News in brief - February 2002

Australian Press Council Prize 2002

The Australian Press Council has announced the terms of entry for its 2002 award. The Prize is awarded for the best essay submitted on a set topic.

In 2002 the topic is:

Principle 7 says that publications should not "place any gratuitous emphasis on, among other things, the race, religion, nationality, colour [or] country of origin ... of an individual or group. Nevertheless, where it is relevant and in the public interest, publications may report and express opinions in these areas." Is it possible to report, and properly comment on, the news with such a restriction? Is the public interest exception too wide?

Following the remarks made by the judges for the 1998-99 Prize and a decision taken by the Council, entries are invited from Tertiary students (as at 30 June 2002) only. This year, there will be no Prize offered in a secondary schools' section. The word limit for essays is 2,500 words.

Winners will be selected by a panel of three judges and the prizes of up to $2,000 will be awarded.

The final date for receipt of submissions is 30 June 2002.

At the request of the previous judges, the Council specifies that it would prefer entries that demonstrate some effort to research the topic and argue it seriously. It also requests that entries be typescript and double-spaced. No formal entry form is required.

The Australian Press Council reserves the right not to award a prize/s.

INQUIRIES:
The Executive Secretary
The Australian Press Council
303/149 Castlereagh Street
SYDNEY NSW 2000

Tel: (02) 9261 1930 or (1800) 02 5712
Fax: (02) 9267 6826
email: info@presscouncil.org.au

For the guidance of entrants, the Council has posted on its website some comments from the judges from previous prizes. See links on the 2002 Prize page.

see also
Prize overiew.

Return to
Press Council News 2002 list

[return to top]

Media organisations committed to the Privacy Standards

The provisions of Privacy (Private Sector) Amendment Act exempt from its purview media organisations while acting in their journalistic role. To qualify for this exemption, media organisations need to subscribe to publicly-available privacy standards. The Press Council has developed such standards and they are published on the Council's website, together with a list of those organisations which have committed to them. There is also a link to a list of publication titles for each organisation.

A full list of the subscribing media organisations as at 8 February 2002 is on the webste.

Return to
Press Council News 2002 list

[return to top]

The Chairman Speaks

The Council's Chairman, Professor Ken McKinnon, addressed the News Limited Conference of Editors, held in Melbourne in early February. The Chairman's address, "Covering News in a Challenging Environment", addressed some of the Council's concerns with challenges to press freedom in Australia, but also drew attention to the Council's role in overseeing press responsibility. He invited editors to advise the Council on improvements to its procedures for consideration at its Planning Day.

Return to
Press Council News 2002 list

[return to top]

Planning Days 2002

Following the success of its earlier Planning Days in 1999, the Council will again bring all members and alternate members to a series of sessions over two days to discuss the Council's objects, procedures and public profile. The Council intends to invite outside speakers both from the print media and from the reading public to address it on important aspects of its activities. The Planning Days are intended to set the Council's agenda for action over the succeeding three years. (A detailed discussion of the outcomes of the 1999 Planning Days was published in the November 1999 APC News.)

Return to
Press Council News 2002 list

[return to top]

Defamation Law Reform

Following newspaper reports that he was considering the question of defamation law reform, the Council made a submission to the Western Australian Attorney-General, Jim McGinty, along the same lines as that made earlier to the NSW Attorney, mentioned in the November 1991 issue of the APC News. Those suggestions, stressing the desirability of a uniform national defamation law, addressed questions of pre-trial settlement through offers of amends and through mediation.

Following the earlier submission to the NSW Attorney, the Council's Chairman has been involved in discussions with representatives of the Attorney-General's Department on possible practical outcomes for defamation law reform in NSW.

Return to
Press Council News 2002 list

[return to top]

PCC

In the wake of the collapse of Enron, with which he was associated, Lord Wakeham has decided to stand aside temporarily from the Chairmanship of UK Press Complaints Commission until the report of the Independent Investigating Committee of Enron is published and evaluated. Lord Wakeham is co-operating with those inquiries. The PCC's Privacy Commissioner, Professor Robert Pinker, a member of the PCC since its formation in 1991, is the acting Chair.

Return to
Press Council News 2002 list

[return to top]

Freedom of Information

The Council's Chairman noted in a speech recently that "the counter attack to limitations on access and control of the flow of information, good investigative journalism, is constantly being hampered by one of the main tools intended to prevent cover-up, the Freedom of Information (FoI) legislation."

A few examples from an extensive list of such 'hampering' gathered by the Council:

• The ALP has had to go to the High Court over the unwillingness of the Commonwealth government, even four years after the event, to release documents pertaining to the waterfront dispute.
   
• A Queensland University lecturer found that the Queensland government there had blocked access to 163,000 documents in the year to 2000.
   
• In NSW, the Ombudsman found that in 2000-2001 only 70 per cent of requests were granted compared to 82 per cent five years earlier.
   
• The Victorian Government took seven months to respond to an Opposition request for a City Link Report.
   
• The Western Australian FoI Commissioner said that FoI laws are '... weak, riddled with inconsistencies and manipulated by politicians and bureaucrats. ... Many documents were simply stamped "confidential' or "commercial-in-confidence" to prevent scrutiny'.
   
• A Herald Sun reporter found not only delay but everything he asked for under FoI was considered not to fit within the '... terms of your request' except three letters to himself!
   
• A basic application only costs $25-$30 dollars (in some states personal information, such as hospital records, is free), but the cost of applications can run into thousands of dollars after other charges such as photocopying documents are taken into account. The most notorious new charge is for 'thinking time' - nothing other than an iniquitous attempt to deter requests by making them so expensive as to be impractical.
   

As a result of discussions within the Council about these sort of trends, the Council has decided to seek some reasearch on currnet FoI legislation and practice in the various jurisdictions. In particular, the Council will seek details on how the media tries to use the legislation, and the success it has in so doing. Equally, it will seek advice on aspects of FoI practice from those administering the laws on any questions of the possible misuse of FoI by the media.

Return to
Press Council News 2002 list

[return to top]

Parliamentary snappers

Under new rules approved late last year by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, strict restrictions on press photography within the House have been imposed. They are no longer allowed to picture anyone in the House, only the MP with the call. In earlier annual reports, the Council noted restrictions placed on photographers taking images of those in the Public Gallery, and also noted the Speaker's assurance that further restrictions were not envisaged. However, after a picture of Foreign Minister Downer allegedly imitating the Speaker was published by The Sydney Morning Herald, the Speaker tightened the rules and also enjoined photographers not to use their work for 'satire or ridicule'.

Other examples of restrictions on the press being imposed by governments, parliaments and courts are contained in Warren Beeby's CPU report in this issue.

Return to
Press Council News 2002 list

[return to top]

Mediated complaints

The Council office tries to solve matters by direct contact with the publication concerned. This often leads to a settlement of the matter satisfactory to both parties. On rare occasions, a Public Member of the Council will convene a face-to-face mediation, by agreement with the parties. Below are some examples of the matters recently settled in these ways.

• A Sunday newspaper published an article which gave tribute to a pioneering heart surgeon. The complainant believed that the article gave sufficient details for him to identify his son, who had been an organ donor. The complainant also argued that his family's privacy had been invaded. A public member of the Press Council mediated between the paper and the complainant. They came to an agreement that the complainant's views would be incorporated into the next article on organ donation. A follow-up article was subsequently published, giving the complainant's side of the issue.
   
• A magazine published an article which the complainant believed contained a number of inaccuracies. The article concerned the complainant and her family. The magazine initially stood by its story. It then requested that the complainant sign a legal waiver before it would consider mediation. The waiver was supplied. After a series of discussions, conducted by the secretariat, the parties agreed on a suitable apology. The apology was published, and the complainant was extremely satisfied with the outcome.
   
• A metropolitan newspaper was criticised for not having a correction section on its online site. The paper explained that the omission was through an oversight, rather than a conscious decision. The online editor rectified the omission - the section appeared by the end of the following week.
   
• A bylined article was published by a metropolitan newspaper. The article stated that a specific beach was patrolled by only one person on Christmas Day. The complainant, a life saving club, disputed this statement. It said there were at least five on duty that day. The paper's suggested clarification, offered via the secretariat, was rejected by the complainant. The parties met at a mediation, chaired by a public member of the Press Council. An agreement was reached that the paper would, upon receipt of additional material from the complainant, publish an agreed correction. The additional material was received, and the correction published.
   

Return to
Press Council News 2002 list

[return to top]

NZ Press Council

The New Zealand Press Council, among its December adjudications, made a couple of rulings which are of interest to the Australian media.

The first deals with the question of reporting of youth suicide and arises out of a series of detailed complaints about the reporting over several days of the suicide of a schoolboy. The reports centred around a concern that bullying had led to the suicide, and the subsequent news story centred on the allegations of bullying . One aspect of the complaints was a concern with the reporting of suicide in alleged contravention of a set of guidelines issued by the NZ Ministry of Health. In considering this aspect of the complaints, the Council said:

"Both sides had valid cases to make. Youth suicide is of major concern, and this silent epidemic has grown under one of the world's toughest regimes about what can be reported publicly about suicide. Newspapers are anxious to present stories on this issue of major public concern. Counsellors familiar with research on the effect of stories about suicide in the press want the ... guidelines adhered to more strictly."

The Council found against the newspaper on grounds of fairness and balance but did not rule that the reporting of suicide was itself a breach of press ethics.

A second matter dealt with a small circulation magazine which was itself not directly affiliated to the Press Council or any of its members. The magazine disputed the Council's jurisdiction. In its adjudication, the Council said, in words that would echo the Australian Press Council's procedures on similar matters:

"The policy now is that the Press Council considers complaints against newspapers, magazines and periodicals in public circulation in New Zealand (including their websites). There are exceptions with a publication of very limited or specialised readership. If the editor of a publication does not respond to the Council concerning a complaint, the Council will proceed to consider the complaint as best it can in the circumstances."

see also
The New Zealand Press Council website.

Return to APC News 2002 Index

[ return to top ]

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