For many years, newspapers have reported on the news and various issues all around the world and here in Australia. The article written by Mr. Brad Norington, Washington correspondent for the Australian Newspaper, on the 2nd of August 2010 "Dose WikiLeaks vigilante denies having blood on his hands over disclosures". Although there are no legislative laws, here in Australia, (cited in Butler & Rodrick, p.27) "there is no necessary connection between reputation and truth". Around what is printed in the Australian media, there are ethical (online dictionary, Random House), defines ethics as: "a system of moral principles". principals that have been published by the Australian Press Council which will be defined in this paper at a later point. There is no empirical evidence in this paper. Empirical is defined by (Germov & Poole, p. 23) as "knowledge is derived from, and can be tested by, the gathering of data or evidence". The paper can also be perceived as misleading as there is no way to check anything that has been stated in the article.
             To look more closely at the lack of legislative laws, within the Australian newspaper publishing industry, or as (Butler & Rodrick, p.27) put it "Contary [sic] to what maybe popularly thought, in Australia there is no necessary connection between reputation and truth. The reasons for this is that the opinions which collectively constitute a person's reputation may or may not reflect the plaintiffs real character and may or may not indeed be based upon matter which is true or untrue".
             There is also the matter of, the (Communications Law Bulletin). Cited online, that tells of the Commonwealth legislation protecting journalists has been in place since 2007 Commonwealth jurisdiction where a journalist can rely on section 126B of the commonwealth act. This protects journalists by allowing journalists secretive of where the information came from, therefore evidence may not be investigated. This in turn...