|
 |
 |
|
February 2009 - Volume 21, No.1
News in brief - February 2009 News by email News by email Press Council publications will sent by email to those who ask for delivery in that form. If you want the News sent direct to you (in pdf format) please send an email to info@presscouncil.org.au with subject line 'News by email' and you will be placed on the direct email list. [ return to top ] Return to APC News 2009 Index APC Prize As in previous years, the Council will be making a series of awards for outstanding scholarship through the various journalism departments and faculties at Australian tertiary institutions. The Council is endowing a prize worth $300 this year, either for outstanding achievement in a course directly related to the study of print journalism, particularly in the area of ethics, or for a particular piece of work in that area. For more information on the APC Prize, its history and future [ return to top ] Return to APC News 2009 Index On the Council In general terms, Public Members are restricted to three three-year terms. Queensland Public Member Wendy Mead has completed her third term and retired at the February 2009 meeting. The Chairman took the opportunity at the end of the meeting to thank Ms Mead for her years of service to the Council, particularly in the areas of mediation training and promotions, as well as her contributions at meetings. He made a presentation to her on behalf of the Council and Council members. An interview with Wendy Mead, conducted by Council Office Manager Deb Kirkman is on page 9 of this issue. Advertisements for Ms. Mead's replacement have been placed in Queensland newspapers, as a result of which a shortlist of five candidates has been put together and an interview with the five prospective candidates conducted. The Chairman will nominate a successor at the March meeting of the Council. Amongst the industry members, Peter Owen, the Group Executive Editor of APN Newspapers will act as the representative of the Regional Daily newspapers for the next eighteen months and Bruce Morgan, General Manager of the Ballarat Courier, will be his alternate. [ return to top ] Return to APC News 2009 Index The Office Melanie Maroun, the assistant to the Executive Secretary, has left the Council. While it considers how best to fill the position permanently, the Council welcomes back former assistant Emma Boreland, who will act in the role on a permanent part-time basis. [ return to top ] Return to APC News 2009 Index Annual Address 2009 The Council was to hold its 2009 Address in March, but due to the inability of its stated guest to be available on the agreed date, the Council has postponed the event. The Annual Address will now be held in the second half of the year and the person to deliver the Address will be announced in due course. The Council apologises for any inconvenience caused by this development. For more information on the Annual Address [ return to top ] Return to APC News 2009 Index US students On January 16, the Council had its biennial visit from the Pacific Lutheran University of Tacoma, Washington. Eighteen international journalism students, who were missing the Obama Inauguration in order to visit the Press Council, had an enjoyable meeting with Council staff, including a briefing on the Council's activities in promoting both the freedom and the responsibility of the press. The discussion included the commonalities and differences of the newspaper cultures in the two countries with reference to some Press Council case studies. [ return to top ] Return to APC News 2009 Index New Constituent Body Australian Property Review (propertyreview.com.au) has become the Council's first purely online member. The Council invites any online news sites to affiliate with the Council, for a nominal annual fee. Affiliation entitles the news site to display the Council's logo and to assert that it is bound by the ethical codes contained in the Council's Statement of principles and in the Privacy Standards for the Print Media. It also recognises that the website will cooperate with the processing of complaints and will abide by the obligation that members have to publish with due prominence any adjudications arising from complaints about material they have published. For a list of the Constituent Bodies [ return to top ] Return to APC News 2009 Index Internet "clean feed" In December 2008, the Council wrote to Sen. Stephen Conroy, raising concerns it has with his proposal for mandatory internet filters. The Council is always concerned with the proposals that will allow unaccountable bureaucrats or secret processes to censor public access to knowledge. It is especially concerned with proposals that confer powers not subject to public scrutiny and challenge. The current government proposal to impose mandatory internet filters has just such potential, including the possibility of extension to topics and areas that, unlike paedophilia, even if sensitive, ought not in a democratic society be censored in any way. The present Classification system for literature already ventures too far in restricting the availability of print material. The Council would agree that, with exceptions like the banned books on euthanasia, it has not generally adversely impacted on the ability of the public to access information. With respect, that is not the point. The point is that it has been used in that way for euthanasia, and could be used again for any of a number of topics that should not be censored. As far as the internet is concerned, the Council points out that an ACMA internet censoring system already exists. The secret blacklist of sites compiled by ACMA under its power through Schedule 5 of the Broadcasting Services Act already takes secret processes for web censorship too far. The proposals being tested under the 'clean feed' proposal go even further down the path of providing for unnecessary and obnoxious censorship: with a strong potential for banning legitimate access to information of public interest. Both the proposed 'opt-out' (rather than an 'opt-in') mandatory restriction on all households and the power given to the Office of Film and Literature Classification to determine a further, and even more restrictive, blacklist of banned sites are inappropriate. As with the ACMA powers, there does not appear to be any way in which the justifications for banning decisions by the OLFC can be known, be made open to public scrutiny or review prior to implementation, or subject to subsequent recourse to the courts. The existing and proposed powers are too great for the bodies involved. The processes allow unfettered censorship. Whereas the ACMA list is limited largely to sites that exploit children or foster paedophilia, the potential OLFC list could go into very many more areas. The temptation for governments to ban sites as a means of appeasing 'family' parties that may want to limit access to information on assisted suicide, or independents who have an aversion to on-line gambling, or as a means of preventing access by interest groups to information about left-wing or right-wing ideas is obvious. History has again and again shown such temptations are often irresistible. Most importantly, any such mandatory filtering would inevitably be a hit-and-miss proposition. Filters are not that good. There is a strong likelihood that innocent (or academic) sites will be unintentionally barred, while genuinely offensive material won't be stopped. In any case, such material can and will pass on a person-to-person basis, outside the ambit of the mandatory filter. None of the above even addresses the fairly conclusive view of experts that all operations via the internet will be slowed dramatically by the operations of the mandatory filter, to the detriment of those seeking to stream audio or video content, or to engage in e-commerce. Does the government really want to make the internet unusable? The Council would not oppose the persuasive arguments for an opt-in system, where families with children will be able to restrict the availability of a suite of sites with unacceptable content. But the proposal to impose an opt-out system, coupled with a secret blacklist of banned sites, takes what could be a good idea into the realm of dangerous censorship, with strong potential to limit access to important information. The Press Council urged Sen. Conroy not to proceed with the proposal in its present form. [ return to top ] Return to APC News 2009 Index Protection of sources In December 2008, the Press Council wrote to federal, state and territory Attorneys-General, and their Shadows, about the protection of journalists' confidential sources, a matter still before the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. The Council continues to hold the view that the law should protect journalists who report well-founded but confidentially sourced information that authorities, or others, seek to keep from the public. The Council remains concerned that the extant proposal for such a law is the current NSW Evidence Act, which it believes to be an ineffectual protection. The fact that groups as diverse and the NRMA and the NSW Law Society thought that the Act would provide insufficient protection for the identity of confidential sources is a clear indication that the NSW provision is insufficiently robust. The Council is again writing to federal, state and territory Attorneys-General strongly advocating that an approach based on the 2006 New Zealand Evidence Act is more likely to achieve the desired result of protecting confidential sources in all but the most serious cases. The existing NSW Evidence Act leaves open what might happen. It merely says that judges 'may' take into account the desirability of not calling professionals (in this case, journalists) to reveal sources. This leaves journalists vulnerable to legal fishing expeditions that may make them subject to contempt of court charges for failure to divulge sources, simply, in most cases, because the litigants are unwilling to do the work to unmask the sources. In short, the relevant clause in NSW Evidence Act is no real protection at all It is the possibility that journalists will be jailed for doing their job in making information available to the public, and then abiding by their ethical responsibilities to protect the confidentiality of their sources, that most disturbs the Council. Such a possibility should disturb all those who believe that a free press is the best guarantee of a vibrant liberal democracy. In a comparative democracy, in December, 2006, the New Zealand Parliament passed a new Evidence Act that in Section 64 made protection of sources the default position from which courts can only move, in the interests of justice, in the most dire of circumstances. New Zealand felt the need to protect journalists from having to reveal confidential sources in most circumstances important enough to develop a better law. It has come up with a workable solution to the difficult task of isolating those few extreme occasions that should require journalists sources to be identified in court situations (e.g., in extremis murder or terrorism cases or to prevent miscarriage of justice for individuals). They have done so while establishing a default position that courts should not allow legal fishing expeditions just because particular authorities (or public figure litigants) are miffed that news the public has a right to know has been reported. The Council believes that the New Zealand legislation provides a sound basis for a putative Australian shield law. The Council also notes that the New Zealand legislation has emerged since the most recent ALRC report on professional privilege. The bottom line is that while legislation that protects the messengers (journalists) from being required to reveal sources in the courts is an essential element of our democracy, legislation based on the NSW model, and even the most recent proposals from the federal Attorney-General intended to tighten the federal law based on the NSW Act, will not do that job. It will be ineffective. The Council has asked the Attorneys-General to revise the proposed uniform national shield proposals to, in fact, protect journalists and keep them out of jail. For more information on Protection of Sources [ return to top ] Return to APC News 2009 Index New Principles and procedures In February 2009, the Council approved drafts developed at, and subsequent to, the 2008 Planning Day that would revise the Council's Statement of Principles and its Complaints Procedure. The Statement of Principles is the ethical code agreed to by the publishers and the Council. It sets forth the general principles by which the Council deals with complaints from readers about material in newspapers and magazines, and on news websites. The previous revision of the Statement of Principles was in 1996. Essentially the Council has retained the Statement as a set of ideals expressed in general terms. It has simplified the preamble to the principles and made some alterations to them, the most important of which is the recasting of the first principle. Whereas previously the principle mandated that publications not publish material they could be expected to know is false, they are now enjoined to ensure "accurate, fair and balanced" reports and not to deliberately mislead or misinform readers. The other changes largely involve rewording of the existing principles to make them clearer. The two principles that mandate when there may be an opportunity for response have been placed consecutively as the second and third principles: the revised Principle 2 places a greater emphasis on the prompt correction of errors; the new Principle 3 (which was the previous Principle 8) now concerns those who are the "major focus" of reports and commentary, rather than just those "singled out for criticism. Additionally, the Council has added a note to give its interpretation of "due prominence" as it is used in several principles. The revised Statement of Principles is published on thee website. The new complaints procedure is essentially the same as the previous one, but it has been simplified and shortened to improve the transparency of the process. The changes to the procedures include:
The changes have been posted to the Council's website and a new information booklet has been printed. For more information on the Principles and procedures [ return to top ] Return to APC News 2009 Index Media law - the year in review The Gazette of Law and Journalism asked the Council, amongst others, to write a brief article on developments in media law in 2008. Here's the Council's piece: Not much happened in 2008 but the perception is that, in respect of press freedom, we have moved from a glass-half-empty situation to one where the glass is now half-full. [ return to top ] Return to APC News 2009 Index Conclusive certificates In December 2008, the Council sent a submission to the Australian Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee Inquiry into the Freedom of Information (Removal of Conclusive Certificates and Other Measures) Bill 2008. The Executive Summary read: The Australian Press Council congratulates the government on taking action to address problems with the system of Freedom of Information in Australia. The abolition of conclusive certificates will make a positive contribution to the development of open and accountable government. However, the Press Council is of the view that the Bill does not go far enough towards improving access to government information. The Press Council urges the government to engage in a complete overhaul of the system of Freedom of Information in Australia, with particular emphasis on the reformulation of exemptions. With specific reference to the Freedom of Information (Removal of Conclusive Certificates and Other Measures) Bill 2008:
The full submission has been posted to the Council's website and can be found at: http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/fop/fop_subs/conclucert.html For more information on the Council's position on FoI [ return to top ] Return to APC News 2009 Index Secrecy Law In February 2009, the Press Council made a submission to the Australian Law Reform Commission in response to Issues Paper 34, Review of Secrecy Laws. The Executive Summary read:
The full submission has been posted to the Council's website and can be found at: http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/fop/fop_subs/secret.html [ return to top ] Return to APC News 2009 Index Fiji Media Council Jack R Herman, Executive Secretary of the Australian Press Council, has just completed work on a Review of the Fiji Media Council. A decision to conduct a Review of its aims and its operations was taken in late 2008 by the Fiji Council. It sought and received a grant from AusAid for the Review. The composition of the panel was also a decision of the Media Council, which invited Mr Herman to convene the Review team. With him on the Review team were Suliana Siwatibau, who has extensive experience with Fiji NGOs, and Barrie Sweetman, a retired lawyer with knowledge of the Fiji legal system. All three members of the Review team are fiercely independent and have no links with the Fiji media. The terms of reference were agreed to between the Review team and the Chair of the Fiji Media Council. The were: To review and make recommendations on: Submissions from the public were invited on the terms of reference. The calls for submission were made in late December 2008, originally to close in January 2009. The Review was going to meet in Fiji from January 19 through January 23 but the January 2009 floods caused a delay. Additional time was then allowed for the lodging of submissions. The Review team met in Suva on February 9. The team read through and discussed each of the written submissions and a number of relevant articles and earlier reports on the Fiji Media Council and the Fiji media. It also looked at comparable self-regulatory organisations in other countries. The Review invited a number of individuals and organisations to meet with it, most of whom agreed. They covered a range of people including media proprietors, journalists, politicians and public officials, as well as representatives of influential NGOs. On February 11, the Review met with the Fiji Media Council to discuss the issues arising from the terms of reference and from the submissions. The Review completed its face-to-face meetings on February 13, and agreed on the substance of its recommendations. Between February 16 and February 27, the report went through a number of drafts, until the team agreed on the final form for the content. The report was submitted to the Chairman of the Fiji Media Council on February 28 and will be tabled at that Council's March meeting. [ return to top ] Return to APC News 2009 Index The State of the News Print Media in Australia 2008 In December 2008, the Council released the State of the News Print Media in Australia 2008. In releasing it, the Council noted that there has been a continuing sharp increase in the number of Australian readers accessing newspapers via the internet in 2008, yet weekday circulation in broadsheets is generally holding steady, while there has been only a slight decline in tabloid circulation. The resilience of newspaper circulation, and increased internet access, may be attributable to the continuing excellence of the investigative journalism and in-depth analysis provided by newspapers. These are amongst the key trends noted in the report. The report is the third annual edition of the Council's efforts to chart the important trends in the print media, including its circulation and readership, its increasing adoption of the online environment, and the emerging threats to the ability of newspapers responsibly to report matters of public interest and concern. The reports are an initiative of the Council and developed in conjunction with media organisations and independent academic researchers. The report has been posted online to the Press Council website (http://www.presscouncil.org.au/snpma/snpma2008/index_snpma2008.html). The report is also available in hardcopy from the Council office. The report notes that, while there have certainly been evolutionary changes within organisations, consequent to moves towards the 24-hour newsroom, and in reporters' roles, the frequent prophecies of the imminent end of newspapers from the doomsayers have not been accurate for Australia, at least not yet. Articles in the 2008 edition make clear that convergence of media platforms has transformed newsrooms, requiring multi-skilled staff and reformed training practices, both in tertiary institutions and media organisations, and has led to substantial job losses. But traditional news values persist within established media organisations despite changed newsrooms and new media, even in the face of persistent official spin. Newspapers alone provide the sort of detailed background to, and analysis of, major stories that enable readers to place the matter within a relevant context. The ability of print media organisations to devote resources to investigative journalism, and thereby set the agenda for the media generally, is exemplified in the report by a detailed analysis of the ways in which two broadsheet newspapers reported the case of Dr Mohamed Haneef. Diligent and persevering investigatory work, led by one outstanding journalist, raised many doubts about the original trajectory of the story. Leads were pursued and the police work questioned in such a way that the prosecution appeared to be unjustified, doing the accused a real injustice. The analysis in the report provides a compelling picture of newspapers determined to devote enough resources to get to the bottom of a major security event and properly analyse it. The report also highlights debates over increased use of outside contributions to newspapers, including a greater reliance on press release material, news agency feeds from affiliated overseas newspapers, blogging and non-journalist sources, including readers and paid sources. The needs of a 24-hour newsroom have led to a greater reliance on such sources. The current claim is that the greater reliance on outside sources has led to a diminution in quality. The report establishes no particular data trend in tis area but suggests that it would be a fertile area for further research. In particular, the growth over the last few years of media management teams (aka "spin doctors") within all organisations of any size raises the bar for journalists and editors. Access to the principals involved in a news story, including CEOs and elected officials, is often well-nigh impossible. All of which leads to an unfortunate trend, as yet anecdotal and unquantified, but alluded to in the report, in which newsroom pressures result in everyday reuse of press releases without adequate checking or analysis. Checking the reliability of press release information, or of unattributable "spin", lies at the heart of good journalism. The report also details how vigorous efforts of the Press Council, and latterly the publishers' Right to Know campaign, have arrested the trend of several years toward erosion of free speech. A report on the current state of press freedom issues takes up the narrative of the two previous reports and charts the developments, many of them hopeful towards more open government and a greater availability of information. It also highlights that not all the developments are positive and that the move towards a tort of privacy in the absence of any legislated freedom of communications threatens to widen the ability of public figures to stifle debate on importance to readers. As Council Chairman Ken McKinnon notes in his introduction: The already tough times for newspapers are about to get tougher as a direct consequence of world-wide economic hardships. Fortunately Australia is distinguished by newspaper management that is inventive and responsive to reader needs. Some see the necessary actions as a survival challenge, whereas others, more confident, see new opportunities. Most of the trends reported in this edition, particularly those that highlight the continuing importance to readers of the quality of journalism, are capable of exploitation in positive ways. See also [ return to top ] Return to APC News 2009 Index Whistleblower protection improved, but ... In a press release issued on February 25, 2009, Professor Ken McKinnon, the Chairman of the Australian Press Council, said that the report on improved whistleblower protection tabled in federal Parliament that day was a forward-looking proposal that contains several helpful recommendations. "But", he added, "the quite inadequate recommendation on whistleblowing to the media will ensure that the future situation will be hardly better than it is today." The report of a parliamentary committee, chaired by Mark Dreyfus QC, Whistleblower protection: a comprehensive scheme for the Commonwealth public sector, has recommended a series of changes that will make it easier for public officials to blow the whistle on corruption, malpractice and chicanery. And it will provide strong protection for those who do so through official channels. The Press Council's main concern is with the proposal that limits protection of public interest whistleblowers who go to the media. They are protected only when they have disclosed internally and externally, when "reasonable" time has elapsed, and the matter involves "immediate serious harm to public health and safety". Such limits will ensure that the bureaucracy can defeat all attempts to disclose information in a protected way. The weasel words 'reasonable' and 'nature of the matter' in particular tip the scales away from even the most conscientious whistleblowers. "Who will decide what is reasonable?" asked Professor McKinnon. He added, "Whistleblowers know that their best and quickest chance of rectifying corruption, waste and general governmental incompetence is to go directly to the press. The press has a responsibility to investigate and check the accuracy and fairness of informants before publication. Any failure to do this is open to a complaint that the Press Council will adjudicate, and, if necessary, it will hold the newspaper publicly to account." Professor McKinnon is worried that, had the proposed "protection" been in force, it would not have protected those who told journalists Harvey and McManus of a cabinet decision to renege on an election promise to veterans. It would not have protected the individuals who exposed government failure to act on a report on deficiencies in Customs at Sydney Airport. It would not protect public officials who blow the whistle on corruption, where there is no threat to "public health and safety". Professor McKinnon concluded, "The Press Council applauds the effort made by the Dreyfus Committee and the many good suggestions for improvement, but without a better media clause, which the Council will continue to lobby for strenuously, regrettably the proposals will not make enough difference to get anywhere near achieving the objective of a free flow of public interest information." For more information on the Council's position on whistleblowers [ return to top ] Return to APC News 2009 Index ARTK Conference Freedom of speech is one of the fundamental pillars of a free and open society. It is as important as parliamentary democracy and the rule of law in guaranteeing the freedom and rights of all Australians. On Tuesday, March 24, 2009, Australia's Right to Know - a coalition of the nation's 12 major media organisations - will host the first national televised conference on the state of our freedom of speech. The event will give a rare insight into the daily behind-the-scenes workings of both the journalists whose job it is to get the news and the officials charged with protecting information that could be harmful. The one-day conference will bring together academics, lawyers, journalists, public servants, politicians and interested members of the public to examine Australia's free speech issues and discuss the best way forward. The conference will be broadcast by Australia's Public Affairs channel A-PAC (Foxtel/Austar channel 607), streamed at www.a-pac.tv and hosted by Helen Dalley of Sky News. Journalist Tony Jones of the ABC's Lateline will moderate a special Q&A-style debate on Freedom of Information. Seats at the conference are strictly limited. Information on the conference and contact details are contained in a promotion printed elsewhere on the site. [ return to top ] Return to APC News 2009 Index Conciliated 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 conciliation, by agreement with the parties. Below are some examples of the matters recently settled in these ways.
[ return to top ] Return to APC News 2009 Index Documents with the |
|||
|
About the Council [ its history and benefits of self-regulation | Members] | |
|||
| & ; |
|
Last updated 5 March 2009 All material ©The Australian Press Council. Website Design, Construction & Maintenance by |
|||
icon require the Acrobat Reader, a Free Utility from Adobe. Click 