8
Australian Press Council News, May 2007
F a c t s a n d o p in io n s - A P r e s s C o u n c il c a s e n o te
n Adjudication No. 1344 (published in the February 2007
News), the Council addressed a complaint that raises questions
about the blurring of fact and opinion in news reports.
The Australian Press Council’s adjudication shows the
watchdog struggling to hold the line and getting tangled in
contradictions as a result.
There has been increasing debate within the industry about the
extent to which opinion now intrudes into news reports and
whether the ideal of journalistic objectivity is still a feasible one.
Historians might argue as to whether this ideal was ever the
standard for good journalism, citing examples as diverse as
William Russell’s war reports from the Crimea and HL Mencken’s
court reports from the Scopes “Monkey trial’’ for their argument
that fact and opinion have ever been mixed in news reports.
The Council said it is OK for a newspaper to be partisan, and
okay to present opinion as news, so long as the reporting is fair
and balanced.
I
When it was reviewing its Principles in 1996, the Council appointed
an expert group of senior editors to advise it on proposed changes.
Richard Walsh, who was then Publisher of ACP Magazines,
argued strongly that the trend was towards ‘reportage’, a blend of
facts and opinions, and that to argue that ethical standards called
for purely objective journalism was to fly in the face of reality.
The revised Principles reflect the ethical requirements that news
reports should be fair and balanced, and that fact and opinion
made clearly distinguishable. In No. 1344 the Council was asked
to rule on a news report of a protest by cyclists that had interfered
with Sydney peak hour traffic. In the view of the complainant the
report was unfair because it lacked balance, through the
introduction of the journalist’s opinions, and because it intruded
on the privacy of individuals by publishing prominently the
organiser’s mobile phone number. In its response to the complaint,
the newspaper argued that the intrusion of opinion into news
reports was now done routinely and was not, of itself, a breach of
ethical principles.
In its adjudication of the complaint, the Council refers to those
cases where the intrusion of opinion into the reporting of a news
event might affect the balance of the article. The Council has ruled
that the introduction of opinion into a news report makes it
essential for the report to provide all the facts necessary for
readers to judge the validity of the opinion. It reiterated the
importance of distinguishing fact from opinion and says that, in
this case, the two were clearly distinguished. It upheld the
complaint about an invasion of privacy and also said that the
original article was unbalanced because it failed to provide
readers with sufficient facts to judge the validity of the opinions
expressed. In particular it noted that no comment was published
from government or the police, who had permitted the protest.
The Council will no doubt continue to refine its view on the mix
of fact and opinion in news reports, judging each subsequent case
on its own merits. Some members have indicated a desire to
further this debate within the Council and seek to refine the
interpretation of the Principles in the light of new complaints.
Meanwhi le, the adj udication has sparked debate within journalistic
circles about the questions raised. Ironically, a report from
Margaret Simons in the crikey newsletter demonstrated that the
mix of fact and opinion is now routine not only in The Daily
Telegraph. Ms Simons’ report on the adjudication reads:
Mixing opinion and news “is now done routinely”, the Daily
Telegraph argued in its own defence before the Australian
Press Council last week-which raises the question of whether
anyone ... still believes in the tired old dogma of journalistic
objectivity.
The Press Council upheld a complaint... about a 25 November
report in the Daily Telegraph ...
The Tele doesn’t claim to be objective... editor David Penberthy
has said, the aim is to be relevant and get a gut reaction.
But the dogma of journalism is that objectivity is vital. This is
reflected in the Press Council’s principles, which recognise a
publication’s right to be partisan, but call for clear distinction
between fact and opinion, and for “fairness and balance” when
people are singled out for criticism.
The result is a confused adjudication.
The Press Council found the opinion in the article was not a
breach of the Council’s principles “in that, by its obvious bias,
it distinguishes itself as that of the authors who are clearly
identified by their bylines.” The problem, the Council said, was
not opinion presented as news, but the lack of a balancing
response and facts against which the validity of the opinion
could be judged.
Such balance, of course, would have taken all the acid out of
the Tele's approach. ...
What are the values of the rest of the media? Penberthy has
claimed the Tele articulates the views of mainstream Australia
- although it is surely no simple thing to divine a mainstream
among all the rivulets of Australian opinion and life experience.
It is all very complicated, but perhaps journalists would be
better off dropping objectivity as tired and often hollow dogma
and trying hard to work out what it might mean in practice,
whether we still value it, and why.
The next day crikey published two responses. In one of those,
Julian Zytnik wrote:
Margaret Simons all but gives up of hope of pinning down a
solid definition o f‘journalistic objectivity’, in her piece yesterday
on the recent Daily Tele adjudication. While pure ‘objectivity’
is a bit of an Everest in this postmodern world, I don’t believe
basic journalistic ethics are yet out of reach. The adjudication
was quite clear-cut: ‘In an era of journalism where commentary
increasingly trespasses upon news reports, fact and opinion
need to be distinguishable,’ it states. Further, ‘the introduction
of opinion into a news report makes it essential for the report
to provide all the facts necessary for readers to judge the
validity of the opinion. This news article fails this test.’ I don’t
agree the [Council] said it was “OK for a newspaper to be
partisan, and OK to present opinion as news”. It merely said
that opinion and news could coexist provided they were clearly
identified and distinguished. Without getting into arguments
over whether or not the [Council] is just a toothless tiger, if
Margaret wants some ideas for a modern framework for
journalistic conduct (whether this means striving for “objectivity”
or not), how about starting with the [Council’s] own Statement
of Principles ... This list still holds up pretty well, I reckon. It’s
a question of actually applying it.
Any comments on the adjudication, or the ethical principles
underlying it, can be forwarded to info(tv,presscouncil.org.aii
Jack H erm an