Spotlight on transparency
In the trial between Bruce Lehrmann and Network Ten, a stark contrast emerged between the approach taken by Justice Michael Lee and the approach taken by many of the journalists whose practices came under scrutiny.
On the one hand, Justice Lee welcomed transparency. He allowed livestreaming via YouTube, prompting more than 26,000 viewers to watch key moments of last year’s trial, as well as last week’s unexpected extra days. What’s more, these extra days constituted a further commitment to transparency. Justice Lee was days away from handing down his decision when Ten’s lawyers applied to reopen the case to bring new evidence. Lehrmann’s lawyers objected, but Justice Lee said that sunlight should be the best disinfectant. This reveals an impressive commitment to open justice, a fundamental precept of our legal system.
On the other hand, the Seven Network appears less fond of transparency, following fresh allegations revealed during the trial about direct and indirect payments the Spotlight team offered Lehrmann to secure a 2023 interview. By this stage, we already knew that the Spotlight team had spent many tens of thousands of dollars covering Lehrmann’s accommodation – even though this payment had not originally been disclosed, much to the dismay of the Walkley Foundation. Then in court former ex-Spotlight producer Taylor Auerbach alleged that Seven had also provided cocaine and sex workers, leading reporters at Nine to publish a stocktake of previous Seven scandals, as well as fresh evidence of failure to disclose and, even worse, fraud. In 1999, the cash for comment scandal exposed misbehaviour on commercial radio; in 2024, 'coke for comment' is exposing commercial TV’s ugly underbelly.
So, what journalistic standards apply? The MEAA Journalist Code of Ethics explicitly addresses disclosure. Of the 12 standards, several are on point, including Standard 7: ‘Do your utmost to ensure disclosure of any direct or indirect payment made for interviews, pictures, information or stories.’ Here, such payments were not disclosed. By contrast, the Commercial TV Industry Code of Practice, which binds Seven, contains no standards about such disclosures. Meanwhile, the Seven West Media Editorial Policy says all news personnel ‘must comply with the Australian legal framework’, while also committing them to abiding by the MEAA Code. The Seven West Editorial Policy also contains seven Key Principles, which don’t explicitly mention disclosure, but do prescribe, ‘Use appropriate means to obtain material.’
This inconsistency of standards shows that Australia’s fragmented, incoherent mess of news standards is a major problem. In 2018, our research identified 14 codes and standards; ever since, we’ve argued for reform that develops and implements a coherent, consistent, cross-platform standards scheme. Such a scheme would eliminate blind spots, including for online journalism, and would impose uniform standards, co-developed with industry. This is the first part of the solution. The second part involves bringing about cultural change within news media, by ensuring news media devote time and resources to improving their ethics and practice so they align with well-established standards such as transparency.
Amid so many scandals, it’s easy to forget that the central issue in this trial concerns an alleged rape in Parliament House. As the journalists themselves become the story, that central issue becomes clouded and obscured, as does the public interest. The public interest is served by journalists working to uncover the truth of what happened at Parliament House, not by the pursuit of a sensational exclusive by any means necessary.
Sacha Molitorisz, Senior Lecturer - UTS Law
