Post-referendum Australia: Battling the shadows of misinformation in the mainstream media

It’s time for a collective pushback against sensationalism and misinformation, not just in media but in the broader political landscape.

In the aftermath of the Voice to Parliament referendum, a momentous event in Australia’s recent political history, the absence of key figures from the public discourse is noted with some relief by many. Prominent figures like Warren Mundine and Jacinta Price, well-known for their vocal stance against the referendum, have momentarily exited the spotlight. Even the leader of the opposition, Peter Dutton, has seen his platform diminished following the referendum, however, amid this short-lived tranquility, there looms a sense of inevitability that the fiery rhetoric of misinformation will return.

The aftermath of the referendum has exposed a troubling aspect of the Australian media landscape. Almost immediately after the polls closed, mainstream media outlets began scrutinising the veracity of claims made by the ‘no’ campaign, unveiling a disturbing underbelly of falsehoods, misinformation, and disinformation. But where were these voices during the campaign? Would it not be more fruitful for these outlets to outline the misinformation during a campaign – when it matters – not afterwards, when it can’t affect a single vote?

During the referendum campaign, lies and misinformation were rampant and the legitimacy of the proposed model for change – essentially, a simple change – was the subject of contention. Divisions that were promoted by Indigenous ‘no’ campaigners – primarily Mundine and Price – further muddied the waters. Price, a notable campaigner against the reforms, garnered attention for her controversial statements. She presented as a relatively young Indigenous woman challenging the prevailing narrative, asserting that colonisation had not negatively impacted Aboriginal people. This assertion – patently false according to historical accounts and scholarly research – stirred debate and confusion among non-Indigenous Australians.

It is vital to acknowledge that misinformation doesn’t spread in a vacuum; it thrives in an environment where it can find fertile ground. Many of statements publicly offered by Price and Mundine, though false, resonated with some parts of the electorate because they catered to a desire to believe in a harmonious, non-racist Australia. These assertions, grounded in misinformation, contributed to the wider misinformation gap and a distorted public discourse.

The blame for the referendum’s outcome cannot be placed solely on the shoulders of misinformation, but it undoubtedly played a substantial role. Misinformation capitalises on gaps in public understanding, which was evident in the confusion over the difference between constitutional and legislative changes. Moreover, many Australians have limited personal interaction with First Nations people, forming their perceptions primarily through clichéd and usually negative media portrayals. These perceptions can be heavily influenced by biased or misleading media narratives, further enabling misinformation to take root.

Western Sydney, in particular, stood out as a region where misinformation had a pronounced impact. False narratives, such as the fear of losing one’s home or the perception that the reforms would grant special privileges, were pervasive. Yet, it is essential to consider the responsibility of those on the ‘no’ side in addressing these inaccuracies. Did they have a moral obligation to counter such misinformation? This question was posed to many leaders of the ‘no’ campaign but was usually met with indifference and creating a smoke screen to obfuscate the real issues.

In the wake of this referendum, the Australian public is left to grapple with not just the outcome but the unsettling presence of misinformation within the mainstream media. The stage is set for a deeper examination of the role media plays in shaping public opinion and whether it has a responsibility to dispel misinformation rather than allowing it to thrive unchallenged.

Falling short: Australian media’s role in propagating misinformation

Some media outlets – such as SBS and NITV – have consistently called out the falsehoods and misrepresentations that plagued the campaign. However, the same cannot be said for some of the more prominent media organisations in Australia.

The ABC and Nine Media have come under scrutiny for their handling of the misinformation. Critics argue that, rather than diligently fact-checking and providing the necessary context, these outlets either published the information verbatim from the ‘no’ campaign or regurgitated the misinformation without adequate context. Such practices not only failed to fulfill the media’s fundamental duty to inform the public accurately but also inadvertently – or in some cases, deliberately – lent credibility to false claims.

News Corporation, long criticised for its sensationalism and bias, has frequently been labeled a “factory of misinformation”. This reputation makes it unsurprising that it continued to disseminate harmful narratives and misinformation during the campaign. The lack of integrity in reporting perpetuates a cycle of mistrust and division.

The entire blame for the success of the ‘no’ campaign can’t be placed upon the media’s shoulders. It’s important to acknowledge that, even before this referendum began, the consensus on Indigenous issues like the Voice to Parliament, Treaty, and truth-telling was far from unanimous, as is to be expected within a functioning democratic system. The ‘no’ campaign effectively seized on pre-existing doubts and prejudices, framing them as reasons to oppose the reforms. In such a climate, the role of the media was pivotal, and its failure to fulfill its professional responsibilities is concerning.

Almost all the nonsensical claims made by the ‘no’ campaign could easily be debunked, especially the far-fetched assertions from the fringes of the movement.

The ‘no’ campaign presented a bewildering array of unfounded claims, from baseless fears of losing personal housing titles to bizarre notions of United Nations mandates and QAnon-fed conspiracies. Many of these claims targeted elite Indigenous figures and allegations of newly-created secretive Voice to Parliament offices in Canberra – and many other parts of Australia – with no verifiable existence. A responsible and principled press should have swiftly debunked these absurdities, leaving the ‘no’ campaign with no fertile ground for their falsehoods. The absence of such rigorous fact-checking allowed these claims to fester and influenced the public discourse significantly.

A well-informed media, upholding its professional standards, could have challenged the ‘no’ campaign from the outset, rather than waiting until the referendum had concluded. Such rigorous journalism might have pressured the ‘no’ campaign to articulate fact-based, data-driven arguments, which, if they existed, would have been the best counterpoint to the proposed changes.

Instead, the result is a nation now perceived internationally as being in a similar situation to a pre-apartheid South Africa – a comparison that Australians might find troubling but, essentially, is a situation that exists in many parts of Australia. The media’s failure to fulfill its watchdog role and act as a safeguard against misinformation not only jeopardised the integrity of the referendum but also the standing of Australia on the world stage.

A lack of commitment to truth, accuracy and responsibility

The central role of the media in a functioning democracy is to hold truth and accuracy in the highest regard, to be a vigilant watchdog against misinformation, and to scrutinise the narratives presented to the public. Yet, it seems that during the Voice of Parliament campaign, many media outlets fell short of this essential duty.

The media’s coverage of the referendum campaign was characterised by sensationalism and a propensity to amplify misinformation and lies rather than scrutinising them. Figures like Warren Mundine, Jacinta Price, and Peter Dutton occupied an inordinate amount of space in the media landscape, and it was almost as if they were not only campaign spokespeople for the ‘no’ side but also for the ‘yes’ side, given their omnipresence. In contrast, the ‘yes’ campaign did not seem as concentrated within the media, featuring a broader array of voices and perspectives.

Mundine and Price made many outrageous and unverified claims throughout the campaign yet, their statements, which often lacked factual basis, were reported extensively. These figures became the focal points of media coverage, often overshadowing the wider and more substantive discussions of the proposed reforms. While it is crucial to ensure diverse voices are heard in a democratic society, it is equally vital that media outlets exercise discernment in who they amplify.

Certainly, the ‘yes’ campaign did receive extensive media coverage, but the media’s predilection for sensational narratives, such as the suggestion that colonisation was beneficial for Indigenous people or that they “have never had it better”, worked against the ‘yes’ campaign. It is a predicament in which the media often prioritises clickbait and shocking headlines over nuanced, informative, and balanced reporting. The media, by focusing on the most extreme claims, marginalises the reasoned and factual arguments presented by proponents of reform. This approach might garner higher viewership or readership in the short term, but it can ultimately compromise the integrity of journalism.

In light of these issues, there is a call for a re-evaluation of the media landscape, as well as substantial reform in how the media presents news and political analysis. The media should not serve as a platform for figures whose claims are not grounded in facts, rather, it should prioritise and reward good journalism. The role of the media should be to present accurate, fact-based information and to foster constructive dialogue in a society, rather than perpetuating misinformation.

Media balance vs. responsible reporting: The dilemma of contemporary journalism

Laura Tingle’s criticism of the ABC’s approach to news coverage, with its apparent emphasis on achieving “balanced and equal perspectives” rather than focusing on sound reporting, has drawn attention to a significant dilemma in contemporary journalism. The pursuit of “balance” should not equate to the indiscriminate allotment of equal time or platforms to two diametrically opposed arguments. It is an erroneous notion that giving space to both experts and individuals espousing baseless claims contributes to informed public discourse.

Indeed, granting equal time to experts and non-expert propagators of falsehoods only serves to confuse the audience and undermines the very essence of journalism. Tingle outlined the situation where the ABC provided its journalists with time sheets during the campaign to track the balance of their guests and articles. This bureaucracy has the potential to stifle the media’s accountability to the public, turning it into an instrument of political demands from the Coalition – even though they are no longer in government – rather than a vehicle for robust, unbiased information.

As a public broadcaster – which exists primarily to serve the public – the ABC has to perform in a far better and professional manner but how will improvements be achieved? The recent appointment of two ABC board members, both seemingly lacking direct broadcasting experience, has raised questions about the merit-based process behind such selections. While the Minister for Communications, Michelle Rowland, asserts that merit-based considerations were central to these appointments, the public remains in the dark regarding the other candidates and the reasons for these specific choices. These developments add to the growing concern about the media’s independence and integrity.

To address the challenges within the media landscape, it’s imperative to clear out the entire board of the ABC – including these recent appointments – and start afresh. The media, especially a public broadcaster, should be accountable to the public, not to any particular political party or government.

If Australia seeks to be a global leader in various domains, including its media landscape, it must prioritise responsible and independent journalism. The media should serve as a safeguard against misinformation and sensationalism rather than a platform for figures who disseminate falsehoods.

It is essential that media outlets, political leaders, and the public, in general, rally against the perpetuation of a media landscape dominated by sensationalism and falsehoods. The Voice of Parliament campaign, while a significant moment, will eventually fade into the annals of Australia’s history as new issues take its place in the public discourse. The imperative is to ensure that responsible journalism and fact-based arguments take precedence in shaping the narratives of the future. This means holding the media accountable and demanding a high standard of political responsibility.

In the end, it’s time for a collective pushback against sensationalism and misinformation, not just in media but in the broader political landscape, with a commitment to a more informed, engaged, and responsible public discourse that truly serves the interests of all Australians.