Perkins, M. (2002). International Law and the Search for Universal Principles in Journalism Ethics. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 17(3), 193-208. doi: 10.1207/S15327728JMME1703_02
The author of this piece, the late Michael Perkins, effectively utilised his background as an academic in the fields of law and communication to employ both law and ethics as normative lenses through which to analyse the journalism industry. Perkins argues that the free expression and freedom of the press provisions in international human rights law is indicative of cross-cultural journalistic ethics. The author explores this through reference to a variety of international treaties, such as the United Nations' International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 and the American Convention on Human Rights 1969, as well as drawing upon both his own legal background and citing the works of other academics to ensure the accuracy of his argument. Perkins identifies three universal principles of journalism as truth, independence and responsible freedom. He particularly emphasises the principle of responsible freedom, asserting that journalists' legal protection must not be abused through the dissemination of partisan perspectives or other personal agenda, but instead should be justified by the social utility they serve. Perkins critically acknowledges the limitations of employing international rights as a theoretical lens through which to examine journalism, identifying cultural pluralism an inherent limitation of universal ethical principles. This analysis adds an evaluative nature to Perkins work, enhancing both the credibility of his argument and of himself as an author.
The author of this piece, Andrew Dodd, has been a journalist and broadcaster for over twenty years, working in the fields of radio, television, print and online journalism. Dodd uses this comprehensive media background to analyse the impact Andrew Bolt's trial will have upon journalism. Dodd expresses very strong disproval for the court mandated corrective notices, claiming it is 'a slap in the face for free expression' and argues it suggests the existence of taboo areas of journalism where only meek reporting is legally acceptable. This view substantiates the importance Perkins' article places on the journalistic principle of independence. Like Dodd, Perkins argued that independence should enable a journalist to vigorously and aggressively report on issues, regardless of whether offence is caused. Furthermore, Dodd's perspective correlates to Perkins' article through Dodd's emphasis on the relationship between freedom of expression and social utility. The importance of agenda, in considering whether statements are made in public interest, is raised in both articles. Dodd expresses disagreement with the judge's remark that the Bolt's statements were not made in good faith or public interest. Dodd claims that silencing debate on uncomfortable topics is inconsistent with democratic governance, which is consistent with Perkins' remark that it is the duty of journalists to provide information necessary to support democratic debate. Dodd clearly identifies the article as representative of his own opinion, however his ample experience in the industry lends him the authority to make informed judgements on issues such as this, consequently establishing the credibility of the article.
Albrechtsen, J. (2011, October 26). The real injury is to free speech. The Australian. Retrieved from: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/the-real-injury-is-to-free-speech/story-e6frg7bo-1226176630195
Janet Albrechtsen, the author, employs her law and journalism background to fiercely support the right to free speech that has been called into question in light of the judgement on Andrew Bolt. Albrechtsen begins by addressing the Bolt trial within the context of modern media and the journalism industry, stating that the issues raised regarding free speech should not be lost amongst today's fast moving news cycle. The article does not focus upon whether Bolt was correct or justified in his initial statements, instead Albrechtsen takes a broader perspective and looks at the ramifications the judiciary's decision will have upon journalism and society at large. Albrechtsen espouses the view that censoring Bolt is a serious blemish upon Australia's democracy, arguing that each view has a valid place in society, in that merely disagreeing with one's perspective is not justification for censorship and attempts to manipulate the law. Albrechtsen's argument that each opinion is valid regardless of personal objections is supported by Andrew Dodd's article, in which Dodd's states that although did not personally support Bolt's statements, the court's decisions against Bolt was a blatant deprivation of the right to free speech. The credibility of this article is enhanced by Albrechtsen's extensive references to other articles and journalists that conflict with her own perspective. Whilst this article is an opinionative piece and Albrechtsen predominantly mentions such arguments in order to refute them, the inclusion of differing opinions shows that Albrechtsen has acknowledged and critically evaluated other arguments, consequently making her own arguments both informed and balanced, all of which increases the authority of her article.
Marr, D. (2011, September 29). Freedom of speech rides on. The Age. Retrieved from: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/freedom-of-speech-rides-on-20110928-1kxaa.html
David Marr, an Australian journalist, author and progressive political and social commentator, lends an experienced and broad perspective to the Bolt trial. In contrast to the opinions held by both Albrechtsen and Dodd, Marr begins by asserting that the judgement against Bolt is an attack on poor journalism, not on journalism itself. In his article, Marr takes a narrow and factual approach to the issue, examining the content of Bolt's statements and their accuracy, as well as the accuracy of the statements and their significance in determining the judiciary's ruling. In this sense, this article differed greatly to the Albrechtsen's and Dodd's broad conceptualisation, who regarded the trial as being representative of the more abstract interplay between free speech and the law. The significance that Marr places upon the accuracy of Bolt's claims demonstrates the importance Marr places on the journalistic principle of 'truth' that was identified in Michael Perkins' article. However, whilst Perkins argued that truth, independence and responsible freedom operated simultaneously, Marr's perspective suggests he regards truth, in the form or accurate and balanced arguments, to be a prerequisite to independence and responsible freedom. The factual nature of Marr's article enhances its credibility, as it draws upon a variety of specific facts and statements in some depth, both from the judiciary and from Bolt himself.
No comments:
Post a Comment