IN his review into Australia's print media industry, former Federal Court judge Ray Finkelstein clearly identified several failings of that often-derided "toothless tiger", the Australian Press Council, chiefly its ability to enforce a stringent complaints process.
Does the APC adequately fulfil its role in this regard, he asked the many subjects who fronted the inquiry's public hearings. Do newspapers provide fair and reasonable right of reply and avenue for complaints?
The answer for Finkelstein was no, they do not, because among his recommendations released a fortnight ago was that the new statutory body he calls for, the News Media Council, should enforce such a system.
"A guiding principle behind the design of the News Media Council is that it will provide redress in ways that are consistent with the nature of journalism and its democratic role," he declared.
"It should adopt complaint-handling procedures which are timely, efficient and inexpensive.
"In the first instance it should seek to resolve a complaint by conciliation and do so within two or three days. If a complaint must go to adjudication it should be resolved within weeks, not months."
The Finkelstein review seeks to make the process more streamlined, stringent and, above all, compulsory for news publishers. In his view, most complaints could be processed within a week.
"The media outlet concerned has two days to respond to a complaint and the panel then has a further two days to resolve the complaint and make a decision."
There are two realities that a newspaper editor will grudgingly admit. The first is that newspapers make mistakes; the second is no newspaper likes admitting to those mistakes. Publishing a newspaper is not easy -- time, budget constraints and any number of variables outside the control of editors and their journalists mean it is never an exact science.
But newspapers have without a doubt improved their position on this issue. The Australian regularly runs clarifications and corrections on page two of the newspaper, along with APC decisions. And its letters page is a regular avenue for criticisms and opinions on reports and commentary in the paper. This is a standard accepted by newspapers across the board. Meanwhile, the Fairfax owned Sydney Morning Herald has taken a lead from Britain's The Guardian and has appointed a readers' editor to facilitate such discussions.
It is clear Finkelstein looks at the ABC's complaints process, administered by its office of Audience and Consumer Affairs, as a favourable model on which to base such a process. But Finkelstein should look to The Australian and other newspapers if he wants a fast avenue for right of reply.
A week ago Inquirer published an examination of journalism schools -- "Media's great divide" -- along with an editorial and argued there is a divide between what they teach and what today's newsrooms expect. This was apparent in responses to the Finkelstein inquiry itself and the call for greater regulation of the media that the industry has condemned.
Criticisms began on social media almost as soon as The Weekend Australian hit the newsstands and by Sunday at least one response had been published online, from journalist and academic Margaret Simons. Within two days of the article's publication, the letters page of last Monday's edition of The Australian carried numerous letters in response, including by Simons. Letters both agreeing with and disagreeing with the article ran in following days, including from the ABC's Media Watch presenter Jonathan Holmes, while a news story on page two of Wednesday's newspaper reported a letter critical of the article by 35 academics across the country.
Today The Weekend Australian carries a response by University of Technology Sydney academic Wendy Bacon. So within seven days of publication, the newspaper has published numerous responses for and against the report.
Finkelstein was no doubt impressed.
Contrast this with the ABC's complaints process. On March 9 this newspaper reported on requests for the ABC website The Drum to remove an article by historian Robert Manne. The piece was judged by News Limited lawyers to be defamatory of editor-in-chief Chris Mitchell, yet the ABC and its editor of The Drum, Jonathan Green, refused to remove it on the basis it was commentary. The piece remains online while the newspaper decides on its next course of action.
Last November, Sydney man Tony Lenders made a complaint following a Media Watch report about the ABC's Australian Story and a two-part report on the case against accused murderer Jeffrey Gilham. Lenders -- a close friend of Gilham for more than 30 years -- accused Media Watch of putting Gilham's appeal at risk when it decided to criticise Australian Story for its "apparent obsession with questioning murder convictions."
His complaint was rejected by the ABC with no discussion.
"I thought I would get a reasonable response, but it was just bureaucratic obscurification," he tells Inquirer.
"They didn't speak with us despite my attempts to do so. But it seems clear that Media Watch were consulted at length before sending a response, more than a month later and six days after Jeffrey was acquitted. They basically blew us off and said you can take it to ACMA if you want."
Other complainants, such as scientist and blogger Marc Hendrickx, have waited substantial periods of time only to have their complaints dismissed, while former ABC journalist Geoffrey Luck told Inquirer his complaints had been "batted back and forth between Audience and Consumer Affairs and the news department to work out what they will say.
"It doesn't matter what you have complained about, unless you can prove they have misquoted you on something then you won't get past this great brick wall of defence."
ABC managing director Mark Scott said of the system: "Our complaints processes are not without their critics, but we believe they are robust and work well."
The ABC says it tries to respond to all complaints within 30 days of receipt, but due to complexity some complaints may take longer to finalise. Its 2011 annual report states that responses to all written complaints dealt with by Audience and Consumer Affairs are 67.8 per cent within 28 days and 98.8 per cent within 60 days. Last financial year, staff investigated 4864 complaint issues; 463 were upheld.
