|
|
 |
Rupert Mudoch pictured at the recent launch of News Corporation's new slogan for its 2006 subscription campaign. Digital mischief by NIT. |
|
BEHIND THE NEWS: One permit to rule them all, says The Oz
Issue 100 - 09 Mar 2006
By Chris Graham*
Analysis
ISSUE 100, March 9, 2006: The act of feigning outrage is usually quite see-through. But it's not entirely clear whether a story filed in The Australian newspaper's Media section last week was borne of real anger or the kind of 'anger' you display when you're just looking for a news story.
Headlined 'Only favourable coverage, thanks', Darwin-based journalist Ashleigh Wilson provided a passionate defence of press freedom and a lambasting of a remote Aboriginal community and the rules it has put in place to deal with members of the fourth estate.
"Of all the issues facing remote Aboriginal communities, chances are you won't hear too many of them coming out of Yuendumu. And if you do, you can be sure the story has probably been approved in advance by the community itself," Wilson wrote.
"Yuendumu, 300km northwest of Alice Springs, certainly has some good stories to tell. One is how they've all but eliminated petrol sniffing thanks to a zero-tolerance approach and a successful rehabilitation program at Mt Theo, an outstation two hour's drive away. They're happy for the world to know about that. Anything else, though, comes with conditions. Interested in a warts-and-all story about, say, inadequate housing conditions or a dispute that might have arisen at Yuendumu? Forget it.
"In a luxury most Australians do not enjoy, Yuendumu has drawn up a protocol to guarantee positive coverage in return for access. The Northern Territory's permit system might make life tough for journalists, but Yuendumu has gone a step further. By insisting journalists comply with a series of rules before entering the community, and then controlling their movements when they do, it has managed to make itself exempt from independent media scrutiny.
"In short, if the community doesn't like the angle, a photograph or a quote, then the story must be changed.
"On its website, Warlpiri Media spells out the conditions for entry. First, the journalist needs a permit via the Central Land Council. Then, before the visit, the media organisation must sign an extraordinary six-page document.
"Once in Yuendumu, the journalist 'shall be accompanied by the designate' of Warlpiri Media and must 'not record contrary to a direction of the designate'. For this privilege, the media organisation agrees to pay a "service fee" of $150 per day to the minder."
Mr Wilson seems to have missed a delicious irony here.
Newspaper proprietors have made large fortunes out of the constant, unaccountable, sensational vilification of Aboriginal people. They've done so for decades and none more so than Wilson's employer, News Limited.
Now those 'victims' are bucking up and demanding a $150 a day "for the privilege". How outrageous!
And why can Aboriginal communities demand this fee? Because, in spite of a little glossing over of the fact in the article, Aboriginal people in Yuendumu own the land in and around their community.
The permit system Wilson rails against is the Northern Territory land council controlled process of issuing permits to people who want to enter Aboriginal land.
Basically, all are welcome, but with conditions attached - it's not unlike the international visa system.
Surely the conservative Aussie electorate - which The Australian daily panders too - wouldn't begrudge Aboriginal people the right to decide who comes to their country and the circumstances under which they come?
As for Wilson's reference to a "luxury most Australians do not enjoy", well that's just a load of twaddle.
What the Warlpiri are doing is asserting their right to privacy and their right to place sanctions on the behaviour of people entering their land. Every private landholder in Australia enjoys - and exercises - the same right, much to the chagrin of media organisations like News Limited.
The fact that Aboriginal people allow journalists onto their land at all, given the way Australian media routinely depict them, is a miracle and in no small way points to the generosity of the Aboriginal spirit.
The paragraph in Mr Wilson's article could equally have read: "In a luxury most Australians do not extend, Yuendumu has allowed journalists from The Australian onto their land provided those journalists abide by their rules."
But where's the story in that?
Either way, we look forward to Ashleigh Wilson practicing what he preaches by opening his Darwin home to anyone who wants to visit with no restrictions on their conduct once there [Ed's note: I'll be up in Darwin later this month, Ashleigh - you better lock away the china].
The problem with many journalists - and this is not limited to Australia - is that they believe their own press. They think they have a God given right to report on anything they want, however they want.
In reality, journalists enjoy no powers other than those held by ordinary citizens. The media industry is not regulated like, for example, the legal profession and that's why people like Alan Jones and Howard Sattler survive and thrive.
Their license to operate comes from the goodwill of the community they purport to serve. When that power is abused it can be taken away and nowhere is that power abused more routinely than in the coverage of Aboriginal affairs.
Were I advising the Warlpiri Media Association - or any other Aboriginal organisation for that matter - on how to deal with journalists, it would go a little something like this: "Under no circumstances should you ever allow journalists from The Australian or any other News Limited publication to enter your lands for any reason whatsoever. Period. And if they phone you for a comment, pretend you don't speak English and hang up."
NIT absolutely believes in, and argues for, press freedom. But when a media organisation routinely proves it can't be trusted, its access should be denied or at the very least restricted.
All complaints about assaults on press freedom should be taken seriously, but not when they come from The Australian in the area of Aboriginal affairs.
The reason is simple - its recent history of reporting on all things black.
It was a reporter from The Australian, Paul Toohey who illegally entered Aboriginal land in May 2003. Toohey had requested access to the community of Wadeye in the Northern Territory to cover the funeral of a man who had been shot by police. Toohey was told he could not come to Wadeye on the day of the funeral - Aboriginal people were mourning and simply asked that their privacy be respected.
Toohey was told he was welcome another day... but he went regardless.
Immediately after the burial, Toohey began approaching family members for comment.
Can you imagine any journalist in this country treating the grieving wishes of the families of the Bali bombing victims with the same flippancy?
Even worse, can you imagine a journalist entering the private home of one of the Bali mourners to crash the wake?
In 2005, it was also The Australian newspaper which falsely accused NT Aboriginal leader Galarrwuy Yunupingu of leading a lavish Arnhem Land lifestyle while his relatives lived in poverty.
The story of Yunupingu's lifestyle was an invention, a myth. This fact was acknowledged by the government official appointed to investigate the allegations raised by The Australian against Yunupingu, Northern Territory Commissioner for Consumer and Business Affairs, Richard O'Sullivan.
In handing down his report, Mr O'Sullivan described "some earlier media articles about the lifestyle of (Mr Yunupingu)" as "wildly accurate".
The Australian reported the media conference but forgot to mention O'Sullivan's comments about its earlier coverage.
It's even more interesting to note that Ashleigh Wilson - who now complains about his access to Aboriginal communities in the Territory - was one of the writers involved in the reportage on Yunupingu.
In Wilson's defence, his reporting - with the exception of the Yunupingu piece - is generally accurate and inoffensive. And he came to the Yunupingu story late - most of the work was done by The Australian's Jennifer Sexton.
It was Sexton who earned herself a rebuke on ABC TV's Media Watch last year for an inexplicable, dare we say outrageous, claim that Professor Mick Dodson was a hypocrite because he owned a house in Canberra, but opposed the Howard government's plans to compulsorily acquire Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory.
It was also The Australian newspaper's Indigenous affairs reporter, Patricia Karvelas who just a fortnight ago misreported details of a massive underspend by the federal government in the area of Indigenous education. Karvelas reported one Indigenous education program was underspent to the tune of about $140,000. In fact the correct figure was $142 million. A month later, the story remains uncorrected.
Shall we go on? Let's.
What about last year when The Australian accused Geoff Clark of stealing Nicky Winmar's famous 1993 St Kilda jumper? Another invention - it never happened.
And what about the campaign The Australian has run to wipe-out the rights of traditional owners in the Northern Territory to decide what happens to their land?
Or The Australian's campaign to close regional and remote Aboriginal communities because they have no access to an economy or health care?
Or its campaign to pull apart CDEP, the only economy in many regional and remote communities.
The Australian doesn't just have a history of misreporting Aboriginal affairs and driving ultra-conservative ideologies, it has a habit. When it can manage to consistently get the facts right and provide balance in its reporting of Indigenous matters, then it might be taken more seriously on matters of press freedom.
Until then, it seems rather hollow for The Australian to fight to protect its right to enter private property whenever it likes for the purposes of misreporting stories which it will never correct nor be held accountable for.
editor@nit.com.au
Chris Graham is the founding editor of the National Indigenous Times. He has won a Walkley Award, a Walkley High Commendation and a Human Rights Award for his reporting on Indigenous issues.
|
|