Detained and Misrepresented: Australian Print Media Reports on Protests
Recently in Australia the suppression of freedom of expression has been taking on different forms. In his recent blog article for Sydney PEN, Hugo Bowne-Anderson considered how the provisions concerning sedition under the Anti-Terrorism Act 2005 (No.2) (Cth) ambiguously limit the horizons of artistic production and freedom of expression in Australia. In this weeks blog Richard Renshaw continues the theme, arguing an individual’s right to protest is being stymied by the police and demonstrators' actions are being misrepresented by the media.
The International PEN Charter provides that:
“PEN stands for the principle of unhampered transmission of thought within each nation and among all nations, and members pledge themselves to oppose any form of suppression of freedom of expression in their country or their community.”
Later:
“PEN declares…[that] since freedom implies voluntary restraint, members pledge themselves to oppose such evils of a free press as mendacious publication, deliberate falsehood, and distortion of facts for political and personal ends."
Hugo Bowne-Anderson rightly says that the ambiguity over what is seditious under the Commonwealth law is a product of vague, abstract language used in the legislation. Quite often, governments use such language in legislation if they want to widen the power of that legislation without being explicit about the scope of that legislative power. Explicit legislative powers may not be provided by the government because such powers may be unpopular with the public. Consequently, at times the interests of a government are served by legislative power which is vague, (possibly) wide, and ambiguously implicit. The bar and the judiciary, in such instances, are therefore given more scope and power to interpret and determine the law in respect of its application to a particular case. What does this mean for freedom of expression in Australia? Well, as Bowne-Anderson notes, people begin to self-censor.
The expansion and public legitimation of Commonwealth legislative powers in respect of sedition and anti-terrorism subject matters has seemingly produced strange symptoms in the Australian, especially Sydney-based, print media. The symptoms which have come to light are specific to the area of reports on demonstrations in various newspapers. In this area of journalism the organisations of concern, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Daily Telegraph, and The Australian, have not been behaving as they should be: ie. they are failing to provide an objective and considered account of the facts. This change in the Australian media ecology has effectively denied demonstrators their freedom of expression. In these times, demonstrators not only face the physical suppression of their views by the various police forces, but also face the censorship and misrepresentation of their views and actions by the print media.
In this blog I would like to consider how four demonstrations have been variously reported over the last year in order to demonstrate how the ecology of the Australian print media has undergone change in recent history. The reported events of concern are:
i. Dora Tsavdaridis’s report for The Daily Telegraph (13/4/06 '24 arrests as student rally turns violent') and Anna Patty’s report for The Sydney Morning Herald on the Anti-VSU rally of April 12, 2006.
ii. Piers Akerman’s (17/3/06 'Impeded by protest against freedom') and Luke McIlveen’s (17/3/06 'Rice's tribute to the sacrifice of Aussies) respective reports for The Daily Telegraph on the protest against Condoleezza Rice at the University of Sydney on March 16, 2006.
iii. Ian Munro, Nassim Khadem, and Misha Schubert’s report for The Age on the protests against the G20 forum on November 18-19, 2006.
iv. Tracy Ong and Samantha Maiden’s report for The Australian and Edmund Tadros and David Braithwaite’s report for The Sydney Morning Herald on the protests against Dick Cheney in Sydney on February 22-23, 2007.
My analysis has unveiled 7 different symptoms which variously mark these specimens. I provide them as follows:
1. Print media reports usually lack facts which are necessary for the demonstrators’ side of the story to be adequately balanced against that of the police.
2. The reports also have the tendency of providing the wrong facts for, effectively, the benefit of the police’s side of story.
3. The demonstrators are usually portrayed as violent provokers of violence or as being anti-democratic agents.
4. Some reports portray demonstrators as characters in a burlesque.
5. The injuries suffered by the police are always reported, but the injuries suffered by demonstrators are usually not reported or, at most, such events are under-reported.
6. The right to be part of an apparently genuine demonstration or protest or procession (see s200 of LEPRA) , the lawful procedure of arrest (see ss87MA and 201 of LEPRA) , the reasonability of the use of force by the police against demonstrators (see ss230-231 of LEPRA) , and the general legal principle of the right to privacy are not considered as relevant issues in the reports of concern. In fact, these issues are not considered at all by the reports.
7. The reports of the demonstrations against VSU and Dick Cheney give primacy to the issue of traffic flows in the CBD at the expense of the right to demonstrate.
I invite you to read the relevant articles, and to consider and expand upon my analysis via the blog. Enjoy!
- Richard Renshaw is a member of the Sydney PEN Young Writers Committee
Related Links:
Demo against Condoleezza Rice - Melbourne Indymedia
Police seek to detain “28 people of interest” for interviews concerning the G20 protest - The Age
Police brutalise members of a demonstration taking place in the foyer of the Melbourne Museum - Melbourne Indymedia
Police brutalize members of a demo taking place outside the Victorian State Parliament 1 and 2 - Melbourne Indymedia
The International PEN Charter provides that:
“PEN stands for the principle of unhampered transmission of thought within each nation and among all nations, and members pledge themselves to oppose any form of suppression of freedom of expression in their country or their community.”
Later:
“PEN declares…[that] since freedom implies voluntary restraint, members pledge themselves to oppose such evils of a free press as mendacious publication, deliberate falsehood, and distortion of facts for political and personal ends."
Hugo Bowne-Anderson rightly says that the ambiguity over what is seditious under the Commonwealth law is a product of vague, abstract language used in the legislation. Quite often, governments use such language in legislation if they want to widen the power of that legislation without being explicit about the scope of that legislative power. Explicit legislative powers may not be provided by the government because such powers may be unpopular with the public. Consequently, at times the interests of a government are served by legislative power which is vague, (possibly) wide, and ambiguously implicit. The bar and the judiciary, in such instances, are therefore given more scope and power to interpret and determine the law in respect of its application to a particular case. What does this mean for freedom of expression in Australia? Well, as Bowne-Anderson notes, people begin to self-censor.
The expansion and public legitimation of Commonwealth legislative powers in respect of sedition and anti-terrorism subject matters has seemingly produced strange symptoms in the Australian, especially Sydney-based, print media. The symptoms which have come to light are specific to the area of reports on demonstrations in various newspapers. In this area of journalism the organisations of concern, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Daily Telegraph, and The Australian, have not been behaving as they should be: ie. they are failing to provide an objective and considered account of the facts. This change in the Australian media ecology has effectively denied demonstrators their freedom of expression. In these times, demonstrators not only face the physical suppression of their views by the various police forces, but also face the censorship and misrepresentation of their views and actions by the print media.
In this blog I would like to consider how four demonstrations have been variously reported over the last year in order to demonstrate how the ecology of the Australian print media has undergone change in recent history. The reported events of concern are:
i. Dora Tsavdaridis’s report for The Daily Telegraph (13/4/06 '24 arrests as student rally turns violent') and Anna Patty’s report for The Sydney Morning Herald on the Anti-VSU rally of April 12, 2006.
ii. Piers Akerman’s (17/3/06 'Impeded by protest against freedom') and Luke McIlveen’s (17/3/06 'Rice's tribute to the sacrifice of Aussies) respective reports for The Daily Telegraph on the protest against Condoleezza Rice at the University of Sydney on March 16, 2006.
iii. Ian Munro, Nassim Khadem, and Misha Schubert’s report for The Age on the protests against the G20 forum on November 18-19, 2006.
iv. Tracy Ong and Samantha Maiden’s report for The Australian and Edmund Tadros and David Braithwaite’s report for The Sydney Morning Herald on the protests against Dick Cheney in Sydney on February 22-23, 2007.
My analysis has unveiled 7 different symptoms which variously mark these specimens. I provide them as follows:
1. Print media reports usually lack facts which are necessary for the demonstrators’ side of the story to be adequately balanced against that of the police.
2. The reports also have the tendency of providing the wrong facts for, effectively, the benefit of the police’s side of story.
3. The demonstrators are usually portrayed as violent provokers of violence or as being anti-democratic agents.
4. Some reports portray demonstrators as characters in a burlesque.
5. The injuries suffered by the police are always reported, but the injuries suffered by demonstrators are usually not reported or, at most, such events are under-reported.
6. The right to be part of an apparently genuine demonstration or protest or procession (see s200 of LEPRA) , the lawful procedure of arrest (see ss87MA and 201 of LEPRA) , the reasonability of the use of force by the police against demonstrators (see ss230-231 of LEPRA) , and the general legal principle of the right to privacy are not considered as relevant issues in the reports of concern. In fact, these issues are not considered at all by the reports.
7. The reports of the demonstrations against VSU and Dick Cheney give primacy to the issue of traffic flows in the CBD at the expense of the right to demonstrate.
I invite you to read the relevant articles, and to consider and expand upon my analysis via the blog. Enjoy!
- Richard Renshaw is a member of the Sydney PEN Young Writers Committee
Related Links:
Demo against Condoleezza Rice - Melbourne Indymedia
Police seek to detain “28 people of interest” for interviews concerning the G20 protest - The Age
Police brutalise members of a demonstration taking place in the foyer of the Melbourne Museum - Melbourne Indymedia
Police brutalize members of a demo taking place outside the Victorian State Parliament 1 and 2 - Melbourne Indymedia
posted by Sydney PEN at 9:50 pm
1 Comments:
hi, good site very much appreciatted
Post a Comment
<< Home