Introduction
Each organization is established within specific ethical parameters. This concept applies also to the media houses including independent journalists. Exploring the dynamics of media, journalists are the link between the legal authorities and the greater society. Therefore, every step the journalists take is weighted if it can have an unintended effect on the public. That is why media law and ethics are crucial in regulating this profession. Common issues regarding media ethics relate to defamation, libel, slander, injurious falsehood, blasphemy, and sedition among others.
Ethical concerns
Exploring the fictional case, the involved journalist ignored the basics of reporting. Considering there are established codes of ethics to be observed by all journalists. She disregarded the ethical codes by revealing the bloodied body of the victim to the audience. With no consideration to the effect on children who might be watching the news bulletin with their parents. Therefore, the reporting lacked balanced impartiality and was injurious to society. Regarding media ethics and regulations the established code of conduct does not permit journalists to broadcast horrifying scenes without prior warning. This illustrates why the code of conduct is perceived as a representative factor for accountability and responsibility within the media fraternities (Leiboff 2007).
Ethical considerations are critical in enhancing neutral, balanced, and objective journalism. As a profession, journalism is based on an explicit code of conduct/ethics. However, the role of executing these codes is mandated to the individual journalist. This demonstrates why most journalists are faced with or sued for defamation, libel, or injurious falsehood. For instance, the depiction of Channel X TV News reporter airing the unverified bits from the unknown woman can lead to legal tussle.
Regarding aspects of journalism, unreliable sources are liabilities to the profession. Therefore, the said journalist could not have rushed to air the said interview and in particular, the accusations for this could result in the accused suing for defamation. This could also lead to the accused suing the media house for injurious falsehood if his repute and business are affected.
Though, journalism is associated with such central dynamics as democracy and freedom of expression. In a situation like this, the concerned journalist abused the fundamental elements of journalism by breaching respect for others. Equally, though the public has a right to unbiased and objective reporting the journalist also ignored the parameters for truth (Pippert 2005). Therefore, considering the legal provisions for defamation or libel, the journalist could have weighed the impact of the accusations “This hit was ordered by Mike Mobster”. Hence, in a later bulletin, Mike Mobster is interviewed and emphatically denies the indictment, saying he is taking legal advice about it.
Defamation
However, where Mike Mobster sought to seek legal action certainly his case may fail or be defeated. Regarding media law, there are specific instances when the freedom of the press is more essential than safeguarding reputation. Statements from these occasions, or for the given objectives, are privileged. And this considerably restricts the right to sue, while in other instances entirely taken away. In such instances, the law distinguishes two modes of privilege: qualified and absolute privileges.
Privileges are employed to shield freedom of speech. Despite that Channel, X TV can dispute the claim of defamation by relying on the extent of fair comment. This hold concerning the interviewed woman had claimed to be the accused girlfriend. Therefore, the content of the comment is viewed to be fair and honest, and given in the interest of the public, can sustain a solid defense.
Regarding the attitude of The Daily Trumpet newspaper, the minister had a reason to seek legal remedy. This can be allied to the fact that as a public official he is considered as an above accusation. Though the newspaper had inaccurately posted the minister’s picture as the one for Mike Mobster, as a sign of good faith they could have withdrawn the picture and apologized. By rejecting the minister’s request for a published apology could be translated that they had a motive and intent to blemish his name. And this is against the dynamics of journalism. It should be noted that the primary principles of journalism advocate for fair and balanced journalism.
The Daily Trumpet could therefore pursue the truth and more so apologize. This is because being a part of the link that ties the society their opinions could have grievous effects. The media ethics forbids journalists from presenting unverified information or pictures. And this raises a serious question of whether the behavior of the concerned newspaper was in line with the fundamental principles of journalism.
Drawing from other examples with similar issues the paper had no valid case to ignore the minister’s request. As the media law requires individual repute is supreme and that is why the government guards individual repute (Leiboff 2007). Examining the case of The Trumpet it can be argued that by publishing his picture and later failing to apologize, they shamed and injured his repute among the greater community. And this illustrates the minister was left with an option of seeking legal rights by using the paper for wrongful misrepresentation and defamation.
From a legal standpoint, the minister could therefore sue and argue that he should be compensated for unprovoked injury to his reputation. Though, the newspaper could argue on the ground of free speech, looking at the available legal aspects the minister has a more credible defense for suing. Note that he can argue the paper lowered his person in the opinion of right-thinking members of common society and this could have resulted in the questioning of the minister’s moves and activities. Also, The Trumpet editors should realize that posting the wrongful picture could send a wrong signal to society. Hence, the impression of the posting may not present what the writer intended. And this illustrates why the law is typically concerned with the effect or the ensuing damage caused by the impression.
On the other hand, the magistrate’s order suppressing any discussion of the confession evidence can be challenged. The journalists do enjoy privileges that are protected by the law. Therefore, for the sake of public interest, the media can exploit the shielding blanket granted under absolute and qualified privileges. Also, the magistrate’s order can be seen to be effective in that the reporting journalist or media house had released the coverage via the social network and this had given the public a chance to debate the confession.
On ethical concern, the magistrate should have realized that journalists have a collective responsibility of informing the public (Pearson 2011). Considering that the information being suppressed was already leaked, the court can equally term the Trumpets action as an act of contempt. Contempt of court is typically defined as a charge laid against an individual or an organization for disrupting the procedure of justice in a court of law.
In an indictment of contempt if established the outcomes are either in detention or penalties or both. Therefore, where the magistrate indicated the issues relating to the confessions cannot be discussed outside courts until further notice had to be respected. This can be allied to the fact that continuous discussion may question the court’s fairness. Therefore, if the Trumpet can be sued the court can raise the issue of contempt only after proving the newspaper had done so. It should be noted the newspaper had released the information about the case even before the magistrate had declared the suppression order.
Contempt of the court
Court contempt’s are typically two; civil or criminal contempt. If the Trumpet newspaper, for instance, disregarded the court order and continued to publish or to tweet the submissions of the confession, it can be charged for civil contempt. And if the court feels the activities of the newspaper, in reality, hindered its elaborate activities, it can be charged with criminal contempt. Generally, Contempt of court is as well broken up into express contempt, which occurs in front of an adjudicator, in addition to indirect contempt (Young 2007). To sustain or verify a charge of contempt of court, it must show that the contemnor was conscious of the court regulation or rule which was violated.
In such a scenario the newspaper had no choice but to stop any activity or reporting that can be translated as contempt of court. There are several dissimilar forms of contempt of court. In every case, they are ingrained in the design that a courtroom in addition to its officers insists esteem, both out of widespread modesty plus because a court acts as lawful authority. Failure to regard the court can confront the path of justice, potentially generating a mistrial or confronting the authenticity of a trial. As a consequence, contempt is taken critically (Pippert 2005).
Therefore, self-regulation becomes critical to each journalist. This is essential in that it helps in averting any unnecessary conflicts with the courts. As is established above the courts are seen to consider the instances of contempt gravely. It is practical for journalists to act within the tenets of accountable and responsible journalism. More so, going against the court order could as well be injurious to the individual journalist as well as the media house he or she is reporting for.
According to concepts of media law and ethics every journalist is expected to be observant (Young 2007). The reason behind this rationale is in avoiding any tussle involving courts and journalists. The illustration of the Trumpet newspaper can result in court contempt for disclosing what had ensued in the court. Also, the broadcasting of the court confessions can be seen as an act of interfering with pending investigations or proceedings including exposing the magistrate’s deliberations (Young 2007).
The Daily Trumpet can not be held liable for comments on the juror’s blog. They can argue that they reported on her opinion which she had posted on her blog. Considering contempt of the court is a serious issue, this can be interpreted as an interference with the report of a court case by commenting on the juror’s blog. Perhaps this may have involved providing details of the defendant’s earlier scandalous convictions, before the closing stages of the trial; this would automatically lead to contempt. For the reason that it may prejudice the arbitrator, magistrate, or judges in opposition to the defendant if there are countless earlier convictions. This would lessen the prospects of a fair trial. Earlier convictions (repeatedly called antecedents) could not be exposed until after the decision has been arrived at.
Despite that, the juror’s posting could as well be translated as contempt of the court. This is because in the previous instances the magistrate had barred anyone from writing or reporting on the case until further notice. More so, it should be noted that the juror breached the suppression order by posting her personal opinion regarding the case. As is demonstrated in the case regarding terminally ill radio host Derryn Hinch, who has admitted breaching suppression orders by naming two offenders at a rally in 2008 and on his website, the juror as well as the Daily Trumpet violated the suppression for nowhere had the judges seen lifting the orders (Pearson 2011).
Therefore, about the scope of contempt of court, it can be argued the courts do not consider the aspects of public interests. Rather the courts ascertain that both the freedom from intrusion as well as upholding of dignity – are sheltered by the laws of contempt.
Journalism is a profession that is etched on the pillars of accountability and transparency. More so, fair, balanced, and objective reporting forms the foundation for every journalist. Therefore, journalist faces decimal regulations from the authorities. Translating self-regulation is what oils the profession of journalism. Also, an elaborate code of conduct makes certain that the members of the fourth estate do not write, air, or broadcast content or materials injurious to public health.
As is illustrated by the above incidences the journalists are indebted to uphold their integrity in all that they do. Different media houses have unique codes of ethics for their members and this applies also to aspects of media law (Pearson 2011). Therefore, in the course of their duties journalists have to respect both the authorities as well as the rights of the public. Having a definite understanding of what one is expected of a lot of time is saved. However, where ignorance is allowed to take lead most journalists are immersed in the endless tussle of conflicts. Some of these conflicts may involve libels, defamation, seditious claims, malicious falsehood, or blasphemy.
Scandalizing
Therefore, going back to the issue of Mike Mobster and the instance of the Radio Z interview, it should be noted that this incidence presents complex ethical and legal issues. An ethical issue exposed regards interviewing Fred Mafia’s girlfriend who is biased. While on the legal ground the issue regards the utterances made by the interviewee. Though the concerned radio interview with the good intention of concern is that the manner Fred Mafia’s girlfriend accused the judge and scorned at the court’s decision to jail Mike for life and a 12 years parlor. By saying the judge is incompetent is a serious issue that can lead to the accused seeking legal redress.
This is because in the first place radio Z approach can be construed to scandalize the court’s decision, secondly, by allowing the woman to accuse the judge they disregarded the established broadcasting regulations which forbids such kind of accusations.
Courts are known to protect themselves dutifully against any elements that could tarnish or damage their collective dignity, or equally interfere with their freedom. Though this does not mean courts can not be evaluated and criticized. This shows bad judgments can be criticized by the media where applicable. However, this ought to be approached carefully in as far as court decisions are being criticized. Regarding the incidence of Fred Mafia’s girlfriend discrediting the court’s decision could be assumed as an act of lowering the court’s dignity before the public. Therefore, the act is construed as contempt and can equally be evaluated as an act of scandalizing the court.
Stating the judge is incompetent through a medium that is trusted by the public is equally an act of injurious falsehood. In such a scenario the Radio Z can be held liable for broadcasting injurious statements while at the same time scandalizing the court’s decision. The statement can be injurious to the judge’s repute, career, and family. Considering that at common rule a defamatory statement is assumed to be a lie or false (Lyon 2005).
The defendant must verify that on the scope of probabilities that the said defamatory statement is real. In essence, the law of defamation is etched in shielding reputations. Regarding such understanding, Radio Z can be sued for scandalizing the court decision plus airing defamatory remarks. This scenario can be linked to a similar case where it was reported: “Crossword guilty of defaming Abe Saffron” in this case the plaintiff sued for damages after a crossword puzzle published with a query that had the tags underworld and sin.
Conclusion
Each journalist is individually liable for what he writes, blogs or broadcasts. This, therefore, indicates that the media personnel must be vigilant in all that they do or release to the public. As depicted by the above scenario poor judgment resulted in a motley of legal issues from contempt of court, defamation as well as scandalization of court’s decision.
Reference list
Leiboff, M. (2007) Creative Practice and the Law. Pyrmont: Thomson Lawbook.
Lyon, D. (2005). The Information Society. New York: Blackwell.
Pearson, M. (2011) The Journalist’s Guide to Media Law. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.
Pippert, Wesley G. (2005). An Ethics of News. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Young, S. (2007) Government Communication in Australia. Sydney: University of Melbourne.