The Press and the Reconciliation Process

In June, the Press Council held its monthly meeting in Cairns, its first visit to North Queensland. While there it convened a Public Forum to discuss the press' coverage of the Reconciliation Process. Jack Herman reports on the meeting.

Speakers at the Press Council Public Forum in Cairns called on the media to leave behind the emotive issues that arise from the debate on the reconciliation process and play a positive role in encouraging the process.

The forum, organised in conjunction with James Cook University, brought together representatives of the Land Rights movement, politicians and the press to discuss the role the press should play in the reconciliation process between Indigenous and other Australians. Before an audience of over 100 on the university's Cairns campus, David Byrne, Policy Director of the Cape York Land Council, David Solomon, contributing editor of the Courier-Mail, and Myles Thompson, a local solicitor and former Liberal Party candidate, spoke. Each looked at aspects of the press' handling of the process.

The meeting was chaired by Dorothy Ross, Vice Chairman of the Press Council who was attending her last meeting of the Council. It was opened by Prof Philip Courtenay, the Rector of the Cairns campus, who welcomed the Press Council to Cairns. Prof David Flint, Chairman of the Australian Press Council, introduced the subject, referring in part to Sir William Wellington Cairns, after whom the city was named. His career and attitudes had resonance in the material to be discussed at the forum, said Prof Flint.

Land Rights Movement

David Byrne, who had been a Liberal Party Member of the Queensland parliament before becoming involved in the land rights' movement, placed his analysis of the current situation in Australia against an historical background. He referred to the early colonists' inability to appreciate the effect of captivity on Bennelong, the "first notable Aboriginal". His obituary in the 1813 Sydney Gazette deplored his failure to appreciate the "gifts" given to him by Europeans.

Mr Byrne noted that the "one nation" idea assumes that "we are one people ... but we are not. ... We are many peoples ... and within that many peoples we are two peoples": descendants of the original inhabitants (who know their story and their history) and people who have come here and their descendants.

He pointed out that we all know what reconciliation is from our own experience - "we know when we are reconciled after a quarrel". In broad social terms, he said, the 1967 referendum which included Aboriginal Australians fully in our citizenship was the basis for reconciliation but there was now a different question: we have two peoples, two histories, two cultures and two laws and it is the reconciling of those dualities which will lead to completion of the reconciliation process.

Mr Byrne said that the real question facing the community - the question on which the press had to give a lead - was whether the people of Australia were prepared to accept that Indigenous Australians could be both Australians and Aboriginal Australians.

"That they can be both and that they are allowed to exercise all their rights as recognised by the law: their right to have their own language, operate their own values and exercise their native title rights."

He noted that the reconciliation process started in 1990-91, before Mabo, before the Native Title Act and before Wik. Another challenge for the press was accurately to present the issues of the debate without letting the emotive issues being brought into the question, obscure the issues.

The press, he noted, was "a very powerful non-indigenous institution that has been a powerful influence throughout the occupation. It came with the Europeans." There were negative forces within the press that did not assist the reconciliation process, citing columnist Lawrie Kavanaugh ("Please tell me when the reconciliation process is over so that I can stop feeling guilty about not feeling guilty") and the editorial policy of regional papers like the Cairns Post (which, he asserted, has 10 negative editorials on Aboriginal matters for every positive one). Despite these negatives, Mr Byrne saw the press as a major positive contributor to the commencement and carriage of the reconciliation process and called on the press to continue to act as a supporter of the process.

Newspaper View

David Solomon noted that not all stories got into print. Good reporting, he said, informed the public and an informed public is less easily manipulated.

He cited two university studies of the press' coverage of Indigenous and ethnic matters.

The first compared television coverage of a series of protests by the Brisbane Indigenous community in 1996 with coverage of the same issues in the Courier-Mail. The conclusion was that the television coverage was sensational and superficial, with stereotyping of people and issues, negative emphases, particularly on the "violence" of the protests (some of which was provoked by news crews themselves) and a lack of a context for understanding the protests and the issues being dealt with. The report noted that negative stories were placed earlier in the bulletin and were presented at greater length, that the images presented were selective, concentrating on confrontation, aggression and anger. The report also noted consistent inaccuracy in the presentation of material.

On the other hand, the report noted that the newspaper's coverage attempted to avoid stereotypes, involved a specialist report familiar with the issues, featured interviews with the leaders of the Indigenous people and provided a thorough background to the stories of the protest. While it featured confrontation as a major news value, the series of stories in the Courier-Mail enabled a more in-depth view of the events and placed them in a context in which they could be understood. The newspaper also featured longer, background articles which helped flesh out the context.

The second study compared the coverage of Aboriginal and ethnic matters in the Courier-Mail and the Cairns Post over a twenty year period. While the report noted that there was evidence of racist and discriminatory content, it was difficult to label the newspapers as racist. The race relations debate was reflected in the two newspapers over the 20 years. There was no evidence that the newspapers sought to lead the debate in any direction. While there was some perpetuation of stereotypes and too few community opinion leaders were used as sources, the report suggested that the newspapers had handled the debate reasonably.

On the other hand it noted that focus groups of ethnic and Indigenous people had a hostile reaction to the press, believing that negative stories were featured earlier and in more detail than positive ones. Focus groups of editors and reporters denied that there was any slanted reporting but noted a lack of information from the communities.

Mr Solomon concluded by noting that it was in the interest of both parties to co-operate to ensure that a balanced and credible presentation of the reconciliation issues was presented. He called on Indigenous leaders to be more co-operative with the press and to respond more quickly to requests for articles presenting their point of view, noting that of late such co-operation seemed to be improving. He suggested that the employment of specialised, educated reporters would be of distinct advantage and that the press needed more fully to appreciate and present the disadvantage which Aboriginal Australians suffered from.

Politician

Senator Bill O'Chee was to be the third speaker but he was delayed in Canberra by developing political matters and transport problems. He was therefore not able to reach Cairns until the meeting had finished. Myles Thompson stepped in at the last moment to present a third view. He noted that he had not had much time to develop his thoughts but presented a few ideas that had occurred to him.

The role of the press needs to be looked at, he suggested. In some quarters the accusation is made that it does not distinguish between comment and reporting. He also thought that, because the press was driven by circulation, there was a tendency to beat-up and sensationalise stories. He saw the Hanson debate as "manna for unethical editors" and blamed the media for fostering emotive terms such as "black armband history" and "stolen generation". The use of such emotive terms is aimed at selling newspapers, he argued, and diverts attention from the real issues, reconciliation and the reconciliation process.

He noted the Prime Minister's speech at the recent reconciliation conference and the three objectives John Howard had enunciated: a shared commitment to better opportunities leading to equality of opportunity; acknowledgment of the inter-related histories of the elements of Australian society; and the mutual acceptance of working together to respect and appreciate differences and ensure a shared future. But reporting of those three objectives had been minimal, Mr Thompson said. Instead the press focussed on emotive words and beat-ups.

The role of the press, in his opinion, lies in meeting the challenges of reconciliation and forwarding the debate, not in distractions. In his view, the method of reporting Pauline Hanson's remarks pushed them further than they should go.

In essence, Mr Thompson concluded, the press needed to give "us a fair go in the whole debate so that we can go forward and have proper reconciliation. ... I call on the media to lose the mindset of sensationalism and secular and political bias and give us all a fair go."

Questions

There was a long and reasonably intense question time in which questions prepared for Sen. O'Chee were directed at other participants.

A transcript of the meeting will be prepared and published as a part of the Press Council's Conference Papers series and available for sale from the Press Council office.

Jack Herman

[ return to top ]

Return to APC News 1997 Index

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