The One Nation sting was totally ethical

THE ONE NATION STING WAS TOTALLY ETHICAL

Media Watch on the ABC raised the question of Al Jazeera's undercover sting. Did it go too far? Peter Greste and Chris Masters have condemned the sting. One Nation's Queensland state leader Steve Dickson and chief of staff, James Ashby were filmed by Al Jazeera, a Middle Eastern media network, on a trip to the US seeking donations from the American gun lobby. Rodger Muller of Gun Rights Australia set up the introductions for One Nation. Asked how much money they were after, the One Nation pair suggested anywhere between $10 and $20 million.

The Sydney Morning Herald on March 27, 2019 also asks was it ethical? In creating the scenario in which the events were set up along the program's use of hidden cameras and microphones were the reasons why the newspaper questioned the ethics of Al Jazeera.

The Conversationalso asked whether Al Jazeera overstepped the mark. It concludes that "The public has a clear right to know what One Nation is up to. "This article goes further: that the Al Jazeera exposé was a necessary action, totally moral and decidedly in the public interest.

Peter Greste said that journalists should never create the news, only report it. He is correct, of course, but only up to a point. If the One Nation executives had not made the statements "If One Nation could get $10 million it could get 8 senators" or that Muslims "are breaking into people's homes with baseball bats", there would be no news. One Nation made the news, not Al Jazeera.

This opinion piece is hesitant to disagree with such well-regarded journalists as Peter Greste and Chris Masters. But it argues that the sting was a positive ethical move, clearly in the public interest. It was similar to blowing the whistle on a wrong doing. Whistleblowers have been castigated for centuries, only recently achieving some sort of protection in Australia. But they are not regarded highly. Greste and Masters were undoubtedly confused in balancing the public interest against the criticisms levelled at people who expose wrongdoing. They are not unique. Whistleblowers have been attacked for centuries, including by moral philosophers

One book on Business Ethics, unfortunately taught on many ethics classes throughout Australia, labels whistleblowing as akin to the " worst excesses of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia":

First, it is informing, perhaps on peers or mates. Informing was characteristic of the worst excesses of Nazi Germany or the Soviet system. It is sneaky, underhand and destroys trust in the workplace. Second, it involves disclosure of information that is owned by the organisation, not by individuals. It is theft to disclose the information without authorisation… the third objection: taking on the responsibility of looking after the public interest is arrogant and might destroy the organisation and jobs of colleagues… Fourth …might not be in a good position to judge if the public interest will be served. Fifth the act breaks an employee's contract with an employer… Sixth, an employee has only a duty to report concerns to superiors, not rectify problems personally.

This view is perhaps excessively worded, but the denigration of whistleblowers is not uncommon. Terms such as "snitching", "ratting", "informing", "turning in", or, in Australia, "dobbing" have long been associated with the practice. This article disagrees strongly, putting forward the view that exposing wrongdoing by people who are aware of the wrong is one of the most powerful ways of bringing about a more ethical society.

A definition of whistleblowing by two of the more highly regarded researchers on whistleblowing in the US, Janet Near & Marcia Miceli .

An action that brings harm or has the potential to bring harm, directly or indirectly, to the public at large, now or in the future, is an action against the public interest.

Weakening Australia's gun laws will certainly bring harm to the country, and would be against the public interest. To prevent this possibility fully justifies the Al Jazeera action.

We will remember such highly-regarded whistleblowers as Toni Hoffman in our own country or Bradley Manning overseas .Tony Hoffman was the nurse in Bundaberg hospital who exposed the botched surgery of Dr. Jayant Patel. Hedley Thomas, a journalist at The Courier-Mail, who won a Walkley Award for his part in uncovering Patel's past, published reports about the injuries and death caused by Patel's operations. Chelsea Manning spent seven years in a Marine Corps jail in Virginia, for revealing airstrikes during the Iraq war, which killed, among others, two Iraqi war correspondents working for Reuters. Edward Snowden is another who exposed wrongdoing. He will go down in history as one of America's most consequential whistleblowers, alongside Daniel Ellsberg ( the Pentagon Papers) and Bradley Manning. The Pentagon Papers revealed that that the Johnson Administration "systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress". Snowden revealed the all-consuming surveillance activities the National Security Administration. Then there was Mark Felt, Deputy Director of the FBI, who dobbed in Richard Nixon, President of the United States, and was essentially responsible for Nixon's downfall.

Using hidden cameras and microphones was attacked for being undercover. However, they were, and still are, powerful tools for revealing wrongdoing. People believe them. The Apache helicopter attack in Iraq, revealed by Manning, which WikiLeaks titled Collateral Murder, showed that the crew encountered a firefight and laughed at some of the casualties, among whom were civilians and reporters. That film did more to reveal the misguided, and morally dubious actions of the United States in Iraq, than any other.

Second is Peter Greste's concern with entrapment: Whistleblowers use entrapment also. Very few reveal their misgivings early on. Most would not be believed. Witness Toni Hoffman, possibly Australia's most outstanding whistleblower. She was a voice long crying in the wilderness before her evidence was convincing.

Then there is the successes of Investigative journalism .The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists' examination of the Panama papers scandal resulted in the resignations ofseveral political leaders . Included is the former president of El Salvador. Lucas Graves, lead author of the study, said the Panama Papers analysis is part of a broader project that dives deep into outcomes to better understand the circumstances that make substantive findings from investigative journalism more likely. Graves used the word " study" to describe their work. In short, Journalists do examine, as well as report.

Law enforcement authorities also use a sting, sometimes with great success. Read about some of them here. Covert policing is the last bastion of pure policing "and is one of the best methods of getting the highest numbers of convictions."

These are the reasons why this article argues that undercover exposure of wrongdoing is the most powerful way that we have in bringing about a more ethical society. And that Al Jazeera was more than totally justified in its "sting". It was leading the way to a more moral society. Future journalistic stings such as the Al Jazeera exposure are only to be encouraged.

Steve Dickson has resigned from One Nation after he was caught groping a woman in undercover footage filmed in a Washington DC strip club. Perhaps not a issue of national importance, but still undercover filming that tells us what sort of person One Nation's Queensland leader is.

In responding to the Al Jazeera documentary, One Nation has said that it has referred Al Jazeera to ASIO and the AFP. This article is a small attempt to convince those authorities not to waste even a dollar of taxpayer funding to initiate an investigation.