Public Figures and the Press

At a recent Press Council public meeting, in Toowoomba, working journalists, academics and others discussed the limits on press coverage of public figures. Jack R Herman reports.

At the Press Council seminar to discuss "Public Figures and the Press", two working journalists suggested that the current system was working well while a civil libertarian called for the introduction of privacy laws in Queensland.

During a recent visit to Toowoomba, the Council held the meeting at the University of Southern Queensland. About 80 people attended the half-day seminar.

The seminar was opened by the University's Deputy Vice Chancellor, Professor Ken Goodwin and introduced by the Chairman of the Australian Press Council, Professor David Flint. The seminar which was jointly organised by the Council and the University featured four main speakers were Professor Clem Lloyd, Professor of Journalism at the University of Wollongong, Leisa Schultz, News Producer for Brisbane's Channel 7, Peter Cole-Adams, the Political Editor of The Canberra Times and Terry O'Gorman, Vice President of the Queensland Civil Liberties Council.

Prof Goodwin gave an erudite discourse on the history of the stormy relationships between the press and political figures, highlighted by his quoting of Arthur Calwell's classic put down of Arthur Fadden: "I well recall the forty days and 40 nights when you held the destiny of Australia in the hollow of your head."

Prof Flint

In his introduction Prof Flint argued that public figures retain an entitlement to some privacy but legitimate reporting should not be hindered by, for example, defamation writs.

"Public figures remain entitled to some privacy," he said. "Publishing what is interesting to the public is not necessarily in the public interest. At the same time, public figures should not rely on the defamation writ to stop legitimate reporting. The argument put to the High Court that political figures' rights to sue in defamation must be tempered by the implied right to political communication guaranteed by the Constitution is an attractive one. If adopted, it would put us in line with developments in comparable democracies."

Prof Flint used the British Royal Family as a particular case study of the question of the privacy rights of public figures. He also referred not only to current events but to the reporting of the Abdication of Edward VIII, noting that at that time the citizens of Britain and her Empire were less well informed of events of public interest than citizens of other countries. he also noted the American press' failure adequately to cover the illness in 1944 of President Roosevelt and the amorous activities, while in office, of President Kennedy. He contrasted this reticence with the more recent "junkyard dog" journalism.

He concluded that it" is responsible to investigate and report on the private lives of public figures, but only to the extent that the matters reported may have some impact on the exercise of some public office ..."

Public Journalism

Prof Clem Lloyd spoke mainly about the practice of "public journalism", which includes not only political reporting but also the practice of lobbying, public affairs and corporate affairs, and employment as a political press secretary. He noted the constant cross over between these different areas of public journalism.

He stressed the two extremes of media relations with politicians: "the drip" and "the feeding frenzy". The former involves the management of the media by the politicians. In some cases it is legitimate but it has the potential to become media manipulation. Favoured journalists are fed valuable information in return for "balanced" stories. If one is "off the drip", she is on her own, having to find her own stories. At the other extreme is the concentration by a media pack on a particular person or event. This process has the power to destroy careers and people. The media coverage of national events oscillate between these extremes.

Prof Lloyd noted that politicians subject to a feeding frenzy have access to defamation law but few use it. He cited a couple of well-known examples of those who have but noted, generally, that politicians use other methods to redress problems with the press. They do not usually resort either to the Press Council nor the AJA Judiciary Committee but are more likely to use "the drip" or to approach management to get a journalist back on side.

TV Journalism

Leisa Schultz spoke as a working journalist, one who determines "what you will see and won't see tonight, who we cover, who we don't, [and] the extent to which a journalist should go to get a story". She compared the Australian press with that of Malaysia. There the press is seen as an arm of government; they see themselves as educators.

While Australian TV was seen as the progenitor of the "tall poppy syndrome", Ms Schultz argued that it was a reflection of the society: a suspicious and sceptical society that takes "very little at face value and questions everything". It reflects the society because the TV news tries to give the people what they want in order to draw ratings and thus become commercially successful.

Her definition of a public figures encompassed more than politicians: she included leaders in the sporting, political and educational fields, as well as role makers. Also included were those thrust into the limelight by "unique actions" such as James Scott, those involved in the court system and those who make themselves "fair game" by going to the press. She would, however, draw the line at relatives of public figures "unless they themselves came to the media", or they added to the incident that had made the original incident public.

She contrasted Malaysia's high regard for the privacy of public figures with "the horror of dead bodies where their television news is concerned. Vision fed to the western world from Malaysia is subject to severe censorship and would hardly pass strict guidelines in Australia".

She concluded that the justification for the Australian method of handling public figures is that "people have the right to know the truth and they in turn can make their own decisions".

From the Press Gallery

Peter Cole-Adams spoke from the perspective of a working journalist who was eager to return to Canberra to cover a story breaking in his absence: the resignation of Senator Graham Richardson. After outlining about a dozen salacious scenarios involving Australian politicians, some of which had been reported in the press - strictly on a "no names no pack drill" - he noted that the Australian parliament was relatively tame compared to its British counterpart. He attributed this to the fact that there were fewer leaks and that there was a stronger libel law. He argued that public figures should be seen as different and so recognised in reporting and in law, as was the case in the US.

Elected parliamentarians were, he said, the paradigm of the public figure: each chose to enter politics; was paid by the public; spent public money; lived by publicity; enjoyed perks; and had the right to defame anyone he chose from the sanctity of the parliamentary privilege. In return it should be expected that parliamentarians should behave themselves, they should behave by the code of decency we have in the general public. But any transgression of that code should exact a more severe penalty for a public figure.

In this sense, the public, as the hirer and firer, has a right to know what its representatives are up to. "If they are not going to be honest ... they should be careful." The questions the press has to ask are: is it true? is it interesting? is it in the public interest to disclose? He noted Lord Northcote's dictum: "News is what someone wants to suppress. Everything else is advertising."

Briefly, Mr Cole-Adams a politician's investments as "public property" but his or her sex life was his/her own interest, except where it involved hypocrisy, occurred overseas or left the politician subject to blackmail. A politician's family was only relevant when they come to light through appearances in court or elsewhere in the public eye.

A Tort of Privacy

Terry O'Gorman used his speech to call for the introduction of privacy laws to protect public figures from media prying. He argued that it should be a crime for the media to enter private property or place surveillance devices to get a story. He noted the three forms of privacy invasion specifically targeted by the UK Calcutt Report in January 1993: entering private property without consent; placing surveillance devices; and taking unauthorised photos or voice recordings with a view to publication.

Mr O'Gorman said that in his model law not only would the offender be punished but the publisher as well. But the law should be tightly drawn to protect the freedom of the press, which would be further enhanced by a public interest defence, if the offender could show that the story exposed, for example, an attempt to mislead the public.

He also argued that "individuals having a sufficient interest should be able to apply for an injunction against the publication of any material obtained by means of any of the criminal offences or, if the material has already been published, for damages or for an account of profits". He argued that the creation of a civil right of action for invasion of privacy may well have to be created "as a trade-off for the Government not stepping in and regulating the more undesirable activities of the media", by, for example a statutory tribunal.

Mr O'Gorman argued that such a privacy law should be framed to protect individual citizens but at the same time some recognition of the freedom of expression in over-riding law should also be enacted.

Jack R Herman

For more on privacy,
see the index of material on privacy.

[ return to top ]

Return to APC News 1994 Index

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