Site navigation

Change font size: SmallerLargerReload

About the Australian Human Rights Commission navigation

Democracy, the media and human rights

Address by Michael Dodson, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, to the Public Lecture Session - Diplomacy Training Program, Manila, Phillippines, 22 January 1997

Democracy and the media

Throughout many western democracies contemporary beliefs about the role of the media are directly shaped by enlightenment ideals and the struggle against state despotism. Although somewhat tarnished, these ideals continue to inspire resistance to oppression, and sustain battles for freedom of conscience, speech, and individual liberty, for political self determination and democratisation.

In the early nineteenth century the media was termed the fourth estate. Its independent function was recognised as vital and its role as fourth estate placed it outside the government, the judiciary, and the executive. Its pivotal role was seen as the essential feedback mechanism of a democratic system.

The world view of the pioneer democrat theorists was essentially utopian, optimistic and assumed that at core there was a commonality, rather than a contest of interests, that there was a consensual public interest able to be uncovered then embraced through the free market of ideas.

The aspirations for freedom of the press and for democratic choice and accountability continue to be the foundation of thinking about the social role the media should assume. However in places like contemporary Australia there is a huge gap between the grand rhetorical claims about the role of the media and the everyday reality. The public, which the media alleges to represent, has grown cynical. When asked for their opinions regarding the media, most Australians quickly articulate feelings of discontent and scepticism.

Many people recognise that the prototype of media freedom is inadequate for various reasons.

The independent function of the media was and is largely compromised. Newspapers, for example, were organs of politics before they were organs of news. From individual pamphleteering to the development of party newspapers, opinion took precedence over reporting. The history of the press is chequered with political patronage, official subservience and convenient compromises. Independent journalistic functions emerged uncertainly and inconsistently within what are primarily political instruments.

The liberal prototype of press freedom was also limited even in its original conception because it compared political freedom with property rights. As one critic wrote, 'freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one'. Although the function of the press in society is to inform, its role is to make money. The obligation of journalism is to the public, but the public is not the journalist's employer.

Over the past decade the media in my country, as in much of the world, has undergone central changes. Media companies are now significant economic players with diversified commercial interests. What is now taking place is the concentration of telecommunications, computing, entertainment, information and education. Contemporary media conglomerates which have diverse commercial empires are able to trade with governments over a whole range of policy interests. for example, within Australia, the sheer concentration of power held by these oligopolies threatens to manipulate the few remaining channels for political communication.

We are at a crossroads when this tradition of liberal ideals and theories about society still serves as the basis of thinking but in reality has lost much of its vitality.

Rather than making redundant the underpinning democratic principles of freedom of expression, equality and order, we have to find new ways to give them life. Uplifting the media to a central role in the discussion of what it means to be a citizen in a democracy is not to deny the underlying commercial imperative, but to restate the importance of its social role and seek a way of skilfully blending them both. As the prominent Irish jurist Sean Macbride wrote:

The freedom of a citizen or social group to have access to communication both as recipients and contributors, cannot be compared to the freedom of an investor to derive profit from the media. One protects a fundamental human right, the other permits the commercialisation of a social need.

Media and human rights

Justice Richard Goldstone who is currently conducting the war crimes tribunal in the Hague said, 'Show me a country without a free press, and I will show you a country where human rights are trampled upon'.

Despite my sober views of the changes that have occurred and are occurring within Australia's media, it is true that the media continues to have a huge impact in shaping, influencing and changing public opinion. It remains a primary source of information for many. For those of us working in the field of human rights it is a crucial instrument to master. An ability to access the media is critical because, at best, the media:

Media and coverage of Aboriginal issues

The challenge for many human rights offices - whether they be in Australia or the Phillippines or elsewhere - is to get media coverage that educates the community and catalyses social change.

I believe that it is important that we access the media strategically. We have to know how the media works in order to exploit it. What hierarchy of values exist within a media organisation? What are the issues that obtain news coverage priority? How do journalists, producers and editors choose which topics will get exposure and which don't?

In addressing these questions I want to specifically discuss how the media in Australia covers human rights issues involving Indigenous peoples.

It has been said of the news, 'the worse it is, the better it is'. The journalist always 'prefers a murder to a suicide, and both to a wedding'.

The media thrives on conflict. Conflict is what inspires the daily production of thousands of words, images and sound grabs across Australia every day. Consistently, predictably, we the audience, consume and we, as Aboriginal people, participate in a media agenda ruled by conflict.

The media, undeniably, has a crucial role in Aboriginal affairs. Non Indigenous peoples most often form their opinions of us by what they read, see and hear. How journalists, broadcasters, columnists and others report race issues shapes and changes public opinion and policy.

However, any seasoned journalist will tell you that the media feel little obligation or duty to be a provider of public education. Most forms of media are run as a commercial business. It is useless to pretend otherwise. In an increasingly competitive mass media environment, each media outlet will be jostling and vying with its competitors for a 'scoop'. 'Scoops'increase and maintain sales and audience. Conflict - lurid, sensationalistic, vulgar, and voyeuristic is what is traded and sold.

So how do we as Aboriginal people participate? How can we strive to be heard? How can we be vigilant and guard against being misrepresented? And how can we compete?

Thirty years ago our presence in the media was characterised by invisibility. We didn't have a presence. In the 1960s the headlines of a national current affairs magazine blurted 'Australia for the white man'. At that time, we were only in the nation's shadow, there but not seen, speaking but not heard. As the Australian academic Manning Clarke said, black fellas were 'the whispering in our hearts', the white fella's heart.

Thirty years on and you'll often see us on TV, read about us in the papers and hear our voices on radio. Not as journalists, reporters or broadcasters but as images, interviewees, sound bites. On the surface, this is encouraging. But the media's hunger, its obsession with 'news values' rooted in conflict has pushed us into the limelight. In this nation's 'quality broadsheets', we have, over the past five years, jumped from the peripheral back pages to the front.

For many Australians our presence in the media has become synonymous with conflict.

I would even suggest that for a lot of non Aboriginal people, who only know a blackfella from what they see in the media, have been exposed to so much bad news, that they are now suffering from 'compassion fatigue'. The more politicised our issues have become, the more conflict is exacerbated by the media, the faster many non Aboriginal people, some deeply uncomfortable and confronted with what they see, are shutting down.

However it is true that media coverage of conflicts involving Aboriginal people is as diverse as the peoples within our own community. And it would be inaccurate and facile to suggest that the media's treatment of our people is characterised by outright hostility.

The diversity of this coverage is frequently the result of editorial discretion, personal biases and each media practitioner's understanding of our culture and history. We are frequently interpreted by this fickle, subjective code. Some journalists and a few mainstream publications will cover stories involving racial conflict or Aboriginal issues with professionalism, skill and integrity. These writers, broadcasters and reporters are hardworking, savvy and able to be fair and accurate. Their coverage is grounded in facts and perceptive analysis. I wouldn't say they're all simply 'on side' as say that they work damn hard to present a balanced view in a competitive work environment easily seduced by sensational stories, cliches and stereotypes.

This calibre of journalism is rare and it takes courage.

Many of these journalists know too well what kind of sentiment is aroused by their endeavour to present balanced coverage. I'd have my head in the sand if I didn't acknowledge the vehement, anti Aboriginal feeling that's alive and well in Australia today. One executive producer recently commented, 'that the reporting of race issues brings the biggest response and sometimes the lowest ratings. People don't want to face the issues, and when they're forced to face them they react, sometimes with great force and passion'. Anonymous hate mail, abusive phone calls are all part of the trickle down effect of reporting race issues.

Now I'm not trying to gild the lily. Some journalists do a fantastic job when it comes to covering race issues. Most don't.

A great many Australians form or reinforce their opinions of Aborigines from reading regional papers and listening to talk-back radio. The currency in these papers and programmes are stereotypes. The feckless Aborigine who spends his social security cheque on alcohol, deprives his kids of food, beats his wife, runs amok in town and stops a mining project. These outlets have worked hard for years to inflame prejudice, cement ignorance and widen the divide between us. I am still astounded and dismayed by the all time low standards of gutter journalism. Even the quality broadsheets continue, in the manner to which they are accustomed, to keep their far right wing commentators who habitually engage in verbal black-bashing.

For some populist examples of the kind of 'fear and loathing' media coverage I refer to and the mythologies they perpetrate, we can take a look at these. As some of these issues may or may not be familiar to you, please feel free to ask questions.

1) Cartoon from the Cairns post - the caption reads 'do you feel we should integrate into a mainstream, multi cultural Australia apropos economic, societal and cultural opportunities and rights...or should we just go on taking whitey's hand outs?'

Message/myth - Aborigines are lazy and don't want to work.

Fact - the Aboriginal community suffer a far higher rate of unemployment than the non Aboriginal. On average 38% of Aborigines are unemployed although this is higher in remote areas. 26% or 30.000 unemployed Aborigines are working part time for the dole, their unemployment benefits. No other Australians work for the dole.

2) Land grabs - (Cairns Post) FNQ Blacks lay claim to 7000 sq. Kms

The message/myth: land claims by Aborigines are illegitimate and inflated.

Fact: prior to the Mabo decision in 1992, Aboriginal people had no rights to traditional lands except those given by government under limited legislation. Since the Mabo decision, Aboriginal people have not been greedily grabbing land. The Mabo decision will only benefit those Aborigines who can prove a continual association with the land claimed. The native title legislation protects all non Indigenous titles to land. The land this story refers to belongs to the crown and the land grab referred to is the traditional land of the Yindinji people.

3) Plight of Aborigines - worsened (Northern Territory News) claims that 3000 organisations claiming to represent Aboriginal interests in Australia run at a cost which 'is anybody's guess although one thing is certain, it runs into billions of dollars'.

Message/myth: Black Australia is awash with money, too much money.

Fact: in 1994, Commonwealth expenditure on Indigenous health was only 1.26% of the total expenditure even though the indigenous population comprises 1.6% of the total population.

The annual Commonwealth budget for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) in 1996-1997 is 959.92 million. ATSIC's funding has been cut by $470 million over four years.

Less than 10% of the Commonwealth's assistance to Indigenous people is in the form of payments to individuals.

4) Aboriginal policy was for their own good (West Australian)

Fact: this shocker refers to the forced removal of Aboriginal kids from their families by the Australian government. This policy, officially abandoned in the late 60s, aimed to assimilate children of 'mixed' Aboriginal blood into the white community. The goal was to segregate the full blood Aboriginal race with the view that they would eventually die out. The removal policies amounted to genocide of the Aboriginal race. The on-going impact of this dark and terrible time in our history is realised by many in our community. The 1991 Royal Commission into Aboriginal deaths in custody reported that 43 of the 99 people whose deaths were investigated had been separated from their parents as children.

Aside from being expressions of almost pure bombastic bigotry, these examples represent the most fetid form of journalistic endeavour. Combining stereotypes, ignorance and prejudiced opinion, this kind of coverage serves to perpetuate negative images and information about Indigenous peoples. It shapes conflict by erecting 'us' and 'them' mythologies, denuded of facts, and balanced analysis. Some critics would say that the remedy is to only have positive stories about Aboriginal people. Well I don't think we need to be treated with kid gloves, but I think we deserve respect and a fair go.

Others would consider it important to allow media practitioners the right to say what 'the people are thinking' yet are perhaps too frightened to say themselves. To publicly vent their bigotry is said to clear the air. Well we've had years of this sham excuse and the air's no fresher!

So how can Aboriginal peoples access the media and use it to our advantage?

According to the Entertainment and Arts Alliance Union of Australia, of the 7000 journalists employed, only 20 are Aboriginal. Considering that the majority are employed only within the government owned Australian Broadcasting Commission, it is true that we are going to have to work a lot harder to create the bridges required, between us and the media.

The 1991 Royal Commission into Aboriginal deaths in custody clearly stipulated through recommendation 205(b) that all media organisations should be encouraged to develop codes and policies relating to the presentation of Aboriginal issues,

This has not happened. Despite this and other specific media recommendations put forward by the 1991 Royal Commission, Aboriginal people continue to be fringe players, the subjects of, rather than participants in the mainstream media.

Within the few media organisations that do employ Aboriginal people, they are predominantly concentrated in the lower echelons of administration rather than as broadcasters, journalists and editors. And as I've already mentioned most media organisations have no official policy on how to report Aboriginal issues. The diversity of coverage is only the result of media practitioners making their own case-by-case, value laden assessment of what their audience would like to see and how we should be represented.

In our own Aboriginal media - radio, tv and print, we have seen the re-emergence of our own communication styles. We read our own news because a lot of it is good news, it's about our communities' achievements as well as our difficulties. The arts, music, sport, our elders' oral histories find their place alongside stories about our history, culture and our current affairs. Most non Aboriginal Australians are simply not privy to the role that our media has in providing very entertaining, and informative representations of Aboriginal culture and people. Good news and positive news about us is not the one-off that it often is in the non Aboriginal media, it's a staple. Within our own communities grass roots media production is also seen as a positive force to reinforce cultural values and cultural control.

When engaging with the mainstream media, Aboriginal people need to be skilled so that we have the best chance of being able to put our case across. In this current political climate where negative myths about us have been allowed to ferment in the public sphere, it is essential that we are able to argue our position well. By being armed to the hilt with facts so we can rebut the many untruths presently being propagated.

Seemingly, when many non Aboriginal people have formed their skewed views of us from listening to aggressive populist talk back radio commentators, we have to seize the challenge to respond. More now than ever before Aboriginal people have to use the media successfully.

Strategies may be as straightforward as knowing your issue well enough to be able to respond aptly and also knowing when not to engage by refusing to respond if the question is irrelevant. We need to get to know how the media works. We need to extend our contact with people that work in the media and improve our relationships with them. We need to understand their work constraints and how best to inform them. The media doesn't owe us anything so we need to know how to compete along with anyone else when trying to get coverage. It's a game, a strategy and we've got to become better players.

In this era, one of our most significant challenges is the need for Aboriginal leaders and community spokes people to access the media audience captured by the conservative commentators I've referred to. We cannot ignore the anxiety and hostility that many non Aboriginal people feel towards us. We need to speak directly to those with the most entrenched feelings.

We need to be able to translate our social justice agenda into language and imagery that others can relate to. Social justice for us is grounded in the daily lives of Indigenous Australians. It is awakening in a house with an adequate water supply, cooking facilities and sanitation. But all too often our issues are couched in the abstract language of human rights law or submerged within academic reports and hard statistics. When we speak to the media we have to make our human rights issues relevant and understandable.

The challenge is to translate our agenda so that others feel some connection, some level of commonality, and be able to relate to what we're talking about, what we experience, so that they too can imagine what it would be like to have been removed from ones family as a child, to have lost one's ancestral lands and language, to live in a community where 47% of your young are unemployed. To achieve this we need to extend ourselves beyond the specialty programmes, with already converted audiences to those whose views remain deeply antagonistic.

The media is one of the most powerful forces to master. Currently we may have no significant control of the media but we must be able to determine how, when and why we engage with it. We must become active and strategic participants, we must understand how it works and use this knowledge to ensure that media coverage of us is fair and responsible, that it creates bridges of understanding and not walls of division.

Thank you.

* this paper was not delivered at the DTP due to the public lecture session being cancelled.

Last updated 1 December 2001