"You are putting your ethical stance before the law". (1 Viewer)

[Generator]

Journos face prison over government leak
August 23, 2005 - 9:44PM


Two senior political journalists are facing jail terms after refusing to reveal the source of a federal government leak.

Gerard McManus and Michael Harvey, senior political reporters working in the Canberra bureau of News Limited's Herald Sun newspaper, told Victoria's County Court that they would respectfully decline to reveal their source.

They are expected to be formally charged with contempt of court within 48 hours, and the hearing could be held within a fortnight.

The men were called as witnesses during a pre-trial hearing, ahead of next year's trial of senior bureaucrat Desmond Patrick Kelly, 52, who is accused of the leak.

The reporters appeared before Chief Judge Michael Rozenes and the judge later described their refusal to answer questions as a "clear case of contempt of court".

Commonwealth prosecutor Michael Cahill had asked the reporters to state who gave them the information, but they repeatedly told the court they could not.

Mr McManus said: "As a journalist I'm obliged to protect the sources of information I obtain".

Judge Rozenes told both reporters that, under the law, they had no right to refuse to answer.

Mr Harvey said he did not wish to interfere with court processes, but he was adhering to his professional code of conduct and it was a very important principle for a journalist.

Judge Rozenes told Mr Harvey he was dealing with "the law of the country, which binds us all.

"You are putting your ethical stance before the law".

In later legal argument over who should hear the resulting contempt of court charges, and when, Judge Rozenes reminded the court that a range of penalties could be applied.

"No one should be under any misapprehension that prison is one of them," he said.

Judge Rozenes also said any prison term would be more likely span days or weeks rather than months.

He said it was not a case which he felt should go off to another court, and the case was adjourned to a date to be fixed.

The reporters, and Herald Sun management, declined to comment on the case outside the court.

But the journalists' union, the Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance (MEAA), has defended the actions of the journalists while condemning the Howard government.

"It is yet another overt attempt by the government to save face by intimidating journalists and whistleblowers," Alliance federal secretary Christopher Warren said.

He said journalists had an "ethical obligation" to protect their sources and without this, potential whistleblowers would not leak vital information in the public interest.

"In this particular case there was no threat to national security," Mr Warren said.

"It is just a case of the government trying to minimise embarrassment."

Mr Kelly, a senior public servant in the Department of Veterans Affairs, is facing a charge of unauthorised disclosure of information, which carries a maximum two-year jail sentence.

The alleged leak detailed the government's plan to not deliver $500 million in extra pensions to veterans and widows.

The government dropped the plan after bad publicity stemming from a story in the Herald Sun in February last year.

© 2005 AAP

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/news/National...government-leak/2005/08/23/1124562862757.html

Here's a transcript for the issue as it was reported by today's PM programme, too.


Journalistic ethics, the law, the leaking of departmental documents and the public's 'right' to know... Any thoughts?

 

[chookyn]

Revealing a confidential source is a HUGE no-no in the journalism world. To break this trust relationship would be almost suicide in terms of the journalist's career. If the source has reason to distrust the journalist, the journalist won't get the news, and the public will be none the wiser.

Good on them for sticking to their professional ethics.

 

[braindrainedAsh]

I agree, good on the journalist for sticking to their professional ethics.

It is extremely unethical to reveal a confidential source.

All of this stuff is what we debate at uni all the time so I sometimes get over arguing about it, but yeah journalists have a code of professional ethics, and just because they aren't as recognized as doctors and lawyers codes doesn't make them any less important.

The journalists in this case have acted in the public right to know- basically I don't care about the law in this situation. The public right to know comes above the government's right to hide information from the public it is meant to serve. If the imformation was a threat to national security then more care should be taken, but clearly in this case it was not.

I think whistleblower legislation needs to be looked at more carefully in this country, there isn't much protection for whistleblowers which act in the best interest of the public's right to know.

 

[transcendent]

Good for the journalists! Ethics > Law

 

[braindrainedAsh]

I did a radio story on this today for 2SER and I spoke to Christopher Warren from the MEAA about this.... he was really interesting, and he pointed out that there is some protection for journalists in the NSW Evidence Act however most other states have no protection.

He also pointed out that if the courts are allowed to bully journalists in to revealing their sources then there won't be a relationship of trust, and it will result in whistleblowers being reluctant to divulge any information to the media, which is bad for democracy in many ways.

He also pointed out how the judiciary is kind of stuck in the middle on this, because of the lack of laws, and the clash between contempt laws and journalism ethics.

It was really interesting to speak to him.

 

[Generator]

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1445441.htm

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: The merits of both examples to one side, the fact is they did both appear in the same paper. The Herald Sun is a journal that generally takes a pro-Government editorial line. You'd think the Government wouldn't go out of its mind to make an enemy of such an influential friend. This is clearly designed to put the frighteners on the public service. The journalists, in this case, are collateral damage. Whatever the outcome of this case, one thing is certain - the leaking, controlled of course, will continue as it always has.

 

[braindrainedAsh]

I'm so stoked I got a hold of Chris Warren today, I have seen him/heard him on so many radio programs and Tv programs talking about this, yet I managed to get an interview.... yay, so rare!

I think he thought I was from the ABC lol.....

The 7.30 report story was really interesting, really in depth look at whistleblowing etc and journalists.

 

[townie]

there's doctor-patient confidentiality, y not journalist-source, it's required for a free and independant media

 

[braindrainedAsh]

I think this is another problem related to journalism's position as a "quasi profession". You don't have to be a member of MEAA or agree to the code of ethics to practice as a journalist.... there is no standardized training etc. So it makes it more difficult for legislators to make rules to protect journalists because the definition of who and what is a journalist is actually quite vague, and journalists are not required to be part of a professional body like lawyers and doctors.

 

[Xayma]

there's doctor-patient confidentiality, y not journalist-source, it's required for a free and independant media

You then get issues of needing exclusions. Valerie Palmer scandal in the USA. The client broke the law for no real 'need to know' reason.

 

[braindrainedAsh]

There is the risk though if journalists knew they would have absolute protection in the courts so they didn't have to reveal any sources that they would not be as careful in agreeing to discretion and confidentiality.

There can be a negetive side to confidential sources- behind the mask of confidentiality people can manipulate the media in to reporting things in a certain way. One great recent example is the media critique and eventual downfall of Latham. Most of the information came from confidential government sources, and papers printed this information while maintaining confidentiality- basically people within the government were able to bring down Latham because journalists were too readily accepting the word of confidential sources- you have to remember when someone says "don't reveal me" to a journalist they are not taking any of the responsibility of what they are saying so the claws can really come out. In some situations this is good for democracy- in others it is not. The journalist needs to think carefully before making that statement "I will not reveal that you are the source of this information" because the journalists may be being played.

 

[heidi_kak]

hmm. interesting stuff.

good on ya for getting the interview ash

 

[withoutaface]

Although I do sympathise with the journalists, I agree with Minchin. A code of ethics should never be prioritised over the law.

 

[AsyLum]

Although I do sympathise with the journalists, I agree with Minchin. A code of ethics should never be prioritised over the law.

Quit living in the past Marge!

Seriously, it seems difficult to really 'force' someone in this way, since we do recognise it with other professions, and the importance of client-privacy. But all the points would've already been discussed

 

[braindrainedAsh]

I guess it comes down to the decision in the contempt trial, if it is just a slap on the wrist then it is all good, but if the journalists do get jailed, that really really sucks.