Introduction
The fictional case study involves legal issues that revolve around media reports of legal cases. Journalists are always in danger of tarnishing their institutions or themselves by their reports. They must exercise due care and responsibility when carrying out these roles to avoid those challenges.
Obscenity and violence
In the case under analysis, the reporter for Channel X is at the scene of the crime immediately after it takes place. She ‘revealed the bloodied body of the victim’ via Skype to the TV audience. This issue by itself is a matter that affects the ethical stance of the TV station. Journalists dealing with criminal cases will often be confronted with violence. Sometimes, this may come in the form of words uttered by persons in the case or the form of photographs and images of the scenario if they are reporting about it in court. However, when they are confronted by the actual images in person then the ethical decisions often become more pressing.
It is difficult to decide whether or not to publish/ display disturbing images of violence. Some may think of it as spectacular since it has the potential to boost ratings for the concerned station. On the flip side though, a journalist may be afraid of filtering some vital aspects of the story by ignoring the violent aspects. In this fictional case study, the reporter did not hesitate to transmit violent images of the dead victim.
However, she may have offended many viewers with those violent images. She should have realized that Channel X is a commercial station that sells information to the public so when certain images are too graphic or disturbing then one should be tactful in reporting them. In illustrating this body, the reporter was in a way glorifying the violence that had taken place in the case. Ethical journalists should not have to result to the most horrific images to sell a story. They can achieve the same result by looking for other aspects. In this regard, the concerned reporter erred by showing the bloody image of the victim in the murder case. She could get in trouble with her superiors about this and may put her career in jeopardy. (Court reporting in Australia, n.d.)
Defamation
The second issue that comes up in this fictional case study is defamation. In the process of posting the story on their website, Daily Trumpet’s junior sub-editor mixed-up photos of the accused Mike Mobster with a state government’s Minister Mike Munster. They were confronted about this by the Minister but they refused to write an apology and only withdrew the photo. Before one can decide whether Mike Munster’s name was deformed, it is essential to look at some of the key principles surrounding defamation.
In journalism, reporters need to be extremely cautious about what they report about public officials. Any person who has been elected or appointed to serve the public is considered a public official. In the fictional case, Mike Munster is a public official. Since Mr. Munster, just like any other public official, plays a crucial role in deciding public policy issues then the public needs to know whether he should be in power.
The public and Munster have a fiduciary relationship i.e. one that is founded on trust (Public and private, n.d.). If the public official appears to be untrustworthy then this individual could be a casualty in politics. His credibility could be undermined and he may not be re-elected back into public office. The Daily Trumpet placed the images of a public official alongside a criminal headline and name. It is clear that the photograph was unsuitably placed and that the Minister had not committed the murder; the story mentioned another individual.
Readers who take the time to read the entire story will realize that there is no match between the name and photograph of the public official so that would not be a problem. However, those who may not have time to go through the story in its entirety may be tempted to pass wrong judgment over them (Truth and objectivity, n.d.).
Furthermore, a journalist always must get the right names in a case otherwise defamation could occur. Many newspapers have lost a lot of money because of inserting the wrong captions and photographs in their publications. Reporters need to take their time to get it right because not only will their organizations lose a lot of money but their reputations as trustworthy news sources could be tarnished. Therefore, in this fictional case study, the Daily Trumpet made a very serious mistake of mixing up a public officials’ photo with the wrong story (Defamation law in Australia, n.d.). In a certain case, a newspaper was reporting on a sex offender who coincidentally had the same first and last name as a teacher in the same neighborhood as the accused. The teacher wanted to sue the publication because many of his acquaintances were confusing him with the criminal.
Eventually, he found that the newspaper had inserted the street name of the accused and the middle name in the report. This is differentiated from the accused pedophile in the story. He, therefore, had no grounds to take libel action based on defamation. If Daily Trumpet wanted to protect themselves from defamation then they should have properly edited their material to ensure that everything was correct. By placing the wrong photo, they defamed the Minister’s names. What is even worse is that they acknowledged the wrong by removing the photo but refused to make an apology.
This incident is a case of negligent publication. Common law states that a defendant’s intention in a defamation case is not relevant. What matters is whether the issue occurred accidentally or not. In this regard, it is imperative to ask whether there was innocent dissemination that took place in the scene after the Daily Trumpet exercised reasonable care. Minister Mike Munster can decide to take legal action for defamation and may expect strict liability from the Daily Trumpet. In response to this, the Daily Trumpet may opt to neutralize this accusation by claiming that it was a case of negligence since reasonable care had been exercised.
In common law, cases of defamation are governed by the Defamation Act of 2005, Defamation Act 2006, and Civil wrongs Act 2002. The Defamation Act 2005 Section 32 subsection 139C talks about innocent dissemination which could be a possible line of defense for the publication house. Daily Trumpet cannot state that they were not aware that the defamatory material was there, to begin with since this was done by an inexperienced employee. They would not get very far with this defense since innocent dissemination only applies to people who cannot exercise editorial control over what they publish.
This newspaper could control what they had published. In the case of law, Thompson’s case (1996) illustrates just how difficult it is to claim innocent dissemination. The accused was a television station that had placed defamatory material about a stepfather to a certain lady. They had aired the Today Show live from Channel Nine and claimed that they were simply disseminating the information. It was found that this defense was inapplicable because they had not taken the time to check the material before transmission so they lost the case. Daily Trumpet can lose that case if they try the same as well.
Out-of-court settlements are usually the best approach for dealing with defamation. The Minister demanded an apology from the Daily Trumpet and they rejected it. The two parties may make an out-of-court settlement that could involve either tangible or intangible solutions. In such circumstances, the Daily Trumpet, through their legal representatives, may choose to compensate the Minister for the defamation monetarily. This has the advantage of sparing them a lot of costs associated with court procedures and bad publicity. On the other hand, the Minister’s lawyers could simply agree with the publication to correct that mistake.
They can choose to publish an apology about it and end the matter there. If the Daily Trumpet proves to be stubborn then they could choose several court remedies. Since this case deals with noneconomic losses then the Defamation Act 2005 section 35 sub subsection 139F places a cap of $250,000 on such kinds of remedies. The Minister can assert that he was subjected to shock, embarrassment, and hurt feelings from the publication of the photo (Defending defamation, n.d.). The Judge often decides on the figures based on the harm experienced by the plaintiff. It should be noted that certain circumstances can substantially reduce the kinds of damages that can be awarded.
If an apology had been given by the plaintiff concerning the defamatory matter then this can reduce damages payable. Since Daily Trumpet refused to make an apology then they are putting themselves in a very risky position since they will be liable to pay much more. Also, if the defendant has corrected the matter then this could work in their favor. The Daily Trumpet had corrected the defamation by eliminating the photographs so their damages could be lessened. Also, they must examine whether the Minister had ever tried to sue any person about the same matter of defamation. If he had done that, then the amount awarded to him as compensation may be much less.
Contempt of court
Contempt of court normally arises in scenarios where the legal process has been tampered with. Alternatively, it may come into force during suppression orders. Sometimes when the wrong person has been identified then this could also come in the way of establishing the right legal process and is also contempt. When the concerned parties are interfering with witnesses then that is contempt. Disobeying court orders is also seen as an issue that leads to contempt (Contempt of court, n.d.).
There are two particular instances of contempt of court in this fictional case study; sub judice contempt by Daily Trumpet and violation of the suppression order by a Daily Trumpet reporter.
Sub judice contempt refers to the interference of court matters by journalists before judgment by the court. The major aim is to ensure that the accused goes through a fair trial without interference from the media who may prejudge the concerned individual. Things said or written by the media that can alter the decisions made in the court are considered as sub judice contempt. The right to a fair trial is more important than free speech in such circumstances.
Usually, journalists are allowed to report as much as they can about a case before the arrest of a specific individual. Once that has been done then the court process has commenced, there should be no interference by journalists. In other words, they should not publish any information that they think will affect the innocence or guilt of the individual. In the case of the Daily Trumpet, they reported on the comments made by one of the jurors concerning the matter that was going on in court.
The judge had not yet made his sentence and so he could be influenced by this publication. Therefore, it can be said that by focusing on this story, the Daily Trumpet appears to have engaged in sub judice contempt. However, before one can make the full conclusion on whether this took place, it is critical to understand all the facts around the case so that one can be certain about this wrongdoing.
The time that sub judice contempt takes effect is crucial. Usually, this starts when an arrest has been made. As established in the fictional case study, the accused had already been arrested so these restrictions had already come into place. In the case of Attorney General NSW v TCN Channel nine (1990) 20 NSWLR 38, contempt rules come into effect after an arrest as this is when criminal proceedings commence. The end of the sub judice periods usually occurs when the judicial process has been terminated.
That is usually after an appeal has been made (Australian legal system, n.d.). Practically though, most reporters often feel free to keep reporting after the juror’s process has ended as judges may not be influenced by things they read in public media. However, this may sometimes be debatable depending on ‘risk’ which will be discussed subsequently. Theoretically speaking, the publication of the Daily Trumpet report on the juror, therefore, fell within the sub judice period. But because the jury’s verdict had been made, it is difficult to affirm whether this period was practical (Contempt of court, n.d.).
The content of the material being published is another important issue that affects the sub judicial nature of a journalist’s report. What matters most here is whether the effect of the report was prejudicial. In other words, the legal system needs to be neutral and decisions should be made solely on the information presented in the court of law and not on any other material that comes from outside the court. The goal here is to protect witnesses and jurors (and sometimes judges) from forming an opinion about the innocence or guilt of a certain individual. It should be noted that judges and magistrates are trained not to consider public opinion and to focus on the facts of the case. However, exceptions do arise as is the case in this particular case study.
The report made by Daily Trumpet concerning the juror who prejudged Mike Mobster could substantially influence the sentence made by the judge because he or she could question the integrity of the process used by the jurors in coming to their conclusion. In the case of Packer v peacock (1912) 13 CLR, it was decided that journalists were only supposed to limit themselves to the facts stated by eyewitnesses. In other words, they should not report anything that will be disputed in court.
Therefore, since Daily Trumpet wrote about the juror who felt that ‘Mike Mobster was a criminal that deserved to be put away in jail for life’ then the kind of content that they published could be debated. This was the opinion of the juror and it was in no way a fact. The concerned judge may get wind of this information and therefore be influenced by it. The Daily Trumpet should have been cautious when it came to the latter matter.
Since it has already been shown that the content of the report made by Daily Trumpet was theoretically sub judicial but the time under consideration is disputable since the report was written after the juror’s decision then the third acid test is the substantial risk factor. If it can be proved that the Daily Trumpet wanted to influence the concerned judge then they can be convicted for carrying this out. There are several factors that one needs to look into before one can decide whether this took place.
The first is the controversy revolving around the issue that was reported. The matter reported by Daily Trumpet was highly controversial because they are questioning the decision-making process utilized by jurors. They are claiming that the whole justice process would be biased if the judge goes by what the jurors decided on. The second issue that needs to be considered is the effect the report will have on passing a guilty plea. Mike Mobster had confessed to the crime so this fact may not count. Third, the degree of exposure of the publication is also another important matter. It is not clear whether Daily Trumpet is read by many but if it is then the chances of sub judice are higher.
Lastly, the existence of defense should be considered. Daily Trumpet can defend themselves by asserting that theirs was a case of the fair report because they were trying to question court operations so that the public could be exposed to fair trials. Anything that involves identifying and revealing the jury’s deliberations is considered a case of contempt of court so Daily Trumpet can be convicted.
The second instance of contempt of court was about suppression orders. In the case study under consideration, the concerned judge made a suppression order about the further discussion of the confession advice. However, the Daily Trumpet employee had already reported about the confession one hour before the order on Twitter. If the reporter did not withdraw these remarks on Twitter, then he could be violating the suppression orders as decided by the judge. Twitter is a forum for discussing issues so it is likely that they will be directly violating the suppression order by keeping the posts there. The reporter should do whatever he can to remove it.
Conclusion
The fictional case involved a series of ethical and legal issues. It touched on the matter of violence and obscenity and the reporter should have known better than to show such an image. Secondly, defamation occurred when Daily Trumpet posted wrong photos of the accused and they could be sued by the affected Minister. Third, the case involved contempt of court in terms of sub judice and also in terms of suppression of court orders and Daily Trumpet could be convicted for both.
References
Deakin University (2011a). Defending defamation. The journalist’s guide to media law.
Deakin University. (2011b). Public and private. Doing ethics in journalism.
Deakin University (2011c).Defamation law in Australia. Statutory defence of qualified privilege.
Deakin University (2011d). Writing the newspaper story. Court reporting in Australia.
Deakin University (2011e). Contempt of court. Blackboard learning system.
Deakin University (2011f). Australian legal system. Blackboard learning system.
Deakin University (2011g). Truth and objectivity. Telling the truth.