Asia-Pacific Regional Press Freedom Seminar

Establishing a code of ethics
Sir John Jeffries
Chairman of the New Zealand Press Council

A written code of ethics is a document produced by the body possessing jurisdiction over complaints from the public about ethical standards for the media. Sometimes it is named Statement of Principles (that name chosen by Australia and New Zealand Press Councils) Code of Practice (UK Press Complaints Commission and British Columbia Press Council) or simply Code of Ethics. As I hope will become clear the NZPC regards the adoption of a Statement of Principles as essential to the proper conduct of a regulatory press council as it informs the print industry and the public, in a written document, the press council's lodestar in that notoriously complex field of media ethics.

The history of the NZPC is instructive and I hope those contemplating introduction of a press council, or moving towards adoption of a code will benefit from our experience.

The NZPC was established in 1972 by the newspaper industry and the journalists' union both of whom are the constituent members in the Constitution. It was begun in a materially different environment from that existing today in the print industry. It was very obviously based on the British model, which had commenced its work in 1954. It was self-regulation with a wary eye on the real possibility of statutory intervention. Thirty years on governments have not the same appetite for state intervention and expenditure of tax dollars, but the sentiment has not entirely receded in New Zealand. The possibility of statutory intervention was a factor in 1997 when the NZPC embarked on an extensive appraisal of itself and its mission to serve the public as an independent body mainly, but not exclusively, concerned with complaint resolution for the public.

A few observations on self-regulation with particular reference to the New Zealand experience. From its inception (maybe the second independent press council after the UK) the NZPC has been an independent self-regulatory body for the industry. Self-regulation by definition means such a body much constantly review and when necessary amend its own mandate. It is not without its problems. Without the power of a statute how does a press council "legislate" to include within its jurisdiction those publishers who point blank refuse to submit to a complaint from the public? The public is understandably perplexed when a press council declines jurisdiction between of a recalcitrant publisher. I will say no more on this vexing topic for New Zealand.

From hereon I will focus on the issue of a code of practice. In a preface to a book on the British Press Council published in 1967 Lord Devlin (its then Chairman, a retired Law Lord) had this to say:

"The Press Council has not, unlike many other professional bodies, drafted a code. It has, whether it realised it or not, adopted the methods of generations of judges who produced the common law of England. They let it grow out of the decisions they gave."

That was 1967 and the NZPC was established 5 years later and followed the common law development on a case by case basis. I will ask you to accept from me without further exposition that that method increasingly over the years failed in the UK and New Zealand. The Press Complaints Commission, as successor to the Press Council, abandoned the concept and introduced a strict Code of Practice.

By the 1990's, some 20 years after the establishment of the NZPC, the Council was coming under increasing pressure by way of adverse public comment from assorted people with an interest in the media. Their principal criticisms were mobilised around no written code of ethics and no jurisdiction over magazines. In the last 30 years magazines have exercised a burgeoning influence over New Zealanders' life styles. The taking of jurisdiction was and still is a problem for us but that is another story.

The failure to tell the industry and the public by way of a code of ethics where the Council stood on the very cornerstone of the mission as a complaint resolution body was a powerful argument that could not be avoided. If the UK and Australian Press Council had written codes why not New Zealand?

Focussing strictly on the industry it took some convincing of the necessity to have a written document. Understandably they were a little apprehensive that it might become a charter for the discontents and perhaps result in an increased level of complaints. It was obvious early in the process that we had to take our constituent members with us in the drafting.

Late in 1997 we established a working party consisting of representatives of the Newspapers Publishers Association and the Union both of who were our constituent members. There were also included members of the Press Council and the drafting group was named a Working Party. Very quickly it became clear that the group who proposed a Statement of Principles (namely the NZPC) were expected to carry the burden of producing the working drafts for the others to examine critically and make suggestions and amendments as we proceeded.

In this paper I will spare you the tiresome details of how we worked our way to a consensus. Some of us from the Press Council undertook the searching for every known code or statement or principles and freely adopted for our own the central features, which we knew had to be addressed. Nor surprisingly there was a considerable commonality with other codes. Some issues such as privacy, (a bigger issue in NZ than elsewhere because of our Privacy ACT) accuracy, corrections, confidentiality, children and discrimination, to name several of the more important issues were in most codes. I will return to some of those hereafter but for no I want to say something about the overall approach of the Council.

It was important to us in communicating with the public that the Statement of Principles widened the complaint process for the public rather than constricting it. It was also necessary that the Council stressed that it was itself guided by the overriding principle of freedom of expression. Our experience in dealing with complaints was that the public sometimes did not have as firm a grasp of freedom of speech as we thought ideal. New Zealanders have not the benefit of ingrained acceptance of freedom of expression as say the Americans with their First Amendment. We now have a Bill of Rights Act, which incorporates protection for freedom of expression and that Act is slowly making a difference.

From now on I will mention some of the problems we had with the more contentious separate Principles. This approach I hope will provide the flavour of some of the problems of drafting and putting into practice a Statement of Principles

Corrections

This Principle caused difficulty for industry members of the WP. Not surprisingly because over the years individual newspapers had developed their own methods of dealing with errors in their publications. The final version was a matter of compromise.

Privacy

This was not easy and the drafting of this Principle must be governed by the particular mileu where it is being considered.

Children and young people

There was considerable debate on this Principle and it has given us some difficulty in practice. The drafting was taking place not too long after the tragic death of Princess Diana in August 1997. There was strong reaction in the UK over the Royal children and the PCC had a good deal to say.

We had an important complaint about the publication of a coloured photograph of an 11-year-old girl who had converted a vehicle and it was published on the front page of the Acland morning daily. The photograph made a poor effort at disguising her identity and there were two complaints from bodies directly interested in children's welfare as well as her family. We upheld the complaint. We followed that with a special item in our Annual Report for the year 2000 on publishing photographs of children. The overall treatment of children in the media in circumstances that might jeopardise their welfare is not so simple an issue as might first appear. Greater understanding of child development and its inescapable effect on the resultant adult have led agencies in society primarily responsible for children to attend more closely on protective measures particularly in privacy areas. On the other hand the most serious crime of intentional killing has embraced ever-younger children of which the Bulger murder some years ago in England was an horrific example.

The Press Council in applying its principles must make careful decisions balancing redemptive movements of society in providing greater protection for children against the necessity of a society to be fully informed about a group central to its existence.

Comment and fact

This particular Principle probably caused more debate than any other did. In the prior drafts the industry was concerned that insufficient scope was allowed for the increasing demand for analysis and might have inhibited analytical comment, particularly on financial issues. In practice in the complaints we have dealt with under this Principle we have encountered more difficulty than for other Principles.

Photographs

There was debate on the wording but in practice we have not had many complaints. Those we have had have been on some photographs being too explicit.

Letters

As might be expected we get many complaints about non-publication of letters to the editor but we have been staunch in our adjudications that publication is the prerogative of the editor.

In summary the NZPC has had approximately 27 years experience without a code document, a couple of years drafting and negotiating, and now over 2 years of being governed by a Statement of Principles. Unhesitatingly I say the proper course of action was followed and individual Council members have received benefit from the Statement, which assists us all in our thinking about media ethics. There is an old saw of the law that a coach and four could be driven through any statute if one set one's mind to the task. Definitely true of our Statement except perhaps more horses might pass through.

Sir John Jeffries

[ return to top ]

Documents with the icon require the Acrobat Reader, a Free Utility from Adobe. Click here for more information.