Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

'Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes' or, who guards the guardians?

By Helen Dale - posted Wednesday, 10 January 2007


That said, what is the solution - if there is one?

Broadly speaking, there are two options. I'll discuss these in turn. Littlemore QC proposes the extension of the "toothy" bit of Australian competition and consumer law to the media. He thinks the press should be exposed to the "misleading and deceptive conduct" provisions in legislation.

At present, the media in its role as "information provider" is exempt from s 52 of the Trade Practices Act. This wasn't always the case: s 65A, which confines s 52's operation, was only introduced after a period of concerted lobbying by media organisations. The lobbying was in response to several Federal Court decisions - notably Australian Ocean Line Pty Ltd v West Australian Newspapers Ltd and Global Sportsman Pty Ltd v Mirror Newspapers Ltd. In those cases, the Federal Court held that the publication of statements in newspapers in the course of reporting the news were capable of breaching s 52 if the statements were misleading or deceptive.

Advertisement

In response to the lobbying, the government "was persuaded that it was not appropriate to permit use to be made of s 52 in that way" - in the words of Russell Miller, Australia's competition and consumer law guru.

The other option is one proposed by Queensland Premier Peter Beattie in his A.N.Smith Memorial Lecture in Journalism. In brief, this involves constructing the media as an arm of government ("the fourth estate") and exposing it to administrative law mechanisms such as Freedom of Information and Judicial Review. Both proposals have their strengths and weaknesses.

Like the tort of defamation, action under s 52 is expensive, and wouldn't assist people like the Paxtons or Benny Mendoza (the tv repairman who suicided). The gutter journalism characteristic of much of the media would probably go unhindered, although the Federal Court's (relatively) more liberal rules with respect to class actions (called "group proceedings") may help, as would the ACCC's capacity to initiate legal action in response to consumer complaints.

Administrative law, by comparison, is much cheaper for the citizen who has been traduced, but costly for the state. It requires tribunals, administration and legal officers. Using a Hayekian frame of reference, the only reason we now have so much administrative law in western countries is because of the expansion of government into so many aspects of our lives. Extending the reach of quasi-judicial administrative tribunals to the media represents an acceleration of this process.

How then, do we guard the guardians? Can they be made more accountable without burying us all in a morass of bureaucratic minutiae? Should we just accept that the press is there to turn a buck (like any other corporation) and yet continue to afford it protections no other corporation enjoys?

If either (or both) of these proposals are adopted, should we consider loosening the grip of defamation on all kinds of commentary - not just the media - on the grounds that it genuinely does impinge on freedom of speech (as well as allowing all sorts of other silly things, like Victoria's absurd religious vilification laws, to fly in under the radar)?

Advertisement

I strongly suspect that these questions (as Perlmutter suggests) will only be answered honestly and comprehensively in the blogosphere; with that in mind, then, over to you.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

First published on Catallaxy on 20th October, 2006. It is republished as part of "Best Blogs of 2006" a feature in collaboration with Club Troppo, and edited by Ken Parish, Nicholas Gruen et al.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

10 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Helen Dale completed the BCL at Brasenose College, Oxford last year and is now reading for her MPhil in law at the same college. In days gone by she was a writer and hack, but lawyering now takes up most of her time. She blogs at Skepticlawyer.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Helen Dale
Related Links
Catallaxy
Original blog post

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Helen Dale
Article Tools
Comment 10 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy