Media Law in Australia

Consequently, the political sphere is now being colonised by the media, and politics has begun re-orientating itself to satisfy the logic of media organisations (Meyer, 2002, p. 71). Therefore, the media are active participants in the policymaking process and the ability to stimulate change or maintain the status quo depends on their choice of subject or policy issue and how they frame it. Active investigative reporting attempts to shape policy outcomes, but this does not necessarily mean that it always represents the most successful approach for gaining policy changes (Spitzer, 1993, p. 7). In fact, sometimes passive, straight reporting can have a greater influence on policy choices. When this occurs, media independence is largely bypassed, as the news generated depends solely on the information released (as public relations material) from legitimate news sources. For example, in the United States, White House staff routinely make ‘leaks’ - expressively to influence policy decisions (Davis, 1992, p. 143; Robinson, 2001, p. 948). Robinson noted that journalists regard “leaks… as indispensable to their work” and that they are aware of their use by officials in return for scoops (2001, p. 949).

“… to gather news it is often necessary to agree either not to identify the source of information published or to publish only part of the facts revealed, or both; that if the reporter is nevertheless forced to reveal these confidences to a grand jury, the source so identified and other confidential sources of other reporters will be measurably deterred from furnishing publishable information, all to the detriment of the free flow of information, protected by the first amendment.” (3)

Due to the results of the Leveson inquiry, much has changed for the ways in which the British Press must work within the parameters of Media law. The inquiry has left much of the public untrusting and suspicious of journalism as a practice, and after the publishing of Leveson’s report, it is as though they are just waiting for another slip-up by media institutions.

Supreme Court Case Sheppard V. Maxwell is the first case in American history to question whether the American right to a fair trial should be interrupted by the American right to freely publish one’s thoughts and opinions. Sheppard’s conviction, brought on by the biased eye of the press, was exonerated. However, concluded from the lack of policy alterations post-trial, the Sheppard V. Maxwell case still informally decided media is no real threat in the court system. Some may say otherwise. Although media may not directly affect court rulings, the press can certainly affect the public’s opinion, which in turn can affect a court case.

The interpretation of “privacy” under the PCC Code was considered in R (Ford) v Press Complaints Commission . The applicant was the well known television journalist, Anna Ford. She looked for authorization to apply for judicial review of the PCC choice dismissing her protest about distribution of photos of her and her accomplice on a disengaged yet open shoreline abroad. Silber J refused permission on the basis of the “broad discretion” given to media regulators and the “extended deference given by the courts” to their

The job of a journalist has always been highly scrutinized. For years, the question of what and how a journalist should deliver information has been analyzed. However, despite the many theories, it has always been a clear consensus that journalists have an obligation to truth above all. However, there are many cases where a journalist may not know how far to go in order to deliver that truth. Of course, a journalist must always operate within legal limits, however, again some cases have blurred lines. A case that demonstrates these blurred lines between the legal and illegal, as well as the need to deliver truth, is a case between the Rolling Stone and their use of illegal music links.

That said, a couple of casualties noticed that their exploitation happened before the presence of pen name; the names of these casualties can at present be found in old court archives. What's more, in littler groups, group individuals were frequently ready to distinguish the casualties regardless of the fact that their names were not expressly expressed in news reports. Now and again, lawyers, law requirement, or administration suppliers served as the essential purpose of contact for media request. These people surveyed the media opportunities; just going along the open doors that they thought would be of interest and advantage to the casualty. These people frequently reviewed inquiries before the meetings, and guaranteed that media work force regarded the casualty and stayed inside of the settled upon themes. The media served as a wellspring of data for a couple of casualties. One casualty, who was not in contact with criminal equity authorities, built up a cozy association with a journalist amid the absolution. This columnist served as the casualty's essential wellspring of data and furnished the casualty with customary upgrades all through the absolution process. Through this relationship, the casualty had the capacity distribute an unknown articulation in the press taking after the exemption. This casualty recognized that the capacity to give such an announcement was expected, in substantial part, to the morals of the individual correspondent; in different cases, casualties made remarks to columnists confidentially that were later included in news reports. For some casualties, the media consideration is progressing and will rhythmic movement relying upon the news cycle and other related occasions (e.g., other wrongful feelings in the media, court procedures on related case). Other contextual investigations keep on getting media consideration on the

By recreating some of Australia’s most famous criminal cases, the director masterfully highlights that truth and lie are often determined by how evidence is constructed through the “mouths and minds of counsel”. Perhaps most crucially, The Diaries reveals how skilled litigators can exploit the credibility gap between “proven liars” and “credible witnesses” when constructing evidence. Yet the director acknowledges that the law recognises this potential for abuse, and mitigates it by confining the rules of evidence through the uniform Evidence Act (‘UEA’). Ultimately, The Diaries proves that the UEA alleviates Sheller JA’s concerns by limiting the ability of legal representatives to unfairly exploit the credibility of witnesses, and thus allows evidence to be assessed on its merits in pursuit of the

The Ministry of Truth has extensive control of the media in Oceania. They manipulate the media by filtering what does or does not become public. This is seen through the media control and the censorship that the citizens of Oceania unnoticeably endure. The actions performed by the Ministry of Truth are seen today as governments and political groups censor information from public knowledge. The Ministry’s actions are also paralleled through the governments manipulation of media in order to pose as journalists to retrieve information or to pay journalists to convey false information. The world we live in today unknowingly faces various forms of censorship and media control and it is seen through countless individuals revealing facts about government secrets and lies. Today’s society must question what is being told by media outlets and governments as the world is not as superb as it may seem to

Reporters rely on sources to provide the news they publish, and those sources might not want to share information out of fear that they’ll get in trouble for sharing it. Privileges in reporter were developed to protect journalists. Reporter 's privilege in the United States is the protection that a reporter has under constitutional law from being forced to reveal their confidential information or sources in court. It may be described in the US as the First Amendment right given to journalists to protect their private sources from being exposed.

“Many laws exist in Britain restraining the media. In 1992, the White Paper, Open Government, identified 251 laws outlawing information disclosure. Two years later the Guild of Editors listed 46 directly relating to journalists. The laws of libel, contempt, defamation, obscenity and ‘gagging’ injunctions to stop alleged breaches of confidence all act as restraints on the media.” (Keeble, Richard/ Ethics for Journalists)

Nowadays journalists have the responsibility to report facts as accurately, objectively, and disinterestedly as is humanly possible. ‘’The, honest, self-disciplined, well-trained reporter seeks to be a propagandist for nothing but the truth’’ (Casey, 1944b).

The media regulation in the U.K. is more extensive compared to the U.S. Ofcom is an independent regulator and competition authority across television, radio etc. The PCC, also an independent body, deals with complaints from members of the public about editorial content of newspaper and magazines. The behavior of media is far more regulated in Britain compared to the U.S. In U.S. the views can complain about the content to individual media outlets but in Britain the complaints are published on various governmental website making it more visible. This means that the impact of government regulation is more evident in British media than in the American media.

This is where the media tend to clash with people. Some journalist may argue and say that when publishing privet information it is in the public interest but they must prove that. This is in reference section4 which states, “The defendant reasonably believed that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest." This is under the public interest defence, which was created under the defamation act 2013. The law was set up to allow journalists the right to free speech in reference to Article 10 stating “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression.”

The court can punish journalists with contempt of court in many ways. One way is for him to show a document, image, video or audio material to the public, which might interfere with the courts’ decision at a trial. Another way in which a journalist can be sentenced to contempt of court is when he / she publicises material and information that only the court has the right to know like the decision taken by the jury in the jury room. A journalist can be held in contempt of court in general if he is interfering with justice.