The Forum > Article Comments > Shooting the messenger > Comments
Shooting the messenger : Comments
By Leslie Cannold, published 6/9/2007Journalists often tread a fine line where they are in receipt of unauthorised information, the broadcast of which is undoubtedly in the public interest.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
-
- All
Posted by Sage, Thursday, 6 September 2007 10:17:31 AM
| |
sage, oz journalists, and oz politicians, work in oz society. they are as good as they need to be, both. if you want better, start by changing the quality of the ordinary ozzie.
this is difficult. but don't complain that journalists and pollies are not good enough. they're making a living, from your money, so who's the mug? Posted by DEMOS, Thursday, 6 September 2007 10:59:59 AM
| |
I think it's irrelevant on the journalist ethics issue, how Seven acquired the medical documents. What matters is whether the publication of the information is in the publics interest.
Seven contends that the football players are role models to our children, and hence their bad behavior should be disclosed. It seems a funny position to take that it's important to shine the spotlight on the role models short comings for all the kids to see (and then emulate). The damage to the public interest is not done by the players taking the drugs, but by the discloser of this fact. If the public interest was what motivates Seven then it would have been more responsible to handle the issue discretely. A medical condition that affects a senior government official's ability to perform their job is much more likely to be of public interest, as the performance of the government is clearly linked to peoples lives. The drug habits of a footballer is unlikely to impact peoples lives any more than the drugs habits of a regular Joe. We don't see every Tom, Dick & Harry make the headlines whenever they are pinched for drugs. Posted by Desipis, Thursday, 6 September 2007 11:28:49 AM
| |
Privacy ought not to be about denial. Insititutions both within and along side the system have become well protected by the so called 'privacy' laws and appears to be protecting the individual ones for the wrong reasons everywhere.
While icon's and sporting hero's are seen as key national capacity builders, we need to be mindful of our shared "quality of life" everywhere. Problems can not be solved if they are ignored, under-reported or if the critical information is protected for the wrong reasons. Do By Example ... As I noted in another pressing issue in sport.... was a Zimbabwe tour a lost opportunity or a choice not to choose our denial of humanity when it comes to exposing and balancing the hidden facts. As inividual Australians.. was our stand on Zimbabwe not a chance to be really brave and not to just think about ourselves, in that status? We had to think. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5877#81189 "We need you to sell us as a NATION of ALL wisely and our example impacts the state of the whole world through the ways we ALL "inter-relate" as ONE through a world of extraordinary change". Everyday Life and our own wellbeing, our human support networks and the need for transparency, toward having a 'quality of life' has become the critical social concern today. May we ALL work in strength, fearlessly, towards empathy and human change. May we understand the causes of why we are at a cross-road with ourselves and others, in human time. http://www.miacat.com/ . Posted by miacat, Thursday, 6 September 2007 11:42:03 AM
| |
There is a fine line between what masquerades as journalism and gossip.
The phrase "ethical journalism" should never be used in the same sentence - its as oxy moronic as the concept of ealth planning. The problem with the Channel 7 fiasco is that they are in principle guilty of allegedly receiving stolen goods - and should be charged. The journalist involved is an idiot - and should be sent to a re education camp. Posted by sneekeepete, Thursday, 6 September 2007 12:00:28 PM
| |
Has there been a breach of confidentiality here?
There are three criteria: First, did Channel 7 publish or otherwise disclose the material (Yes, but not the players' names); Second, does the material itself have a confidential quality (Yes, medical records); Third, was the material acquired in a manner whereby its confidentiality remains extant (Yes, allegedly handed to Channel 7 by a third party outside the knowledge and control of the person to whom the material refers). Points Two and Three indicate a breach of confidentiality but, in my view, Point One is vital here. Can you have a generalized breach of confidentiality where the subjects are not named? I think not. If the players decided to sue Channel 7, they would have to identify themselves and so Point Three would collapse (as they would have relinquished their own confidentiality) and that would take Point Two down with it. The club may have been defamed but probably can't sue, unless it is a community-based not-for-profit. I think they can still sue but corporations cannot. As for the quality of the story, since the players had already been been referred for treatment under the league's illicit drugs policy, I think its value lies in the fact that the policy is obviously working - a good news story. Posted by Jolyon Sykes, Monday, 10 September 2007 1:35:26 PM
|
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
-
- All
Do we have any journalists?