A Difference of Opinion

Jack R Herman looks at how the Australian Press Council has dealt with complaints arising from by-lined opinion pieces which comment on, rather than report, the news.

"The primary office of a newspaper is the gathering of news ... comment is free, but facts are sacred." Charles Prestwick Scott, Manchester Guardian, 6 May 1926

An increasing number of articles in newspapers and magazines carry the writer's by-line, that is the names, and sometimes the pictures, of the journalists (or others) involved in putting the piece together. After its 1999 Planning Day, the Council decided that the fact that an article is by-lined does not provide it with any special status. The Council revised its policy on by-lined articles and said that, although by-lining of articles has no relevance to the determination of complaints, and complaints should continue to be judged on a case-by-case basis, it will be against the understanding that:

• the Council's principles are applicable to all articles in newspapers and magazines; but
   
• the Council gives greater leeway in determining whether a breach of the principles has occurred to articles that are clearly opinion pieces.

What then are opinion pieces and how does the Council treat them?

Comments on the news

Newspapers report the news but they also provide commentary upon that news. As other media have become more able to report on immediately unfolding events, newspapers have ensured their survival in part by providing more detail and depth than is available to television, radio and internet news sources. This frequently involves background stories, investigative pieces providing the reader with an understanding of issues, and the publication of opinion pieces.

Newspapers have always expressed opinions. Many of the journals that gave rise to the modern newspaper were polemical, not objective purveyors of fact. As newspapers moved more towards the presentation of news, they still retained the ability to present their opinion, through the leader (often referred to as the 'editorial') and through the viewpoints of columnists, experts, feature writers, cartoonists and letter writers. Many famous journalists, including H.L. Mencken, for example, made little distinction between reporting and opinion-making.

Today, there are many avenues available to the newspaper for the expression of opinion and the Australian Press Council's principles recognise that commentary upon the news will complement the reporting of it. The Council's Principle 5 says that publications are justified in presenting their own views, provided they fulfil certain criteria: they distinguish fact from opinion; they don't suppress relevant facts; they don't distort facts; and they disclose relevant interests.

In most newspapers, opinion or commentary is clearly marked as such. Many newspapers devote a page or more to opinion and editorial (often referred to as the 'op/ed pages') and use the services both of staff columnists (many with eponymous columns appearing on a regular basis), staff writers and academic and other experts. Sometimes the commentary appears on what are normally the news pages, and frequently accompanies reports on the same subject. In many newspapers, such articles are marked 'comment', 'commentary', 'analysis' or 'opinion' or are in some other way identified as comment on the news. For example, a number of papers now print personalised observations on the day in Parliament to supplement 'straight' news reports.

It is sometimes difficult to determine whether an item is a news report or an opinion piece or a mixture of both. The Council has been addressing this subject. As one major criterion for determining complaints is the question of whether the reader has been misled by the publication, the Council has been developing, for its own use, a series of questions that will determine whether it is clear to the reader what the intent of the article is. (See sidebar story - Opinion Roadmap.) Once that determination has been made, the Council can then judge the article within its correct context.

Judgments on opinion

The Council's adjudications over the last 27 years have expanded on Principle 5, and on the Council's Principle related to taste, to recognise the rights of publications to publish opinion, even robust and unpopular opinions. For example, in Adjudication No. 470, dealing with a Germaine Greer 1990 article about Mother Teresa, the Council argued that opinion writers should be free to express strong views. "While the feelings of those who view Mother Teresa as a saint are understood, it is unthinkable that opposing views should be censored." In a recent finding (No. 1150) about a Philip Adams' column on the US, written a few weeks after 11 September, the Council went further and suggested: "The fact that such commentary may offend some readers, even a majority of readers, will not of itself bring a Press Council censure."

The Council argues in such cases that clearly marked opinion pieces and by-lined opinion columns are the expression of the viewpoint of the individual writing them and are commentary upon the news. Newspapers will have usually carried many reports on the issues which the columnist discusses, so the readers would not have been misled in any way by the column.

The Council has consistently said that the best response to a disagreement with such material is the submission of a contrary view for publication. If a newspaper does not provide the opportunity for such responses (not necessarily that of the particular complainant), the complainant can be in a position to lodge a complaint about imbalance rather than about the expression of opinion. In 1989, Adjudication No. 353 concerned a complaint about a feature article related to the life of Paul James Mullen who died in a shoot-out with police during the previous week. The Council observed: "On an objective reading of the article, the Council tends to the view that the words used were in the nature of hyperbole and, as such, were not meant to be taken literally. In a by-lined [feature] article, journalists are normally granted considerable freedom in expressing their views. At the same time, the matters [raised] are matters of very legitimate concern to readers of newspapers. In a society such as ours, rather that reining in and limiting [their freedom], the freedom of columnists to express their views should normally be balanced by the publication of any contrary views. This is best achieved in the columns of the newspaper concerned, e.g., in the letters to the editor column."

Where a complaint appears to boil down to the fact that the reader did not agree with the columnist's opinion, the matter is rarely accepted by the Council for processing as a complaint. In a country with a free press there is room for a number of different opinions and, as long as the material does not lapse into the downright offensive, rely on gratuitously racist, sectarian or sexist material or actively mislead the reader, the Council is unlikely to intervene. In Adjudication No. 473 (1991), arising from an alleged "callous and indecent" reminder of the death of former PM Harold Holt, the Council found, "in accordance with the principles of free speech and an unfettered press, that by-lined columns, like cartoons, are entitled to comment on the news and develop their own distinct styles. The Herald-Sun's Insider is obviously such a column, written 'vigorously' by the paper's own description or 'in a smarty/trendy' style in the eyes of the complainant and most readers would see it for what it is. The reference to Prime Minister Holt could have been expressed differently. But it was not unprincipled ...."

Other expressions of opinion

In addition to the views expressed on by-lined opinion columns, the Council has issued similar statements about other expressions of opinion in newspapers:

• editorial cartoons ("In a democratic society it is appropriate that opinion, including extreme and even unpopular opinion, should not be proscribed from publication. ... A cartoon is one form of opinion and it is traditional that the cartoonist be given wide licence because exaggeration and caricature are inherent in his or her art. This of course will often involve stereotyping .... The question is whether these cartoons go beyond the limits on the publication of opinion set out in our principles." Adjudication No. 372)
   
• illustrations ("If a newspaper item is found offensive by some people, that is not sufficient grounds on its own to condemn the publication ... By constraining the right to free debate such a rule would inflict damage on the broad community far outweighing any harm to the feelings of those offended." No. 534)
   
• letters to the editor ("Newspapers publish letters to the editor for a variety of reasons Some are published to provide an opportunity to reply to material already published, some to provide information of use or interest to readers, some simply to reflect the variety of public opinion on issues and to provide an opportunity for its expression. ... Any attempt to reflect the variety of public opinion may involve the publishing of silly as well as sensible, of prejudiced as well as enlightened opinions. Obviously publication implies no approval or endorsement of the contents of the letter on the part of the paper. It merely gives readers the opportunity to read a variety of views and form their own views about them." No. 287)
   
• leaders ("Editorials present a point of view, provoke public debate, and encourage comment in the community at large, and in letters to the editor in reply. By definition they are an expression of opinion." No. 569)
   
• feature reports (A newspaper argued that the use of four-letter words in the report of an interview was appropriate in its context and served to develop the famous actor's character. "The Council believes, in this case, that the use of the word in full was justified. It does not breach the Council's principle [on taste]." No. 479)

Responsibilities

But the Council has also noted that newspapers have responsibilities in the presentation of opinions that may mean that in some cases the publication of an opinion may breach the Council's principles. The first, and most important, caveat noted by the Council is that the publication of an opinion or of material critical of individuals or groups may place an onus on the publication to provide a prompt and appropriately prominent opportunity to respond.

"While the Press Council encourages complainants to use its resources, it always stresses that the quickest and fairest resolution of most concerns is by prominent publication of corrections or amplifications by letter to the editor or in an appropriate story." (Adjudication No. 929)

"The Council considers that where a newspaper enters upon a campaign directed at a public body it is under an obligation to provide the body with a reasonable and swift opportunity to put its side of the story." (Adjudication No. 1066)

The Council has upheld complaints about the expression of an opinion in some circumstances.

• On the grounds that some words may offend ("The Press Council has upheld a complaint against the Kilmore Free Press for the use of words "boong" and "poofter," but commends the paper for publishing as soon as possible letters criticising it. ... The use of the words "boong" and "poofter" as essentially derogatory terms is widespread in Australian society, but the words are deeply offensive to the groups concerned and are generally avoided in newspaper, even in idiosyncratic columns of the Dingo Dan type." Adjudication No. 540),
   
• that the facts at base of opinions need to be accurate ("The Australian Press Council has partly upheld complaints from two parties against The Courier-Mail, Brisbane, over a feature article about Aboriginal land claims ... robust writing on such a sensitive subject as race relations must surely be coupled with rigorous discipline in accuracy and in use of emotive words. For example, the article relies substantially on a statement that 109 land claims have been lodged with the National Native Title Tribunal. In the absence of any newspaper rebuttal, the Council accepts as true the complainants' statement that almost half these claims are by non-indigenous Australians seeking a determination of the status of land. Yet the way the number of claims is used in the article strongly but wrongly implies all claims are made by indigenous people." No. 794) or
   
• that opinions should not be based on surmise ("The Council believes that newspapers have the right to publish a variety of strong and provocative views, even if readers are offended in the process. That right should not be abused, however, by the publication of emotionally charged commentary based on surmise." No. 1159 which is currently the subject of an appeal.)

Warnings issued

Additionally, the Council has made rulings which have not upheld complaints but issued warnings about matters where publications may offend the principles in their presentation of ideas. These include:

• stereotyping in presentation of opinion ("Much of [the] complaint hinges on the Press Council's principle which requires the identification of a known or alleged criminal's race to be justified on grounds of its relevance to the incident being reported. The Council has warned in a number of previous adjudications of the risk of unfairness to other innocent members of the group singled out for identification, particularly when the incident will unjustifiably tend to reinforce a stereotype to which prejudices attach. This principle must always be weighed against the public's right to accurate reporting of events." Adjudication No. 462),
   
• providing balance in reporting all sides ("The Press Council agrees ... that newspapers have a responsibility to attempt a balanced presentation of differing opinions on issues of public interest. However, space and time constraints, as well as the complexity of the issues themselves, often make it difficult to achieve such a balance in a single article. On several occasions therefore, and especially in environmental debates, the Council has upheld the right of newspapers to present differing views over more than one article or edition." No. 481) or
   
• not suppress matters of public interest while developing their own style ("Newspapers vary enormously in style and character, and appeal to different groups of readers. This is reflected in what matters they report. It is an important part of the freedom of the press that individual editors can determine what sort of paper they will produce, and what items they will select from the great panorama of events. It is this freedom that ensures the public a range of news and the possibility of finding a paper that caters for the reader's individual tastes and interests. On the other hand, a newspaper should not arbitrarily, or for some extraneous motive, suppress or ignore important events which readers would reasonably expect it to report. Indeed, it may have an obligation to report certain events in areas of news for which it has developed a reputation for coverage." No. 246).

Jack R Herman

see also
Case Study - opinion.

[ return to top ]

Return to APC News 2002 Index

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