Confidentiality a privilege for professional journalists
You don’t need me to tell you that a free press is essential to the functioning of our democracy. To this end, the Evidence Amendment (Journalists’ Privilege) Bill 2010 sponsored by Andrew Wilkie MP is certainly worthy of vigorous debate by parliament.
However, Adam Bandt’s suggestion that the scope of the bill be widened to include bloggers and in particular, citizen journalists is a bad idea.
Greens MP Adam Bandt
Professional journalists work to a code; I’m not saying every individual journalist displays 100 percent ethical behaviour according to this code, but for the most part we accept that we have a function to inform the public, to do so as objectively as possible and to facilitate informed debate in the wider community.
There are times when journalists happen across important information, and up till now there has been no protection for journalists who want to keep their sources a secret in the publicising of this information. In some circumstances such protection would certainly be useful.
But extending any such protection to citizen journalists would be akin to anarchy. One only needs to google just a few different blogs to see that there are zero checks and balances on the blogosphere as it is.
Wild opinions are presented as fact, media is used willy-nilly in breach of copyright and defamation is rife. My apologies go out to those bloggers and citizen journalists who do ensure their work conforms to legal and ethical standards, but for the most part the blogosphere does not.
To add to that chaos the freedom to say anything or accuse anyone with legal protection against accountability is a dangerous road indeed. Professional journalists learn as part of their training the responsibilities that go along with their position of influence. Bloggers do not.
We should be tightening the laws around blogging and citizen journalism, not relaxing them.
“The Social Network” arrives in Australia
It’s been the talk of the internet since the project was announced, and now the “Facebook movie”, a.k.a. “The Social Network” has finally been released in Australian cinemas.
I have to say when I first heard the film was being made I was skeptical. Yeah, like most people I use Facebook. But did I want to watch a movie about its creation? The big question was whether a two-hour film on the topic could be engaging. After all, I use my toothbrush every day but I wouldn’t go to a movie about the early days of Oral B.
The big thing this film has going for it and one of the things that ultimately swayed me was David Fincher in the director’s chair. And while I’ve heard mixed reports from other cinema goers on whether they liked it, I found “The Social Network” to be engaging, hip, thought-provoking and thoroughly satisfying.
“You’re going to go through life believing that girls don’t like you because you’re a nerd, and I want you to know from the bottom of my heart that that’s not true. It’ll be because you’re an asshole.” – Erica Albright, Mark Zuckerberg’s ex-girlfriend
It is largely a dialogue-driven film, with the dialogue snappy, intense and real. The movie is nicely bookended with two fantastic pieces of linked dialogue. Quick camera work, angles and scene changes add to the urgency of the narrative while the music of Trent Reznor (of Nine Inch Nails fame) gives the piece a dimension of youth and rebellion.
I was surprised at how much humour the film contained – several lines had the entire cinema erupting with laughter. But there’s also drama aplenty, a healthy serving of intensity, betrayal and longing. Jesse Eisenberg in a fantastic portrayal of Mark Zuckerberg (and while I’m at it, Justin Timberlake is excellent as Napster’s Sean Parker) spends the whole film searching for something, and while he ends up with an empire and a whole pile of money, one gets the sense that he still hasn’t found that something when the credits roll.
“You’re not an asshole, Mark. You’re just trying really hard to be.” – Marylin Delpy, Law office intern
The real Mark Zuckerberg
As for the amount of truth in the film? It’s hard to know. Several things are fact. Zuckerberg was sued by Eduardo Saverin after reducing his stake in the company. He was also sued by Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss who claimed he had stolen the idea for Facebook from them. And according to what I’ve read, Sean Parker did suggest dropping “the” from the site’s name.
As with any biographical piece when the subject isn’t involved in the production, naturally the makers had to take artistic license to fill the gaps around what they knew. Does it paint Zuckerberg in a bad light? Perhaps. He is certainly not portrayed as a hero, but nor in my view is he a classic villain. He is certainly flawed, and while not a protagonist in a classic sense, it is his film.
As with any cinema it is to be enjoyed for what it is, and if it inspires debate among audiences that’s great. No doubt they’ll continue discussing it for a while yet. … On Facebook.
