http://www.australian-news.com.au/codethics.htm

" AJA CODE OF ETHICS

Respect for truth and the public's right to information are fundamental principles of journalism. Journalists describe society to itself. They convey information, ideas and opinions, a privileged role. They search, disclose, record, question, entertain, suggest and remember. They inform citizens and animate democracy. They give a practical form to freedom of expression. Many journalists work in private enterprise, but all have these public responsibilities. They scrutinise power, but also exercise it, and should be accountable. Accountability engenders trust. Without trust, journalists do not fulfil their public responsibilities. MEAA members engaged in journalism commit themselves to

* Honesty
* Fairness
* Independence
* Respect for the rights of others

1. Report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential facts. Do not suppress relevant available facts, or give distorting emphasis. Do your utmost to give a fair opportunity for reply.

2. Do not place unnecessary emphasis on personal characteristics, including race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, age, sexual orientation, family relationships, religious belief, or physical or intellectual disability.

3. Aim to attribute information to its source. Where a source seeks anonymity, do not agree without first considering the source’s motives and any alternative attributable source. Where confidences are accepted, respect them in all circumstances.

4. Do not allow personal interest, or any belief, commitment, payment, gift or benefit, to undermine your accuracy, fairness or independence.

5. Disclose conflicts of interest that affect, or could be seen to affect, the accuracy, fairness or independence of your journalism. Do not improperly use a journalistic position for personal gain.

6. Do not allow advertising or other commercial considerations to undermine accuracy, fairness or independence.

7. Do your utmost to ensure disclosure of any direct or indirect payment made for interviews, pictures, information or stories.

8. Use fair, responsible and honest means to obtain material. Identify yourself and your employer before obtaining any interview for publication or broadcast. Never exploit a person’s vulnerability or ignorance of media practice.

9. Present pictures and sound which are true and accurate. Any manipulation likely to mislead should be disclosed."

[cont]

"10. Do not plagiarise.

11. Respect private grief and personal privacy. Journalists have the right to resist compulsion to intrude.

12. Do your utmost to achieve fair correction of errors."

As the national journal of record, the Austrlian would be reasonably expected to insist that its journalists subscribe to and live up to the ethical principles espoused. Murdoch expressly set a high standard of journalism when he launched the paper and has had a history of being very "hands-off" editorial policy ever since, which a series of editors have vigorously defended.

This particular piece of Overington's has failed on at least points 1, 2, 4 and 11. It also goes a long way to reducing trust in the profession. As I pointed out in an earlier post, this is not a new departure for Overington - she has been in trouble before for behaving unethically.

On the whole, with a few exceptions, this Forum represents a cross-section of middle-class Australia. For most of our lives we have all been newspaper readers, I suspect and I also reckon that The Australian appears on many a front lawn each morning.

What possible reason for purchase can there be if the journalism being presented is of an unreliable and unethical standard? Surely you can get that sort of thing from your favourite special-interest website or newsblog?

With new media posing an ever-greater risk to such important organs as The Australian, would you be happy to see a continued erosion of ethical standards from those like Overington, who write for the paper?

Fairfax goes out of its way to flag opinion pieces, making sure that it is understood by readers that they are reading a personal view, possibly designed to stimulate discussion, rather than reportage. Overington's piece was placed on the front page, as general news of the nation. If she was to confine this sort of thing to her op-ed pieces, I'd not be concerned.

As a former subscriber to the 'Australian', I agree generally that its journalistic standards have declined drastically in the past decade or so. Indeed, the same can be said of virtually every Australian broadsheet.

What is most interesting about this thread, however, is the article that has aroused Antiseptic's ire above all others. Every day there are articles published in Australian newspapers that contravene a strict reading of the Code of Ethics reproduced above, but it takes one about a Court controversially forcing unwilling children to stay overnight with their convicted child sex offender father to raise his hackles.

I think that Antiseptic should make a formal complaint to the Australian Press Council if he really believes that Overington's article has contravened journalistic standards to the extent that he thinks it does. With any luck, that disingenuous and misogynist project might occupy his time to the extent that he posts less garbage here.

<<< I think that Antiseptic should make a formal complaint to the Australian Press Council >>

I have been wondering all along why Anti has not pursued a formal complaint. I would be very interested in following the process which Anti could provide for us on this thread. Unless of course protesting the 'journalistic integrity' of the Australian was not his agenda...

Two responses and neither has tried to address the topic.

Whether I choose to make a complaint to the Press Council or not is irrelevant, as is the question of whether the Judge made the best possible decision. What do YOU think about Overington's ethical performance and what are your reasons? I've given mine.

I know that's a pretty tough question for CJ, who prefers to receive his opinions in conveniently pre-digested form but you usually have no difficulty expressing yourself intelligently, Severin. Give us the benefit of your view.

Out of interest, is anyone else offended enough to join in a complaint to the Press Council? I hadn't contemplated such a thing until CJ, flailing about for someone to tell him what to think, suggested it.

Anti,
If I thought it would result in anything more that, at best a polite letter then I might be persuaded to join you. Unlike CJ, I know that unless the issue is dramatic, the press council will ignore complaints particularly "on principal" ones.

I can only repeat that I don't/won't encourage the beast, in its race to the bottom of humanity's pre bipedal urges, by buying or supporting their offerings.