Journalism academics in Victoria were disappointed when Monica Smit, the public face of prominent anti-vaccine group Reignite Democracy Australia, decided not to pursue a defence that she was a journalist when she defied lockdown orders to attend anti-lockdown protests in Melbourne.
At the height of the public protests, Smit had marched with the crowds while repeatedly telling her livestream that she was a journalist, even though she later made video admissions that she was using the journalist exemption as a “loophole”.
Last week Smit was found guilty of breaching public health orders on August 21 2021, but no conviction was recorded as she had spent 22 days in jail.
The case brought back into focus the question of who is a journalist in 2023, a question exacerbated in recent years with the ease of use of livestream technologies and rise of “independent”, “new media” or “citizen” journalists who range from Real Rukshan to Friendlyjordies.
Julian Assange, who languishes in a UK prison, is sometimes included in this list, as his classification as a journalist — rather than a whistleblower or publisher — has for many years divided traditional journalists. Although accepted by the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA), the journalists’ union and his supporters as a journalist, there is still a large number of working journalists who say he is not.
How to define journalism
In our roles as heads of journalism at Monash University and RMIT University, we were called as expert witnesses in the lockdown avoidance case, together with the MEAA’s Adam Portelli. In our prepared statements, we relied on S126J of the Victorian Evidence Act (2008), which has been widely cited by press freedom advocate Peter Greste.
Since becoming an academic, Greste has spent much time examining this issue and has written about who is a journalist and how to define journalism. He points out the Victorian Evidence Act starts in the traditional way, declaring a journalist to be “a person engaged in the profession or occupation of journalism”. But the critical bit is at the end, where it says:
The person or the publisher of the information, comment, opinion or analysis is accountable to comply (through a complaints process) with recognised journalistic or media professional standards or codes of practice.
That is where we sit, arguing that a journalist in 2023 must adopt principles of good, ethical practice and professional standards — presenting all sides fairly, not advocating for a specific group or interest — and signing up to a code of conduct.
Rights and responsibilities
The most widely used professional standards and codes journalists use are the MEAA’s journalist code of ethics and the Australian Press Council’s statement of general principles.
We agree journalists must adhere to a code that contains a complaint procedure, and ideally in Australia provide evidence of training or education in the ethics, rights and responsibilities of a journalist.
The problem is that not all journalists sign up for a university degree or cadet training where they are provided with an education in the special rights and responsibilities that come with the job. Those special rights include getting physical access to spaces and buildings where the public is not readily permitted, and being able to benefit from certain legal defences and protections — such as for the dissemination of news as a defence to copyright infringement, and the public interest defence in defamation proceedings.
But with those rights and special treatment, there also comes responsibility, including accountability, such as a complaints system where journalists are held to account to undertake their activities consistently with integrity, transparency, fairness and independence.
Law and ethics test
For this reason, we are arguing the federal government’s Privacy Act review should consider a voluntary professional accreditation of journalists in Australia, in the same way it exists for professions such as certified practising accountants and engineers. The key is “voluntary”.
In our proposed scheme, a certified Australian journalist would have to sit and pass a journalism and publishing law and ethics test.
The advantages are threefold: it’s a way to rebuild the public’s trust in journalism by signalling a serious commitment to ethical practice, especially if most practising journalists in Australia chose to be certified; it’s a concrete way to lift the quality — and trust in — journalism in Australia; it would address longstanding concerns held by governments, the corporate sector and the judiciary that journalists are not serious about ethical practice.
In our assessment, there are no disadvantages to such a system given it’s voluntary. The regime connects to the journalism/media exemption in the Privacy Act by dealing with the longstanding question: who is a journalist? By providing the answer: a journalist is a person, regardless of background and education, who adheres to the legal and ethical standards of journalistic practice and publishing.
We are not proposing that all journalists in media outlets be certified to be subject to the available news, journalism or media exemptions in current laws, but we think that the option could be a useful, recommended (but not binding) complement to the privacy standards regime, and make the availability of exemptions much clearer. In turn, it would promote higher standards generally.
The next question is: who would administer the system? For many reasons we argue it needs to be independent of the media industry/the corporate sector, governments, unions and any other stakeholders. We are working on how this can be achieved.
Should journalists be certified to practise their craft in Australia? Let us know by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
