What a difference a year makes. In 2013 the chairman of the Australian Press Council, professor Julian Disney, was leading a reform effort and Australia’s largest news media publisher, News Limited, was in full support.



The editor of the Daily Telegraph, Paul Whittaker, said in an open letter to readers that Disney was: “a law professor and prominent social justice advocate who has been an outspoken critic of many aspects of the media and is fiercely independent. Certainly, he is nobody’s lap-dog. Since professor Disney’s appointment, the Press Council’s role has been strengthened significantly and this newspaper is committed to fully abiding by it.”

Yet in a series of attacks over the past week, The Australian has claimed that News Corporation, (as it now is) is seriously considering pulling out of the Australian Press Council because of Disney’s “activism”. Disney is accused of having “gone too far”, and of being guilty of “mission creep”.

All this supposedly because of a series of recent adjudications, and the release of new general principles for the council which, it should be said, were agreed to unanimously by the publisher members including News Corporation.

So what’s going on?

One of the issues that has The Australian in a lather is a recent adjudication concerning the Sydney Morning Herald. The press council stated that journalists should check with family members or funeral directors before attending funerals and publishing information about the ceremony.

This, according to The Australian, was “ludicrous”, “naive and impractical” and “a sign [the press council] wants to restrict press freedom. Such a push will not be tolerated by any self respecting newspaper with readers’ interests at heart”.

Strange, then, that The Australian’s own code of editorial conduct contains a very similar guideline. Section nine, paragraph two, instructs employees not to go into the non-public areas of funeral parlours “without identifying yourself or without permission of the people affected or their intermediaries”. To further assess the fairness and accuracy of recent claims in the Australian, it is worth reading the Australian Press Council’s response.

I am more interested in reflecting on the conveniently shifting opinions of news media publishers.

Peter Fray, the recently installed deputy editor of the Australian, wrote last week that:

There is now a real chance the council’s largest funder, News Corp, publisher of the Australian, may consider its own options in relation to the press council.

Yet when he appeared before the Finkelstein Independent Inquiry into the Media in 2011 Fray, then a senior executive with Fairfax Media, was of a different view. He said that under Disney’s leadership the Australian Press Council was improving.

“It is actually is a different body under his leadership, and we welcome that ... If I could add, it is worth noting that under professor Disney, the Press Council is seeking to enhance its investigative and complaints procedures ... We would support that.”

Just 18 months ago, in March 2013, News Limited’s group editorial director, Campbell Reid, was claiming some of the credit for the Press Council reforms when he was interviewed on the ABC’s 7.30 Report. Reid said:

I have personally, with Julian Disney, been the architect of a reformed Australian Press Council ... The Australian Press Council oversight over the Australian media is as good if not better than any free society in Australia.

News Corporation newspapers in Sydney. Photograph: Dean Lewins/AAP

Eighteen months before that, the News Limited submission to the Finkelstein Inquiry had also supported Disney, stating:

Under the chairmanship of professor Disney we are confident that the Council will be a stronger more effective body ... The value to our business of reinforcing our voice in the market by enhancing our credibility through our willingness to be subject to an independent arbiter is a strong enough incentive for us to remain in the Council.

Reid told Finkelstein that Disney had brought “brought a fresh set of eyes and really focused on what the council has needed to do in its priorities, the people it needs to have and the work it needs to do.” News Limited’s commitment to funding the Council was “pretty rock solid” and News Limited was “more than happy” to work with Disney.



Reid was still of this view when he appeared before the Senate committee in March 2013, and News Corporation was still claiming some of the credit for reforms. Reid said: “We set out to renovate the council, root and branch.” Any suggestion that News Corporation might withdraw from the Press Council, taking its funding with it, was roundly rejected.

So what has changed? Has Disney really gone so far off track since March 2013 that the council is now a “star chamber” and a threat to freedom of the press, as The Australian is claiming?

I don’t think so. There are two relevant changes to the environment.

First, when news media publishers including News Corporation were representing Disney as their new best friend, they were facing the aftermath of the telephone hacking scandal in the United Kingdom and moves in Australia to make it compulsory for them to be members of self-regulation bodies such as the Press Council.

The whole tenor of their commentary was that this wasn’t necessary because the Australian Press Council under Disney was reforming after years of limp effort, and now doing such a good job that the publishers were completely committed.

Ray Finkelstein, for one, did not believe them. Publishers had pulled out in the past, and he thought it quite likely they would do so again should the Press Council annoy them. As his report made clear, that is why Finkelstein recommended a statutory basis for news media self regulation.

Now the Finkelstein recommendations – key aspects of which I do not support – are off the political agenda for the foreseeable future. But his lack of confidence in the publishers’ commitment seems to be vindicated by The Australian’s campaign.

There is one other new factor in the mix. Disney will leave the Press Council in January, his term over. The search for a replacement is now underway.

Even if the News Corporation doesn’t leave the press council (and for a number of reasons I think it unlikely) those considering taking on the task of chair have been put on notice they can expect any non-compliance with The Australian’s view of the world to be greeted with front page attacks and an undermining of process.

One cheerful way of looking at these events is to conclude that the Australian Press Council is no longer the publisher’s poodle – that it does have some bite.

Let us hope that the result of the current campaign is not to draw its newly emergent teeth.