ASKING THE MEDIA TO CORRECT MISTAKES

Refugees, asylum seekers and the Australians who support them have had to endure countless media articles full of inaccuracies and stereotypes. But sometimes media organisations go one step further and publish information which is blatantly false. This page aims to draw attention to such outrageous media blunders and to correct the record for people seeking accurate information about issues relating to refugees and asylum seekers.

Courier Mail’s fictional 'dole payments plan for illegal migrants'

The 'news' l The Courier Mail's response to criticism l Exposure on ABC-TV's Media Watch l Why the articles are wrong l How you can respond

The Courier Mail, the Brisbane tabloid newspaper published by Rupert Murdoch’s News Limited, published a page 3 article on June 25, 2008 claiming that the Australian Government was considering a plan to give illegal migrants the dole. Within hours of publication, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Chris Evans, released a statement, clearly stating that no such plan existed or was under consideration.

The Refugee Council phoned the reporter who wrote the article, Renee Viellaris, and emailed the Editor, David Fagan, and Deputy Editor, Steve Gibbons, to point out how and why the article was wrong. The Refugee Council’s CEO, Paul Power, then submitted a letter to the editor – which was published on June 26 with the reference to the article being “wildly inaccurate” removed from the published letter. (In hindsight, “wildly inaccurate” was not an appropriate description of the article; it was, in fact, blatantly untrue.)

Faced with such an obvious and damaging blunder, most people would acknowledge the mistake, publish a correction and move on. But instead, the Courier Mail chose to publish a follow-up story on June 26, beating up the reaction to its obviously false story and republishing the mistakes of the previous day. To read about the obvious errors in the two articles, click here.

The Courier Mail’s response

As the number of phone calls and emails from Australians concerned about correcting the public record increased, the management of the Courier Mail spiralled downward into an aggressive defence of the indefensible. After contacting people interviewed for Ms Viellaris’ article to try to understand why she got the story so wrong and attempting (without success) to speak directly to the Editor, the Refugee Council wrote directly to him (by email) on June 27 to seek a retraction of the articles:

Dear Mr Fagan,

For years, refugees and asylum seekers and the community organisations and volunteers who work with them have had to endure countless examples of media coverage which have sensationalised, distorted and misrepresented issues affecting them. Such articles have done much to divide Australians against each other and caused confusion about the realities of Australia’s engagement with refugees.

But rarely has a media outlet published information which is so obviously false as the article the Courier Mail published on June 25 about potential modifications to the Australian Government’s Bridging Visa system. I was astounded and appalled by this article but just could not believe that, the following day, you would republish false information after being informed clearly how and why the original article was wrong. These two articles have put the Courier Mail in a category all of its own for publishing blatantly false information.

Because these articles have been so damaging to many people for whom the Refugee Council advocates, I have taken the time and trouble to seek out people your reporter Renee Viellaris contacted in the preparation of her so-called “news” article. None of the people responsible for contact with the media from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, the Minister’s office and the Shadow Minister’s office said anything to Ms Viellaris which would reasonably lead her to conclude that Centrelink benefits would ever be considered for Bridging Visa E holders. As Centrelink benefits are not even extended to all permanent residents, it is impossible to imagine that such benefits would be extended to people on the most temporary of all visas.

Your reporter’s ignorance – and the ignorance of the sub-editors responsible for checking the story – is plain to anyone with even a basic understanding of immigration policy. How can someone who has a visa issued by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship be an “illegal migrant” or even “unlawful” (as your follow-up article put it)? Some Bridging Visas are granted to people who previously did not have valid visas but the granting of the Bridging Visa clarifies any question about the legality of their status.

As I pointed out in the edited letter to the editor you did publish on June 26, no organisation which is discussing the situation of Bridging Visa E holders with the Government has ever raised the prospect of Centrelink benefits for people on this visa. I am in a position to know this, as our organisation is the national peak body for non-government organisations involved in refugee issues and is central to the discussions with government on this policy matter. I also know that the current discussions have not progressed far and that no concrete proposal is currently before the Government. Nothing of any substance has happened since April 2007, when the ALP National Conference resolved to do something about the question of work rights for asylum seekers if elected to government.

The idea that the Government would give illegal immigrants the dole, if true, would have become one of the main national political stories of the week. But this didn’t happen. The Courier Mail’s articles were so lacking in credibility that no other media organisation followed them up in any way and no politician (even opponents of the Government) made any public comment other than to point how false the articles were.

Your reporter’s ignorance of government policy and her failure to check even basic information reflects very badly indeed on your newspaper. Clearly, you need more effective processes within your organisation to verify information in the stories your journalists are writing.

Unfortunately, your articles were believed by some faithful Courier Mail readers who rely on your newspaper to inform them about national political issues. You owe them an apology for publishing information which was clearly false – and which by the time the second article was published your staff knew to be false. And you owe all the people involved in this issue – the Federal Government, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, the community-based organisations lobbying for change and Bridging Visa E holders – an apology for wilfully creating misinformation about them. Nothing short of a full public retraction of the articles published on June 25 and June 26 will suffice.

I await your response.

Yours faithfully,
Paul Power
Chief Executive Officer
Refugee Council of Australia

Mr Fagan responded quickly by email, giving some insight into the mood inside the Courier Mail office:

Dear Mr Power,

The Courier-Mail over many years has reported many stories chronicling the triumphs of refugees. I stand by those reports.
Your letter today portrays you as a tiresome windbag and I can assure you I stand by the original report and the reporter. Please stop heckling my support staff and please stop snooping around trying to find Renee’s sources.

David Fagan
Editor, The Courier-Mail

How you can respond

As the Courier Mail has demonstrated how sensitive it is to any criticism, people concerned about such coverage can take action by sending a quick email or by ringing to ask (respectfully) for the Courier Mail to publish a full apology and retraction. You can contact one or all of the following people by email or phone:
* The reporter who wrote the articles - Renee Viellaris - viellarisr@qnp.newsltd.com.au - (02) 6270-7045
* Editor, David Fagan - fagand@qnp.newsltd.com.au – (07) 3666 6127
* Deputy Editor, Steve Gibbons - gibbonss@qnp.newsltd.com.au - 1300 304 020
* Senior Associate Editor, Greg Chamberlin – chamberling@qnp.newsltd.com.au - 1300 304 020
* The Letters Editor cmletters@qnp.newsltd.com.au - (Any letters to the editor should be in the body of the email, not as an attachment).

Why the Courier Mail articles are wrong

June 25 article - “Dole payment plan for illegal migrants”:

Courier Mail’s claim: “Taxpayers would be forced to pay thousands of illegal immigrants the dole under controversial measures now being considered by the Rudd Government”
The truth: There is no plan to provide Centrelink benefits to “illegal immigrants”, nor is there a plan to provide Centrelink benefits to asylum seekers. In response to an ongoing campaign, the Australian Government has agreed to look into allowing asylum seekers the right to work so that they are not reliant on charity for their survival. Punitive laws introduced under the previous government mean that some asylum seekers have the right to work and some don’t and those that initially have work rights lose those rights at different stages of the application process.

Courier Mail’s claim: “The proposal will mostly apply to illegal immigrants on tourist visas who fly into the country and then claim asylum when ordered to leave, rather that the stereotype of people who arrive on leaky boats”
The truth: People who claim asylum arrive in Australia by a range of different means. Some arrive on tourist visas, some on other temporary visas. Anyone who makes a claim for asylum has a right to have that claim assessed and, if found to be a refugee, provided with protection. There is no connection between type of visa previously held and legitimacy of claim.

Courier Mail’s claim: “The latest figures show there are 5624 people on the visas but the number often swells to as high as 7000”
The truth: The number quoted here refers to the total number of people on a Bridging Visa E. There is no campaign or proposal to allow work rights to all Bridging Visa E holders. The campaign and proposal refers solely to those with a protection claim which make up a small proportion of this number.

Courier Mail’s claim: “Although over stayers would pay taxes if they found a job, taxpayers would have to pay millions in Centrelink and Medicare payments to those unable to find work.”
The truth: Firstly asylum seekers are not over stayers. Secondly there is no plan to provide anyone on a bridging visa with Centrelink benefits. The provision of work rights and Medicare is already provided to many asylum seekers within the community. The campaign is advocating this be extended to all asylum seekers. We assume the Courier Mail did detailed costings before making such a claim. These figures should be shared with the public.

Courier Mail’s claim: “As well, taxpayers would have to foot the cost of appeals to the Migration Review Tribunal, the Federal Court, the full bench of the Federal Court and the High Court.”
The truth: All asylum seekers have the right to a merits review at the Refugee Review Tribunal, not the Migration Review Tribunal. If an asylum seeker receives a negative decision at the RRT they must pay a fee of $1400. Claimants can seek judicial review of an adverse decison and, if that decision contains a legal error, the application will be considered again. If the court action is unsuccessful, claimants must cover all legal costs.

June 26 article – “Community divided on illegal immigrants scheme”

Courier Mail’s claim: “The Courier Mail revealed yesterday the Government was considering giving asylum seekers and illegal immigrants who overstayed their tourist visas access to the dole and other welfare payments while they appealed to stay in Australia.”
The truth: This was reprinted despite the Courier Mail and the journalist in question being told quite clearly by the Government, the Refugee Council and many others that this was not the case. The journalist has been unable to verify this claim.

Courier Mail’s claim: “Readers flooded the Courier Mail’s website yesterday about the proposal. Most were strongly against it, arguing pensioners and people with disabilities should be given priority”
The truth: The flood of emails was in response to a proposal that doesn’t exist.