THE South Australian Attorney-General, Chris Sumner, complained last week of the media working as a secret society which ultimately won against any politicians who took them on.
Professional bodies often come under fire for being secretive and self-protective. The legal profession, especially in NSW, is attacked (often by journalists, including me) for being a closed shop. What hope has a member of the public got if a complaint about lawyers is investigated by a body largely made up of lawyers.
Journalism is in a similar boat. There is only one avenue for complaint about an individual journalist: a complaint to the journalists’ union, the Media Alliance, if the journalist happens to be a member of it (nearly all are). The union’s judiciary committees that hear the complaints are made up totally by members of the union. The committee can reprimand, fine, suspension or expulsion from the union. Complaints are rare, especially from members of the public. The public knows virtually nothing about it, and perhaps just as well. Perhaps the process should be restricted to internal journalists’ complaints against journalists: a sort of internal bitch session.
Of course, a member of the public can sue a journalist for defamation. This is a bit like suing a plumber for bad work; there is nothing stopping the plumber perpetrating the bad work on someone else.
A member of the public can complain to the Australian Press Council, but these complaints can only be directed at the publisher, not the individual journalist. And even then, two of the five members of the complaints committee are journalists. It received 421 complaints last financial year, adjudicated on 85, upholding 31. 109 were not followed up 111 mediated or dealt with by correspondence and 104 carried to next year, the remaining few were inappropriate or dealt with in other ways.
Once again, the member of the public can sue the publisher for defamation, but once again, it does nothing to prevent the journalist being set loose on the public again.
Defamation suits are not an effective remedy for professional misconduct. The two are entirely different. The result of a defamation action rarely turns on the professional ethical conduct of the journalist. Diligent inquiry, absence of malice and complete professionalism on the part of the journalist are not defences in defamation. Similarly, unprofessional journalism may not result in the plaintiff winning a defamation action. In any event defamation actions are directed at publishers (with the money) not impoverished journalists.
A member of the public can complain to the editor, once again another journalist, and hope to extract a correction, but any hope of discipline against the errant journalist is a faint one because editors are subject to a virtual union closed shop so if anyone is fired, strikes are threatened or pleas go up for “”one more chance”, or so much ill-feeling is generated that internal discipline becomes to difficult to be effective.
At least the legal and medical professions have formal tribunals which often sit in public often with members not drawn from the profession under inquiry and there is a greater public awareness of their role.
On the other hand, the practice of journalism is a very public one. This is a powerful agent in the cause of fairness and accuracy and may in itself be as far be enough not to warrant a professional misconduct body. After all, the consequences of allowing the odd unethical or incompetent journalist loose until he or she is caught by other ways are not as dire as allowing the odd unethical or incompetent doctor or lawyer loose, especially as doctors and lawyers have far greater opportunity to keep their misdeeds from the public eye.
There are several hurdles to getting an enforceable professional code for journalists. Unlike most doctors and lawyers who are self-employed journalists are mainly employed by publishers. Enforcement must therefore be through the publishers. The union, which at present promulgates the code of ethics, is in no position to enforce it, nor should it be. While it remains primarily an industrial organisation, publishers will question its right to exercise professional discipline as well. Another hurdle is that the ultimate professional discipline is to be barred from practice. In the case of journalism that abrogates the basic human rights of self-expression.
That said, journalists’ calls for greater public participation in professional disciplinary bodies and greater openness of their proceedings can equally apply to the profession of journalism itself.