13 May, 2008
Andrew Jaspan
Editor-in-chief
‘The Age’
May 12, 2008
Dear Andrew,
We acknowledge Paul Ramadge's email to staff, sent Thursday May 7, announcing your decision to delegate to senior editors the task of reviewing the paper's policies on wraparounds, sponsorships, free trips and special supplements.
We welcome this as a belated response to last month's staff meeting that condemned unanimously recent developments in which sponsorship and other promotional arrangements were undermining the paper's editorial independence. The meeting called on management to draft a protocol, in consultation with staff, covering these arrangements that explicitly states they will not entail any suggestion or implication of favourable editorial coverage.
We expect that the reference in Paul Ramadge's message to staff having an "opportunity to contribute ideas and provide feedback", will mean staff will be part of the process of the review, and not just recipients of polices once they are drafted by your senior editors. We are keen to know who will be conducting the review and its terms of reference.
The issues that have prompted the review, and which were condemned at the April 10 meeting by 235 editors, reporters, sub-editors, photographers, designers and artists, remain matters of deep concern to staff. Since the meeting, many staff members have spoken to members of the Independence and House Committees both about specific incidents and their general concern.
We note that you have taken the issues raised seriously enough to meet select small groups of editorial staff. However, those meetings appear to have excluded other members of staff which we believe is inappropriate given the overwhelming number who attended the April 10 meeting and supported the motion that was put to them.
These meetings suggest management is seeking to divide staff while disparaging the Independence Committee as self-appointed malcontents.
2.
We understand your distress at the leaking of audio recordings of the staff meeting. The committees responded vigorously and promptly to that leak, and we reiterate that we condemn and deplore the distribution of that material. When made aware that Crikey was in possession of the audio, members of the committees argued strenuously to Crikey that it should not be published. Letters outlining those concerns were sent to Crikey, published on the Independence Committee website (maintainyourage.org) and stated in letters to Mr Churchill and Mr Kirk.
We also wish to stress that, despite suggestions from within management, the staff concerns expressed at the meeting are unrelated to the forthcoming EBA negotiations.
We believe that the best way forward is for management to work with staff to clarify how news editors, reporters and photographers can best guarantee that sponsorships and other commercial arrangements entered into by ‘The Age’ company do not compromise the objectivity and independence of our journalism. We hope that is the intention of the review that Paul Ramadge has announced.
In that spirit, we will encourage staff to make submissions to the review you have asked senior editors to undertake, once we know who those editors are and their terms of reference. We hope that we all have the same objective at heart -- the protection of the ‘Age’ masthead.
The Independence Committee's endeavour is to help protect the integrity of the masthead and to protect the editor from being compromised by commercial pressures or corporate interference, as articulated in the ‘Age’ Charter of Independence. The House Committee endorses the Independence Committee's charter, but also believes that these issues are of paramount importance to the professionalism and integrity of the newspaper's journalists.
Yours sincerely,
Jo Chandler Greg Baum
On behalf of On behalf of
‘The Age’ Independence Committee ‘The Age’ House Committee
cc: David Kirk, Don Churchill
17 April, 2008
Mr David Kirk
Chief Executive Officer
Dear Mr Kirk,
We write in response to your message to staff sent on 14 April.
We are disappointed that your letter dismisses journalists' deep concerns about independence issues -- articulated in a unanimous vote by 235 `Age' editorial staff -- as the actions of ``elements within the company''.
A diverse range of `Age' staff was involved in drafting and endorsing the motion, and spoke strongly and passionately about their concerns at last week's meeting with the editor-in-chief. They did not do so lightly. They were motivated by their duty to uphold professional ethics and by their commitment to the principles that underpin the value of `The Age' masthead.
Last week's meeting shows that staff are determined to keep full faith with the principles that, as you put it, have been the Age's anchor from its founding. To accuse them of disservice is to ignore the substance of their concerns.
Those concerns have been reinforced by comments made by Andrew Jaspan at last week's meeting, which suggest the company lacks a clear understanding of what editorial independence means in practice.
It doesn't just mean independence from external sectional, political or commercial interests. It means editorial staff, from the editor-in-chief down, being able to apply independent judgement in assessing what is news and how it will be covered -- acting, of course, within broad outlines set down by the Fairfax board.
Your insistence that these principles have not been contravened is at odds with the experience of editorial staff, who have watched with alarm the growing influence of commercial sponsorships and ``partnerships'' on news coverage. It is also at odds with statements made to the meeting by both Mr Jaspan and by `Sunday Age' editor Gay Alcorn. We would be more than happy to discuss the detail and the substance of these matters with you at any time, in an appropriate and private forum.
We welcome your statement recognising the importance of the principles of editorial independence. What we seek are practical measures to maintain those principles.
2.
As staff declared last week, we acknowledge management's right to enter sponsorships and other commercial arrangements with external partners. But we repeat our call for the development of protocols to ensure that these arrangements do not entail any suggestion or implication of favourable editorial coverage. We are ready to work with management in drafting such protocols to give clearer guidance to news editors and reporters in how to protect the paper from potential conflicts.
Editorial staff and management share a close mutual interest in ensuring the continued commerical strength and editorial integrity of our masthead.
Yours sincerely,
The Age Independence Committee
The Age House Committee
Monday, 14 April, 2008
Dear Don,
Thank you for your reply to the concerns expressed in a motion that was supported unanimously by staff at their meeting on Thursday, 10 April.
We welcome your stated commitment on behalf of the company to the principles of independent journalism.
We accept that sponsorship contracts contain standard clauses that insist on an appropriate separation between the commercial and editorial arms of the business.
However, we still believe that it is necessary to more clearly define how sponsorships and corporate relationships entered into by the company are to be treated by its journalists. This need is urgent, especially given the depth of feeling expressed by many staff at Thursday's meeting, along with the accompanying documented examples where journalistic
integrity appears to have been threatened by such arrangements.
Indeed, `Sunday Age' editor Gay Alcorn acknowledged at the meeting that there were ``grey areas'' around the paper's coverage of Earth Hour that warranted further discussion.
It is our strong view that there is a need to map out clear guidelines for reporters and editors who may be asked to cover such events and on other matters in which the `Age' has a corporate stake.
We maintain our belief that there is scope for management, in consultation with representatives of the Independence Committee and the House Committee to draft an appropriate internal protocol. This would guarantee the continuing integrity of the journalism that has undepinned this media entity for more than 150 years.
We will respond further in due course.
Yours sincerely,
Jo Chandler,
On behalf of The Age Independence Committee
Greg Baum,
On Behalf of The Age House Committee
Letter to Crikey from The Age Independence Committee. Published on crikey.com on Monday April 14.
The Age Independence Committee regrets the publication in Crikey (Friday April 11) of three audio extracts from last Thursday's meeting between the editor-in-chief, Andrew Jaspan, and the editorial staff. Such proceedings are confidential for a very good reason: this confidentiality enables people to speak their minds on sensitive matters without fear their remarks will be circulated outside the meeting. To publish audio extracts from the meeting undermines this confidence. It also breaches the rights of those involved in that the extracts were reproduced outside the meeting without their knowledge or consent.
NEWSFLASH 10 APRIL
MOTION
This motion was put by `The Age' House Committee and `The Age' Independence Committee to a meeting of editorial staff on 10 April, 2008. The motion was supported by 235 votes to nil.
THAT this meeting of `Age', `Sunday Age' and `Age' online staff is proud of the paper's record of independent journalism developed and nurtured over more than 150 years.
We strongly re-affirm our commitment to the principles that are the foundation of that record -- in particular, reporting without fear or favour.
Independent editorial values and the public interest must dictate the paper's news judgement. The paper's financial success rests on a clear separation between commercial considerations and editorial independence.
Recent developments show this separation between commercial and editorial has been undermined, degrading our ability to produce independent journalism and eroding the integrity of `The Age' masthead. We are alarmed that the principles that define our work are now under threat.
We have felt under increasing pressure to colour our reporting on organisations with whom the newspaper has struck commercial or sponsorship arrangements. The selection and displaying of stories reflects these pressures. Reporters are being encouraged to attend marketing meetings and are under pressure not to write ``negative'' stories.
We condemn these developments, which contravene the MEAA journalists' code of ethics (a code that is endorsed by Fairfax's own code of conduct), `The Age' code of conduct, the Australian Press Council's Statement of Principles and `The Age' charter of editorial independence, a charter which the editor-in-chief and the chairman of Fairfax Media have declared they endorse in principle.
We re-affirm our commitment to those codes and that charter.
We insist that the editor-in-chief, Fairfax management, and staff adhere to the spirit of these codes and the charter.
We declare we will not be party to any breaches of these codes.
We resolve to support any staff member who resists instructions that would breach the letter or spirit of these codes.
We acknowledge management's right to enter sponsorship and other commercial arrangements with external partners. But we demand that management -- in consultation with staff -- immediately drafts a protocol covering these arrangements that explicitly states they will not entail any suggestion or implication of favourable editorial coverage.
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT
Recent disturbing developments have prompted the resolution by staff of The Age, The Sunday Age and Age Online today.
They include:
1. Earth Hour: This ``partnership'' between Fairfax and an external interest placed basic journalistic principles in jeopardy. Support for the Earth Hour event allowed a corporate partnership, rather than editorial judgement, to dictate news coverage. Journalists were expected not just to report and seek all sides of the issue, but to promote
a campaign being waged by external interests, and write stories that had self-interest rather than news values at their heart. External considerations influenced the tone, timing, placement and frequency of stories. Reporters were pressured not to write ``negative'' stories, and story topics followed a schedule drafted by Earth Hour organisers.
2. Sport: Our sports coverage is in danger of being compromised by the increasing commercial emphasis on special relationships and ``partnerships'', which jeopardise editorial independence and risk corrupting normal news judgement.
Examples include Telstra Dome, where a dome marketing executive has sought favourable coverage on the basis of the ''spirit of co-operation between Telstra Dome and The Age''. Melbourne Victory Football Club officials clearly have similar expectations, based on their relationship with The Age.
These are not isolated instances.
3. 2020: In journalism, the reporter and observer can not be a participant without affecting objectivity. This basic principle has been breached by the decision of the editor-in-chief and senior deputy editor to attend the 2020 summit as participants.
4. The R.Walker Letter: The publication in `The Age' on February 14 of a letter concerning the Liberal Party by an ``R. Walker, Melbourne'' raises serious issues. This letter, by Ron Walker, chairman of Fairfax Media and a former treasurer of the Australian Liberal Party, was run unedited at the editor-in-chief's instructions. The form of
the letter, as published, went against all normal practice, where the paper insists letters include full identification and affiliation or position of the writer.
5. Grand Prix: The publication in `The Age' on February 28 of a lengthy clarification concerning a report on the Formula One Grand Prix published two days earlier was at odds with normal practice, giving rise to the implication that a vested commercial interest, involving Ron Walker, was being given special treatment. A reporter involved
was summoned to the editor-in-chief's office to a 90-minute meeting with a Grand Prix Corporation executive and lawyer. No legal representative of `The Age' was present, nor did the editor defend the original report. Subsequently, the editor agreed to publication of the ``clarification", despite the reporter's objections. If the original report
was wrong, it should have been corrected. There is no evidence the story was wrong, nor did the ``clarification'' assert it was wrong.
6. Bay Dredging: The editor-in-chief has pursued an undeclared campaign against the dredging of Port Phillip Bay. The paper's news reporting and analysis of this issue, as well as the selection, emphasis and presentation of stories, has been aggressively directed to reflect the view that the dredging is a mistake. This is an issue on which
our readers expect fair and objective coverage. Instead, the roles of editorial advocacy and reporting have become confused.
These incidents and others, which can be documented, create the impression that the paper is now willing to court favour with vested interests.
4 MAY 2007
Members of the committee met the editor-in-chief of The Age, Andrew Jaspan, this afternoon. He informed us of responses from Fairfax CEO, David Kirk, and Good Weekend editor, Judith Whelan, to our questions about the decision not to publish the Wendi Deng profile.
We welcome Mr Kirk's statement that neither he nor the board ``makes or overrules editorial decisions''; and Ms Whelan's assurance that the decision was hers and ``that it was based on editorial judgements''.
We thanked Andrew Jaspan for pursuing the matter with senior management so swiftly, and for his assurance that he was also committed to the spirit of the charter of editorial independence.
At a time when media voices are increasingly vulnerable to corporate and commercial pressures, safeguarding the principles of independence is vitally important. The committee, entrusted with this task by The Age readership, will continue to be vigilant and to vigorously uphold the charter.
The following letter went to Andrew Jaspan, editor of The Age,
today (3 May), and CC the board of management.
May 3, 2007
Mr Andrew Jaspan
Editor-in-chief, The Age
Dear Andrew,
We write in regard to the recent decision by Fairfax not to publish a long article by Eric Ellis on Wendi Deng, the wife of Rupert Murdoch, commissioned by Good Weekend magazine. Our interest is in what factors influenced that decision, and in whether they may compromise the editorial independence of The Age, which has included Good Weekend in its Saturday editions for the past 22 years. Our concerns are shared by our counterpart at The Sydney Morning Herald, Friends of Fairfax.
Our concern is whether the decision to pull the story was made on editorial grounds alone, or whether it was provoked – as has been widely speculated – by individuals at board level. If the decision not to run the story was influenced by corporate or commercial relationships or agendas, this would be a serious breach of the principles of independence that underpin the value of the Fairfax mastheads. In the interests of preserving that value, we ask you to clarify the situation, and to investigate if necessary.
The spiked Good Weekend article has now achieved more notoriety – mainly via the Financial Times, crikey.com and Media Watch, which is making inquiries – than it would have had it been published as originally intended. The notoriety, however, has less to do with Wendi Deng, or Rupert Murdoch, than it does with Fairfax.
Last year, when we asked the chairman of Fairfax, Ron Walker, to endorse our charter, he wrote, “I have given an undertaking to editors and staff and demonstrated publicly my respect and their freedom to carry out their duties without intervention”. He subsequently wrote, “Under my watch as Chairman, I have made it very clear on many occasions that our journalists are our most treasured asset and I respect their total independence''.
We value this commitment, as do our readers, and we would like the concerns raised above to be examined in light of it. We remind you that the principles of the independence charter were designed to protect the integrity of the Fairfax editors – to allow them to make their decisions free of commercial and corporate considerations.
We look forward to hearing from you. We intend to report back to editorial staff next week.
With best wishes,
The Age Independence Committee, and supporters
Cfi: Mr Ronald Walker and Fairfax Media board members; Mr Brian McCarthy; Mr David Kirk; Mr Don Churchill.
Signed by:
Simon Mann, Andrew Rule, Michael Short, Michael Shmith, Bill Birnbauer, Jo Chandler; John Spooner, Leon Gettler; Ray Cassin; Ros Guy; Ken Davidson; Sally Heath; Sushi Das; Warwick Green; Steve Waldon; Daniella Miletic; Stephen Barthomuesz; Mal Maiden; Melissa Fyfe; Karen Kissane; Tom Hyland; Peter Wilmoth; Gary Tippet; Chris Webb; Simon O'Dwyer; Liz Porter; Greg Baum; Jesse Hogan; Marc Moncrief.
COMMITTEE OPPOSES MEDIA REFORMS
The Age Independence Committee has strongly opposed the Federal
Government's proposed media reforms in a submission lodged with the
Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts.
The Federal Government in March released a discussion paper setting out proposals to dismantle the cross-media and foreign ownership laws, a
move which the committee says will concentrate media ownership and reduce diversity of opinion.
Read the The Age Independence Committee's Submission on media reform options
|