Case Studies Series

Case Study 2 (February 1999):
Suburban Terror

The article

[ return to top ]

The Complaint

I would appreciate you treating this letter as a formal complaint against The Chatter newspaper for a gross breach of journalistic ethics fuelling ignorant and prejudiced attitudes toward Aboriginal people.

On 14 March The Chatter newspaper carried a page one lead story with the headline "Aboriginal gangs terrorise suburbs" by Joan Simpson, in bold black type across the page.

The article reported on alleged Aboriginal child and juvenile crime in the Riverside/Marshlands area.

As I stated in a letter to the editor of The Chatter, published on 20 March, I believe the headline and the story was a beat-up which can only have increased racial prejudice and fear in this state.

For instance, at meetings with Aboriginal people in various local communities earlier this month I was informed that this article was used by a local radio talk-back presenter to solicit a flood of misguided and prejudiced calls from listeners. A similar exercise was carried out by a well known city talk-back identity.

The Aboriginal people I spoke to in these towns, as well as in the urban area told me the headline and story were distressing to them and had seriously misinformed the non-Aboriginal community. It was felt that the already negative community attitudes toward Aboriginal people in this state were made worse by the story and the bill-boards advertising it. Can you image the impact of this story on any young Aboriginal person attending school, particularly in the suburbs identified in the story?

On 2 April, I was part of a delegation which met the newspaper's editor, Mr Bruce Adams, to discuss these concerns. Although the meeting was useful and enabled us to voice our complaints, I am not satisfied that it achieved any degree of justice for Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory who were slandered, nor will it ultimately prevent another situation like this in the future.

I believe no reasonable case can be made for justifying a headline of that nature, with its connotations of civil emergency and race riots, on the basis of both the "facts" offered in the accompanying article, and information I have obtained relating to the circumstances of the writing of the article.

The article quotes local hoteliers claims that "the area has been targeted by about 30 Aborigines". This figure alone, if it is accurate, and pertaining to one suburb, can hardly substantiate the headline, particularly as most of the allegations concerned children "under the age of ten". I understand that a Channel 6 TV news reporter who covered the story the previous evening (13 March) has said privately that the issue involved "6 to 8 or a dozen young Aborigines shoplifting", and could even identify a block of flats in nearby Whitewoods where the majority of these troublesome juveniles and youth are said to live. There is no evidence in the page one article of any views or comment by Aboriginal people. Surely the views of police and hotel licensees and staff are not the only ones available. It is outrageous that such sweeping claims can be made without any reference to any Aboriginal comment or view point.

• In relation to principle No. 1, The Chatter did not present readers with "news and comment honestly and fairly". The headline "Aboriginal gangs terrorise suburbs" is not honest. All the comments and view-points canvassed in the article are not fair. All the comments and view-points quoted came from the police and hotel personnel, no Aboriginal views or comments appeared. That so sweeping and dramatic a statement can be made, casting a shadow over the entire Aboriginal community, without a single reference to Aboriginal views or information on the issue demonstrates institutionalised racism.
  
  
• In relation to principle No. 2, The Chatter failed to "take reasonable steps to ensure the truth of its statements", that is, the headline "Aboriginal gangs terrorise suburbs" is not true.
  
  /li>
• In relation to principle No. 5, The Chatter did not "treat its readers fairly" by " not distorting the facts in texts or headlines" . Also, by neglecting to obtain the comments of Aboriginal people on the issue the newspaper is guilty of "misrepresenting or suppressing relevant facts" that may have emerged.
  
  
• In relation to principle No. 6, the newspaper's bill boards and posters "Aboriginal gangs terrorise suburbs" did indeed "mislead the public".
  
  
• In relation to principle. No. 8, the headline and the prominence given to the story places gratuitous emphasis on race because it associates the Aboriginal people with the terrorising of suburbs. The headline, consciously and in a racially emotive way, plays on European fears and stereotypes of uncontrollable and vengeful 'natives'.
  
  
• In relation to principle No. 9, the newspaper has of course "stated the race of persons suspected of a crime". The question of whether the 'fact (of race) is relevant' to the story is problematic because the headline and entire article are structured around the idea of Aboriginal crime and delinquency in the first place.

[ return to top ]

Attachments to the Complaint

The complainant attached copies of the following material, all appearing in the 14 March issue of The Chatter in support of the complaint:

• page one 'Aboriginal gangs terrorise suburbs' article;
  
  
• page two articles headlined 'Officers sent to assess problem' and 'woman, 19, scarred by gang attack';
  
  
• an allegedly cynical and racially derogatory cartoon.

Additionally, attached was a copy of the complainant's letter, published on 20 March, which reads:

Your front-page headline 'Aboriginal gangs terrorise suburbs' (14/3) was a malicious beat-up that can only have further contributed to the fear and racial prejudice that is already rife in the state.

On the basis of what amounts to juvenile shoplifting, petty vandalism and assaults of the kind typical to any big city nowadays (and not restricted to any ethnic group) you constructed an image of civil emergency, or putting it crudely, of hordes of Aborigines laying siege to comfortable white Anglo-Saxon suburbia.

After making inquiries this week I am satisfied that in fact only small numbers of children, youth and adults are involved in the alleged incidents that you used to support the headline and lead story.

I do not wish to diminish the seriousness of the specific problems of Aboriginal families and youth, which are complex and rooted in the devastating effects of colonisation - the real crime at issue here.

However, the media (and everyone else) must treat these problems in their proper social and historical context, not merely as 'crime', which can only provoke simplistic calls for more 'law and order', a euphemism for the violent dispossession and incarceration of Aboriginal people in the state since white invasion.

There are many Aboriginal people currently trying to address the issues underlying the crisis of Aboriginal life in the city and some journalists are supporting this with thoughtful reporting.

Your page one scare-mongering is totally destructive.

[ return to top ]

Editor's reply

The Chatter makes the following response to the complaint.

• In relation to principle No. 1, the Macquarie dictionary defines a 'gang' as a group of people, often violent or criminal, associated for a particular purpose. It was in this context that the word was properly used in the headline.
  
  The report quotes people with first hand knowledge as saying that about thirty Aborigines had been causing problems in the Riverside/Marshlands area. The matter had become serious enough that local hoteliers had had a meeting with police and local government authorities that week to discuss it. A chief superintendent of police was quoted as saying specifically that the Aboriginal group was causing problems.
  
  The Aboriginal view which may have been pertinent to the report would have been of one of the youths involved in the gangs. The reporter failed to find such a person who could have explained why he was in a gang comprised only of Aboriginal people and why they carried out the attacks.
  
  The complainant accuses the headline of being a 'sweeping and dramatic' statement. Front page headlines are often made of such stuff.
  
  
• In relation to principle No. 2, the newspaper clearly spoke to a wide range of people about the incidents. The complainant offers no information to the contrary. Apart from our belief in the truth of the report and the heading, we lived up to our obligations under this principle.
  
  
• In relation to principle No. 5, the complainant makes no case for any distortion. In relation to suppression, while I believe that many of the matters he raises are relevant to the underlying issues, they are not relevant to what was essentially a crime report that day. If this was the case, every report of a murder would require an examination of the culprit's socio-economic background, his psychological state at the time of the offence and details of any trauma suffered during his childhood. There is no evidence tendered by the complainant that any relevant facts were misrepresented or suppressed, as opposed to just not being published.
  
  
• In relation to principle No. 6, our arguments here are the same as against the allegations under principle 1. The poster did not mislead. There is clear evidence in the story that gangs of Aborigines were engaging in behaviour that some victims in several suburbs said had the effect of terrorising them and others.
  
  
• In relation to principle No. 8, the Aboriginality of these gangs was an issue in the context of the coverage which had been given to Aboriginal juvenile crime that week. Why would the Government have a special task force examining Aboriginal juvenile crime if Aboriginality was not an issue?
  
  It is the newspaper's view that Aboriginality is often an issue in these matters and it has to be judged on a case-by-case basis. It is our contention that it does not help Aboriginal people or the wider community to sweep the matter under the carpet by making it anonymous. Successive governments have done that to the detriment of Aboriginal people.
  
  The complainant's stereotype of 'vengeful natives' is his own and is totally alien to me so it is not possible for me to answer such a peculiar perspective.
  
  
• In relation to principle No. 9, we believe that Aboriginality is a relevant issue in the matter of young Aboriginal gangs. That the matter is not fully examined in every report on an Aboriginal gang is understandable. The question of the deprived circumstances in which many of these juveniles live, the truancy which often leads to them coming together as gangs and their anti-social behaviour is clearly related to their Aboriginality and often to their feelings about white society. No amount of social engineering will remove ethnicity as a social issue.

[ return to top ]

• In relation to principle No. 1, Aboriginal people, by their colour, their minority status, and sometimes by their lifestyle, are noticeable in predominantly 'white' suburbs. The heading 'Aboriginal gangs terrorise suburbs' did not identify specific persons or specific suburbs. The invitation was for readers to regard any Aboriginal person as a possible member of a 'gang' that was set on 'terrorising' them.
  
  The article quotes only two people - a hotelier and a policeman. The others 'quoted' are nameless and thus their 'quotes' are of dubious authenticity. To attack, by inference, the integrity of all the members of a minority race and not to give them the opportunity of responding or defending themselves, is hardly fair. I repeat my charge that the effect of the heading is dishonest, deceitful and irresponsible.
  
  
• In relation principle No. 2, the newspaper names only two people that it spoke to about the incidents mentioned in the front page report. Two people is hardly 'a wide range'. His suggestion that because I offer no information to the contrary the story must be authentic is extraordinary.
  
  
• In relation to principle No. 5, the editor states that I offer no evidence that relevant facts were misrepresented or suppressed. Were not the names of the 'spokespersons' relevant? Were not the views of Aboriginal people relevant?
  
  
• In relation to Principle No. 6, by his own admission some 'victims' in a couple of suburbs said they felt terrorised. The poster gives the impression that many 'victims' in many suburbs are living in terror. It is misleading.
  
  
• In relation to principle No. 8, the editor appears quite willing to abrogate a newspaper's duty to report honestly and fairly. He appears just as willing to highlight Aboriginality simply because of the sensational impact this description has on the reporting of alleged criminal activity.
  
  Is he seriously suggesting that it benefits Aborigines to make broad claims that Aboriginal gangs are terrorising suburbs?
  
  
• In relation to principle No. 9, he is correct. Irresponsible coverage of Aboriginal affairs by 'white society' newspapers play a major role in reinforcing those feelings. Aboriginal youngsters, particularly those from the suburbs mentioned in The Chatter on 14 March, have had their distrust strengthened and their hurt deepened by that report.

[ return to top ]

Questions to consider

Note that aspects of this complaint are based on the earlier pinciples of the Council which made it unethical to mention the race or nationality of those involved in criminal proceedings unless such facts were relevant.

The main complaint is that the article is a "beat up". To what extent does the newspaper exaggerate the incidents? To what extent does it rely on the sources for its story? Do those sources provide a balanced approach to the subject or are they drawn from only one perspective?

The newspaper apparently provides some balance in the provision of a published letter from the complainant and in other stories in the same issue of the newspaper. It also arranged a meeting between the complainant and the editor. To what extent do these actions mitigate any damage arising from the main article? Should the balance have been provided in the original article?

As the journalist said she could not find the "gang" members, should she have taken steps to ensure that an alternate perspective was represented in the story? What steps?

In the light of the damage that can be done to groups by persistent reference to them in connection with crime and violence, and the Council's view that, unless relevant, the race or nationality of an accused should not be used, was the newspaper reckless in its identification of the "gangs" as aboriginal?

Was the newspaper misleading in its approach as a result of any exaggerations in the article?

Do newspapers carry any special responsibility towards minority groups which have been the subject of discrimination or prejudice that means that they should "bend over backwards" to ensure that no further harm is done to such groups in a newspaper's reporting?

[ return to top ]