One-stop shop not necessary

I will defend righteous, perhaps even aggressive, journalism, in pursuit of the public interest.

THE concept of a "one-stop-shop" for complaints regarding the media was rejected by the Government last week, despite the Law Commission recommending its creation.

This might seem a somewhat dry topic for an editorial, but how people make complaints about the media is certainly worthy of interest.

In my sphere of influence, newspapers come under the Press Council, a self-regulated body which adjudicates if a complainant has not been satisfied with a newspaper's handling of their problem. The Press Council requires the newspaper to publish its findings in full, should it deem the paper at fault.

This is in contrast to the Broadcasting Standards Authority, who tackle TV coverage. They have legislation behind them and can enforce fines. There is also the newly-created Online Media Standards Authority, which tackles online issues, such as blogs, and enforces a publication of their findings, like the Press Council.

The government might argue that a review was timely, but I suspect it came about because of a crisis of confidence in the media following the scandals of phone hacking in the UK. There is also a significant disparity: TV gets fined, but newspapers just have to print a decision? And consider the NZ Herald website, where there's plenty of video. The Times-Age will be doing that as well before too long, and there are plenty of websites doing it as well. Isn't that broadcasting?

Don't get me wrong; I'm very happy to retain the Press Council, because it works out for both the complainant and the paper. Hacks joke that you haven't made it until you've been sued twice and fired once, but the reality is, no editor likes to get a letter that begins with: "We act for ..." Thankfully, the last one of those for me was over the inappropriate use of the word "champagne".

I am of the belief that a complaint should be resolved before it reaches a council or panel or the courts. I get my share of complaints. It would be a pretty weak-willed paper if I got none. I will defend righteous, perhaps even aggressive, journalism, in pursuit of the public interest.

But if a remedy is required on a point of significant accuracy, fairness or balance, then a paper should pursue that remedy swiftly. And I don't need a "one-stop-shop" panel of experts to tell me that.