Adjudication No. 262 (November 1985) [1985] APC 54

ADJUDICATION No. 262 (November 1985)

The Press Council has received four complaints relating to the reporting of a demonstration at Queensland University on May 10, 1985. On that evening a graduation ceremony was to be held, at which it was intended to confer the honorary degree of Doctor of Laws on the Premier, Sir Job Bjelke-Petersen.

The decision of the University Senate to award the degree to the Premier had aroused great controversy within the University, many staff and students being strongly opposed to the decision. This opposition was widely expressed and reported in the media in the period leading up to May 10, and on that day there appeared several large advertisements expressing the opposition of staff. On that morning it was announced that the Premier was indisposed and would not attend the ceremony, but various protests organised for that day continued. It appears that there were several different groups wishing to protest -- staff, student groups, International Socialists, and trade unionists who wished to use the occasion to protest against the Premier's industrial policies.

The ceremony was due to start at 6.00 pm. From 4.00 pm some 3000 people gathered to listen to speeches about the academic implications of awarding the degree to the Premier, display placards, watch street theatre and otherwise engage in non-violent protest. Proposals to take action that would interfere with the ceremony were rejected. This group included leading academics, one of them Professor Byrne who has lodged a complaint with the Council.

However a much smaller number of people behaved very differently. When the Governor arrived he was jostled, and, it is alleged but disputed, spat at, and the ceremony itself was made difficult by chanting, banging and the breaking of glass wall panels. Exactly who did this is not clear, but it was conduct disapproved of by the complainants.

UQASA AND THE COURIER-MAIL

The University of Queensland Academic Staff Association, complains of the report which appeared in the Courier-Mail the next day. The front page headlines were "Thousands in wild protest Uni rioters jeer, spit at Governor", and the opening paragraph read "Thousands of angry protesters chanted and spat at the Governor, Sir James Ramsay, as he arrived to receive an honorary doctorate of law at Queensland University last night". The rest of the front page dealt with the disorderly demonstration and was illustrated with a picture of broken glass.

Those readers who read only the front page would conclude that the 3000 who gathered did so for the purpose of "wild protest" and "riot" and were associated with the disorderly behaviour and the mis-treatment of the Governor. The Courier-Mail concedes that the headline and opening sentence were inappropriate, saying that this was the result of deadline pressure and is not typical of the paper's normal standards.

The incorrect headline and opening paragraph, coupled with the lack of any reference to the peaceful demonstration, had the effect of tarring all the demonstrators with the same brush. They provided a context for the continuation of the story on page 3. On that page there is reference to the large gathering starting earlier in the afternoon, but the impression created on page one was reinforced by the heading "Protesters spit at Governor", their description as "angry protesters" and a large picture across the top of the page dramatically showing a lecturer being forcibly restrained by security guards.

The Press Council upholds the complaint of UQASA on the basis that the combination of the admittedly faulty headline and opening sentence on page one, together with the photographs on page three and the failure to draw any distinction between those involved in the disorderly demonstration and those who conducted a peaceful protest over some hours, created the wrong impression that all the protesters were involved in the disorder. The right of peaceful protest is an important feature of a democracy, and to lump those who practise it in with violent protesters is not only unfair but against the public interest. It would also be against the public interest if people came to believe that violent protest is the only form which will attract the attention of the media.

The reporting of demonstrations, particularly when they embrace groups with different objectives and methods, and when they develop over a period, sometimes in unexpected and unplanned ways, presents great difficulties for newspapers.

The Press Council does not suggest that the Courier-Mail deliberately confused the two types of protest. It acknowledges the difficulty of preparing a fully balanced report of such an event against publishing deadlines. It also appreciates the paper's frankness in conceding the deficiency in its headline and opening sentence, and commends the paper for the way in which it opened its columns to criticism of its report.

UQASA also complains about the brief front-page editorial in the Courier-Mail. This editorial expressed in strong terms the paper's disapproval of the violent aspects of the demonstration. The newspaper is entitled to express this viewpoint on a matter that was of obvious public interest. This aspect of the complaint is dismissed.

SWEENEY AND THE DAILY SUN; SHERMAN AND THE DAILY SUN

There are two complaints against the Daily Sun. One is from Julanne Sweeney, a postgraduate student who attended the peaceful demonstration from 4.30 to 7.30 pm and was distressed to see the paper refer the next day only to a "wild demonstration" and say that an estimated 3000 demonstrators laid siege to Mayne Hall as they chanted and pounded on the glass wall panels, smashing three of them. On the following Monday it said that about 3000 chanting demonstrators jostled the Governor. Similar statement were carried on May 17. The complaint from Mr. Paul Sherman relates to the same reporting of the demonstration by the Daily Sun.

Consistently with the decision in relation to the Courier-Mail, and with the same comments on the difficulties confronting papers, these complaints are upheld.

BYRNE AND THE COURIER-MAIL

Professor Eileen Byrne of the University's Education Department was one of those who took part in the peaceful meeting and had nothing to do with the subsequent violence. During the meeting it was decided to burn some Nazi flags which one group had brought along, the burning being intended as a symbolic expression of disapproval of what the flags stood for and of their presence on the campus. Unfortunately Professor Byrne allowed herself to be photographed holding up the burning flags. We say unfortunately because the burning of the flags could well be interpreted differently from the way Professor Byrne intended, particularly by those who were not present and saw only the photograph. This is what happened.

The photograph was published on page 3 below the picture of the lecturer being restrained by security guards. As there was no material in the caption or elsewhere to set the material in a separate context, many readers concluded that Professor Byrne was acting in the course of a wild and violent protest by some 3000 people. This was unfair to Professor Byrne, but it was the result not of any deliberate act on the part of the paper, but of the unfortunate context created by the material dealt with in the UQASA complaint. The repercussions were very distressing to Professor Byrne, and the Press Council wishes to place on record that it is quite satisfied that Professor Byrne intended only a symbolic protest and was not in any way involved in the violence that broke out some hours later.

The Courier-Mail does not contend otherwise, and indeed as soon as Professor Byrne's concern became known to it, it endeavoured to redress the situation. When Professor Byrne called at the Courier-Mail on Sunday (the report had appeared on Saturday) the paper offered to publish a follow-up story from her point of view. Professor Byrne declined and sought instead the publication of a letter to the editor. The letter page had been made up on Friday, but in deference to Professor Byrne's concern the page was remade so that her letter could appear prominently and in full on the Monday, under the heading "Let's get the facts straight on that University demo". This is strong evidence of the paper's desire to be fair to Professor Byrne.

Professor Byrne points out that material in a letter may not command the same credibility with many readers as what appears in the news columns. It is therefore the more unfortunate that she did not accept the paper's offer of a news story in Monday's paper. We can understand that Professor Byrne was very upset, and as a result distrustful, but we have no doubt that the paper's offer was made in complete good faith with the object of correcting any wrong impression about Professor Byrne's actions flowing from what appeared on Saturday.