The real task, as is plainly evidenced below, is to ensure that all journalists adhere rigorously to the principles laid down in the existing Code.

From May through July 1997 the media devoted considerable coverage to the eviction of an Aboriginal family from their government-leased house in Paris Way, in the Perth suburb of Karrinyup. In a protracted controversy, Homeswest (the WA State Housing Commission) sought to evict the family on grounds of anti-social behaviour, based mainly on complaints from some neighbours. The family resisted the eviction order and put their case (unsuccessfully) to remain in the house to the WA Equal Opportunity Tribunal. In what follows I have sought to indicate where I believe journalists reporting the issue failed to abide by their professional ethics. It is arguable whether such unethical reporting had bearing upon the legal and institutional decisions made, but it is my opinion that public antipathy toward the family's case was encouraged.

1. They shall report and interpret news with scrupulous honesty by striving to disclose all essential facts and by not suppressing relevant, available facts or distorting by wrong or improper emphasis.

The West Australian of 22 May 1997, a page 3 story by Leeroy Betti 'Eviction reprieve Sparks Outrage'. Picture of woman, Sally Suba, with pepper spray and dog Ü caption said she has 'lived in fear of the Martins for years'. Story text described Suba as 'lives in a Homeswest house 300m from the Martins' plus quotes about abuse by 'the teenagers'. However, what the report does not tell readers is that Suba was not a neighbour of the Martins in Paris Way, she lives on a different street (Bridgewater Crescent). The first thing a journalist should have considered when faced with such a source is that, given the issue was generally framed as one of neighbour complaints against the Martins, why is Suba, a non-neighbour, involved? If the reporter knew that Suba was involved with the evictions of Joan Martin's son and daughter from houses in Bridgewater Cres. in 1995, then why was this relevant fact not reported, ie. that Suba had a prior dispute with some members of the family, who are no longer in her street. Suba continued to campaign for their eviction from a different street, and as such was not an 'innocent' neighbour, but a highly prejudicial source of comment and information. A revealing report on Suba's campaign against the Martin family, and other crucial aspects of the eviction other Perth media failed to report, can be read in the 16 July 1997 (page 4) edition of The Aboriginal Independent Newspaper, (Tel: (08) 9355125). Here's an excerpt from that report, quoting Suba, who was taped for an ABC current affairs report in 1995:

"As far as housing goes the answer is definitely not to integrate Aborigines into white areas". "I do feel generally in Australia that a terrible mistake is being made about the integration of Aboriginals amongst white areas."

In an STW9 News interview by Terry Willesee, the misleading presentation of Suba continued by failing to describe her long-term involvement and campaigning, and in which she was ambiguously and simply described as a 'resident'. 

Various TV News reports introduced the issue with lines like 'Perth's most unwanted neighbours' (TVW7, 13.6.97, 6pm) and 'Perth's most notorious family' (STW9, 13.6.97, 6pm). TVW7 News also said 'Homeswest has failed in its bid to kick out the family some describe as the neighbours from hell' (10.6.97, 5pm). This is sheer editorial distortion in supposedly straight, factual reports. 

On Friday 25 July 1997, STW9 News reported on the outcome of the Equal Opportunity Tribunal hearing on the Martin family case. Amongst other file vision taken weeks previously, the report flashed a close-up shot of the kitchen stove in Mrs Martin's former house, underneath the words 'this was the condition of the Paris Way house under the Martins', and then contrasted this with a quick shot of the outside of the house, now freshly painted. Why did STW9 did carry out this rank deception? The condition of the Paris Way house was not at issue in the eviction case. A shot of an untidy stove shows nothing that could not be replicated in many kitchens on a given day, not least those of busy middle-class journalists. Still, that fact was not going to get in the way of another chance to stick the media boots into this poor family. 

In general, commercial TV news failed to adequately report on the Equal Opportunity Tribunal hearing at which Joan Martin and others gave evidence in support of Mrs Martin's case to remain in her home.

9. They shall respect private grief and personal privacy and shall have the right to resist compulsion to intrude on them.

TVW7 News got a TV crew into Mrs Martin's house without her invitation. Mrs Martin demanded the footage not be used. TVW7 showed the footage regardless. The Martin family's right to privacy was trampled on by shameless journalists using unethical means to obtain 'news'.

STW9 News program made a dramatic report on 9 June 1997 about a boy in the Martins' front yard throwing a stone at a car from which its news crew were filming the house, and cracking a lens (actually the protective clear lens cover). The boy's father (Mrs Martin's son Dean) had died a few days before and the family was preparing to go to the funeral that day. No mention of this. No apology for intruding upon and disrespecting private grief. No let up by the ratings-driven TV news packs pressing in on the family, not even on the very day a boy sees his father buried. 

In a press report 'Police Papers Filed in Martin Case' (The West Australian, 21 July 1997, p. 32) by Liz Tickner, it was wrongly stated that there were 'reports of child molestation' concerning the Martin house. No such police reports had been made. This very serious and harmful error was not corrected by the paper in any subsequent edition.