tip off

Hanson photo affair undermines the right to know

Credit where it’s due — the Right To Know Coalition, which is made up of representatives of virtually every mainstream media organisation in the country, would not have got off the ground without the energy and commitment and financial support of News Limited and its boss, John Hartigan. Without Hartigan’s commitment there would have been no report by former Human Rights Commissioner Irene Moss into the impediments and roadblocks to a free press in Australia. Her report is well worth reading. It should be sobering for journalists and those in the wider community who might think journalists in Australia are properly able to hold to account those who have the power to make life-changing decisions that affect all of us.

That said — and yes, pompously so, for we journalists tend to get pompous when we talk about our role as the guardians of liberal democracy — the fact is that, as far as I can tell, the Right to Know Coalition has produced no groundswell of community outrage at the fact that journalists are severely hampered in all sorts of ways in properly carrying out their vital to democracy duties. The Moss report sank without a trace. Indeed, it received little coverage by many of the media organisations that commissioned it.

I doubt that many journalists even read it  — let alone people in the wider community. I doubt that too many politicians read it and if they did, I doubt that any of them were left shaken by its finding and determined to remove the impediments to public interest journalism that Moss laid out in great detail.

Why is that? This is where the naked photographs of Pauline Hanson that proved to be not of Pauline Hanson come in. Now perhaps I am too thick to see all the nuances of the photos fiasco, but for this old journalist and editor, it seems to me that there are no nuances. For a start, there was absolutely no public interest served — apart from prurience — by publishing these photographs. None. For editors of News Limited papers and some of their columnists to pretend otherwise, or to pretend that this was a complicated and ethically difficult issue is disheartening — but predictable. It suggests that they believe their readers are morons. The editors of the tabloids that ran the Hanson photographs knew exactly why they were publishing these pics and I am certain the reason had nothing to do with serving the public interest.

This means that all the mindless nonsense about whether the photographs were of Hanson was just obfuscation, though it did reveal the breathtaking lack of rigor and proper investigation before publication of stuff like this that seems to be acceptable on some newspapers. This is not, as John Hartigan has suggested, about journalists and editors being fallible and making honest mistakes: this is about the culture that produces this sort of journalism.

I fear that for most people, the Right to Know Coalition — if they think about it at all — is just a group of self-serving media types who want to publish and broadcast whatever they damn well feel will sell papers or boost ratings and that all this talk of the media’s role in safe-guarding democracy is just so much claptrap. I would bet that most people reckon the media already has too much freedom and power and that something ought to be done to pull the bastards down a peg or two.

This is unfair but sadly understandable. The fact is that until we journalists mount a compelling case that we operate on certain agreed ethical principles, that we are open to criticism, that we understand that we have to be accountable for what we do, there will be no support for the removal of those very real impediments that the law and politicians have put in place to evade scrutiny of their actions. Until we have real self-criticism of our work, which means independent and fearless media reporting and commentary — and at the moment, such reporting and commentary does not exist in the mainstream media, apart from perhaps the 15 minutes a week of Media Watch  — the Right To Know Coalition is pissing in the wind. Until newspapers and other media appoint ombudsmen, independent editors who are there to investigate complaints from readers and others about the way stories are reported, the Right to Know Coalition will go nowhere.

Both The New York Times and The Washington Post have ombudsmen who are appointed for a two-year period after which they have to move on, leave the paper. They report to the publisher and the papers’ editors do not even get to see their reports before they are published. When I was Editor of The Age, I once suggested to senior editors that what we should do is every now and then, go back to a story we have covered and ask the people we reported on what they thought of our coverage and how it affected them and their lives. The consensus around the table was that this would cause huge concern amongst our journalists who would see it as evidence of my lack of trust in their professionalism and their ethical standards. I should have insisted, but I didn’t. There were, I thought, more pressing issues to deal with. I was wrong.

I was not at the Right To Know Conference in Sydney, but I bet none of the issues of accountability that I have raised here were discussed. Instead, the conference seemed to focus solely on the proposed privacy legislation and the impact of such legislation on journalism. I think there are some real issues for journalism here, but until we deal with the question of why we are held in such low regard, most people — and importantly most politicians — will think that privacy legislation that limits the ability of newspapers to publish those not-Hanson photographs is a very good idea indeed.

5
  • 1
    shane
    Posted Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

    Gawenda is right. The photos and their purpose are disgusting. But these stupid photos are not necessary any evidence of freedom excercised by the media. It’s a clear example how not very independent media can be manipulated , particularly during election campaigns.
    Mr. Gawenda, we do not need any extra censorship. We have more than plenty of ‘moderators’ and ‘concerned citizens’ and ‘community groups’ in this country ; that is why newspapers are getting less and less popular and the hoi polloi more and more turns to the Internet to get more info.
    Media are not necessary independent in this country but they may be a very powerful tool for those who have the power to manipulate them. You should know it better.

  • 2
    Colin Clark
    Posted Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

    Michael, I dont think most people hold journalists in low regard. Crikey’s ratings wrap each day shows tabloid currant affairs programmes to be hugely popular. The ‘journalists’ at these shows are the bottom end and people can’t get enough of them or the ‘scoops’ they contrive, eg, wrapping a granny up in chains and putting a padlock on her then blaming someone else. People who watch these shows - and they are very much representative of mainstream Australia just aren’t interested in the matters of your discussion. It is an argument played out to a small minority and while the public maintains an appetite for sensationalist tabloid TV affairs programmes questions of standards and ethics will continue to be a sideshow to the main event.

  • 3
    Edward James
    Posted Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

    Michael. Perhaps the fact that Irene Moss chaired ICAC for some time made some of us feel she had little to offer so many oif us?. Fairfax and News Limited have been perceived in the recent past to do as they please by most of us. I self publish when main stream wont run it.. I am amused to watch main stream media taking a flogging now because their advertising revenues are drying up and electronic publications like Crikey.com and Sydney Independent Media among many others including blogs are taking over. Certainly world news still has a place, but cutting edge local news cant wait around for papers to be inked and distrubuted. The days of Gutenberg are finished long live Gutenberg. Many journalist will still find a place to hang their words on a line in a way that is attractive on many levels, but the hundreds of reporters being shown the door must mow compeat with everyone who has a camera and laptop. One important thing which has happened is papers can no longer run bulshit and get away with it. just consider the front page of my web site http://gosfordcouncil.tripod.com/ and ask yourself what the Express Advocate was thinking whennit distorted the truth ? Edward James 0243419140

  • 4
    L McIntire
    Posted Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

    Michael Gawenda fears “that for most people, the Right to Know Coalition is just a group of self-serving media types who want to publish and broadcast whatever they damn well feel will sell papers or boost ratings and that all this talk of the media’s role in safe-guarding democracy is just so much claptrap.” He’s right about that but that’s not all. A large number of people also see nothing but hypocrisy in the journalists (especially the relatively new fangled “FOI Editors”) whose demands of others are the opposite of the rights they claim for themselves.

    They declare, from their position of public power, that public servants who (perhaps thoughtfully and correctly, perhaps carelessly and incorrectly, but always subject to external review) apply privacy exemptions to the release of government documents are hiding something (at the best embarrassing, at the worst illegal) from the public, while asserting as a matter of principle and ethical practice that they themselves should never, ever have to reveal their own sources. Yet all the reasons why freedom of information to government information is a good thing also apply to freedom of information to journalists’ information. Let journalists be subject to requests for access to the documents and notes of conversations that they relied on for their reports and opinion pieces. Let their sources be subject to checks and verification. Let members of the public, whom they claim to represent, be able to hold journalists to account like they hold politicians and public servants to account. Of course there should be exemptions on the grounds of privacy and confidentiality. Let the same tests for these apply that are applied to government information. And let there be the same rights of external review of appeals against exemptions.

    I’ll support the Right to Know Coalition when it sees the public interest being as much served by the media being subject to the same disclosure and the same protections that they

  • 5
    Bob Deane
    Posted Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 4:36 pm | Permalink

    While Mr Gawenda is correct in his piece-he confirms how the tabloids have frighten gutless politicians into groveling to editors and requesting in triplicate the exact height required to jump when commanded.

    It should have been the role of a politician to drive “right to know” issues ala Hanson in the pursuit of cheap headlines. If Gawenda, Hartigan and other journalists out there really beleve the great unwashed publc thinks their intentions are pure and honourable they have rocks in their heads.

    We know what you guys are up to,!. Those of us who sat and watched Australia march into a illegal war to kill thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens, urged on by the complient and warmongering media (New Ltd the main offendor but all the others took their part) are ell and truly over what passes for news. Get used to it guys-the party is well and truly over.

    When Peter Breen said “his job was on the line”..we know he meant if he didn’t sell enough copies of a topless phoney Hanson, he was toast. He succeeded and then went on a cowardly attack at all others apart from himself. The public just aren’t that silly.

    As Max Mosley said-the tabloids are purveyors of soft porn and have destroyed lives.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...