Press Council: aims and achievements

Press, 18 April 1978, Page 19

Press Council: aims and achievements

Bv

P. J. SCHERER.

assistant editor,

“New Zealand Herald

“Its only sanction is publicity: its verdicts, censorious or exonerating, are voluntarily published by the press. Thus it provides an avenue of appeal and redress for the genuinely aggrieved and a safety valve for public cynicism or dissatisfaction.’’

This comment, said of the British Press Council in 1975, holds just as true of its New Zealand counter-part. The New Zealand Press Council was born late in 1972, partly out of fears among newspapers and their journalists that unless some measure of joint self-dis-cipline were instituted, unacceptable forms of political supervision might be attempted. Yesterday, the first chapter in the chronicle of the New Zealand body closed. Sir Alfred North, in turn brilliant barrister. King's Counsel, eminent jurist and Privy Councillor. retired as foundation chairman of the Press Council. Now a sagacious 77-vear-old. Sir Alfred is convinced that the council has, as intended, had a beneficial effect on general press standards. But then, he adds with a twinkle, one never quite knows. “We don’t get editorials saying what a great job we are doing.” What the council does get. tn its ombudsman-like role, is a stream of public complaints. While they have diminished yearly in volume, they have — as Sir Alfred notes — increased somewhat in complexity. Under his stewardship, countillors generally, and deliberately avoided broad declarations of policy. They decided at the outset

to deal with cases individually rather than get involved in precedent when conditions might change. One exception was a 10page appraisal of sex, nudity, and related topics in the press, which the council published in May, 1973. Now. not five years later, Sir Alfred concedes that were that exercise being repeated, the council would almost certainly take a more liberal view. The original move, he recalls, was at least partly a response to much early pressure from Miss Patricia Barlett and her Society for the Protection of Community Standards. “It was a great opportunity for everyone who wanted to improve the morals of the community to have a field day. But they could not expect the council to become a court of morals for the country.” The most important single case so far? With little hesitation, the former Appeal Court president nominates a 1975 election-eve complaint “which reached right into Parliament.”

Mrs T. W. M. Tirika-tene-Sullivan, then a cabinet minister, complained that when she denied having been interviewed by a reporter, his paper in effect accused her of deliberately lying. In a 15-page written adjudication disallowing the complaint, the council was entirely satisfied that the news-

paper was entitled to take the stand it did.

In some respects, Sir Alfred rates the New Zealand council superior to its 26-year-old British counterpart and to the Australian version, not constituted until two years ago.

Although distinctly smaller, the four-man New Zealand body may, with the chairman’s casting

vote, see the lay representatives exercise a voting majority over the newspaper representatives. That has not been the case in Britain and has caused persistent criticism there.

In Australia, unlike New Zealand, not all daily newspapers subscribe to the council’s charter and to the consequent obligation to publish any findings against them.

Taken at large. Sir Alfred believes that New Zealand newspapers enjoy better standing in their community than do their British brethren. In particular, he finds most evening papers in New Zealand far better than their British counterparts.

As for the American press, rights of free speech conditioned by the

specifics of the United States constitution have added a different dimension. For that reason alone, Sir Alfred dcubts that a Watergate exposure could have occurred in Wellington. Has Sir Alfred not detected a considerable reluctance in the New Zealand press to use the council reciprocally, invoking its procedures and publicity to seek redress for “the conduct of persons and organisations towards the press”? “Yes, but the average newspaper editor is more broadminded than the

average citizen; he accepts the view that criticism is a democratic right. The real reason for the council’s existence is to preserve the status of newspapers and I do not feel that newspapers can be too sensitive.” Sir Alfred remains rather uneasy about this, and some other points. “If a newspaper did complain against an outsider, what could we do? Call the man and have him say to us, ‘Go jump in the laKe.’ After all, we have no power to compel evidence.”

Unlike the Ombudsman, in his field, the Press Council will consider cases where legal recourse may remain available. If it is to do so, however, it will seek undertakings from a complainant that

legal proceedings will not be instituted. But, with his distinguished experience at the Bar and on the bench, Sir Alfred notes that such waivers may not ne 'essarily be binding. In any

event, the complainant m a Press Council case need not be the' injured party! he is,' therefore, not necessarily the potential pUmir. iff in a civil -suit. Indeed,. Sib' Alfred de» fines the commonest deno-

minator in cases so fat as “local interest by a group, or by individuals, bent on pursuing something close to their heart.” They are not to be dismissed as busybodies. “Whether they have a personal interest in or merely a prejudice about the matter at stake, all are entitled to have their complaints looked at. “Ensuring that people have some tribunal to come to is better than the odd postscript in the paper, which usually allowed the paper itself to have the last word on the subject.” After almost six years in the council chair, Sir Alfred believes New Zealanders are lucky to have a press which generally, attracts little criticism. The council, he says, must have functioned satisfactorily: “There has been no outcry from Parliament at our working.” The council, he believes, has been a real influence in ensuring that some weeklies “behave them-" selves better titan if, They were left alone/’ The existence of the council has also probably helped some of the provincial papers to feel that they are not alone in defending themselves from local pressures. So much, concludes Sir Alfred, depends on -the quality of the editor. “Perhaps we - have worked on- conservative lines. At least, we . wave ‘ ; made an honest attempt to say what we . < matters before us'. And we

have shown people they have a place they can come to for a decision, if they cannot first settle a complaint with an editor.” Modern newspapers devote too little space to the courts for Sir Alfred’s per- , sonal taste. Nor, in mat- I ters professional, does he 1 much fancy sly sugges- - tions for a Bar Council, presided over by some eminent former journalist. Rather, he feels it important for the Press Council to have as its independent chairman a ■ former judge who has spent his life dealing with such problems. Sir Alfred expects the ; council to evolve on lines he has clearly helped to establish; he is unenthusiasfic, for example, about suggestions canvassed in some quarters that the organisation should hold hearings in public. The chairman's gavel has passed to Sir Thaddeus McCarthy, another former president of the Court of Appeal, and I chairman of no fewer than ! six royal commissions. As ! a law student half a century ago. Sir Thaddeus spent some time as a temporary court reporter for the New Zealand Press Association. • In retirement. Sir Alfred, twice-knighted for judicial service, is planning to catch up on muchdeferred reading. He . hopes, too, to spend more time trout fishing, at his ..Taupo-side retreat at Hatepe. ;