Search

The Australian Press Council often receives complaints about the reporting of the race, colour, ethnicity and nationality of individuals or groups, and these raise important questions about the responsibility of the press in our multicultural society.   In the broadest terms, the Council has found that the tone and context of such reporting are usually the crucial elements in deciding whether its principles have been breached.   The Council’s principles state: “Publications should not place gratuitous emphasis on the race, religion, nationality, colour, country of origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, illness, or age of an individual or group. Where it is relevant and in the public interest, publications may report or express opinions in these areas".   An obvious case where reference to a person’s physical characteristics or ethnic background is relevant, or in the public interest, is when they are part of police descriptions of wanted suspects. This is particularly so when the suspects are regarded as violent and dangerous. When a person’s physical characteristics or ethnic background are tendered as relevant evidence in court, they are then matters of public record.   The question of race and ethnicity is a difficult one. In the strict biological sense, "race" is the subject of complex scientific debate and particular care should be taken when describing somebody as being of “mixed race”, unless it is reporting direct quotes or self-description. However, there is no doubt that people are often perceived, and perceive themselves to be, members of a race in a broadly cultural sense. Ethnic identity, too, is sometimes difficult to define.   There is also the danger of using the term "race" where no such race exists; there is no 'Jewish race', equally there is no 'British race' nor 'French race'. Another danger is to accept too readily the race labels used by racist groups in hate campaigns; such labels should be examined carefully and critically.   The Council is principally concerned about references to race, colour, ethnicity or nationality which promote negative stereotypes in the community. It acknowledges that the question of stereotypes is not cut and dried, and much depends on the context.   The Council in principle condemns gratuitous use of offensive slang terms for minority groups. However, if someone controversially used such expressions, a publication may well be justified in reporting them in direct quotes. The Council also generally believes that the use of such terms is permissible in opinion articles, when it is to make a serious point, and sometimes in humorous articles and satire. But here again the boundaries are usually determined by tone and context.   The Council also accepts that some international situations are extremely difficult to report or comment on without causing offence to different groups in the community. The Israeli-Palestinian and Northern Ireland conflicts are obvious examples where deep-rooted passions among readers from various backgrounds are easily inflamed, even by impartial reporting.   In the Council's view, in general, the press needs to show more sensitivity in reporting issues when minority groups are perceived in the community to be more "different" or when they are the subject of particular public debate.  

The Press Council advises newspapers and magazines to be careful about using in their headlines terms for religious or ethnic groups that could imply that the group as a whole was responsible for the actions of a minority among that group.   The use of the words "Islam", "Islamic" and "Muslim" in headlines on reports of terrorist attacks has caused problems both for the Muslim community in Australia and the Australian media. It is important for newspapers to identify as clearly as possible the sources of terror; casting the net of suspicion and accusation too widely can be harmful.   The Council is also aware of instances beyond the Australian Muslim community, and the concern with terrorism, where the use of overly general terms has caused concern for Indigenous people and the Australian Jewish community, among many others.   The Council acknowledges that, in some cases, the linking of words with religious connotations to terrorist groups may be, in the strictest sense, accurate - but it is often unfair. For example, terrorists may be Muslims, but Muslims are not necessarily terrorists, as some headlines have implied.   The Council urges publications to be aware of the sensitivities of groups about whom they are reporting. Headlines are a particular problem, given the need to capture the essence of a story within a limited compass, and require particular care.   In a September 2001 press release, the Council expressed its concern "about references to race, colour, ethnicity or nationality which promote negative stereotypes in the community". Similarly, the Council considers that the use of wide, too-general terms for religious or ethnic groups in headlines could contribute to the promotion of a negative stereotype of that group.   Even the use of headlines of the style "Muslim terror" and "Islamic bomb attack" would be best avoided as they can be seen to link religious belief and its adherents to deliberate acts of terror. The Muslim community has told the Press Council that it has already experienced the cumulative effect of the frequent use of the religious terms, which has led to increased divisions in Australian society and ostracising of citizens simply because they belong to a recognisable minority.   The Council appreciates that the problem extends to other religions, and to other groups whose standing may be tarnished by actions emanating from a minority of members, and therefore urges publications to be as narrow and focused as possible in their description of those responsible.   The Council also notes that full reports do not constitute as great a problem as headlines, since more accuracy can be achieved outside the limitations of headline space. However, both aspects of presentation need care.  

Opinion polls are an important source and subject of news stories. Newspapers and broadcasters often commission their own polls to provide information about readers’ views or voters' intentions.

The Australian Press Council has from time to time received complaints about the terminology used to describe World War Two Nazi death camps that were situated in occupied Poland.   In May 1999, in Adjudication No. 1025, the Council upheld a complaint about the use of the term "Polish concentration camp" to describe them. The Council noted in that finding that such usage "would have been harmfully misleading to younger readers and others whose knowledge of the Second World War is hazy or non-existent".   The Council has now received a joint request from the Ambassadors to Australia of the Republic of Poland and the State of Israel that the media generally cease using the misleading term "Polish concentration camp", which they say is harmful to both communities in Australia and adversely impacts on Polish-Jewish relations in general.   In response to their request, the Press Council reiterates its conclusion from 1999 and seeks the cooperation of the print media in avoiding the potentially offensive terminology. A more accurate and appropriate description for the camps would be "Nazi concentration camps", adding their location as being "in occupied Poland" where necessary.  

The Press Council views with concern inadequately researched reports on health and medical matters appearing in the press and in the media as whole. The dangers of exciting unreasonable fears or hopes are far too great for anything but the most careful treatment.   The reporter/writer concerned may not be equipped to judge the value or otherwise of the reported treatments. Statements on efficacy should be treated with extreme care. They should always be sourced, even if made by the most eminent authority; on any lesser authority, they should be cross-checked with some other source. Claims of cures, wonder cures, near-miracles and the like should be clearly identified as just that, claims.   The standing and the disinterest, or lack of it, of those making the claims should be made clear, be they researchers, pharmaceutical companies or other salespeople. In cases where the writer is qualified to make judgment on the subject being reported, the qualification should be identified for the reader.   Personal experience or anecdotal evidence, too, should be clearly identified as such. The reader clearly has the right to ask: "Who says so?" The reports should provide the answer.   The Council recognises the undoubted public interest in health and medical matters, and the difficulties faced by the media in these areas.   A conservative, careful approach to health and medical reports is essential.  

The Press Council offers the following broad guidelines for newspapers’ consideration when reporting drug-related issues:

• Responsibly report public debate about drug use and addiction;
• The harmful effects of any particular drug should not be exaggerated or minimised;
• Avoid detailed accounts of consumption methods, even though many young people are generally familiar with them;
• Outlining the chemical composition of a drug may be justified in some reports, but avoid providing any details which could assist its manufacture;
• Do not quote the lethal dose of any particular drug;
• Guard against any reporting which might encourage readers’ experimentation with a drug, for example highlighting the ‘glamour’ of the dangers involved;
• Highlight elements of a story which convey the message that preventive measures against drug abuse do exist, and that people can be protected from the harmful consequences of their addictive behaviours;
• Bear in mind the arguments of those who point out that tobacco and alcohol use and addiction are another major aspect of the drug story.

 

The legal status of people who have entered Australia by boat without a visa is complex and potentially confusing. Their entry is not legally authorised but is not a criminal offence. The Australian Government usually refers to such entrants as "unauthorised boat arrivals" or "irregular maritime arrivals" but they are also "unlawful non-citizens" under the Migration Act.   Entrants by boat without a visa are entitled to seek asylum and, in practice, almost all of them do so. If the Government’s initial processing suggests they may have a valid case, they are classified as "asylum seekers" and allowed to stay in Australia while the claim is being finally determined. They remain "unlawful non-citizens" until their claim is approved (whereupon they get a permanent protection visa) or they receive a "bridging visa" pending finalisation of their claim. If their claim is rejected, they have not committed an offence but are liable to deportation. Most entrants by boat without a visa do not seek to evade the authorities upon arrival. Instead, they seek to establish a legal right to stay as a refugee. Their position is very different from those people, including many who arrive with a short-term visa, who seek to remain permanently in the country on a clandestine basis (that is, "over-stayers").   In these circumstances, great care must be taken to avoid describing people who arrived by boat without a visa in terms that are likely to be inaccurate or unfair in relation to at least some of them. This can arise, for example, if the terms can reasonably be interpreted as implying criminality or other serious misbehaviour on the part of all or many people who arrive in this manner.   Depending on the specific context, therefore, terms such as "illegal immigrants" or "illegals" may constitute a breach of the Council’s Standards of Practice on these grounds. The risk of breach can usually be avoided by using a term such as "asylum seekers" although in some cases, of course, the context may require reference to their unlawful or unauthorised entry or their status as unlawful non-citizens pending determination of their claims (if they do not have bridging visas).   Note: This Guideline replaces the Council’s earlier Guideline No. 288, dated October 2009.