New research into the media coverage of the Dr Mohamed Haneef case reveals that serious mistakes made by some sections of the media during the case were never corrected.
The research is detailed in a new book, Islam and the Australian News Media, which examines the treatment of Islam and Muslims by the Australian news media. Media and myth: Dr Haneef and the fourth estate, a chapter written by former journalist turned academic Dr Jacqui Ewart, challenges the myth that the media did a great job reporting the case.
The release of the book and Dr Ewart’s research coincides with further developments in the Haneef case — Dr Haneef’s legal team appeared in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal this week to fight for the release of more documents from the case. His lawyers were appealing against an attempt by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet to stop the release of documents Haneef’s legal team have requested under Freedom of Information.
Dr Ewart says that although the work of two journalists had an important impact on the outcome of the Haneef case, a series of significant errors made by several newspapers were neither corrected nor prosecuted by the journalism industry. Those errors impacted on the public perception of the case and the man at its centre — Dr Haneef.
“The fact that these errors were not corrected by the media outlets which published them highlights the journalism profession’s inability to critique itself,” Dr Ewart says. “The case also had a significant affect on relations with India, and the inaccuracies in some of the media coverage of the case contributed to that damage.”
Dr Ewart says current tensions between Australia and India, which have arisen because of attacks on Indian students studying in Australia, have been exacerbated by the ongoing court action in the Haneef case. In the book she explores three key moments in the development of the story including, a story published by The Sunday Mail in July 2007, which claimed police sources told the newspaper Haneef was implicated in a plot to blow up the iconic Gold Coast building Q1.
The now-former AFP commissioner Mick Keelty took the unprecedented action of issuing a public statement that the newspaper’s report was inaccurate. However, The Sunday Mail never corrected or apologised for the erroneous story.
“Former AFP commissioner Mr Mick Keelty complained about some of the media coverage of this case and even suggested that a debate needed to be held about restricting media reportage of suspected terrorism cases. Although the AFP’s handling of the case has been criticised by many, Mr Keelty’s point had some merit when applied to certain aspects of the media coverage of the story,” Dr Ewart said.
Dr Ewart, who details the case in her book Haneef: A Question of Character, says the onus is on the news media to correct errors. Failure to do so diminishes the media’s importance in the eyes of public institutions, the individuals affected and the public.
Dr Haneef, who was working at the Gold Coast Hospital, hit the headlines in mid-2007 when he was arrested on suspicion of supplying material support to a terrorist organisation. The medico was held without charge for 12 days under anti-terrorism laws introduced in 2004 and 2005.
He was eventually charged, given bail, but effectively had his bail revoked when his visa was withdrawn by the-then immigration minister Kevin Andrews. Haneef was moved from the Brisbane watchhouse to Wolston Correctional Centre, but the case eventually fell apart when a review of the charge and evidence in the case by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions led to the withdrawal of the charge.
Haneef left Australia for his home in Bangalore India on July 29, while his lawyers continued to fight the case in the Australian court system. They are now seeking access to government documents and files from the case and are working on a compensation claim for their client.
Surprised?
Let’s face it, the media in this country, owned as it is, by “the precious few”, exists to apply the sort of unaccountable political muscle it can wield without having to be elected – for the sort of political outcomes it’s owners think “best suit us” – meaning them. “The country” comes second, far too often!
It openly “sponsors” one side of the divide, and can twist or neglect any embarrassing “detail” it so chooses in it’s pursuit of it’s overriding interest of influencing the people that actually do vote – especially pandering to, and nurturing, certain prejudices without challenging them – to vote for the party that media Rightly “anoints”!
The ABC usually attracts critique of being “leftist” because there are a few, higher profile journo’s there that won’t faun – they’ll treat both sides to the same sort of attitude and questioning, a lot more readily than their commercial cousins are so keen to do, and a lot more often.
Indeed! I was sceptical from the outset? Why? There was an election only a few months away, and Howard wasn’t travelling well. I’m sure that he and those who supported him, which obviously means most of corporate media, saw Dr Haneef as the way to do it. I was outraged at the role Howard, Ruddock and Andrews played and also Mick Keelty – with a couple of exceptions! This was Muslim bashing on a grand scale, a continuation of what they’d created and fostered since 9/11. It was one of the most disgusting performances of a lust for power that I could remember – except for Tampa and the children overboard disgrace!
I’m also not surprised that the same media outlets did nothing to change the lies they fostered! They haven’t over anything else, let alone did any real investigative journalism – they’re only interested in their own interests and how to achieve their goals – make as much money as possible, and don’t allow truth to get in the way of a ‘good’ story or racist scandal! Disgusting!
Good on Dr Haneef’s legal team for continuing their quest for justice. (I’ve congratulated them via email a couple of times now).Shame on the Rudd govt for their continuance of Howard’s seedy and shameful behaviour! Every time I hear these bastards spruike on about democracy, rule of law, fair go, innocent until proven guilty etc I want to be sick!
They also fought against Mondouh Habib having the right to sue the federal govt over his horrific treatment for 3 years – for what? No charges your honour!Not one!
Why is the Dept of Pm and Cabinet blocking papers relating to the Dr Haneef injustice? I would have though the Govt would be keen to release everything pertaining to the case so they can rubbish Andrews, Ruddock and everyone else involved in the Howard Ministry at the time. Perchance this PM has something to hide, like Labors total ignoring of the Haneef case until the last few days, when it was evident there was political gain? Surely not.
If ony the abc would print work like you do.
O what is going to happen to australia with the way they have become
if i worked there i would leave
i suppose it would be used in some negative way by the liberals so what s the use.