| In this analysis of Perth Radio 6PR talk-back show
presenter Howard Sattler, I want to demonstrate that
despite Sattler's frequent claim that he 'treats everyone
equally', regardless of race or cultural background, the
following transcripts show a marked contrast in the
broadcaster's treatment of two comparable public
documents involving past injustices against Australians.
The two public documents are the movie Paradise Road
about the experiences of women in Japanese prison camps
during WWII, and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission (HREOC) report, Bringing
Them Home, on the removal of Aboriginal children
from their families, both released in late May 1997. Sattler states the removal of Aboriginal children was a 'disgrace' and 'it should never have happened', and he is 'sorry' about it. However, he's not about to represent the Report accurately to his listeners, nor to urge them to consider or read it. The first transcript is from 22 May 1997, with Sattler speaking by telephone, on air, to the Director of the Aboriginal Medical Service, Ted Wilkes. Sattler, introducing his program topics for the day:
[30 seconds later ...] [later in the program:]
|
| Sattler uses his familiar interruption technique
with Wilkes. The discussion is reduced to brief
paragraphs at most, in which Wilkes's points are cut-off
before they are finished. Worried he will not be able to
maintain the upper hand in a fair debate, Sattler employs
interruption in an attempt to do so. As examined in Gambling on
the First Race, Wilkes, on the telephone, has no
equivalent power to interrupt Sattler, if he so desired. Sattler's comment 'Ted you want to live in the past all the time' must be compared with his sympathetic promotion of the Paradise Road film, which involved, similar to the stolen generations: Moreover, like the HREOC Report, this other past injustice against Australians has been accounted for in a public document (the movie). However, Sattler promotes the movie to his listeners, but not the HREOC Report. In essence, he says they should ignore it. This is clear discrimination in the treatment of two public documents about two histories of injustice and atrocity against Australians. The interests of indigenous people wronged by the removal of children have been sacrificed to Sattler's self-interested campaign against 'the [Aboriginal] industry'. Moreover, this cannot serve the interests of other Australians who deserve to be accurately informed about the issue. Indeed, if Sattler often claims also to be concerned about the way taxpayers' money is used, that is, a claimed concern for the interests of 'the taxpayer', then given that the HREOC Inquiry was 'taxpayer funded', the interests of taxpayers among Sattler's listeners are not being served by his encouraging them, with distortions and misrepresentations, to dismiss and ignore a report on injustice against Australians that they have paid for. By contrast, Sattler is encouraging his taxpayer listeners to see a movie on injustice against Australians that they have not paid for. Wilkes raises massacres of Aboriginal people. Rather than condemn them, Sattler generalises massacres and uses the Port Arthur shootings as evidence. However, this is plainly at odds with his own demands that people be treated equally, regardless of race. Massacres based on race then, should not be equated, or subsumed by 'secular' massacres. In other words, Wilkes has identified the discriminatory massacring of Aborigines, that is, how they were not treated equally, but killed because they were Aborigines. Instead of trying to deny the racial specificity of the massacres, Sattler should have described these as 'disgraceful' like he has described the removal of children. But his aim is to render Wilkes' arguments as unwarranted special pleading, and the significance of racist massacring of Aborigines is sacrificed to Sattler's sectarian and petty ulterior interests in castigating whatever 'Aboriginal industry' spokespeople and representatives say. Later on, Sattler, in taking two callers, continues
to counterpose the setting up of link-up and counselling
services to monetary compensation -- 'you just can't pass
it off with a cheque' (to caller Hilda). Moreover, having argued that money is not appropriate compensation for past traumas, Sattler replies to caller Christine's query 'we didn't give money to the ANZACS did we?' with 'well, not enough'. Thus, monetary compensation is indeed warranted for past trauma, and the ANZACS "did not get enough". Fairly clear discrimination here. Sattler treats an elderly Aboriginal caller, Hilda, who was removed, very sympathetically. He reiterates a number of times throughout the morning that 'it was a disgrace, should never have happened and will never happen again'. However, as above, Sattler creates the false impression that the Report is recommending only either symbolic or cash reparations, and that it is Sattler who is advocating the 'real solutions' of counselling and family re-uniting. In fact these latter are key recommendations of the Report -- numbers 13, 27, 30a, 30b, 31a, 33a, 34a, 34b, 36, 40a, 40b. Sattler assumes the role of the champion of Aborigines against 'the [Aboriginal] industry'. Thus, where 'the industry' cannot be shown factually to have misrepresented Aboriginal interests, it must be made to appear so anyway. This is quite mundanely, extremely bad journalism; bereft of facts and information about a government Report which is the focus of discussion and thoroughly deceitful. Let's go back to Sattler's promotion of the film Paradise
Road to complete the comparison of his treatment of
past injustices against Australians. [the following week
(27 May 1997) - 11.00 am]
[another 15 seconds of music without talking]
Also that same week, a group of forty British people removed from their families and sent out to Australia as children got on a plane to return to their kin. Sattler did not say they were 'living in the past'. As he pointedly said 'they deserve our sympathy'. Certainly they do, and why not indigenous people too, Mr Sattler?
|