Community trust in journalism is at an all-time low. Even politicians rate higher.
Our media – journalists, publishers and broadcasters – should urgently get together and work out how best to rebuild public confidence in what is being presented as news.
What lessons can be learnt from the recent high profile Ben Roberts-Smith and Bruce Lehrmann defamation cases?
Yes. It is true both legal challenges failed but at what cost both literally and figuratively?
Australians are not alone in not trusting what is presented as news. Generally, they see reporting as self-serving with readers and viewers being manipulated and not being told the whole truth.
Sensationalism and inaccuracies, both deliberate or through lack of professionalism, are rife.
Fake news and the manipulation of emotions are there for all to see.
President Jimmy Carter referred to “the public’s right to know” as being a human right.
In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees free speech and freedom of the press.
I have often said that the basic role of journalism is to ensure there can be informed public debate about what is happening, which cannot take place without the community being provided with both facts and analysis.
So, what follows are three urgent and, I believe, vital steps that need to be taken in the public interest.
First, because this can be done virtually overnight and will help to build public confidence in those attempting to provide credible journalism, the existing but ineffective Australian Press Council should be revamped and properly funded.
Established in 1976, it was meant to allow anyone with concerns about unfair, inaccurate or unprofessional reporting to have a quick, independent and free assessment of their case without the need to go to the courts.
The basic planks of the Council, as then established and chaired by a retired judge (Sir Frank Kitto), were its speedy (please note!) response to complaints and the requirement of any offending publication to print the Council’s finding in full in a similarly prominent position as the article complained about.
In the years since, apart from a very few cases, it has taken weeks or even months to adjudicate complaints, and the offending publication has sometimes hidden or challenged any response it did not agree with it.
Further, the once supportive newspaper organisations have now defunded it, so the Council is a shell of what it once was.
I urge that the Australian Press Council be immediately re-energised AND that the radio and television broadcasters join with their print colleagues in supporting it as adjudicator for all journalistic performances.
It is actually in their financial interest to do so rather than face costly litigation.
The Australian Press Council should be promoted as a quick and fair outlet for complaints.
Advantages would be many.
Increased trust for good journalism and the integrity of news and information published or broadcast.
And less costs for aggrieved subjects of unfair news coverage and speculation.
The Second recommendation is more long term.
The Australian Constitution, which underpins our claims to be a true democracy, should be amended to echo the American Constitution’s Bill of Rights.
Of course the American journalistic scene is not one to be held up as a model of accuracy or professionalism, but it does have the legal underpinning of its courts through its First Amendment which reads in full: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Our constitution makes no mention of press freedom and we rely on common law to protect reputations. But, at what cost?
The overall legal bills for the two recent high profile defamation cases will run into the 10’s of millions of dollars.
It could have been that, but for the incredible and painstaking work of Nick McKenzie, Chris Masters and others, the actual future existence of The Age and SMH was at risk.
The loss of multi-millions in costs and damages to a VC winner and Australian of the Year if he had won his defamation action (which is under appeal but I have no concerns about the judgement being overturned) might have seen the Nine Entertainment network consider retiring the mastheads.
My Third recommendation is that all journalists and organisations sign on to the Media Alliance’s journalistic code of ethics.
Commitment to honesty, accuracy, fairness, independence and respect for the right of others is its theme, which does not allow for bias, inaccuracy or the sin of omission in journalistic reporting.
Probably few know that News Limited has its own personalised set of rules which does allow in 1.2 for “publications to editorialise, campaign, and take stances provided they take reasonable steps to fulfil the requirements of 1.3”, which reads –“comment, conjecture and opinion are acceptable in reports to provide perspective on an issue, or explain the significance of an issue, or to allow readers to recognise what the publications standpoint is on the matter being reported.”
So, I advocate for three changes in the interest of all, providers and consumers of information.
The vital underpinning of a democracy – the free flow of information allowing informed discussion and debate – may become more a way of life and our democratic underpinning may be restored.
To declare interest, when managing director and editor in chief of The Age, I played a leading role in the establishing of our National Press Council. Its preamble began.
“Freedom of expression is an inalienable right of a free people. Australia is committed (as a member of the United Nations) to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 19 of that Declaration reads: Everyone has the right of freedom of opinion and expression, this right includes the right to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers.”
Further, it states that the press “has a responsibility to the public to commit itself to self-regulation which provides a mechanism for dealing with concerns of members of the public and the maintenance of the ethical standards and journalistic professionalism of the press.
My sadness is that over the last few decades, the media – old and new – has played an increasing divisive role in allowing and encouraging the spread of hate and division in Australia at an incredible cost.
The inability of its citizenry to freely, and without fear, constructively debate and discuss issues of real concern and importance to our community and to future generations.
Please, therefore, can those in the media business unite and agree to do something positive about it?
Ranald Macdonald is a former managing director and editor in chief of The Age newspaper. He was an ABC broadcaster and is an active member of ABC Friends.