Hello and welcome back to Fourth Estate, a show about journalism. We're coming to you from Tewissi Ah in Sydney on the Gadigal lands of the Eora nation, right across Australia on the Community Radio Network and directly to your device across the Globe via podcast. I'm Tina Quiyan and there's always it's a pleasure to have your company, a content warning ahead of this episode. We'll be discussing the media reportage of violence and harassment.
If you or someone you know is impacted by or experiencing sexual assault or domestic or family violence, please phone 1800-Respect on 1-800-737-732. And for counselling, advice or support for men who have anger, relationship or parenting issues. You can call the men's referral service on 1300-766-491. With the verdict delivered for the herd the Deaf defamation case this week, we ask could the media frenzy have been prevented and did the media report respectfully.
It's been hard to avoid the rolling coverage of the high-profile defamation case between former couple and actors Amber Heard and Johnny Depp. The live streamed case came to a close on June 1st and included multiple domestic abuse allegations from both parties to empower journalists to report ethically. In this episode, we're going to be highlighting the prestigious Our Watch Fellowship, the annual program in partnership with the Walkley Foundation trains outstanding journalists on the best practice reporting on violence against women, sexual harassment and abuse in the workplace. To discuss this and more, we're joined by Lynne Evelyn, a former practicing lawyer and now a journalist with SBS News.
She was also previously a researcher and producer for ABC News' Late Line. Lynne, welcome to Fourth Estate. Hi Tina, thanks for having me. And I understand it's a bit of a return to SDR for you as well.
It is, yes, I volunteered at SDR quite a few years ago, but it was a great training for me while I was in journalism school. Fantastic. Well, it's great to have you back. And Helen Pitt is also with us.
She's an author and journalist with the Sydney Morning Herald, where she began her career in 1986. She's also previously reported for EuroNews, The New York Times and The Bulletin Magazine. Helen, welcome to Fourth Estate. Thanks, Tina.
Before we begin today's discussion, I'm curious to first ask, have either of you noticed a recent change in the way that the Australian media reports on violence and harassment against women? Helen, I'm going to give you first because I think you've got the greatest length of time to compare and in terms of the yarn stick on this. It's really true, Tina. I've been a 40 years this year.
I had my first byline in a metropolitan daily 40 years ago. So I, sadly, would say that not much has changed. Domestic violence is such a difficult area to report on, which is indeed why I put my hand up to do this Our Watch Fellowship. The major part that I have a problem with is our defamation laws, unsurprisingly.
We, especially around the area of allegations, around domestic abuse, sexual assault, everything is alleged, of course, that's not a problem. I don't have a problem in that, the legal way of dealing with it. But when, like we had in the Amber Heard case, someone writes an opinion piece, for example, and it is their truth. Yet we cannot prove that.
I can really relate to the Washington Post editors who actually published this piece because there are lots of problems with doing a part of the reason why a lot of these allegations are not published is very hard to prove, but they are considered highly defamatory. And this is such a problem because your truth is your truth, especially if you're a survivor of any sort of abuse, but you have to be able to publish that, you have to prove that in a court of law. And that, for me, it's such a difficult thing to do. And it's such a vexing question for any journalist, certainly for the publisher.
An editor of the opinion pages has to run everything by a lawyer before they get published to be sure that they're not defamatory in the moment, something like that is mentioned. It's usually taken out of the context. So in this case, she didn't even Amber Heard didn't write the headline of the story, which was one of the major issues around it. And this would be probably would have been a problem if it was published in the magazine on Herald or any other media outlet, because we, as media practitioners, are after the sensational or after the headline grabbing story.
But that's the problem. This is a really vexed question to report on because if someone's truth and it has to be proved, and you can't necessarily do that. So really, I've got to say in 40 years, not much has changed in terms of making it easier for victims to speak out. And I can only think that this recent case is not going to do any favours in terms of encouraging people to speak to the media.
What about you, Lynne? What have you seen? Have you seen much of a difference over the last decade, at least? I might just maybe go through a little bit of the research that I learned during the Our Watch Fellowship, if that's okay.
Please do. So in 2016, there was national research that was done by Our Watch and Anros, which is the Australia's National Research Agenda to Reduce Violence Against Women. And the research found through the analysis of more than 4,500 reports on this particular area that 15% included latent victim blaming, 14.8% made latent excuses for the perpetrator. Only 4.3% included appropriate help seeking information.
And it also found that reports on this area really focused in on murder, the concept of murder, the criminal offence, whereas other aspects such as emotional abuse, threat, sexual harassment, that was all but invisible. So I think it's quite important to highlight this particular research. I mean, it is now six years old. I mean, I would say generally speaking, since the Me Too movement really took off around the world, I think there is perhaps a bit more awareness in relation to reporting on sexual harassment, sexual harassment in the workplace, and more awareness about sensitive, fair reporting.
But there is still a way to go. And I think it would be really interesting to see what the results of research like this would be if it was done now. It's interesting to note as well. I mean, with the advent of the Me Too movement, we haven't seen the same sort of repercussions or the same sort of groundswell, I think, here in Australia.
We might have seen a little bit of that with last year, more so in, I guess, in Canberra, away from the entertainment industry, more so in our political system. 16 journalists, it's important to note 16 journalists will be training in the Our Watch Fellowship this year. This week, the 2022 Fellows were announced, and that includes you, Helen. So congratulations, I know you're really looking forward to doing this training.
Lynne, as an Our Watch Fellow from last year, can you tell us a little bit more about the programme and maybe give Helen an idea of what she can expect? Sure. So the focus of this programme is really just on deepening knowledge on reporting on violence against women and children. Clearly, the research has shown that the media has a really, really important role to play in relation to attitudes and beliefs about violence against women and the way that the media frames the news, informs audiences, responses, emotional responses to cases and how they attribute responsibility.
So as part of the Our Watch Fellowship, I was lucky enough to attend three retreats with 16 other journalists from around the country. And it was just great because we got to obviously have lots of discussions, really in-depth discussions about how news is framed, looking at previous reporting, hearing from experts in the area, looking at data and also looking at how important things like the sources, who you talk to in your stories can impact on the way that a story is framed. So yeah, it was a really great experience and Helen will be able to get involved in all of that. Is there something that you've picked up from that training that you now use in your everyday reporting?
I think the main things, I think it's really just understanding the evidence behind it all. So like for example, we talked quite a bit about what drives violence against women. And I think one of the common misconceptions is that what drives violence is alcohol or drugs or somebody who has a mental illness. But what the programme taught me was that it really is gender inequality that drives violence against women.
So like for example, you know, they talked about that, you know, mental issues that doesn't cause violence. In fact, people who have mental illnesses, they're more likely than the general population to be victims of violence. And they're actually equally as likely to be perpetrators compared with the general population. Helen, what impact do you think resources like this are having in Australian newsrooms?
If you were to harken back to say 20 years ago, do you think it's a real game? It's going to be a real game changer for newsrooms. Well, I do think the Me Too movement was a game changer for newsrooms because any of us that have been around newsrooms for decades will know the sort of inappropriate sexual behaviour that took place in them in years past and not saying that they don't anymore. But we are certainly more eager to report them when they happen.
The Harvey Weinstein situation opening the floodgates here too, as you would probably know, the Sydney Morning Herald carrying out investigations on people like Don Burke and Justice Dyson Hayden that actually had huge impact on women in the workforce, women that had been victims of their behaviour. And just certainly an awareness of what is an isn't appropriate behaviour. You know, things were laughed off in newsrooms. You know, they're kind of like pretty gallows humour sorts of places.
Women only started coming into them really in the last 50 or 60 years. So there's that little lot of locker room style talk that went on in banter that went on in these past that doesn't really happen as much at least anymore in the newsrooms I've been a part of. But certainly the ones I started in, they were completely inappropriate things that were said and done. And so if that's anything to go back over this, that is one thing that's changed in the 40 or so years that I've been a journalist, A, way more women and B, women that are prepared to say that is not okay.
I was going to ask as well, I mean, you've also seen up until recently, I mean, you had a female editor in Sheik, only the third one in the Sydney Morning Herald's history in Lisa Davies. So I mean, do you think even having a woman say at the top, has that been a complete game changer? Look, of course, more visible women. The more visible women you can have in senior roles, the more likely this is, this sort of behaviour is going to be stopped.
It's not just about the culture of the newsroom, no, it's the culture of the country or the culture of the place when they're willing to stand up and say that is not okay. Like it's a bit of a zeitgeist thing because the media always follows the zeitgeist of the moment. I think you would be fair to say. So the moment, the New York Times and the New Yorker were really leading the way on these sorts of stories in the States, we followed suit and it's not to say that their stories were not around or kicking around, but the appetite from readers was there to think, oh, well, what's happening in Australia on that front?
So of course, you follow where the interest goes. And you know, it takes a lot of work, a lot of legwork to back up those kinds of investigations. That's been a groundswell of support for hearing those stories out. So that is a terrific change, I've got to say.
And that's just across the board. That's just not, that's from small media organisations to large ones. Everyone is mindful of those sorts of stories and people are more going to tell them too. Well, I guess seeing those that have come before them, it sort of propels them a little bit more or gives them a little bit more confidence that they're not going to be facing public ruin and ridicule if they come forward with these stories.
We've seen many survivors confide in journalists. That can only happen when we have that level of trust and a respected fourth estate really. Have we seen an improvement, do you think, an Australian journalist in terms of the trauma-informed reporting? Lynn, I'll go to you first.
I think that we have seen more and more so reporting which really puts the victim's story front and centre. I mean, the research really tells us that very, very few people come forward with allegations that are deliberately fabricated. And so I think that there's been a lot of work in ensuring that when victim survivors do come forward to journalists that their stories are told sensitively and with nuance and other violence against women experts also consulted as part of that process. So I think in that respect, yes.
One of the reasons I wanted to do the OW watch training was earlier this year I was selected to do jury duty and it was a sexual assault case. Now, I've been a court reporter over the years and I know the things you can and can't report on. But what sort of shocked me in that circumstance was how much of the onus of proof is on the victim that this takes place. And as Lynn said, my reaction is to a believe the person that's bothered taking this case to court for a start and then be just that it's very rare that people make this stuff up.
The situation is so harrowing and hard. I didn't realise how traumatic it is retelling the story in a court for a victim and in the circumstances that I was in, they were not actually present in court, which is a good thing. It was video streamed and the accused was. Now, that wasn't the case in the Amber Heard Johnny Depp thing, by the way.
That for me was always quite shocking for me to see that she was having to be facing her accuser and also the fact that it was televised. I just could not quite believe it because it did end up being trial by TikTok. So I guess my motivator in doing the OW watch fellowship is, is there a better way dealing with these allegations in the criminal justice system? I don't know the answer, but I see it seems so adversarial.
And what's required is a good defence lawyer in court. It's not actually the telling of the truth and you as a jury person have to prove beyond reasonable doubt or believe that the defence has proved, that the police prosecution has pure beyond reasonable doubt that this person is guilty. And that's very hard to do. And that's my frustration.
I don't know if it's really working for us. And I'm really interested in finding out if there's research from other countries about another way of doing this. I just wanted to jump in there and just add to what Helen's just said. I thought what was interesting about the Amber Heard, the Johnny Depp case was that basically Johnny Depp's legal team spent a good part of six weeks with a lot of victim blaming.
A lot of their argument was that she was not the perfect victim. And this speaks, all of their arguments, basically, spoke to what not to do when you look at the OW watch reporting. So it is really hard because if you are a reporter that is reporting on this case day in, day out, I also find it difficult because how do you reconcile that, the actual accurate reporting of the day versus not feeding into these tropes that can be very damaging towards women who suffer from violence? It is remarkable.
I thought we, as a society, had sort of moved on from this sort of, we needed to find a perfect victim to really prove the case. And it seems that we haven't really. What do you think the media's role is in terms of preventing violence and harassment against women? Helen?
Well, certainly not televising a court case. First step, I have real problems with the way that that was reported on because you could guarantee a more sensitive reporter that if they're in court following it, that was actually, as we call it, trauma-informed, but also just being responsible with what comes out of the mouth of the lawyers and to the people who are in court. I really don't know the answer is the thing. I'd like to see a way forward and maybe it's something like a Royal Commission or maybe it's a round table, it's a governmental thing because clearly, look what we've had in Canberra.
There is such a problem with this going on. And I mean, it's across the nation. Sexual abuse and assault takes all sorts of different forms. It's a very generic term, really, but we need to be specific as to how we're going to try to prevent each different type of it.
But I would be either a round table or a summit or something. There's just got to be some way forward to try and improve things. Lynne? Some researchers and advocates argue that having police is a primary source at the early stage of crime reports can be quite problematic in terms of contextualising violence or harassment beyond individual incidents.
Now, obviously, there are legal issues with reporting, but should we do that we should be mindful of relying on legal and law experts as primary sources? Yeah, I think that you've raised a great point there. I mean, I think that police and legal experts, they are important sources, but they shouldn't be the only source because often what their job is is to look at the crime. So they're really interested in what are the criminal elements of a particular incident, whereas things like emotional abuse, put downs, isolating the victim.
Those are things that don't really get a mention. So I think that, yes, we can consult the police and we should consult the police or other legal experts, but I do think it's really important to speak to violence against women experts as well as victim survivors because they can really help to contextualise what's happened. Be listening to Fourth Estate on the Community Radio Network. This week we're talking about the media's reportage of violence and harassment.
I'm speaking with the Sydney Morning Herald, Helen Pitt and SBS News' Lynn Evelyn. The defamation case between actors Amber Heard and Johnny Depp, which we've been touching on. I pre-empt this by saying to listeners, we're not going to be discussing the case specifically, rather the media's reportage of the case. Overall, do you think the media coverage in Australia was responsible from what you saw of how they covered the case, Helen?
Well, no, I think, as I said, it was trial by TikTok and I think there were so many fans of debt unwilling to hear the other side of the story. And it's not really much, but it was just such a media staged circus really. I know that there was an opportunity for the trial to be moved out of Virginia and to California where it may have had some greater chance to be heard in private. It didn't happen.
I just think it's become a ridiculous frenzy, especially when it's famous people involved. In fact, it's one of the reasons I tuned out and it might be why a lot of listeners and readers tuned out because a certain age bracket, I'd say the under 25 said, definitely, listened. It's the spectacle. It's kind of a Kardashian way of watching a train wreck of people's lives, in a sense.
But this is not reality TV. This is no set up. This is real life. And I just thought that the whole, again, back to the point of it being televised, it just was so wrong from a victim's viewpoint.
And just as a journalist, I found it, I find that really odd. And maybe that's just because I've grown up in Australia where that does not happen. But I have lived in the States, and I just can't see much benefit to the whole judge duty approach because it tends to be more entertainment than the court. I mean, it really recorded me.
I know you said it was sort of this Kardashian way of viewing a court case, but it really just recalled to me the hysteria in the mid-90s, really, with the O.J. Simpson trial. I mean, it was that sort of level of hysteria that was being brought about by televising the case. And really, I think in both cases, you can argue that the outcome was a complicated one, I think.
Well, that's it. And you have all these people passing judgment on something that they really don't know that much about. They see the spin that's been presented. They see lots of memes, and they see spoofs.
They see lots of things, but not really what the real outcome of the case, the implications of that case. So yeah, it was definitely very O.J Simpson-like, and almost unreal in the unraveling of it. Yeah. Some media organisations used the Herden depth cases as clickbait.
How do we get these organisations to bring responsibility to their business models? What do you think, Lynn? I think maybe more training in this area perhaps. I mean, I know that after we did the Our Watch Fellowship last year, we then went back to our respective news organisations and did newsroom training to sort of bring some of the knowledge that we learned to the broader organisation.
I mean, I think that that would be extremely helpful. However, I don't know if there's a will by news organisations to do it. Helen, no doubt there's been sensationalised reporting of this televised case beyond just tabloid and celebrity news. Do you think it's avoidable?
Well, unfortunately, the appetite for these sorts of stories is there. Whatever media outlet you are, you can be the most highbrow or overout that there's always going to be an Amherd Johnny K. Dep kind of story that people are wanting to follow. And I think we do need to think a lot about the way we write a headline, the way we put victim blaming in the words we write, even as a write off, which is just an introduction to the thing.
Yeah, I wish people weren't interested in it. But there's such as it's the world that we live in, the 24-7 news cycle. So yeah, there is really a requirement on us trying to be a bit more not dissensitivate, less sensational about the whole thing. Because in this case, it's always one person's word against the other anyway.
So it's the sort of classic thing that does well on Twitter, because there's two different sides of the story. And that doesn't mean that you can do it responsibly. They're a proper big investigation. It's probably what's required, but that takes time and resources.
And it's much easier to ask someone to whip up a 500 word opinion piece and what I think of the whole thing. So clear and nice the problem. Well, on the topic of opinion pieces, Sky News journalist Jack Houghton wrote a piece in the last few days in which he stated media outlets claiming misogyny is the reason Johnny Depp prevailed over his ex-wife Amber Herdon, a US court, have lost the trust of their readers. He says that some legacy media outlets, the editorial support clearly swung in her's favour.
Arguably, we also saw some media editorials swing in Depp's favour. Lynn, what's your take on this view of buyers? I think that, you know, I've read articles about this particular case. And I think that, you know, this case, the critical issue, as Helen mentioned, is that it was televised.
It was all out there for anybody to pick up. And what we saw was actually a lot of people on social media sort of taking that role of reporting on this case. And a lot of those people were actually Johnny Depp supporters. So, you know, in terms of the reporting that I've seen on legacy media or established media, it really was, you know, consultative of experts in the area and looked at and put in into the stories data about, you know, domestic violence.
You come from a journalist and law background. Now, Australia has very strict defamation laws. How do you think this impacts the media's role in reporting ethically on violence and harassment as Helen referenced earlier? Yeah, I mean, I think Australia's defamation laws have long been criticised for being too onerous.
And I think that this case is another case where for victims, it will have that sort of chilling effect where I think there's already many reasons why victims don't want to come forward and speak out. And this really adds, you know, to that list is threat of litigation. And Australia's litigation laws are far more onerous than American law. You know, we don't have the equivalent of the first amendment or even a bill of rights.
So I think that this case will, you know, contribute to victims not wanting to speak out and not wanting to speak out to journalists. I think you can blame the legacy media or you like, you can blame the irresponsible new media, not saying all new media is new, but you can blame the media for that. But ultimately, the Amber Heard Johnny Depp situation came down to the decision of 12 jurors and what the jurors thought of the case. So, you know, whether or not they were reading when you become a juror, you're told that, you know, you really shouldn't be engaging with the media that you take your phone off you, for example, there's no way you can Google something when you're in the court, that they really ask you not to do that.
In fact, I don't know if that's the same way in how it works in the States, but certainly here, you're really encouraged to not, we can't talk about the case with anyone except your 12, your fellow 11 jurors, even when someone walks out of the room, you can't talk about it unless they're not, unless everyone is there. So this is actually a really interesting case on how we try and have a black ban on jurors around cases that are very sensitive about this issue, so it's almost impossible when it's something like this, because of course you've got to be hearing about it everywhere you go, but I don't know how much the jurors were sort of not reading or participating in the media, I think it would be very difficult to avoid the media in that case. There's been analysis on what this case means for the Me Too movement. Do you think Australian media will need to be cautious in airing their views, so this case has shifted the conversation as such, Helen?
Well, I think our views, whoever we are in the media, need to be informed by the people who are either the victims of the violence of domestic abuse or sexual violence, sexual violence, whatever it is, really, that's where the respect needs to be given and continued to be given. So like, our opinion on it shouldn't really matter. Again, it should come back to more straight out reporting of how to prevent it, I think, in the first case. So really, things like our watch, Jess Hill's amazing, see what you made me do.
There's people doing extraordinarily good stuff out there, and we all need to be made aware of, hey, how we don't become a victim, ourselves and be, you know, what to do when you think someone you know might be. So there things that we need to be really sensitive about as we move forward in a world in which, yeah, you've got to be a little bit more cautious if you had suffered any sort of abuse. Lynne? Yeah, I mean, I agree.
I think that we should continue to do this reporting and to, you know, really try and put victims front and center and ensuring that we put context around our reporting. In future, reported about violence and harassment, especially when it comes to high profile cases, what do you think can be improved, Lynne? Well, I think it would help if it wasn't televised, because, you know, as Helen mentioned, it made this case into a huge media circus and, you know, you've got to add onto it that we're talking about two people who are, you know, be Hollywood stars. I mean, I think, yeah, the fact that, you know, if it wasn't televised, it would help a lot.
And I think that, you know, there was a lot of reporting I saw on the sensational aspects of this case, because there was this airing out of the private lives of these two high profile people. But if we strip that back to what it was, which was a case, it was a defamation case focused on allegations of domestic violence and looking at what was the evidence that was put before the court and focusing on those sorts of elements. I think that would make for, you know, more informed reporting in this area. Yeah, that's very true, Lynne.
What actually got talked about was not necessarily anything much was before the court. And so it was everyone's opinion. Oh, Johnny's innocent. Oh, Amber's crazy.
That sort of thing, that sort of feeding of all of the sort of supplementary information by watching the case was really the problem, actually, for me. And it is an interesting case in that we have had a lot of new media coverage, you know, from Instagram to TikTok to Twitter. And that's where laws around subdutacy, you know, cases before the court, you weren't able to really report, or you could report on what was said in the court. And that's still the case here.
But a lot of that coverage was nothing to do with anything that was said in the court was all said outside of the court. And that's people's opinions from observing something that they really know very little about. For further resources on reporting about violence and harassment, you can visit the our watch media website media dot our watch dot org dot au the dance center for journalism. And trauma also has resources on trauma informed reporting.
If any of the content in this episode has brought anything up for you, please reach out or speak to someone you trust, you can get support by contacting 1800 respect on 1800 737 732. On that note, I'd like to thank both Helen Pitt, thank you, and Lynn Evelyn. Thank you so much, ladies, for joining us on Fourth Estate this week. And thank you for listening to the program.
And this edition was recorded at the studios of Teweser and heard across the country on the community radio network. Fourth Estate is produced with the assistance of the Community Broadcasting Foundation. Thanks to the foundation for their continuing support. Make sure you subscribe to Fourth Estate on your favorite podcast app so you can hear us talk about media, politics, and a lot in between.
We'll be back with more next week, of course. But in the meantime, you can stay in touch with us on Twitter. Our handle is Fourth Estate, a you. A big thanks as always to my producer, Malene Evelyn, an executive producer, Anthony Dockroll.
I'm Tina Quinn. Please do stay well, stay safe and catch us next week on Fourth Estate. A safer Ontario means more police and prosecutors making sure my card doesn't get stolen. It means building new jails to keep criminals behind bars.
And it means there's no need to wear me when I play at the park. We're making every corner of Ontario safer to make all of Ontario safer. That's how we protect Ontario. For all of us.
Learn how at Ontario.ca. Stay for Ontario. Pay for it by the Government of Ontario.