Call Now: (+61) 416-195-006
- By sending the camera crew at the location, Mary Green, the News Director at Channel X has merely responded to the call of police who want help in finding the missing women. The address she found has been publicly available at the phone directory and therefore nothing wrong has been done in that regard as well. However, the way the reporters shoot and conduct the briefings could have ethical and legal implications. The arrival of the camera crew at the family house could be questioned ethically with regard to invading the privacy of the family that is already in perils with a person going missing, and young kids being at home. However, since there is no Australian law with regard to invasion of privacy by the media reporters, their acts and conduct could only be challenged through common law principles of trespass, nuisance and breach of confidence. Further, section 7B(4) of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) specifically exempts the media outlets and news reporters working for them from the provisions of the Act, when they are working in the course of journalism and with a set of code of principals / conduct governing the rules of profession relating to privacy. Hence, there is very little threat, if any, to the media emanating form the breach of privacy of the family. However, the tort of privacy has been recognized by the courts in a few cases. In Grosse v Purvis (2003), the District Court of Queensland had recognized the common law tort of invasion of privacy and ordered the defendant to pay plaintiff a sum of $178,000 in addition to interest and sums as damages for the breach of privacy. In coming to the conclusion the judge relied on the decision in the High Court judgment in case of Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2002) 208 CLR 199. In a more recent case the Country Court of Victoria ordered the news channel ABC to pay damages for the breach of privacy against the plaintiff (who was a rape victim). The news reporter identified the victim with her name and also admitted the breach of the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act 1958 under which identifying the victim of a sexual assault was an offence. The greater wrong in this passage seems to be done by the PR Officer who has passed on the personal information of the victim to the media. This includes information about her name, names of family members, her exact address and the head photo they obtained during their investigation with the husband. The PR officer being the member of Public Relations Institute of Australia (PRIA) is bound by the PRIA Code of Ethics. Under clause 4 of the PRIA Code of Ethics, a PR officer is required to safeguard the confidences of their clients. This means any confidential information obtained from any private inquiry or investigation should not be passed on to a third party without the order of the Court of a competent jurisdiction. Clearly the officer acted in contravention of the Code by asking for media intervention of the matter. Under clause 9 of the PRIA Code, the officer was also required to identify the source of funding of any public communication that is initiated and for which they are acting as a conduit. The officers clearly did not resort to official channels of communication and relied on the faster means and more instantaneous means of pushing their investigation by directly involving the media outlets in a case that could have legal implications for a family. This irresponsible and unprofessional behavior is against the high standards of ethical practice that all PR officers owe to their clients and to their community as a whole.
Chat with our Experts
Want to contact us directly? No Problem. We are always here for you
