Protection Of Journalists Research Articles

Journalists’ confidential sources: Reform lessons from recent Australian shield law cases

That journalism, especially journalism delving into serious impropriety, relies heavily upon a journalist’s ability to honour promises of confiden­tiality to sources, and therefore needs protection, has been well acknowledged. Former Attorney-General Philip Ruddock in proposing protec­tion for journalists’ confidential sources—commonly referred to as shield law—in the first such major federal level initiative, said ‘[t]his privilege is an important reform to evidence law’ (Explanatory Memorandum, 2007); and in the circumstances then prevailing ‘the protection of journalists is too important an issue to wait’ (Philip Ruddock, Second Reading Speech, 2007). In one instance the court went so far as to say that the importance of source protection was ‘entirely unexceptionable and in accordance with human experience and common sense’ (Liu, 2010, para 51). Are journal­ists’ confidential sources better protected with the advent of statutory protection in several Australian jurisdictions? The media does not think so (MEAA, 2013). Former Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus observed towards the end of his term of office: ‘Recent court proceedings have highlighted the inadequacy of protections for journalists in some jurisdictions and lack of uniformity in laws across Australia’ (Dreyfus, 2013). The current Commonwealth government in relation to national uniform shield law is unclear. The Australian shield law framework beckons reform and recent events indicate some potential reform areas.

The Protection of Journalists in Armed Conflicts: How Can They Be Better Safeguarded?

The years 2011 and 2012 were among the most deadly for journalists reporting from conflict situations worldwide. The numbers of assaults, arrests and attacks have been on a constant rise and portray a dramatic image of the journalistic profession. In light of the increasing threats in armed conflicts, being a war reporter has become an inherently dangerous task. Journalists are not only at risk of becoming so-called collateral damage during military operations, they are also increasingly targeted. Their role as a watchdog and witness to the horrors of war, in addition to the undeniable power of the word and image they spread, has made them popular targets. It is therefore essential that the international community re-evaluate journalists' de jure and de facto protections in armed conflicts to allow for better safeguards and consequently less casualties in the imminent future. This article examines the current protections afforded to journalists and aims at detecting proposals for enhanced safeguards that are most likely to effectively improve journalists' safety in the field. In this regard, this article will argue that the legal protections are in fact sufficient and hardly amendable and that therefore, a more practical, hands-on approach to implementation of those protections must be the focus of future actions. This goal can only be achieved by a comprehensive mission jointly pursued by governments, militaries, journalists, media, NGOs and society.

Safety vs credibility: West Papua Media and the challenge of protecting sources in dangerous places

West Papua Media (WPM) is an innovative media outlet established in 2007 in response to the ongoing human rights crisis in the Indonesian provinces that self-identify as West Papua. The context of its establishment included rising hope about the potential of citizen media to empower repressed publics, complaints from mainstream media about the difficulty of establishing the credibility of reports emerging from the provinces, a ban on foreign media, and political moves by Australia to prioritise its relationship with the Indonesian government over demanding an end to oppressive military behaviour in West Papua. This article documents the strategies WPM has pioneered to bolster its credibility and protect its journalists and sources who work and live in an oppressive context. It also contextualises these strategies in relation to standard journalism processes (Lamble, 2004, 2011); current best practice about the protection of journalists in conflict zones (Cramer, 2009); and emerging concepts of global journalism ethics (Ward, 2010).

Safety and Protection of Journalists: A Responsibility for the World

This policy-oriented paper rests on an analysis of extant international instruments for the protection of journalists in conflict and non-conflict situations, within and outside the jurisdiction of their national State. The authors identify critical normative lacunae and implementation drawbacks, and discuss the merits of potential remedies.

Silencing Sources: An International Survey of Protections and Threats to Journalists’ Sources

The first ever comprehensive global study of protection of journalists' sources has found that there is widespread legal recognition of the right around the world. Approximately 100 countries have adopted sources protection laws which allow journalists to keep promises to confidential sources that their identities will not be revealed. The recognition of the need for legal protections has been growing. In the past few years, new laws have been adopted in many countries including Belgium, Mexico, Switzerland, New Zealand, Australia, Angola, Luxembourg and El Salvador. It is now also recognized by nearly all major international bodies including the UN, Council of Europe, African Union, Organization for American States and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.The most significant problems are found in those countries lacking a specific law. The US, Canada, the Netherlands and Ireland are noteworthy as having no specific legal protections. Many journalists have been fined or jailed for not revealing their sources.However, in many jurisdictions, protections are being undermined by the regular use of search warrants on media offices and journalists' homes because few have specific legal protections on media-related searches. Protections are also being undercut in many countries by the use of legal and illegal surveillance. The adoption of “data retention” laws will seriously weaken protections by allowing authorities easy access to journalists communications data.National security claims are also diminishing protections. There have been numerous cases where journalists have been arrested, prosecuted or harassed for disclosure of information under state secrets laws. New Anti-terrorism laws adopted in numerous countries have given authorities extensive powers to demand assistance from journalists, intercept communications, and gather information.

Theoretical Underpinnings of the Protection of Journalists' Confidential Sources: Why an Absolute Privilege Cannot be Justified

In recent years, many states have reformed laws,or are considering the reform of laws, that govern whether journalists should be compelled to reveal the names of sources who wish to remain ‘anonymous’ (‘confidential sources’). Such reforms have often come about as a result of journalists being sanctioned for non-disclosure under existing laws, or from a general acceptance that existing laws gave inadequate protection to journalists. In such debates, the media lobby has tended to request that they are given an absolute privilege against the forced disclosure of their confidential sources, and currently absolute protection is recognised in around 20 countries. This article argues against absolute source protection laws. It does so by exploring the three main sets of arguments which are used to support protection of confidential sources: those based upon theories of promises and confidentiality; those justified on grounds of the efficiency of newsgathering or other professional related arguments; and those based upon constitutional arguments such as that the press has special privileges as a result of its watchdog role, because it is the Fourth Estate of government, or because of the importance of free speech. None of these arguments is robust enough to support absolute protection, and the position of absolute privilege advocates is further undermined by the variety of situations in which journalists seek to protect their confidential sources. Such sources have a wide range of motivations for disclosing the information they give to journalists, some of which are altruistic, such as the whistleblower wishing to reveal illegal practices. Others are clearly malevolent, hoping to besmirch the name of another, or to criminally exploit false information they reveal. Journalists protect confidential sources who are criminals, and refuse to reveal them even when it could aid a criminal defendant. It is clear that in a number of these situations there are public interests or private rights adversely affected by the disclosure of information by a confidential source, or the refusal of a journalist to reveal the name of a source, which would not be protected if journalists had an absolute right to protect their confidential sources. Whilst being opposed to absolute source protection, this writer accepts that the protection of confidential sources may have an important value; in the concluding section of the article, a number of different ways in which protection of confidential sources can be balanced against competing interests and values are explored.

The international protection of journalists in armed conflict and other violent situations

Media reporting of armed conflict and other situations of heightened violence has become increasingly perilous, with large numbers of journalists and other media personnel killed or deliberately targeted because of their professional work, including by government forces and non-government actors. The serious risks to the safety of media personnel raise questions about the adequacy and enforcement of the international legal frameworks available to protect them. This article examines the range of complicated, interlocking normative and institutional frameworks which govern media personnel and media objects in international and non-international armed conflict, and in violent emergency situations beneath the threshold of conflict, with a focus on international humanitarian law and human rights law. The legal characterisation of a violent situation has important implications for the status and treatment of media personnel, whether they are ‘war correspondents’, ‘embedded’ reporters, or independent journalists. This article reviews and clarifies the circumstances in which journalists and their equipment are protected from hostilities and when they may lose protection from attack; the measures of security, detention or restriction to which they may be subject; issues of professional privilege and confidentiality; and the perennial discussion about whether journalists should receive a special status and emblem in conflict situations.

National Security and the Press: The Government's Ability to Prosecute Journalists for the Possession or Publication of National Security Information

In 2006, then Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales raised the possibility that journalists could be prosecuted for publishing national security information. In addition, the federal government's prosecution of two former lobbyists for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) for possessing and disseminating national security information has been called an attempt by the government to prosecute individuals who behave like journalists. This article identifies existing laws under which the press could be criminally prosecuted for the possession and/or publication of national security information and describes how the courts have addressed those laws. The article concludes that while there is support for Constitutional protection for journalists in these cases, the Supreme Court of the United States is unlikely to interpret the First Amendment as protecting journalists from prosecution for possessing and/or publishing national security information. Therefore, the article contends that Congress should amend the statutes outlined herein to limit prosecution to instances when there is evidence of intent to harm the United States.

The protection of journalists reporting from war or conflict zones: attempts to promote additional protection measures for journalists by means of international protocol and convention

A journalist's function is not only to inform but also to investigate. The public's right to information necessitates protection for journalists that report from dangerous war-torn regions in order to keep the world informed, but the question is: do they need special protection? Some argue that journalists should be protected in terms of humanitarian law due to their humanitarian function, their service of facilitating the free flow of information to the world and their role in society. Others argue that their protection is not the responsibility of the international community but rather their individual national governments or local news organisations.

Between privilege and subpoena: Protecting confidential sources

Recent events in South Africa and elsewhere have focused attention on the position of journalists faced with legal action aimed at discovering the identity of confidential sources. It is widely accepted that journalists have an ethical obligation to protect the identity of confidential sources. The obligation derives from the central role that journalism plays in democracy, yet in South Africa it may bring journalists into conflict with legal measures aimed at forcing disclosure. This article explores the rationale for the protection of confidential sources and compares the normative ethics and jurisprudence relating to protection of sources in various jurisdictions, including South Africa. It examines processes currently under way to establish legal protection of journalists against forced disclosure, and considers options that may be pursued. It concludes that any such measure should cover both criminal and civil proceedings, and suggests that the answer may lie in the proper interpretation of the right to freedom of expression to accord a qualified privilege to journalists.

The protection of journalists in armed conflicts

The nature of warfare has changed throughout the world and, consequently, so has the nature of the job of those reporting on it. Wars have become more violent, claiming an increasing number of lives of the journalists involved as well as of civilians. Keith Suter here describes the situation which faces journalists currently reporting on the world's troublespots. Conflicts are no longer conventional, but have often turned into guerrilla warfare and since journalists are required to be where the fighting is taking place, they are constantly under threat. The international community has done very little to keep up with these changes. The Geneva. Convention, updated in 1977, and the Hague Convention of 1907, deal with the issue of ‘newspaper correspondents’ but, Suter argues, fail to address many of the main features of the ‘new warfare state’, most notably the rise of guerrilla warfare. He calls for governments to show more concern over the fates of their citizens who care journalists reporting from war zones.

The Protection of Journalists on Dangerous Assignments in Areas of Armed Conflict

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Seminar on “The Journalist and International Humanitarian Law”

The first seminar organized jointly by the Union of African Journalists (UAJ) and the ICRC on the subject “The Journalist and International Humanitarian Law” was held in Nairobi (Kenya) from 16 to 20 September 1985. This event, which was the result of the close co-operation established between the ICRC and the UAJ following a mission to Cairo on 20 October 1984 by Mr Alain Modoux, head of the ICRC Information Department, had several objectives:— to introduce African journalists to international humanitarian law and to inform them of the activities of the ICRC;— to examine, in the light of the humanitarian problems in Africa, the role of the media in sensitizing public opinion and promoting humanitarian rules;— to take stock of the situation with regard to the protection of journalists in their work.

The protection of journalists engaged in dangerous professional missions

“Death of four journalists in El Salvador”, “Six journalists reported missing”, “Release of three journalists detained on spying charges”—these are just some of the headlines of recent dispatches calling to mind the problem which we will be dealing with in this article: journalists who do their job in situations of armed conflict run risks. What provisions does public international law make to protect them and to facilitate the exercise of their professional activity?

NIICO : setting the record straight

Protection of journalists and code of ethics for the media are believed to be words coined by power-hungry Third World despots to obfuscate their real intentions of handcuffing and gagging the journalists through licensing. In the resulting din what is overlooked is that most of these issues and ideas did not originate with Third World governments or with UNESCO but were raised in the 1950s by media and professional organisations of industrialised countries, particularly those of the United States.

Foreign and International Communication

Approaches to Communication Planning edited by John Middleton (1980, 300 pp.) Communication Planning for Development: An Operational Framework by Alan Hancock (1981, 198 pp.) Impact of Modern Communication Technology I: Australia, by Chris Duke (n.d., 122 pp.) Impact of Modern Communication Technology II: Indonesia (n.d., 72 pp) Flow of News in the Gulf, by Phil Harris, et al. (n.d., 70 pp.) Protection of Journalists (no author, n.d., but 142 pp.) 82. The Book in Multilingual Countries by Abul Masan (1978, 40 pp.) 83. National Communication Polic Councils: Principles and Experiences by M.A. Rodrigues Dias, et al. (1979. 44 pp.) 84. Mass Media: The Image, Role, and Social Conditions of Women: A Collection and Analysis of Research Materials (1979, 78 pp.) 85. News Values and Principles of Cross-Cultural Communication (1980, 51 pp.) (86) Special Issue: Mass Media Codes of Ethics and Councils: A Comprehensive International Study on Professional Standards by J. Clement Jones (1980, 80 pp.) 87. Communication in...

Who Guards the Guardians: Third Parties and the Law of Armed Conflict

The Geneva Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts continues its attempts to supplement the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and in so doing to make the bulk of jus in bello consonant with factual reality. The first session of the Conference in 1974 provisionally adopted one highly important article out of 137 presented to the Conference by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). The second session in 1975 provisionally adopted 77 articles pertaining to such important subjects as the definition of a noninternational armed conflict, the protection of civilians and civilian goods, medical transport, environmental protection, and protection of journalists.

Protection of Journalists on Dangerous Missions in Areas of Armed Conflict

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Protection of Journalists on Dangerous Missions in Areas of Armed Conflict

Protection of Journalists on Dangerous Missions in Areas of Armed Conflict

Protection of Journalists on Dangerous Missions in Areas of Armed Conflict

Since some years, concern has been expressed on the part of various press associations on the dangers attending reporters who, in order to collect news material in the exercice of their profession, move into territories where hostilities are in progress.