Offensive words

JACK R HERMAN, the Council's Executive Secretary, discusses some of the Council's rulings on complaints about offensive language in the press.

Stick and stones may break my bones
But names will never hurt me.

This childhood refrain seems no longer to reflect reality, if complaints to the Press Council are any indication. There is hardly an identifiable group that does not appear to believe that terminology used about them contributes to vilification or discrimination or places them in a pejorative light. Amazingly most complainants are convinced that their group, organisation or ethnicity is the only one so treated and that 'the media' would not dare to do the same to any other group.

The Press Council is consistently asked to rule on language usage and to issue prescriptive and enforceable guidelines which would have the effect of restricting the press' ability to report or seek to have them couch those reports in 'acceptable' language. While upholding the occasional complaint about language use in extreme circumstances, and issuing the odd advisory on the need to be careful in the choice of words in particular cases, the Council has studiously avoided instructing the press what terms are acceptable and what terms are not. It is wary of what has been termed 'political correctness', and also wary of making news reporting bland and dull, by limiting language options.

Additionally, the Council has been loath to issue prescriptive guidelines, because it sees English as a living and evolving language and that it is not always easy to pinpoint which aspects of language are offensive. Meanings, shades of meaning and connotations change over time and the Council is reluctant to prescribe words, particularly when this year's euphemism becomes next year's offensive term.

In 1985 it confronted such a question when an evening newspaper used the epithet "illegal" to describe marriage ceremonies between gay men. In adjudicating the matter the Council stated

[T]he Press Council is not concerned to enforce niceties of English usage, but with the substantial question whether readers are likely to have been misled. Given the ambiguities of the term "illegal" in popular speech, and the whole context of the article, the Council does not think that most readers would have been misled in this case, although some might have been left in doubt about the state of the law. [Adjudication No. 271]

It went further a couple of years later when confronted with a complaint about the use of the term "manning levels" to mean staffing levels, the complainant arguing that such non-inclusive language was discriminatory. Using the Council principle on offensiveness that existed at the time (it has since been amended and the revised Principle 6 is discussed below), the Council argued

The Council has stated previously (No. 271 of February 1985) that it does not assume the role of arbitrator in newspapers' use of English. It cannot, therefore, grant imprimatur to guidelines issued by groups within the community concerning sexist language, nor would it be appropriate to issue its own guidelines. The role of the Council is to determine whether the words used ... were irresponsible and in breach of its principles. The Council's principles include consideration of language which disparages or belittles women, but in this instance the Council does not consider that [the] use of these words had such an effect. It rejects the complainant's claim that they constitute a lapse of taste so gross as to bring the freedom of the press into disrepute, and dismisses the complaint. [Adjudication No. 335]

More recently the Council has further clarified why it is reluctant to be definitive about language use and the extent to which newspapers and complainants have to recognise the changing nature of the language. The ruling arose from a second complaint within a short time from a mental illness advocacy group concerned with the use of the term 'psycho' in newspaper and magazine reports. The Council said, on this occasion,

The Press Council recognises that some readers would regard the use of the word "psycho" as contributing to a damaging stereotype of people with a mental illness. However, it is not for the Press Council to judge newspapers' language in circumstances where the use of a word remains controversial in the community generally. ...

The Press Council regularly encourages complainants to write letters to the editor when they want to take issue with published material. In this case, the [complainant] followed this practice promptly, but to no avail.

It is by encouraging debate on the changing use and meanings of words that the appropriateness of terms such as "psycho" will be decided over time. [Adjudication No. 1047]

In other recent adjudications, the Council has stressed the difficulties in defining out of existence terms which some complainants would like to see censored. In 1999, The Courier-Mail, Brisbane, used the word 'infamous' to describe politician Pauline Hanson in its first edition; replacing it with 'controversial' in subsequent editions because it considered the original word 'was not appropriate'. Nonetheless a third party complained about the use of infamous in this context. The Council, in its adjudication said:

[T]he word 'infamous' now has various shades of meaning and, as a result, its use in the article does not warrant an adverse finding. [Adjudication No. 1021]

An article about the temporary release program at a high security unit which houses individuals whose mental illness precluded them standing trial for various serious crimes brought a further complaint from advocates for the mentally ill. In this case it was argued that the people referred to are "patients", not "inmates" or "prisoners", the terminology used by the newspaper. This was one aspect of a wider
laint. The complainant alleged that the language used in the article helped to instil fear and loathing of people with mental illness - in particular those diagnosed with schizophrenia - and caused great distress to some of the families. In its finding, the Council said:

The Council does not consider that prescriptive directions on language would be helpful nor that the newspaper's use of language created a "pejorative" tone. [Adjudication No. 1219]

Sometimes individuals are concerned with terms used about themselves. Peter Foster was convinced that the term "fraudster" was an inappropriate description of him. In support of his complaint Mr Foster, like many other complainants, relied on a dictionary definition to say the wrong term was used. He also provided details of his convictions dating back to 1982, which resulted in four separate periods of imprisonment and a substantial fine.

The Council concluded:

Mr Foster has obtained international recognition for this series of offences, most of which involve false claims.

While none of Mr Foster's convictions are explicitly for "fraud", the Council believes that the word "fraudster" has been used by the newspaper in an accurate, collective sense. Accordingly the complaint is dismissed. [Adjudication No. 1223]

Principles and Guidelines

The Council's principles which govern the question of language usage include Principle 6 which deals with potentially offensive material. In discussing offensive material the Council previously spoke of questions of 'taste' and was concerned, as noted above, with lapses of taste likely to bring the press into disrepute. In 2003, it changed its Principle 6 to read:

Publications have a wide discretion in publishing material, but they should have regard for the sensibilities of their readers, particularly when the material, such as photographs, could reasonably be expected to cause offence. Public interest should be the criterion and, on occasion, explained editorially.

Other applicable ethical standards include Principle 7 which seeks that publications avoid gratuitous emphasis on a number of matters including race, religion and ethnicity and Principle 8 which mandates that those singled out for criticism should have an opportunity to respond.

The Council has seen fit to issue guidelines on some aspects of language use in more recent times. These guidelines are, in essence, amplifications on particular issues arising from the Statement of Principles. The guidelines apply the Principles to the practice of reporting and are intended to guide the press on how it should report certain matters. These guidelines are not intended to be prescriptive instructions to the press but act as a series of advisories on the application of the Principles which the Council seeks the co-operation of editors in maintaining. One guideline is of a very general nature and two are warnings which do not restrict the press' ability to report but which urge restraint.

Guideline 248 which discusses the issues related to the reporting of 'race' and ethnicity makes clear that the Council's principal concern is with material that reinforces stereotypes and not so much with slang terminology as such:

In the broadest terms, the Council has found that the tone and context of such reporting are usually the crucial elements in deciding whether its principles have been breached. ...

The Council is principally concerned about references to race, colour, ethnicity or nationality which promote negative stereotypes in the community. It acknowledges that the question of stereotypes is not cut and dried, and much depends on the context.

The Council in principle condemns gratuitous use of offensive slang terms for minority groups. However, if someone controversially used such expressions, a publication may well be justified in reporting them in direct quotes. The Council also generally believes that the use of such terms is permissible in opinion articles, when it is to make a serious point, and sometimes in humorous articles and satire. But here again the boundaries are usually determined by tone and context. [Guideline 248]

The particular question of putatively offensive (or 'racist') slang terms will be dealt with in more detail below.

In 2004, the Council issued two guidelines on particular aspects of language use. Each arose from complaints about particular articles which had been referred to the Council for adjudication. The first followed reports of terrorist activities where two separate headlines used the names of a particular religion, with an implication that the group as a whole had been responsible for the actions. The Council upheld one of the complaints (where the religious term was unmodified) and dismissed a second (Adjudication No. 1236). In addition it urged newspapers

... to be careful about using in their headlines terms for religious or ethnic groups that could imply that the group as a whole was responsible for the actions of a minority among that group.

Currently, the use of the words "Islam", "Islamic" and "Muslim" in headlines on reports of terrorist attacks is causing problems both for the Muslim community in Australia and the Australian media. It is important for newspapers to identify as clearly as possible the sources of terror; casting the net of suspicion and accusation too widely can be harmful.

The Council is also aware of instances beyond the Australian Muslim community, and the current concern with terrorism, where the use of overly general terms has caused concern for the Indigenous people and the Australian Jewish community, among many others.

The Press Council acknowledges that, in some cases, the linking of words with religious connotations to terrorist groups may be, in the strictest sense, accurate - but it is often unfair. Terrorists may be Muslims, but Muslims are not necessarily terrorists, as some headlines have implied.

The Press Council urges publications to be aware of the sensitivities of groups about whom they are reporting. Headlines are a particular problem, given the need to capture the essence of a story within a limited compass, and require particular care.

In a September 2001 press release, the Council expressed its concern "about references to race, colour, ethnicity or nationality which promote negative stereotypes in the community". Similarly, the Council considers that the use of wide, too-general terms for religious or ethnic groups in headlines could contribute to the promotion of a negative stereotype of that group.

Even, the use of headlines of the style "Muslim terror" and "Islamic bomb attack" would be best avoided as they can be seen to link religious belief and its adherents to deliberate acts of terror. [Guideline No. 261]

The Press Council received a large number of complaints about the terminology that is applied, and ought to be applied, to those arriving in Australia who do not have normal immigrant credentials. These arose from a small number of articles but a campaign co-ordinated through a pro-refugee website ensured that many complaints were received about each instance. The complainants were particularly concerned with references to such arrivals as "illegal immigrants", or even "illegals". Following the issuing of Adjudication No. 1242, which upheld a complaint about a particular instance of the use of "illegal immigrants", the Council issued further guidance to the press.

The problem with the use of terms such as "illegal refugee" and "illegal asylum seeker" is that they are often inaccurate and may be derogatory.

The Council cautions the press to be careful in the use of such unqualified terms in reports and headlines. [Guideline No. 262]

Offensive slang

According to a complainant, an edition of the Oxford dictionary describes the term 'pom' as 'derogatory' and a coming edition of the Macquarie Dictionary will describe it as 'sometimes derogatory'. Whether it is or is not derogatory, racist or offensive, the use in publications of the word 'pom' (or 'pommy') gives rise to more complaints to the Press Council than any other term. Over the years, the Council has issued four adjudications which dealt with its usage, the first in February 1983, arising from the use of the term to describe an English cricket team. Then the Council said:

The Press Council finds difficulty in seeing the terms "Pom" and "Pommie" in reports about a cricket series as racist, derogatory and generally degrading. [Adjudication No. 153]

Subsequently it has found that the use of 'pom' in a humour column was not a breach of the principles because "the article relied on hyperbole for its effect, rather than malice [Adjudication No. 585]; that a reference to "pommy poofters" in another opinion column (about a series of feuds) "would be offensive to some people but [was] unable to find that the fact that an obviously irreverent column is offensive to some is in itself a breach of the Council's principles governing honest, fair and decent press behaviour and publication" [Adjudication No. 735]; and recently ruled headline and sub-heading: Filthy Poms - Mayor blames tourists for Bondi rubbish "was plainly going to be offensive to many readers, was exaggerated and ill-advised and brought no credit to the paper" but was not a breach of the principles[Adjudication No. 1111].

Despite the number of times that the Council has asserted its view that the use of the term 'pom' is no more offensive than other slang terms like 'yank' or 'ocker', and despite even its jocular use by the British High Commission in Australia, the appearance of 'pom' or 'pommy' in the press, with or without an epithet, and whatever the context, will bring a complaint about its use. In the Council's view, unless the complainant can demonstrate that the use is gratuitous (as required under Principle 7) or used, in the context, to promote a negative stereotype in the community, the complaint should be refused.

Other slang terms for groups have also attracted complaints, many of which have been settled amicably. Given its gentility, it is ironic that writing about cricket has given rise to a number of these. In addition to the 'pom' complaint from 1983, the Council secretariat has recently dealt with concerns (and settled) that the use of 'Vindaloos' to describe the Indian cricket team was racist and offensive (the columnist has desisted from the use of the term subsequent to the settlement of the complaint); that the term 'chinaman' to describe a left-hander's leg-break was racist (refused because it is not a reference to any group); and that 'to swing Irish' to mean a ball which apparently swings the wrong way was vilification (the matter was not pursued).

The Council has also dealt with complaints about the use of, among other terms used by the print media, "jaapie" (for South African), "chinaman" (as the description of an individual, rather than a cricket delivery), "gypsy" or "gypsy conman" (for a person of Romany descent), "Asian gangs" (to describe groups in Perth), "mafia" (to describe criminal activities of Italian-Australians), and "blacks" (as a descriptor of Indigenous Australians). In each case, the complainant asserted that no other group would be treated this way. In some cases, the Council concluded, as it has in the case of 'pom', that the connotation of the term in its contemporary usage is clear. In others, it has found, as it did with 'psycho' as noted above, that the debate is an on-going one.

On the question of 'blacks', for instance, it said in 1988

However, many Aborigines have, at times, referred to themselves as being black and the use of the term by a newspaper to describe Aborigines is understandable. The term "Black" to describe Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders has been used by the National Aboriginal Conference and other Aboriginal organisations.

The complaint is dismissed; however, the Press Council has discussed this issue on a number of previous occasions and reiterates its view that care is needed in the use of the word "Black" to avoid any racist connotation. [Adjudication No. 375]

In 2002, the Council reiterated the importance of context. When The Australian used the headline Scheming blacks behind fires: farmers over a story about bushfires in the Northern Territory, complainants made the point that terms like "scheming blacks" discriminate and dehumanise Aboriginal people and such "language contributes to the continuation of racism". The Council found against the newspaper, arguing that this was a case where a negative stereotype was reinforced:

In the context of this case, the phrase "scheming blacks" was not only insensitive but perpetuated the racist notions of "them" against "us". [Adjudication No. 1154]

The question of whether the use of the term 'gypsy' to describe a gang of confidence tricksters constituted an unnecessary emphasis on ethnic or national origins was before the Council. In the article, there were nine references to "gypsy" or "gypsies" in the headline and the body of the story which detailed numerous repair work and cheque scams, mainly against the aged, by a group identified as "con-artist English gypsies". One question was whether the term was used as an identifier of an ethnic group or in its metaphoric sense. Another was whether the constant repetition of the descriptor amounted to a gratuitous emphasis on ethnicity. In the end, the Council was again concerned with the context:

In the context of the obvious public interest in the operations of the gang, the newspaper was justified in providing the essential descriptions needed for potential victims to identify the scamsters. Failure to do so could well have been a breach of a newspaper's duty to inform readers properly and accurately about matters of public interest. [Adjudication No. 1152]

When confronted with the use of the term 'mafia' in the context of a series of articles about crime and killings within the Italian-Australian community, the Council has been more definitive on the current connotation of the term. A report headed Mafia link in execution of Melbourne fruiterer described the death as an 'execution-style murder'. The Italian Australian Foundation complains about what it describes as a slander on the Italo-Australian community. The Council ruled:

However, it remains true that a small minority of that community has been found to operate in what can reasonably be called mafia-style.

Further, the use of the term 'mafia' no longer implies only an Italian fringe group; the US has to deal with a largely indigenous mafia, and today Russia and the broken-up republics of the old USSR commonly use the term 'mafia' to describe their criminal elements. It has become a generic term. [Adjudication No. 1065]

By and large, the Council has not had to deal with the more offensive slang terms used to describe groups, whether they are ethnic, ethno-religious, or religious groups, because the press rarely if ever uses such offensive terms. A rare exception in a humour column in a country newspaper, the Kilmore Free Press, over its use of words "boong" and "poofter," brought an immediate condemnation:

The use of the words "boong" and "poofter" as essentially derogatory terms is widespread in Australian society, but the words are deeply offensive to the groups concerned and are generally avoided in newspaper, even in idiosyncratic columns of the Dingo Dan type. [Adjudication No. 540]

But the Council has not used such rare exceptions to issue prescriptive guidelines to newspapers on what terms they should or should not use. The Australian press has generally shown itself to be responsible in this area and, while that continues, the Council sees no need to publish an Index of 'wrong' words.

Jack R Herman

see also
Press Council rulings on offensive images
February 2002 News article on using euphemisms in media reports

Return to APC News 2005 Index

[ return to top ]

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