Media Ethics in Australia

A Special Issue of the Journal of Mass Media Ethics

Edward Spence

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2020
• eBook ISBN: 9781000149791
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Media & Communications Industry
• Index: Business

This issue compromises a selection of papers presented at the Inaugural International Media Ethics Conference held in Canberra Australia in July 2002. The papers selected are representative of some of the central themes of the conference, such as managing the newsroom and editorial independence, limits on press freedom, ethical standards and credibility, investigative journalism, and commercial constraints on the media.

Australian Media Ethics Regime and Ethical Risk Management

Charles Sampford and Robyn Lui Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia

❑ Media organizations are simultaneously key elements of an effective democracy and, for the most part, commercial entities seeking success in the market. They play an essential role in the formation of public opinion and the influence on personal choices. Yet most of them are commercial enterprises seeking readers or viewers, advertising, favorable regulatory decisions for their media, and other assets. This creates some intrinsic difficulties and produces some sharp tensions within media ethics. In this article, we examine such tensions—in theory and practice. We then consider the feasibility of introducing an ethics regime to the media industry—a regime that would be effective in a deregulated environment in protecting public interest and social responsibility. In the article, we also outline a rationale and a methodology for the institutionalization of an acceptable and workable media ethics regime that aims to protect the integrity of the industry in a future of undoubtedly increasing commercial pressure.

Market, Media, and Democracy

The idea that the media play a central role in the maintenance of democratic society has framed debates about media ethics. The implicit contract between the media and the functioning of democracy underpins the claims of journalists for a substantial degree of autonomy. The media provide a public service. They are considered the fourth estate. A healthy democracy requires, among other things, the participation of informed citizens, and one of the roles of the media, if not the most important one, is to enhance the level of participation by providing the information and analyses on a range of political, economic, and social issues. Belsey and Chadwick (1999) framed the issue in this way: “Given the importance of the media to society as a whole, how then can the social responsibility and integrity of the media be protected and promoted?”– (p. 55).

This question is complicated by the fact that the crucial public role is largely played by private corporations. The media industry is increasingly difficult to regulate due not only to technological developments and globalization of media conglomerates but also the trend to contractual relationships between the suppliers of information and entertainment and their audience. However, despite these trends and despite the commercial interests of most media organizations, the media continue to play an ongoing critical role in the formation of public opinion. We argue that if the public interest is to be served, the integrity of the role should be recognized and enhanced rather than compromised. We start from the premise that to inform citizens and foster democratic dialogue are the primary functions of the media. These twin purposes underpin our current undertaking to develop a systematic regulatory framework or a media integrity regime.¹

In this article, we address the public integrity and accountability of the media industry as a whole as it relates to the formation of and influence on public opinion. We consider the feasibility of introducing an ethics regime to the media industry—a regime that would be effective in a deregulated environment in protecting public interest and social responsibility. We also outline a rationale and a methodology for the institutionalization of an acceptable and workable media ethics regime that aims to protect the integrity of the industry in a future of undoubtedly increasing commercial pressure.²

Rationale for Establishing an Ethics Regime Within Australian Media

Recognizing the Intrinsic Difficulties of Media Ethics

In modern liberal democracies, the majority of citizens value both democracy and the market, and there is popular commitment to the belief that politics should be dominated by democratic principles, and the economy should be dominated by market principles. Although both democracy and the market are built on the single principle of individual choice, they involve two fundamentally different principles for evaluating choices. The principle for democracy is “one vote one value”; the principle for the market is “one dollar one value.” The eternal temptation is for those who have accumulated dollars in the market to use those dollars to influence those decisions that are supposed to be governed by democratic principles. Accordingly, defining and policing the boundaries between the market and democracy is a perennial problem in modern liberal societies committed to both democratic and market principles. It gives rise to some of the most difficult and controversial issues in liberal democracies.

Media institutions face particular dilemmas because they are simultaneously key elements of an effective democracy and, for the most part, commercial entities seeking success in the market. They play an essential role in the formation of public opinion and the influence on personal choices. Yet most of them are commercial enterprises seeking not only readers, listeners, and viewers but also advertising revenue, favorable government decisions about media policy, and where they own nonmedia assets, favorable policies on those issues as well. There is an oft-stated concern that those commercial activities and interests in the market might distort the role that media institutions play in the formation of public opinion and consequentially in our democracy. There is the opposite concern that the privileged access that media corporations will gain from politicians seeking a good press may skew decisions politicians have to make in a way that distorts or even undermines markets.

Media institutions face particular dilemmas because they are simultaneously key elements of an effective democracy and, for the most part, commercial entities seeking success in the market.

One of these problems is the widespread attempt to influence public debate through the buying of advertising space or, in the cash-for-comment scandal, in buying the commentary. Although quality newspapers try to erect a firewall between journalists and sellers of advertising space, in some sections and in many magazines, the firewall has many convenient access doors. In the recent cash-for-comment scandal, the doors were wide enough for those who were seeking to influence public opinion to bring through wheelbarrows of cash from those who were willing to pay for talk-back radio hosts to speak well of them.³

One of the starkest expressions of this potential problem comes from a story about Lord Beaverbrook. After the purchase of the Telegraph and Evening Standard, a puzzled interlocutor asked, given the apparently limited financial returns that could be expected, why Beaverbrook had bought it. Beaverbrook’s answer was simple: “power.” By this, Beaverbrook clearly meant political power. We do not believe this is a goal that can be justified in a democracy. It would allow the market to dominate our polity. The media do not then stand astride both camps but are the means by which one sphere dominates the other.

No media owner today would be as crass as to say as much in public. It may be that no media owner would even think it in private. However, the very perception of such a thought might influence the decisions of politicians. If they believe media corporations might use that power, politicians may avoid actions that might conflict with the interests of media corporations and their owners and may act in ways that they believe further the interests of those they would like to speak well of them at election time.

What is more, some are tempted to think that there is nothing wrong with this activity. “It’s his newspaper: It’s his money.” A former chairman of the board of a major media group first related the Beaverbrook story to Sampford not as a criticism of Beaverbrook but as a part of the natural order of things. The comment stimulated our thinking on the way that the media straddle the democracy-market interface. It prompted us to reflect on the importance of professional journalism in maintaining that divide. This is not to say that the professional ethics of journalists can be effective by itself but that it is a key part of the equation—whereas the political and economic preferences of the owner are not.

We draw an analogy—in the relationship between medical professionals and their employers. Private hospital ownership does not override the professional duties of the medical staff. It would be unthinkable for the owner of a hospital to interfere with the diagnosis of patients under his or her employee’s care. However, it is not just a matter of leaving it all in the hands of the individual doctor. The individual doctor cannot expend unlimited hospital resources, and the hospital has to decide the kind of services it offers. Similarly, the journalist cannot unilaterally decide what to write, how long it will be, and where it will be placed. Such decisions have to be taken institutionally and involve a number of different professionals.

This is not, in fact, a problem confined to doctors and journalists. It involves any professional employed by an organization—including corporate lawyers and accountants as well as internal auditors. However, their work is not the heart of the relevant business. Hospitals and the media are interesting in the way that their core business is the same as that of the professionals they employ. The difference between hospitals and the media is that this is taken for granted rather than downplayed as inconvenient.

Risk, Not Wrong doing, the Reason for Ethic and Regulation in General (and Ethics Regimes in Particular)

Those seeking legal or ethical regulation of the media are often met with flat denials that any problem exists. They may be asked to prove that media corporations have misused their capacity to influence public opinion such as favoring particular candidates, supporting certain policies, or taking a particular line on their show. Such actions are difficult to prove because they will not, of their nature, be transparent and open.

Just as media owners have interests to protect, so do politicians. There is strong evidence of problems in the recent past. According to Chadwick (1989), the policies pursued by the former Prime Minister Bob Hawke’s Labor government were motivated by the government’s political interests. More recently, in evidence before a 1994 Senate committee hearing, media baron Conrad Black complained that another former Australian Prime Minister, Paul Keating, made a deal—a rise to 35% ownership if political coverage for the then forthcoming 1993 election was even handed.

On the influence of international media owners, Black again condemned himself unwittingly. Black claimed that he only once interfered with the editorial line of the Daily Telegraph. When President Reagan bombed Libya (including an attack on Colonel Gaddafy’s tent), England provided bases, and other European countries objected, with France denying overflight rights. The action was blatantly illegal under international law (indeed, it was later revealed that the bombing for which this was a public reprisal was carried out from Syria). The Telegraph made this point rather gently. Black thought that this was obviously wrong. The merits of this argument are not at stake at this moment. Whatever the rights and wrongs on such an issue, the views of North Americans should not determine the editorials of English newspapers on matters of sovereignty, international law, and armed conflict.

On the relationship between media owners and their other interests, the liaison between Alan Bond and Joh Bjelke Petersen is a classic case. Bjelke Petersen sued Channel 9 for alleging some improprieties in his administration. Alan Bond went to sort it out. According to Bond, Bjelke made it clear that life would be extremely difficult for Bond’s brewing interests if he did not settle. Settlement was very expensive—especially given the apparent view of Bond’s own lawyers and the enormous embarrassment that a vigorously fought defense might cause to Bjelke at that time. Bond paid $400,000 and discovered that Queensland gave him no trouble at all. They made a deal that benefitted them both but at the expense of ordinary citizens. As participants in democracy, we were lumbered with a regime whose flaws were not fully exposed until later in the decade. As participants in the market, we suffered the inefficiencies of privileged access to governmental favor.

Yet, a demand for proof of current or future wrongdoing misses the point of an ethics regime for the media industry. All that must be demonstrated is that there is a temptation to misuse the capacity of media organizations and media participants to influence public opinion for their own benefit. If there is the temptation, there is the risk that mere mortals will succumb to it.

A government does not have to prove that another country is planning to invade before it establishes a defense force. A corporation does not wait for a fire before installing fire alarms. It does not even have to prove there is a risk before taking such preventative measures. It identifies, manages, and avoids the risk—at the same time taking out insurance as a means of dealing with disaster should it occur.

The media industry should not wait until standards are breached and punitive measures are required before taking preventive action.

If we are to protect our democracy, we must deal with the risks that might compromise it. Thus, the media industry should not wait until standards are breached and punitive measures are required before taking preventive action. There will always be risks wherever there is a potential conflict of interest, especially at the interface between the institutions of democracy and the mechanism of the market. What is required of both media regulators and media organizations is to identify those risks and develop robust risk management strategies. An ethics regime should be seen as part of a sound risk management policy for the media industry and the polity it is intended to serve.

Elements of an Ethic and Integrity Regime for the Media

Ethical Standard Setting, Legal Regulation, and Institutional Reform—The Essential Trinity for an Ethics Regime

How can we deal with this risk? There are three kinds of responses: legal, ethical, and institutional. The overwhelming preference is for establishing ethical standards that emphasize character and rely on modifying the conduct of individuals.⁴ This preference was reflected in the number of papers presented at the International Media Ethics Conference in Canberra wh...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Contents
• Copyright Page
• Foreword
• Australian Media Ethics Regime and Ethical Risk Management
• Good Character: Too Little, Too Late
• Stakeholders Versus Shareholders: Journalism, Business, and Ethics
• Empowerment as a Universal Ethic in Global Journalism
• Cases and Commentaries
• Book Reviews