Presentation 7, Week 9 - Legal and Ethical Dilemma

The career of being a journalist is often wrought with issues, be it legal or ethical. In this week's presentation, the issue of defamation and the sub-judice system is being thoroughly explored by the presenters.

Firstly, defamation. There are two types of defamation to be found which are slander and libel, and they are the spoken and written acts which causes a negative impression on an individual by the public. This is a serious case as at times when journalists word sentences in a particular way that seems innocent enough, it can be taken in a different context depending on the perspective of the reader. Wording sentences that can be taken as insinuation is also something to be wary of lest you find yourself getting sued.

The other issue that was discussed is the sub-judice system. The purpose of this system is to ensure a fair trial for an accused person without any form of insinuation or prejudice, also known as to avoid a "trial by media". Words are powerful things and phrasing things in certain ways can cast a positive or negative light on people, and this will undoubtedly sway the opinion of those involved in court and trial cases I.e the jury in Western court. So during the sub-judice period, there is a limitation on how much journalists can report on the case and the accused. If found to have breached the laws revolving the sub-judice period, the journalist in question is liable to be held in contempt of court and will be punished accordingly.

Journalism is serious business.

Presentation 6, Week 8 - Public vs Private

The topic of what's in the public interest and what constitutes as a right to privacy is rather interesting. We have here the roles of journalists - to seek the truth, convey information, and to inform citizens. But on what grounds do journalists have the right to invade someone's privacy?

This then depends on one's code of conduct, morals and ethical integrity, on top of the ruling laws regarding privacy in each individual country or state. But there are still certain situations in which the code of ethics are rather ambiguous in what is right or wrong.

For example, what makes certain information gained from public figures for the publics' interest? How do you define and identify what is of the publics' interest in the first place? Such questions need to be asked and thought about thoroughly before any journalists commit their time and effort in pursuing that news story.

Another interesting dilemma is in the case of celebrities. They willingly and knowingly walk into roles that puts them in the eyes of the public, so does that gives us the right to poke and probe into every aspect of their lives? They are just humans after all, so where do we draw the line on what to report on?

At the end of the day, it depends on the individual journalist to decide and make the call based on their own set of ethical guidelines. Of course, external factors do play a part as well, for example the difference between reporting in an Eastern or Western culture, so journalists are always walking on tightropes when submitting news pieces.

Presentation 2, Week 4 - Who will pay for journalism?

So who will pay for journalism?

Without thinking about it, most people would answer that consumers and readers are the people paying for journalism. They think literally and single-mindedly, that readers pay for newspapers and that's how the journalism industry thrives. To a certain extent, yes, consumers make up some portion of journalism's revenue but they don't make up the bulk of it. Can you imagine trying to make a profit from selling A THICK WAD of papers filled with news for a measly 90 cents? I don't think so.

The correct answer would be advertisers; they are the ones keeping the journalism industry afloat. But the trend of traditional journalism moving onto the online medium is worrying for the journalism industry as the price for advertising space on the net is significantly cheaper than paying for space on print. Sure, advertisers will move where the readership is but would it be enough to cover the cost of keeping the journalism industry alive?

There are currently no substantial solution to this problem, but the worrying belief that journalism will die out is unfounded. One of the presenters for this topic, Benjamin Chung, said "Journalism is not dying out, it's the media,"; which I strongly agree with. Print journalism is still thriving, it's just that with consumers being more technology-savvy and wanting immediacy of news, they're turning to the world wide web for their news fix.

If online news provider are worried about the decreased advertising revenue, there are ways of recuperating part of the loss. One of them would be adopting a paywall model in which consumers are needed to pay a subscription fee before getting full and unlimited access to the news site.

So in the end, if you think about it, the same two groups are still paying for journalism despite the shift to an online medium. There are still advertisers paying for space, and consumers are still paying for content. Also, there is still the fact that print journalism is still pretty much alive and kicking and it's not dying out soon. In fact, traditional papers who set up online versions of their papers are gaining even more readership on top of their regular readers. One can assume that they're getting money from both sides of the field, yes? Lucky them then.

Presentation 5, Week 7 - Truth and Objectivity

Journalism, it strikes great terror upon evil and wields the spear of truth and justice.

Does it really...?

(Yes it does. Sometimes.)

But what is this, it seems that journalists tend to rely on external sources a lot, namely wire agencies? That is not good. To put too much faith in wire agencies without fact-checking is a deadly sin for any self-respecting journalists, so why?

Time is money, you cry!

But so is your reputation and credibility! (I cry back.)

And what is this! Media releases by PR agencies? What has the journalism industry gone to?

But alright, there are uses for PR agencies as they are useful sources for first-hand information on government facts and data but again with the over-reliance!

Don't do that.

The end.