Reputation v's Free Speech

After an interesting presentation in class today, yet again I feel compelled to answer the question that seems to remain unanswered....Should Australians follow American Defamation laws or keep to our own. Do we embrace and value an individual's reputation over free speech, or is it the other way around???
I was surprised at the lack of opinion regarding this issue, particularly due to the fact we are all budding journalists about to step foot into the media industry and face such moral minefields..

I know for sure I am content with the Australian Defamation laws and believe following America's ideals would only cause havoc and chaos. Society only needs to consider the growing trend of social networking sites to weigh up the implications American laws could have over here if applied. Can you imagine the offensive and defamatory content Facebook, Twitter and Youtube would present if the right to free speech was written into our Constitution! I think we need to draw the line somewhere, and Australian laws seem to do just this appropriately. Lets even consider journalists here....Where would they draw the line??? Would a line even exist??? Probably not. I can only imagine what our news would turn into if free speech were allowed. A disaster!

So let's all stick to our own devices and laws and be proud of our Australian morals and values.

Uniformed or simply misinformed???

Famous Author Mark Twain (“Adventures of Huckleberry Finn”) once wrote "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed." But to what extent is this true? Since absolute truth has been rejected, how are we to know who's truth is valid? Are we really just victims of PR piracy or post modern casualties???

This week’s reading “Truth or Dare” by Tapsell and Varley (2001) states “Truth is central to the process and practice of journalism...But what is truth? And how important is it?” Even more importantly, they raise the idea of a “journalist’s truth” that is, A truth, and consider the effect this has on reporting practices. Modern society embraces relative truth...However as budding journos, does this mean we ought to present 'the' truth, or 'a' truth that our chief of staff decides upon? Oh the pressures of being a journalist!!!!!

I thought it would be quite interesting to research into the history of objective journalism. Freelance Journalist Naomi Rockler-Gladen, “most people don't realize that objective journalism is really just a style of writing. Before the 20th century, unbiased news was not the norm in most newspapers. Newspapers would have a specific bias that everyone was aware of, and news stories openly reflected the paper's bias. The language used in newspaper articles was much more descriptive and emotional than it was today.” Objective journalism became more popular in the late 19th century, and has become the accepted procedure or norm of journalism today. That explains it! This is why objective news stories are written using the inverted pyramid. No wonder we've had this idea drilled into our minds since first year.

The website “Honest Reporting” lists 7 important principles of media objectivity. They are merely a guide for journalists to follow when writing stories, however also act as a educational resource for readers, listeners and viewers to help interpret a story and gain its truth. The website applies these principles to a case study on the Israeli war which I found quite relevant. A contributing author to the website, Rabbi Simmons says “since the outbreak of violence in the Middle East, much concern has been raised about media bias and the manipulation of media to influence public opinion.” I agree with Sharon Tickle and believe it’s important to consider the pressures on journalists to work between these two extremes, but also reality. If we haven’t yet realised, we soon will...Journalists work within a “reality of time pressures, market forces, law work culture and practices, human frailty and the journalists own experiences”. But in this reality, whose or what truth are we actually trying to maintain???

So how can readers discern the truth between the lines? Listed here are common methods employed by the media -- intentionally or not -- to influence public opinion. By being aware of these methods, he states, the audience can avoid becoming a pawn in the media war. Click on the link below to check these out!

With reference again to this week’s reading, Sharon Tickle states the “skeptical public’s perception of journalistic practise, exemplified by the old chestnut, ‘Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story’ is far from the benchmark Australian journalism has set for itself.

 http://www.honestreporting.com/a/media_objectivity.asp.

Police embrace new weapon!

It seems that the latest emerging tool for crime solving isn't a gun, handcuffs, fingerprints or DNA...But updates, profiles and pictures on social networking sites. Some people of course may disagree with the use of facebook and Twitter as resources for Police to do their job and solve crimes, however if we can use it to track down school mates or family generations, why not use it for the benefit of everyone? Associated Press (2010) uses the example of Police in Auburn, Maine. They had a Facebook page  for  three weeks before it provided Police with evidence to solve a vandalism case. "After putting surveillance video images on Facebook showing three teenagers trashing a hotel spa, police got several tips from people who recognized the boys".

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/strange/news-article.aspx?storyid=131846&catid=82

Something Someone Saw

Yes I am a facebook user....No my profile page is not actually 'about me'!
I don't understand why people complain of their profile being hacked into or rumours being spread around about something someone saw about them online. The strict rule is: If you don't want the world to know, don't put it on Facebook!!!! Why is this so hard to grasp? Facebook is NOT a private domain and those using it should not assume it is. After discussions in class today on the issue of Privacy (in particular celebrities), I believe that like actors, actresses, sports people etc, you sign up to a social networking site, you sign your life away and say goodbye to your privacy rights. I had to laugh when doing my research, I came across the "10 privacy settings every Facebook user should know". Although these 'rules' are (ironically) set down by the 'Unofficial Facebook Resource', I believe they do believe they serve a great purpose and I want to share them with you (just for laughs).

1. Use your friends list
2. Remove yourself from Facebook search results
3. Remove yourself from Google
4. Avoid the infamous photo tag
5. Protect your albums
6. Prevent stories from showing up in your friend's news feeds
7. Protect against published application stories
8. Make your contact information private
9. Avoid embarrassing wall posts
10. Keep your friendships private
 
http://www.allfacebook.com/facebook-privacy-2009-02

Fingerprints v Facebook

It seems that the latest emerging tool for crime solving isn't a gun, handcuffs, fingerprints or DNA...But updates, profiles and pictures on social networking sites. Some people of course may disagree with the use of facebook and Twitter as resources for Police to do their job and solve crimes, however if we can use it to track down school mates or family generations, why not use it for the benefit of everyone? Associated Press (2010) uses the example of Police in Auburn, Maine. They had a Facebook page  for  three weeks before it provided Police with evidence to solve a vandalism case. "After putting surveillance video images on Facebook showing three teenagers trashing a hotel spa, police got several tips from people who recognized the boys".

I agree with Oullett (2010) when she states “for criminals, posting your every move could be a fast track to jail time”. She has published an interesting article on the issue and below are a few examples as to how social networking sites have been used to solve a crime.

•    Police in Suffolk, Va., were able to identify suspects involved in a Dec. 14 street fight when cellphone videos were posted on YouTube.
•    Police in Chattanooga, Tenn., discovered an online forum where residents were planning illegal drag races, staked out the area and ticketed participants.
•    Police in Los Angeles used YouTube and Flickr to identify people suspected of being involved in riots following the June 2009 NBA Championship.
•    In November, police in Minneapolis and St. Paul, arrested four people for assault after seeing videos they had posted of themselves.
•    A Minneapolis man accused in a shooting was recently arrested after telling a friend about the crime in a Facebook message.
•    In December, Massachusetts authorities caught a child-rape suspect after learning about his whereabouts on Facebook.
                                                (USA Today “Cops Using YouTube to Find Criminals”)

Personally, I am all for private investigators and police using any tool available to solve crime for the benefit of society. I assume the people opposing the idea would be those who do not use or are not familiar with these social networking sites and thus do not understand the ‘public’ nature of them. I am sure authorities are not simply using these sites with the intention of breaching privacy laws, but instead are upholding their duties in society to enforce the law and ensure justice is served appropriately. This brings me to this week’s journalism class discussion on ‘Privacy’…

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/strange/news-article.aspx?storyid=131846&catid=82

http://suffolkmedialaw.com/2010/02/15/police-across-the-country-tap-into-facebook-youtube-to-solve-crimes/