Judging the World Press

At a recent meeting of the World Association of Press Councils in Istanbul, proposals for taking complaints about the transnational media were discussed. The Council's Chairman, Professor Dennis Pearce, looks at the proposals.

The World Association of Press Councils (WAPC) held its annual assembly in association with a conference in Istanbul, Turkey, in September 1998. I attended the meeting together with Executive Secretary, Jack Herman. Two sessions at the conference were devoted to subjects that have been under consideration for some time by the Association and which have roused some controversy.

First there is a proposal that the Association sponsor the establishment of a "Transnational Complaints Mechanism". This body would adjudicate on complaints made against the international media or the media of a country other than that of the complainant. The examples given by proponents almost all refer to what is seen as unfair reporting of governmental activity in dealing with unrest. However, there would seem to be no reason why the mechanism could not be activated to deal with complaints made by individuals who consider that they have been wrongly treated. It is my understanding that the proposed complaints mechanism would deal with both print and electronic media.

The second proposal was concerned with the desirability of drafting an international code of ethics that would be applicable to the media worldwide.

It was my impression that the majority of speakers at the conference opposed both ideas. However, meetings first of the WAPC Executive Council and then of the assembly at whch about half the member councils of the WAPC were represented voted to establish three working parties to undertake the following tasks:

• to draft a model for an independent Press Council, including a code of ethics [by which is meant a statement of principles that might be used by the Press Council to adjudicate complaints] for a free and responsible press and a set of procedures for such a council, based on established codes and practices, which can be used by the Association when its advice is sought by individuals or organisations seeking to establish an independent Press Council.
  
  
• to prepare for the consideration of the Executive Council a draft set of model guidelines on media ethics (an International Code of Media Ethics).
  
  
• to advise the Executive Council on the feasibility of establishing, financing and attracting wide media and especially public support for a voluntary mechanism for the mediation and resolution of transnational complaints in relation to the conduct of the media, the conduct of others toward the media and for defending and enhancing a free and responsible media.

I moved the first proposal but opposed the second and third. I was in a minority of one on the Executive Council and then among those members of the Association present at the assembly.

The reason for taking this approach was that, in relation to the first proposal, it seemed to me that it represented appropriate action by WAPC as a body comprised of Press Councils. The preparation of a working model will assist countries in which there is no Press Council to establish such a body that is free and independent of the government. It will avoid the need for a country to start from scratch in determining how a Press Council might operate and what principles it might use to resolve complaints. It will provide a brief for opposing the imposition by a government of unacceptable controls on the media. It will draw on the experience of Press Councils but it will not attempt to arrogate to the WAPC a status that it does not have. The WAPC will be dealing with matters that are within its expertise.

I opposed the other two proposals because they represented an attempt by the WAPC to foist onto the world press a code of conduct and a mechanism for implementing that code that it is not seeking and which the Association has no authority to attempt to impose. A code would at best be ignored by the very media from which complainants would be seeking redress. At worst it would be likely to be used against both internal press opposition and the international media by governments wanting to control the flow of information in their own countries.

In answer to the claim that the WAPC was doing no more than investigating the feasibility of a code and an enforcement mechanism, it seemed to me to be undesirable for the WAPC to continue to pursue proposals that were unlikely to be unacceptable to the press in many countries and which were likely to call the credibility of the WAPC into question. In taking this stance, I was carrying through the views that had been formulated by the Australian Press Council when it became aware that these proposals were on the agenda for the Turkey meeting.

The reaction of the world press to the proposals adopted in Istanbul has borne out the concerns that I expressed. Strong criticism of the actions of the WAPC has been made by The Times, London; Le Monde, Paris; The World Association of Newspapers; Reporters Sans Frontieres; and the World Press Freedom Committee. I suspect that there has been other condemnation as views critical of the proposals had been expressed before the Turkey meeting in United States newspapers.

In line with these criticisms, the Australian Press Council at its meeting on 29 October 1998 resolved to dissociate itself from the proposals that further work be undertaken by the WAPC towards the drafting of an international code of media ethics and the establishment of a transnational complaints mechanism.

Dennis Pearce

see also
Index of Dennis Pearce's material on the website
Justice P B Sawant's response to this article, in the February 1999 News

[ return to top ]

Return to APC News 1998 Index

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