Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard has fuelled calls for a public inquiry into the media in the wake of #Hackgate, telling journalists that News Corp's Australian subsidiary News Ltd has some "hard questions" to answer. Although she didn't appear to be able to identify, nor articulate, those questions.

Unsurprisingly, News Ltd's chief John Hartigan has dismissed calls for an inquiry (although he's more recently agreed to co-operate fully with an inquiry - as have many loyal News Ltd journalists and Opposition politicians. And he continues to reject connections between the News Corp crisis, which is threatening to sink News International and is spreading with speed to the US, and News Ltd's Australian operations (which, significantly, account for 70% of the Australian print media). Nevertheless, he's initiated a review of editorial expenditure across the company dating back three years (i.e. not dating back to the period in question involving UK cases of phonehacking or police payments).

I have some suggestions for some 'hard' questions the PM's office might like to consider.

Over at New Matilda, UTS journalism professor and noted Australian investigative journalist, Wendy Bacon, is crowdsourcing suggestions for questions to put to a media inquiry (which she argues should address regulation and media ownership), along with some specific lines of inquiry regarding News Ltd, including:

* Should News Ltd close one or more newspapers in Australian without there being a buyer what steps can be taken to protect access to media by Australians?

* Has News Ltd’s practice of sharing information and stories across the company meant that their Australian tabloid audiences have been exposed to stories resulting from hacking and bribes?

* Do News Ltd editors respect the professional independence of their journalists or do they compaign to impose certain views or political lines on their journalists to the detriment of the public - e.g. in relation to climate change.

My questions for News Ltd management

I have some additional questions I'd like answered by News Ltd. And I'd welcome John Hartigan's responses:


1) When did John Hartigan (and his editors) first learn of the allegations of hacking, payments to police and the cover-up (now identified by a British parliamentary select committee) afflicting News International?

2) What steps did Mr Hartigan and his editors put in place then to ensure such practices were not happening within NewsCorp's Australian titles?

3) What advice did he issue editors regarding publication of copy emanating from the very tainted News of the World when it was clear (at the latest in December last year, when Rebekah Brooks says she was made aware) that the problem was widespread at the News of the World?

4) Were any of his journalists assigned to News of the World in their capacity as News Ltd employees for additional reporting?

5) If the answers to 4) is yes, has Mr Hartigan (or his editors) examined their records for evidence of expenditure on PIs, phone 'hacking', questionable payments to sources etc If not, why not? If yes, what has he (or his editors)found?

6) Have any News Ltd journalists or editors worked as stringers for NOTW assignments in Australia? (This question is one editors at News Ltd competitors should also be asking of their journalists)

7) When was the last News Ltd journalist dispatched to News of the World in an exchange program or on a placement extended as a 'reward' for journalistic excellence? Did Mr Hartigan/other executives approve such arrangements after becoming aware of the seriousness of the problem? If so, why? And what inquiries have been made as regards their experiences/practices while working at News of the World during the period now under examination?

8) What instructions are NewsLtd editors giving to other executive editors and/or reporters regarding company/editorial policy on coverage of #hackgate?

9) What instructions are being issued to journalists regarding coverage of matters of national importance such as climate change and politics? (These questions should also be put to NewsLtd's competitors)

10) What is the internal process at News Ltd for examining journalists' complaints about ethics and professionalism? What is the policy re: handling such complaints and where is it published? (Also a relevant question for News Ltd's competitors)

11) When News Ltd journalists and editors threaten to sue other citizens/their critics over public comment/reportage (as I have been threatened by the Editor in Chief of the Australian, Chris Mitchell), who foots their legal bills?

These are questions I'd like to hear journalists and citizens asking News Ltd but I'd also encourage the PM's office to consider them after failing yesterday to identify any specific 'hard' questions worth of a response.

Is a broader media inquiry needed in Australia?

I support a public inquiry into Australian media - if there's nothing to hide, why resist? It could be useful in encouraging transparency in media practice, accountability and trust in an important democratic institution. But I'm not yet convinced a parliamentary inquiry is the best venue for such an investigation. What about a broader public inquiry with government, NGO, judicial, academic and community representation?

Similarly, I support public consultation on privacy law reform as long as there's a clear commitment to balance the right to privacy against 'public interest' (as distinct from public interest in something) tests and freedom of expression principles. Although, I'd feel more comfortable if Australia enshrined freedom of expression rights in the constitution in conjunction with privacy law reform that will make it possible to sue for serious privacy breaches.

I agree that political alliances with media barons (particularly as regards News Ltd, given that company's dominance of the Australian marketplace & the evident commitment of that stable to 'regime change') need examination - and that requires inquiries of politicians and political parties' records, not just the media transparency.

Stronger independent oversight

I'd also like this prospect examined: an all media council, comprising industry representatives, community reference groups and journalism/media academics, that acts as a referral body for complaints and investigations sitting above ACMA & the Australian Press Council - both of which have proven ineffectual historically in significant investigations into media ethics and professionalism.

It may also be worth considering a 'readers' editor' be mandated at every publication under whose guidance, concerns can be debated and complaints published (online and in print), along with internal findings.

I'm an advocate of media freedom and I'm opposed to government press regulation in principle as it has proven to be a refuge for despots and dictators, although I believe the time is right to review media ownership laws in Australia. But in light of a media scandal with global implications, journalists and media organisations can't afford to resist public accountability, nor deny an open examination of media ethics and practices in this country.

That's my initial contribution to this important discussion. I say bring on an inquiry, make journalism and media organisations more transparent and thereby strengthen both public trust and professional journalism's credibility.

Meantime, please share your questions and ideas here and elsewhere, to keep this important debate on the national agenda    [read more]

Legendary Australian broadcaster Mark Colvin is known for the timbre of his voice, his broad knowledge of international affairs, his erudite interviewing and his content-rich Twitter-feed.

But the presenter of the ABC’s PM program - a three-time foreign correspondent for the Australian national broadcaster - this week made a mark on my University of Canberra Advanced Broadcast Journalism class with his candor and resilience as he talked about his experiences of reporting war, famine and upheaval across the globe.

These experiences include losing two of his colleagues to violence in Africa and the Middle East in the early 1980s. But the greatest price he paid for bearing witness was his own health. He contracted a deadly auto-immune disease after being exposed to a virus amidst rotting corpses while reporting on the Rwandan genocide in 1994 - a story he described as a "never-ending cycle of death". He is now awaiting a kidney transplant

Nevertheless, he presents the flagship ABC Radio current affairs programme PM five nights a week to which he brings the benefits of an Oxford education and an incredible appetite for international news told from global perspectives. He is also a highly engaged practitioner of social media journalism, interacting with his audience via his iPad – even when he’s hooked up to a dialysis machine in hospital.

These characteristics of resilience, perseverance and tenacity were on ample display when he beamed into our Canberra lecture theatre via Skype on Wednesday morning from his Sydney kitchen.



His presentation took the form of an interactive interview – with questions from me, students in the Canberra University lecture theatre, and remotely via Twitter.

With characteristic self-deprecation, he told us he was ill-prepared for his first posting to London, at the age of 27, and brought "naivety and stupidity" to the job. But he was forced to mature quickly, being terribly traumatised by exposure to significant risk, inhumanity and loss. In fact, he told us he felt like he suffered from a severe but undiagnosed case of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder after covering the Iranian Revolution. And, later, when reporting on the terrible famine in Ethiopia after having a family, he said exposure to the suffering of children affected him "...so far deep down in the gut it was almost like having a nervous breakdown."

But this trauma, and the illness that now prevents him from travelling the globe, have not dented his desire to work as a foreign correspondent. He says he has no regrets and answered a Twitter question from a student asking if he wished he could be in the field reporting the current upheaval in the Middle East and North Africa, emphatically, "Yes".

You can watch the video of the lecture here or listen to the audio only version.

Unfortunately, the lecture recording was cut short, but Mark Colvin left us with two key messages: foreign reporting has been transformed by technology, with Twitter being identified by the self-described "dinosaur" as one of the best tools available to journalists, with its capacity to facilitate audience engagement, the crowdsourcing of research and access to global views. And in response to the last student question "What keeps you motivated as a journalist?", he answered with one word: "Curiosity".

Afterwards, Mark Colvin tweeted to me his concern that he'd painted too frightening a picture of being a foreign correspondent and noted that he had also spent significant time in Rome, Paris and Madrid during his foreign postings. But he needn't have worried. While he talked in detail, with great candor, about his reporting assignments and the trauma he experienced in the field, the impact on students was inspirational, rather than depressing. And many of them tweeted about the way in which they had been moved and motivated by Mark Colvin’s story once the lecture was over.
















   [read more]