Newspapers: A Voice for All?

At a Press Council public forum held in Hobart in March, three invited speakers looked at the extent to which newspapers should reflect both "mainstream" and "minority" views. Deborah Kirkman discusses the issues raised.

Are newspapers a voice for all? Not always, so it appears, if you're an environmentalist or a Vice-Chancellor of a University!

How successful various "mainstream" and "minority" groups are in getting their point of view canvassed in the Australian media was discussed at a forum organised by the Press Council, held in March in Hobart. Professor Alan Gilbert, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Tasmania, noted the difficulties public institutions have in forming alliances with the press. Suzy Manigian, Nature Conservation Co-ordinator of the Tasmanian Conservation Trust, argued that the "minority" view of environmentalists had become "mainstream", yet it was sometimes still necessary to use direct action to gain access to newspapers. The third speaker, Michael Courtney, former editor of the Launceston Examiner, put the case for the press, noting its diversity and the many demands made of it, demands which cannot always be met.

The forum was opened by Ald Doone Kennedy, Lord Mayor of Hobart, and introduced by Professor David Flint, Chairman of the Council.

In his address, Prof Flint answered the question "Newspapers: a voice for all?" with an unequivocal affirmative. He referred to three of the Press Council principles: first, that readers are entitled to have news presented to them honestly and fairly; secondly, that newspapers can strongly advocate their own opinions provided they treat readers fairly; and thirdly, if damaging material is published, the newspaper should make such amends as would neutralise that damage.

Prof Flint concluded that "there was an obligation to present the adequate and accurate reporting of a variety of views and policies, at least those most prominently espoused within the community. Those are the principles which guide the Council. On the one hand, the duty to be honest and fair to readers, and on the other, a right to be opinionated."

"Mainstream" View

Prof Gilbert addressed the extent to which it is both ethical and practicable to develop constructive alliances between public institutions, such as universities, and the press. Citing his own experience as an example, Prof Gilbert noted that what is published in a newspaper as a result of an interview sometimes bears little resemblance to the what was said.

The basic problem, in Prof Gilbert's view, was that "Vice-Chancellors are not universally regarded with warmth and affection. 'Never get between a Vice-Chancellor and a pile of money', I heard a Federal Minister counsel some of his colleagues at a dinner". But, "on the other hand, for every journalist or editor who sees universities as unattractive long-term partners, there is an academic who wants to ask why a university should expect anything but pain from trusting the media." He stressed, however, that constructive alliances are possible between universities and newspapers and noted that The Examiner and The Mercury (Hobart) bore the twin hallmarks of good journalism, a degree of accuracy and fairness he had never encountered before.

Prof Gilbert believes that it is to the public benefit that the media have social and political agendas. "How can a university, with its own powerful strategic agendas and priorities, expect to build a long-term relationship with a newspaper with its own powerful agendas? How can they get on?" he asked. Very well, if The Examiner is taken as an example. Prof Gilbert believes that it was the "recognition of strategic differences as well as strategic convergences" that has aided a working relationship between the university and the Tasmanian press.

He concluded with a message that "candour, frank exchanges of information ... and a common willingness to recognise differences of interest and limits to co-operation ... can lead to long-term relationships of trust to the benefit of the societies concerned."

"Minority" View

Suzy Manigian opened her speech with three questions: "What are minority groups? Why is the mainstream view so pervasive in newspapers? And how can minority groups gain access to newspaper column space?"

Minority groups, according to Ms Manigian, can be defined as a political or social minorities "denied access to power, such as women, children, Aborigines, students, migrants, low income earners ..." The other use "is in a numerical sense, as in an election - the losing party is the minority party." She found it interesting that she had been invited to present the 'minority' perspective as she considered herself to be a member of a community group, and "the community is not a minority".

Ms Manigian suggested that the mainstream view is so pervasive in newspapers because editors are the mouthpieces of press proprietors and advertisers and argued that if "newspapers begin to give significant amounts of space to minority views, such as 'maybe cars aren't the answer to the question', ... the 'balance' that exists in the paper will be stretched and the advertisers will see their main message undermined by the text". In support of her argument, Ms Manigian conjectured that editors have a good instinct for the level of negative coverage an issue can reach before advertisers withdraw their custom from newspapers.

Years of experience in activism and lobbying had taught pressure groups how to gain access to the print media and the best way was through direct action. "Some poor dummy or eco-hero, depending on your point of view," Ms Manigian explained, "strapped to a toxic effluent pipe at the bottom of the sea ... is newsworthy. However, it is the message and the issue that goes with the stunt that is important." Even though the views of the conservation movement of a decade ago are now accepted as mainstream - issues such as pesticide contamination and whaling - "today's issues receive the same sceptical treatment as the issues that are now accepted received in the 1960s." Ms Manigian concluded that she had recently read a two page feature article on the Tasmanian Forestry Industry and would welcome equivalent space devoted to a balanced response.

A Journalist

Michael Courtney, former editor of The Examiner, was determined to defend newspapers. He commenced with pointing out that although the blanket terms "the press" or "the media" are continually used, there is newspaper diversity in Australia with papers ranging from The Truth to The Age. He suggested that there is accessibility, "in fact, much more in 1995 than 1955", due largely to "the increasing number of better educated people, better organised interest groups ... and massive advances in communications technology which allows interest groups to monitor the media and bombard it with selective information". Still, that access is not automatic. Mr Courtney explained that access to space is not automatic, even for election candidates. With over one hundred candidates at state elections, for example, it is not possible for all their views to be given "adequate" space in a newspaper. Only the major parties are normally given the space they think they deserve.

Mr Courtney summarised the situation thus:

• The competition for space is now so intensive, and often so professionally manipulated, that newspapers have difficult decisions about allocation of space.
• A newspaper may have a mainstream point of view and has every right to give it some priority, but not at the expense of responsible accessibility.
• Minority views should be recognised and given some regular airing. But how does one define "some"?
• Newspapers have always had to wrestle with competing demands for space, but the challenge is probably more complex now than at any time this century.

The problem, according to Mr Courtney, is "we have genuinely powerful voices, both pleading and threatening, coming from such groups. Each, of course, has a valid point of view: theirs." He continued this theme by referring to papers such as The Sydney Morning Herald which approaches news on a more macro level as opposed to Tasmanian papers which ignore interest groups to the peril of being accused of bias or neglect.

Michael Courtney finished his speech on the positive note that "a newspaper is a many-faceted thing, attracting demands it cannot always meet, criticism it often deserves, but responding, even if slowly, to changing times, needs and concerns - that change coming in part from the pressures being applied by the communities it serves".

Questions and Discussion

The Council had invited the editors of the three Tasmanian dailies to the meeting, and they participated in the discussion that followed the three speeches.

Ian McCausland, editor of The Mercury, took the opportunity to disagree with Suzy Manigian's assertion that editors were the mouthpiece of proprietors: "I would like to refute (that) very vehemently," he said, and supported his argument by stating that in the six years he has been in Hobart he has not received a phone call from either Rupert Murdoch or Ken Cowley directing the way in which his paper should be shaped.

The side issue of boxed summaries in the papers arose. An audience member asked whether such practise discourages reader understanding of an issue. Defending fact boxes, Rodney Scott, editor of The Examiner, told the meeting that the boxes serve two purposes: as a summary of the main points and to assist readers who scan the headlines and sub-heads. Henry Catchpole, editor of The Advocate (Burnie), concurred with Mr Scott, having found "quite a good reception from our readers" to the use of fact boxes. Mr McCausland begged to differ and argued that people want depth in newspapers.

Ms Manigian responded to a question - why do groups such as hers overstate their case - by admitting that they do overstate the case but she does not think doing so is only the province of environmental groups. She reiterated her belief that they are not getting proportional access to the media and that they suffer from a bias, particularly in the Tasmanian media.

In response to a politician in the audience who asked, "What criteria are used when deciding whether a piece of information is newsworthy?" Rodney Scott explained that "the news criteria essentially are what we think our readers will want to read about during that day ... Coming in across that, of course, are the complexities of worthy and important stories that may well be promoted and used in a newspaper ahead of their populist appeal".

A question directed at Prof Gilbert concerned a comment in his speech that he only gives live interviews. He emphasised the importance of networking with journalists in a constructive way and ruefully admitted that he has learned to handle himself better with each passing experience.

Michael Courtney was fairly optimistic in responding to what he thought the future for newspapers will be, given the "information superhighway" and concentration of media ownership. "I can't see, certainly in the next two decades, newspapers being threatened. I think our biggest problem is that we don't have enough different newspapers. ... 'The rats and mice' proliferate, but newspapers which have the financial heft to do the sort of things that very good newspapers should do have certainly not grown in number".

Turning to the topic of the seminar, each of the speakers tackled the assertion that "it is a very common criticism of newspapers ... that they give much too much space to protests ... Events are being staged purely because reporters are going to be there".

Prof Gilbert, speaking as an historian, said: "I don't think this is new at all. News has always been manipulated since there were two people speaking at each other. I actually think audiences are pretty good at understanding what someone once called 'the language game' that is being played."

Suzy Manigian: The staging of stunts is "not cynical at all. The whole thing of people being arrested, for instance; it's not as if people haven't got better things to do than race out into the mud and stand around and get arrested and spend the afternoon in the lock-up ... It is not for fun that we do those things".

Michael Courtney: "How far do you go ... before you realise that you are being used to the point of idiocy - somewhere you have to have an opinion yourself, or the paper has to say 'hang on a bit, when does this end and why are we using so much space on this particular issue?'... It's a case of balance."

NOTE: A transcript of the Hobart public forum is being prepared and will be published as part of the Press Council's series of monographs of such forums and available for sale from the office.

Deborah Kirkman

[ 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.