ACC 213 - Principles of Managerial Accounting

ACC 213
Assessment 1
By Xuelin Wang
Introduction:

Journalists are a group of people with special occupations because their jobs
often need to face moral and legal tests. The slightest negligence in the
reports made by reporters may cause deviations in public opinion, which may
cause social conflicts, interfere with judicial justice, or cause disputes over
rights and interests. Steven Knowlton and Bill Reader stated in the book How
to Solve Moral Dilemmas: Balancing Competing Elements that everything a
reporter does can be beneficial or detrimental to someone, and that person's
relatives and friends will be affected by it. Also, social media such as
Facebook and Twitter have taken up more and more time in people's lives in
recent years. Many young people with smartphones need to learn about
events in the world from social media every day, so the lives of traditional
media reporters And the working environment has changed a lot. This change
undoubtedly places new demands on the existing laws and the morality of
journalists. This essay will analyze a fictitious version of a real event mainly
from a moral and legal point of view.
Body 1
Mary Green, the news director of Channel X, used the public phone book to
look up addresses after learning about the case. There are both positive and
negative aspects. Since the police had previously communicated to the public
that they needed help to find the missing woman, Mary Green used the phone
book to investigate the address of the missing woman, and sent reporter Jane
Jones to the address to investigate. This move is beneficial to help the police
find the missing woman. But Mary Green did not get anyone's permission for
this behavior, so it violated the privacy of the residents of the address.
According to David Rolph(2015) and other scholars, if a media organization
implements a behavior or practice in a journalism course, as long as the
organization publicly commits to comply with public standards related to
privacy, the behavior or practice is not subject to the Privacy Act and
applications. It can be seen that even though Mary Green can use the public
phone book to find out the address in the case, her move to send a reporter to
the address did not notify the relevant personnel in advance. So her behavior
is contrary to the law. And as a news director, Mary Green did not follow the
MEAA Code because she did not respect the privacy of others. Police public
relations officer Karen Kind told the media the information of the family
members involved, the address involved, and the name of the community.
This move was to find the missing person more quickly. However, it is
undeniable that Karen Kind's behavior will seriously affect the community. The
living environment of other residents, because the arrival of the media will
make the privacy of the people in the community public. Even if Karen Kind's
behavior has been approved by the family involved, since other people in the
community may not be aware of the matter, this behavior will cause them

trouble. Although Karen Kind's behavior is unethical for some residents who
cannot accept that their privacy of life is disclosed, as H. Allen White said in
The Salience and Pertinence of Ethics: When Journalists Do and Don't Think
for Themselves stated that morality is not a black and white thing, it does not
exist completely correct. Therefore, even if Karen Kind's actions may be
unethical, morality cannot be judged.
Body 2
Channel X later filmed the whole family in the family house involved.
According to the Roadmap Trespass to Land License to enter, Channel X did
not violate relevant laws and regulations. Because the entry in Roadmap
Trespass to Land License to enter does not involve provisions other than
private property (house). Afterward, reporter Jane Jones had a conversation
with the husband of the missing woman. The man refused and asked the
reporter and camera crew to come back the next day. However, Jane Jones
and the camera crew did not agree to the man's request. They chose to
continue filming on the small road in front of the man's house and used the
front door of the house as the background to tell the story of the case.
According to Roadmap Trespass to Land License to enter: Licenses will be
implied where the person enters the land on lawful business, Such lawful
business may include communicating with the owner or making a delivery to a
person in the house. Therefore Jane Jones knocks on the door and Talking
with the man did not violate morality and the law. However, because the man-
made it clear that he hoped that the reporters and staff would leave, Jane
Jones and others did not leave, and continued to photograph the front door of
the house without the consent of the owner of the house. This action violated
the Roadmap Trespass to Land License to enter. The regulations indicate that
if a person claims to enter the land for a lawful purpose under an implied
license, but the true purpose of the entry is not within the scope of the license,
the license will be invalid and the person will be an intruder from the
beginning. At the same time, channels Y and Z also arrived at the scene, and
the staff of these two channels set up equipment and filmed next to Channel
X. Then the footage shot by Channel Y and Z is suspected of plagiarizing
Channel X. Since all reporters are members of MEAA, and the MEAA Code is
valid for all staff of Channel Y and Z, then according to the regulations of
MEAA Code, the images taken by these two channels are contrary to MEAA
Code. The next day, reporter Jane Jones communicated with the husband of
the missing woman again. When asked whether his wife's disappearance was
related to him, the man asked the media staff to leave. According to the
Roadmap Trespass to Land License to enter, the man has the right to stop
media staff from leaving the house, front yard, and the path in front of the
house, but he does not have the right to let them take back all photographic
equipment and leave the house completely. Channel X broadcasts all the

images captured on the TV station. This move is likely to generate public
opinion orientation. Once the public opinion is generated in society, the
privacy of the persons involved in this case may be violated. However, this
move of Channel X did not violate the law, and according to the MEAA Code,
all members are required to present true and accurate pictures and sounds.
Body 3
A month later, the husband was arrested on suspicion of murder. His lawyer
applied to ban comments on the defendant on social media, and the court
approved the application. This is legal and conducive to protecting personal
privacy. According to Patrick Keyzer(2013) and others in their articles, social
media poses a huge challenge to traditional law and judicial management.
This is because social media allows anyone to become a ‘reporter’, and these
‘reporters’ have not received any training in journalism or law. In addition,
Patrick Keyzer stated that at common law, if someone publishes material that
has a true and clear tendency to impair judicial execution in pending
proceedings, he can be punished with “unreviewed contempt”. Parliament
also stipulates that the court An order prohibiting publication may be issued to
prevent the publication of biased material at any time during the proceedings.
Therefore, the decision and sentence of the husband's lawyer and the court
are legal. Only one daily reporter was present during the whole trial, but Jane
Jones of Channel X emphasized in the report that the husband had been
convicted of murder in advance. In this incident, Jane Jones did not witness
the whole process of the trial, but she continued to report news that was very
oriented. This behavior of Jane Jones violates the MEAA Code’s ‘Report and
interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential
facts’ regulations. Besides, Jane Jones also uploaded the transcript of the
story and the footage from outside the courtroom to the Channel X Facebook
page. Regarding social media such as Facebook, David Rolph believes that
social media and other forums generally disclose information, which will affect
people's privacy. After Jane Jones has targeted and directed unobjective
reports, posting information about the case on social media will have a
negative impact on the husband in the case and other relatives and friends
involved. Patrick Keyzer confirmed this point in his article. He believes that
social media such as Facebook may be used to harm others online, and the
use of social media to harass family cases has become a serious problem. He
also analyzed that social media has greatly increased the number of people
who can publish materials about court cases, and many of these "citizen
journalists" do not know the legal provisions restricting their content. This
behavior of Jane Jones, and the subsequent lack of staff to monitor Channel
X's page, will most likely cause public opinion to get out of control. Even so,
Jane Jones' behavior cannot be judged to be immoral. In their book, Lee
Wilkins and Clifford G. Christians(2008) stated that journalists have diverse

ethical views, their expertise is also controversial, and their privileges are
severely restricted by the hierarchical organization that employs them.
Although social media can harm traditional judicial procedures, Patrick Keyzer
believes that social media can and has been used to improve procedural
services, especially in generating important evidence and tracking criminals.
Conclusion
In summary, in addition to complying with the law, media reporters should also
minimize the possible harm to the interviewee. However, since ethics is not
the same as the law, it is not marked, and there is no related punishment
policy. Therefore, in the media industry, ethics is a variable thing. This does
not mean that reporters can do anything except the law at will. MEAA Code
and PRIA Code have already made requirements. Even when media
practitioners face moral dilemmas, they cannot do anything. Steven Knowlton
and Bill Reader (2009)stated in their book that'd nothing' is not a good idea
because the moral dilemma needs to be resolved, instead of be ignored. For
contemporary media practitioners, social media has brought them new
challenges and opportunities. Due to the particularity of social media, users
can play the role of reporters, but since not everyone has systematically
learned relevant legal knowledge, social media is likely to be used as a
weapon. As for the weapon Whether the muzzle is aimed at the “enemy” or
“self” is not clear to anyone, because sometimes the pressure of public
opinion is very huge. When users do not know the truth of the matter, they
stand on the moral high ground and condemn others, or even “contempt the
court”.

References
White, H. A. 1996. The salience and pertinence of ethics: When
journalists do and don't think for themselves. Journalism & Mass
Communication Quarterly, 73(1), pp.26.
Knowlton, S., & Reader, B. 2008. Moral reasoning for journalists.
ABC-CLIO. pp. 66-74
Wilkins, L, & Christians, CG (eds) 2020, The Routledge Handbook of
Mass Media Ethics, Taylor & Francis Group, Florence. pp 360-365.
Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. [19 April 2021].
CCH. Roadmap Trespass to Land License to enter in Australian
Torts Commentary. Pp 31-100. Available from: Wolters Kluwer. [19
April 2021].
Rolph, D, Vitins, M, Bannister, J, & Joyce, D 2015, Media Law : Cases,
Materials and Commentary : Cases, Materials and Commentary, pp
541-562. Oxford University Press, Sydney. Available from: ProQuest
Ebook Central. [19 April 2021].
Keyzer, P., Johnston, J., Pearson, M., Rodrick, S. and Wallace, A.
(2013) ‘The courts and social media: what do judges and court
workers think?’, Judicial Officers Bulletin. The Judicial Commission of
NSW, 25(6), pp. 47–51. https://search-informit-org.ezproxy-
b.deakin.edu.au/doi/10.3316/informit.477491077477509.
Hirst, M. (1997) ‘MEAA Code of Ethics for Journalists: An Historical
and Theoretical Overview’, Media International Australia, 83(1), pp.
63–77. doi: 10.1177/1329878X9708300114.