![]() |
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Australian Law Reform Commission - Reform Journal |
Reform Issue 85 Summer 2004/05
This article appeared on pages 12–14 of the original journal.
The role of radio in legal reporting
By Jon Faine*
Apologies, first of all, for the nonsense published about the legal system.
All of it—the daily misdescription of verdicts, absurd simplification of sentencing, parole, damages, injunctions, burdens and onus of proof, interlocutory procedures, costs rulings, regulatory and administrative process—all of it. Simple stuff really.
Why can’t they just get it right? Any graduate with five years law school, articles and a couple of years practice under their belt can work it out, so why not the average journalist?
The answer takes barely a moment to understand. Journalist ‘Julie’ gets up in the morning, goes to work, is assigned a story, does the best she can, reports in for the nightly news for TV or for the hourly bulletin for radio, and goes home at the end of the day wondering what all of it was about. It may be that her story that day was about a new cancer drug, or a factory exporting to new global markets, a car crash that claimed several lives or a strike—or a court case. They are all just stories, after all.
Radio reporters have the hardest job of all. The newspaper reporter in court has until the evening deadline to finesse the words and file copy for the next day’s paper. The TV reporter has until the evening bulletin to film a stand-up, get footage of protagonists walking in and out of court and maybe splice a voice-over onto archival or other material. The radio reporter has to file live to air for talk radio current affairs shows, or at best, file a report for the next ‘top of clock’ bulletin in the news cycle. Timing is everything.
Rarely are journalists specialists. The major capital city market newspapers are able to maintain dedicated—and very able—court reporters. Beyond that, it can be hit and miss. A reporter is sent to cover a story—to get a yarn—often with just a few minutes’ preparation, and no research other than grabbing a few clippings as they fly out the door. And from covering the breaking news at court, he or she may well be sent on to football training to cover a strained groin that will affect the outcome of next weekend’s crucial game.
Upon arriving at the court, the first task for our harassed and stressed journalist is to find out which other working hacks present have a deeper knowledge of the case, and hopefully to latch onto a helpful court staff member or stray, obliging lawyer. One of the senior dedicated court reporters is a reassurance and a bonus.
Remember, too, that court reporters, no matter how expert and experienced, can only be in one court at a time. Other cases proceeding in other courtrooms are therefore the province of less than specialist staff, thrown in at the last minute and expected to make a fist of it with little background and often little help from the participants.
A QC of my acquaintance was whingeing to me about the errors in the reporting of a case he was appearing in recently. It had been running at trial stage for three months. The committal had resulted in a trolley of documents and transcripts. The subject matter was commercially intricate. Yet the reporter was expected, in a morning, to be across the same material that the QC had taken months to learn.
Judges regularly complain that their carefully considered sentences or judgments are misreported. Yet who is surprised if a long document full of technical language is not perfectly summarised into a four sentence report in time for the next news bulletin? The pressure of deadlines will mean that a newsroom editor will tell a reporter in the field to ‘cut the crap’ and get the report done in time for the hourly bulletin, no matter what. The pressure on the journalist is to deliver, even if it means cutting a corner or taking a risk over a fact or detail of the case.
This is a preventable state of affairs. With the tiniest amount of cooperation and mutual recognition of the role that each is playing in the maintenance of the rule of law, this can be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. It requires first of all the courts accepting the genuine role of the media in reporting their work, and the acceptance by the media that the courts, while protecting their integrity, are not attempting to dictate the way cases are reported.
It seems to be common sense that if a judge is preparing material in a case that is known to have attracted media attention, and will again at the conclusion, then a simple, ‘media friendly’ explanatory note produced as part of the sentence/judgment will avoid the risk of misreporting.
It is equally to be accepted by the media that if a judge has gone to the trouble of preparing a summary of the facts or evidence or reasoning that it ought to be reported in those terms to respect the intricacy or sensitivities of that case.
Some courts issue media releases at the same time as a judgment, with a judicially approved form of words being used for a legally accurate but simple English explanation and summary of the decision of the court. The European Court of Human Rights has been processing decisions this way for at least a dozen years, and I have not noticed the demise of European jurisprudence because of it. In fact, the opposite could be argued—that it has helped a whole branch of emerging legal thought to gain public acceptance and a niche in the crowded and maturing jurisdiction that it is in.
I also want to write in defence of talkback radio. Not all of it, mind you—some of it is indefensible!
The reality of Australian media today is that talkback radio has a growing influence. It is no coincidence that the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader spent the first working hours of almost each day of the last election campaign in radio studios.
A radio interview is the only way to reach the people unedited, unfiltered and in more meaningful conversations than the snippets and grabs that make for a nightly TV news item, or the selected quotes with unflattering photos that are pasted together to assemble a page of the newspaper. If a political warrior can conquer the medium of talkback and charm their audience, they stand a good chance of making a lasting impression on the voter. State Premiers in particular have learnt this lesson well.
There is a clear parallel for serious coverage of legal issues. Judges, especially heads of jurisdictions, ought to make themselves available to answer questions and to be seen to be accessible. Whilst not for a moment suggesting that individual cases ought to be re-argued over the airwaves, general principles, processes and concepts can be explained and misconceptions answered though talkback.
There is another more subtle benefit that would flow from judicial officers making themselves accessible through radio. The shock-jocks, so called, like most petty tyrants and bullies, like to beat up on those who are too weak or polite to respond. Although there are serious issues in trying to take on a talkback bully (and you can easily come off second best) there are also real benefits to be found in taking up the argument and meeting the challenge for the sake of the audience.
You may never persuade the host who is a reactionary capital punishment advocate (to take one example) but you may get through to some of their audience. There are several golden rules in preparing for and agreeing to a talkback radio interview, and you need to follow the rules in order to try to tip the scales, just a little, back in your favour. A studio interview is ALWAYS a better transaction than over the phone. A short interview is not worth attempting. You just become cannon fodder. And there are many other techniques that do not ever guarantee a fair go but may just make it easier to get your voice heard amidst the clamour.
Those techniques are amongst the armour of the professional media trainer, and it is beyond the scope of this short essay to put them all out of work. The converse is in fact my aim—to generate an appreciation amidst the ranks of the legal fraternity that there are areas where other skills come into play. Some professional assistance would pay dividends, not just for the judges and the lawyers, but the community—and the rule of law—as a whole.
* Jon Faine has a professional background in law and entered radio broadcasting in 1989 to produce and present Radio National's Law Report. He is currently the host of 774 ABC Melbourne's morning program.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ALRCRefJl/2004/20.html