Legality vs Morality

I'm in the final trimester of university and I have realised that I've heard, studied, presented and even practiced some form or the other on the laws we have learned since our very first trimester. Legalities have been put in place to protect as well as to punish offenders. However, one point from the readings that stayed in my mind was the line " while some legal principles may be pertinent, the facts of many hallmark historical cases are far removed from the practices of modern journalists and the likelihood of them ever applying to present- day journalism is slim" (Pearson, n.d: 199) Does this mean that present laws are still being used for present day cases in some way to some extent? If these 'older' rules have been used, then they form the basis of defamation suits, contempt of court etc. Newer forms of news reporting have emerged and although newer regulations have been put in accordingly, they are still based on older principles. Does this bring about loopholes in the system? And if so, are the 'journalism law' and 'shield law' for example enough to protect a journalist in present situations?

Journalists have a duty to report the the goings on to the mass public. Journalists also "have no rights beyond those of ordinary citizens" but they are given "some special privileges in order to facilitate their role in bringing information to the wider citizenry" (Pearson, n.d: 199) such as access to court documents and arrangement of better seating. Another privilege journalists are allowed is the ability to protect their sources. However, "Shield Law", as was discussed in tutorial does not encompass every aspect of the possibility of protecting a source. As Leong Ching mentioned in class, in the US, if your don't reveal your source, you're not in contempt of court. I feel that protecting your source matters but to what extent? Is this source's information pertinent to the court proceedings? Will someone be convicted? Will there be people who will affected gravely if this information is not disclosed? I've realised there is a fine line between the legal and moral dilemmas journalists fail, sometimes on a regular basis.

In the public interest: Public vs Private

There always seems to be a debate about the gray areas between what can be considered private and what can be deemed public. There is the notion that people, such as movie stars, popular singers and famous personalities have no choice but to have their lives considered public. In the discussion in class, I've realised that there is much more to this debate than just private vs public.

There has evolved a new means of 'measuring' the types of guidance one can receive when surfing the Internet.

· Authenticator: Help the audience figure out what to believe, what can they trust

· Sense-maker: Help the audience derive meaning from what is happening in the world

· Navigator: Help the audience find their way around a story, point them to the “good stuff”

· Forum-leader: Help the audience engage in a discussion in a knowledgeable way

(Rosenstiel, 2009)

AnUpon reading that piece of information, another area of interest emerged- corporate influences. Corporate influence over editorial content has left the public skeptical of the messages being reported upon, and just how much of the information they are receiving has been filtered through corporate firewalls. Governments have been know to censor information or not reveal under the guise of 'national security' but people, with the advancement of the internet, have done their research and found out possible scenarios that go against what has been said.

So So the qiestion remains, how much is too much? Is the media at fault for prying into the lives of people who don't want to have their lives publicised or are these people saying that to take action against the appropriate parties later on should a disagreement arise. In my opinion, there are boundaries and sitting on the fence on making some issues private while others are not is a form of baiting the media.