Adjudication No. 1107 (February 2001)

The Press Council has dismissed a series of complaints made against the Herald Sun, Melbourne, over its extensive coverage of the protests surrounding the World Economic Forum meeting held in the Crown Casino last September.

The complainants, the Geelong Community Forum, Friends of the Earth (Melbourne), Earthworker and the Victorian Council for Civil Liberties, describe the paper's coverage as "unfair, malicious and unethical". The Herald Sun says it stands by its coverage.

Over five days the paper devoted 14 pages to the World Forum and the protests, and it left no doubt as to its attitude to the protesters' actions in its news coverage and in columnist and editorial opinion. Headings included a page 1 banner SHAMEFUL, over pages 2/3 Mob rule causes chaos, a column head Circus rabble no joke; other headlines reported praise for the police and an estimated overall cost of $20 million.

The coverage included many pictures of violence, injured police and protesters, various objects said to have been thrown at the police, and examples of graffiti.

The complainants compared the Herald Sun's coverage with that of other papers and TV reports, and claimed that the other reports contradicted the Herald Sun versions.

The paper says its reporting and attitude were justified; it had six reporters and photographers, claimed to be more than any other organisation, covering the protests and four more reporters inside the Casino complex. It believed it was in a better position than any other news medium to report what went on.

The complainants go into details, with some of the different positions amounting to...

• Prior warnings: The complainants say that reports published by the paper before the WEF meeting predicted that violence would occur and that these reports were part of a campaign against the protesters. Complaints had been made to the paper, they say, and protesters had made it clear that they planned non-violence tactics. The paper says that it would have been derelict in its duty if it had failed to report police fears of violence.
   
• The numbers: The complainants say that most media estimates of the crowd on the first day of protest gave a figure of 10,000. The paper reported at the time "Police estimated the protest crowd at 1500 but S11 organisers reckoned 6000 to 10,000 protesters were present". The paper later claimed to have confirmed a police allegation that the organisers were 'circulating' crowds at some stage to give the impression of greater numbers.
   
• Injuries: The complainants say some of the police injuries were the result of accidental police action. The paper says the reporting was based on information supplied by the police and backed up by the Melbourne Ambulance Service. It describes the 'self-caused' allegation as disingenuous. Additionally, the complainants say that many more protesters than police were injured.
   
• Ambulance keys: The complainants report a complicated explanation for the stealing of ambulance keys, but the paper points out that the explanation does go so far as to say "the paramedic was 'roughed up' in the crush; furthermore someone in the crowd stole the keys of his ambulance".
   
• Premier Court's car: The paper says the then Premier of Western Australian, Richard Court, was held hostage in his car for almost an hour in 'an ugly outbreak of violence' in which his tyres were let down and slashed, slogans painted on the car, and one protester stood on the roof. Pictures supported everything but the slashing. The complainants, on the other hand, talk about Mr Court sitting quietly in his car while baton-wielding police try to clear a path.
   
• Masked men: The complainants see a Herald Sun picture of several young protesters wearing scarves across their faces as "a cunning piece of propaganda". They say TV footage showed hardly anyone wearing scarves or masks, "except for one small isolated team who evidently adopted this dress style to make some sort of political point". The paper says the camera didn't lie.
   
• Police charge: The complainants say the Force Response Group made an unprovoked charge on protesters sitting outside the Casino on the second day of protest, injuring 20. The paper says the police were clearing an escape route for WEF delegates, and the violence began when the protesters threw rocks, ball bearings and urine.

Several other points are made by the complainants, but the pattern is clear, diametrically opposed points of view, making it impossible to say with certainty who did what to whom and who began the violence, whether missiles were thrown or not, whether a bottle contained urine or vinegar.

The complainants also say the paper did not properly report the views of the demonstrators on globalisation; the paper, however, ran a story on the pros and cons of globlisation on 13 September, together with reports of the second day of the protest.

Two points did not produce a reply from the paper. The complainants asserted that it did not report the allegation that several policemen, at least, did not have their identification badges showing as required. If correct, the absence of badges could well have been reported by the paper. The complainants also suggested there was no report in the Herald Sun that one of its own photographers was manhandled by police.

As for the columnist reports in the paper, they were clearly the trenchant views of those columnists on contentious matters, and the writers, as in the editorials run by the paper, made a distinction between the "violent" protesters and the peaceful, mainly union, demonstrators.

The Herald Sun points out that it conducted several phone polls which showed its readership heavily against the protesters, but it also published many letters on the subject, including several critical of the police actions.

The Press Council believes that, although there was clearly a good deal of violence in the protests against the World Economic Forum meeting, it is not clear who began the violence and who did what to whom. The protesters see things one way, and the Herald Sun in another. Given that, the complaints cannot be upheld.

Demonstrations, peacefully intended or not, often lead to disruption and violence. The passion they engender reflect the social, cultural and political attitudes of the beholder. One man's law and order is another man's police brutality; one man's justifiable, peaceful demonstration is another's violent rabble running wild.

return to
Adjudication index

[ return to top ]

Documents with the icon require the Acrobat Reader, a Free Utility from Adobe. Click here for more information.