G20-Corporate Media Smears : Melbourne Indymedia

The photos appeared on The Age and Herald Sun websites accompanied by stories.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21079797-661,00.html
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/g20-riot-suspects-unmasked/2007/01/18/1169095897775.html

The Age story appears under the headline of ‘G20 riot suspects unmasked’. This headline, and the publishing of the ‘persons of interest’ deserve closer attention.

Firstly, of concern is the fact that those photographed are identified as ‘riot suspects’. According to the Herald Sun article, ‘police would not say whether any of the people they wanted to speak to had broken the law, or were just witnesses to the violence’. So how are these people ‘riot suspects’? It would appear that The Age has posted photos of people as riot suspects with no evidence that this is the case. Not sure about the ins and outs of defamation law, but if I were one of those people, a call to a lawyer might be worthwhile.

The second part of the headline is that these ‘riot suspects’ were ‘unmasked’. Were they? A few of them are masked up, but a lot of them are not. No evidence is provided that these people were in fact masked up at any time. But the insinuation in clear - that these people who might just have been witnesses were all seeking to conceal their identities for some reason. Again no evidence to justify the headline is provided.

A look at the photos reveals several people holding cameras in poses and outfits that suggest they were doing little more than filming. In fact, one seems to be holding a video camera. Are Police suggesting that the person was holding it in one hand while smashing a Police van and rioting with the other. It would seem the more likely explanation is that Police want these people’s footage. As such, the question arises as to what the ethics are of The Age publishing these people’s photos on their site for the possible sole purpose of gathering information for Police. Is their privacy worth nothing? One imagines that if an incident occurred in a corporate marquee at the Melbourne Cup that they would have been a bit more hesitant in publishing photos of possible witnesses as ‘people of interest’ for the possible sole purpose of gathering information.

The most important issue raised though is the intimidatory effect this kind of reporting has on public protest. The implication is clear. Go to a protest, and if there is any illegal activity, you could have your photo splashed across the media as a ‘person of interest’ merely for being there at the same time.

As was the case at the time of the G20 protests where reports slandered protestors with no evidence (think Age headline ‘Protestors Throw Urine’) while documented examples of Police violence were downplayed or ignored, we are left to see clearly where the allegiances of our corporate media outlets lie and how far they will sway from journalistic principles in the service of the powerful.

Related

G20 Corporate Media Coverage
http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2006/11/132637.php