Week Three Response: Toothless Tiger

This post is a response to the question posted here. Other people's responses here.

The Question:

In the lecture during week 2, I suggested that while ACMA has regulatory powers over broadcaster is Australia, when it comes to ethical breaches in the news, they have proven, in some cases, to be a “toothless tiger”. See this Media Watch episode for a good example.

So, this week, I want you to consider regulation of broadcast news. Does the broadcast news media need to be more tightly regulated? If you think ‘yes’, what aspects of the broadcast news reporting might need better rules and regulations? If ‘no”, why not?

My Response:

When looking at regulation issues and privacy, we have to consider that the media is the fourth estate.

Firstly, the fourth estate is supposed to be watching the government and therefore the media should be able to uncover corruption. Unfortunately the lines have been blurred on what kind of surveillance is acceptable. I would think recording a financial transaction in order to reveal bribery would be acceptable, but filming someone carrying out their daily chores at home would be unacceptable. Despite this, the paparazzi are constantly taking photos of celebrities through the windows of their house. If I did this I would go to jail, but they do not. In this regard, I believe that tighter regulation is needed.

Secondly, as the term fourth estate implies, the media is a large organisation on par with the government. Just imagine what would happen if the government collapsed. I believe that the ending of large media organisation would have the same effect. That is why ACMA would not take away a broadcasting licence even though they can. It would create a void that would bring uncertainty in society.

It appears that there is much regulation but not much enforcement. I do not think removing licenses would be the answer but penalties do need to apply more.