"King Rat" not Unfair but Part of Political Vernacular

The Australian Press Council (APC) in a recent decision on 27 May 2013, has found that a digitally altered photograph of former House of Representatives speaker Peter Slipper was not highly offensive or unfair.

The person making the complainant, Jan Winstanley, said she was: "... horrified by the material and found it was highly offensive, unfair and goes against every principle that I am trying to instil in my children and in my workplace."

The photograph which covered most of the front page showed Peter Slipper MP standing at the Speaker’s Chair in the House of Representatives announcing his resignation from that office. His ears, nose and teeth digitally altered to resemble a rat, whiskers were added to his face, and a very large rat’s tail had also been appended to his body. The Daily Telegraph argued the altered depiction of Mr Slipper and the headline describing him as “King Rat” were “robust and powerful”. However it argued they were not unfair or offensive because they related to aspects of his behaviour falling within the long-established use of the term “rat” in the Australian political vernacular.

In its decision, the Council considered that the use of the term “King Rat” used in this context was not so highly unfair and offensive as to outweigh the public importance of allowing robust expressions of opinion on issues of political controversy, and in relation to digital alteration of the photograph, the Council considered that altered photographs are not necessarily to be assessed on precisely the same basis as if they were cartoons. 

This decision is yet another example of why there is little or no chance of balanced reporting in the Australian media while a situation prevails where one or two media organisation not only control most of the press but also having a large voice  regulating standards and ethics.

Another example of the same bias is the recent lampooning beyond reality and fact of the federal Minister for Communication for simply backing a mild legislative attempt to introduce some impartiality into media regulation. Legislation like that successful introduced in the UK to curb the excess caused by a media organisation run by the same company that owns the Daily Telegraph. 

Then there is the well known 2GB announcer who on an almost daily basis plays to bias and uses racist and derogatory terms to seed hatred and division. He too has fronted tribunal after tribunal and to date has profited from the experience in increased rating and thumbed his nose at any attempt to make him accountable.

Freedom of speech indeed is a most important sacred right but equally no right should be taken for granted or abused by people who hide behind it with the clear purpose of whipping up hate against those they do not like or favour.