Dear Bono....

It is hard to give a general overview on the distinct functions of the press council in this discourse as they differ from country to country. Some countries like the US even have multiple press councils divvied up from state to state. All, however, agree that their primary role is to act as a type of authority to help preserve and uphold the fundamental principles of ethical and responsible journalism. This basically means their roles are to operate as a form of agency within the media to deal with complaints and ensure that the messages it is communicating to its audiences are accurate and fair to print or broadcast.

Press councils are a type of media accountability system. They are separate from a governmental body such as the courts or parliament and are autonomous in their running. This means that in order to operate fairly they need to be made up of both media representatives as well as members of the public. These media representatives include people such as journalists, editors and owners of publications or networks.

So essentially, the press councils are the institutions used to complain to about the media. So when an earthquake hits our backyards and we are asked by the local newspaper to tell them what we saw and they later quote our name as being ‘Dick Head’ when it is really Dick Herd – we complain to the press council to let them know we are not happy. This is just a simple example of how the public might have a brief relationship with a press council.

A good way of looking at these councils is like the judiciary of a commercialised sport. For example, Australia’s NRL rugby league competition has a judiciary system where a player might go to after being involved in a fight on field. Anywhere else, a punch to the head of another person might equate to common assault and in turn, lead to going to jail. On a football field however, it is usually up to the victim (if there is one) to assume that in good faith, the nature of the game might lead to fights and that an internal judiciary (run by the competition) would reprimand the guilty player appropriately. Such penalties might mean a two week suspension from the game or a monetary fine. Offences might range from verbally abusing a referee to purposely dropping a player on his head.

Press councils on the other hand are more mediators than enforcers. Most of them have no real powers to make any publication print anything, but if a complaint arises from a reader, through arbitration, it can force a retraction or even an apology. Admission of fault from a newspaper might then be a window to litigation. In Europe the stakes can be even greater. Felice Maselli, one of the elected members for Italy’s Order of Journalists, says that his order (aka press council) has the power to sack journalists for irresponsible behaviour. He states:

"The Order can take drastic disciplinary actions (oral reprimand, written reprimand, suspension from activity for a period of up to a couple of months, and even expulsion) against journalists who do not comply with the basic ethical rules of journalism; for example issues of privacy, respect for minors and minority groups, insider trading, mixing up private interests with personal interests, and other forms of professional integrity."

However, Maselli also goes on to state that while Italy’s council possesses these powers, they cannot exercise any authority on what not to print.:

"By the same token the Order has absolutely no authority to try to dictate to publishers and editors what to print or what not to print, nor when and how to do so. We will however discreetly remind the media that they are certainly somehow remiss in not giving enough space to such an important issue."

This is where extreme poverty becomes relevant. Such a discreet reminder I am sure has never been a prompt for newspapers to write more intercontinental stories on famine in places like Africa or Asia. Although it is undoubtedly real that the Italian press council does indeed have some rather formidable powers. An expulsion or even a suspension is a pretty hefty smack on the wrist for anyone in any job. But, to fully understand how reporters could get into these fine messes in the first place, it is important to look at the various codes that different news mediums must abide in order to fulfill their moral obligations built into the journalism business.

Many countries have media accountability systems such as press councils to act as a way of keeping journalists responsible and ethical. Even the glorious nation of Kazakhstan has a fully functioning code of ethics. And while the infamous Borat taught us so much in his movie about the social, religious and socio-economic constraints of the free western world, as a ‘journalist’, he managed to teach us absolutely nothing about the Kazakhstan media industry. While there is no press council in Kazakhstan, its code of ethics was drawn up in 1997 to address the country’s very multicultural constitution. The result is a document quite sophisticated and even proactive in its doctrines in maintaining a responsible media. Such principles include: consolidating the multiethnic people of Kazakhstan as a society whose citizens are equal in their rights; respecting human rights and freedoms regardless of ethnicity; assisting in the formation of civil responsibility and respecting the dignity of all individuals.

As you can see, most civilized countries (and contrary to Borat’s insight, Kazakhstan happens to be a relatively civilized country) complement the fundamental right of a free press with that of a system which controls and even deters irresponsible journalism. Press councils exist in most democratic nations and are there for audiences to turn to for an explanation and are there for the newspapers to answer to.

In addition to the various press councils operating from country to country, there are also coalitions that exist to allow representatives from different councils to exchange information and views on a regular basis without the usual hindrances of a strict bureaucracy. For example, The World Association of Press Councils (WAPC) exists, with members from across the globe including Ghana, Honolulu, India, Turkey, Nepal, Tanzania and Egypt. There is also The Alliance of Independent Press Councils of Europe (AIPCE) which is made up of around 25 countries such as Russia, Germany, Finland, Albania, Estonia and even Israel.

The AIPCE gathers annually and usually works well together. The WAPC on the other hand, tend to bicker at times about the usual bureaucratic protocols of committees that take place in clubs everywhere. You know the sort of central arguments I’m talking about; should it be Chairperson and not Chairman when the Chairperson happens to be a Chairlady, or should the role of timekeeper be shared around so everyone gets a turn with the stopwatch and exactly how do you discipline members who respond with ‘do we have any movers?’ with ‘do we have any shakers?’

The last time representatives of the WAPC were up in arms was in 2004 when it was discovered that many of its member councils were actually government-run. Now, one of the fundamental principles of a press council is that it remains autonomous and independent from the state, so such a discovery was met with little enthusiasm from the bureaucrats whose neat little club was now soiled with people not playing by the rules. Interestingly enough, the member countries who did not disclose their government status were the poverty stricken nations of Egypt, Nepal and Bangladesh. It was an interesting predicament and one that required more tact from the WAPC. I mean, at the Olympics Games we don’t disqualify a Kenyan sprinter for failing to run in shoes. Nor do we disallow Eric the Eel Mousambani from Equatorial Guinea from swimming the 50metres freestyle simply because he can’t swim. The WAPC needs as many members to join its coalition for it to work, yet it needs to accept that some poorer (and even unfortunately corrupt) countries function differently.

Interestingly enough, in 2000 the Australian Press Council (APC) pulled out of the alliance shortly after the United Kingdom’s withdrawal, most probably due to the WAPC’s waning credibility. But instead, the APC said it wanted to spend more time helping smaller countries in the Asia-Pacific develop their own independent press councils. An admirable stance no doubt, but not uncalculated seeing that the association had come under fire in recent years for a number of controversial proposals it had undergone developing.

Throughout the past 10 years, the WAPC has had a number of projects in the making, some adopted, some discarded. A handful of the projects included: developing an international code of ethics, developing a transnational complaints mechanism, excluding members to join the association who did not deal with the print media, founding a systematic credentials committee and lastly, forming a secondary committee for reviewing the association’s constitution.

Now before you start nodding off, as you can probably guess, during these meetings some people moved these motions while others merely seconded them. You can also make an educated assumption that some members were no doubt skeptical and wanted more information so they asked that they could adjourn the issue until the next meeting so that they could have enough time to go over the details that were outlined and indeed needed going over. And some no doubt thought all the ideas were cockamamie and voted ‘no’ straight away in sheer opposition. And while all this thirst-quenching decision-making had been going on, 25,000 people continued to die each day from hunger and chronic malnutrition as these bureaucratic non-bureaucrats continued to not print stories on the atrocities going on that they could so easily have been preventing.

The Washington Post, the publication responsible for breaking the notorious Watergate story in 1972 and one of the world’s most well-known and credible newspapers vows in its code of ethics that it "pledges itself to an aggressive, responsible and fair pursuit of the truth without fear of any special interest, and with favor to none."

The Washington Post's rather abstract Standards and Ethics code also claims to stand firm on the following principle:

"We fully recognize that the power we have inherited as the dominant morning newspaper in the capital of the free world carries with it special responsibilities:

- to listen to the voiceless

- to avoid any and all acts of arrogance

- to face the public politely and candidly"

But what exactly is the Post saying? First of all, is it saying that Washington is the capital of the United States or that Washington is the capital of the only country that makes up the free world? All the same, we’re off to a good start when even the opening clause is ambiguous. Aren’t they supposed to be in the writing business? But the aspect of listening to the voiceless catches my attention first of all – I understand it is vague as it is hard to listen to someone without a voice, but I know what they are implying. People caught in the traps of extreme poverty are a voiceless people. The same as the tree falling in the lonely forest, they are without any help whatsoever. People living in the third world go unnoticed while their stories go unheard.

The ethics code of The Washington Post has picked up a poignant phrase used widely throughout the humanitarian discourse. Voiceless is a term people like Bono and Geldof and Sachs use often to describe those affected by extreme poverty. It is an appropriate phrase for many reasons. We might often refer these days to youth in our society as being voiceless because they are not yet old enough to vote. But most of the people dying everyday in sub-Saharan Africa are children – their rights are even fewer to say the least. There is an understanding that everybody is entitled when he or she is born, to basic human rights such as food, clean water, shelter and basic medical needs. This is not the case in Africa. And when children are without these necessities, they are even too young to offload such grievances.

Voiceless is also used as a media term, referring to people who are unable to help themselves. Homeless people, people with disabilities, children – anybody who does not have the prominence to be heard – the media is supposed to be there to defend or at least tell their story. But for the human beings burdened by extreme poverty, voiceless more accurately means forgotten. The media’s reasoning is that if so many people are dying from hunger each day then the story is a common one and seldom needs to be told. And disturbingly, when these people are perishing from something which gives them no status or energy to either appeal for help or protest neglect, then they are also an easy community to abandon.

Therefore The Washington Post is breaching its own code of ethics each day it does not tell us about the deaths of these 25,000 voiceless people. They are violating a code they themselves drafted. And they are not alone. Codes of ethics are there for publications as a guide, not just to deter questionable behaviour by journalists but for when things get out of hand. Extreme poverty is out of hand – but the level at which it has become out of control and the immeasurable length of time it has been out of control has made the principles of the ethics code redundant and obsolete.

The same contradictions can be seen in the integrity guidelines of The New York Times. An incredibly self-conscious code, it is different to that of the Post because it holds zero sentimental value. Determined not to have the good name of the Times smeared, its guidelines are worded to wash away any intent by the paper of doing the abhorrent things it is capable of doing. It states:

"…all staff of The New York Times share a common and essential interest in protecting the integrity of the newspaper…we must do nothing that would undermine or dilute it and everything possible to enhance it."

While the Post is determined to look out for the voiceless, the Times is out to look after themselves. The Times is even aware of the media’s despicable reputation it shares, delving into its own self consciousness by inserting paranoid clauses on what they think its audiences are actually thinking:

"At a time of growing and even justified public suspicion about the impartiality, accuracy and integrity of some journalists and some journalism, it is imperative that The Times and its staff maintain the highest possible standards to insure that we do nothing that might erode readers’ faith and confidence in our news columns."

God-forbid the newspaper does anything that finds itself in trouble. It surely must be a barrel of laughs being a reporter at the New York Times, spending your days wondering if you’ve written anything that could potentially jeopardise the paper’s integrity. I bet there wouldn’t be one bum-press on the office Xerox machine at the annual Christmas party in a place so worried about its integrity.

But the Times, like all other newspapers, do write stories on famine-based subjects. But these sporadic 3000-word feature articles do not equal to the severity to which extreme poverty amounts to. Extreme poverty results in consequences that require daily news stories that warrant front page stories. If Al-Quaeda taking 3000 lives on September 11 of 2001 warrants a front page story, then extreme poverty warrants a front page story every single day multiplied by eight. 25,000 unnecessary deaths each day should be preposterous and absurd news, not mundane occurrences for the well-read to flip through its specificities once a month. While The New York Times might be a newspaper primarily about New York, it still covers drawn-out news stories not only on its neighbouring states but of that across the globe. Any newspaper that leeches off the entertaining stories from another country in its World News section should then have an obligation to include the detriments caused daily by extreme poverty.

And in comparison to the Times’ frankness in its looking out for number-one, Australia’s code of ethics is worded with perhaps a touch more romance. Despite its flowery message, it illustrates a key principle which has never been upheld. The code is located in the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) rules, stating forthrightly that the Australian media will do the following:

"…report and interpret the news with scrupulous honesty by striving to disclose all essential facts and by not suppressing relevant available facts or distorting by wrong or improper emphasis."

There are so many contradictions in that opening paragraph that still take place in today’s reporting. In fact, these principals have never even come off the ground. Anytime we hear a story on Britney Spears’ time in rehab or the private life of a B-grade celebrity, the media is placing improper emphasis on an unimportant story. The nature that these types of stories are in fact unimportant might be arguable, however, the truth behind the preventable deaths surrounding extreme poverty being more important, is not.

The code with a great deal of credibility however is that of the United Kingdom’s Press Complaints Commission Code (PCCC). It claims there is an urgency not only to uphold a set of professional standards but also to assume that ethics can be sold out over technicalities and loopholes. The code even uses the phrase "in the spirit" – which is exactly what this book is all about. Press councils have not set themselves up to be culpable for extreme poverty to the point of litigation, but they are failing to abide by the very codes they devised themselves, causing millions of people to perish in the meantime.

The UK’s PCCC states the following:

"All members of the press have a duty to maintain the highest professional standards. This (PCCC) code sets the benchmark for those ethical standards, protecting both the rights of the individual and the public’s right to know. It is the cornerstone of the system of self-regulation to which the industry has made a binding commitment.

"It is essential that an agreed code be honoured not only to the letter but in the full spirit. It should not be interpreted so narrowly as to compromise its commitment to respect the rights of the individual, nor so broadly that it constitutes an unnecessary interference with freedom of expression or prevents publication in the public interest."

What a fantastic start to a code of ethics! Modified in 2004, this policy speaks of a media industry that needs to be proactive rather than merely responsive. It even has the wit to delve into the reality of ambiguities we see so often in policy language. It is one of the best and most thoughtful codes from many of the world’s industry codes and ethics standards. Unfortunately, however, it raises the notion that perhaps this makes the UK press more responsible than any other country for reporting the daily body count caused by poverty deaths each and every day. And perhaps it is the land notorious for paparazzi, news sensationalism and bad Hugh Grant romantic comedies that needs to be the first to step up and honour its own set of ethical standards. Unfortunately, the Press Complaint Commission’s information manager Tonia Milton informed me she thought otherwise.

"I should tell you that the selection and presentation of any material for publication is generally held by the Commission to be a matter for the editor’s discretion unless it can be demonstrated that such publication has breached the Code. The Commission recognises editors’ rights with regard to the selection of material for publication, and does not instruct them on what reports and articles they should publish. Such an approach would amount to censorship which is generally unacceptable in a free and democratic society. Also, any complaint made to the Commission needs to be raised within two months of the date of publication or two months of any continued written correspondence with the publication concerned."

Wow! Such a response does not sound in the spirit of responsible journalism. Nor does it seem in the spirit of responsible power usage. Despite having one of the best written codes of ethics, the London-based PCCC exercises little room to move on any such breach that isn’t specific to a single published article. Plus, the article had better be read within two months of its publication otherwise there is the possibility that, mum’s the word, and it was never published in the first place. The defence of being too afraid to censor journalists might even be excusable, if in fact news omission was a type of censorship. It might even be excusable if it wasn’t mentioned in the Commission’s code that its sections should ‘not be interpreted so narrow-mindedly as to compromise the rights of an individual’. But unfortunately, such apathy and narrow-mindedness from the press councils does compromise an individual’s rights. It compromises 25,000 individuals’ basic human rights every single day and washes its hands of the lack of a billion people’s basic health all over the world.

And from one well written code of ethics to another, the French’s rules and usages code does not use the phrase "in the spirit" but does however use something just as good; it uses the term "good faith". This is another bold phrase that helps separate the bullshit from the obligation of responsible reporting. ‘In good faith’ is a term which generally allows us to both question an author’s reasoning behind its decision-making as well as (and more importantly) argue his or her defences. The terms ‘in good faith’ and ‘in the spirit’ gives less opportunity for organisations to protect themselves with legal technicalities. The Syndicat de la presse quotidienne regionale (SPQR) came out with the rules and usage policies of the Provincial Daily Press in 2005. This press council is made up of representatives from daily newspapers outside of the Paris region. While these papers generally only cover news matters in the region, (would the French care about anywhere else?) most of them still suck the entertainment out of what is happening on the planet for its world news pages.

The code states:

"The credibility of a newspaper depends on its capacity to distribute accurate and precise information. So the publication of news that has been verified guarantees the seriousness, the rigour and good faith of the newspaper."

In other words, the French want to be trusted. The French yearn to remain reliable so that their very French audiences can trust them, and in turn, keep buying their very French newspapers. However, there is no credibility when the French are not being appropriately informed.

In New Zealand, the kiwis are more interested in fairness. The now Fairfax-owned Independent Newspapers Ltd says in its code of ethics that it strives to be (a) fair (b) accurate and (c) independent. First of all, it is hard to be independent at all when you’ve been bought out by one of the biggest media tycoons in the world. And secondly, it is hard to be fair when you’ve claimed to be ‘independent’ when, again, you’ve been bought out by one of the biggest media tycoons in the world. Hong Kong on the other hand strives for having itself merely seen as independent; emphasising a commitment towards the rejection of news suppression, probably as a way of distancing themselves from China. Since its handover from the British in 1997, structural adjustments in many of Hong Kong’s industries have been a little bit shaky. The media was no exception. News suppression however of course is not the same as news omission; however censorship ultimately equals the same result.

Japan’s Newspaper Publishers and Editors Association wrote its Canon of Journalism for everybody. Not just for the humble journo to abide by but for everyone in the industry, from as high up as the CEO to the cadet reporters subbing the lottery results and correcting obituaries. It mentions the media’s responsibility of selection, also referred to as, news agenda. The canon states:

"In a modern society flooded with a vast range of information, the public is constantly required to make correct and swift decisions on what is true and which information to select. It is the responsibility of member newspapers to respond to such requirements and fulfill their public and cultural mission through accurate and fair reporting, and through responsible commentaries...Newspapers are the first chroniclers of history and the mission of reporters lies in the constant pursuit of truth."

And there can be no greater cockup in history than the debacle taking place when every single daily newspaper on the planet is forgetting to report on the 25,000 deaths that occur each day from no other factor than sheer neglect. No cancer or war or terrorist attack is killing these people each day. Our planet is in abundance of the fundamental resources needed to sustain human life yet they are not being shared around. And what is even more horrendous is that this crisis has not yet even reached the surface of common knowledge where the worry is a burden to us. We should be completely and utterly weighed down with worry by this issue. It should interfere with every trivial activity we undertake in our daily lives. But we will never be able to help any of these people when our newspapers and news bulletins continue to refuse to inform us as to how serious the situation really is.

Secretary for the Netherlands Press Council, DC Koene, takes the boring freedom of the press stance where publications should not only be able to print what they like but also not print what they like. Koene states:

"We receive with some regularity complaints of people stating that the media do not report (at all or enough) on certain issues. The Netherlands Press Council is of the opinion that the editors are free in selecting news. For that, the editors are free as well not to report on specific matters."

I think the members of the Netherlands Press Council have smoked one too many doobies. This is all well and good to uphold the democratic and almost universal rights of the press. Why, the freedom of the press is a fundamental element that makes our world a great place. But let’s face it ─ this isn’t an annihilation of one of our almighty human rights. We’re not talking about torturing an Arab to tell us when the next Al Quaeda attack is going to be. Nor are we talking about compromising a few innocent civilians to wipe out a thousand insurgents. The media indeed has the right to hold the entitlements of a free press, but they also have the responsibility to abide by the very code they deem themselves to be committed to. Maybe the Dutch need to have a couple of cones, sit around in a circle and have someone tell them that the media is just like Spiderman – and that with great power comes great responsibility.

The Netherlands press might wish to exercise its privilege to not print certain stories, but when they use the pages of their newspapers to milk the goings-on from a region which is not their own, then they have a responsibility to also report on that region’s injustices. No matter how certain it is that the same injustice will mundanely occur the following day, the information needs to be included.

Adopted by the Second World Congress of the International Federation of Journalists at Bordeaux in 1954, the Netherlands’ Declaration of Principles on the Conduct of Journalists states the first duty of the journalist is to respect the truth and for the right of the public to truth. Although it is undoubtedly true that it is not always black and white in evaluating the severity of one story over another, it is unacceptable to deny news simply due to an abundance of footage of a zoo’s new panda cubs alongside a lack of fresh poverty images. The issue goes beyond respectable tit-for-tat of a supportive poverty news story for an entertaining political news story – it is about legally abiding by one’s own code.

However, having said that, despite the Netherlands press council’s adamancy in remaining complacent over the issues of extreme poverty, the Dutch must be commended for their consistency in remaining up-to-date in their Official Development Assistance to Africa. In comparison to the United States which is notorious for being outstanding at being outstanding, the Netherlands is one of the few nations committed to honouring its vowed obligations towards the campaign of making poverty history. And for that I withdraw the drug comments.

The only wording, however, in a code better than the PCCC’s fantastic ‘in the spirit’ code of ethics of the UK, is none other than that of the Swedes. Yep, just as you expected – the land where the trains run on time, the workers are paid well and furniture is made oh-so conveniently, also has the best media code of ethics in the world. Sweden’s code blankets the entire print, radio and television realms of media. It is concise, succinct and with much room for responsible interpretation. Adopted in 1978 and revised in 1995, the code was adopted by the: Swedish Publishers’ Club, Swedish Journalists’ Association, Swedish Newspaper Publishers’ Union and free-to-air radio and television networks.

The second paragraph in its preamble sums it up with:

"Ethics does not consist primarily in the application of a formal set of rules but in the maintenance of a responsible attitude in the exercise of journalistic duties. The code of ethics for the press, radio and television is intended to provide support for this attitude."

Exactly! A responsible attitude in exercising journalistic duties! This should also include editorial duties as editors tend to make the decisions on what content does and does not make it into an edition. What every news medium needs is an attitude of responsibility; one that understands its own power and performs its duties with consequences in mind. There is no other way for society to know what is going on in their environment unless they place a certain amount of trust in their media. We cannot always choose to be skeptical and reluctant in trusting our media, if we were, we would never learn anything. Therefore, the world has no choice but to surrender to the reported facts they are being presented with if they do want to be an active member of society and have an acceptable level of knowledge about the world’s events. In addition, similar to the Netherlands, Sweden too has proven its commitment to ending extreme poverty by meeting its annual pledge of gross national product towards the crisis. This, in addition to many of Sweden’s other qualities, should be applauded.

There is no argument that it would be unreasonable to hold the media legally responsible for the continuation of extreme poverty in the world via its lack of reporting. But there is little doubt that a vast increase in news coverage of epic (yet proportionate) size would help increase awareness on a grand scale. This increased awareness would, in turn, generate lobbying for increased aid followed by government representatives throughout the world being able to designate the very percentage of gross national product towards the humanitarian aid that will provide the third world with the resources it needs. It is the simple solution to a devastating problem. And not unlike global warming, it has a global solution. Target the press councils and target the media moguls and we have a new realistic goal; an end to the dragging issue and an end to 20 per cent of the human race perishing from hunger. It is not an impossible task – it is a doable task, and one that can happen sooner than we think. All we need first is a commitment from our world’s media.