Survey of Editors

The Council has recently surveyed some of the editors, publishers and executives (hereinafter referred to simply as "editors") who have dealt with complaints sent to the Council.

Eighty editors who had handled complaints in 1993-4 were sent questionnaires and 32 responded. The respondents had dealt with about 460 complaints (about one-third of the complaints in the relevant period), at an average of just over 14 per editor. The editors responded on behalf of 5 metropolitan dailies, 3 Sundays, 1 national daily, 7 regional dailies, 9 suburban and 6 country newspapers,and 1 magazine group.

A little fewer than a half had been involved in a complaint where a mediated solution was arrived at. About two-thirds had had a complaint heard before the Complaints Committee. Of those, 9 had attended a hearing and 13 had not. Of the 9, they felt (8-1) that the committee had adequately addressed the complaint. (The exception thought that the committee did not have the "local knowledge" to adjudicate the complaint.)

Of the 23 editors who expressed an opinion on the outcome of the complaint, 19 were satisfied, while 3 were dissatisfied. By 4 to 1, editors were more likely to be satisfied by the outcomes of matters when they attended a hearing.

10 editors had consulted legal advice at some time with a complaint, most at the time when the complaint was received. Only 6 of the editors had asked that a complainant sign the Council's legal waiver. 17 said s/he believed that the request for a legal waiver is fair to the complainant; 6 disagreed.

Most editors (28) has dealt with complaints about a specific story. Many of these had also dealt with other sorts of compliants: 9 about the general practices by the media; 6 about the general practices of a specific media organisation; 8 about a particular journalist and 5 other. All but 5 of the editors thought that the Council should deal with complaints in all these categories, without restriction.

Most of the editors thought it was legitimate to complain to the Council to make the media organisation correct a mistake (31); to make the media present all sides of the story (23); to stop the media misleading the public (20); and to make the media admit to a mistake to the public (19). A minority thought it legitimate to complain to make the organisation apologise to the complainant (15); to make the organisation stop certain practices (12); or to make the media apologise to a third party (6).

Fourteen of the organisations had offered to take some sort of corrective action as the result of a complaint before the council. 14 had not. 4 did not feel that they were ever in a position to make such an offer. 22 would have acted the same way if the approach had come direct from the complainant rather than from the Council, 2 would not.

21 editors recognised that the tone adopted by a media organisation in response to a complainant's concerns had some effect on his/her decision to file or continue the complaint with the Council. 8 thought it had little effect and 2 suggested it had no effect.

When asked to assess their satisfaction with various aspects of the Council's process, the editors indicated satisfaction with the speed and efficiency of the process, although expressing some reservations about complainants' reactions to the process and response to decisions.

Editors, on average, spend 3 to 10 hours in dealing with a complaint submitted to the Press Council. Only 5 thought they spent too much time in dealing with complaints.

5 of the editors saw something printed or broadcast about the complaint, its settlement or the decision handed down by the Council in any medium other than his/her own. 21 did not.

In response to questions about attitudes to the Press Council, the editors found the process fair and even-handed but were less confident that the Council's decisons having a long term positive effect on the media.

If a similar situation arose again, 16 editors would prefer that complainants take the matter to the Council; 13 would prefer a direct contact from the complainant with the media organisation.

10 editors were in favour of the Press Council charging complainants a fee but 21 opposed the idea. Of those in favour of the concept, most favoured a fee of less than $100.

22 editors believe that the time limit currently imposed by the Council - asking for a response from newspapers within seven days - was reasonable. 10 would have preferred a longer time - of whom five preferred a fortnight and 5 a month.

In summary 29 editors considered that the Press Council is of use to the print media, with one disagreeing, one unsure and one no answer.

About the Press Council

The editors were 19-4 against the Council having the power to fine publications but favoured (17-8) the Council being able to require a printed apology. They though the Council made the press more responsive to the public and thought it better than the courts for settling disputes.

Like the complainants, the editors found the process fair, adequately simple and fast enough. They thought that lawyers should be excluded from the process (21-2), disagreed (26-2) that the press was too powerful for an average person to win against them in any forum and said that the Council was biased towards neither the press nor the complainant.

17 of the editors thought that the Council could deal with complaints about the electronic media as well; 5 thought it could to some extent; and 7 were opposed to the idea.

The editors favoured fees from professional press organisations, fees charged to the press and government grants, in that order, as the sources of Press Council funds; fewer than one in six favoured fees charged to the complainants.

Most had a high opinion of the social value of the Council and its functions. 21 saw the Council as valuable, while 2 saw if as being of little value; 23 approved of the concept of a press council as opposed to 1 who found the concept of little value; 19 found the adjudications valuable compared with 2 who saw them as having little value, while 24 saw the Council's defence of free speech and a free press as valuable and one did not.

Currently, the Press Council consists of an independent Chairman and a total of twenty individuals, half representing the publishers, 7 representing the public and three journalists. The editors, on average, opted for a Council of 7 publishers' representatives, 8 public members and 5 journalists. However, the largest single response saw eleven of the editors (over one-third) opt for the same mix as the survey of complainants: half the Council to be public members, with the other half evenly split between publishers' representatives and journalists.

22 of the editors believed that the Council should stay as a self-regulatory body with only its current moral powers; 5 wanted the Council to stay as a self-regulatory body but have power to fine publications; 3 thought it would be more effective as a statutory authority.

The editors were also asked their views on freedom of expression issues and on the press generally. Their responses to those questions will be published in the next issue.

see also
Survey of Complainants, and of Editors (272 kB)

[ return to top ]

Return to APC News 1995 Index

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