Search results

On 3 May, 2013, AUT University's Pacific Media Centre marked the 20th anniversary of the UNESCO World Press Freedom Day with the inaugural event in New Zealand. The event was initiated by UNESCO's Programme for Freedom of Expression, Democracy and Peace with the first seminar on 'Promoting an Independent and Pluralistic African Media' in Windhoek, Namibia, on 3 May, 1993. The journalists participating in that event drew up the Windhoek Declaration which highlighted that press freedom should be understood as a media system that is free, pluralistic and independent. They insisted that that this dispensation was essential for democracy and development. The Declaration became a landmark document in the fight for press freedom around the world. This address argues that new ethical codes of practice are now needed that are inclusive of serious bloggers and citizen journalists. The author of this address states: 'The printing press spawned free expression's offspring—the right of "press freedom"—as pamphleteers fought censorship by governments in the ensuing centuries. Events are unfolding much more quickly now. It would be an historic irony and a monumental shame if press freedom met its demise through the sheer pace of irresponsible truth-seeking and truth-telling today'.

Two major inquiries into the Australian news media in 2011 and 2012 prompted a necessary debate over the extent to which rapidly converging and globalised news businesses and platforms require statutory regulation at a national level. Three regulatory models emerged—a News Media Council backed by recourse to the contempt powers of courts; a super self-regulatory body with legislative incentives to join; and the status quo with a strengthened Australian Press Council policing both print and online media. This article reviews the proposals and explores further the suggestion that consumer laws could be better utilised in any reform. It concludes with an assessment of the impact of the inquiries and their recommendations upon free expression in a Western democracy lacking constitutional protection of the media.

Mental illness, its terminologies, definitions, voluntary and compulsory treatment regimes, and its interface with the criminal justice system are defined and regulated remarkably differently across the 10 Australian and New Zealand jurisdictions. This presents a legislative and policy nightmare for the investigative journalist attempting to explain the workings of the mental health system or follow a case, particularly if the individual's life has taken them across state or national borders. This article considers the extent to which legal restrictions on identification and reportage of mental health cases in Australia and New Zealand inhibit the pursuit of 'bloodhound journalism'—the persistent pursuit of a societal problem and those responsible for it. It recommends the development of resources assisting journalists to navigate the various mental health regulatory regimes. It also calls for the opening of courts and tribunals to greater scrutiny so that the public can be better educated about the people affected by mental illness and the processes involved in dealing with them, and better informed about the decisions that deprive their fellow citizens of their liberty.

'Evidence-based policy and practice' was proposed to usher in an era where explicit use was made of evidence ('what we know') to inform decisions made about policy and practice ('what we should do'). Critics have focused on its allegedly technocratic nature, motivating some to develop analyses of policy making that take account of inherent social processes. One example is rhetorical analysis, which focuses on the use of discourse and argumentation in the policy-making process (Russell et al, 2008). In this paper, I welcome the insights that can be attained using rhetorical analysis, but argue that too dramatic a swing towards an interpretivist approach risks jettisoning valuable work on research validity. I argue, with reference to the work of social research methodologist Donald Campbell and colleagues, that it is both possible and desirable to meld research validity and rhetoric in furthering our understanding of the policy-making process.

English
This article argues that the development of systematic review methods for social policy and practice in the UK has been inhibited in two ways. First, there has been insufficient engagement with the breadth of Donald Campbell's thought on research methods and knowledge cumulation. To this end, the article outlines the contribution that a fuller understanding of Donald Campbell's work could make to the development of such methods. Second, debates about the merits of systematic review methods have often shown only a partial understanding of other approaches. The article thus seeks to identify key areas of commonality and difference between approaches to systematic reviews with a view to stimulating methodological development through constructive debate.

Almost all tertiary journalism courses offer media law components in their curricula. It is expected by both educators and the profession that all graduates should have an understanding of pertinent areas of the law, including defamation, confidentiality, contempt and privacy. However, courses vary in the quantity of legal education in their curricula and in their pedagogical approaches. For example, while some courses cover a bare minimum, others endeavour to give students a considerable understanding of legal research methods and an advanced knowledge of the legal system. Some extend the curriculum to cover areas of the law which might only be of peripheral interest to journalists (for example, contract and Trade Practices legislation) and explore ways journalists might use the law to enhance their reporting (such as the use of Freedom of Information legislation or corporations law). This paper considers the issue of media law education for journalism students in tertiary institutions and suggests journalism students require a different legal curriculum and pedagogy from that offered to law students. Its purpose is to question the foundations of legal instruction to journalism students and to foreshadow an alternative approach which better develops legal competences for the journalism enterprise. Media law is usually taught by either lawyers based in law faculties, former journalists with legal qualifications who visit as guest or part-time instructors, or by journalism staff who have some legal interest or qualification. Media law texts and readings usually emanate from a strictly legal source (for example, Sally Walker's Law of Journalism in Australia). When it is taught by lawyers or journalism staff with a legal background it is often approached as if it were another law subject for law students, with professors becoming disenchanted with journalism students' lack of familiarity with the "legal way of thinking" and their ignorance of the legal system and its operations. The temptation is to cover complex legal concepts all too quickly sometimes in a single semester, as if the students could get their "quick fix" in media law and thus be equipped with the skills and understandings necessary to deal with legal issues as working journalists. Students might leave with some knowledge of pitfalls in the law for journalists but little understanding of how to deal with them. Take, for example, the complex area of defamation law and assume the course allows a single media law subject in the degree. Defamation is such an important area of the law affecting journalists that it would be reasonable to expect an instructor to allocate it a substantial portion of the subject. The law professor is then faced with the daunting task of condensing into a few weeks content which might take a full two torts subjects in a law degree — and teaching it to students who may not have been instructed in the workings of the legal system, legal methods of research or case appraisal and citation. The professor might well choose to give a potted version of the larger course, perhaps selecting the key concepts and addressing a major case to illustrate each. However, the instructor could hardly state confidently that the students have left the course with a deep enough understanding of media law to be able to deal with actual scenarios in the news room.

"Social media has many advantages for professional communication - but it also carries considerable risks, including legal pitfalls. This book equips students and communication professionals with the knowledge and skills to help minimise the risks that can arise when they post or host on social media. It offers them strategies for taking advantage of the opportunities of social media while also navigating the ethical, legal, and organisational risks that can lead to audience outrage, brand damage, expensive litigation and communication crises. The book uses stakeholder theory and risk analysis tools to anticipate, identify, address and balance these opportunities and risks. It takes a global approach to risk and social media law, drawing on fascinating case studies from key international jurisdictions to explain and illustrate the basic principles. Whether you are a corporate communicator, social media manager, journalist, marketer, blogger or student you will find this book an essential addition to your professional library as the first reference point when social media and legal risks arise"--