Dear Bono....

When discussing the topics of press councils and news omission, it is important to look at dealings press councils have had in the past with complaints relating to both news and information omission. Some complaints stem from entire stories not being published at all, while others relate to key details being left out of a particular story which then might change the meaning or give untrue implications. By omitting extreme poverty deaths each day, the media is prioritizing the stories included in its publication or news bulletin as stories of more importance or more value. And by leaving out extreme poverty deaths in news stories relating to items such as political party platforms, foreign policy, Iraq war casualties etc – then improper emphasis is being placed on the other reported facts included. Information on the daily casualties of extreme poverty could successfully complement a news story by adding perspective and reminding readers of its lingering presence in our world today.

Included in this chapter are examples where press councils have received complaints from the public against the media on the grounds of news omission. Most of the time, complainants have been directly affected by the alleged breach. For example, someone has provided a quote for a story and they have been misrepresented or an entire story has been left out about a specific event that might have depended on the publication in order to advertise a protest or an important date. Nearly always do complaints come from people directly involved with the news story or omitted news story. Rarely do people take publications to the press councils for not reporting enough news on important issues such as extreme poverty or AIDS or breast cancer or climate change. As we learnt from Chapter 2, many press councils work with the same grievance system as British Columbia’s, where it is essential for complaints to be made against a specific breach of its corresponding ethics code; ergo not of a general nature.

Therefore, press councils want to deal with as few complaints as they can, and nothing makes them happier than having the majority of people not know what they are or what it is they do. The more complaints they receive – the more work that is expected of them and nobody craves added work.

Even the advantages of having a complaint upheld can be weak. Depending on which nation’s council is adjudicating the complaint, usually all you will go away with is a five-line article on your victory in the paper’s next edition, meticulously hidden next to a story nobody wants to read on anal herpes.

But, a win is a win. And some people are lucky for councils to be upholding any complaints at all. The Australian Press Council isn’t bad when it comes to objectivity in overseeing its cases. Adjudications over the past five years show that approximately 60 per cent of cases have been upheld in comparison to 40 per cent being dismissed. But let’s face it, it’s not as if a shamed journalist will have their wiping hand cut off at the wrist if they’ve made some sort of breach. Some press councils’ powers are so weak they couldn’t give you lunchtime detention. The truth is that traditionally, the press councils have pretended to reprimand whilst the publishers have pretended to care and the end result sees complainants going home punching the air and wondering exactly what it is they’ve just won.

But if you look at a country like New Zealand’s model you can see the outcomes can be very different. The New Zealand Press Council (NZPC) won’t even give its complainants a handshake. In New Zealand hardly any complaints are ever upheld in favour of the complainants, with news mediums tending to come out mostly on top. Over the past five years a mere 15 per cent of adjudicated cases have been upheld. Now whether this has to do with poorly argued complaints being made by the public or council members looking after its own is not really the issue – what is important is that it makes little difference either way. Prior to the NZPC making a decision, Kiwi complainants must put in writing that they will not be undertaking civil proceedings against the journalist or publication at hand. This is said to be so the press council is not used as a rehearsal run for litigation. Then what good are they for?

The following case of news omission was brought forward by a member of the public against the highly credible yet now defunct Australian magazine, The Bulletin, and was upheld by the APC on the grounds of public interest. The case reads as follows:

Australian Press Council (August 1999)

Adjudication No. 452

The Press Council has considered criticism of The Bulletin by Professor John Henningham for its omission of any substantial report or comment upon the sudden and unexpected sacking of its former editor, Mr David Dale, by the proprietor, Mr Kerry Packer.

The Council holds that it was within editorial discretion for The Bulletin to refer, or not refer, to its change in editorship.

Nevertheless, the Council believes that the matter was of public interest, given the standing and character of the magazine and given public concern about press freedom in an environment of highly concentrated media ownership. The magazine’s readership could reasonably have expected at least some coverage of the change beyond the appearance of the name of a new editor in the staff panel.

Professor Henningham states that by failing to cover any aspect of the sacking, or even to publish a letter which he wrote pointing out its implications for press freedom, The Bulletin had neglected professional values, and had shown itself to be "Orwellian" in its selection of material for publication.

In its defence, The Bulletin states that "news organisations rarely, if ever, discuss their own staff comings and goings, except to announce them". To do otherwise, it is claimed, would be an exercise in "journalistic self-indulgence". Moreover, The Bulletin says it does not report news in the way a newspaper does, its function is to report facts that have not appeared elsewhere and to comment on facts that have been reported elsewhere.

In the Council’s view, it would have been appropriate to report the sacking or to publish Professor Henningham’s letter as a matter of public interest.

Does this mean the media is responsible for reporting everything that is important and in the public interest? We have come to realise that extreme poverty deaths are important because they are preventable deaths.. But what makes these deaths a matter of public interest? If readers knew of the famine-related body count and saw the devastation that hunger causes in far away places, it would bring about swift public reaction. The fact that these stories are never given the emphasis of deserving front page news status assumes that these stories are not important enough and therefore not in the public interest. The truth is that this is more in the public interest than any other news story because readers are also voters for their respective governments. As we saw during the Boxing Day Tsunami, people had voted in governments that proved they would contribute vast quantities of aid should a tragedy occur to its neighbouring countries; and governments were acting on behalf of what they believed their voters would have wanted.

Henningham’s wishes for The Bulletin to print Packer’s sacking of Dale was upheld by the APC because of the ever-present "public concern about press freedom in an environment of highly concentrated media ownership." In other words, The Bulletin is a magazine read by news junkies and media-enthusiasts alike that are already aware of current issues relating to media ownership matters. Therefore, omitting a story on the sacking of its former editor would only enhance the curiosity of its readers and jeopardize the credibility of the publication. Including a story on Dale’s departure might actually appear self-indulgent after all, however, omitting it has made it self-conscious. If The Bulletin can be pulled up for not including a story on David Dale being sacked by the late Kerry Packer, then it can pull into line the whole Australian media industry for failing to report news stories on extreme poverty deaths that would proportionately illustrate the most serious and important event that has happened for the day.

Most of the time rulings upholding audience complaints demand the publication publish the result of the case. This contributes to the newspaper’s accountability, providing enough egg on a journalist’s face to allow the complainant to go home grinning.

A case that took place in London involving Russian billionaire Boris Berezovsky and London-based newspaper The Guardian demonstrated an instance where financial compensation meant nothing in comparison to the sheer joy of outsmarting the media in admitting it had been wrong. The complaint reads as follows:

UK Press Complaints Commission (March 2006)

Boris Berezovsky Vs The Guardian

Boris Berezovsky complained, through Carter-Ruck solicitors, that the newspaper had failed to report the outcome of a defamation action to which it had been a party. The newspaper had – through the offer of amends procedure – agreed to a statement in open court, in which it apologised to the complainant, and which it then reported. The amount of compensation had not been established at that point, and so did not appear in the newspaper’s report of the court hearing. When the amount was subsequently agreed, the complainant considered that the newspaper should publish it.

The complaint was resolved when the newspaper – noting the unusual nature of the case, which involved a statement in open court as part of an offer of amends – published the following clarification: "In an article "Berezovsky apology" p8, 22 December 2005, we referred to a statement in open court the previous day in which we apologised to Mr Berezovsky. We omitted to mention that under the offer of amends procedure, the amount of compensation to be paid by the defendants to Mr Berezovsky, unless otherwise agreed, would be determined at a separate hearing. The Guardian has since agreed to pay Mr Berezovsky £20,000 damages and his legal costs in settlement of his claim."

While Berezovsky had sucked about AUS$50,000 from the Guardian Media Group, it meant nothing without the newspaper’s admission to act as the proverbial cherry. The powers of a successful foreign businessman proved obviously formidable – and while the outcome of the complaint might appear somewhat trivial, a news story is a news story. Whether it is interesting, boring, important, or trivial – a news story is privileged information in the way it has been published. An unpublished news story is merely words on a page. So what would happen if the press councils determined that the omission of a news story reporting 25,000 preventable deaths in one day a serious breach? Out of the hundred-odd press councils in the world today, the repercussions of just one of these media accountability systems finding this kind of omission a breach of its corresponding code of ethics could prove phenomenal.

The compulsory reporting of a court outcome for a Russian billionaire might be short-lived because it is a one-off event. However, extreme poverty deaths occur daily. Out of all the breaches in all the clauses in all the ethics codes in all the world, do you mean to tell me not one press council can determine an adjudication where a newspaper is compelled to include such a story in every edition it prints? With breaches such as: failing to uphold ethical journalism, failing to uphold responsible journalism, implementing improper emphasis on certain information, not acting in the spirit of ethical journalism, not reporting in good faith towards the public’s interests, not portraying the concerns and issues of the ‘voiceless’, failing to respect the rights of the individual – there is no greater act of neglect. Again, in the dogma of the world’s greatest American, hero, Spiderman, with great power comes great responsibility – and the press councils, perhaps even ironically, are not acting responsibly.

Another Australian example of news omission can be seen in the complaint brought against the Sunday Telegraph, which illustrated how irresponsible journalism can result in the memory of deceased subjects to be tainted. The case reads as follows:

Australian Press Council (October 1982)

Adjudication No. 147

The Australian Press Council has received a complaint (3 June 1982) from the NSW Public Solicitor about an article in the Sunday Telegraph on 9 May 1982, concerning former football star John Ryan.

Mr Ryan died of a heart attack in his Lindfield home while awaiting trial on five charges alleging assault and robbery of TAB agencies.

The article was generally sympathetic to Mr Ryan and he was presented as a man destroyed by compulsive gambling.

The Public Solicitor complains that the article left the impression that Mr Ryan was guilty of the charges.

In fact, the article went further -- it quotes a friend as accepting that Mr Ryan made raids on TAB agencies.

The Public Solicitor also complains that the article does not mention that Mr Ryan had pleaded not guilty at the committal hearing in North Sydney Court.

This is a serious omission.

The newspaper article left no doubt that Mr Ryan had robbed TAB agencies, charges which had not been proved against him, and which were to be vigorously defended.

The newspaper is censured.

Look who had egg on their face back in 1982. It can be ever so embarrassing being censured. These rulings wouldn’t even equate to a mild spanking. The ‘let them eat cake’ mentality by the press councils cannot give back the stripped reputation of someone who is deceased. While the very objectives of the press councils are indeed honourable, unfortunately the influence of the press is much too powerful for the councils’ punishments to equal anything. And what’s funny is the Telegraph did not even have the wit to take into consideration the presence of the solicitors defending their client, even if it was posthumously?

The ‘serious omission’ by the Sunday Telegraph not to include Mr Ryan’s not-guilty plea is a serious reflection on the media’s own forgetfulness towards how influential they actually are. Whether it is forgetfulness or malice – the neglect is evidently still there. If Mr Ryan happened to be proven innocent, there is no denying that the story had already been written, the man was already dead – and the debt was unlikely to be paid. Youngsters who were John Ryan fans would be filling the very last pages of their scrap books devoted to their favourite footy player with newspaper clippings attributed to his violent, thieving and gambling decline.

But the question remains, what is worse, being portrayed as a violent, thieving gambler – or a sexually perverted deviant? In 1990, the Australian Press Council upheld a complaint against The Sunday Mail which branded a course offered at the University of Queensland as pornographic and misogynistic. It reads as follows:

Australian Press Council (October 1990)

Adjudication No. 459

The Australian Press Council has upheld a complaint against the Brisbane Sunday Mail by Mr Lawrence Apps, Reader in Journalism at the University of Queensland.

Mr Apps complained on two grounds about a story published in the Sunday Mail on 20 May and an editorial and a follow-up article a week later.

The article on 20 May, the main cause of the complaint, was headed HARD PORN SLIDES IN MEDIA COURSE. The article claimed that, as part of a course called "The New Journalism", audio-visual slides showing women undergoing degrading forms of sexual abuse, including mutilation, were shown to journalism students. The paper said the overwhelming majority of these students were young women.

The Sunday Mail said the slides showed "horrific pornographic" images including women with mutilated breasts or genitals, a woman being assaulted with a jackhammer, another being fed through a meat mincer, and a stillborn baby being exhibited while onlookers performed "depraved acts".

Mr Apps’s grounds for complaint were:

1. That the story was obtained by deceit. The journalist who approached him said she wished to write a story on female students in the journalism course similar to one she had done previously on girl students and mathematics.

That this was to be the basis of the article is not disputed by the newspaper, which says it suspected the university would be sensitive to any publicity about the slides. In fact, Mr Apps says the interview proceeded for three hours before the reporter raised "almost as an aside" the matter of the audio-visual material. This, which then became the sole subject of her published story, was hurriedly viewed by her without full benefit of the audio explanation of its relevance.

In its Statement of Principles, the Press Council says "News obtained by dishonest or unfair means, or the publication of which would involve a breach of confidence, should not be published unless there is an over-riding public interest."

2. The second ground raised by Mr Apps was that the story as published was inaccurate, in that it failed to explain the context in which the slides were shown and the reason for the inclusion of the audio-visual material in the "New Journalism" course.

Mr Apps said the audio-visual material was titled "Abusive Images of Women in Mass Media and Pornography". It was created by WOMEN AGAINST VIOLENCE IN PORNOGRAPHY AND MEDIA, a San Francisco organisation whose aim was to eliminate pornographic media images of women. It was a standard teaching resource, accessible from the open library collection, and used widely in a number of countries. It had been used at the University of Queensland for the last three years.

Contrary to a claim in an editorial in the Sunday Mail, the material did not come from the underground pornographic industry. A number of the images of women being degraded or violently treated came from mainstream sources. This was the particular reason for their inclusion in the journalism course.

Mr Apps agreed that whether the material was "horrific and pornographic" was a matter of opinion. However, he said, though a number of statements in the article were accurate, the story overall was inaccurate because of omission of balancing material.

The Press Council upholds Mr Apps’s complaint on both grounds. The Council points out that deliberate omission of relevant facts is as unacceptable as the deliberate publication of false statements.

Apart from deciphering that assaulting women with a jackhammer is wrong, from this adjudication it is fair to state that deliberate omission of relevant facts is just as unacceptable as the deliberate publication of false statements. Unfortunately, the principal word is deliberate. I am sure every publication that printed stories on 9/11 months after the event took place, did not deliberately omit complementary stories or factual ingredients on extreme poverty on purpose. The unnecessary 3,000 deaths at Ground Zero compared to the 25,000 in the developing world on the same day can be debated whether the latter is a complementary piece of information. And the omission of questions on foreign aid spending during a pre-election press conference merely reflects a journalist’s decision that overseas crises are not of national concern.

On many occasions press councils are presented with instances where news mediums have not provided enough information in their stories, however, there are sometimes rather obscure occasions where reporters can simply give away far too much. A story published in The Fiji Times included horrific facts of a commercial airliner crash in 1999. The Fijian Media Council dealt with the case as follows:

The Media Council (Fiji) Ltd (November 1999)

Complaints Committee

Report on media coverage of crash of flight PC121

Following the tragic crash of Air Fiji flight PC121 on 24 July 1999 there was considerable media coverage by press, radio and television.

On 2nd August the Co-ordinator of the Fiji Women's Crisis Centre, Ms Shamima Ali, complained to the Council in the following terms:

24th July - Navtarang. During the announcement of the crash hit music was played in the background.

25th July - Sunday Times. Margaret Wise's page 3 article titled "Scene of Carnage" contained sentences such as "the upper torso of a fair skinned female passenger....her face smashed beyond recognition... organs, ligaments and disfigured bodies also scattered among the debris...."

25th July - Netani Rika’s morbid line of questioning of people at the scene of the crash elicited descriptions of the smell of the bodies, the state in which they were found as well as how they had been removed from the wreckage with the aid of cane knives.

26th July - Islands Network. A news presenter included graphic details of the crash site, describing, " innards hanging from trees...."

"We are shocked and disgusted at the complete insensitivity with which graphic details of the tragedy were made public with no regard to the feelings of the families and friends of the victims. The morbid and sensationalist journalism that has been displayed is an intrusion into the lives of the grieving families and an affront to public decency."

As this was one of the worst tragedies ever experienced in Fiji and one of the first times many journalists had been called upon to report on such a traumatic event, the Committee decided that before considering the complaint it would invite members of the public to express opinions as to the manner in which the disaster had been covered by the media.

Notices were placed in the press and nine submissions were made. All of these generally supported the tenor of the complaint by Ms Shamima Ali.

The Committee has viewed all the Television coverage, and read the press and radio reports as well as studying all the public submissions.

Generally the media is to be complimented for its timely and comprehensive coverage of this tragic event. It was an acid test for reporters and media managers and most of them handled their tasks creditably. Unfortunately much of this good work was marred by a few instances of excessively graphic descriptions of the human tragedy.

The Committee considers it was inappropriate for reporters to graphically describe human organs and how they had been desecrated. It upholds the concerns expressed by Ms Shamima Ali in her complaint. Furthermore, the committee deprecates the rather immature and insensitive line of questioning used by some interviewers.

When tragedies, like the crash of PC121, strike, emotions run high. The lives of families whose relatives may have been killed or maimed are often shattered. There is widespread speculation and much unsubstantiated blame. The media has a critical role of play in reporting what has happened. The public rely almost completely on the media to keep them informed and to report statements by those dealing with tragedy. At no time is it more vital for the media to state facts accurately and sensitively without resorting to graphic descriptions that are better suited to dramatic fiction.

It is important to inform the public helpfully and do nothing to exacerbate the agony and grief. It is understandable that the media would give banner headlines to a disaster of this magnitude and seek to investigate its cause and effects thoroughly. But the reporting should be tempered with sensitivity. Fiji does not have tabloid style newspapers that sensationalise events as they do in many other countries. Nor do we want such reporting. We live in a multi cultural society where there is a mix of attitudes and differing sensitivities. These must be respected.

The Media Council Code of Ethics and Practice, which was launched recently, has this to say under the heading, DISTRESSING MATERIAL.

"Editors, producers and broadcasters of news, current affairs and documentary programs should take particular care in deciding whether the inclusion of graphic detail and intensity of violent or distressing material is warranted by its relevance and to aid public understanding of the subject.

"Special consideration must be given to possible transmission of particularly disturbing images including:

Torture or ill-treatment of people and animals
Close ups of dead or mutilated bodies
Images of people in extreme pain, or on the point of death
Violence or ill-treatment of children."

In another section under the heading, TASTE AND DECENCY, the codes provide:

"They should not include material which is offensive to prevailing general standards of taste and decency, or likely to prejudice respect for human dignity among its audience bearing in mind the manner and time of transmission."

Unfortunately these codes were not in general use at the time of the tragedy but they are now to be distributed widely to all journalists and the public. The Complaints Committee believes they provide a realistic guide for Reporters and Editors and adequately protect the public interest. As stated earlier, the Committee considers that the media generally complied with the above guidelines. It is unfortunate that a few chose a different style. The Committee does not wish to identify them but hopes that if such a terrible tragedy ever strikes our nation again, better judgement will prevail.

Hmm.......I’m not sure the Fijian media could have acted any more inappropriately if they tried. Even if their television networks played Queen’s, Another One Bites the Dust, on top of the footage, or its newspaper headlines read something along the lines of: Severed Organs Stink-Up Tarmac with a photo slugline: Dem Bones Dem Bones, could they have showed any more irreverence. Too seldom do we read the journalistic poetry in a story on a plane crash that beautifully illustrates ‘bodies scattered on the debris.’ It certainly brings a tear to my eye. Perhaps those crazy Fijians had had a little too much kava that week. All the same, to prevent this absolute plane-wreck (excuse the metaphor) of bad journalism from being a total waste, we have to ask ourselves what do we learn from this example of being given too much information? At school we are taught the benefits of description all the time with similes and figures of speech that give our writing depth and clarity. We are asked to describe the sounds, the textures and the smells ─ tell our readers what we see. So what makes this sort of description inappropriate and callous?

The truth is that the type of reporting we have just read is undoubtedly insensitive, but it is also counterproductive. The people referred to in the news stories (or their limbs at least) were casualties of a horrible plane crash. Although the images of the detainees at Abu Ghraib depicted a story of abuse and torture, they too portrayed as much hopelessness as the plane victims. There was nothing anybody could do, the damage had been done. Nevertheless, these Fijian reporters successfully demanded the attention of their audiences. They probably even gave readers a sick feeling in their stomachs with absolutely no outlet whatsoever. While audiences might have felt after seeing a televised tragedy such as the Boxing Day Tsunami, their outlet was to help. While many people had died, there were still so many more people to help – and that tended to be the answer to feeling miserable.

But perhaps this sort of Fijian journalism is what extreme poverty needs in order for readers to go back to how they felt before they were desensitized. Because descriptions of hunger and diarrhea and cholera and AIDS and malaria can all be equally as unpleasant. Not unlike the plane crash it would certainly disrupt the comfortable evening read of the newspaper audience. Smells of corpses, rotting flesh, infected wounds and villages without proper sewage systems would all annoy the typical man’s after-work rituals as he awaited the call that dinner’s ready. This sort of crude journalism would be insensitive but necessary in order to extort the very need of an outlet for these audiences. The responses of ‘hmmm’ and ‘tsk tsk tsk’ do not make a person yearn to make a difference. "Holy crap" and "That is disgusting,’ just might.

But would this sort of explicit journalism on famine-related deaths be reprimanded by the press councils as well? Probably not, but why? You can easily argue both sides here. Would it not be insensitive for families and loved ones in Bangladesh or Malawi to read these course depictions of extreme poverty in the same way it would be for the relatives of the plane crash victims? How do we know they don’t subscribe and read the papers? How do we know they wouldn’t find this sort of journalism insensitive? We know they don’t subscribe because they are poor and we know they don’t read because they can’t. Extremely poor people are treated not like people at all. They are not complainants to press councils because they are voiceless. They are always going to be faceless subject-matters for feature articles and PhD thesis no one reads. But until they are treated as human, there will never be any change.

News omission is wrong and it is unethical because the media is under-managed and ill-supervised. Even a drug-taking film or sports-star who enjoys snorting coke off the breasts of strippers knows he behave responsibly in front of children because he is a role-model. He might not have asked to be a role-model but unfortunately it comes with the fame and he understands and accepts that. Drug-taking celebrities know that if they cannot be responsible enough not to take drugs, they can at least be responsible enough to tend to their vices without the kids finding out. The media, sadly enough, is a type of role-model too. Journalists are in the public eye; have a reputation of being always out finding the truth; and are assumed to be the ones out finding people doing the wrong thing. This means they then have a responsibility to not only avoid being seen getting into trouble but actually be seen doing the right thing. Their neglect towards extreme poverty is very much harmful behaviour and therefore needs to be made public. And only then will we see the changes we need.