|
 |
 |
|
May 1995 - Volume 7, No.2
Surveys and Letters In his regular column, the Press Council's Chairman, Prof David Flint, looks at the results of some questionnaires and at an exchange of correspondence.
They are people who are interested in the press and media issues generally. On the whole they are relatively young (53% under 25) and 60% are female. Most (84%) are Australian born, although about a quarter have at least one parent born overseas. They are also relatively affluent, the majority with a household income of at least $35,000. They are well-educated, most with some tertiary education, including TAFE. About a half have university education and many are students or journalists. Most support the press council concept (94%). They approve of the Australian Press Council (87.3%), the Council's adjudications (81.8%) and the Council's defence of free speech and a free press. A majority think there are too many publishers' representatives on the Council (59.2%). This may be a little misleading as the publishers are often represented by editors - and the respondents believe that there are too few journalist members. They regard themselves as moderate to progressive in politics and have some considerable community involvement. They are certainly not litigious. They are not unsympathetic to the media which they think usually acts responsibly when correcting information for stories. Considering deadline pressures they think that the news media provide as much accurate information as could be expected. They believe that most of the time the media does a good job providing accurate accounts. However, there is a feeling that the news media put too much emphasis on what is wrong in society; and that reporters often let their own views influence the way they reported a story. The respondents are particularly critical about omissions, believing that the news media often mislead people by presenting only part of the facts people need to make decisions and that the media frequently fail to provide information from minority groups in news stories. They think newspapers are the most accurate and reliable medium and are more inclined to believe newspapers. If there were only one choice for either local, national or international news they would prefer newspapers to television, radio or magazines. They think every adult had the right to read anything he or she chooses even if others might consider that pornographic; that teachers should have the right to use material they think most appropriate; and that it is important to have a free press even if the press acts irresponsibly. They disagre with the statement that people should be free to say anything they wish even if it hurts individuals or groups. Also, they do not think that adults have a right to make a public statement that is less than complimentary about a racial or ethnic group. Given the number of media people answering the survey, their views on defamation laws is surprising. The majority disagree with the propositions that Australia's defamation laws too frequently stop the media reporting matters of public interest or that defamation law goes too far in restricting the free flow of information. They seem inclined to support a shield law in relation to journalists' confidential sources, believing that journalists should only reveal the names of confidential sources when a judge orders them to do so and then only when it is crucial to a serious criminal trial. They feel the public is entitled to know about the private lives of public figures only when this impacts on the exercise of some public office. Public figures must expect to enjoy less privacy than ordinary citizens. (These views on privacy seem consistent with the AGB-McNair poll of 21-23 April published in The Sydney Morning Herald 26 April 1995. The poll shows the government making little headway against a big lead established by the opposition "despite the perceived damage to the Liberal Party caused by the controversy surrounding Senator Noel Crichton-Browne". The Herald said that the poll indicated the major reason why: the Senator's "political downfall followed revelations that he had bashed his wife, but those polled overwhelmingly agreed a politician's private life should remain private". Asked "Do you feel a politician's private life should remain private or do voters have a right to know about personal issues?", those polled by AGB-McNair voted 74% in favour of a right to privacy.) Respondents to the Press Council questionnaires strongly believe that the Press Council has an important role to play in defending freedom of expression, although a lesser number, but still a majority, believe that the Press Council is playing such a role. The Press Council intends to continue surveying those who attend its various activities so that opinions of people particularly concerned with press matters can be monitored. see also An Exchange of Letters A Herald journalist, Leonie Lamont, told of her experience with Media Watch in The Sydney Morning Herald of 6 April 1995. Stuart Littlemore accused her of plagiarism. She pointed out her attribution to another article was removed by a sub-editor. She thought that Media Watch should have checked into this before going to air and that, therefore, it owed her an apology. This reminded me of an unsuccessful attempt in November 1991 to get the programme to correct an error. Stuart Littlemore QC said that a person who complains to the Press Council only has a one in five chance of having her or his complaint upheld. Presumably this calculation came from a misreading of one of our quarterly newsletters. We explained to Media Watch, from material in the public domain, that over many years, most complaints were mediated, settled, referred to other bodies or otherwise dealt with. Of those adjudicated, close to one in two are upheld, in whole or in part. Not one in five. I wrote to The Sydney Morning Herald about this and my letter was published on 10 April. The Executive Producer of Media Watch, David Salter, then wrote to the Herald in reply. His letter was published on 10 April 1995: "Four years later, Professor Flint of the Press Council still has the telescope fixed firmly to his blind eye. "The Council's published figures in 1991 indicated that of the complaints it received, around one in five was upheld. That's precisely what we said on Media Watch. Mediated complaints are not "upheld" and do not influence that ratio. "Whatever discipline the chairman holds his professorship in, it clearly isn't mathematics (pure or applied)." I did not think I should let the matter rest. My reply was published on 26 April: "So Media Watch's executive producer David Salter stands by the story that a Press Council complainant has only a one in five chance of the complaint being upheld. Media Watch's source? According to Mr Salter, the Press Council's 1991 statistics. These figures show that of 345 complaints received, 57 were adjudicated, the remainder being either mediated (91), withdrawn after correspondence (43), and so on. Of the 57 adjudicated, 22 were upheld in whole or in part and 35 dismissed. In other words, about a one in two chance of an adjudication being upheld. In its defence Media Watch says it was really referring to the ratio of complaints upheld to the total number of complaints. This was certainly not one in five! A courteous letter pointing this out was not acknowledged nor was any correction made. Correcting errors of fact is, after all, fundamental to good journalism. Perhaps Media Watch should take a lead out of the practice of the media it so criticises and publish corrections promptly. For example, Media Watch could have a regular 'We were wrong' segment, delivered, of course, with appropriate facial gestures." The debate continues as we go to press and I will report further next issue. David Flint see also [ return to top ] Return to APC News 1995 Index Documents with the |
|||
|
About the Council [ its history and benefits of self-regulation | Members] | |
|||
|
Last updated 23 February 2004 All material ©The Australian Press Council. Website Design, Construction & Maintenance by |
|||
The Press Council has been surveying the opinions of people who attend its various activities: case studies seminars, ethics seminars and public forums at different places around the country where the Press Council has been meeting. In 1994, we had 287 such responses.
Survey of Complainants, and of Editors