Press Council seeks to regulate ‘serious bloggers’ as it prepares for standards review
The accuracy and quality of print journalism is not necessarily matched by the same publishers’ online products, the chairman of the Australian Press Council has warned.
In a report marking his first year at the helm, of the Press Council, Prof Julian Disney signalled that 2011 will see a “standards review project” looking at the organisation’s code of conduct and suggested that “serious bloggers” might be encouraged to join. He said:
“The Council’s jurisdiction includes both the print and on-line publications of its members. It is increasingly receiving complaints about on-line content which raise difficult issues about the extent to which existing standards and processes for print need to be adjusted or supplemented for on-line content. The assertion by many editors that the same standards should apply to print and Internet does not appear to be appropriate or realistic in all circumstances. Certainly it is not always being applied in practice, even by some who espouse it.”
In his report, Prof Disney revealed the the APC will examine how its standards compare to other media regulators.
Considering The Press Council couldn’t even get Piers Akerman to publicly apologise after he said intellectually disabled people can’t understand “plain English”…no thanks.
http://tinyurl.com/y94fc5n
I’d be happy to join the Press Council, if there were any value in doing so.
I don’t make money from my blog at all, let alone to the extent that Press Council members make from their publications. If I say anything defamatory, I can (apparently) be sued; if there is any material on my blog which is non-actionable from a legal perspective, the offended party need only contact me and I’ll remove it.
What’s fun is watching people like Paul Howes, a person in a position of power who objected to something on my blog, play the double game of engaging with me while at the same time being far too important to deal with the likes of me. If the Press Council want to interfere with that, and impose their ponderous processes into that small and evolving field, then they can piss off.
Look at the APC website: it’s dire. It was last updated three days before Facebook was founded (if your response is “face-what?”, resign from the APC immediately). Check out the APC Fellowship page and wonder how on earth these people could possible address, let alone adjudicate on, any sort of complaints about the media.
I see no consideration from Disney or others as to how Press Council processes might alter to accommodate new media, which probably arises from having noticed the phenomenon without understanding it. Until that understanding is in evidence I also doubt that they would be focused on creating value in APC membership for small-scale amateur publishers such as Politically Homeless.
If the Press Council wants me to become a member, they can come an invite me and I will then give it consideration.
Heh, heh… Professor Disney.
“The accuracy and quality of print journalism is not necessarily matched by the same publishers’ online products, the chairman of the Australian Press Council has warned.”
Rubbish!
Particularly in the case of News Ltd., the “accuracy and quality” is identical.
I second everything that Andrew Elder has just said. Although I don’t have a regular blog that I author and update, I do have a deep interest in freedom of the press; both print and online and its implications on human rights and democracy in this country.
The problems I have with the APC proposals are manifest in number but to cut to the chase, the only way a regulatory framework of bloggers could work would be if it was in the form of top down legislation i.e. compulsory regulation of all bloggers rather than voluntary regulation of some bloggers. This goes totally against what the Australian Press Council says on its own website (as of today) that it is about and would also be in breach of Article 19 of The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights which states “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” and also in breach of Article 19 of The International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights which states: “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression”. Both are instruments of international law which Australia has signed and ratified.
As they are stated, these proposals are very insidious and are a potential threat to freedom of speech and freedom of the press in this country. With that comes implications on democracy and human rights. Once lost freedoms are very hard to get back.
The whole change in the media and what blogging is about is being missed here by the Press Council. I agree that the same standards should be applied to online and print versions of publications ie SMH print and SMH online. If its an SMH blog, then fine as that’s a prop of a publishing house etc. But bloggers can be serious and not be part of an established media house. Blogging is about having a voice and being able to say what you want – no standards, no regulation. If someone is bl,ogging and is inaccurate or the quality is no good, people will vote with their feet/mouse and not continue to read it.
BTW, how would they determine if a blogger is “serious” or not?? Is this more about the future of journalists and trying to protect jobs than about accuracy and quality?
Darryl Kerrigan said it all: “Tell them they’re dreaming”. Why does the written word have to be “regulated” by the Press Council – or any other public busybody? We have the Trade Practices Act s52 for misleading and deceptive conduct, defamation law for reputational damage, the Crimes Act to prevent disclosure of national security matters (apparently); the Privacy Act to prevent red carpet girlies from being photographed leaving home; various laws preventing the identification of children, sex offenders; non-disclosure laws relating to crime and misconduct investigation (ie just reporting the investigation is illegal; and the Press Council wants to regulate the blogosphere? Ironic on the day of the latest Wikileaks dump.
Also would love to know how they define a “serious blogger”?
I’ m assuming they would say a blogger blogging about child development, parenting styles and a host of cognitive, behavioural and social development issues affecting children, families and society wouldn’t be considered a “serious blogger”.
WHAT do they mean “regulate”? History suggests they couldn’t regulate water from a tap, which is a good thing, and when they do deliver a verdict on crap journalism, big deal!
Cases in point:
*Those saucy pics of a young “Pauline”. Front page in the Murdoch sundays and not a single person has been canned.
* The Age’s outrageous hatchet job on Theophanous, which is, hands down, the shoddiest piece of rubbish put on newsprint in donkey’s years. If Supreme Court judges were that toothless, Ivan Milat would still be picking up backpackers.
Again, not even a blush from the reporter and editor responsible.
‘Press’ is inappropriate to start with.
‘Council’ is simply a committee – the joy of blogging is that you don’t answer to a committee. Particularly not one dominated by olde worlde press types who would seek to constrain the agenda of online members through their numbers.
‘Serious’ as defined by the current media industry (and existing press council members) is a joke.
There’s a serious disconnect at work here. Many mainstream journalists – including the press council – are still trying to figure out how to fit blogging and online commentary into their 150 year old journalism model. It just doesn’t work. They need to throw out their model and re-evaluate what it means to report.
Of course the likelihood that those with their careers and reputations built on the old model will be able to adapt to a new one is remote. We’ll have to wait for them to die out.
I agree that the accuracy and and quality of print journalism isn’t necessarily matched by its online equivalent. Online is substantially better quality than the pap pieces presented as ‘journalism’ after they’ve gone through the wringer of the profit-focused ‘mass media’.
I have just visited the press councils website – “cobwebs” comes to mind.
A message to the APC:
If you set any guidelines for online ‘press’ related media, please enforce one guideline (which YOU have to abide by yourselves):
Keep content fresh and up to date!
– We are on the eve of 2011 guys and your websites latest content is 2008 – ha ha ha ha ha! ??????? !
ha ha ha ha ha ha !!! Like, OMG, ROFL,
– Google it APC you might find out what all these crazy acronyms mean…
GB