Adjudication No. 668 (August 1993) [1993] APC 60

ADJUDICATION No. 668 (August 1993)

While a case by case approach to the application of Australian Press Council principles is important , the Council points out in adjudication of a complaint against the Brisbane Sunday Mail that the overall performance of a newspaper on an issue of major and continuing importance is and has to be a significant factor.

Mr Richard Buchhorn filed a complaint against several individual articles in the Sunday Mail over a four month period from December 1992 to March 1993.

He argued that there was "gratuitous" and/or "irrelevant" reference to the race of Aboriginal people in the articles which amounted to breach of the Council's principles eight and nine.

The former states that newspapers should not place "gratuitous emphasis" on particulars of individuals and groups, including their race, religion and colour; but it also declares that "where it is in the public interest, newspapers may report and express opinions upon events and comments in which such matters are raised."

Principle nine states that a newspaper should not state the race (or any of a series of other aspects) of a person suspected of a crime or arrested or charged, unless the fact is relevant.

The newspaper denies it breached these principles in any of the articles complained of, and has offered a context for its references to race in each instance. It also tendered several other articles published over the same general period to support its case that it, in fact, has "consistently abided" by the two principles.

After considering all the arguments, the Press Council concluded that the overall performance of the paper over the period was relevant -- there are few current issues of greater public importance and obvious continuity than the place of the Aboriginal people and that of other distinctive racial groups (the articles also looked at the Irish and Maoris) in the Australian community.

Taken overall, the Sunday Mail articles showed a commendable attempt to analyse critically what seems to be the complainant's chief concern, the stereotyping of racial groups. Overall, there was no breach of the Press Council's principles and the complaint is dismissed.

Though the Press Council would come to the same conclusion on a case by case basis, as the complainant -- wrongly, in its view -- wished it to do, it could understand the mythical Martian visitor being puzzled by racial references in two of the articles, if either had been the only article about life in Queensland the visitor had ever read.

One, a brief report on page 18 on 17 January 1993 was headlined "Gang attacks police officers".

The article reported a clash between "a gang of about 60 Aborigines and Maoris" and two police who had been called to a "noisy" party at a house, following which one of the police was treated in hospital and a man arrested at the party over an attempted murder charge (unrelated to the party) escaped.

While it could be argued that, in an isolated article like this, the racial references were gratuitous, the numbers involved in the disturbance, its aftermath and the fact that it was relevant to the on-going issue of relations between Aboriginal people, Maoris and police were sufficient to fulfill the public interest stipulation which is an integral part of the principle.

In the other story, headlined "City Timebomb" on 13 December 1992, police were reported as warning citizens of potential violence in Brisbane's King George Square over the hot Christmas - New Year period, following serious bashings in the Square.

Police were quoted as saying there was "a major problem with the floating population of Aborigines on the Square approaching people for money or cigarettes, and if they don't respond, assaulting them and stealing what they want." The article also listed other places which the police said were trouble spots for a variety of reasons, none of them with racial group connotations.

While it is probably true that the racial reference in this article could reinforce the stereotype attitudes held by some readers, it is equally true that the article involved a matter of considerable public interest and that readers were entitled to the fullest possible information.

A further matter of complaint concerned a reader's letter to the Sunday Mail (headed "Doing better on the dole"), which suggested that for a particular family of 2 parents and their 8 children, Social Security payments offer an attractive alternative source of income to paid work.

The letter was published with a photograph of the Aboriginal family in question.

The Press Council recognises that the family was already the subject of major controversy in a North Queensland town because of alleged heavy offending by the children. This had been feature in a front page report in the Sunday Mail five weeks previously.

However, while accepting that the earlier report provided a context for the letter, it is not clear why the family had again to be identified in connection with a discussion about welfare payments. The alleged disincentives to employment in Australia's Social Security system are a topic of continuing public debate, which the letter as published illustrated without either naming the family or giving the issue any racial slant.

To this extent, publication of the photograph was of doubtful relevance to the story.

In all the articles cited by the complainant, the references he complained of could quite possibly lead to a more sympathetic understanding by readers of the reasons which lead to the injustices suffered by any minority racial group and of action to redress them.

It is not the role of the press to ignore stereotype attitudes to any individual or group in the hope that the attitudes will disappear or because they are stereotypes many or even most readers find objectionable.