Is it time to regulate the way media report criminal proceedings where the subject matter is terrorism or something equally newsworthy?
If today’s appallingly prejudicial reporting of the forthcoming trials of five Melbourne men charged with terrorism offences is any indication, then the answer is most definitely yes.
The five men, arrested and charged earlier this year in a blaze of publicity were yesterday in the Melbourne Magistrates Court where a brief of evidence, prepared by the police and security agencies and completely untested as to the admissibility and veracity of its contents, was given to a magistrate who then “committed”, or ordered the men to stand trial in the Supreme Court next year.
The police were only too happy, as is their wont in most high-profile cases, to give the media a copy of the untested materials they handed to the court, and the result, at least in the case of the Herald Sun and The Age this morning, are headlines and images which are highly prejudicial to the accused and which will make their quest for a fair trial harder.
The Herald Sun’s front page is extraordinary. It manages to link the most emotive event in recent Victorian history, “our bushfires” as it calls them, with statements, which the police say are made by the accused about those fires. Accompanying a grainy photograph of a person who is, the police say, one of the accused, in military fatigues and carrying a gun, is this headline: “Burning with hate: Accused terrorist plotted 20 minutes of hell and gloated about our Black Saturday tragedy, court told”.
How does the Herald Sun know this photo is of the accused? When was it taken? Does the Herald Sun know that the alleged conversation about bushfires are accurate?
The Age, which likes to think of itself as a little more circumspect and responsible, on this occasion failed that test. It’s front page includes the same grainy photo as used by the Herald Sun. The caption above it is an alleged quote from one of the accused: “These filthy people, they are coming down man.” The Age also includes a side bar story which contains edited “intercepted conversations of alleged terrorists.” Of course, for the sake of newspaper sales, only a minute fraction of the thousands of hours of transcript is included, and the juiciest most outrageous quotes used.
In the Family Court and Children’s Court there are strict rules about what the media can and cannot report so as to ensure fairness to the parties and to make sure that the media’s tendency to want to publish prurient and sensational material for its own sake, is kept in check.
It is time that the media was subjected to similar rules in terrorism cases when they are before the courts. What should those rules be? One obvious one is to ban publication of materials which have not been tested by a court so that some assessment has been made of their value and accuracy. Another should be, for the media to only be given a statement, agreed by the prosecution and defence, of what evidence there is against an accused in a case.
The media enjoys a right to know and a freedom to publish in a democratic society, but those freedoms must be exercised responsibly. That was not the case this morning.
The media are what they are. Get used to it. This criticism should be aimed at the police for playing the terrorism card in their grasping quest for good ratings. Irresponsible and dangerous.
@ James McDonald,
While I agree that the police et al, have much to answer for, are you really saying that no one can have a reasonable expectation to a fair trial in Australian society, simply because “the media are what they are”, and should not be regulated?
When I heard the ABC radio report I thought, how can such prejudicial, potentialy irrelevant defamation, be publicised so blatantly? Surely there is a possible contempt here to attempt to pressure the courts into pre determining the case? Who really thinks judges are not susceptible to such ferocious publicity?
(I know personally from 2 years of paid work that courts in NSW were and probably remain clients of Media Monitors and get sheafs of clippings of what the media are up to about their cases. Who imagines judges aren’t aware of this behind the veil of total social and intellectual indepedence? Indeed my ANU jurisprudence lecturer all those years ago quoted various studies of socio economic prejudice inbuilt into the selection of the judiciary. What do the courts do with those clippings? Who gets copied in amongst the judges? No one knows.)
That coverage also seems very stupid, such as it could undermine any potential guilty verdict with an appeal? Worse convict the wrong person, no matter how loathesome otherwise, out of prejudice leaving the real terrorist(s) off scot free to do more and worse? And pollute the thinking of a jury to be chosen creating a potential future mistrial and big expense? Is that the real intention of the press? Vigilantes at dawn? And huge taxpayer waste of money? Do they even care?
And then when I saw the stupid upbeat ABC tv reporter parroting the well calculated smear – at all times with a gormless smile on her face – on prime time news last night I thought is that a real journalist? Or a puppet parody? The reporter might have at least affected voice neutrality.
What on earth was the magistrate thinking releasing sensationalist untested evidence? Might be out of their depth?
Kevin: The subjudice laws are quite strong, unless they’ve changed when I wasn’t looking. (Maybe they have changed–I’m no lawyer–in which case bring them back.) If subjudice was committed in this case then all the police and journalists involved are culpable, and let them be charged.
Better still, offer the accused a dose of their own Sharia law, much more appropriate for subhumans.