This annotated bibliography hopes to analyse and critically evaluate the academic and media news sources referenced below. The scope of the content, and in turn, the credibility of such content will be explored in terms of the authors, the medium in which it has been presented, and how each compares when contrasted. It is beneficial to note, that the media sources will be loosely tied in with the concept of fair journalism and how they fair in regard to the 'journalistic code."
Altmeppen, K.D., Arnold,L., &
Kossler,T. (2012). Are the Media Capable of Fair Reporting? Remarks on the Principle of Fairness in
Professional Journalism. In Justice and
Conflicts, 6 (1), 329-343.
This
book chapter is dedicated to discussing the role that fairness, and in turn,
unfairness, plays in journalism. The authors, Altmeppen, Arnold and Kossler, German
academics working in journalism and communication institutions, stress that
fairness cannot be attained in journalism without a degree of unfairness. They
reason that, while it is the duty of a journalist to uncover and report
breaking news and scandals to the public,they must also be fair to the
public and their sources. The main arguments stem from this claim, one of which
is journalisms need to constrain, and conversely, its need to weigh this constraint
with the public’s thirst for information. In doing so they emphatically suggest
that media are how people form their ‘own’ opinions. Much of the authors work
is supplemented by acclaimed theorists; the text is littered with in-text
citations, indicating the spread of like-minded scholars, and therefore
suggests that their chapter is of substance within the academic community. The
notion that journalistic objectivity is second to opinion, and that journalists
have a duty to social responsibility, is not detractingly verbose. The
principles of fairness in professional journalism are represented in an
appropriate, and fair manner, the overall notion that journalism must be
factual, despite the journalistic ‘code’ not easily allowing for this fairness,
is represented clearly.
Ainsworth,M. (Producer). (2012, May 23).
7.30 [Television Broadcast]. Sydney,
NSW: Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
The
ABC’s 7.30 report offers a well-rounded perspective of the recent events
surrounding Schapelle Corby’s sentence and Indonesia’s grant of clemency. By
airing on public media, the report has not been constrained as rigidly as
perhaps commercial media – meaning the truth and hard facts have not been
‘edited’ for fear of serious government intervention. In saying this, freedom may make room for unruly reporting. To begin, presenter Chris Uhlmann
floridly recaps Corby’s ideal: “Four kilos of marijuana, a boogie board and Bali: the
combination added up to 20 years in jail for convicted drug smuggler Schapelle
Corby.” (Uhlmann,2012) Uhlmann then proceeds to veer
off the Corby case, and onto discussing whether her clemency was a political
ploy between the two governments in return for the release of Indonesian
prisoners in detention centres. In fairness, they have consulted Tim Lindsay,
founder of the Australian Journal of Asian Law, and chairman of the Australia-Indonesian
Institute, assuring his reputable credibility. Stressing that the clemency is
not a judicial decision, but instead a presidential decision, he refrains from
bold claims instead stating “My point
is just this…” (Lindsay, 2012). Tracey Bowden, 12 year foreign correspondent for
the ABC, stretches this to mean that it is clearly
a political ploy, detracting from a certain journalistic duty to provide
the facts, and not only making it unfair on Lindsay, but on the viewers, by trying
to sway opinion, which the medium does effectively. Compared with radio and
newspaper articles by Tony Eastely and Michael
Bachelard respectively, this report offers the most appropriate
sources and details of events.
Michael Bachelard,
Indonesian correspondent and investigative journalist approaches this Brisbane Times piece in a one sided manner, in some ways accusing the Indonesian government
of bowing down to the Australian government. The localised newspaper, while
edited and no doubt influenced by media ownership, lacks the need for stringently
corrected material as compared with the 7.30 report- aired nationally. Bachelard, who is largely determined
to ensure his view prevails, milks this as he proceeds to denounce any opposing
claims to Corby’s right to freedom, selecting quotes that urge the Indonesians government
to be steadfast in their decision and not grant special treatment to
foreigners, being sure to note that Indonesia is inconsistent. In terms of fair and just journalism, it is as though
Bachelard is digging for trouble in mentioning Bob Carr’s denial of the
political ploy, and then refuting it. This cannot be justified as fair
journalism, even with the representation of all parties’ opinions. Bachelards pseudo-critical and opinions
permeate into and are disguised by the medium of print.
Tony Eastley, 7 year
host of ABC’s radio show AM, and
former foreign correspondent, is no stranger to foreign affairs, making him
quite credible in terms of knowledge, not only in international affairs, but about
the way in which journalism works. The program focuses on the Indonesian
governments involvement in the plea, what measures they have taken and how and
why it has played out. Talkback radio, despite the ABC’s prestige, veers into
the realm of informal, in some circumstances, it is not scripted, and if it is,
loosely so. Essentially this means opinions permeate through the undertones in
Eastley’s voice, exasperatingly introducing Corby as an “Australian Drug
Smuggler” with no reference to her plea of not-guilty, opposed to 7.30, who
carefully chose “convicted.” In addition, Eastleys stance on the issue is
evident, “When are we likely to see Schapelle Corby walking out
of prison?”(Eastley,2012), and likely to be misconstrued. The radio broadcast invites Matt Brown, Indonesian, and
former war correspondent in the Middle East, to answer the pressing questions in his own opinion. This prevents false information, and provides a critical
point of view. As the program continues, Eastley probes Brown, as he tries to uncover what he knows about the
Presidents ulterior motives and the suspicious Supreme Court ruling of mental illness - something that is questioned.
