Page 2734 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 20 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR DE DOMENICO (3.07): Patience, Mr Wood, is indeed a virtue. Madam Speaker, the initial wording of the matter of public importance, until we were advised by the secretariat that the words "The Government's responsibility" should be added to it to make it a salient matter of public importance, was "The erroneous depiction of Canberra in the 60 Minutes report on Sunday, 18 October". This is a matter of public importance that concerns not only the Government, quite obviously, but every member of this Assembly and, in fact, every Canberran. With that point, Mr Wood, touche; but that is the explanation.
Madam Speaker, from time to time and, in fact, more recently, virtually every week, there is no doubt that we should not be talking about 60 Minutes and serious journalism in the same breath. There is nothing new in that. 60 Minutes and other television programs say all sorts of things from time to time. As a former journalist, the old adage, "Never let the truth spoil a good story" is perhaps one way of describing Mr Carleton's outrageous report on Sunday night. In fact, it was not even a good story. It was absolute and utter rubbish and scurrilous. For someone like Mr Carleton who, as we are all aware, has lived in this city, and has lived in this city for a long time - - -
Mrs Carnell: In Mugga Way.
MR DE DOMENICO: In Mugga Way, as Mrs Carnell correctly says.
Mr Westende: There is nothing wrong with Mugga Way, mate.
MR DE DOMENICO: Well, there might be, Mr Westende. Very few of us can afford to live anywhere near Mugga Way - not too many of us even in this Assembly.
As I said, Mr Carleton's report was scurrilous. The Liberal Party today, Madam Speaker, at Federal level, has lodged a formal complaint and a written complaint to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal about the 60 Minutes program. 60 Minutes has clearly indicated that researching the facts was not a major priority in the production of the story. It is the responsibility of journalists to present facts, not to make them up. I think we all agree with that. From time to time we also agree that some journalists tend to follow the Richard Carleton school of journalism.
The program, Madam Speaker, has again brought into question the role of the journalist, in my opinion. Is it to report an opinion contrived by an individual or is it to report facts and opinions in a balanced and reasonable way? I do not think any of us would agree that Mr Carleton's report on Sunday night was either balanced or reasonable. I suggest, Madam Speaker, that any professional journalist who knew Canberra - and Mr Carleton does - would immediately understand that several points were simply wrong. Others were ignored. Certainly, balanced opinion did not form a large part of the program segment.
The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, I believe, has a role to ensure that standards of journalism are maintained at a responsible level. That does not mean criticising journalists for taking an angle; it means criticising journalists from time to time for ignoring or selectively presenting facts, or even just getting them wrong. I think it is the responsibility of people who call themselves true journalists at least to make sure of the facts before the story appears in the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .