Stories for Sale

In his regular column, the Press Council's Chairman, Professor David Flint, looks at two aspects of chequebook journalism and discusses some criticisms of the Council.

The "world exclusive" interview in Woman's Day and on 60 Minutes "The love that wouldn't die" between former Prime Minister Hawke and Blanche d'Alpuget raises once again the issue of chequebook journalism.

Is there something intrinsically unethical about chequebook journalism? The main argument against the practice is that it may tempt informers, if not to lie for cash, at least to gild the lily. This of course is not alleged in the case of Mr Hawke and Ms d'Alpuget. Indeed in their case it is hard to understand what the fuss is about. Their relationship is a wonderful example of something which is "interesting to the public" but whose publication cannot be said to be "in the public interest". In saying that I mean no disrespect to Mr Hawke and Ms d'Alpuget. It's their own business if they wish to talk about their relationship. But if a journalist were to pry - by secretly taping their conversations or by training a telephoto lens to photograph them in intimate moments - no one could seriously argue that this would be "in the public interest".

If I watch the television programme about them or read the article, I shall do so freely. No one compels me to do this. So who am I to complain if I add to the ratings, and Mr Hawke and Ms d'Alpuget are richer as a result? It's all quite harmless. If this is news, it's also entertainment.

When The New York Herald sent H.M. Stanley to find Dr David Livingstone, this was "chequebook journalism", entertainment and news. It probably wouldn't have happened without the newspaper paying.

Where there can be an argument against chequebook journalism is when it deals with matters which are more than entertainment.

On 1 January 1990, a two week old baby was taken from St Thomas Hospital in London - it was missing for two weeks and was the centre of enormous interest. The baby was found and returned to its parents. But all the newspapers were allowed at the subsequent press conference with the mother was a photo call. No interview. The parent's lawyer sold the interview to the highest bidder, The News of the World for a reported £75,000. (Michael Leapman, Treacherous Estate, London, 1992, page 214.)

Mr Hawke is said to have negotiated an exclusive television interview on leaving politics. But politicians have frequently sold their memoirs. (Should they give them away?) These days the sale includes serial and interview rights. (They may then write syndicated columns.) For example, CBS paid $1000 to H.R. Haldeman in 1975, and $500,000 to Richard Nixon, but when Eldridge Cleaver asked for $2000 he only got $200. The Los Angeles Times paid a court official for a copy of a confession in the Manson trial which was being suppressed, and for a long time newspapers and journalists have paid such contacts.

The British Press Council (since replaced by the Press Complaints Commission) once issued a Statement of Principle against chequebook journalism. The Australian Press Council has preferred to look at chequebook journalism on a case-by-case approach. This takes up the comment of Jack London, who directed the respected US Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press: "Chequebook journalism may be a bad practice economically, but I can't see the legal distinction between purchasing the kind of information publications do from one category of person but not another". (H. Eugene Goodwin, Groping for Ethics in Journalism, Iowa, 1987, page 193.)

The American legislatures have tried to stop criminals cashing in on their crimes. "Son of Sam" legislation, under which a criminal could forfeit the profit from the sale of his or her story, has been found to be unconstitutional. The criminal is entitled to the free speech protection of the First Amendment. (However, there is no reason why a victim or victim's family could not sue for damages to be paid from the sale.)

One form of chequebook journalism that is clearly unethical is where there is an inducement to lie. An example unearthed by the British Press Council was where a witness in a criminal trial was paid for his story to be told after the trial. He was to receive a modest amount on acquittal but a generous sum on conviction!

see also
Duncan Graham's letter in response on chequebook journalism

The Gym Pictures

It seems that the action the Princess of Wales brought against Bryce Taylor and the Mirror Group has been settled. Taylor owned a gym where he installed a secret camera to film the Princess during her work-outs. He sold the photos to the Mirror but, because of the legal action, the money was not handed over. In an interview, Taylor was reported as accusing the Princess of ruining his life. Recent reports indicated the action was settled with the substantial amount of money being paid to charity. Taylor and the Mirror apologised for their intrusion in to the Princess' privacy.

Later reports suggested the settlement was not as good for the Princess as it first seemed. It was said that Taylor was to be paid a substantial sum for his costs. Why? Presumably, this was to ensure that the Princess did not have to give evidence and, thus, be cross-examined, apparently by Geoffrey Robertson QC. The general view is that the Princess of Wales had a good case in law and the intrusion clearly breached every journalistic code of ethics.

The publication of the photographs led to a call for the introduction in Australia of privacy laws to control the press. Why we should respond to a British problem was not made clear. The case shows that the common law (in Britain and Australia) can provide an adequate remedy, even if, on this occasion, for other reasons, the Princess was advised not to give evidence.

The serious problem in privacy protection in Australia remains, as the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption demonstrated, the potential misuse of databanks and other information held by governments. This is especially so in cases where the information is traded without the knowledge of those whose personal privacy is invaded.

see also
Index of other material on privacy

Surveying the Council

How does the Press Council rate?

During several recent official inquiries (for example the House of Representatives Select Committee on the Print Media and the current Senate Committee inquiry into the rights and obligations of the media), a few people have put in submissions which suggest that the Press Council should be superseded by a government-appointed body. Why? This is usually explained by broad assertions, for example that the Council is a "publishers' poodle". (It seems that media critics delight in the use of canine and feline analogies: watchdogs, toothless tigers, publishers' poodles etc.) Another assertion is that there is widespread disquiet about the Council among the media and/or the public.

No hard evidence is ever advanced for these assertions. In fact, surveys that the Council has conducted in 1994 show a different picture.

The surveys were completed at the following meetings in 1994: a case studies seminar in Melbourne attended by (mostly) young journalists; a seminar on ethics organised by the National Union of Students and attended by editors of, and writers for, tertiary student publications; a Press Council public meeting held at the University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba; a seminar on media ethics held at the University of Tasmania; a Press Council public meeting held in Mount Gambier; a seminar on the press for students in the Communications department at Charles Sturt University, Bathurst; and a seminar on the press held by the NSW Liberal Forum (which is not affiliated to the Liberal Party). In total there have been 287 responses to the survey. One question asked, "What is your general opinion of the social value of" various aspect of the Press Council's philosophy and operation. The results are shown on the table reproduced below.

From the table, it will be seen that there was overwhelming support among the respondents for the Press Council concept. Of those who responded, 98.4% find it useful to very valuable. (Respondents were not asked about the alternatives, for example, no press council at all, the office of Ombudsman, a government-appointed commission.) Those surveyed were less positive about the Australian Press Council - although 87.3% still found it useful, somewhat useful or very valuable. Respondents were also supportive of the social value of adjudications (82.8%) and the Council's defence of free speech and a free press (85.7%). These surveys suggest no widespread disquiet in media circles (nor among the public) about the Australian Press Council.

David Flint

see also
Index of David Flint's material on the website

Return to APC News 1995 Index

[ return to top ]

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