The AFP Raids and the Loss of Trust

As the reaction cools, the longer-term impacts of the Australian Federal Police raids on a News Ltd journalist and the ABC will begin to manifest – including an increased loss of trust, in the police, in journalists, and in government. 

The tough task for government is what to do now to repair it, as it will require a shared responsibility, including with the media and the police.

An option is to put it in the too-hard basket, ignore it, and move on. But that leaves a bitter after-taste, and an increasingly divided Australia:

• On one hand, a lot of readers' comments beneath news stories appear to support the police, like these in Sydney's Daily Telegraph: “Too many reporters don’t have a clue how to report on fact and without bias.” and “The last person one would trust in this era is a journalist…. many these days are very ordinary people with great power.”
• On the other, it seems the majority of politicians, lawyers, journalists, academics and civil liberty commentators see the raids as massive police over-reach. 

This division was exacerbated by the AFP’s inexplicable clumsiness: first, two raids in two days, uniting two normally fiercely competing and powerful publishers; second, a failure to sufficiently explain why either raid was in the public’s interest.

The police depend on the public’s trust and surely a variety of AFP people, including corporate affairs advisors, would have recommended a communication blitz during and after the raids to explain themselves. The intense planning required to execute the operation must have included anticipating the massive reaction, requiring an equally strong explanation.

This era demands transparency and authenticity so that all organisations have to account for their behaviour. For corporate affairs folk, thoughtfully considering how to communicate to each stakeholder an action or change is essential in this hyper-sensitive fast-moving news and social media environment.

Another option might be to set up an inquiry if it can avoid being seen to be kicking the issue down the road. It allows opposing points to view to be heard. And it might avoid degenerating into a point scoring political exercise if a clear objective is to make changes that improve trust.

A third option might be a taskforce bringing together politicians, journalists, the police, the security services and others. The advantage of a taskforce is that people with opposing views, working together, can get to understand the other points of view. Mutual understanding can lead to agreed outcomes. If it’s apolitical, it too can build trust where clearly at the moment there is little. It can generate change.

My view is that an inquiry may not lead to any clear outcomes and so is unlikely to engender trust; it risks simply building cynicism. I think we need a taskforce designed to bring together opposing views, collaborating, and required to consider changes to the system. It would need to determine where the interests of the ‘need for a secure Australia’ and ‘the public’s right to know’ via journalists’ freedom should meet in the middle. Trust won’t come unless we can see that there are changes explicitly made to restore trust.

We need both a strong and trusted security apparatus, and trust in journalism. Both are essential to a healthy democracy.