opinion
Every decade or so, some group on the Prairies floats the idea of establishing a press council to hear people’s complaints about how they were treated in the news media.
The latest is a loose group of 44 Saskatchewan organizations that have given various degrees of support to an energetic letter-writer’s campaign to promote such a council.
There is much that could be gained by all parties from a voluntary council operated by newspapers – increased credibility for the newspapers, increased opportunities for their readers to protest what they feel is unfair coverage.
Read Also
Carberry field day looks for agriculture solutions
Manitoba farmers explored research solutions for resilient crops, perpetual agronomic issues and new kinds of agricultural products at a field day at the Manitoba Crop Diversification Centre in Carberry on Aug. 6.
At first glance, those two benefits seem contradictory – how could a newspaper gain enhanced credibility while encouraging complaints? But the very fact that a newspaper’s editors and publisher are willing to have their peers hear complainants and publicly judge the newspaper’s performance should indicate a commitment to competent and fair coverage.
The complaint process, moreover, is far more than a method for irate readers to verbally bash editors. A press council would presumably often rule in favor of decent newspapers, and provide public support for the decisions that individual editors made.
In a larger sense, a press council would offer another way for the public to understand how newspapers operate, including the constraints of time, space,and libel law that can affect what is published.
Those benefits, however, either would not apply or would be overwhelmed by disadvantages in the case of a press council that is a creation of either government or special-interest groups. Such an outside agency could easily become a threat to press freedom, journalistic professionalism, and the rights of a newspaper’s owners.
It may be tempting to think of a farmer representative sitting on a press council that passes occasional judgment on the work of city dailies. After all, some dailies have been known to give generous coverage to radical animal-rights and anti-chemical groups while paying little attention to mainstream agriculture.
By the same token, however, the anti-chemical zealots and animal-rights activists could be the ones who win places on a council appointed by government or by interest groups. That would not be welcomed by most farm families. Hundreds of similar examples could be cited for various publications.
What can newspapers and their supporters do to avoid such an unpleasant outcome?
If there is serious public interest in some form of press council, one good step would be for newspapers themselves to form that council, rather than risking having one imposed on them.
