Facts and opinions - A Press Council case note

In Adjudication No. 1344 (published in the February 2007 News), the Council addressed a complaint that raises questions about the blurring of fact and opinion in news reports.

There has been increasing debate within the industry about the extent to which opinion now intrudes into news reports and whether the ideal of journalistic objectivity is still a feasible one. Historians might argue as to whether this ideal was ever the standard for good journalism, citing examples as diverse as William Russell's war reports from the Crimea and HL Mencken's court reports from the Scopes "Monkey trial" for their argument that fact and opinion have ever been mixed in news reports.

When it was reviewing its Principles in 1996, the Council appointed an expert group of senior editors to advise it on proposed changes. Richard Walsh, who was then Publisher of ACP Magazines, argued strongly that the trend was towards 'reportage', a blend of facts and opinions, and that to argue that ethical standards called for purely objective journalism was to fly in the face of reality.

The revised Principles reflect the ethical requirements that news reports should be fair and balanced, and that fact and opinion made clearly distinguishable. In No. 1344 the Council was asked to rule on a news report of a protest by cyclists that had interfered with Sydney peak hour traffic. In the view of the complainant the report was unfair because it lacked balance, through the introduction of the journalist's opinions, and because it intruded on the privacy of individuals by publishing prominently the organiser's mobile phone number. In its response to the complaint, the newspaper argued that the intrusion of opinion into news reports was now done routinely and was not, of itself, a breach of ethical principles.

In its adjudication of the complaint, the Council refers to those cases where the intrusion of opinion into the reporting of a news event might affect the balance of the article. The Council has ruled that the introduction of opinion into a news report makes it essential for the report to provide all the facts necessary for readers to judge the validity of the opinion. It reiterated the importance of distinguishing fact from opinion and says that, in this case, the two were clearly distinguished. It upheld the complaint about an invasion of privacy and also said that the original article was unbalanced because it failed to provide readers with sufficient facts to judge the validity of the opinions expressed. In particular it noted that no comment was published from government or the police, who had permitted the protest.

The Council will no doubt continue to refine its view on the mix of fact and opinion in news reports, judging each subsequent case on its own merits. Some members have indicated a desire to further this debate within the Council and seek to refine the interpretation of the Principles in the light of new complaints.

Meanwhile, the adjudication has sparked debate within journalistic circles about the questions raised. Ironically, a report from Margaret Simons in the crikey newsletter demonstrated that the mix of fact and opinion is now routine not only in The Daily Telegraph. Ms Simons' report on the adjudication reads:

Mixing opinion and news "is now done routinely", the Daily Telegraph argued in its own defence before the Australian Press Council last week - which raises the question of whether anyone ... still believes in the tired old dogma of journalistic objectivity.

The Australian Press Council's adjudication shows the watchdog struggling to hold the line and getting tangled in contradictions as a result.

The Council said it is OK for a newspaper to be partisan, and okay to present opinion as news, so long as the reporting is fair and balanced.

The Press Council upheld a complaint ... about a 25 November report in the Daily Telegraph ...

The Tele doesn't claim to be objective ... editor David Penberthy has said, the aim is to be relevant and get a gut reaction.

But the dogma of journalism is that objectivity is vital. This is reflected in the Press Council's principles, which recognise a publication's right to be partisan, but call for clear distinction between fact and opinion, and for "fairness and balance" when people are singled out for criticism.

The result is a confused adjudication.

The Press Council found the opinion in the article was not a breach of the Council's principles "in that, by its obvious bias, it distinguishes itself as that of the authors who are clearly identified by their bylines." The problem, the Council said, was not opinion presented as news, but the lack of a balancing response and facts against which the validity of the opinion could be judged.

Such balance, of course, would have taken all the acid out of the Tele's approach. ...

What are the values of the rest of the media? Penberthy has claimed the Tele articulates the views of mainstream Australia - although it is surely no simple thing to divine a mainstream among all the rivulets of Australian opinion and life experience.

It is all very complicated, but perhaps journalists would be better off dropping objectivity as tired and often hollow dogma and trying hard to work out what it might mean in practice, whether we still value it, and why.

The next day crikey published two responses. In one of those, Julian Zytnik wrote:

Margaret Simons all but gives up of hope of pinning down a solid definition of 'journalistic objectivity', in her piece yesterday on the recent Daily Tele adjudication. While pure 'objectivity' is a bit of an Everest in this postmodern world, I don't believe basic journalistic ethics are yet out of reach. The adjudication was quite clear-cut: 'In an era of journalism where commentary increasingly trespasses upon news reports, fact and opinion need to be distinguishable,' it states. Further, 'the introduction of opinion into a news report makes it essential for the report to provide all the facts necessary for readers to judge the validity of the opinion. This news article fails this test.' I don't agree the [Council] said it was "OK for a newspaper to be partisan, and OK to present opinion as news". It merely said that opinion and news could coexist provided they were clearly identified and distinguished. Without getting into arguments over whether or not the [Council] is just a toothless tiger, if Margaret wants some ideas for a modern framework for journalistic conduct (whether this means striving for "objectivity" or not), how about starting with the [Council's] own Statement of Principles ... This list still holds up pretty well, I reckon. It's a question of actually applying it.

Any comments on the adjudication, or the ethical principles underlying it, can be forwarded to info@presscouncil.org.au

JACK R HERMAN

[ return to top ]

Return to APC News 2007 Index