Reporter’s last straw in climate ethics
The trustworthiness of global media has been subjected to unprecedented attacks over the past few years, from both the Right and the Left of politics. United States President Donald Trump and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson have, from the Right, relentlessly attacked elements of the media, while Rupert Murdoch’s media empire has been attacked from the Left. Where do the journalists sit among all these attacks?
Earlier this month, Emily Townsend, a senior employee at Murdoch-owned News Corp Australia, denounced her employer’s coverage of the Australian bushfires in a staff-wide email following her resignation.
Townsend accused News Corp of running a misinformation campaign by focusing on arson and exaggerating facts to divert attention away from climate change. She said she found it ‘‘unconscionable to continue working for this company’’ knowing that she was ‘‘contributing to the spread of climate change denial and lies’’.
When the email was leaked to the general media, News Corp chief executive Michael Miller stated that ‘‘we respect Ms Townsend’s right to hold her views but we do not agree with them’’ and referred to the ‘‘variety of views and opinions about the current fire crisis’’.
This isn’t the first time a controversy has erupted over Murdoch-owned publications. In the United Kingdom, News of the World ,a newspaper owned by the Murdoch family’s News International, was shut down in 2011 when it became public that employees were engaging in phone hacking and police bribery and exercising improper influence in the pursuit of news stories.
Has the British media improved? What about media scrutiny focused on the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Meghan Markle and Prince Harry?
Analysis by social intelligence company Brandwatch found that Markle had appeared in 16,800 more negative news stories than Kate Middleton over the past year.
Even when you account for the fact that Markle appeared in more news stories generally, it was still found that she received 132 per cent more negative media coverage.
A number of commentators, largely from the Left, have cited racism as the reason behind the media treatment of Markle. Others from the Right, such as
Piers Morgan, have denied there was unfair treatment in the first place.
What rights do journalists have when they believe their publication is biased? What about if it is telling lies or engaging in criminal activity?
In New Zealand, if an employer’s action or inaction makes an employee’s situation so intolerable that they resign, it may be treated as if the employee was dismissed by the employer. This is called constructive dismissal and can give rise to a personal grievance and remedies in the Employment Relations Authority.
Constructive dismissal can be found where an employee is told to resign or is deliberately pressured to resign. It can also be found in cases where the employer breaches a fundamental duty leading the employee to resign, provided that outcome was foreseeable.
For the latter category, the employer doesn’t have to intend for the worker to resign. All that’s required is employer behaviour that would lead a third party to believe that a worker would resign – for example, by providing a highly unsafe workplace.
A good example of this is an oftencited English case from the 1990s concerning the collapsed Bank of Credit and Commerce International.
Senior employees contended that the bank had breached the implied duty of trust and confidence by operating in a corrupt and dishonest manner and sought damages for the reputational harm they suffered.
The House of Lords found for the employees, stating that ‘‘the employee, whatever his status, cannot be taken to have agreed to work in furtherance of a dishonest business’’.
What about Townsend? She and News Corp have very different opinions on the bushfire crisis and how it should be covered – would that be enough to establish that different ethical standpoints on the work she does forced her into leaving?
Or was it a standard resignation driven by differences in opinion?
No doubt those who own the media think reporters should not be determining the newspaper’s editorial line. On the other hand, there comes a point when a journalist feels that they are participating in something immoral and in some cases, illegal.