Australian Press Council Annual Address - 23 March 2006

Comments on Commisisoner Keelty's Address

Professor Ken McKinnon, Chairman, Australian Press Council

[See also:
Commissioner Keelty's Address]

Commissioner Mick Keelty's Annual Address certainly did not disappoint. His suspicion that he and the media might be poles apart on what ought to be reported in the public interest in a time of unprecedented terrorism was amply borne out. He believes the press unreasonably sensationalizes Australian Federal Police action by calling them 'raids' (and seeking to report on-the-spot), that they should not inquire into and report AFP methodologies, comment negatively on the new powers of control and preventative detention, or question the basis for last year's recall of the Senate. In short, newspapers should be more responsible.

He went on to say that the views aired on newspaper opinion pages are often sloppy, ill-informed and unrepresentative (eg, minority civil libertarians). The implication is that editors ought to be more responsible about whose opinions they let loose on their pages. He did not believe many of them should be given space.

To say that newspapers would not agree would be an understatement. They would vehemently disagree.

What are their respective accountabilities?

Characteristically Ministers and Commissioners control sensitive information. They release what they think the public ought to be told, usually partial, from a particular point of view and drip fed at that. Or information is leaked to selected sympathetic journalists, as was the 2006-7 federal budget recently,. The best newspapers do not accept this as enough. Editors and journalists believe it is their duty in an open society to discover the whole truth and report that to the public. They explore all sources of information, official and unofficial.

There is no doubt that the job of the Commissioner is onerous. Real terrorism situations will be tense and possibly dangerous. While newspapers may not want to add to his problems they don't want to be gullible either. Some of the laws curtailing democratic freedoms in the name of terrorism and security are so capable of being used in a totalitarian way that close scrutiny is essential. Laws that allow individuals to be incarcerated without any one being allowed to know and secret trial provisions are very threatening. Newspapers no doubt feel that ultimately their accountability is to the public who buy papers believing they will find in them accurate and full information.

Why don't journalists meekly accept constraints authority seeks? Constraints that may, as the Commissioner asserts, have better public outcomes. Why do journalists doubt briefings and official press releases? The answer is that they have learned distrust the hard way. Often time uncovers information that should have been reported at the time that had been hidden by officials. The consequence is a perennial contest for information. Most often what is reported is undeniably in the public interest.

These accountabilities are unlikely to change, nor should they. The Commissioner has to be on the safe side of risk and security. Newspapers have to be on the side of the public, providing them with enough to be able to make their own judgments separately from spin and propaganda, however well intentioned. That is the nature of a vigorous democracy.

Nevertheless regulatory principles do govern newspaper behavior. All major newspapers in Australia subscribe to the principles that the Press Council uses.

It is interesting that Commissioner Keelty was not happy with his one complaint to the Council in 2002. The complaint was about a Melbourne Herald Sun page one headlined Terror Alert, a report that an AFP police pistol, security pass and radio had vanished at Melbourne airport as world leaders were gathering for a CHOGM Commonwealth leaders meeting due to open that day in Queensland. The AFP's case was that the Federal agent had been travelling from Cairns to Perth, that neither he nor the contents of his briefcase were involved in CHOGM matters, and that the reporter had been told that prior to publication. The basis of the reporter's assertions about a security scare was a Victorian police document alerting officers to the theft.

The complaint was upheld. Like some other complainants he wanted more. He felt that the Council should not have handled the complaint 'in-house' and criticized the adjudication for not projecting sufficiently emphatic outcomes.

A further instance he raised concerned a complaint lodged on Christmas Eve 2005 by General Cosgrove a page one story in The Australian about the army experience of his sons. It cannot be discussed in detail because it has not been completed (awaiting more input from General Cosgrove). What is important is that although the complaint was received after office hours, the Executive Secretary was in touch with the editor immediately; a second story, (which has not resolved the issue) was published by the paper.

From the point of view of the Press Council this year's Annual Address initiated an excellent debate. It is very helpful to have regulatory processes questioned by a commentator of his standing. Leaving aside the strength of Commissioner Keelty's comments, which are views unlikely to make newspapers any less bold in reporting what they see as the news, he raised interesting points about print media regulation.

Should the Council be pro-active? From its inception it has been a quasi-judicial body assessing published material after the event. It would take strong advocacy to bring about a change. Should the Council have a role in preventing publication of stories that invade privacy or embarrass individuals? In practice very hard to do. In any case, court injunctions might be sought by outraged individuals who get wind of such stories. The Council is an alternative.

Should the Council investigate allegations of systematic newspaper bias on public issues, as the strong lobbies for causes, e.g., Palestinians and Israelis, regularly urge it to do? These causes are too complex for simple adjudication; no useful resolution is likely. Should the Council attempt to curb opinion pieces to the thoughtful and authoritative? The problem is one person's authoritative is another's outrageous or empty opinion. Can there ever be a precise meaning of the notion of public interest? Editors would insist that assessing the answer to that question is their job, as the circumstances are always unique in some respects. Should the Council be more insistent on speedy resolution of complaints? Yes, steps are being taken to speed up the processes. Should evidence from authorities be given more weight than that of journalists? There is no reason to take such a stand.

As host for the Address I jokingly advised Commissioner Keelty at the outset that I had the privilege of the last word. On reflection this will not be anywhere near the last word. So far the many suggestions for tightening the regulatory regime are matched by as many assertions that newspapers cannot properly inform the public if subjected to more restrictions. That does not mean future debate will cease. Adjudications disappoint those whose cases they do not uphold. Complainants get upset, editors get furious. One inevitable consequence is advocacy of reform of principles or processes. The Press Council is always open to such suggestions, the more so when a successful complainant sees shortcomings.

Professor Ken McKinnon

[See also:
Commissioner Keelty's Address]

Annual Address overview