Adjudication No. 591 (September 1992) [1992] APC 61

ADJUDICATION No. 591 (September 1992)

The Australian Press Council has decided not to uphold a complaint by Women Against Demeaning Images (WADI) and various other groups and individuals against People magazine over its 4 March front-page cover, the article and pictures to which that cover related, and the poster promoting the issue.

In reaching its decision, the Press Council makes two points. First, the material complained of had already been dealt with by another body, the Office of Film and Literature Classification, which gave the issue a "Restricted" classification.

Second, the Press Council's principles were drawn up to provide guidance to the readers and editors of newspapers and other journals who primary function is to provide information in the form of news, features and comment, although they also seek to entertain. It is not always easy or sensible to apply these principles to publications whose primary function is entertainment. What might be acceptable in a magazine like People might well be unacceptable in a newspaper. Publications have to be considered in the context of their readership.

The Press Council has two basic functions: to uphold ethical standards in journalism by considering complaints from the public, and to defend and promote free speech. It has neither the power nor the desire to act as a censor of publications that are legal, and that are already subject to regulation in a way that the mainstream press is not.

In this case, WADI, which is sponsored by four women's organisations, and others complained that the cover of People, which featured a picture of an apparently naked woman model on hands and knees wearing a collar attached to a chain of beads and which was accompanied by a headline reading "WOOF! MORE WILD ANIMALS INSIDE" was degrading and demeaning to women, as was another picture inside of the model bearing the headline, "HEEL, SPIKE ..."

The Press Council's principle 7 states that "a newspaper has a wide discretion in matters of taste, but this does not justify lapse in taste so repugnant as to bring the freedom of the press into disrepute or be extremely offensive to the public". Principle 8 states, among other things, that a newspaper should not place gratuitous emphasis on the gender of individuals or groups.

The Council has no doubt that the People cover and poster were offensive to many people who saw them as demeaning to women, but it notes that those who buy the magazines choose to do so knowing what to expect.

However, many people would have been disturbed by the public display of the poster and the magazine in areas where they could have been seen by children and teenagers.

In this connection, the Council notes that the issue of People of 4 March was given a "Restricted" classification by the Office of Film and Literature Classification, a decision upheld by the Appeal Board on 19 March. One of the classification principles of this statutory body provides as follows:

"Adults in a free society should be able to see, hear and read what they wish provided there is sufficient protection for young people, and that those who may be offended are not exposed to unwanted and unsolicited adult material."

The Council would like to draw further attention to the approval which has been given by Federal, State and Territory Ministers to a new set of guidelines applying to the classification of publications throughout Australia. One of these new guidelines provides that "material ... which is demeaning may be restricted or refused". Since May, the publishers of People and Picture have been voluntarily submitting the magazines in proof form to the Office of Film and Literature Classification.

EDITOR'S NOTE: WADI has pointed out that it was not formally a complainant. However, its 14 July letter, calling on the Press Council to adjudicate the complaints it had received, joined with those complainants in citing three Council principles it believed the article had breached. The Council interpreted this as making the group an equivalent complainant with the others who had cited the article.