Australian Press Council Prize 2001

Principle 5 states, in part, that publications should make fact and opinion clearly distinguished. To what extent is such a clear division between fact and opinion possible and desirable?

News and comment are two important components of any publications. Where possible, these two areas should be kept separate and marked as distinct from each other. Freedom of the press carries a responsibility to the public and the Australian Press Council strives to ensure the media upholds their obligations. The Press Council says it is "the right of a newspaper to publish what it reasonably considers to be news, without fear or favour, and the right to comment fairly upon it." Fair comment and opinion is acceptable if it is clearly differentiated from fact. The Australian Press Council's statement of principles emphasises this distinction in principle 5:

"A publication is justified in strongly advocating its own views on controversial topics provided that it treats readers fairly by:

making fact and opinion clearly distinguishable"

Opinion must not be presented as fact, yet it must be based upon fact. Fair comment should be based upon concrete facts and supporting evidence. Fact and opinion should be distinct from each other as the media have immense power to influence their audience and to affect the lives of the subjects whom they report upon. Professor David Peningtom suggests conservative opinion columnists have a sign)ficant affect on public perceptions. "They have influence on members of the public seeking simple answers," he suggests (quote in Hoare, 2001: 12).

To what degree then is the media distinguishing fact from opinion? In the Australian Financial Review on 5 April 2001, the chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Authority, Professor David Flint, criticised journalists for falling to distinguish between news and comment. He said:

"There is a right and a freedom to comment, provided that fact and opinion are not blurred.

Not to do this is contrary to the code of ethics, including the principles of the Press Council" (Koutsoukis, 2001: 20).

There seems to be a widely held view that the media are failing in their responsibility to separate fact from opinion. David Kushma of the Memphis Commercial Appeal says he sees a number of stories "which are billed as news stories ... [that go] into expressing opinion. I think it's a disservice to the readers and a failure of the editorial function" (quoted in Robertson, 1999: 2). Michael Kelly says this style of commentary leading-the news" may be acceptable in magazines, but the problem is an increasing appearance of opinionated tones in "straight news" stories (Robertson, 1999: 7). Time Magazine 's Walter Laacson suggests "We don't separate writing from reporting the way we used to" (Robertson, 1999: 7). While editors and writers agree that there is a line to be drawn between factual news and opinion or editorials, Robertson says it is not clear where this line should be drawn (1999: 2).

One example of the media's failure to separate fact from opinion was in news coverage of the Clinton sex scandal. White House press secretary Mike McCurry criticised coverage of the scandal as "opinion masquerading as fact" (Kirtz, 1998: 24). A survey found that 60 per cent of respondents believed reported had done only a fair or poor job of being "objective" about the President's innocence or guilt and 80 per cent thought commentators and analysts had devoted too much attention to the issue (Kirtz, 1998: 24). Press credibility was damaged by not dividing fact from opinion.

Max Frankel, a former editor of the New York Times, claims: The best [journalists] know how to distinguish between solid reporting and conscientious analysis the one hand and personal opinion on the other. It is their rash imitators that often confuse the two" (quoted in Robertson, 1999: 6).

Geoff Murray agrees that "[w]hat often gets inexperienced journalists in trouble is their lack of understanding of the difference between fact and opinion". When they confuse fact with opinion, inexperienced journalists risk losing their credibility (Murray, 1996:82). The problem is acute in Asia, where many young journalists lack basic newsgathering and writing skills (Murray, 1996: 83).

The simplest way to separate fact from opinion is for the journalist to keep their opinion out of the story, according to Granato. To eliminate opinions, Granato says writers should avoid using adjectives that tell the reader what to think about a non (1991: 43). Furthermore, he describes how everybody possesses "cultural, psychological, political and social filters that colour our interpretations of the environment". Journalists are expected to be aware of their own biases and "blind spots" in order to prevent them from influencing their reporting (Granato, 1991: 43). Objective can be achieved by writing in the third person, using neutral language and attributing opinion to the relevant sources (Granato, 1991: 62).

A primary method of distinguishing fact from opinion then is by limiting media opinion to editorial and opinion pages. However, confining opinion to editorial and opinion pages does not automatically divide fact from opinion. Opinion pieces still contain facts in support of the comments that are made. Rivers believes it is fundamental that critical comment made in opinion pieces should be supported (1964:238). He says, "the most common weakness in opinion writing is the lack of illustrative examples. Too many writers are content simply to make charges and pronounce opinion," (1964: 238).

Opinion pieces are often in the form of editorials. Rivers suggests that editorial writers should present facts honestly and fully, not basing editorials on half-truth (1964, 248). Even editorial comment must be based on an accurate presentation of the facts. Editorials should draw objective conclusions from the stated facts, basing such conclusions upon a weighted voice and the editorial writer should not publish anything against their own conscience (Rivers, 1964:248).

Both news stories and opinion pieces may feature the opinions of sources. Granato suggests that every source is biased, as they all have their own agenda (1991: 44). News stories depend on sources' views, but it is vital that all opinions are attributed to their source to mark them as distinct from the facts of the story. To achieve fairness and balance in news stories, journalists interview people with different biases, accommodating these "competing views" in their stories (Granato, 1991: 44). By attributing opinions and balancing oppositional viewpoints, journalists can produce fair stories where fact is distinct from sources' opinions.

Recent conflict between Fairfax columnist Bettina Arndt and Adele Horin has emphasised the importance of facts to support opinion and correct attribution of opinion to sources. Arndt's critics have accused her of blurring opinion and news and claim she uses evidence selectively to support her own point of view (Simons, 2001: 6). Horin is guilty of the same charge. Simons suggest that in one particular article, Horin's use of the words "well-known anti-childcare crusader" appeared to be a statement of accepted fact, rather than the opinion of Horin or her sources and the words should have been clearly attributed (2001: 7). There are even suggestions that alternative viewpoints are being suppressed, a threat to the trouble can arise from a failure to distinguish fact from opinion.

Despite the journalist's best efforts to keep opinion separate from news, some bias and decisions based on the reporter's opinions will always influence the news. The President of Associate Press, Lou Boccardi, says that as soon as the reporter decides what stories to cover that day, judgements have been made (Columbia Journalism Review, 1997: 5). The choice of stories reflect the news team's opinions on what is newsworthy. Likewise, the choice of journalist's decisions, according to the New York Times' Bill Keller.

"Every word represents a choice, and these choices affect how a story in understood by readers." (Columbia Journalism Review, 1997: 2).

Marvin Kalb of Harvard University says that even if writers know they are not allowed to express opinion, "sharp words" can convey a bias and slant the story (Robertson, 1993: 3).

It seems then that while there are theoretical ways of distinguishing fact from opinion, in practice the distinction is much more difficult. Every decision made by journalists, editors and sources in the production of new story is based on their personal opinion and biases. In this way, opinion and bias will always be concealed within the story's "facts".

When then is it important for publications to distinguish what is opinion from what is fact? The main argument is that the media plays a fundamental role in the functioning of democracy through its role as the fourth "estate". Thus idea sees the media as a watchdog over the political process and an advocate of societal interests. The chair of the Australian Press Council, Kenneth McKinnon, believes ''[f]earless reporting is at the heart of the defence of democracy". He says, "the Press Council has to be constantly vigilant that there are no restrictions on newspapers' role as one of the key instrumentalities by which democracy is preserved and enhanced" (quoted in Day, 2000: 3).

In 1977, a British Royal Commission found that the press must be free to publish the facts and opinions which a democratic electorate needs to make responsible judgements (Lacy & Longman, 1997: 25). It is important to provide the public with the facts and opinion they need to make informed decisions. Conley argues that if democracy depends on a well-informed public, journalists must present a range of facts and opinion, including those with which they disagree (1997: 286). The role of the media within democracy demands a distinction between fact and opinion. They weight that media reports play in public decision-making depends on the audience understanding what is factually true and what is merely another person's opinion. For example, in Germany during World War Two, the media disguised Nazi propaganda and biased opinions as fact. This has important implications for German popular support of Hitler and his war effort.

The immense influence of the media is a crucial consideration in the presentation of fact and opinion. Lacey and Longman describe a study by Page and Shapiro that found American public opinion follows the dominant messages produced by the American media (1997: 64). David Fan also found that opinion changes could be predicted by studying media messages (Lacey & Longman, 1997: 68). McQuail suggests that the media can shape our perception of social reality through the constructed images of the world they present to the audience (1977: 263). The way the media selects and combines facts, opinion and images subconsciously constructs our view and understanding of reality. It is therefore important to distinguish fact from opinion wherever possible so the audience can construct their own reality and make their own decisions.

This leads to the argument concerning the media's role to inform. The public depends on the media for information about issues about issues and events which are beyond their immediate experience. Knowledge specialists (journalists) communicate information to the uninformed audience in a trusted news format (Lacey & Longman, 1997: x). For example, in describing coverage if the legal injecting room at Kings Cross, Paul Dillon from the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre says:

"Only a minority in the wider community have direct experience of heroin abuse, so public perceptions will be shaped by the media's coverage," (quoted in Hoare, 2001: 12).

The press presents "evidence and arguments " which can be used by the audience to make judgements (Lacey & Longman, 1997: 19). However, news presents a biased selection of events and viewpoints. The media is the only source of information some people have on certain issues and as such, the media must present the full range of facts and opinion and mark them as distinct from other. This allows the audience to adequately judge the information they receive.

In providing information to the public, the media set the agenda for public debate. McCombs and Shaw suggest the mass media is the only contact most people have with politics and voting decisions are largely based on the information available in news stories, opinion columns and editorials (1972: 127). Lang and Lang claim that the media force attention onto certain issues, suggesting what individuals should know about, think about and having feelings about, influencing attitudes on political issues (McCombs & Shaw, 1972: 128). Professor Penington suggests, "politicians react to public opinion, which is shaped, to a considerable extent, by the media" (quoted in Hoare, 2001: 12). While the media set the political agenda, ABA chairman Professor David Flint claims that the news agenda is influenced by the personal belief and commitments of journalists (Koutsoukis, 2001: 20). The media's ability to set the agenda for debate, particularly in politics, shows how important it is for journalists not to let their own opinions influence the facts they report.

The final reason for distinguishing fact from opinion is due to their important functions as defence against defamation. The ABC Legal Department says that in Australia, "reports of truth" and "honestly held opinion or comment based on true facts" can both be used as defence against defamation (1999: 7). The defence of fair comment depends on comments being based on statements of fact, opinions must relate to a matter of public interest and the opinion must be honestly held (Conley, 1997: 253). Conley says that the defence of fair comment demands that, "the opinion must be associated with statements of fact but must not be presented as fact" (1997: 253). The ABC Legal Department emphasises that "No protection is given to what are in reality statements of fact simply because they are stated as opinions" (1999: 12). There are thus legal reasons why fact and opinion should be distinct from each other and why opinion must still relate to proven facts.

These arguments suggest that distinguishing between fact and opinion is not only desirable but is also crucial for democratic and legal reasons. However, some efforts have been made to justify an increasing tendency towards blurring fact and opinion. Robertson suggests that testing the limits of journalistic writing has been taking place for decades and Tom Wolfe's "New Journalism" in the 1960s is one such example (1999: 4).

Hellmann suggests that new journalism "deals with fact through fable", exploring meaning beyond our "media-constructed reality" (1981: xi). Hellmann claims that:

"Admires of conventional journalism have portrayed the conflict with new journalism as one of objectivity versus subjectivity and fact versus fiction." (1981: 4).

Instead, he suggests it is a conflict between a disguised perspective and an admitted one (1981: 4). This form of writing recognises that "journalism can never passively mirror the whole of reality" (Hellmann, 1981: 4). New Journalism represents facts through new and interesting forms, such as writing in the style of fiction. Maintaining objectivity and distinguishing fact from opinion are secondary to writing colourful and intriguing stories.

Steve Lopez of the Philadelphia Inquirer says that while increasing opinion in news is a problem, concern with excessive commentary should not overshadow the need to explore new vivid ways of presenting information (Robertson, 1999: 4). Chip Scanlan says market pressure for news stories to "stand out" is not necessarily a bad thing (Robertson, 1999: 4). It is more important to appeal to readers with interesting news styles than to become too concerned with delineating fact from opinion.

An increasing tendency towards interpretive reporting is also making the distinction between fact and opinion increasingly difficult. Bill Keller says interpretation is more important today than it was in the past. He says:

"I think there is a line between interpretation and partiality, but its one that we often stumble towards in the fog. It's the line, you might say, between applying our judgement and passing judgement." (Columbia Journalism Review, 1997: 3).

The increasing role of journalists to "interpret" the news is widely observed. Henningham (cited in Conley, 1997: 285) found that today, journalists are increasing encourage to express their own views and interpretations in their stories. Interpretation should be based on clearly stated facts and Conley says that the central question is whether the reporter has separated fact from opinion (1997: 285). Lou Boccardi argues that news can be interpreted, analysed and explain while remaining impartial (Columbia Journalism Review, 1997: 5-6). It seems that while fact and opinion, objectivity and subjectivity can be distinguished in interpretative reporting, this distinction is difficult to make, meaning that fact and opinion are becoming increasingly blurred in interpretive reporting.

The opposition between fact and comments can be illustrated in reference to recent news coverage of the controversial comments of NSW Education Minister John Aquilina concerning a massacre threat at Cecil Hills High School. The media needed to make an important distinction between John Aquilina's comments concerning the "theory" that the boy has access to a gun and the later revelation of the "fact" that there was never a gun. The implications of reporting theories, opinions or comments as "fact", as Mr Aquilina did, were wide-reaching. It affected the reputation of the unnamed boy and his family, the school and diminished government credibility. While the media were not necessarily at fault here, there are important lessons the media can learn from the failure to delineate rumour or comment from fact.

The media were used as a scapegoat by the government, with John Aquilina's actions allegedly being motivated by his fear of what the media would report if he did not say something first (Toohey, 2001: 28). However, Hewett suggests that no journalists were even close to breaking this story beforehand (2001: 24). The media have failed somewhat in their obligations to report the facts. The majority of stories have focussed on denigrating the minister's actions, failing to provide sufficient balance. While many opinion and comment pieces have been devoted to the issue, "hard news" stories what is fact from also appear to have been critical of John Aquilina. This is a prime example of the implications of failing to clearly distinguish what is fact from what is not and the media are not entirely blameless in this regard.

It is thus evident that fact and opinion can be distinguish from each other. However, the advent of "New Journalism" and the rise of interpretive reporting are making this distinction increasingly difficult. Consequently, the media is being subjected to harsh criticism for blurring fact and opinion. It is both desirable and necessary to distinguish fact from opinion. The media has an important role in the functioning of democracy and has the power both to inform and influence the public. The distinction between fact and opinion is also central in the defence against defamation. To distinguish fact from opinion, journalists must be aware of how the selection of facts and sources and the choice of words alter a story's meaning. Journalists must work consciously to prevent their own prejudices from influencing their reporting. Ultimately, the distinction between fact and opinion is an important one, despite the difficulty of making such a distinction and the increasing failure of the media to uphold its obligations.