Interview: John Fleetwood

EMMA BORELAND caught up with South Australian Public Member John Fleetwood on the Australian Press Council's recent trip to New Zealand.

What do you see as a role of a Press Council Public Member?

JF: To represent the community. To ensure that an average reader, whoever that may be, would think about media issues, particularly fairness and ethics.

What interested you in becoming a Public Member?

JF: I love reading. Gaining a role with something connected to print media such as the Council was and is something I am strongly interested in. I have always had views about what I was reading; things that were not right or could have been better done, better handled. It is an opportunity to participate.

Explain the process by which you were selected?

JF: There was and I assume still is a roundtable interview. There were five of us and we were interviewed simultaneously by three members of the Council. It was an interesting experience. I understood why they did it the way they did. The Press Council is no place for shrinking violets. You have to speak out especially if you are representing the public. The process sorted out who was best. You had to compete for air space.

For people who want to become a member, what advice would you give them?

JF: If they are interested in media and want a role to put something back to the community, and you see an ad for a Public Member vacancy, apply to become a Public Member. I have enjoyed every minute of it.

Since you joined the Council in 2004, what progress have you seen in the Council?

JF: I think we have improved the complaints process. It is quicker and fewer complaints are likely to come to the Council [because of mediation]. In the earlier days a lot of the adjudicated complaints were trivial. Now it's harder to adjudicate because there are more serious issues raised.

On the policy side, I have always been impressed with what the Council does. I don't think it has been improved because the standards have been high for some time, especially with people like Chris McLeod and Warren Beeby involved.

Every three years the Council has a Planning Day to talk about the Council, its principles and procedures. What would you like to see addressed or changed this year?

JF: We need to standardise adjudications. There are times when adjudications could be more consistent, although most of the time the Council does a good job. I don't like the 'upheld in part' adjudications: they confuse the process of what we do. We should make clear what we are upholding, if we uphold in part. The Council has been guilty of upholding in part to have a 'two bob each way', which is the easy way out.

Adjudications are a fine line where sometimes people's perceptions and views get in the way. The complaints process sometimes confuses both media and members of the public. This is particularly the case where the Council makes a "part-way" decision. The Council should make a decision, either uphold or dismiss.

Additionally, I would like to see the Council increase its public profile. The community needs to know more about us.

The Council gets criticised for being funded by the publishers. Do you think the Council should be more independent financially or is the current situation is OK?

JF: Ideally, if it was more individually financed, it could be a better thing but how do you do that? There will always be a conflict of interest, whoever you are funded by. At the moment the industry does not work together as a bloc on the Council. I do not think the criticism is valid because finding an alternative would be difficult.

The Council is meeting with the New Zealand Press Council. What do you think the Council could learn from the NZPC?

JF: I was really grateful for the chance to meet with and experience the New Zealand Press Council. I found the experience reinforced that both Councils seem to do a lot right! One thing that was an interesting difference, and might be worthy of our consideration, is that the NZPC publishes the names of the members who vote to uphold and dismiss for each adjudication, whereas we don't. I think that's certainly worthy of Council discussion during our 2008 Planning Day.

Do you think the money spent on visits interstate (and overseas) is worth it?

JF: I don't know to what degree it's more than a normal meeting in our Sydney offices. Travelling throughout Australia is a good thing because we are getting among the communities with public forums. It is a good investment.

Where do you think the Council could better spend its money?

JF: I think we could spend it more wisely. Better promotion is one thing, especially the better promotion of the existence of the complaints process. It is the core view of why the Press Council exists.

What is your opinion on Industry Members involvement in the Press Council?

JF: They are an important part of the Council and bring a vital perspective to the Council. While neither Industry nor Public members form blocs, I feel Industry members need to take into account an average person's view [of what is published] rather than just thinking about putting out a newspaper every day. The industry might have a view opposing that of a Public Member, but it needs to understand the outside view as well.

What adjudications do you think the Press Council got wrong?

JF: Ironically, for me, it was actually one where the Council decided to uphold the complaint - where I thought it should have been dismissed. It was a complaint against New Idea in late 2006. Of course, just because I didn't agree (and still don't), that doesn't make me right - but I never understood the rationale of the majority - and quite frankly I think some were too influenced by the personal appearance of the complainant at the Complaints Committee hearing. I think that, if that same complaint came before the Council again, a different decision would be highly probable.

Another one was when, I think mistakenly, the Council dismissed a complaint relating to Zoo Weekly interviewing a young woman about her sexual experiences in a night club. The resultant interviews were graphic to say the least. The Council, in a more recent adjudication, correctly took the view that there could not be informed consent given by an interview subject who was coming out of the effects of anesthesia but in the Zoo Weekly matter we dismissed a complaint involving a young girl, obviously in an environment where alcohol is a factor, being interviewed in detail about her sex life. The question there too was whether informed consent could be given if she had been drinking. Consistency is important and I think those decisions were, to an extent, inconsistent.

Where do you see a future for the Press Council?

JF: There is a future providing the Council keeps its focus on complaints and enhances advertising of itself. If it becomes high profile, the community would want it to stay. The Council would become obscure if we focused largely on policy/free speech issues. The Council exists because of complaints and the community wants to know they have somewhere to go if they have concerns with a magazine or a newspaper.

Emma Boreland

For more information on Council membership, go to
Council membership page

[ return to top ]