The Council considered a complaint about a colour cartoon on the front page of The Australian on 9 May 2012. The page was headed "Smash the rich, save the base" with a summary report of the main features of the previous night’s Federal Budget and three commentary pieces, as well as pointers to material on later pages. Drawn in a style reminiscent of pre-war Soviet artwork, the cartoon depicted Prime Minister Gillard and Treasurer Swan leading a violent-looking workers' march with an aircraft squadron overhead. Mr Swan’s jacket was emblazoned "Occupy Treasury" and he carried a very large red flag bearing a hammer and sickle.
The complainant said the cartoon was misleading, unfair and offensive because, so far as he was aware, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister had not been associated with the Communist Party and had not advocated anything resembling the violent conduct implied by the cartoon. He said this effect was aggravated by the adjacent headline and was similar to depicting former Prime Minister Howard and Treasurer Costello with a swastika.
The publication said the cartoon was “not meant to be taken literally”, was “clearly parody” and no-one would infer from it that Ms Gillard and Mr Swan were communists or planning violent insurrection. It said the cartoon should not be taken any more literally than cartoons on the same day in other newspapers depicting Mr Swan as a plucked swan and as a magician. It published supportive and critical letters about the cartoon on the next day.
The Council recognises the cartoon may have caused deep offence amongst those people who would see an association of the Prime Minister and Treasurer with the excesses of the Stalinist era as grossly inaccurate and unfair. It differs fundamentally from the other depictions referred to in the newspaper’s response to the complaint, which convey no substantially adverse connotations.
On the other hand, many readers are likely to have interpreted it as being in the tradition of those cartoonists who use deliberate hyperbole to make a strong comment without intending to be taken literally. Nevertheless, it is notable in this context that the publication said the cartoon was meant “to capture what we believed was the tone of the budget” and was accompanied by the words “smash the rich” in the banner headline.
The Council does not look favourably on unjustified and offensive imputations of violence, even in the genre of hyperbolic cartoons about public figures. However, it also believes robust freedom of expression on political issues is of fundamental importance in the public interest. Also, the government’s description of its budget was extensively reported in the newspaper and a reader’s letter criticising the cartoon was published.
On balance, the Council has decided in this particular instance the material did not constitute a clear breach of its principles. Accordingly, the complaint is not upheld.
Supplementary note
(not required for publication by the newspaper):
The complainant also expressed concerns the front page juxtaposed opinion, in the form of the cartoon and headline, with a lead news story purporting to be solely factual. The Council had no concerns in this respect in relation to the cartoon. If the headline was interpreted as linked solely to the news story, it would contravene the Council’s principles requiring separation of fact and opinion. As it ran across the full width of the page, and the cartoon and an opinion piece as well as the news story were immediately underneath it, the Council did not consider the linkage sufficiently clear to uphold the complaint.
Relevant Council Standards
(not required for publication by the newspaper):
This adjudication applies part of the Council’s General Principle 3: “Where individuals or groups are a major focus of news report or commentary, the publication should ensure fairness and balance in the original article. Failing that, it should provide a reasonable and swift opportunity for a balancing response in an appropriate section of the publication”; General Principle 6: “Publications are free to advocate their own views and publish the bylined opinions of others as long as readers can recognise what is fact and what is opinion. Relevant facts should not be misrepresented or suppressed, headlines and captions should fairly reflect the tenor of an article...”; and General Principle 7: “Publications have a wide discretion in publishing material but they should balance the public interest with the sensibilities of their readers, particularly when the material such as photographs, could reasonably be expected to cause offence.”