By Australian Press Council chair Dr Bronte Adams
This year, the Australian Press Council marks fifty years since its establishment in 1976 — a milestone built on a simple proposition: a free press carries responsibilities as well as freedoms.
Publisher members of the Australian Press Council are proud to be answerable to that proposition and the standards that sit behind it.
That proposition has endured through extraordinary change. Technology, platforms and business models have changed dramatically since 1976.
Accountability has not kept pace with this evolution.
When the council was founded, Australians received most of their news through newspapers and broadcast media.
Today, information also reaches us through websites, social media feeds, podcasts, search engines and, increasingly through AI-powered search and generative tools.
Information has become more abundant, more immediate, more accessible – and more personalised than at any time in human history.
Yet amid that abundance, many Australians are grappling with fundamental questions around what information and what standards of reporting we can rely on; and what recourse do we have where those standards are not met?
The challenge today is not access to information. It is understanding who produced it, why it was produced, and whether anyone can be held accountable for it.
These are not new questions. They are questions that have long sat at the heart of journalism.
Professional journalism is distinguished not by a claim to perfection, but by a commitment to standards and accountability.
Facts are expected to be verified, in opinion pieces as well as news reportage. Significant errors are expected to be corrected.
Editorial decisions can be scrutinised. Conduct can be independently assessed against publicly available principles. Complainants can be heard.
The public often sees only the finished article. Less visible are the editorial judgments, ethical considerations and professional obligations that sit behind it.
Those processes matter. They encourage fairness and accuracy and provide avenues for redress when standards are not met.
For the individual — the person named in a story, those depicted, or simply the reader trying to work out what is true — these processes represent something concrete and free: the knowledge that a publisher can be held to account, that a complaint will be independently assessed and a response made.
That is not a small thing in an information environment where much of what shapes what we see and believe operates with no such obligation.
The role of the Press Council is not to determine what publishers should think or write. Nor is it to shield journalism from criticism.
Rather, it provides a framework in which freedom of expression is accompanied by accountability, fairness, transparency and opportunities for redress when standards are not met.
Not everyone will agree with the adjudications of the council. There will be – and are – cases where reasonable people disagree on how the council has applied standards to contentious publications.
In a democracy with press freedom this is to be welcomed.
As new issues have emerged — from privacy and digital publishing to reporting on race, religion, gender and family and domestic violence — the council’s standards and guidance have continued to adapt, helping publishers navigate complex public-interest issues while supporting responsible and ethical journalism.
As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly embedded in how information is created, discovered and consumed, these principles become more important than ever.
The question is not whether AI will be used. It already is. Journalists, lawyers, doctors,
consultants, company directors and millions of Australians use it every day.
The more important question is whether clear human responsibility and accountability
remain for what is ultimately published.
Public criticism has never been easier — anyone can challenge a story, dispute a claim or call out a publisher within seconds. That is a genuine democratic gain. However, public criticism is not the same thing as accountability.
Processes that require concerns independently to be heard, responses be given and decisions be explained are important to a thriving democracy, and are rare across platforms.
While the council’s role is focused on participating publishers, the principles that underpin its work have broader relevance. This is particularly true given the current imbalance in how traditional media is regulated in Australia compared to the global platforms that now dominate the information environment.
In a world where more people than ever can reach large audiences, values such as accuracy, fairness, transparency and accountability are increasingly relevant to anyone
who seeks to inform, influence or shape public debate.
Fifty years after the council was established, its purpose remains much the same as it was in 1976, and its importance has never been greater.
To support a free press.
To uphold standards.
To provide accountability.
And to help ensure that, in a world of ever-expanding information, there remain institutions, processes and people prepared to answer for what they publish.
The technologies will continue to change. The council’s commitment to accountability will not.
Author’s note: Artificial intelligence tools were deliberately used during the drafting of
this article. What is important is that the author remains accountable for the views
expressed, editorial judgments and final content. That is the case in this article.
Subscribe to stay up-to-date with news from across Logan. You’ll receive a link to our digital newspaper direct to your inbox each week. It’s free.
