0/5

New privacy rules branded as “censorship”

New privacy rules for broadcasters announced by the media watchdog have been branded as censorship by news bosses.

New privacy rules for broadcasters announced last week by the media watchdog have been branded as censorship by news bosses.

The privacy guidelines for broadcasters announced on Christmas Eve by the Australian Communications and Media Authority will limit the ability of TV networks to invade the privacy of individuals, including politicians and public figures.

The new rules will also potentially prevent broadcast media from showing images of asylum-seekers arriving by boat.

The Dept of Immigration and Citizenship submitted that, “We see evidence on an almost daily basis of the lack of respect and regard all news outlets are displaying in relation to the privacy of asylum seekers arriving in Australia by boat, and client detainees in immigration detention.

“We have approached news directors, producers, chiefs of staff and individual news gatherers about these ongoing concerns through a range of channels including phone calls, meetings, emails, media alerts and letters, to no avail.”

Peter Meakin, the Seven Network’s head of news and current affairs has criticised the ruling.

“I think it’s a ridiculous provision and I suspect it is being done more for the benefit of authorities than for the asylum-seekers,” he told The Australian.

“I can understand asylum-seekers wanting privacy for the protection of their families, but a blanket ban is just the big hand of censorship.”

Even Linda Briskman, professor of human rights education at Curtin University, found course to agree.

“By not portraying the human face of the asylum-seeker, they become dehumanised, criminalised and it’s easier for people to ignore their suffering,” she said.

“Photos allow us to empathise, especially when we look into the eyes of children.”

Under the rules networks will be forced to pixellate faces of asylum seekers.

6 Responses

  1. “I don’t want to see anyones ‘baby bump”, I dont need to see Nicole Kidman driving out of a driveway, or Russell Crowe drinking a coffee, some teenager’s face arrested for drug possesion ….”
    Thing is, most people do, and will watch the channel that carries this stuff. If they didn’t then ABC News24 would get more than 0.5%.

  2. Today….watching news….a camera person decided to zoom in on the face of a deceased person in a coffin….Why?!?
    My personal feeling is that news is wayyy too invasive these days…..
    I have to agree with the comments Archer made…

  3. It does seem that the networks news and current affairs should shoulder the blame for this over-reaction. Their constant invasion into the personal lives and spaces of individuals was going unchecked, and now we are all suffering (including the refugees who need the publicity of their appalling situation) . Surely there is a middle ground, that protects individuals without resorting to such gross censorship.

  4. Well they would say that wouldn’t they? I don’t think any of the commercial channels have anything to be proud of the way they hound people, supposedly because the public demands it .I don’t want to see anyones ‘baby bump”, I dont need to see Nicole Kidman driving out of a driveway, or Russell Crowe drinking a coffee, some teenager’s face arrested for drug possesion or any other inanities they come up with.

Leave a Reply