Press must lift its game on self-regulation

WHO does guard the guardians? The newspaper and magazine industry created the Australian Press Council as a self-regulatory body and funds it. The complaints process involves newspapers and magazines publishing the result of the adjudication of each complaint. That is commendable.

However, as Paul Chadwick pointed out in his 1999 A. N. Smith lecture, the Press Council has twin aims that are incompatible. And there are many examples to show that the present system of self-regulation does not work.

The media allege that when it comes to responsibility and accountability, they are subject to harsh defamation laws. I argue that very few people who have complaints about being misquoted or misrepresented are going to bother suing a newspaper, television or radio station that has taken out a large insurance policy against losses through being sued.

I suggest it usually takes a blatant mistake or a blatant crook for a defamation action to be initiated. Good journalism would be a protection against both risks arising.

Government and large sections of the private sector now have all sorts of checks and balances, such as freedom of information, ombudsmen, investigative and regulatory bodies that can order remedial action, and appeal mechanisms.

The media, quite rightly, insist on governments being accountable. So why is it that the media have failed to put their house in order, especially when they are held in such low esteem by the public?

A Morgan Poll published yesterday showed that nearly two out of three respondents (63 per cent) agreed with the statement: "I don′t trust newspaper journalists to tell the truth." More than two out of three (67 per cent) believed that the media are not objective enough. And nearly three out of four (71 per cent) believed that media organisations are more interested in making money than in informing society.

With these levels of cynicism, don′t the media owe it to themselves to demonstrate to the public that they are subject to checks and balances that ensure they are accountable and responsible for news content? With the power that the media wield, is there any argument that they have a duty to act responsibly and in an accountable manner? Why shouldn′t people be able to use a form of freedom of information legislation to require a media outlet to reveal what evidence it used in compiling a story?

Sensitive sources could be blacked out. People could use the information to help them gain a correction or retraction. Perhaps the Press Council could use FoI to accelerate its process by requiring documents to be produced in a set period.

Another suggestion is that each newspaper should have an in-house ombudsman to serve as an external spokesperson for the public and an internal critic for the newspaper. Do such ombudsmen have teeth?

On November 21, Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell criticised Post reporter Bob Woodward for committing a journalistic sin by keeping facts from the Post′s executive editor.

The journalistic gods don′t come much bigger than Woodward, but the paper′s own ombudsman declared that Woodward should follow the same rules as all other Post journalists.

With an ombudsman who is seen to take up the cudgels on behalf of readers, listeners or viewers, any media outlet would be seen to be accountable and responsible — for its content and to its consumers.

If Sydney media outlets — newspaper, radio and television — each had an ombudsman, that ombudsman would certainly have been called upon to judge whether last week′s coverage of threats regarding incidents at Cronulla was responsible, and if not, what should have been done to correct it. At the other extreme, the ombudsman would be in a position to deal with complaints that are hardly worth taking to the Press Council or to court.

Let me give one small example of what I mean.

Take that word "claimed". Words are the media′s stock in trade. Just about every word in every story can be used to effect. But is every word used responsibly? In a newspaper story, a reporter can quote someone as having: said, stated, written, responded, replied, added, affirmed, confirmed, alleged, answered, divulged, mentioned, recited, related, remarked, repeated, reported.

The person may have whispered, shouted or joked. Someone with a point to make may have declared, pointed out, pronounced, announced or asserted. Someone with a secret might have disclosed or revealed. Someone unsure might have opined, offered, suggested or ventured.

But if we read that the defendant "claimed" in court that he did not see the 20 metre-high sign, we are being told the defendant is not likely to be telling the truth. If such denigrating words are used consistently, a negative image can be engendered.

Is it possible to police the responsible use of words? A resident ombudsman on each newspaper would be in an ideal position to adjudicate and to impose house rules about the responsible use of language.

I ask everyone involved in the industry to consider not why these measures should be resisted but how they could be adopted in a positive way by the Australian media.

And if not these measures, how else could the media be made more accountable and more responsible so that more than one person in three might believe what they read in newspapers?

Peter Beattie is Queensland Premier. This is part of his 2005 Arthur Norman Smith Lecture in Melbourne last night.

Peter Beattie is Queensland Premier. This is part of his 2005 Arthur Norman Smith Lecture in Melbourne last night.