A Matter of Opinion

In his regular column, the Council's Chairman, Prof David Flint, looks at the publication of controversial opinions and where the Council disagrees with some media critics. He also discusses the results of questionnaires completed at two recent seminars.

Stuart Littlemore's Media Watch did not care for the Council's Adjudication No. 723 on a complaint against a column in The Country Leader. [Editor's note: Littlemore is not the only one. Dorothy Ross described it as one of the Council's worst decisions. Many Council members and officers were embarrassed by the finding. Ed.] Many readers would have found the column offensive. It was certainly homophobic. It claimed that "... because of the media, Sydney was now known as the 'poof' capital of the world." It described AIDS as "God's myxo", and hoped it would work "without hurting too many innocent victims", and would "correct people's mind-set and morals so we can get on with returning this country to its former glory". But it was an opinion column, not a news report.

(The Press Council's principles rule against gratuitous emphasis on sexual preferences. But this refers primarily to the presentation and selling of news, not about opinions. It would be ridiculous, for example, to stop a newspaper from reporting any homophobic, racist or sexist opinions. For a newspaper to report what, for example, Bruce Ruxton says from time to time would not be irresponsible. The Sydney Morning Herald was not irresponsible in reminding readers [on 10 August 1994] that, in 1984, when homosexual law reform was being debated, Joe Schipp, the NSW MLA for Wagga Wagga, said, "... homosexuality is particularly nasty. No wonder AIDS exists. It may be as well if they do not find a cure for AIDS, that is my judgment on it. It legitimises a practice that the community will not accept." Obviously, the electors [and preselectors] in Wagga and across the state would want to know Mr Schipp's views. What possible advantage would there be in stopping the media from referring to this or punishing them for doing so?)

It is true of course that editors need not publish opinion columns. They are not as obviously newsworthy as reporting what a public figure has said. But newspapers often contain opinions which irritate readers. Auberon Waugh's articles in The Spectator are widely read; there would be many people who faithfully read his column but disagree completely with what he says. In the case of The Country Leader column, the author was not as celebrated as Auberon Waugh but the newspaper believed the column was written on behalf of, and vetted by, the NSW Farmers Association before publication.

There was another point: the newspaper offered the complainant the opportunity to reply. As long ago as May 1978, in its Adjudication No. 30, arising from a Townsville newspaper's criticism of the gay community, the Council ruled that an opportunity to reply should be given. At that time, Geoffrey Robertson QC, in People Against The Press, favourably compared this Australian Press Council ruling with those of the British Press Council.

The Press Council does not object to criticism. It welcomes the analysis of its adjudications. It does not believe that its adjudications are infallible: they are opinions on ethical behaviour by a body made up of journalists, editors and members of the public. They stand on their own merits. They are published promptly and prominently by the newspaper criticised.

Media Watch's omission was in not explaining the Council's reasons for the adjudication. Rather it quoted some words, out of context, from a private and confidential letter from our Executive Secretary to the complainant. Media Watch seems to think we were upset because it used a confidential letter - we were not. It was that Media Watch didn't give the Council's reasons for its decision. David Salter, the show's Executive Producer, justified this by saying "Media Watch is a programme of critical commentary and review. It is not a news or current affairs outlet. We reported the Council's decision and the principal reason as given in a letter from the Executive Secretary to the complainant. No issues of 'context' arise."

If a newspaper had done this, the Press Council would have upheld a complaint against it. Media Watch is a programme which readily criticises the media for lesser sins - lapses in grammar, for example. Should not it practice what it preaches?

David Salter, in a letter to the Council, said that the show did "not agree with Oliver Wendell Holmes when he said 'The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the world'. That is not a test of truth at all. Scores of evil falsehoods have been successfully marketed to the world over the centuries. Their acceptance - often for generations - was no evidence of truth.

"That deception of peddling prejudice as fact continues in our daily lives, and the press are often both the instigators and supporters of that harmful process ..."

The Australian Press Council begs to differ: it is in the tradition of Voltaire - "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Media Watch would reject this, as it is very sure of its own opinions and believes that others' opinions should, if racist, sexist, homophobic, ageist etc, be regulated.

Mr Salter is right to the extent that malevolent speech isn't immediately destroyed in the market - it sometimes takes time. It is dangerous, however, to suppress bigoted speech. This often drives extremists underground. Part of the attraction of the Communist Party was that its speech was often acceptable - it talked of liberating the toiling masses, of establishing a proletarian state, of economic justice. The reality was the opposite. At least Hitler told us of his prejudices. The propaganda of the Nazi state was blatantly racist. It's much better to know what people are believe before we give them power.

Suppressing racist speech in the USSR for seventy years did nothing to kill the racist tensions which were always below the surface. The same is true of the former Yugoslavia. When the Nazis were defeated, the new Germany enacted legislation suppressing racist speech. Yet racist attacks in Germany have been a far more serious problem than, say, in the UK. Although Britain has a less than perfect record, perhaps part of the reason is that immigrants there were allowed to become citizens, and not remain guest workers.

Australia has been more successful than most in this area - and not because of government regulation. Australia in the 1940s was made up of two relatively antagonistic tribes - Irish Catholics and Anglo-Saxon Protestants. (The others including Aboriginal people and Asians were on the periphery.) Intertribal marriage was difficult; firms and even government departments were often dominated by Catholics or Masons. It was neither government vision nor vilification laws which changed this. The decision to bring in immigrants from outside Britain and Ireland was made only because these sources were inadequate, and because governments perceived a need to provide a defence against Japanese or other Asian invasion. "Populate or Perish" drove immigration policy. When Europe dried up as a source, and Asia seemed no longer a threat, Asian immigrants were admitted. No longer would an Immigration Minister quip, as one is reported to have done, "Two Wongs don't make a White". No longer would The Bulletin have a masthead which proudly proclaimed "Australia for the White Man".

Australia has achieved much without the dubious benefit of either social engineering or speech regulation. Speech regulation has an authoritarian lineage. Unless speech incites immediate violence, it should be free. Controlling opinions, even foolish or extreme opinions, has no place in a democratic society.

 Surveys

I spoke at a conference in Indonesia just after three newspapers were banned there. My topic was "Press Freedom, Laws and Responsibility in Common Law Countries" and was followed by a lively discussion (according to the Jakarta Post, questions were "hurled" at me). The audience was per-ceptive and demonstrated an understanding of various media and political issues.

I had referred to some confrontations between the law and journalism in Australia - from Governor Darling through Arthur Calwell and down to some of the latest contempt charges, including the jailing of journalists. One young woman, referring to the article about President Soeharto some years ago in the Sydney Morning Herald, asked me: "Isn't it then untrue for your government to have said that it could not control its press?"

We have been taking surveys at each of our seminars, and we did this in Jakarta. The participants (45 per cent women) consisted mainly of students (43 per cent) and journalists (28 per cent). They supported a free press within limits. (The statement - it is important to have a free press even if the press acts irresponsibly - attracted only 38 per cent support with 57 per cent opposed.) 81 per cent of the participants agreed with the proposition "Even if the news media have their facts right, they should be concerned if making them public will hurt people". However, they thought the news media usually act responsibly (59 per cent) and, considering deadline pressures, the news media provide as much accurate information as can be expected (77 per cent).

When asked about their attitudes to freedom of expression issues, the participants supported a right to read anything even if others consider it pornographic (54 per cent), but a plurality believed the government should prohibit material it considers threatening to national security (48 per cent to 42 per cent). They were obviously, and understandably, worried by the proposition that every adult has a right to make a public statement less than complimentary about an ethnic group (with 39 per cent opposed to the idea and 61 per cent neutral, none were in favour).

The Council ran a similar survey at a seminar on media ethics at the University of Tasmania, superbly organised by Stephen Tanner of the Department of Political Science. There were some interesting speeches from, amongst others, former Premier Robin Grey, NSW Privacy Commissioner Kevin O'Connor, Dr Simon Longstaff of the St James Ethics Centre and Michael Courtney, a former editor of the Launceston Examiner.

Another former Premier, Michael Field, in a down-to-earth address, told us of the way in which politicians and the media work. It was refreshing to hear someone speaking so frankly. One of his stories was about how he was stopped in the street by one of his constituents who said, "I saw you on TV last week. Don't know what you said, but your tie was crooked!"

Those who completed the survey (55 per cent women) were mainly students (46 per cent) and journalists or other media related employees (27 per cent). 71 per cent of them disagreed with the statement, "Television is more believable than newspapers because you can actually see what is happening". (64 per cent of the Jakarta participants had disagreed with this statement as well.) However, the proposition that newspapers are usually the most accurate and reliable medium divided the Indonesians equally 41 per cent each way with 18 per cent undecided, while the Tasmanian group found newspapers the most accurate 48 per cent to 32 per cent.

Those in Hobart thought that the news media usually act responsibly when collecting information for stories (54 per cent agreeing with the proposition) but they were less supportive on accuracy. When asked their opinion of the statement, "considering deadline pressures, the news media provide as much accurate information as can be expected", 41 per cent agreed and 27 per cent disagreed.

What was reassuring was that, even after the usual bagging of the Press Council by some of the speakers, the participants in Hobart liked the Press Council concept (82 per cent thought it valuable and a further 15 per cent found it useful) and the Australian Press Council itself (53 per cent thought it valuable and 24 per cent found it useful). They ranked Press Council adjudications lower with 47 per cent finding them valuable and 32 per cent finding them useful. Strong approval of the Council's defence of freedom of speech and of the press was noted - 61 per cent finding this valuable and 27 per cent finding it useful.

The survey asked them about the composition of the Council. The result - too few journalists, too many publishers and just about the right number of public members. Perhaps, the Council should explain that the publishers are often represented by journalists or editors.

Prof David Flint

[ return to top ]

Return to APC News 1994 Index

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