Let’s say you work in the public service. Let’s say you’re in a relationship with a colleague, but the relationship sours. And then let’s say the unpleasantness gets nasty, involving abusive messages laced with threats of violence. After years of this, you finally decide this isn’t just a personal issue, but a workplace culture issue. So, you lodge a complaint to your employer, explicitly requesting confidentiality.
One of the stories of this past week involved a personal relationship that soured. Both people involved were politicians. And what interests me is not the details of a failed relationship; rather the way journalists covered the story. The question, in simple terms, is: should journalists respect the complainant’s request for confidentiality and privacy? Or does the public interest require publication of his name, her name, and/or the abusive correspondence?
Essentially, that’s the test journalists need to weigh up: respect privacy, unless that privacy interest is outweighed by the public interest. That’s what’s prescribed under the MEAA Journalists Code of Ethics and the Commercial TV Industry Code of Practice - to name just two codes making up Australia’s splintered system of news media standards. So, are these details in the public interest?
Predictably, many media outlets didn’t hesitate. It named him, it named her, it published the messages. The woman responded to say she was ‘distressed’, but the stories kept coming. Presumably journalists felt that, well, hey, the details were now in the public domain, right?
At a time when Australian women are being killed week after week after week by ex-partners, I’d suggest that the public interest dictates that the complainant’s name not be published. Even putting aside the specific distress to the complainant, how many women will now avoid lodging a complaint, after what happened here? Sure, we’re talking about politicians, and there are questions to be asked about the culture of the party in question. But isn’t the public interest best served by restraint about the complainant’s identity?
Of course, I understand the commercial imperatives. Eyeballs equal advertisers equals revenue. But, at a time when most people don’t trust news media, news outlets that act ethically and respectfully can distinguish themselves. They can rebuild trust, and perhaps even long-term sustainability, even as they serve the public interest by working to change our culture of family violence. Meanwhile, newsrooms need to create the space for staff to discuss such issues of ethical practice, not least so that journalists themselves feel less isolated and injured.
Sacha Molitorisz - Senior Lecturer, UTS Law
This featured in our fortnightly Newsletter of 14 July - read it in full here or subscribe!