Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorFernandez, Joseph M
dc.contributor.authorPearson, Mark
dc.date.accessioned2017-09-14T21:57:44Z
dc.date.available2017-09-14T21:57:44Z
dc.date.issued2015
dc.identifier.issn1023-9499
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/146379
dc.description.abstractThis article examines whether Australia's current shield law regime meets journalists' expectations and whistleblower needs in an era of unprecedented official surveillance capabilities. According to the peak journalists' organisation, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA), two recent Australian court cases 'despite their welcome outcome for our members, clearly demonstrate Australia's patchy and disparate journalist shields fail to do their job' (MEAA, 2014a). Journalists' recent court experiences exposed particular shield law inadequacies, including curious omissions or ambiguities in legislative drafting (Fernandez, 2014c, p. 131); the 'unusual difficulty' that a case may present (Hancock Prospecting No 2, 2014, para 7); the absence of definitive statutory protection in three jurisdictions-Queensland, South Australia and the Northern Territory (Fernandez, 2014b, p. 26); and the absence of uniform shield laws where such law is available (Fernandez, 2014b, pp. 26-28). This article examines the following key findings of a national survey of practising journalists: (a) participants' general profile; (b) familiarity with shield laws; (c) perceptions of shield law effectiveness and coverage; (d) perceptions of story outcomes when relying on confidential sources; and (e) concerns about official surveillance and enforcement. The conclusion briefly considers the significance and limitations of this research; future research directions; some reform and training directions; and notes that the considerable efforts to secure shield laws in Australia might be jeopardised without better training of journalists about the laws themselves and how surveillance technologies and powers might compromise source confidentiality.
dc.description.peerreviewedYes
dc.languageEnglish
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherPacific Media Centre
dc.publisher.placeNew Zealand
dc.publisher.urihttps://pjreview.aut.ac.nz/articles/shield-laws-australia-legal-and-ethical-implications-journalists-and-their-confidential
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom61
dc.relation.ispartofpageto78
dc.relation.ispartofissue1
dc.relation.ispartofjournalPacific Journalism Review
dc.relation.ispartofvolume21
dc.subject.fieldofresearchJournalism Studies
dc.subject.fieldofresearchLaw and Society
dc.subject.fieldofresearchFilm, Television and Digital Media
dc.subject.fieldofresearchJournalism and Professional Writing
dc.subject.fieldofresearchCommunication and Media Studies
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode190301
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode180119
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode1902
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode1903
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode2001
dc.titleShield laws in Australia: Legal and ethical implications for journalists and their confidential sources
dc.typeJournal article
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articles
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articles
dc.description.versionVersion of Record (VoR)
gro.rights.copyright© 2015 Pacific Journalism Review. The attached file is reproduced here in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. Please refer to the journal's website for access to the definitive, published version.
gro.hasfulltextFull Text
gro.griffith.authorPearson, Mark L.


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record