Echo Issue Outline: copyright Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.Are there sufficient controls on Australian journalists?
Issue outline by J M McInerney
The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) has just released its draft version of a revised code of ethics for journalists.
The report was available in early September and has excited a range of comment in the press.
There have been those who see it has a sound and welcome endorsement of the established code of ethics, while others have claimed that it is inadequate and are anxiously awaiting the MEAA's final report which will outline how breaches of the code are to be dealt with.
Background
The Australian Journalists Association (AJA) has long had a ten point code of ethics.
It was developed by a one-time president of the AJA, Mr Geoffrey Godfrey, with the help of Otto Beeby and Rupert Lockwood.
Its precise form was determined by the late Jack Barry, a civil libertarian and judge.
As outlined by Denis Muller, this code has five central concerns. These are: `honest presentation of all essential and available facts; fair and honest behaviour in gathering material; respect for all confidences received; resistance of improper influence; respect for people's privacy and individual characteristics such as race, religion and sexual preferences.'
The code forbids subjectivity and dishonesty in reporting, the manipulation of the news and the gaining of information by misrepresenting a reporter's identity.
The AJA code of ethics has been under review by the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) for the last two years.
The MEAA is the body which has subsumed the AJA.
The MEAA has just released its preliminary report, which includes a new draft code of ethics (now containing twenty points rather than ten) substantially based on the previous code.
Still to be released is the MEAA's final report which will deal with how the journalist's code of ethics is to be enforced and what penalties will apply for those who do not adhere to the code.
For some 50 years non-compliance has been dealt with via self-regulation.
This means that each state's branch of the Australian Journalists' Association has set up judiciary committees. These committees are generally manned by practising journalists who adjudicate in secret on their peers possible breaches of the code.
The details of the judiciary committees' findings are not made public.
Further, these committees are not empowered to initiate a hearing. Before they investigated a possible breach they have to have received a complaint.
Arguments in favour of the current level of control on Australian journalists
As commented on in the print media since the release of the new draft journalists' code of ethics, the issue has been discussed under two heads.
The first relates to whether the code, as it now stands, is adequate. The second relates to whether there needs to be an improved mechanism for ensuring adherence to the code.
Those who argue in favour of the new code maintain, as does Denis Muller, senior associate of the Centre for Public Policy at the University of Melbourne and former associate editor of The Age, that the `new draft code preserves ...[the features of the old code] but also spells out obligations that are only implicit under the old code.'
Denis Muller has outlined four areas in which the new code gives greater precision to the requirements of the old.
The first of these is that the new code places `increased emphasis on accuracy and fairness'. Central to this is that the new code now obliges journalists to give a "right of reply" to all people who are adversely commented upon in a particular news treatment.
This, it is hoped, will ensure greater objectivity.
Journalists are also urged to ensure a "fair correction of errors".
Previously this was more a judgement call, with the old code requiring that the error had to be "harmfully inaccurate" before the journalist was obliged to correct it. Now, the mere fact of an error, whatever the supposed degree of harm it may be claimed to have caused, is sufficient to imply the obligation to correct it.
The second major area of clarification Denis Muller notes is in regard to the manipulation of photographs, sound tracks and video images to create a false impression. Here the journalist is prohibited from tampering with material in order to misrepresent.
A possible instance of such tampering is the photographic superimposition of a particular subject over a different background so that the subject appears to be in a location different to that in which the photograph was actually taken.
The old code dealt in general terms with the need to honestly disclose information; the new code deals directly with the distortion of material possible using current technology.
The third area of clarification and extension highlighted by Denis Muller deals with chequebook journalism. Here the previous emphasis on protection of sources is in some measure diluted as the journalist is now obliged to reveal any payment made for interviews, information or pictures.
It would appear to be the current judgement that an audience needs such information if it is to know how much weight to attribute to a particular report.
There would seem to be an implied doubt about the objectivity of any information source when a large fee had been paid for the material. The motives of both the journalist and the news publication might also need to be considered.
Finally, Denis Muller points to a greater emphasis on acknowledging the sources of material used. In particular what is stressed here is that plagiarism, using another journalist's material without acknowledgement, is stealing.
Other areas in which the code has been extended are referred to by Padraic McGuinness, a commentator for The Age.
Mr McGuinness has noted that the revised code stresses the journalist's obligation not to endanger the safety or lives of others in pursuit of a story and places particular emphasis on the care that needs to be taken when dealing with children.
Both these directions may have been prompted, in part, by the way in which certain sections of the media handled the Hanging Rock siege, during which children being held hostage at gun point were interviewed over the telephone by a television journalist.
Mr McGuinness also notes that the revised code includes not only the direction to respect the privacy of the individual, but also to respect his or her grief.
This would seem to be an injunction to be careful that the public interest justifies the intrusion inevitable when the family and friends of the dead and injured are interviewed. It would also seem to require that all necessary interviews be conducted with appropriate sensitivity.
All the above-mentioned modifications of the old code of ethics have been praised by supporters as being valuable additions to an already sound system of control.
The other area that has been discussed, apart from the provisions of the code itself, is how adherence to it will be enforced.
Those who defend the system of self-regulation which currently applies, stress that this system protects freedom of the press by avoiding the undue interference which, it is claimed, is likely to result from regulation by an outside body.
According to this line of argument, the media should ultimately be responsible for ensuring that journalists abide by the code of conduct. More significantly, some claim, each journalist must be fundamentally responsible for the standards to which he or she adheres.
Those who hold this view maintain that anything else is unrealistic.
As Errol Simper, commenting in The Australian, has stated, `The first generation of journalists which automatically does the decent, sensible, honourable thing will be the real breakthrough.'
Further to this is has been suggested that any attempt to monitor journalists' reporting via an independent, external tribunal is likely only to impose the views of its members upon the press and attempt to gag comment or control its direction.
Of particular concern is the possibility that any judicial tribunal set up by government to oversee journalistic practice will be a creature of that government and its decisions will significantly undermine both the freedom of the press and free speech generally.
This particular position has been put forcibly by Padraic McGuinness. `When the media are regulated by government; when judges or tribunals can prescribe and proscribe content - then freedom of speech will be at an end in our society.'
Arguments against the current level of control on Australian journalists
There are two central arguments offered against the current level of control imposed upon Australian journalists. One is that part of the current code is excessive and undermines some valuable journalistic principles.
The other argument is that there needs to be a better mechanism for ensuring that the journalists' code of ethics is adhered to and further that people other than journalists, such as editors and sub-editors, are also under scrutiny.
There appears to be general agreement that much of the journalists' code of ethics, as currently revised, is sound. However, there is significant concern over its supposed failure to safeguard the journalist's right to protect his or her sources.
This position has been put by Denis Muller in The Age.
Mr Muller claimed that the new requirement that journalists `Keep confidences in good faith' is an inadequate substitute for the previous requirement that `In all circumstances they (journalists) shall respect all confidences received in the course of their calling.'
According to Mr Muller, the new draft code `requires the journalist to make a value judgement about the informant's good faith.'
According to Mr Muller both the media and their informants or sources were better served under the old code which required journalists to protect their sources under `all circumstances'.
According to this line of argument the only guarantee that journalists will be supplied with the information they need is that they are required to maintain the anonymity of all sources who wish to remain unknown.
Mr Muller observes that courts are now seeming to give greater credence to a journalist's supposed obligation to protect his or her sources.
Mr Muller refers to the fact that in pre-trial procedures, a journalist is no longer obliged to disclose sources except where such disclosure is essential to the administration of justice.
Mr Muller suggests that the new draft code of ethics would actually weaken journalists' current ability to protect their sources before a court.
On the other hand there are those who argue that neither the previous procedures nor those outlined within the new draft code go far enough.
Those who hold this view are particularly concerned about the way in which any code of ethics is going to be enforced.
This position has been put at length by Mr Stuart Littlemore QC, who presents the ABC's Media Watch program.
Mr Littlemore argues that self-regulation has not worked as a means of ensuring that journalists adhere to their code of ethics. He also argues that any revised code will be no more effective than the previous one unless it is properly enforced.
Mr Littlemore condemns self-regulation in these terms `Self-regulation - journalists judging their peers in secret, with their rulings also secret'.
Mr Littlemore implies that there is insufficient accountability in such a procedure. It is not, Mr Littlemore suggests, sufficiently public to ensure careful, objective rulings.
Mr Littlemore also argues that some of those journalists who currently attempt to judge their peers as part of self-regulation are themselves guilty of poor journalistic practice.
Stuart Littlemore makes a number of suggestions for ensuring that such codes are abided by. He proposes that self-regulation be abandoned and that in its place government should establish `an independent tribunal with appropriate powers to enforce sanctions where misconduct has been proved ... and it must include significant community representation.'
Mr Littlemore implies that as things stand at the moment there is too great a temptation for self-regulation to mean that journalists treat each other's misconduct too lightly.
Mr Littlemore has also proposes that there should be `set educational and entry-qualification standards for media practitioners.'
Mr Littlemore compares journalists to chiropractors, optometrists, pharmacists and solicitors and argues that like any profession with the power to harm others, its members should all be qualified and their practices subject to strict, independent review.
Finally it has been argued that the current code of practice, even in its revised form, is inadequate because it attempts only to regulate the practice of journalists.
What is said to be disturbing about this is that those who are not journalists and not members of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA), are not in any sense bound by the code of ethics.
Mr Littlemore cites radio commentators such as Alan Jones, editors and proprietors, all of whom, he implies, have no real checks imposed upon their practices.
This position has been put in greater detail by Mr Paul Chadwick, Victorian co-ordinator of the Communications Law Centre and a member of the MEAA ethics review committee which drafted the revised code of ethics.
Mr Chadwick has claimed, `The MEAA and its members lack the power to deliver full media accountability. Editors, executive producers, managers and presenters who are not subject to this code make many of the crucial decisions about what you see and hear. They determine what gets covered and how, what is omitted, whether conflicts of interest persist, how complaints are handled, and whether fair corrections or apologies appear ... It is from this core of power that accountability must particularly be expected and extracted.'
Further implications
This issue has not yet been resolved.
The MEAA's review committee has not yet completed its work on the journalist's code of ethics.
Enforcement of the code of ethics will be considered in the review committee's final report.
At this stage it seems unlikely that the review committee will recommend the course proposed by Mr Stuart Littlemore, that an independent tribunal be legislated for to adjudicate alleged journalistic malpractice.
However, Mr Paul Chadwick, one of the members of the MEAA review committee has indicated that journalists should be made accountable through a much more public process.
This suggests that any adjudicating body that is set up is likely to be required to make at least some of its deliberations public.
It is also possible that non-journalists will be included in such adjudicating bodies.
Whatever enforcement mechanism is finally put in place the nature of the current debate suggests that it is likely to be too little to satisfy those who currently want reform and too much for those who believe present procedures are sufficient.
Sources
The Age
5/9/95 page 12 comment by Padraic McGuinness, `Beware those who seek media control'
7/9/95 page 11 comment and analysis by Denis Muller, senior associate of the Centre for Public Policy at the University of Melbourne, `Accountability still the hurdle in draft code for journalists'
The Australian
4/9/95 page 11 comment by Stuart Littlemore QC and presenter of the ABC's Media Watch program, `Wrong solution for media code-breakers'
6/9/95 comment and analysis by Paul Chadwick, Victorian co-ordinator of the Communications Law Centre and member of MEAA, `Licensing journalists is fraught with risk'
7/9/95 letter to the editor from Prof. David Flint, chairman of the Press Council, `A tribunal would corrupt integrity'
8/9/95 page 16 letter to the editor by Stewart Murrihy, `Truth or treat'
8/9/95 page 17 comment by Errol Simper, `Culture of integrity sets media ethics'
QUOTES
`The only people who can ever effectively enforce any code are journalists themselves. It's pointless any editor-in-chief asking if certain information was properly obtained if a journalist is inclined to tell an untruth about it. Nobody can enforce human nature'
Errol Simper, commentator for The Australian
`The MEAA and its members lack the power to deliver full media accountability. Editors, executive producers, managers and presenters who are not subject to this code make many of the crucial decisions about what you see and hear ... It is from this core of power that accountability must particularly be expected and extracted'
Paul Chadwick, Victorian co-ordinator of the Communications Law Centre; member of the MEAA ethics review committee which drafted the revised code of ethics