Children and the Media

The extent to which children are "fair game" for the media is one of the most vexed. Sally Castell-McGregor of the South Australian Children's Interest Bureau looks at where the boundaries should be drawn in this debate.

The inherent dilemmas associated with the public right to know and recognition of individual privacy rights are not new problems for journalists. Ethical questions inevitably arise, particularly where children are concerned because of the difficulty in obtaining informed consent.

The South Australian Children's Interests Bureau is Australia's only statutory children's rights body. It was established in 1983 and the membership reflects a high level of expertise across the professions working with children. Among the Bureau's broad ranging functions, prescribed by legislation, there are two which have immediate relevance to the media:

• to increase public awareness of the rights of children, and of matters relating to the welfare of children; and
• to carry out research or conduct enquiries into matters affecting the welfare of children.

Since its inception the Bureau has consistently expressed concern about the range of circumstances where there is insufficient attention given to the weighing up of competing interests, and as a consequence a child's right to privacy is infringed.

The purpose of this brief article is to draw attention to the complex considerations associated with the reporting of stories involving children. An attempt will also be made to offer suggestions as to how problems might be avoided and the potential for harm minimised.

Reporting of human tragedies

On many occasions the Bureau has challenged the prominent publicity given to children in circumstances of grief and tragedy, for example following the murder of a parent or sibling.

The point is well illustrated by a recent example, which provided the impetus for this article. It concerned the publishing of photographs of two young girls on three consecutive days following the murder of their mother. The Bureau's point was that whilst the tragic murder of the woman was a matter of public interest the identity of her two children was not. They were in no position to assess or predict the effects of such media attention on their daily lives. Attention was drawn to the Code of Ethics of the Australian Journalists Association which makes a clear pledge to respect private grief and personal privacy - a pledge which the public might reasonably hope would be exercised with the utmost care in regard to young grief-stricken children.

It would be simplistic to prescribe exactly how the reporting of tragedies is to be undertaken, but it should be borne in mind that even a favourable outcome such as the eliciting of community support may not justify the means, particularly where there is a likelihood of community scandal.

A much less dramatic approach may accomplish the same end and be less likely to exacerbate trauma for vulnerable children.

Although a story may be considered of human interest, journalistic standards require that questions be asked about how far it is reasonable to go in presenting certain material, and whether the community is able to do anything in response.

One does not have to look too far to find the long term scars of insensitive reporting: children bearing the legacy of being identified, labelled and often judged because of a history of family murder or other crime.

Children as "weapon"

There can be sensationalised stories where children may be used to demonstrate a point or as a "weapon" between aggrieved parties.

There are a multitude of situations in which children become "pawns" in disputes between parents and government departments.

One of the most graphic examples comes from a letter to the Children's Interests Bureau from an aggrieved foster parent who enclosed a press clipping with the bold headline "They won't let me see my son". Alongside was a picture of a smiling mother who in turn was holding a photograph of the child in question. The foster parent asked the Bureau to take up the following: "The right of the media to publish biased, unsubstantiated statements and identify a child causing him unnecessary stress".

Children have the same right to privacy as adults although this right is all too often completely overlooked and they have no say when sensational stories involving their parents are reported. Most notorious are the custody and access disputes where an aggrieved party approaches the press most likely armed with a collection of emotive photographs of their children which they are all too willing to have displayed.

Parents may be prepared to use their child to elicit sympathy or as a weapon against a government department or estranged spouse but the media must be vigilant in avoiding the temptation to be complicit in this form of abuse.

Although it may be claimed that publicity could have the benefit of exposing wrongdoing, careful consideration is needed in weighing up whether any potential benefit is far outweighed by the negative impact upon the child(ren) concerned.

Identification of children who are victims of abuse

The agenda setting role of the media has been apparent during public debate surrounding child abuse. Perhaps the most nationally well recognised example in recent times followed the death of Daniel Valerio in Victoria in September 1990.

Following the Supreme Court trial, the cover of Time magazine on 8 March 1993 carried a poignant photograph of Daniel with a superimposed question which could not be ignored by any thinking citizen - "Did Daniel Have to Die?" The cover story exposed the way in which Daniel's death, as a result of sustained and sadistic child abuse, cast a grim shadow across any notions we might have of collective decency. During and after the trial the same photograph appeared in newspapers and on television on an almost daily basis.

In March 1993 the Victorian Government decided to legislate for mandatory reporting of child abuse. Two points are abundantly clear: the facts of Daniel Valerio's death had long been in the public arena and welfare groups had unsuccessfully lobbied for the adoption of mandatory reporting for some time. It is apparent that the media campaign had a significant influence upon legislators and policy makers.

Obviously a victim of abuse was identified but there was a much broader agenda of advocacy for all abused children and an apparent careful consideration of competing interests. The media in this case performed a valid role as investigator and exposer of government and community shortcomings and the 'greater good' could be recognised in the success of the media in initiating social and legal reform.

This is in sharp contrast to those instances where the media could be accused of exacerbating, however unintentionally, the abuse children have already suffered, by intrusive and insensitive reporting. For example, where children have been victims of abuse or are seriously at risk, there is no evidence that the public interest is served where the child is photographed leaving a committal hearing. The motivation for, and implications of, publishing graphic photographs of a child's injuries must also be challenged. Similarly, one must scrutinise the motives behind television interviews with child sexual abuse victims, particularly noting the varying success of attempts at voice distortion. The sensitive nature of the issues means that in-depth discussion is unlikely and the public right to know and be educated about child abuse is likely to be poorly served.

There is no dispute about those instances where the identification of a child victim is necessary and appropriate, for example in cases of child abduction. The media fulfils a unique and invaluable function in its ability rapidly to disseminate information and marshal community support - an example of the means justifying the hoped-for outcome.

Alternative Approaches

It is impossible to adopt a rigid position about the correct way of handling every instance where children are involved in circumstances which are considered newsworthy. The problems are complex and it is beyond the scope of a brief article to canvass all the issues. However, the following suggestions are offered to prompt further debate and the development of a more coherent approach to the treatment of children by the media.

• Preparedness to call upon and consult with professionals working with children during the preparation of a story where sensitive issues are being covered would go a long way toward ameliorating some of the perennial problems. It does not serve always to promote quick copy but perhaps that is most often just as well in such circumstances.
• The stress for individual professionals might also be reduced by acceptance that reflective practice is not a luxury when there is a risk of substantial harm to other human beings, which persists long after an item ceases being newsworthy.
• Children should at least be given the option of personally consenting to an interview if there is evidence that they are able to understand the implications of what is involved. Inevitably this would put the responsibility fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the individual journalists and their editors.
• The Code of Ethics of the AJA as it presently stands does not offer adequate protection against exploitation of children. There is scope for incorporating the obligations contained in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 16) which requires that children remain free from arbitrary interference with their privacy.
• As far back as 1987 Justice Michael Kirby, President of the New South Wales Court of Appeal, called for a code specifically to deal with matters concerning children. The Bureau considers there is much merit in this proposal and would be willing to assist in the establishment of such a code.
• Consideration should be given to the establishment of a Media/Ethics Committee. Membership could include a lawyer, philosopher or ethicist, a children's rights advocate and media representation.
• The Bureau would welcome the opportunity of a forum to further explore the issues touched upon and the broader questions of children's rights and the media. Participation could be drawn from young people, parents, the media, children's rights groups, relevant professionals and interested members of the public.

There will always be problems in the contest between important values and there are no simple answers. Inevitably each situation will need to be considered according to its variables and merit, but adherence to guiding principles and a willingness to collaborate improves the likelihood of respect for the human rights of children.

During the past decade the media and the Children's Interest Bureau have developed a constructive and reciprocal relationship. The Bureau has received co-operation and support in achieving its objectives and the media has given a public profile to advocacy for children's human rights. When the Bureau is called upon for an expert opinion on a social problem involving children we attempt to respond willingly with credible comment. The Australian Press Council has always been receptive to discussion of matters involving children and is to be commended for furthering debate and understanding by seeking the views of others.

[ return to top ]

Return to APC News 1995 Index

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