala as a device to explain the complex competing interests involved when weighing up an issue involving privacy in the newsroom. (Pearson, 2005, see here.)

I have recently attempted to apply a Buddhist framework to the contexts of political blogging and election reportage. Colleague Tom Morton from UTS and I are using mindful journalism as a framework for examining a case study of an individual who wants a ban on his identity overturned by the Mental Health Review Tribunal in NSW.

My interest has come to the attention of a pioneer in the application of Buddhist systems theories to journalism – Professor Shelton Gunaratne – who wrote the seminal work in the field – The Dao of the Press – A Humanocentric Theory – in 2005.

He has compared his designated goals of Buddhist journalism with many of the traits of modern Western journalism in his insightful article in Javnost – The Public in 2009: ‘Buddhist goals of journalism and the news paradigm’.

Prof. Gunaratne has generously asked me to collaborate in a new project on mindful journalism also involving Dr Sugath Senarath from the University of Colombo.

Meanwhile, I will be attempting to articulate some of these principles – particularly the relationship between Buddhist notions of ‘right speech’ to defamation and celebrity journalism – in a paper I’ll be delivering to the Media Talk Symposium to be hosted by Associate Professor Jacqui Ewart in Brisbane on April 23-24 (schedule TBA).

That paper will be titled “Mindful media talk: exploring a Buddhist ‘right speech’ ethic in journalism and social media”. Its abstract reads:

Defamation and privacy laws – and journalism ethics codes – are problematic as guidance tools for news communication in the globalised, multi-cultural and multi-jurisdictional Web 2.0 era. This paper draws upon systems methodology (Gunaratne, 2005) to foreshadow an application of the Buddhist ethic of ‘right speech’ to journalistic and social media communication. The path of ‘right speech’ (samma vaca) was one step in Buddha’s Eightfold Path to enlightenment. However, taken at a secular level, it offers a useful theoretical framework by which to analyse media talk and guidance for those engaging in reportage and citizen journalism. Right speech invokes the avoidance of falsehood, divisive and abusive speech and gossip mongering. This paper explains its elements, distinguishes them from media laws and professional ethical codes, and uses examples to examine the extent to which it might accommodate ‘public interest’ / Fourth Estate journalism and celebrity news.

Watch this space for more posts on ‘mindful journalism’ as we explore its value as an analytical device and – perhaps more importantly – as a newsroom tool for ethical decision-making.

——————–

Key references

Gunaratne, S. A. (2005). The Dao of the Press: A humanocentric theory. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Gunaratne, S. A. (2007). A Buddhist view of Journalism: Emphasis on mutual causality. Communication for Development and Social Change 1 (3): 17-38. (Paper originally presented at the University of Queensland on March 8, 2006.)

Gunaratne, S. A. (Feb. 15, 2009). Buddhist principles can revolutionize news and journalism. The Buddhist Channel. Available at <http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=70,7781,0,0,1,0#.UuMttWTnb-k>

Morison, W.L. & Sappideen, C. (1989) Torts: Commentary and Materials, 7th edn.

Sydney: Law Book Company.

Pearson, M. (2005) The privacy mandala: Towards a newsroom checklist for ethical decisions. Refereed paper presented to the Journalism Education Conference, Griffith University, Tuesday 29th November – Friday 2nd December, 2005, Gold Coast International Hotel, Surfers Paradise, QLD Australia. Available: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1263&context=hss_pubs

Rolph, D. (2008). Reputation, Celebrity and Defamation Law. Ashgate: Aldershot. Available: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=d7YO44MvD8QC&source=gbs_navlinks_s

Segal, Z., Williams, M., Teasdale, J. and Kabat-Zinn, J. (2013). Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy for Depression, Second Edition. Guilford Publications: NY.

———–

3 Comments

Filed under blogging, Buddhism, citizen journalism, Eightfold Path, free expression, media ethics, mental health, social media, Uncategorized

Tagged as Dao of the Press, defamation, Eightfold Path, ethics, journalism, law, mark pearson, media, media law, mental health, Mental Health Tribunal, mindful journalism, mindfulness, Right Speech, Shelton Gunaratne

December 4, 2013 · 9:01 am

The man without a name to get one – a small victory for open justice

By MARK PEARSON Follow @Journlaw

We have won a small victory for open justice by persuading the NSW Mental Health Tribunal to allow the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to use the name of a forensic patient in a Background Briefing program on Radio National next year.

**Update: Tom Morton’s radio documentary ‘The man without a name’ was aired on Radio National Background Briefing on April 20, 2014 and can be heard (and transcript read) here.

We later applied to the Mental Health Review Tribunal for permission to name the patient in our scholarly publications, including this research blog. The Tribunal granted that permission on May 9, 2014 after a hearing to consider our application on 20 March 2014.

We can now reveal that the patient is Mr Saeed Sayaf Dezfouli.

This publication is conditional upon this publication carrying this notice:

“Notice: It is an offence under the Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW) section 162 to publish or broadcast the name of any person to whom a matter before the Mental Health Review Tribunal relates or who appears as a witness before the Tribunal in any proceedings or who is mentioned or otherwise involved in any proceedings under the Mental Health Act 2007 or the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, unless consent has first been obtained from the Tribunal. The author has obtained such consent to publish Mr Dezfouli’s name.”

Dr Tom Morton

[Earlier blog continued … ] Colleague Associate Professor Tom Morton from the University of Technology Sydney and I have been conducting an applied research project about publicity of mental health proceedings – centred upon the case of a Sydney patient who wishes to be identified in reportage on his situation.

We are presenting a progress report on our study at the Journalism Education Association of Australia annual conference in Mooloolaba, Queensland today (December 4, 2013).

Dr Morton is an accomplished radio journalist and has started work on the documentary to be aired in coming months. We are collaborating on the academic side of the project – using my research into mental health reporting and logging our ethical decision-making to create a documented mindful reflection on the project.

Dr Morton briefed ABC lawyer Hugh Bennett who presented our case for the identification of Patient A when we appeared before the Mental Health Tribunal in September.

Section 162 Mental Health Act (NSW) bans ID of anyone involved in either tribunal or forensic proceedings, with further requirements under the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act. A breach can incur a fine of $5500 or a 12 month jail term.

A Supreme Court application for the identification of Patient A had failed in 2012 on technical grounds (A v Mental Health Review Tribunal (2012) NSWSC293).

The Tribunal’s consent to the identification of Patient A appears to be limited to the broadcast, so I am not naming him here.

Patient A is an Iranian refugee who until 2002 was employed at a government office in Sydney.

In 2002 he set fire to that building and a co-worker died of smoke inhalation.

In 2003 the Supreme Court of NSW found that Patient A was unfit to be tried for murder, and a jury subsequently found him not guilty of manslaughter by reason of mental illness. He is thus deemed a ‘forensic patient’ – a person whose health condition has led them to commit, or be suspected of, a criminal offence’ (AIHW, 2010, p. 140).

I have previously published compared the complex array of mental health reporting restrictions in Australia and New Zealand. (See here.)

Last year I compared three cases in WA, Victoria and the UK involving the identification of mental health patients. The case of Patient A has strong parallels with the Albert Lazlo Haines [pdf] case in the UK where a patient won an appeal to be named in reportage of his review proceedings.

This Australian case adds to that body of literature and is interesting from that media law perspective. It also interests us from an ethical perspective, and we will be using it as the focus for an exploration of the application of the principles of ‘mindful journalism’ I have described previously.

We plan to write an academic article on this process to date (the events leading to this Tribunal decision), followed by a research journalism output including an exegesis on mindful journalism ethics after Dr Morton’s Background Briefing documentary has been broadcast. Stay tuned.

———–

3 Comments

Filed under blogging, Buddhism, citizen journalism, Eightfold Path, free expression, media ethics, mental health, social media, Uncategorized

Tagged as Australian media, ethics, forensic patients, free expression, journalism, law, mark pearson, media, media law, mental health, Mental Health Tribunal, mindfulness, open justice, press freedom

November 4, 2013 · 9:10 am

Election postscript: a mindful analysis of media coverage

By MARK PEARSON Follow @Journlaw

[This blog was first published in the St James Ethics Centre’s Living Ethics newsletter, Issue 93, Spring 2013. See here.]

Australian journalists operate under an array of ethical guidelines, including the MEAA Code of Ethics and numerous employer and industry codes of practice.

While these documents differ widely in their wording, they espouse common values of truth, accuracy, fairness and the public’s right to information. They disapprove of invasions of privacy, disclosure of confidential sources, discriminatory language, subterfuge, deception, plagiarism and conflicts of interest.

When it comes to assessing the ethics of news coverage of an event as broad in scope as a federal election we find some guidance in such codes but other moral frameworks can add value.

Although I am not a Buddhist, I have recently found value in applying some of that religion’s foundational principles – in a secular way – to the assessment of journalism ethics and have been sharing this approach with colleagues and students through my writing and teaching.

It is also a useful lens through which to review some key elements in media coverage of the 2013 federal election.

The approach centres on the belief that journalists can adopt a mindful approach to their news and commentary which requires a reflection upon the implications of their truth-seeking and truth-telling as a routine part of the process. It calls upon them pause and think carefully about the consequences of their reportage and commentary for the stakeholders involved, including their sources and their audiences.

Truth-seeking and truth-telling are still the primary goal, but only after gauging the resulting social good or harm.

Each of the constituent steps of Buddhism’s Eightfold Path – understanding free of superstition, kindly and truthful speech, right conduct, doing no harm, perseverance, mindfulness and contemplation – provides a framework for such analysis.

Space prohibits the examination of all of them here, but at least three issues arose in the election worthy of such reflection.

Fact checking. The Buddhist notion of ‘right views’ focuses on a deeper explanation of root causes and the clinical testing of claims. The emergence of the ‘fact checker’ was a welcome development via Politifact Australia, the ABC’s Fact Checking Unit and The Conversation’s Election FactCheck. A longer term impact of such a tool might be that politicians are prompted to think twice before issuing scaremongering and outlandish statements.
The News Corp anti-Labor campaign. The principle of ‘right intent’ calls upon us to reflect upon the genuine motivations for Rupert Murdoch’s Australian newspapers adopting such a blatant and belittling attack on the incumbent government. Cynical mock-ups like the Daily Telegraph’s ‘Hogan’s Heroes’ and the Courier Mail’s ‘Send in the Clown’ front pages might be excused as tabloid fun but they hardly indicate ‘right intent’ and ‘right speech’ in the Buddhist moral framework. The motivation could surely not have been to gain circulation, given the fact that the coverage stood to alienate perhaps one third of readers. It will be fascinating to see at the next audit whether this stance accelerated the decline of those newspapers’ circulations. If the intent was to win influence with the likely government, then this should have been disclosed.
Presidential-style coverage. Just because political parties choose to run a presidential style of campaign does not oblige news organisations to embrace it. The Buddhist principle of ‘right effort’ invokes a steady, patient and purposeful path and ‘right mindfulness’ demands a considered and reflective approach to reportage. Each of these is difficult when reporters are assigned to traipse around the nation and cover political leaders engaging in stage-managed, superficial appearances at factories, schools and sausage sizzles. It is belittling to the enterprise of journalism to see some of its leading lights – and notable watchdogs – being led by the leash as mere lapdogs. It was particularly noticeable in a campaign where neither leader made a notable gaffe. We are left to imagine what might have been revealed if only these political journalism superstars had been afforded the time to do some real digging. Sometimes being ethical demands us to say ‘no’ to an under-utilisation our talents, which was clearly the case here.

The ultimate test of ethical political reporting in a democracy is the extent to which that journalism best informs the citizenry to maximize the value of each and every vote. In that respect, Australian journalism still has much to learn.