Australian Press Council Prize 2002
Winning entry

Subject: Gratuitous emphasis on race, ethnicity etc
Writer: Molly Blair

Principle 7 says that publications should not "place any gratuitous emphasis on, among other things, the race, religion, nationality, colour [or] country of origin ... of an individual or group. Nevertheless, where it is relevant and in the public interest, publications may report and express opinions in these areas." Is it possible to report, and properly comment on, the news with such a restriction? Is the public interest exception too wide?

Reporting and commenting on the news is a right and a privilege. In respect of that right journalists have created their own set of moral and ethical values, the cornerstone of which is the attempt to produce fair and objective reporting [1]. In any news report it is vital not to place any undue importance on a particular aspect of a story, therefore representing a biased view to the audience. When covering situations where race, religion, colour, nationality and heritage are major factors the idea of fair, objective reporting is particularly important.

David Flint, former Chairman of the Australian Press Council, stated, "... in the news and current affairs strict objectivity is most important in the presentation of the news, which means no gratuitous references to race" [2]. Not only may placing gratuitous or undue importance on race and ethnicity be harmful to the community, it is simply bad journalistic practice. It is only possible for the media to report and properly comment on the news by restricting itself to being fair and objective; in this case observing the Press Council's Principle 7 which states, "Publications should not place any gratuitous emphasis on the race, religion, nationality, colour, country of origin ... of an individual or group".

The possible restrictions put in place by Principle 7 must be examined with reference to the difference between gratuitous emphasis, what Press Council Public Member Wendy Mead calls "unnecessary significance" [3], and relevant reference on matters of race, religion, nationality, colour (or) country of origin. A Press Council adjudication on an article about an aboriginal housing problem reveals what the Council believes is the difference between gratuitous and relevant emphasis and therefore the extent to its restrictions on reporting and commentary.

Press Council Adjudication No. 257 in September 1985 examined an article in the West Australian which reported on the violent outbursts that had occurred in a State Housing Commission block of flats. The article identified that the tenants who were causing the problems were Aborigines. The complaint stated that this identification was unnecessary and gratuitous. The Press Council disagreed and dismissed the complaint.

The Council did not believe the inclusion of race was unnecessary or gratuitous because the problems in the flats were solely between Aborigines. The Council's position was that the article was "... a genuine reporting of a newsworthy example of problems affecting Aborigines, to an understanding of which the Aboriginality of those involved is relevant." [4] The Council explained their decision by stating,

To emphasise race or religion in connection with unfavourable events to which they are irrelevant creates a misleading impression of a connection between the two and feeds the only too common human weakness to stereotype other groups in a disparaging way. On the other hand a false picture is also given if the press does not report problems that actually exist in relation to particular groups. [5]

Essentially the Council was making the point that racial or religious information should only be included if it is important to the understanding of the story. It is one thing for a journalist to report on the ramifications of an Aboriginal problem in a community, it is another to use racial identifiers in a crime when race is not the central issue to the story. As such, Principle 7 is not a rule that restricts reporting or comment about the news. Instead it reinforces the basic moral principles effective in society and the journalistic ideals of fair, accurate and objective reporting.

The issue of when emphasis is gratuitous or not becomes more complicated when the news is the comments made by someone with racist or other vilifying views. It is easy to justify a comment or report on a problem in a minority community (such as in the West Australian Aboriginal housing story). Defending the inclusion of someone's racist or hateful remarks in a story is not so simple. The words, "Publications should not place any gratuitous emphasis on the race, religion, nationality, colour, country of origin ... of an individual or group" in Principle 7 can be taken as implying that there is a restriction on including racist remarks. However, the modifying statement in Principle 7 which declares, "Nevertheless, where it is relevant and in the public interest, publications may report and express opinions in these areas", allows journalists to report and comment on matters of racism and religious vilification in certain circumstances without fear of Council action.

Public interest is the basis of the publication of many sensitive issues, from information that invades personal privacy, to breaches of confidence, to matters of race, religion, colour and country of origin. In its 1992 submission to a parliamentary committee, the Press Council described public interest as "... being a matter of serious concern or benefit to the public".[6]

Despite defining the term, the Council admits that the public interest is a matter of subjective judgement; what one editor believes is important for the public to know may not be the same as another [7]. Nevertheless, the public interest clause in Principle 7 allows the media to fulfil its position in society as a provider of information [8]. Through the public interest exception the media can publish reports on and comments about situations and points of view that the public will benefit from reading about despite finding them disturbing or difficult to accept.

Using the idea of the public interest, Walkley Award winning journalist Frank Robson was able to defend himself against the accusation that he had breached Principle 7 when he wrote an article for People Magazine in April 1986. The article dealt with the social problems in Cairns at the time. As part of the article, Robson quoted the officer in charge of the Cairns police station, Senior Sergeant Vern Timm. Timm claimed that approximately 90 per cent of robberies and assaults in the Cairns area could be attributed to Aborigines and that welfare payments had caused the increase in crime. Robson also quoted Timm's description of the Aboriginal population as "coons, boongs, black bastards and dingoes" [9].

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities were appalled by Timm's statements. They held demonstrations and called for him to be sacked. The communities also complained to the Press Council about the People article. The Council agreed with the communities that the language used by Timm was denigrating. In fact, it was clear to any reader that Timm placed gratuitous emphasis on the race of the people he believed were behind the crime problem in Cairns. The Council did not, however, believe that the article itself placed undue emphasis on race. Instead the Council found, "... the magazine was justified in publishing it; indeed it did a public service in doing so" [10].

In its adjudication, the Council made it clear that it wished to stop papers from promoting racial prejudice, but not from reporting that it exists. The Council stated that the principles are, "... not intended to prevent papers informing the public of the real situation in the community" [11]. This adjudication clearly demonstrates that while articles about race may engender a negative reaction in the community, Press Council Principle 7 does not stop journalists from properly reporting and commenting about such issues.

However, the public interest defence can be exploited. There is a delicate balance between what the public is interested in and what is imperative for them to know. The public, or the reporter, may be interested in the views of racist people or actions of a racial or religious group in society, but the inclusion of this material may not be in the public interest. In fact including the information may greatly harm the community.

Principle 7 certainly guards against some misuses of the public interest defence by stating that the publisher may not put gratuitous emphasis on matters of race, religion, nationality, colour or country of origin, only that it may report and express opinions in these areas. Despite this, the public interest exception allows publishers to include report after report about one ethnic group's problems; a pattern which can lead to an audience forming a biased view of the group.

The reporting of September 11 and the following strikes against Afghanistan, the Palestinian suicide bombings in Israel, the illegal immigrant situation and the gang rapes in Sydney's west have all contributed to the very negative view of Muslim and Arab groups held by some Australians. Journalism professor Louis W. Hodges has said that journalists "have immense power" [12] to affect the lives of others and like any powerful group, journalists, editors and publishers must take responsibility for their actions [13].

The coverage of the gang rapes in Sydney are a case in point. On the Radio National Media Report on September 27, 2001, reporter Nadya Stani cited the allegations of a revenge rape attack against a young Muslim woman following the media coverage of the gang rape of white women by Arab youths. Other reports of reprisals included a Muslim cleric beaten with a crow bar and a group of young men dragging a Muslim woman out of a shop by her veil [14].

Paula Abood, Australian-Arab writer and activist, says that the media must take the blame for the reprisals against the Muslim community. She says that the media ". . . run with those stories because at the end of the day they want to sell newspapers, and they're the sorts of sensationalist and racist story that I think are very normalised in the Australian media in general" [15]. Ms Abood's views are extreme, but point out the very real belief in the media's power in the community and that it is sales, not the public interest, that is behind the publication of such reports.

Publishers agree with the media's importance in the dissemination of information, but not with the idea that they are solely driven by the dollar. Campbell Reid, editor of the Daily Telegraph at the time of the Sydney sexual assaults, replied to the inference that news papers had vilified the Arab community by saying, "I don't make any apology for our coverage because while indeed the media have a responsibility, my responsibility is not fulfilled by not having the courage to confront an extremely worrying and dangerous phenomenon in our society." [16] Mr Reid agreed that words have power, but that newspapers should not be silenced for fear of harm to a minority of the community. It was his and many other journalists' belief that publishers should be free to express opinion and report on any matters if the public interest will be served in doing so. [17]

It is a truly horrific thought that people will be injured, physically or emotionally, because of what the media publishes or broadcasts; but principles such as the ones laid out by the Australian Press Council should not sacrifice freedom of speech and the importance of getting vital information to the public in favour of protecting the community from possible harms.

There will always be immoral people in positions of power and no set of rules or guidelines will stop them from disseminating harmful views for profit. Despite these people, exemptions like the one in Principle 7, which allows publication of racist material in the public interest, cannot be seen as an open door for them to walk through. After all, the first part of the clause which restricts publications from gratuitous emphasis stops the worst offences from going unpunished. The danger of labelling the public interest clause too wide is that professional associations and legal institutions will begin to create regulations that restrict publication to the point where the notion of freedom of speech is demolished.

Perhaps people in the media should not be focusing on what conditions regulations on race and religion impose upon them, but what they can do to create better race relations in Australia. Many members of ethnic and religious minority groups are calling for more emphasis on positive aspects of their communities, the use of people other than Anglo-Celtics as educated sources in stories and a greater understanding by journalists of different communities and their cultures. [18]

In America this is already happening. The African-American employees at CNN came to the conclusion that every time they aired stories of a negative nature, the generic video used to illustrate the story featured black people. They protested against this practice and management responded by telling the concerned employees to produce an educational video about stereotyping to be shown to all other employees of the network. Management then examined the video footage held in the library. They saw that the overwhelming majority of negative vision was of black people. In the light of this, management ordered new ethnically diverse video to be shot for use in their stories. [19]

CNN accepted that this repetition of negative footage day after day, year after year, was gratuitous and perpetuated stereotypes. Although accompanying footage in stories was in the public interest, management agreed that there was a way to serve the public without harming any particular group in society. [20]

Hopefully, Australia will look closely at regulations like Principle 7 and realise the ethical issues behind them. Then perhaps the Australian media will, like their American counterparts, take the first step in implementing plans that do not restrict their ability to report and comment on issues of race, religion and ethnicity but instead create a environment where these issues are handled with balance and sensitivity.

Principle 7 only restricts the media to reporting and commenting on matters or race, religion, colour and ethnicity responsibly. Gratuitous reference of any part of any story is bad practice, both ethically and from the perspective of producing quality news writing. Instead of restricting journalists' ability to do their job properly, Principle 7 ensures that they do just that. In the same way, the ability to include reports and opinions about difficult and derisive issues through the public interest exception enables the media to continue its role as the provider of information to society. To put further restriction on the reporting of race, religion, colour and ethnicity may stop some unethical media suppliers from vilifying certain groups; but in the long run the harm done by keeping quiet about problems and issues that affect the community is much greater.

Footnotes

1. Hausman, C., Crisis of Conscience. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1992, p. 35  [return to essay]

2. Benson, P., Racial Vilification - Interview with David Flint - former Chairman, Press Council.  [return to essay]

3. Mead, W., Speech to Bond University Journalism Students. April 4 2002.  [return to essay]

4. Australian Press Council. Australian Press Council Adjudication no. 257. September 1985.  [return to essay]

5. ibid.  [return to essay]

6. Hurst, J., White, S., Ethics and the Australian News Media. South Melbourne: Macmillan Education, 1994,p. 16  [return to essay]

7. ibid., p. 15  [return to essay]

8. Belsey, A., Chadwick, R., Ethical Issues in Journalism and the Media. London: Routeledge, 1992, p. 1  [return to essay]

9. Hurst, J., White, S., op cit., p. 74  [return to essay]

10. ibid.  [return to essay]

11. ibid., p. 75  [return to essay]

12. Hausman, C., op. cit., p.43  [return to essay]

13. ibid.  [return to essay]

14. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Transcript: Radio National. The Media Report with Mick O'Regan. 27 September 2001.  [return to essay]

15. ibid.   [return to essay]

16. ibid.   [return to essay]

17. ibid.  [return to essay]

18. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Transcript: Radio National. The Media Report with Mick O'Regan. 26 April 2001.   [return to essay]

19. ibid.  [return to essay]

20. ibid.  [return to essay]

Bibliography

Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Transcript: Radio National. The Media Report with Mick O 'Regan. 27 September 2001. Online: http:/www.abc.net.au/m/talks/8.30/mediarpt/stories/s377056.htm

Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Transcript: Radio National. The Media Report with Mick O'Regan. 26 April 2001. Online: http:/www.abc.net.au/m/talks/8.30/mediarpt/stories/s283343.htm

Australian Press Council. Australian Press Council Adjudication no. 257. September 1985.

Belsey, A., Chadwick, R., Ethical Issues in Journalism and the Media. London: Routeledge, 1992.

Benson, P., Racial Vilification - Interview with David Flint - former Chairman, Australian Press Council. Online: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/media.OLD/1168.html

Hausman, C., Crisis of Conscience. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1992.

Hurst, J., White, S., Ethics and the Australian News Media. South Melbourne: Macmillan Education, 1994.

Mead, W., Speech to Bond University Journalism Students. April 4 2002. (Unpublished)