Complaints not adjudicated: 2004-2005

In discussing adjudications, the annual report notes that a relatively small percentage of complaints, only 19.9 per cent, progressed through the Complaints Procedure to the adjudication stage in 2004-2005. This figure can be compared with previous years, in a table in the report. Of the remaining complaints, some were refused, some referred to another body and others withdrawn for legal action. Details of the numbers in each category can be found in the statistics. A further 10.8 per cent of complainants did not follow-up a request from the Secretariat for more detail on their complaints. And then there were those complainants who were happy to let their complaint rest after receiving the publication's response to the complaint and those whose complaints were conciliated either by the Council Secretariat or by a Public Member of the Council. 46.4% of all complaints end in this way - to the satisfaction of all parties.

One area where many complainants remain less than chuffed (many are by no means gruntled) is in the area of 'vilification'. Expatriate critic Robert Hughes has spoken of a modern 'culture of complaint' and it sometimes seems to the Press Council office that some citizens are not happy until they have identified the 'vilified' minority to which they belong. The Council recognises that there can be genuine concerns with some areas of reporting, and commentary, on ethnicity, religion or gender, particularly when individuals and groups are singled out unfairly for criticism or, indeed, abuse. The problem emerging is that, with so many claims of unfairness, it is getting harder to discern those where there is a real concern that, for example, a negative stereotype has been reinforced. The Council recognises that, where it is relevant to the story, or in the public interest, publications can allude to questions of race or religion or gender or sexual orientation. Its principles frown on gratuitous emphasis on such characteristics.

The Council categorises such complaints as racial or religious disparagement, or as sexism, or as unfair treatment (in those cases where the vilified group is not ethnic, religious or gender-based). What is remarkable about most of these complainants is that each is convinced that theirs is the only group that is disparaged or discriminated against. Christians are convinced that similarly anti-religious sentiments would not be tolerated if the targets were, say, Jewish or Islamic. Funnily enough, Muslims believe the same; and so do Hindus and Buddhists and Jews. And, occasionally, atheists. Each is convinced that their faith is the only allowable target for attack and the press wouldn't dare say the same thing about some other (named) sect.

Similarly among ethnic groups, there is an analogous belief in the uniqueness of their suffering. Language use can be a particular concern in such cases. If vernacular terms, generally accepted as harmless, are used to describe a group, the Council is asked to compare this treatment with genuinely racist language, or is told that there are some groups about whom belittling remarks cannot be made. You wouldn't think that was the case if you read the letters from the allegedly 'sacrosanct' groups, each of which think that discrimination against them is on the increase.

As can be seen from the adjudications published earlier in this report, only one matter in the reporting year related to racism, sexism or religious disparagement was adjudicated on. And, even there, the newspaper denied that there was any racial overtone to the matter under complaint. The rest of the complaints about religious and racial disparagement, or about sexism, were dealt with like all other complaints. Among the complaints that did not make it to the Council for adjudication during the reporting year, there were a number that dealt with 'vilification' and were either refused, conciliated or subsequently withdrawn by the complainant after the publication had responded to the original complaint. Here are some examples of how the complaints in this area that were not adjudicated were dealt with.

1. A photograph reputedly extolling the virtues of ethnicity in a school was published in a metropolitan daily. The complainant believed that the photographer had obviously put students with an ethnic background to the foreground. He asked whether it would be too pedantic to suggest that the photograph was actually practising discrimination, that it was anti-white. He suggested that all students should have been given equal access to the foreground of the photograph.
   
   The Executive Secretary refused the complaint, ruling that the complainant had not established any case at all that there has been a breach of the Council's principles. The photograph was well within the normal practices of journalism. To suggest that the subjects have been in some ways posed to suggest some particular ethnic mix at the school was drawing a very long bow. He also noted that this was a 'third party' complaint that did not raise significant issues of press ethics.
   
   The Executive Secretary will, as a rule, reject as complaints, matters from disinterested parties -
   
   
   • which raise matters likely to lead to the further invasion of the privacy of those reported on;
      
   • which appear to the Executive Secretary to raise largely trivial or frivolous concerns; or
      
   • which do not raise a significant breach of the principles.
   
    
2. A complainant was appalled by an opinion piece written by a conservative columnist in a metropolitan newspaper. He argued that the column was a blatant attempt to incite racial hatred of Muslims, and that the columnist had hidden behind the anecdotal hearsay of an anonymous source.
   
   In response, the Executive Secretary referred to past adjudications in which the Council had outlined its attitudes to byline opinion columns (including Adjudications Nos. 353, 470, 473, 794 and 1150): the Council believes that such columns should be given a reasonably wide licence to express a point of view; that they are the clear expression of a viewpoint of the individual writing them and are commentary upon the news. The paper in question would have carried many reports on the issues that the columnist discussed, so readers would not have been misled in any way by the column. The Executive Secretary suggested that the complainant submit a letter to the editor for publication.
    
3. Another complainant was concerned about the headline Black kids the losers in funding feud. The headline related to an article about the delay in funding for educational programs for Aboriginal children. The complainant was concerned that use of the word 'black' was offensive and gratuitous, stating that colour was not relevant to the story being reported.
   
   The complainant was advised that the Council has addressed the use of terms like 'blacks' that seem to go in and out of style and are occasionally used by the Indigenous People themselves (in Adjudication Nos. 375 and 1154, among others), and that it is more concerned when a demeaning or stereoptyping epithet is placed next to such a term than with the use of the word, per se. It was also pointed out that use of the word was relevant as the article was about the loss of funding specifically set aside for Aboriginal children. The Executive Secretary doubted that the concern would be seen by the Council as one where condemnation of the newspaper was required.
    
4. A caricature in a gossip column was accompanied by the description of a Hong Kong businessman as a 'Chinaman'. The complainant was gravely offended by the inappropriate choice of word. He explained that, to people of Chinese (or Asian) descent, to be called "e;Chinaman"e; is probably as offensive as calling an African American a 'nigger'.
   
   The paper reiterated its very strong policy against the use of terms that can be deemed derogatory or offensive, and its effort to ensure that such terms do not unwittingly find their way into its paper. It apologised to the complainant for the offence caused. It also promised to continue to try, through the education of its staff, to ensure that such matters do not recur.
   
   This complaint followed an earlier one from the same complainant in which he had expressed concern with the use of the term 'chinaman' to describe a particular type of delivery from a spin bowler in cricket. In that case, whether the term was originally derogatory or not, the reference no longer has any racial overtones and has entered the vernacular.
    
5. The Council is asked perennially to determine whether the use of the term 'Pom' (or one of its alternatives) to describe English (or British) people is offensive. The Council has made a number of findings on the matter. Its view is that the term is not a derogatory racist epithet. The term is one of gentle derision, no more offensive than 'Ocker', 'Yank' or 'Kiwi', similar terms used about groups friendly with Australians. The Council had as a member in the 1990s Sir John Mason, a former British High Commissioner to Australia. He had no problem with the use of the term 'Pom'. Nor did the British High Commission: its media liaison person once described herself in a press release as the 'Pom's mouthpiece'. The heir to the throne is the most recent person prominently quoted in the press using the term in its accepted connotation.

To give some idea of the width and depth of feeling about racial, religious and sexist abuse, in recent times the Council has received complaints about 'vilification' of their group from, among many others:

ethnic groups: Australians of Lebanese, Chinese, British, German, Indian, Polish and Armenian descent, Indigenous Australians, and 'white Australians';

gender-based: straight men, boys, women, gay men and a Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex Anti-Violence Committee; and

religious groups: Roman Catholics, Catholics (not Roman), Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems, Anglicans and atheists.

[ return to top ]

View the details of complaints not adjudicated for each of the following years:

[ return to top ]