Eva Sannum asserts that it is not the role of the courts to determine what can or cannot be published, arguing instead for the responsibility of editors in news media.
In her response to the Editor's Association, Eva Sannum firmly establishes that she does not believe the courts should dictate what is appropriate for publication, but rather that this responsibility lies entirely with editors. She argues that while it is essential for the media to uphold certain standards, there are circumstances where the pressures of public scrutiny can lead to questionable editorial decisions. Therefore, editors should be left to navigate these complexities without judicial intervention.
Sannum further explains that discussions surrounding media practices often devolve into broader debates about freedom of expression, social responsibility, and public interest, where the substance of criticism can become diluted. In addressing the criticism faced by editors and the Editor's Association, she notes that responses often reference age-old principles of transparency and accountability that can do little to clarify ongoing issues faced by the press today. This indicates a disconnect between theoretical principles and the practical realities that editors encounter.
Ultimately, her position emphasizes the need for a nuanced approach where the media must hold itself accountable while being aware of the challenges that arise in a rapidly evolving information landscape. Sannum's articulation of her stance invites further discussion about how editors can responsibly fulfill their duties amidst pressures from both the public and the law, fostering an environment of ethical journalism without overreaching judicial oversight.
