“Just the facts, ma’am”: What a citizen should expect from the media

Guest Author Uncategorized

Today’s Guest Author is Catalyst, with an eloquent plea to the media and our legislators. Thank you, Catalyst.

The earnest request for ‘Just the facts, ma’am,’ came from Dragnet’s lieutenant Joe Friday. An old time TV series with clear back and white values. Joe Friday’s remark encapsulates what I want from the media in their role of reporting news stories. The facts, clearly stated without distortion or interpretation.

Opinion pieces that are labelled as such are another matter. For some time now in my opinion, our ‘fourth estate’ has been failing us, the public, in factual reporting

The fourth estate, which is how journalists are described, has a unique function in our western democracies. They are supposed to represent us, the people. Their task is to stand for the interests of the people in scrutinizing the events of the day, fairly and without favour, especially the actions of the government and opposition. I’ve italicised where I believe our media fails us, most especially when it comes to subjecting the opposition to scrutiny. Not just reporting what they say, but actually looking for policies.

The term ‘fourth estate’ derives from the British Westminster system. This includes the Lords spiritual, the bishops, the Lords temporal, the aristocracy, in the House of Lords and the lower house, House of Commons, representing the majority of people in the Parliament. Accountability was supposed to be ensured by the scrutiny of the parliament by the ‘fourth estate’. Our Parliament is run along Westminster lines- replacing the concept of The House of Lords with the Senate- also supposed to be a house of review.

Under their own code of ethics (which some these days believe an oxymoron) journalists are expected to ‘report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential facts. Do not suppress facts or give distorting emphasis.’

(Australian News Commentary. Journalists code of ethics – an oxymoron? http://www.Australian-news.com.au/codethics.htm. Accessed 28/6/2009)

The Journalists’ code states that they are not supposed to display any type of bias. ‘Do not allow personal interest…to undermine your accuracy.’

(Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance, Journalists’ Code of Ethics http://www.alliance.org.au/code of ethics.html. Accessed 24/06/2013)

Additionally, journalists are also expected to apply the rules of disclosure. These say that a journalist must publicise facts about themselves which might reasonably be assumed to colour their opinions.

Opinions might be influenced by belonging to a political party, company or organisation. Equally, being married to someone who was a member of a political party, having worked or consulted for a party, company or organisation. Being a relative, a friend or former employee, would also need to be disclosed, as would any payments made to the journalist or gifts or trips. I believe that these rules are breached almost daily, knowingly, and flagrantly. The process has escalated since the tabloidization of the media.


(Image credit: iStockphoto)

What I want are the facts: unadorned, reported as fairly and accurately as possible, given these I want to evaluate them for myself. Facts unslanted by bias, opinion or commentary.

I don’t want to read reports affected by the ‘special relationship’ a columnist has with a pollie. Neither do I want an opinion paid for by Telstra, Qantas or any major company or person. The type of thing that both John Laws and Alan Jones espoused a few years back, whilst failing to disclose their commercial arrangements to their listeners.

And I want a code that is enforceable: one than makes journalist responsible for accuracy, look out for bias, and actually be responsible for checking their facts. How can I believe in a self-regulating code which has journalists judging the actions of other journalists? A code that has no meaningful penalties?

One example we in Australia might emulate is a code that has amazed Americans: the Canadian Truth in Media Code. This made news when a new broadcaster, SUN TV, wanted to enter the Canadian television news market.

Americans discovered that you could not lie on Canadian broadcast news. They were shocked. The idea that a FOX-type news programme was set to be presented in Canada galvanised thousands of ordinary Canadians into action. They liked their factual news, and did not want to the sort of reporting FOX is known for.


(Image credit: Roguemedia)

The Canadian Media Authority, CRTC or Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (similar to our ACMA) had a proposal under consideration, one which would have relaxed the current rules. Disallowed programming content included ‘broadcasting false or misleading news’. The plan to loosen up this rule was scrapped once Canadians made their feeling known. It appears the public feared a lack of civility in public discourse and a deliberate muddying of political waters.

(On the Media http://www.onthemedia.org/2011/mar/o4/lying-is-illegal-in-canadian-broadcast-news-transcript.30/06/2013)

Canadians expected, nay, demanded that their news remained factual. While the Canadian code only applied to broadcast news, it is surely not beyond the will and wit of lawmakers to extend its scope to newspaper reportage. Something similar, if applied here, might help restore civility to the public domain.

If newspaper sales are declining (and they are) and journalists are held in little regard, may I suggest that in some small part this situation is of their own making? They told us what they were supposed to do – and then failed to do it.

They played their own game, rewrote the rules to suit themselves, and forgot that they were supposed to be representing us, the people: verifying facts, and working on our behalf. Instead they decided to collaborate, to tell us the same stories, and to direct us to think as they did and do as they told us. How can they fail to realise they trashed the brand?

——————————————————————————————————-

Disclaimer. I am not, nor have ever been a member of any political party, none of my family are politicians, I have not worked, consulted or been paid by any political organisation, or worked for any political organisation in a paid or voluntary capacity.

I am simply a citizen with an interest in politics.

963 thoughts on ““Just the facts, ma’am”: What a citizen should expect from the media”

  1. obi one
    He’s not doing it, he’s ‘unavailable’. He has been invited to turn up next week. I bet he chickens out – again.

  2. obi one

    Abbott has squibbed it, as far as I know. Certainly that’s all the rage on Facebook. Maybe they did warn him that the days of foot-rubs are over now that That Woman has gone.

  6. Abbott always was a weak prick..He adopted the “pugilist persona” because he was just that..; weak as piss!…..You used to meet these type of blokes around the traps….Karate, Ju-jitsu, boxing, weights..that sort of thing…all talk no action…I remember one such being a smart arse with this nuggety fisherman named “Tex”…, a real tough little scrapper, quick on his feet and strong in the arms and he was holding this “Golden Gloves” bullshit artist off with one arm whilst his other held an ice-cream cone….geez it was funny!..The “boxer” was swinging and swishing and “Tex” was licking his ice-ceram and goading the bloke all the while….

  10. If I have a Tony attack like last night again, I am definitely going to Emergency and won’t leave till the take the blighter out!

  11. jaycee
    JULY 4, 2013 AT 6:21 PM (EDIT)
    Where’s C@T momma?..Is she pissed off with us all or something?

    A bit I am trying to rectify things.

  12. Truckies in Brazil are protesting over high fuel prices. Traffic is blocked, a vehicle turned over, fires, police deployed. Don’t upset the Truckies!

  14. puffytmd
    JULY 4, 2013 AT 6:44 PM (EDIT)
    Truckies in Brazil are protesting over high fuel prices. Traffic is blocked, a vehicle turned over, fires, police deployed. Don’t upset the Truckies!

    Yep. especially tired ones

  20. C’mon, C@T…spring those claws!…My cat is a recycled feral that I rescued from the feed shed…abandoned by it’s feral mother, we worked out it made it’s way across a fifty acre bare paddock to get here…it was the tinyest, scrawny little thing..as big as my hand….now it is grown up as cunning as hell and as tough as nails!…thankfully we had it de-sexed early as there are other ferals about the area. But it’s still got that fight in it’s eyes!….A tortoise-shell tabby…you don’t get on the wrong side with her either!

  23. 7.30 doing a hatchet job on Rudd re. Batts and just about everything else.

    Let’s see if he buckles under like last time. I hope not. I hope he’s telling the truth when he says he learnt some lessons.

    Fight back, Kevin. Tell ’em where to get off.

    At least we know now: 7.30 is simply out to get Labor. Doesn’t matter whether it’s Gillard or Rudd.

    The Dream Team of Sales and Uhlmann are just going the nasty, across the board.

    Put simply, 4 people killed in the Batts program is collateral damage. I know it sounds harsh and unfeeling, but if a stimulus program involved, for example, lots of deliveries via road, and some people were killed in traffic accidents, would that be the government’s fault? Now 7.30 is putting up grieving parents.

    It’s so easy to just blame the ultimate “employer” (and I use the term loosely).

    The papers today said the coroner stated that the Rudd government regarded “the economy” as more important than “human lives”.

    Of COURSE they did!

    What are the lives of a few people employed by dodgy employers compared to the livelihoods of millions of individuals, and the solvency of thousands of companies that employ them? Put brutally: not a lot.

    Frankly, I’m amazed more people weren’t killed. Frankly I’m amazed that no-one has said so and put it to the Australian people that sacrifices will always have to be made to save an economy. That only four people died was amazingly good fortune.

  24. The name says it all about 7.5: “Just the facts, ma’am”

  25. BB
    People probably were killed and injured delivering things for the HIS, but they would not make the news as there was no political capital to be made from that equally tragic loss of life.

  27. Good evening, Pubkateers!

    I’ve been watching the last week unfold with interest (to say the least!).

    Some of you may recall that I received information in the week before the challenge (and a couple of months before) that something had shifted in the whole leadership debacle and there was a Rudd/Gillard detente of sorts.

    Mulling over what I was told as opposed to what eventuated, I am still convinced my snout wasn’t far off the money.

    1. Some time ago, I was assured that Rudd was most definitely “inside the tent” and was working hard to ensure a Labor victory. I was also assured his involvement involved consent and cooperation from the PM.

    * I have yet to see or hear anything to seriously contradict this. Rudd kept his head down and campaigned. Yes, there was a bit of noise from his spear-carriers, but (as was pointed out to me at the time) there was a schism developing between the “inner circle” and “outer circle” of Rudd supporters, and all the noise seemed to be coming from the “outer circle”. The “inner circle” were, for all intents and purposes, inside the tent as well.

    2. I was told there would be a smooth transfer from Rudd to Gillard, and that Gillard would resign, thereby paving the way for a “bloodless” coup.

    * On paper it didn’t happen that way … or did it? Gillard flagged that she would resign if she lost. Was she already aware she didn’t have the numbers? When was she aware of this? That afternoon … or the week before?

    3. Rudd has been remarkably gracious in victory … as has his caucus supporters. Gillard has also been remarkably gracious in defeat … as has her supporters. This sits in stark contrast to what has occurred in the 3 years before.

    * This, more than anything else, convinces me there was some sort of formal (or informal) “handing over of power” from Gillard to Rudd. Much of Gillard’s (and Rudd’s) language has been about preserving the legacy of the Rudd/Gillard years. They have quite obviously (I think) pulled together for the greater good of the party.

    If Rudd can pull this out of the bag, I believe history will, in the end, look very kindly upon both Rudd and Gillard: Rudd as the populist who brought the punters along with us to the polling booth, and Gillard as the great reformer who got the policy runs on the board.

    I don’t know about the rest of you but I’m excited. We are back in the game, make no mistake.

    Abbott is about to be denied both a papacy and a prime ministership.

    😀

  28. lbd,
    Overnight you mentioned an Australian equestrian who rode injured at the Rome Olympics. It was Bill Roycroft, who suffered a broken collarbone and concussion in the penultimate round, but defied the doctors to ride the final round,with his shoulder and arm heavily strapped. He rode a perfect round which meant that Australia won the gold medal in the team’s event.

    The SBS Australian Biography story of a remarkable Australian is here (assuming I post the link right).
    http://www.australianbiography.gov.au/subjects/roycroft/bio.html

  29. The argument re. the Batts program is that it was rushed, and therefore safety was traded off against economic advantage.

    But this, of course, is done all the time. If we wanted to cut road deaths and injuries, for example, we’d speed govern vehicles to 60kph, or slower. Why not 20kph? Why not 10kph?

    Everything involving money and prosperity is a trade off between safety and performance.

    7.30 going in hard and, seemingly, apologizing to the parents on behalf of the bloody nation (because Rudd wouldn’t and had even forgotten their names… shock, horror) is an outrageous arrogance.

    Would we have rather be broke now, with hundreds of thousands out of work or struggling to get back into it, companies wiped off the register, lives destroyed just as much as those young lives were destroyed, emissions higher due to the paucity of insulation and so on… just to save four lives?

    People die in all kinds of circumstances you wouldn’t credit.

    They make TV shows about it. Commercials even.

    Shit happens. Terrible bereavements occur. Life goes on. What have we become in this country?

    And yes, I know that if it was my brother who died I’d be angry too. But sonce when has the opinion of victims counted when tragedies like this occur?

    You have rules. If those rules are broken you have an inquiry. As a result of the inquiry the rules are changed to account for the new circumstances. Life really does go on after the Batts program.

    If it didn’t the government would never do anything to save an economy.

  31. I just hope that Rudd’s vanity is so offended by the ACA. style of 7.5 that he moves on the management of the ABC.

  32. So when the bank lends money to a young person to buy a car and through bad driving or accident or faulty car he gets killed…you blame the bank?

  33. Hmmmm….

    Malcolm Turnbull ‏@TurnbullMalcolm 2h
    At the Sydney Jewish Museum to give the 2013 Sir John Monash Oration. My topic is Leadership in times of uncertainty.

  35. What has since happened confirms your prognosis, Danny, most notably that Gillard was very relaxed for the final week of her PMship. Her main goal seemed to be to hold out until the education bill was passed.

    That was appropriate since she has proven herself the strongest leader for getting the more difficult things done.

    If your theory is correct, it has blindsided the Liberals, who had maintained the entire focus on Gillard, as has the MSM with their ‘Gillard must go’ demands. It certainly leaves Labor in the box position – just on the simplest grounds of public acceptability: Rudd has it and Abbott doesn’t.

    But when you look at the program/policy achievements and the economic and employment indicators, Labor is about a furlong or more in front. Not only is the gap huge. The opposition hasn’t even got any policies formed and that little blue booklet won’t do it.

    If what you say is right, the Barry Jones analysis was pretty accurate. Of the two leaders, he said that Gillard excelled at policy depth and achievement, while Rudd at selling them two the public.

    It is brilliant if they have found a way of preserving the strengths and legacies of both leaders. I would give Faulkner some credit for this if it was so. One of the findings of that post-election Enquiry was that nobody knew what Labor stood for anymore. Not any more. The policy achievements and the commitments to fairness and equality of opportunity have never been clearer. The party could not be in better shape despite the bruising taken in the leadership struggle.

    I’d love it to be true, but I do worry that Rudd wants to water some of it down. I wish he’d shut up about class warfare. And, of course, Rudd is a media tart and sometimes deals with the baddies.

  36. Left Justice ‏@LeftJustice13 5m
    nothing on ABC about the murdoch tapes? must be winter solstice or ramadan, you know how they hate to air news during the spiritual days

  38. “I wonder who the coroner votes for?”

    The same as the parents you saw on 7.5.

  39. Jaycee,
    I think the analogy is with the State Minister for (Road) Transport, since (s)he is ultimately responsible for the licensing system which gave the errant motorist the right to drive.
    I went searching randomly for workplace accidents and discovered that in Queensland, July-December 2012, there were 17 workplace fatalities (14 workers, 3 bystanders). I look forward to the forensic examination by the MSM of this shocking situation, but fear I might be waiting for some time.

    My understanding is that this appalling figure is not atypical of any equivalent period in any part of Australia. Yet unions which draw attention to this issue are assumed to be just bogging the corporate sector down in red tape.

  40. Before I even begin to consider accepting all this ‘it was all planned and Julia had agreed to hand over to Kevin when……’ stuff I need answers. and if what I’m about to say offends anyone then tough.

    Why, if it was planned and agreed on, was it done in a way that alienated so many Labor voters, in particular women?

    What was wrong with holding a joint presser weeks ago where Julia said she had decided to bow out and hand over to Rudd on a certain date, followed by speeches, handshakes, hugs and other displays of mutual support?

    Why did we have to have weeks – well, years actually – of Rudd supporters leaking ‘it’s on next Monday…no, it will be Tuesday… not, it’s next week’ crap when all that could have been avoided? Did we really need or deserve to to be ‘softened up’ by what we are now supposed to believe was a sham display of leaking and plotting?

    If the planned handover thing is true then I feel as if I’ve been very much used and abused and I’m not at all happy about that. If it is true then I might reconsider my already limited support for Labor because I appreciate honesty and straight talking, not shifty plots that put C movies to shame. I do not enjoy being manipulated, treated like a fool or otherwayse taken for granted by schemers who believe I and many others will happily fall into line and accept every lie we’ve been told.

  41. ducky
    I didn’t get home untill the 7:30 shallow hatchet job had finished but I reckon I could guess!

  42. re pink batts deaths tragic but . . .

    I am amazed that people are so angry when nasty things happen to their kith and kin.

    Years ago when my partner was involved in a life changing accident I was advised that asking
    “what if …” was soul destroying
    and I think blaming other people
    or playing the victim

    are also counterproductive

    Nasty things happen, you have to pick yourself up, put one foot in front of the other, play the game and keep going

  43. BK,

    Send that detail to the PMs office: it is clearly amongst the states’ responsibilities to regulate the OCHS on matters Pink Bat. Just as PMJG wasn’t responsible for the repair of the road outside the irrational older type who blamed her for not repairing the damage lickitisplit.

  44. So, 7.30 couldn’t get Abbott on to the show, so they decided to substitute for him with one of his golden oldie smear campaigns. Classy. Batts. nice one, ABC. I don’t know whether to laugh or… oh what the hell, I’ll just laugh.

    Let us all know when you decide to grow up, ABC. Until then, I’ll just watch something else.

  45. Does anyone know just what safeguards the industry were lobbying for from the government, and whether they would have caused a significant delay in the rollout of the program?

    Note also that the coroner has not suggested that the federal government carried all responsibilty in these deaths, he was also critical of the state governments workplace safety agency, and the employers and supervisors of the tradesmen, who weren’t adequately trained.

  46. leone, I can believe that, faced with the outcome of the Caucas vote, Julia Gillard behaved with her typical grace and dignity in accepting the decision of her colleagues.
    But for me to accept that Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd had done a deal over the leadership, I first would have to believe that Julia Gilliard was willing to be a doormat, willing to let Kevin Rudd just wipe his feet on her – and she never struck me as that.

  47. I find it passing strange that in the first week of Rudd’s return, a coroner would find that the Government was partly responsible for the work place deaths of under skilled/trained workers employed by unscrupulous people more interested in making a quick buck, than making sure that they followed the guidelines of workplace health and safety, and that their employees were properly trained.

    It’s like blaming the finance company or bank, because a car dealer sold you a lemon. 😯

    BTW, just posted “Politics is a dirty game!” 😀

    http://truthseekersmusings.wordpress.com/2013/07/04/politics-is-a-dirty-game-3/

    Cheers 😀

  49. Jackhawks,

    How low can they go? In the words of Al Jolson, “You ain’t heard nothin’ yet”.

  50. You’re probably right, Fiona, though I think the events of last week may have changed the political dynamic and the coalition’s permanent attack mode may be passé, and counterproductive.

Comments are closed.