|
|
The |
|
|
|
|
The Press Professor Freda Briggs complained
to the Press Council that three letters to the editor published in The Press
made untrue and professionally slanderous statements and insinuations about
her and that the editor had maintained the exchange of correspondence despite
being provided with her CV and other information about her professional
background and standing. The complaint is upheld on grounds
of a lack of fairness.
Freda Briggs is Emeritus Professor
in Child Development at the With Professor Russell Hawkins she
published a paper, Safety issues in the lives of children with learning
disabilities, in the Ministry of Social Development's Social Policy Journal
of New Zealand, November 2006. The research, conducted at
undesignated special schools in A central finding was that while
school counsellors indicated that 44% of girls at the schools were victims of
(substantiated) sexual abuse, only 32% of female respondents disclosed these
offences to researchers. The Social Policy Journal of New
Zealand clearly states that papers must be approved by an editorial committee
and further subjected to double-blind peer review involving no fewer than two
assessors before being published. The article, Briggs stated, was
publicised responsibly both by the New Zealand Herald and Radio NZ National.
Following this publicity, there was significant speculation about which of
the On January 26, [January 31, Webmaster] The Press
published a letter from Briggs, which she wrote to attempt to bring to a halt
the speculation about which schools had been involved in the research. She maintained all On February 3, 2007, The
Press published a letter from a Masterton correspondent, expressing doubt
that Briggs's research has been published in a reputable peer-reviewed
journal. "Any expert worth their salt knows that there are no signs or
behaviours that are symptomatic of child sexual abuse ... I understand Freda
Briggs is an avowed believer in the ritual abuse phenomenon ... it is
generally regarded as a myth ... politicians, teachers, parents and police
should steer well clear of Ms Briggs. She is not an appropriate person to
lecture us on how to identify or prevent child sexual abuse." Briggs responded to the editor,
complaining about what she considered defamatory garbage in the published
letter. The editor should have first checked the facts. "The research in
question was published in your New Zealand Social Issues Journal." She
attached her CV and asked that the paper publish an immediate apology for
"this disgraceful piece of journalism". On February 9 the editor rejected
the need to apologise as he had no cause to believe that the writer's opinion
was not genuinely held, but agreed to publish an edited version of her
response in the interests of fairness and balance. This was published. Briggs accepted that the writer
had a right to express an opinion, "but no right to discredit my
credentials as a researcher in the field of child protection without doing
his homework". Her CV explained how one became a
professor, gave the background to the publication of the research, her
employment history, her considerable experience in child protection work and
evidence of a long, extensive publications record. On February 17, The Press
published a further letter from the previous correspondent, casting doubt on
Briggs's research, claiming that her figures had not been substantiated and
that her findings had appeared in what is "basically a newsletter for
social policy analysts". Important details were missing, making it
unsuitable for publication in any reputable journal; an online search
suggested that Briggs had published 10 journal articles since 1982, rather
than hundreds of articles as she had claimed. "As far as I know she has
published no research into the interviewing of child abuse victims.
Researchers are required to be ethical and impartial. From what I've seen I'm
not sure that Freda Briggs is either." On February 20, under the banner
"Steer clear of her", a letter from a
Briggs's complaint is that it was
irresponsible to publish untrue and professionally slanderous statements and
insinuations in letters to the editor without making simple checks relating
to their accuracy; and to persist in publishing such statements after
receiving factual information disproving the allegations.
The editor cited legal opinion to
the effect that there was a defence against defamation where writers were
expressing their honest opinion, and that opinion had a basis of fact. The
paper had ensured that this was so. Further, the letters column is a forum
for often vigorous debate. Dispute about facts or interpretation of facts, is
at its core. Correspondents are always given space to put the record
straight. In Briggs's case, her beliefs,
research and activities are controversial and that controversy was reflected
in what correspondents wrote. What they wrote was less emphatic
than Briggs intimated. What she habitually saw as the defamatory assertion of
incorrect facts was really the assertion of vigorous opinion. He cited examples from the letters
in question which were comments on the paper published in the journal, not on
her career as a whole. The fact that the professor and
one other wrote a foreword endorsing a book on ritual abuse and torture in The editor claimed that The Press
had given Briggs unlimited opportunity to debate the points made by other
correspondents. The newspaper had published the three letters received from
her and almost all the letters received in her defence. The publication of her first
letter (considerably longer than the number of words usually allowed) was
given extended space because of the special interest of many That same consideration, strong
public interest, encouraged the newspaper to print the vigorous
correspondence that followed Briggs's first letter. The professor is a
controversial and high profile academic specialising in a contentious issue.
In such circumstances, her research and advocacy are bound to come under
scrutiny. The Press did no more than provide a forum for that debate.
Newspapers have a particular duty
to encourage debate on issues of interest and importance to their
communities. One site for such debate is in the letters to the editor. The
Press Council has upheld the right of editors to publish, or not to publish,
such letters. The council has observed several
times that freedom of speech is sometimes seen at its most raw in the letters
section of newspapers. The sequence in this complaint is
familiar: strong opinions expressed in Briggs's initial letter evoked a
vigorous letter expressing contrary views, which, in turn, produced further
forthright letters. However, in this case, the views
expressed in the letters complained of went further than vigorous debate; they
also questioned Briggs's professional background, integrity and competence,
and the level of these attacks did not abate in the second and third letters.
A professional working in a highly
controversial area, can expect criticism and questioning and Briggs will be
well aware of this. She took steps to advise the editor of her academic and
professional background, and the editor did publish an edited version of her
letter. The council has held in the past
that editors are not responsible for the accuracy of facts contained in a
letter, but here the editor had received information before the publication
of the February 17 letter which ought to have put him on his guard as to the
accuracy of some of the statements in the subsequent letters. The council's principle 12 in
relation to letters recognises that selection and treatment are the
prerogative of editors, who should be guided by considerations of fairness,
balance and public interest. In this case, the council finds that balance
seems to have been achieved through publication of the communications The
Press received from Briggs and supporters. There is likewise an undoubted
element of public interest in these matters. Nevertheless, the council finds
that Briggs was unfairly treated when the editor published the letters of
February 17 and 20 when he had been previously advised of the professional
standing of the complainant. The publication of these letters prolonged an
attack on Briggs's professional integrity, and did not contribute further to
the debate on a controversial issue. The Press Council therefore
upholds the complaint on grounds of a lack of fairness.
|
