Tag Archives: media law

Retired magistrate offers advice to court reporters #MLGriff

By MARK PEARSON

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].


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).

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 2022 – 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

Podcast offers rare inside view of FOI process

By MARK PEARSON

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.

FOI Act imageGriffith 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.


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).

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 2022 – 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

Our SMALL podcast guest: Whistleblower expert Professor AJ Brown

By MARK PEARSON

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

AJBrown-e1489729940533Professor 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].


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).

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 2022 – 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

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

By MARK PEARSON

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.

This latest episode [22:11 mins] – published on The Source News – canvasses Amy’s views on recent defamation cases including the High Court judgment against media outlets’ hosted social media comments in the Dylan Voller case. Enjoy!

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).

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 2022 – 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

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

By MARK PEARSON

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 RicketsonJohan Lidberg, Beate Josephi and Jahnnabi Das, Kerry McCallum and Lisa Waller, Andrew Fowler and Catriona Bonfiglioli.

WardEthicsbook coverMy 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’.

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 2022 – the moral right of the author has been asserted.

Leave a comment

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

Latest SMALL podcast looks at Israel Folau matter

By MARK PEARSON

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

Social Media Risk and the Law.inddThis 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!


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).

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 2021 – 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

Two more SMALL podcasts on our Social Media And Law Livestream

By MARK PEARSON

Episodes #002 and #003 of our occasional SMALL podcast – Social Media and Law Livestream – are now available for listening.

Social Media Risk and the Law.inddThese episodes – published on The Source News – are hosted by Media Law students Amy Sauvarin and Camille Chorley.

In Episode #002 [16:37 mins], Amy chats with veteran journalist and author Uli Schmetzer about freedom of expression and his encounters with censorship over his four decade career as a foreign correspondent. For more information on his books and reportage, see http://www.uli-schmetzer.com/index.html.

In Episode #003  [20 mins], Camille talks with ABC Landline producer and ABC News cadet trainer John Taylor about free expression issues in foreign correspondence, court reporting, social media and training journalists in media law. See his bio at https://www.abc.net.au/news/john-taylor/167072.

Enjoy!


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).

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 2021 – 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

Welcome to our SMALL podcast – Social Media And Law Livestream

By MARK PEARSON

The first episode of our occasional SMALL podcast – Social Media and Law Livestream – is now available for listening.

Social Media Risk and the Law.inddIn this first 11 minute episode – hosted on The Source News – I interview co-author Dr Susan Grantham about issues in social media risk and the law covered in our new book, Social Media Risk and the Law – A Guide for Global Communicators, published in September 2021 by Routledge.

We discuss the intersection of social media risk theory and the law, the tools available to assess social media risk, the point at which brand and reputation damage become defamatory, the role of stakeholder theory in assessing social media risk, and the legal risks for employees who use their private social media channels to criticise their organisations.

We plan to feature a wide variety of short interviews with social media law experts on a range of topics over coming weeks and months, with many of the interviews conducted by students undertaking our media law and social media law classes.

SMALL podcast #001 – Dr Susan Grantham – ‘Social media risk and the law’ – interviewed by Mark Pearson [11 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).

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 2021 – 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

Ten steps for assessing your social media risk

By MARK PEARSON

Colleague Susan Grantham and I have just co-written a new book, Social Media Risk and the Law – A Guide for Global Communicators, published in September 2021 by Routledge.  

Social Media Risk and the Law.inddIt presents a stakeholder-oriented approach to risk minimisation designed to help social media managers and moderators anticipate, identify, address and balance these dangers and opportunities.

As part of its launch we have written a blog on the Routledge site about the importance of understanding how to engage with online and social media conversations. We recommend ten steps to best establish a general social media legal risk assessment that applies to your overall professional social media use and the way it interacts with your organization’s policies and processes. You can find our blog on the ten steps here. Enjoy!


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).

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 2021 – the moral right of the author has been asserted.

Leave a comment

Filed under censorship, communication, defamation, First Amendment, free expression, intellectual property, Internet, journalism, journalism education, libel, media ethics, Media freedom, media law, media literacy, Media regulation, national security, open justice, Press freedom, Privacy, public relations, reflective practice, risk, risk management, social media, sub judice, suppression

How to stay out of court while using social media in business

By MARK PEARSON

Social media offers unlimited opportunities, but professional communicators need effective risk analysis strategies to assess potential legal hazards when posting or hosting content.

Screen Shot 2021-04-09 at 2.15.24 pmA stakeholder-oriented approach to risk minimisation can help social media managers and moderators anticipate, identify, address and balance these dangers and opportunities.

In our new book, colleague Susan Grantham and I have identified ten key questions an organisation might ask in establishing its level of social media legal exposure.

I review these ten questions and a further five specific questions for analysing specific social media legal risks in my latest blog in Griffith University’s Professional Learning Hub’s Thought Leadership series here.


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) or Media Law (undergraduate).

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 2021 – the moral right of the author has been asserted.

Leave a comment

Filed under censorship, communication, defamation, First Amendment, free expression, intellectual property, Internet, journalism, journalism education, libel, media ethics, Media freedom, media law, media literacy, Media regulation, national security, open justice, Press freedom, Privacy, public relations, reflective practice, risk, risk management, social media, sub judice, suppression