Australian Press Council Prize - 1994

The 1994 Prize was held in two sections, for secondary and tertiary students. Entrants were asked to write an essay on the subject, "The Freedom of the Press and Its Responsibility". The winners of the 1994 Prize have been determined and are announced on this page. We also append some comments from the judges and reprint the two winning entries from the secondary students section.

Secondary School Students' section winner
Tertiary Students' section winner
Highly Commended
Judges' comments
Veronica Angelatos' essay
Ben Bartl's essay

Winners - Secondary School Students' section

Veronica Angelatos

Veronica was born on 4 October, 1977 and is presently completing the final year of the VCE at Loreto Mandeville Hall, Toorak. There she is studying English, Literature, Art, French, City in History, and Texts & Traditions. Her interests and hobbies include ballet, tennis, French cinematography, drawing, art exhibitions, archaeology and Italian. She enjoys writing (in French also), and to date has been awarded Third Place in the national Canon Young Writers of the Year Competition consecutively in 1993 and 1994. Also in May of last year, her satirical review of Home Alone, "Alone in a Palace of Fantasy" was published in The Age's 'Student Update'. Veronica intends to go to university and then pursue a career in Fine Arts/Journalism which will allow her to combine her love for writing and languages with art and travel.

Veronica's essay is below.

Ben Bartl

Ben was born on 20 November 1977. He is currently enrolled in Year 12 at Marcellin College, Bulleen, where he is studying English, Geography, German, Literature, Legal Studies and Politics. His future aspirations include wanting to do combined B.A./LL.B. degree, majoring in English and Politics for the Arts degree and specialising in Media Law. He also intends to travel and compete in triathalons.

Ben's essay is below.

Winners - Tertiary Students' section

Deslea Judd

Deslea R. Judd, 21, is a third year student of the Bachelor of Theology at the Catholic Institute of Sydney, Manly. She intends to commence her M. Th. in 1996, specialising in ethics. A freelance writer, Deslea has credits in Dolly, Catholic Weekly, Sydney Star Observer and Campaign, and has an upcoming article in Jewel. She also edited Editorial Profiles Monthly in 1994. She lives in Sydney with her cat and has plans for marriage next year.

[return to top]

Highly Commended

Secondary section: Theresa Smith

Theresa, who lives in the NSW country, is currently in year 12 and attends St Mary's College, Gunnedah. She lives on a property and has to travel 58 kilometres to school each day. Theresa is the second eldest of four children. Her two younger brothers also attend St Mary's College. Theresa hopes to attend university next year to study either journalism, economics, or business management.

Tertiary section: Kim Tunbridge

Kim, 20, is from Sydney, gaining her HSC at Kur-ing-gai High. She has recently completed a Bachelor of Arts degree at Bond University, majoring in Public Relations, Law and Japanese. She is currently completing a Bachelor of Laws at Bond University, specialising in Intellectual and Industrial Property Law, and Corporate Transactions Law

Kim is working as a freelance Public Relations consultant, having some experience in the field with the Bond University Marketing Department, Neville Jeffress Advertising, Holt Public Relations, George Patterson Advertising and some radio and TV stations.

Kim's interests include acting, singing, dancing, reading, photography, music, politics, dining out, theatre and art.

[return to top]

Judges' Comments

The judges were of the opinion that a majority of the entries demonstrated a less than satisfactory approach to the response to the questions raised by the topic, "The Freedom of the Press and Its Responsibility".

Too many entrants relied on personal opinion, unsupported by evidence, to present their case. In particular, there was a reliance on generalisations on the media based on a selective sample of press, usually the general circulation magazines and "current affairs" television programs. As a result, the judges read too many shallow analyses of the handling of the O J Simpson trial and the travails of the Princess of Wales. Very little effort was made to link these matters, and the (tabloid) media's handling of them, to the wider questions of the freedom and responsibility of the press - the questions raised by the essay topic.

Additionally, because many entrants did not adequately define the terms of the subject, their entries tended to be subjective views on the media coverage of a few over-exposed events. This left no room for any sort of well-founded analysis of either the freedom given to the press or its consequent responsibilities.

The judges recommend that, in future years, entrants be given clearer guidelines on the form and content of the essays. In particular, entrants should be advised that their entries should demonstrate some reading on the subject presented (including the provision of a bibliography) and be in the form of a formal essay. The essays should attempt to comply as closely as possible to the word-count maxima in the separate competitions, to enable them to argue more convincingly their thesis. The judges also suggested that only entries submitted as double-spaced typescript should be accepted.

In the case of secondary students, class assignments, not done especially for the Prize, should not be accepted.

[return to top]

Veronica Angelatos' essay

Australia is perceived as 'the lucky country' and indeed we Australians certainly enjoy 'an each-way bet.' 1995 had barely dawned when, on the western front local journalists vented their frustration at the 'chequebook' mentality of the British tabloids, a representative of whom had stepped in to curtail that interview with Ashok Baljoresai, the rescued yachtsman forced to bury his recently-acquired wife at sea. Simultaneously, on the eastern seaboard, Woman's Day was triumphantly touting to all and sundry its scoop, the 'Bob 'n' Blanche' circus, with a promised encore performance at that infamous hour the following Sunday, amidst heated speculation of a price tag in the vicinity of a cool quarter of a million! The co-existence of such anomalous events seem to have passed unchallenged - such is the democracy of our society.

Many amongst us would merely cringe at Mr. Hawke's crass fall from the dignity of public office, believing that it reflects more on the egotistical nature of the man himself rather than upon our political heritage. Others would denounce it as a glaring omen that the Australian press is firmly-footed on that very same downhill slide now synonymous with Fleet Street. Once the respected home of journalism, this institution has increasingly become besotted with the oneupmanship of its exposes of royal stupidity and celebrity excesses, an obsession which paradoxically sees Britain, along with Gambia, ranked seventeenth in the world for its freedom of the press. Yet few inhabitants of our vast sunburnt land would not defend to the hilt the right of the press to present the issues of the day, since the black abyss of the alternative, exemplified by the repression in Iraq, is just too repugnant for our 'fair-go' sensitivity to contemplate.

So we continue to swallow a cosmopolitan diet of pulp which traverses every fibre of our lives. Our voracious appetites devour an incessant smorgasbord of 'penny-pinching politicians pursuing personal propaganda' ... of 'escalating erosion of the ecosystem encouraging extinction' ... of 'alarming abductions, assaults, arrests, arguments for anti-discrimination, anti-abortion, anti-' . . all peppered with side-serves of 'recipes for perfect "pav", pizza or pappadams, helpful hints to banish pimples and piles, not to forget the odd anorexic princess or sexcraving Hollywood heart-throb'. But before chorusing with Oliver, "Please Sir, may I have some more?", we should be mindful of the ramifications of this pervasive force of the press, its liberties and its attendant responsibilities.

In his essay on Newspeak in Nineteen Eighty-Four George Orwell effectively highlighted the power of language to both create and to abolish ideas. Today the incursion of the electronic media into our newsgathering resources may well have trivialised script into mere captions to accompany images of banality and sensationalism, but the visual impact of such reporting cannot fail to colour our reactions to the coverage of the same issues by the print media. Witness the saturation of up-to-the-minute footage of global events like the Gulf War, or the Kobe earthquake. Journalists are therefore faced with 'a twin-edged sword', to maintain impartiality and professional credibility, as well as to stay at 'the cutting edge' of stories whenever they break on the newsfront. Thus competition and the pursuit of the circulation dollar can sometimes result in an abuse of freedom of expression and obfuscation of responsibility.

The classic concept of a dedicated newshound zealously tracking his story most definitely became horribly skewed in the case of Mrs. Wendy Wilson, mother of the Khmer Rouge captive, David Wilson. Trampling not only her roof and garden but, more importantly, her inherent right to mourn her son in private, insensitive practitioners of the craft portrayed the ugly side of the press run amok, as though totally oblivious of article 9 of the journalists' own code of ethics which expressly confirms that they 'shall have the right to resist compulsion to intrude upon [private grief and personal privacy]'. When Mrs. Wilson eventually broke her silence, she was justifiably scathing in her criticism. Whilst she acknowledged that the media can be constructive, in this instance they could help neither herself nor David. Rather the experience had exacerbated her pain and anger, begging the question: "How do we balance a right to free expression with a right to privacy?"

On the other hand, claims by Alexander Downer (and more particularly his spouse Nicky) that he too was a 'victim' of the press gallery, with his resignation being the natural consequence of its malicious collusion with the Labour Government, are not so sustainable. Although he and his party may well have legitimate complaints about the reflexive or deliberately biased denigration of Liberal policies and views by a press that seemed to increasingly encircle him in a feeding frenzy, Mr. Downer was in fact 'his own worst enemy'. Catastrophically inane puns like 'the things that batter' ensured that he became an easy target for barbs on 'topical' issues such as sexism, racism, homophobia, as well as 'out-of-date' traditionalism. With politics at all levels conceded by the press and public alike as a 'blood sport', it is little wonder then, that whenever either was obliged to make a judgment on the latest anti-Downer leak or faux pas, they almost unanimously condemned him to the political wilderness. As figures in the limelight of public scrutiny, Mr. Downer and his ilk on both sides of the political spectrum must therefore accept responsibility for their actions and recognise the freedom of the press (and the community), to evaluate their performance. Had he more swiftly packed his bags with appropriate decorum, the media bloodbath would have been averted.

For if members of the public like Mrs. Wilson need to be protected on occasions from the unwanted 'oppression' of the press, then they also have a fundamental 'right to know', since knowledge is essential to informed decisions. Nowhere is such information more critical than in the political arena since an informed electorate can, through the secrecy of the ballot box, exert power, forcing governments to act. Despite the cynics who hold the media, especially newspapers, in low esteem, dismissing them as unreliable sources of information, it is investigative journalism which has brought to the surface the corruption of bad administration, the evils of broken promises or unpopular agendas. Self-regulation and government legislation on libel and defamation have served to check the scope of such endeavours, but have also too frequently ensnared the journalist in a conflict between ethics and the law when it comes to the confidentiality of his source(s). Confidentiality is obviously crucial to much investigative research, so the recommendation by last year's Senate standing committee that journalists be granted a 'qualified' privilege, in the vein of that already afforded to the medical, legal and religious professions, could only help to clarify the feud between 'freedom' and 'responsibility'.

Nevertheless, inconsistencies within Australia's disorderly defamation laws have themselves most hampered free expression and responsible reporting. Thus the High Court ruling in Theophanous v The Herald and Weekly Times, that the Constitution afforded protection from intimidation and defamation action to those who commented on individuals involved in the political forum, is a milestone in the maintenance of the established freedom and character of the Australian press. Whilst this decision goes some way to redress that incongruity which allows politicians the freedom to say what they wish under parliamentary privilege and then to litigate against their critics, we are still far removed from the American position. In the United States, with its 24-hour news services and constitutional guarantees of a free press, the gamut of 'public figures' has burgeoned to encompass not just political but also minor sporting and community identities, all of whom are prevented from suing for defamation except in the case where those who published the comments knew them to be false.

Meanwhile, ongoing debate here on cross-ownership of the media, the laudability of maintaining a plurality within the industry, and the proposed racial vilification legislation strikes at the very heart of the freedom of the Australian press, its ability accurately to present the issues, to provide reasoned argument, to stimulate discussion. Boundaries between radio, television, print and telephony may blur, but John Stuart Mills' contentions for freedom of thought and expression remain sound, and his central principle that it ought to be restricted if it causes harm to others is encapsulated in our censorship laws (though their efficacy in policing pornography is questionable). Irrespective of the dissatisfied 19% canvassed in the Herald Sun's October, 1994 phone poll, Australians do savour the fruits of a free press that is placed third in the world behind Belgium and New Zealand. True, the press may not always 'get it right', but whenever such 'rights' are transgressed and abused, it feels the brunt of its peers, the law, and society. Ultimately, we are free to 'love 'em or leave 'em'! While it is possible to educate, one cannot legislate for 'good taste' on either side of the newsstand. So if journalistic diarrhoea like that covering 'the cavorting love-birds' gives offence and yet is a sell-out success, does it not then speak volumes on our own hypocritical gluttony, to 'have our freedom of the press cake and eat it too?'

[return to top]

Ben Bartl's essay

Everyday approximately 5.3 million Australians read a daily newspaper (1), which places the press in a very special position. From the very first century when the Romans had 'acta diurna' until this the twentieth century, the press has had huge power in setting the political agenda and people's opinions on particular issues. Bias is the single biggest problem to freedom of the press, because it spans all aspects of the press and is very hard to pin on an individual. Bias can never be pinned down because there are many different reasons such as, self censorship by journalists and editors, the attitudes of the public, amount of space in the paper and the editing process.

Freedom of the press can at best be called elusive, for what makes the press 'free'? Can there be a free press without the inclusion of a commitment to press freedom in a constitution? Can a society have a statute that clearly defines the privileges and obligations of the press and still maintain a 'free' press? Can the press, as one of its roles, fulfil its job as watchdog of the government and yet be sued for defamation by public officials?\

In 1986 Bob Hawke wanted to stop cross-ownership, so the law was changed to allow for that. However that was farcical because instead of stemming the power of control it actually increased it and, so now, the concentration of control of the print media in Australia is greater than in any other western country. (2) The Murdoch News Limited group which controls many suburban and country newspapers, and dominates book publishing also controls more than 69% of the metropolitan newspaper market and, combined with the Fairfax group, which controls 20%, have nearly 90% control of the metropolitan newspaper market. This degree of control would at the very least lead to bias (a movement or prejudice in a particular direction) because with only three main owners (Kerry Packer being the third) the threat hangs heavily in the air.

Probably the most ironic statement Rupert Murdoch ever made was when he was interviewed by the 'Herald' in 1977 as saying: "I think it would be a pity if I grew any bigger in Australia. There are now basically three groups in Australia and that's too few already. If I were to grow any bigger and take over one of the other groups - or be taken over - that would be against the public interest. I'd like there to be six groups. The fewer there are, the worse it is". (3)

This would be a very well known comment to the public if it wasn't for the fact that Rupert Murdoch controls 70% of the metropolitan newspaper market and this is backed up by David Bowman, who in his book The Captive Press, says that journalists seldom criticise 'rival' press agencies because of the limited number of prospective employers.

Another suspect statement that Rupert Murdoch made was that he didn't own any major newspaper anywhere that wasn't in head-to-head competition with other newspapers, and said he didn't want any monopoly newspapers. (4) This is surprising because the "competing" newspaper to Murdoch's Advertiser in Adelaide was The News whilst the "competing" newspaper to Murdoch's Courier Mail in Brisbane was The Sun. But, for these rival newspapers, Murdoch provided the offices, typesetting, printing and distribution while the owners of The News and The Sun (while also being Murdoch friends) only owned the mastheads.

How can journalists who are the backbone of the press expect to have freedom when it is the proprietors who have the right to direct that they want a generally conservative, centrist or leftist paper? Do journalists really have freedom when press giants Kerry Packer and Rupert Murdoch make no secret of their readiness to direct the editorial activities of their newspapers and magazines? Very occasionallyjournalists go on strike against proprietors as when in 1975 journalists working for Rupert Murdoch's News Limited went on strike to protest against the alteration of their copy, the suppression of their stories and the bias in the presentation of the election coverage presented in The Australian. This occurrence, however, is very rare because the proprietors have enormous influence in recruiting, promoting and, more importantly, sacking. Can the press claim to be 'free' when journalists are "restricted" by proprietors? Bias can probably be best summed up by a journalist:

"My copy was not changed. I knew what I could write and get away with, and I knew what I couldn't write and so obviously I didn't; I've never in my journalistic career beaten my head against a wall. There was no point in writing material for the news organisation which was not going to get in. I don't think that's censoring, it's just a sensible attitude to a job, that's providing the editor with what he wants. Yes, I can't afford to be so independent, you know I need the salary at the end of the week." (5)

Sir Peter Abeles was nominated by the Murdoch owned The Australian as 'Australian of the Year' but the fact that he was Murdoch's business partner in Ansett Airlines and that trucks owned by TNT had been used to break a printing union strike in the UK was not mentioned.

Another example of bias concerns the Pacific Area Newspapers Publishers Association Conference, at which, in April 1988, the managing editor of the Murdoch group, Ken Cowley, spoke. Mr Cowley stated there should be no restrictions on foreign ownership of Australian newspapers. This was reported at length by Murdoch newspapers, with The Australian (21/4/88) devoting half a page to his remarks.

But, remarks by Bob McComas, the former chairman of the Trades Practices Commission, at the same conference, were not mentioned at all in The Australian. Mr McComas said that takeovers in the newspaper industry should be stopped if they were detrimental to the public.

For many years now politicians and other high profile people have used defamation laws to stifle public debate and the discussion of their public and private lives by suing for defamation. Jeff Kennett, John Cain, Sir Brian Murray and Bob Hawke are such people, all having reputations for being quick to issue defamation writs. Bob Hawke's accountant at one stage boasted how one settlement had paid for a new tennis court. (6) These defamation laws are a serious infringement on the freedom of the press because the people who come off worst in these confrontations are the journalists who have usually only been trying to point out incompetence and bad administration.

So it was a great relief to the MEAA, and many people around Australia, when on 13 October 1994 the High Court changed the defamation laws and gave journalists more freedom. The ruling means the publication of political information will not be considered defamatory if a media outlet was "unaware of the falsity of the material", didn't publish "recklessly" or without heed to the truth and publication was "reasonable". This ruling is the best that journalists could have expected because as Australian Press Council Chairman, Professor Flint, said, it would be "unreasonable" for journalists to expect absolute privilege. This decision was very welcome but would not have been necessary if Australian politicians and other high profile people had shown signs of accepting a European Court of Human Rights determination that those in public life should display much "greater tolerance" of what was said and written about them.

For the press to become truly free Australia needs a First Amendment very like the American one, which states "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech or of the press". This is the only way in which the press can become truly free, because it allows the press total privilege in what it can say and write.

For the press to become more responsible there are many changes it will need to perform. Primarily, the press as a whole body is going to need to appoint Ombudsmen because they add two things which at the moment are sadly lacking: truth and respectability. Ombudsmen add this because they should be coming from a completely neutral position and are not concerned as the proprietors are with making a profit. So far only The Sydney Morning Herald has experimented with an Ombudsman but he didn't last long because the journalists were not very appreciative of him.

Another big plus for the appointment of Ombudsmen lies in the fact that there is no right of reply in the print media. If the press had ombudsmen the other side of the story would be told and the press would once again be taken as a responsible industry.

In this essay, I have identified a number of problems that the press must overcome for it to ultimately become free and so, be taken as a responsible industry. This can ultimately only happen if press barons stop worrying about the power and profits they make and instead try to look at the press as avenue for honest, investigative and above all unbiased information.

Footnotes

(1) Gettler, I, "A struggle for stability in a world of change", The Age 1991 [return to essay]
(2) Bennett, J, Your Rights, Penguin 1991 p.78. [return to essay]
(3) Ibid. p. 81. [return to essay]
(4) Ibid. p. 82. [return to essay]
(5) Edgar, P, The Politics of the Press, Sun Books 1979 p. 9-10. [return to essay]
(6) Hughes, G, "Defamation has been a nice little earner for politicians", The Age 1994 [return to essay]

see also
Current APC Prize Overview and information

[ return to top ]

Return to APC News 1995 Index

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