Getting the Balance Right

DEBORAH KIRKMAN looks at how the Press Council has adjudicated complaints about balance.

The relevant Press Council principle regarding balance is Principle 8. It states: Where individuals or groups are singled out for criticism, the publication should ensure fairness and balance in the original article. Failing that, it should provide a reasonable and swift opportunity for a balancing response in the appropriate section of the publication.

How is balance measured?

The Council has ruled in the past that an article's balance cannot be measured by a builder's level. Balance isn't an equal number of words published on opposing views of an issue. The Council has adjudicated that, "The requirements of balance ... cannot be said to mean absolute mathematical equality in terms of words published in support of either side in a public debate." [Adjudication No. 317]. It has also stated that newspapers "... need not necessarily provide details or give equal space to all views, or attempt to identify 'majority' or 'minority' parties unless there is some objective basis for doing so." [Adjudication No. 908], and that "other matters such as availability of information or a good story or picture will determine what appears at any given time." [Adjudication No. 1020]

Balance, in a continuing debate, is not automatically achieved in a single article. "There is a duty on the Australian media to present both views ..." [Adjudication No. 370] in a debate. However, in a debate that is continuous, "it would be unreasonable to expect that at the time of publication of any report, opposite views are immediately sought and published." [Adjudication No. 370] The Council has therefore upheld the right of newspapers to publish opposing views over a period of time [see also Adjudication No. 481] when covering on-going issues of public interest.

When is redress necessary?

The Council has consistently urged complainants directly to approach publications with a request for a correction, a follow-up article or the publication of a letter to the editor. [for example, see Adjudication No. 929] While it expects redress be provided and that such redress will be published in a balancing response that is prompt and appropriate, it does not recognise an automatic "right of reply" for the party singled out for criticism. [see Adjudication No. 973] Its preference has been to suggest that aggrieved parties should be given a prompt "opportunity to respond" in an appropriate section of the publication.

In some cases, there is no appropriate opportunity to achieve redress, because any response would appear too late to provide balance. The Council has upheld complaints from political candidates where critical articles were published on the eve of an election, and where there was no edition of the newspaper before the election in which balancing comments can be published. [for example, see Adjudication No. 844] In upholding these complaints, the Council has noted there was no opportunity for a balancing response and that the newspaper should have taken this into account before publishing the article or letter that singled out the candidate for (unfair) criticism.

Then there are the belated responses. In one such complaint, the Council noted that a newspaper had been strongly critical of the complainant, and that "... it should have been prepared to give the (complainant) the opportunity to put its side of the argument clearly, either in the original article or as soon as possible thereafter. In the end, it published a delayed and heavily edited version of the (complainant's) response. [Adjudication No. 1066. See also Adjudication No. 1339] This was seen by the Council as being an attempt to provide balance that was too little and too late.

Occasionally publications completely fail to meet the requirements of fairness, balance and redress. In an early adjudication, the Council upheld a complaint by a Reader in Journalism, who argued that an article about his course had been obtained by deceit, that it did not adequately provide a context for its critical remarks and that it was inaccurate, largely as a result of the omission of any balancing material. [Adjudication No. 459]

Along a similar line, the Council upheld a complaint by a retired Rear Admiral who was singled out for criticism in an article. [Adjudication No. 1175] Subsequent to publication, he submitted a letter to the editor, then tried for a retraction and an apology. None of these approaches were responded to by the newspaper.

When newspapers publish unbalanced material, there is an onus on them to correct the imbalance. The balancing response should be published promptly in the appropriate section of the publication. In such cases, justice delayed is justice denied.

Deb Kirkman

[ return to top ]

Return to APC News 2007 Index