Blogging and Tweeting Responsible Decisions †Free Samples to Students

Question: Discuss about the Blogging and Tweeting Responsible Decisions. Answer: Introduction: Privacy is something which is gives a person the right to keep their person affairs as personal. When these affairs of a person, are presented before the world, it breaches the privacy of such individual. The media is such a body, which is often blamed of beaching these privacy laws (Smith, 2011). In the given case study, Bubbles had explicitly asked the Tansy, the Womans Digest reporter that she would be ready to give an interview on the condition of no photographs. And yet, a freelance photographer was hired by Bubbles, which raises both legal and ethical issues against Tansy. With regards to ethics, in a general manner, by not keeping the promise which had been made by Tansy to Bubbles was a breach of ethics, where there is a need to uphold the promise which is made by one person to another. MEAA Journalist Code of Ethics provides that the journalists are required to respect the truth and the right to information of a person. This code requires that the citizens are to be informed and the democracy has to be animated. Most importantly, it provides that while scrutinizing and exercising power, the journalists have to be both accountable and responsible (MEAA, 2017). In this case, this code was breached by Tansy. This is because was not honest to Bubbles and brought a photographer along with her, which was not fair. She failed to respect the rights of others, which was required as per this code. Hence, she failed to be responsible which posed an ethical issue. More importantly, there was breach of PRIA (Public Relations Institute of Australia) Code of Ethics. This code provides that it is a responsibility of the media professionals to be responsible towards their clients (PRIA, 2017). This code of ethics was flouted by Tansy when she chose to ignore the condition set out by her client and brought the photographer with her. Apart from the ethical issues which were raised in this case, there also had been some legal issues. Firstly, there was a breach of contract. A contract denotes a promise which has to be kept by both parties (Paterson, Paterson and Duke, 2012). In this case, the promise was for Bubbles to give the interview and this interview, as had economic value fulfilling the requirement of consideration, was to be taken by Tansy. However, a condition was made of no photographer. When a condition, which is a key part of the contract, is not fulfilled, it can lead to a breach of contract (Clarke and Clarke, 2016). Also, taking this as otherwise, this condition was a promise of the oral contract drawn between Bubbles and Tansy, which was not upheld. Hence, a legal issue was born from the conduct of the journalist for the breach of contract (Latimer, 2012). Another legal issue here relates to the right of privacy. Even though right to privacy is not absolute in the nation, it is nonetheless upheld in the nation. The Privacy Act, 1988 (Cth) provides the manner in which personal information of a person can be collected (The Law Handbook, 2017). If the freelancer clicks any photograph in this case, it would result in legal obligations being raised against Tansy for breaching the promise and collecting the information breached the privacy act. This scenario also raises both ethical and legal issues. As per the PRIA Code of Ethics, the members are required to safeguard the confidence of their clients including the confidential information which they have about the affair of the clients as per Code 4. Also, under Code 9 of this code, the members have to be ready to identify the public communication which is initiated or acted upon by them (PRIA, 2017). However, both of these codes had been flouted in this case by Tansy as the confidence of the client was not upheld. As the photographer she brought breached the condition laid down for interview by Bubbles which was a violation of client confidence (Pearson, 2012). Also, code 9 was not upheld as she stated that an unknown source had given the photos, when she had obtained it through her hired photographer. Hence, ethical issues were raised from this issue. In terms of the legal issues, trespassing is covered under the law of tort which attains civil liabilities around the wrongdoer. So, any person who occupies the premises of an owner, without their explicit permission, is deemed to be in breach of tort law (Turner, 2013). Even though Bubbles home was a well-known landmark, it was not a public place, where the trespassing law cannot be applied. Deeming such trespassing as unlawful in TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd v Anning (2002) 54 NSWLR 333, $50,000 were awarded to the aggrieved party for trespassing by the media (Tim, 2002). In Lincoln Hunt v Willesee (1986) 4 NSWLR 457 the court stated that implied consent of allowing a media personnel did not provide that the permission was extended to such a person who enters the property of the inhabitant, particularly to harass the inhabitants (Australian Taxation Office, 2017). Hence, for the trespassing, based on these two cases, legal issues can be raised against Tansy. Another legal issue which is raised is from the photographers which were clicked without the permission of Bubbles. As has been stated earlier, in Australia, the individuals have been given with a right to privacy and if the same is not met, the individual has the right of making a claim in the court of law. In Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 1999, the court held that secret filming was a breach of right of privacy, particularly when there was a purpose of making the video public. Also, in Giller v Procopets [2004] VSC 281, the privacy of the individual was said to have been contravened as he was tapped without consent (The Law Handbook, 2017). In line with these verdicts, the photographs by the freelance photographer would be deemed as a breach of privacy of Bubbles as these were taken without her consent, especially when Bubbles had given the interview on the only condition that no photographs would be taken. Hence, by breaching the pri vacy and trespassing regulations, there were legal issues raised in this scenario also. As has been stated in the first segment of this discussion, MEAA Journalist Code of Ethics is something which has to be strictly following by the media personnel. In this regard, the code has set certain standards which have to be properly followed. One of the requirements under this code is to be honest, to be fair, to strive for accuracy and to disclose all the facts that are essential (MEAA, 2017). However, the case study clearly shows this code being violated, which becomes the ethical issue of this case. In this regard, when Tansy published the two page spread, which was not true. It was neither honest nor was it accurate. It failed to disclose true facts and stated the information which was not true. Also, the code was breached again as the fair, responsible and honest means were not used by Tansy to obtain the needful information. And this manipulation of the facts, particularly where false facts were presented of Bubbles created a false view and a misconception in the mind of readers. As was required under the code, the privacy of Bubbles was breached and Tansy failed in resisting the compulsion to intrude in the private matters of Bubbles. Hence, by publishing false information, ethical issues were raised. The other code, i.e., the PRIA Code of Ethics was also breached as Tansy failed to adhere to the highest standards of professional competence and ethical practices. Tansy was under an ethical obligation of not disseminating false or misleading information under Code 3 of this code, and she was also required to avoid the occurrence of such. Instead Tansy wilfully breached this code, which presented ethical issues in this case (PRIA, 2017). Legal issues are also raised in this case, particularly relating to the tort of defamation. When misleading or false information is stated against a person, particularly by the media, the person gets the opportunity of making a case of defamation against such media person. And where this is found to be true, the aggrieved party is awarded damages by the competent court (Kenyon, 2013). Recent case of Rebel Wilson proves as guidance for the media to be careful while publishing any kind of information, which they cannot prove to be true. Wilson got $4.5 million in substantial damages, when she brought a lawsuit against Bauer Media under defamation (Coy, 2017). The article which was published in the different magazines was unprecedented and unfairly painted her as being a serial liar (Florance and Younger, 2017). Linking this case, to the present case, Bubbles can make a case of defamation against Tansy as the two page story which she wrote stated lies about Bubbles where she was stated to be a relative of Steven Spielberg and where her real name was deemed as Raylene. Also, based on Lincoln Hunt v Willesee, it can be easily shown that Bubbles had given the permission for the interview and not for the photos which were published. The right of privacy is the key issues where the entire case had been centred both in terms of ethical issues and the legal issues. In this scenario also, ethical issues were presented for Channel X as they featured a photo published in the Womans Digest, along with footage from ABC TV lifestyle program. With regards to the use of information of Womans Digest or ABC, by Channel X was not a breach of ethical standards as PRIA Code of Ethics, under Code 13 require sharing of information and experiences with the fellow members. However, an ethical issue could be raised as the photograph of Bubbles was used without her permission. A sure short ethical breach in this case, where Code 2 of PRIA Code of Ethics was not upheld by Channel X as this code requires the members to avoid any such practice or conduct which can discredit themselves, the entire institute or the clients (PRIA, 2017). As they failed to cross reference to truth of the matter, and also did not take the relevant permission from Bubbles (Foreman, 2015). Another issue which was raised was that they stated in public that a defamation case was raised against Womans Digest by Bubbles Barrett and stated that they stood with Bubbles for her fight for justice, without even going being the truth of whether Womans Digest was actually at fault. MEAA Journalist Code of Ethics makes it a duty of the journalist to first search, and only then state something (MEAA, 2017). Though, on the other hand, it can be claimed that this information had been properly referenced and that only relevant information was being given to the audience. Also, the exclusive story of the life coaching business of Bubbles was published at the backdrop of the controversial issue printed in Womans Digest. This can be raise an ethical issue that this story was published not with a view of presenting the truth, but to tap on the controversial story (Briet, 2011). Hence, the ethical issues in this case are not as strong as were present in the preceding three cases. A legal issue which can be presented in this case again relates to the breach of privacy. The defamation suit was a private matter. Also, as per the case study, the lawyer of Bubbles had only asked the magazine to retract the issue and to apologize for the same. A defamation suit per se had not been filed. Hence, in this case, Bubbles can file another lawsuit against Channel X for presenting false information about her. On the other hand, the breach of privacy, by making the defamation suit a public affair can also be cited in this case. However, the chances of this succeeding are quite less due to the fact that the court affairs are a public matter. Though, for running the exclusive story about Bubbles new life coaching business, along with the featuring of her famous home, a legal issue of breach of privacy can be raised, as this would be deemed as an invasion in her privacy, particularly of the humble abode of Bubbles. References Australian Taxation Office. (2017) Lincoln Hunt Australia Pty Ltd v Willesee and Ors. [Online] Australian Government. Available from: https://www.ato.gov.au/law/view/document?DocID=JUD%2F*1986*4NSWLR457%2F00001 [Accessed on: 05/10/17] Briet, R. (2011) Professional Communication: Legal and Ethical Issues. 2nd ed. Chatswood, NSW: LexisNexis Butterworths. Clarke, P., and Clarke, J (2016) Contract Law: Commentaries, Cases and Perspectives. 3rd ed. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Coy, B. (2017) Rebel Wilson awarded record $4.5 million in defamation damages heres why. [Online] News. Available from: https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/rebel-wilson-awarded-record-45-million-in-defamation-damages-heres-why/news-story/7f097c8225514b3160d9ee4313923676 [Accessed on: 05/10/17] Florance, L., and Younger, E. (2017) Rebel Wilson awarded $4.5m in damages over defamatory magazine articles. [Online] ABC News. Available from: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-13/rebel-wilson-defamation-damages/8936850 [Accessed on: 05/10/17] Foreman, G. (2015) The Ethical Journalist: Making Responsible Decisions in the Digital Age. 2nd ed. West Sussex: John Wiley Sons. Kenyon, A. (2013) Defamation: Comparative Law and Practice. Oxon: UK. Latimer, P. (2012) Australian Business Law 2012. 31st ed. Sydney, NSW: CCH Australia Limited. MEAA. (2017) MEAA Journalist Code of Ethics. [Online] MEAA. Available from: https://www.meaa.org/meaa-media/code-of-ethics/ [Accessed on: 05/10/17] Paterson, J.M., Robertson, A., and Duke, A. (2012) Principles of Contract Law. 4th ed. Rozelle, NSW: Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia. Pearson, M. (2012) Blogging and Tweeting Without Getting Sued: A Global Guide to the Law for Anyone Writing Online. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen Unwin. PRIA. (2017) Public Relations Institute of Australia (PRIA) Code of Ethics. [Online] PRIA. Available from: https://www.pria.com.au/documents/item/6317 [Accessed on: 05/10/17] Smith, R. (2011) Ethics in Journalism. 6th ed. West Sussex: John Wiley Sons. The Law Handbook. (2017) Protection of privacy in Australia. [Online] The Law Handbook. Available from: https://www.lawhandbook.org.au/2016_12_04_02_protection_of_privacy_in_australia/ [Accessed on: 05/10/17] Tim, P. (2002) $50,000 for Trespass to Land by Media: TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd v Anning (2002) 54 NSWLR 333. Journal of the Australian Plaintiff Lawyers Association, 40. Turner, C. (2013) Unlocking Torts. 3rd ed. Oxon: Routledge.