Free press in fragile situations

In a ret­ro­spec­tive piece in the SMH con­cern­ing a new pub­li­ca­tion out of the Uni­ver­sity of Mel­bourne deal­ing with how media work­ers responded to and processed last year’s Black Sat­ur­day fires, Mallesons IP part­ner Natalie Hickey writes (among other things) that “It is worth reflect­ing that a healthy democ­racy does not need free speech at all costs. Words can wound and infor­ma­tion can cause pain.”

What a realisation!

So often in our tabloid, syndicated-to-the-hilt, visu­ally ori­ented, and, of course, com­mer­cially dri­ven media the objec­tive of “the public’s right to know” is utilised as an over­rid­ing jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for pub­li­ca­tion of con­tent that, sim­ply, is unnec­es­sary for the pub­lic and unhelp­ful for those it concerns.

In the Bible, a king called David writes, “You love all words that devour, O deceit­ful tongue.” Words can wound, and infor­ma­tion can cause pain — and so often our media will “love evil more than good, and lying more than speak­ing what is right.” (Also David, Psalm 52) The defense that it rates well is inad­e­quate, yet it is enthralling to dis­cover a gen­uine dis­cus­sion of jour­nal­is­tic ethics that reflects bib­li­cal truth about speech.

God teaches that Chris­t­ian peo­ple are to speak the truth in love, and that, what­ever other abil­i­ties we may have been given by Him, if we don’t exer­cise those with love, we have noth­ing. Oh, that our press would oper­ate on this basis — to do so would serve the “pub­lic inter­est” well!

# by Josh on January 19th, 2010 Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
| No Comments »

The ultimate product placement

Last night on MSN…

(22:12:50) Guy: you know the movie show with Mar­garet and David?
(22:13:01) Josh: what show?
(22:13:03) Guy: umm
(22:13:14) Guy: its on the ABC, they review movies and stuff
(22:13:15) Guy: any­way
(22:13:17) Josh: oh kk
(22:13:22) Guy: i had the WEIRDEST dream the other night
(22:13:27) Josh: re: them?
(22:13:29) Guy: some­thing about nuns and a glac­ier or some­thing
(22:13:31) Guy: and THEN
(22:13:47) Guy: i had a dream about them review­ing the dream before
(22:13:59) Josh: whoooa
(22:14:02) Josh: that’s trippy
(22:14:03) Guy: and David say­ing it was implau­si­ble and too long
(22:14:09) Guy: i woke up and i was like
(22:14:12) Guy: .….……ok
(22:14:18) Josh: haha­haha! that’s awe­some!
(22:14:38) Josh: self-analysis of the plau­si­bil­ity of dreams whilst remain­ing in the same level of con­scious­ness…
(22:14:41) Josh: that’s cool!
(22:14:57) Guy: i’ve had other dreams a bit like that
(22:16:23) Guy: like there was this one time, years ago, when i was hav­ing this dream, and then me, in the dream, i realised i’d already had the dream before, and i told some­one else in the dream that i’d dreamt it all before, and they were like, yeh i know, sorry, there’ve been bud­get cuts so we had to do re-runs
(22:17:05) Josh: lol! hey, what do you expect, dreams are just a more glam­orous form of really late night TV… at least you’re not dream­ing infomer­cials!
(22:17:19) Guy: haha
(22:17:26) Guy: imag­ine prod­uct place­ment in dreams
(22:17:36) Guy: god, what could u charge for that?

And now we know why The BFG must be a millionaire.

# by Josh on April 11th, 2005 Tags: , ,
| No Comments »