No convergence on standards

One of the arguments for removing the cross-media ownership rules in 2017 was that local companies need to compete with international media organisations as well as the digital platforms that now distribute their content. Fair enough. Another was that converged businesses offer synergies that lead to cost savings. That makes sense too, even if we never did get the evidence for it.

But this step towards streamlined regulation hasn’t been matched in other areas such as journalistic standards. Enter Rebel Wilson.

The conduct of The Sydney Morning Herald, including its journalists and editors, can be the subject of a complaint to the Australian Press Council (APC). Among other rules, the APC has a General Principle that requires publications to take reasonable steps to ‘avoid intruding on a person’s reasonable expectations of privacy, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest’. Importantly, an inquiry under this principle would look at the conduct of the publication, not just what was published.

But what happens if a reporter on a broadcast arm of the same company (Nine Entertainment) behaves this way? Then, the rules are set out in the Commercial Television Code of Practice, and the statutory regulator – the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) – can hear complaints. The approach is quite different. This code covers the broadcasting of content about ‘a person’s personal or private affairs or which invades a person’s privacy’. That means any conduct by the reporters and producers in putting the story together is off limits.

This is what happened in a 60 Minutes story in 2016. Nine itself paid a ‘child recovery agent’ that Sally Faulkner hired to snatch her children from the streets of Beirut. Their father had taken them to Lebanon for a holiday but had not returned with them. It all went wrong for the network, with its reporters and crew imprisoned for a period in Lebanon. Despite this, Nine’s conduct could not be examined under the media standards that apply to commercial television because Nine never actually broadcast the program.

The Faulkner case revealed a shocking gap in the rules that apply to broadcast journalism. Nine should have been held responsible under broadcasting rules for its conduct in that case. So what if we turn this to the Rebel Wilson scenario and ask what would happen if the attempt to reveal Wilson’s sexuality had taken place on Nine News, A Current Affair or 60 Minutes? The same rules would apply, and the producer’s conduct could not be examined if the network decided not to broadcast the program. Of course, Wilson might still feel the need to get ahead of media coverage by announcing the relationship herself, and the information would then be in the public domain.

The evidence isn’t in on whether Wilson had a reasonable expectation of privacy, but there will certainly be cases where the subjects of media coverage do have such an expectation. Where they do have an entitlement to privacy, and it isn’t in the public interest to pursue the matter, they should not be subject to intrusive questions on sensitive matters – regardless of what is ultimately published.

Defensible media standards that apply to the print and online side of Nine Entertainment, Seven West Media, News Corp and others should also apply to their broadcasting side. These companies argued in favour of a cross-media environment when it came to protecting their commercial interests by removing ownership restrictions. They need to step up and address the public interest in better media standards.

 

Derek Wilding
CMT Co-Director

 

This article was featured in our newsletter of 24 June 2022 that looked at inconsistencies in media standards as reflected in the Rebel Wilson debacle, News Corp's algorithmic tool and its impact on journalistic autonomy, and a shifting tide at the JNI.

Click to read the full edition. 

If you want to receive this newsletter direct to your inbox, subscribe here.