Media Accountability in a Liberal Democracy
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
MEDIA ACCOUNTABILITY IN A LIBERAL DEMOCRACY AN EXAMINATION OF THE HARLOT’S PREROGATIVE Denis Joseph Andrew Muller Submitted in total fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2005 Centre for Public Policy Department of Political Science University of Melbourne Printed on archival quality paper To Catherine, my wife, with love. ABSTRACT This thesis is both a normative and empirical study of media accountability in a liberal democracy. While its focus is predominantly on Australia, it contains some international comparisons. Media ethics and media performance in relation to quality of media content are identified as the two main dimensions of media accountability. They may be conceived of as the means and the ends of media work. The thesis represents the first combined survey of both external mechanisms of accountability in Australia – those existing outside the various media organisations – and the internal mechanisms existing within three of Australia’s largest media organisations. These organisations span print and broadcasting, public and private ownership. The thesis is based on substantial qualitative research involving interviews with a wide range of experts in media ethics, law, management, and accountability. It is also based on two quantitative surveys, one among practitioners of journalism and the other among the public they serve. This combination of research is certainly new in Australia, and no comparable study has been found in other Western countries. In addition to the main qualitative and quantitative surveys, three case studies are presented. One deals with media performance in relation to quality of media content (the case of alleged bias brought against the Australian Broadcasting Corporation by the then Senator Richard Alston); one deals with media ethics (the “cash-for-comment” cases involving various commercial radio broadcasters), and one deals with accountability processes (the “Who Is Right?” experiment at The Sydney Morning Herald). The thesis is grounded in established theories of the media, and these provide the norms on which the media’s performance is judged in relation to quality of media content. Ethical norms are derived from a range of ethical codes and statements of principle developed by the media industry in Australia and in comparable jurisdictions abroad. The thesis points up shortcomings in existing normative media theory and in the codes. It proposes a new theory and institutional structures to make good these deficiencies. ii STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP This is to certify that The thesis consists only of my original work towards the PhD. Due acknowledgement has been made in the text to all other material used. The thesis is less than 100,000 words in length, exclusive of tables, maps, bibliographies and appendices. D. J. A. MULLER iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS For most of my life I have been getting into places through the back door. Having failed matriculation, I got into newspaper journalism through suburban give-aways. When I was 41 I got into university because a paper I had written on freedom-of-information law was accepted as the equivalent of a BA honours thesis. Many people have helped me along the way and their contributions have all added to this thesis. In journalism I found exemplars and guides: men like Alan Dobbyn, David Bowman and Les Wheeler on The Sydney Morning Herald, Creighton Burns on The Age, and Leon Pilpel on The Times, London. I also found supportive colleagues like Michael Smith who, as editor of The Age, not only encouraged me to go to university but arranged for the newspaper to pay my fees. The person who opened the back door of the University of Melbourne for me was Associate Professor Bruce Headey, whom I met on the committee that used to advise The Age and Herald on their public opinion poll, the Saulwick Poll. Bruce supervised my Master’s and was associate supervisor for this thesis. No words will adequately express my gratitude to him. My principal supervisor was Associate Professor David Tucker, and I am greatly indebted to him also for his teaching, guidance and encouragement over many years. I am indebted to the University itself for granting me a scholarship to embark on this work. It was my involvement in the management and reporting of the Saulwick Poll, however, that awakened my interest in social research. Its founder, Irving Saulwick, has really taught me all I know about qualitative and quantitative research. Not only that; he is a great friend and mentor. Many other people helped me directly with this thesis and I am deeply grateful to them all: Glenda Crane and her team at Australian Fieldwork Solutions who carried out the quantitative fieldwork; Gil and Amy at the sandwich shop across the road from the University who helped in the piloting of the voter questionnaire; Matthew Ricketson and his staff at RMIT University who helped distribute my questionnaire among journalism students there; Nigel Henham at The Age, Chris McLeod at the Herald and Weekly Times and Heather Forbes at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, who made it possible to distribute my questionnaire among their journalists and who helped in many other ways; Margaret Simons, who read the draft and made helpful suggestions, and all the interviewees in various media organisations and elsewhere who gave so generously of their time and their knowledge, and who are individually acknowledged in Appendix A. Finally, my family: my wife Catherine and my children Jacqueline, Elizabeth and Brendan, who put up with days, weeks and eventually months of pre-occupation and lost hours in the study. I can’t imagine how I could have done it without their support. And then my natural mother, Polly Davidson (nee Battey), my discovery of whom when I was 37 gave me the confidence to think that I might, after all, have it in me to complete a university degree. She has not lived to see this, but it is infused with her spirit. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS List of tables and figures vi Introduction 1 Part I: Concepts and grounding 1 History, legitimacy, press theory and functions 8 2 Accountability as a concept 32 Part II: The dimensions of media accountability 3 Ethics 45 4 Performance (Quality of media content) 91 Part III: External accountability mechanisms 5 The Australian Broadcasting Authority 124 6 The Australian Press Council 149 7 The Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance, and Media Watch 172 Part IV: Internal accountability mechanisms and defamation law 8 The Australian Broadcasting Corporation 190 9 Fairfax and News Ltd 204 10 Defamation 222 Part V: The way ahead 11 Conclusions and recommendations 245 Appendices Bibliography v LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1.1: Voters’ Main Source of News Table 2.1 Journalism Professionals’ Statements Identifying Those to Whom the Media Owe Accountability Table 2.2 Journalism Professionals’ Statements Identifying the Values, Behaviours and Effects for Which the Media should be Held Accountable Table 3.1: Journalists’ Attitudes to Certain Ethical Issues Table 3.2: Circumstances in Which Certain Activities are Justified (Journalists) Table 3.3: Journalists’ Perceptions of Journalists as Truth-Tellers Table 3.4: Comparison of Journalists’ Attitudes in Us, Britain, Germany And Australia Table 3.5: Voters’ Perceptions of Journalists Table 3.6: Voters’ Attitudes to Certain Ethical Issues Table 3.7: Circumstances in Which Certain Activities are Justified (Voters) Table 3.8: Voters’ Perceptions of Journalists as Truth-Tellers Table 3.9: Comparison of Journalists’ and Voters’ Attitudes on Certain Ethical Issues Table 3.10: Comparison of Journalists’ and Voters’ Perceptions of Journalists as Truth-Tellers Table 3.11: Proportion of Australian Voters Who Say Journalists Have High or Very High Standards of Ethics or Honesty Table 4.1: Journalists’ Assessment of Journalists’ Performance Table 4.2: Importance U.S. and Australian Journalists Assign to Various Media Roles Table 4.3: Voters’ Assessment of Journalists’ Performance Table 4.4: Comparison of Journalists’ and Voters’ Assessment of Media Performance Table 5.1: Total Complaints against Commercial Broadcasters Investigated by the ABA 2000-2003 Table 5.2: Outcomes of News and Current Affairs Complaints against Commercial Broadcasters 2000-2003 Table 5.3: Outcomes of Complaints against News and Current Affairs Programs by Complaint Type 2000-2003 Table 5.4: Journalists’ Rating of the Australian Broadcasting Authority Table 5.5: Voters’ Awareness of Where to Go to Complain About a Journalist’s Performance (ABA) Table 6.1: Pattern of Complaints Adjudicated by the Australian Press Council 1993- 2002 Table 6.2: Outcomes of Complaints Adjudicated by the Australian Press Council 1993-2000 vi Table 6.3 Satisfaction Levels of Complainants and Respondents about the Australian Press Council’s Complaint Outcomes Table 6.4: Complainants’ Attitudes to the Way The Australian Press Council Conducted its Hearings and Arrived at Outcomes Table 6.5: Journalists’ Rating of The Australian Press Council Table 6.6: Voters’ Awareness of Where to Go to Complain about a Journalist’s Performance (Press Council) Table 7.1: Pattern of Complaints Dealt With by the MEAA Ethics Panel, Victoria, 1993-2002 Table 7.2: Journalists’ Rating of the MEAA Ethics Panel Table 7.3: Voters’ Awareness of Where to Go to Complain about a Journalist’s Performance (MEAA) Table 7.4: Journalists’ Rating of Media Watch Table 7.5: Voters’ Awareness of Where to Go to Complain about a Journalist’s Performance (Media Watch) Table 8.1: Pattern