5. Contemporary Issues in the Australian Press
Issues in press ethics
Ethical issues for journalists and publications have come to the fore again over the last year. Among these issues, the necessity for the application of Press Council principles to blog sites that purport to offer accurate, balanced and fair news reports has been the subject of much debate on the Council. There is nothing new in the questions around handling the increasing prevalence of 'spin ' of questionable provenance foisted on newspapers by all parties, including government spokespersons seeking advantage in the reporting of sensitive issues, but in the past year these issues have been relevant to a number of breaking stories. The handling of ostensibly off-the-record journalist briefings became an issue when some journalists questioned the Treasurer 's account of a dinner. And a television report on footballers ' medical records brought into focus the adequacy of privacy rights especially the personal health information of sports celebrities. With the exception of the need for rules covering news blog sites, complex newspaper ethical dilemmas are not new, although the examples reported herein illustrate the importance interested parties attach to manipulation of the news. It is the Press Council 's role to try encourage ethical reporting by all parties. As the issues raised in this section show, it is not always easy to determine what is the ethically correct path.
Blogs
Newspapers have long supplemented their reporting of news with tightly edited commentary upon that news. On newspaper websites, however, there is virtually unlimited space for commentary and opinion. Many traditional columnists (and a number of others, many not journalists) now write web logs (blogs), regular (sometimes daily) columns on websites, and invite readers to submit instant feedback that is posted as comments on the blog. Until recently many of these comments were not moderated. They were posted straight to the website without any of the careful editing that letters to the editor including those of readers, received.
Newspapers became especially aware of web-site problems when readers lodged complaints about what they had read on particular blogs. Most newspaper have had to react to the likelihood of some of the posted material being inappropriate or against the law by appointing in-house moderators/editors to assess material intended for posting on blog pages, either not posting offensive ones or removing them as soon as they become aware of them.
The Press Council has expanded its coverage to deal with complaints against blogged material on member web-sites, and any solely on-line sites that purport to report the news in the same way as newspapers do. It has introduced the following steps for dealing with websites complaints. The details reflect the reality that blogs and responses to them cannot be handled in ways exactly analogous to ordinary complaints or letters pages:
- The Council will notify the relevant member-website immediately it receives a complaint.
- The website publisher is advised that a complaint has been accepted and has the option of removing the item, affixing an indicator on the item to the effect that it is disputed, or taking no action pending processing of the complaint if it is accepted by the Council.
- The complaint, if accepted, is then processed according to usual procedures.
- Any action taken by the website upon notification of the complaint can be taken into account if the Council adjudicates the complaint.
The Council has also considered and is consulting members about the desirability of introducing a web-site Code of Conduct that would govern web-site surveillance as is being found very desirable internationally. The Code will encourage the adoption of this guidance Code intended to apply to contributors and those responsible for news media web-sites. They concern such blog-related matters as:
- Be courteous
- Give accurate information in the spirit of being helpful
- Respectfully disagree
- Use the correct venue for your post
- Admit the possibility of fault and respect different points of view
- If you mess-up take responsibility for your actions
Spin/sources
The Haneef case on the Gold Coast brought into relief the pervasiveness of spin and the problems of dealing with it in the daily round, especially 'official ' spin. The Australian's Hedley Thomas discussed the problems associated with this notorious case in the Walkley magazine.
Briefly, the matter started with Mohammed Haneef, a doctor, who was not an Australian citizen but was working in a Gold Coast hospital under a temporary working visa. Dr Haneef was detained on suspicion of involvement in terrorist activities in the UK. The stated basis of the arrest was that he had given a partly used mobile telephone SIM card to a relation in the UK. That person had been implicated in the attacks in London and Glasgow. After the arrest of the doctor, government ministers (state and federal) as well as the police were quick to release information about the cause of the arrest.
As it turned out subsequently, some of the information released was misleading. Many journalists initially had to rely upon that official information and related 'off-the-record ' briefings. It was many days before the information from those sources could be tested - by the leaking from the defence lawyers of the transcript of the police interview with Dr Haneef.
When Dr Haneef finally appeared in court, the magistrate found the evidence in support of the government 's case so uncompelling that bail was granted. That did not stop the leaking of further information from official sources of prejudicial material, this time allegedly intercepted from an on-line chat room which then caused Hedley Thomas to raise serious questions about sources and journalists ' relations both publicly and with the officials responsible for the leaks.
The Haneef case is far from the only case where journalists have relied on "unverifiable" information from official sources, apparently not expecting to be accountable.
For instance, during the year the Press Council has had to adjudicate a complaint from the Office of the Governor-General. The story was allegedly given to the journalist from senior sources within a state government. How can any adjudication be fair, since confidential sources are important components of real news but leave the person affected in a near indefensible position? The Council has defended the protection of sources in court cases, but it does acknowledge that there can be important imbalances between the power of the newspaper and that of the person without means of defence, who are the subject of apparently unsubstantiated newspaper reports. Since more journalists seem to be tempted to forsake the role of informed and scrupulous observer in favour of becoming players of influence, this is a real problem. In this case, the Council sought and received assurances from the highest office holder in the news organisation concerning the status and reliability of the sources, which helped it determine the issue. It is, however, an issue requiring more thought and stronger evidence than the blithe assurances of individual journalists.
Of course, the most obvious and continuing example of the sources problem concerned the speculation throughout 2007 about the Liberal Party leadership. The unnamed sources who are responsible for most of it have undoubtedly been placing their own spin on the information which seemingly is the price journalists accept in return for a continuing supply. A rather Faustian pact! The federal government 's attitude to the use of spin has been noticeably amoral, demonstrating a serious lack of consistency and integrity. Three contrasting cases illustrate the point.
- The conviction and sentencing of two Melbourne journalists, Michael Harvey and Gerard McManus, for refusing to name the sources for a 2004 article in the Herald Sun about the reneging on government policy promises illustrates the potential for journalists to suffer from government retribution. The Attorney-General belatedly made futile sympathetic noises even though a Commonwealth Prosecutor had initiated the action
- Similarly there were police raids on The Australian as part of the government 's attempts to discover the identity of sources for newspaper reports emanating from whistle-blowers who made known serious security deficiencies in Australian Customs practices at Sydney Airport. The Public Service official who allegedly leaked the information was charged using other information and found guilty. The interesting point is that neither time nor money was allowed to limit the search for sources. The government spent over $2 million and 21,000 hours of police time over four years, including the newspaper searches, trying to track down the identity of the sources.
- In contrast, security-sensitive Office of National Assessment material leaked to commentator Andrew Bolt and used to bolster the government point of view did not lead to any discernable effort or expense to discover the source, even though it was alleged by an ALP senator that the source was an official working in the office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The contrast is remarkable as the security breach was at least of the same or greater import than the claim reported in the previous paragraph of weaknesses in Australian
Customs practices
The Press Council is considering its role further. On the one hand, without unnamed sources much real news, and often the truth about events, will not be ascertained. On the other hand over-reliance on such sources, where there is no demonstrable need, is slipshod journalism. Even where reliance seems justified there ought to be double checking at the most senior level within the newspaper before publication. Special care to avoid being hostage to deliberate spin should be the stock-in-trade of journalists, especially political journalists and even more especially journalists on the front line near election times. Adherence to ethical responses will largely determine the standing of journalism long-term.
International newspapers such as The Washington Post apparently have much tougher requirements for multiple sources and validation of information than are customarily applied in Australia.
How high standards of journalistic ethics can best be achieved and where necessary, confirmed, remains an important agenda item for the Press Council. It will continue to examine questions of journalistic ethics in its quest for an optimally free and responsible press in Australia.
Off the record
A similarly sensitive ethical question arises from "off-the-record" and background briefings. A 2005 dinner attended by the Treasurer and three journalists raises questions about when, if ever, off-the-record or background material might come onto the record. The claim is that an undertaking was given, even if post facto, that the dinner conversation was "off the record". Two years later, in response to the Treasurer 's strong statements denying reports of what was said at the dinner, the journalists revealed their own recollections of what was said. If an informant at an off-the-record meeting later himself misrepresents what was said, is any undertaking to keep the dinner off the record still valid for the others present? Does a journalist 's obligation to a confidential source continue after the time that the journalist discovers that the source has been deliberately misleading or has planted a story with the sole aim of harming another?
There have been many reactions to the case by Australian journalists. The majority view seems to have been that such confidences should have been maintained. The Press Council 's view is that this is another aspect of spin, which journalists above all should have the training and will to resist. Journalists are too easily conned when they take the simple expedient of being "on the drip" as a substitute for the sort of leg-work that obtains the information from verifiable, quotable sources. Reliance on unattributable leaks and background briefings should not be countenanced as the routine approach to information gathering. When there are complaints, the Press Council will seek to ascertain the authenticity of information and confirmatory sources used in reports. Australian journalists would do well to have fabricated especially long spoons for any suppers they share.
AFL drug case
The revelation by a television station of the identity of the football club of two players who had tested positively twice for the use of recreational drugs raised several interesting ethical questions. The source of the story was a clinic 's medical records allegedly found in the street near the clinic and sold to the television station. A central issue is the right of individuals to privacy of their health records, even for very high profile footballers in the face of allegations concerning drug use in a club. In fact police found and charged those responsible for finding and on-selling the records. It is also possible that the journalist and the station will be charged, indicating that current law is sufficient to protect the privacy of the medical records of the individuals (whose names have not been broadcast).
It is really a case of egregious chequebook journalism. Should a publisher or broadcaster pay for information when it involves the use of material of doubtful provenance and invasion of the privacy of individuals? The Press Council considered this question in 1992 (in Adjudication 566 found at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/APC/1992/36.html), when a regional daily published material from confidential papers allegedly found in the street and passed along to the newspapers. It standing position is:
The Press Council believes the Advertiser was justified in reporting that confidential and sensitive material relating to an issue of considerable local interest, and allegedly stolen, had been found in a car park. It was right to publish [the complainant 's] criticisms of its actions. It showed restraint, and prudence, in choosing not to report the more sensitive information in the documents. The issue is whether it should have revealed information extracted from the documents.
The Press Council does not accept the newspaper 's contention that the manner in which the documents were obtained was irrelevant. The source of information, particularly if it involves an alleged criminal offence, is clearly a matter a newspaper must take into account in deciding whether to print it.
The basic question is whether the printed report added so significantly to public knowledge on what was certainly an issue of public interest that such ethical and privacy considerations were outweighed. On balance, the Council believes it did not.
In the Lenah Game Meats case, the High Court considered similar questions and decided that, in that case, involving film taken of a possum abattoir in Tasmania, the public interest argument prevailed and the ABC (which had not been involved in the illegal activities associated with the filming) could air the material. In the end, these and other ethical questions come back to the issue of whether there is a clear public interest in the release of the information and whether the broadcaster or publisher is satisfied that the manner by which the information was obtained does not compromise its integrity.