Chris Mitchell vows to remove The Australian from the Press Council after new condemnation over breaches of confidentiality

Chris Mitchell says he’s interested in publishing the truth when he means propaganda.

What an ego! It’s not like the Press Council can fine or sanction newspapers in any way. All they can do is request that the paper publishes a copy of their adjudication. And even that’s too much for Chris Mitchell. He wants his zero regulation industry to have even less regulation. And when it all comes down to it, it’s about the inability of News Corp and its senior editors to accept any criticism whatsoever.

Chris does know how to spit the dummy.

This rag needs more regulation rather than less.

“I am interested in publishing truth.”

Sorry Chris. Your version of the truth is the reason why no-one buys The Australian anymore.

If I were editor of an ailing print publication losing $30 million a year I’d be more concerned about shareholder activists.

Despite all the criticism of the Australian by commenters above, it’s a bit rich for the press council to second guess the paper’s editors about what should go on the front page and what should not.

Both stories were stories that needed to be told. They deserved to be on the front page, and deserved powerful images to support them.

They were certainly no more offensive than other powerful images that have appeared in print in the past, including Nick Ut’s iconic Vietnam War pic of Kim Phuc running away from a napalm bomb attack.

Ut’s photo ran on the front page of virtually every newspaper and magazine in the western world. He won the Pulitzer Prize. Would the press council have argued that this photo should have been run on an inside page as well?

I buy the Australian. I have right to buy this paper as it is published. The Press Council should not have the power to take away from my reading, things I need to know. What the Press Council thinks I need to know, is not its jurisdiction. If I don’t like images or commentary, I don’t have to read or view it, or buy it. Fortunately for The Australian and The Telegraph, their circulations and readerships are, relative to Fairfax titles, gaining.
We have comprehensive and restrictive defamation laws already, so anything The Australian or The Telegraph writes, if it harms a person, that person is already well protected.

We dont need this Press Council at all.

I find the concept that showing a photograph of a real news event of interest and importance to Australia, is held up as a problem, and yet…

continual photoshopped front pages, lies and shamefully biased reporting goes unmentioned.

Any time that a news limited product publishes either, a true fact, or a true photograph, they should actually be held up for recognition…

…its such a rare event.

What’s the big… I say, what’s the big idea chasin’ my worms? You’re a cat, son. Cat’s don’t eat worms. You’re takin’ the food right outta my mouth! I don’t go around chasin’ mice! Stand up boy, you’re trippin’ over your own feet. Now you stay away from worms and I’ll stay away from mice. That’s fair and square, and if you’d stop all your arguin’ and jawin’, you’d see my side of it! Yap-yap-yap, keep that mouth flappin’ and do no listenin’. There’s nothin’ worse than a blabber-mouth cat!

You mean The Australian is still publishing? I thought it closed down years ago.

Roger Colman: you clearly do not have a clue about the role of the Press Council

I have looked at the sample of the lists of complaints and adjudications. The complainants, if they were maligned by a media outlet should go straight to a lawyer to seek damages. Some are corrections of fact; some are statements of opinion by the Press Council. The later being an outright interference with my right to be given an opinion, an insight, or information. Balance, well that’s for me to figure, not somebody at the Press Council.
I hope that Rupert lives forever, but alas, as that is not possible, I hope that his children carry on with The Australian, The Tele, and all his newspapers. There.

It really, REALLY concerns me how many commentators on this story are advocating for more controls on the media.
The truth is, there are many legal controls already placed on media in this country.
Not to mention the clever webs spun by governments and corporations to make it virtually impossible for journalists to print the truth without going through a long, painful Right To Information process and the use of cunning and obtuse PR flacks.
To implement more controls would be too stifling and – ironically – the people here who have called for tighter controls, would no doubt be complaining how bland, boring and uncontroversial newspapers had become.
The Press Council plays an important role in complaint resolution and should stay, but I agree that it exceeds its authority by presuming to tell editors where they should place stories and images. That’s just ridiculous.

Two things well said.

Chris Mitchell: Photo journalists risk their lives to represent truth and it is not an editor’s role to hide that truth.

Comment 7 from B: You damn right.

But the whole point is the Press Council is meant to be an ‘independent’ aribiter. It doesn’t matter whether a newspaper agrees with the umpire or not. If they are found to be in breach of council guidelines, all they have to do is publish the council’s findings. That’s it. Of course no publisher is going to like having adverse findings made about them. But the decent and mature ones suck it up and move on. Sadly, Chris Mitchell has demonstrated why self-regulation doesn’t work: If they don’t like it they can just ignore it, bully it into submission, or walk away. Quite pathetic really. No doubt Mitchell is still bitter from the times the council called The Oz out for all their climate and environment reporting fibs.