J-scribe

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]