Conciliating Complaints

Press Council members HELEN EDWARDS, JOHN FLEETWOOD and REX JORY look at the use of conciliation in settling complaints to the Press Council.

Formal conciliation is a far simpler and less confrontational method of dealing with Press Council complaints than referring disagreements to the Complaints Committee and ultimately the full Council.

Conciliation may not be appropriate in every case. Some issues may be too complex for resolution by conciliation, some complainants may be determined to seek a punitive outcome and in some cases the atmosphere between disputing parties may be too acrimonious.

But the Council has determined to take more vigorous efforts to encourage complainants and publications to resolve their differences through conciliation rather than formal hearings of the Complaints Committee.

Public members of the Council based in individual states can facilitate the conciliation process. It is not appropriate for industry members to initiate conciliation. To complainants it would be too much like Caesar judging Caesar.

Recent experience in South Australia indicates that conciliation can work, sometimes in surprising and rewarding ways. The major ingredients for success are a degree of goodwill between both parties to seek a dignified and mutually acceptable result, some flexibility by both parties and persistence and a sense of neutrality by the Press Council conciliator.

One of the key elements of a successful conciliation is that it is held in an atmosphere of free will, not compulsion. Either party can withdraw at any time. To impose compulsory conciliation on disputing parties when one or both are hostile to the arrangements is neither desirable nor likely to succeed.

But if both parties are willing and prepared voluntarily to engage in conciliation, the chances of success are significant.

A conciliated outcome has several clear advantages. These include:

• a reduction in costs and time;
   
• a reducing workload on both the APC secretariat and the full Council;
   
• the creation of far greater understanding of the views of both parties;
   
• the opportunity for both parties to meet face to face under the guidance of the conciliator's voice of reason;
   
• a real sense in the mind of the complainant that something substantial can be achieved with their involvement;
   
• a sense of power in the mind of the complainant that their grievance has been taken seriously and that their complaint was neither fobbed off nor adjudicated by some distant tribunal perceived to be controlled by the Press itself;
   
• the opportunity for newspapers to resolve complaints without having to sacrifice time, effort and expense preparing and participating in a formal APC hearing; and
   
• the opportunity for the Press to gain an appreciation of the complainant's point of view.

One of the complications of the conciliation process can be the initial contact between complainants and the newspaper before the Council is involved. If initial discussions between complainants, writers and ultimately editors or other senior editorial staff are threatening or acrimonious, the chances of resolution by conciliation are limited.

While every case is different there may be an argument for the Council to write to all editors suggesting ways of dealing with initial complaints so the door is left open for conciliation. For example, conciliation is hardly likely to succeed if an editor shouts down the telephone at a complainant: "I don't care that you're upset. I back my reporter and my newspaper all the way. If you want to take us to court or the Press Council go right ahead.''

It would be naive to believe this type of response does not occur. But the chances of successful conciliation remain open if an editor says: "Thank you for your call. I'll investigate your complaint and, if you have genuine grounds for concern, I will see what can be done to redress your grievance.''

In South Australia there have been two quite different examples of successful conciliation.

Case 1: The AMA

The AMA lodged a third party complaint on behalf of a doctor working at the Royal Adelaide Hospital who was the subject of a page one story in The Advertiser.

The story, with a photograph, correctly said that the doctor was under investigation in New South Wales over a suspicious death.

At the encouragement of Jack Herman, public member Helen Edwards, with John Fleetwood, arranged a conciliation with The Advertiser. An alternate industry member, Rex Jory, represented The Advertiser in a meeting with two senior office bearers from the AMA.

When the AMA admitted the doctor had not withdrawn his right to take legal action Jory declined to continue conciliation, arguing that what was said could be used as evidence in a court hearing. But during further informal talks prompted by Helen Edwards, Jory offered the opportunity for the AMA to meet with The Advertiser editor to express its concerns.

The AMA, with some reluctance, agreed to this course, they met with the editor and the issue was resolved.

Case 2: The Attorney-General

The South Australian Attorney-General complained to The Advertiser about a detailed report by a senior journalist which said Government compensation to victims of crime had been frozen because of a decision in the State Parliament's Upper House.

The Attorney said the story was incorrect. There were lengthy exchanges of letters between the Attorney and The Advertiser. The Press Council office then suggested conciliation and, once again, Helen Edwards and John Fleetwood were involved, with Rex Jory as The Advertiser's principal negotiator. The reporter, Craig Bildstein, was also involved in the discussions towards a settlement.

The Attorney made clear his annoyance about the story and maintained he was right. The Advertiser argued its story was correct.

In the end, as an alternative to a formal complaints hearing, The Advertiser offered the Attorney the opportunity to write an opinion page column of 400-500 words outlining the Government's position and, if necessary, criticising The Advertiser's report.

The Attorney light-heartedly said he felt he had been duped. Bildstein was unhappy that The Advertiser was prepared to allow the Attorney some latitude to criticise his story. But the matter was resolved at conciliation rather than at the Complaints Committee.

These are two examples of the potential for conciliation.

It can work if there is reasonable goodwill between both parties.

Helen Edwards, John Fleetwood, Rex Jory

[ return to top ]

Return to APC News 2005 Index

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