How many members of this group caught the interview on SBS news between Geoffrey Robertson and Stan Grant.
Did anyone else hear Geoffrey Robertson mention the word 'responsibility' when he was talking about 'free speech', journalist's rights and a Bill of Rights?
Perhaps I missed it but I do not think so. Surely as a member of the legal profession Geoffrey Robertson should have been aware that freedoms also carry responsibilities. Journalists need certain freedoms if they are to do their jobs. Does that not also means that they have certain responsibilities, some sort of code of ethics?
Australian journalism often seems tainted with a lack of probity.
Do journalists have a duty to be honest, fair and truthful or do they have the right to try and influence, especially influence by omission or deception?

I think you will agree with me communicat, the paparazzi had to take some responsibility for the death of Princess Dianna. If her car was not chased to make it go faster, it would have been slower and less likely for a drunk driver to have an accident. Then there is Allan Jones. Who once said that he had a right to his privacy? Responsibility or truth? Or am I confusing this with privacy? Respecting a person's privacy is, in a way, a responsibility, even if it may not encourage the truth.

Princess Diana died for two reasons.
1. She did not wear a seat belt.
2. The dopey French do not have rail barriers on the pillars in the
underpass. I remember realising that when I first drove on that road
around Paris many years before Diana's death.
It just would not be allowed here.
Interestingly, they still not have put barriers on the pillars despite
the criticism of investigators. I suppose it would be admitting failure.
If they had the barriers on the pillars the car would have been diverted
off and would not have had the sudden stop that did.

Er, I did not want to turn this into a discussion on Princess Diana - I was querying whether Geoffrey Robertson should have mentioned responsibility along with his other demands.

Well yes communicat, it was a little off topic, but it had some
relevance as the comment I was replying to put rersponsibility onto
the paperartzi for causing the accident.

The interview was brief -- possibly edited, and the point he was attempting to make was the need for a 'bill of rights'. The fact that he didnt mention on screen the responsibilities of journalists, is irrelevant, he also didn't mention their obligation to be honest, nor their obligaion not to present other journalists' work as their own.... nor a dozen things that they should or shouldnt do. Your comment is sadly typical of people wanting to denigrate an argument... take a minor point and argue about that rather than grasp the major issue and grapple with that. OK, you think he should have mentioned responsibilities.... but what do you think about having an australian bill of rights? That was the topic!