When can you complain to the media & how to do it

They got it wrong. It is inaccurate. I am offended. It is affecting my company’s reputation. What is my recourse?

Complaining to the media and getting a result should be straightforward but in practice it is fraught with risk. A strategically framed and expressed complaint can often deliver a satisfactory result with minimal fallout for your and your organization.

A clumsily delivered complaint minimises your chances of correction and redress. It can damage important relationships you have spent a long time building. And it can drag you into long, uncertain and potentially costly engagements with regulators and the courts.

BEFORE YOU COMPLAIN

Cool off. You - or the people you report to - are affronted. It’s tempting to pick up the phone and express your ire, but remember that reporters, editors and producers are practiced at brushing off callers who just want to vent. To be heard, it’s essential to distinguish yourself from the angry multitudes by being calm, by having a genuine grievance and by expressing it in terms that require a response.

Have a genuine grievance. When we ask journalists about the kinds of complaints they receive, the phrases “ego-driven”, “incoherent” and “trivial” feature prominently. Journalists remember, with irritation, the complaints where the caller was unhappy about an unflattering photograph of his chairman; where the caller  “didn’t like the tone of the story” but couldn’t get more specific than that; where the caller demanded a prominent retraction because his company had been producing widgets from July 1998, not the June 1998 date that was reported. Individuals with a reputation for being frequent complainers get short shrift from media outlets, even when they finally have a real grievance.

A genuine grievance has to be material. “Unflattering” doesn’t make the grade.

If you are going to complain about a negatively framed story, make sure you can point to the specific ways in which the story invites damaging or defamatory inferences rather than referring only to its overall tone. For example, a business gossip column might publish an item that refers to your CEO’s lavish new weekender. The columnist’s tone might well be snide, but if you are going to complain to him or his editor, you need to be able to point to a part of the item that could actually cause reputational damage: say, a sentence that unfairly suggests the CEO is too preoccupied with his weekender to attend to the company’s languishing share price. In the case of a published error, it helps to be able to explain why it’s important that the record be corrected (“I’m conscious that June vs July 1998 looks like a minor error, but because it was on the cusp of the financial year it was key to the tax treatment of that investment”).

Keep the big guns in a locked cupboard.  Avoid making threats that will limit your ability to negotiate with the media outlet and canvass creative solutions to your problem. (See “Three Common Mistakes” later in this article.)

THE APPROACH TO MEDIA OUTLETS

Some media, such as the ABC, have minutely prescribed procedures for dealing with complaints, but at most media outlets it’s less formal. Your first approach should generally be to the relevant editor, chief of staff or producer (not to the journalist whose work you are disputing, unless you have a close relationship and feel confident of resolving the problem with him or her). Telephone to alert the editor/producer to your complaint and to ensure you’ve got the right person. Follow up promptly in writing.

THREE FIRST STEPS

1. Frame your complaint in terms that are relevant to the media regulators: that is, as a breach of the Press Council principles www.presscouncil.org.au or of the broadcast industry codes of practice found on the Australian Communications and Media Authority website. www.acma.gov.au  Doing this will help you ensure your complaint is valid; it tells the publisher or broadcaster that you are serious; and will save you time down the track in the event you resort to complaining to the regulators.

2. Know what you want to get out of making a complaint, and what you’re prepared to settle for. Your grievance may seem substantial to you but the media outlet may consider its error to be small. Hence you are likely to have very different ideas about what constitutes appropriate redress. If you go in gunning for a prominent retraction and apology over what is materially a minor error, get ready for a long haul. Consider the following:

- If the offending item is the product of ignorance, you may simply want an opportunity to correct the media outlet’s own records and/or educate its staff so the mistake is not repeated. You can ask to have the media outlet’s internal “clippings file” and internet posting of the report modified to record that it was disputed, and why.  You could also ask to hold a briefing session with relevant staff, or to circulate a briefing note.

- If you just want to set the record straight and the media outlet is baulking at a formal retraction, you might ask for the broadcast of a follow-up interview that gives your side of the story, or lets you correct the facts. Or you might seek publication of an opinion piece, or of a letter to the editor that sets out your grievance.

- If you want redress, this might be in the form of a public apology, but be aware that media outlets are sparing with these and often issue them only at the behest of well-armed defamation lawyers. Alternately, you might ask to be compensated by positive publicity of some kind, such as a feature about your company’s charitable activities.

3. Act quickly and keep a sharp eye on the calendar. Start to seek redress as soon as possible after becoming aware of the problem. This is especially important if the problem item is airing on radio news bulletins or posted on newspaper websites. Even in the case of daily, weekly or monthly publications or programs, your complaint will be treated as having greater urgency if it’s about something that is freshly published or broadcast rather than being about “old news”.

THREE COMMON MISTAKES

In the heat of the moment, there can be pressure from above to exert all possible force in the form of the following. Resist these.

“We’ll call our lawyers if you don’t do xyz now”. Nothing will bring the shutters down faster. The editor or producer will invite you to send a solicitor’s letter and all chance of negotiation is gone.

“Our CEO is very close to Mr Jones on your board.” Risky and guaranteed to burn your contacts. If you pull out this one, you may generate an internal turf war that is as likely to lead to ugly public allegations of board interference with journalists as it is to provide a solution to your problem.

“We’re a big advertiser with you - do you know what I mean?” If you’re that big an advertiser, they already know who you are and what the likely implications might be. When you talk to journalists  - as opposed to advertising staff - this approach can only generate hostility and inhibit your chances of negotiating.

NOT HAPPY WITH THE MEDIA OUTLET’S RESPONSE? WHERE TO GO NEXT

You’ve done all the right things, none of the wrong ones and still the media outlet is ignoring you; refusing to concede there is a problem; or refusing to redress it.

You have alternative regulatory and industry bodies to assist in media complaint resolution.

For the print media and their websites, it’s the Australian Press Council. For broadcasters, the relevant organization is the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). Each has a broad remit that includes addressing complaints about inaccuracy and offensiveness.

The Press Council is a self-regulatory body. It has no real punitive powers but it helps individuals negotiate with publishers. The publishers are expected to print Press Council adjudications that concern them, even when they state that the publisher is at fault. ACMA is a statutory body and has wider powers: for example, it can impose fines and place conditions on broadcasting licences.

But before approaching either the Press Council or ACMA, take your grievance directly to the relevant media outlet. There are two reasons for this:

1. The Press Council and ACMA will generally not consider your problem until you have tried and failed to have your grievance satisfactorily addressed by the individual media outlet.

2. If you’re after a fast result - and complainants usually are - it is worth making a genuine effort to negotiate an outcome with an individual media outlet.

The regulators are capable of moving quickly on some complaints but if the matter goes to a formal adjudication the process can take weeks or months.

If you want the Press Council to consider your complaint you must waive your right to legal action. The procedure for complaints is formal and is set out in detail on the Press Council website, www.presscouncil.org.au.

Briefly, the Press Council will attempt to help you negotiate a settlement before taking the matter to a complaints committee for adjudication. Adjudications may be appealed and reheard by the Press Council complaints committee.

You can complain to ACMA if you are not satisfied with a broadcaster’s response to your complaint, or if you have received no reply after 60 days. ACMA’s requirements and procedures are explained here: www.acma.gov.au/web/STANDARD//pc%3DPC_90137 When ACMA has investigated and made a decision, you will receive a copy. ACMA offers no formal right of review of its decisions.

TIME LIMITS

If you end up taking your complaint to the Press Council, you will need to do so within 60 days of the offending item being published. Time limits applying to ACMA broadcasters vary, but by way of example, commercial television broadcasters are not obliged to reply in writing to complaints made more than 30 days after an item was broadcast.

If the editor or producer to whom you have complained says he/she will get back to you, ask when, and follow up if they don’t. Keep diary notes of all your conversations, the more detailed the better.

LAST RESORTS

Taking legal action is another option but it is by far the most expensive and lengthy way of dealing with a complaint against the media.

In this and other instances, remember that the regulatory and legal arbiters you are approaching are independent. By going to them you take the risk that you may not get the result you want; and the decision may go on to the public record.

Previous Newsletter Articles

December 2007

April 2008

May 2008