New research into the media coverage of the Dr Mohamed Haneef case reveals that serious mistakes made by some sections of the media during the case were never corrected.
The research is detailed in a new book, Islam and the Australian News Media, which examines the treatment of Islam and Muslims by the Australian news media. Media and myth: Dr Haneef and the fourth estate, a chapter written by former journalist turned academic Dr Jacqui Ewart, challenges the myth that the media did a great job reporting the case.
The release of the book and Dr Ewart’s research coincides with further developments in the Haneef case — Dr Haneef’s legal team appeared in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal this week to fight for the release of more documents from the case. His lawyers were appealing against an attempt by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet to stop the release of documents Haneef’s legal team have requested under Freedom of Information.
Dr Ewart says that although the work of two journalists had an important impact on the outcome of the Haneef case, a series of significant errors made by several newspapers were neither corrected nor prosecuted by the journalism industry. Those errors impacted on the public perception of the case and the man at its centre — Dr Haneef.
“The fact that these errors were not corrected by the media outlets which published them highlights the journalism profession’s inability to critique itself,” Dr Ewart says. “The case also had a significant affect on relations with India, and the inaccuracies in some of the media coverage of the case contributed to that damage.”
Dr Ewart says current tensions between Australia and India, which have arisen because of attacks on Indian students studying in Australia, have been exacerbated by the ongoing court action in the Haneef case. In the book she explores three key moments in the development of the story including, a story published by The Sunday Mail in July 2007, which claimed police sources told the newspaper Haneef was implicated in a plot to blow up the iconic Gold Coast building Q1.
The now-former AFP commissioner Mick Keelty took the unprecedented action of issuing a public statement that the newspaper’s report was inaccurate. However, The Sunday Mail never corrected or apologised for the erroneous story.
“Former AFP commissioner Mr Mick Keelty complained about some of the media coverage of this case and even suggested that a debate needed to be held about restricting media reportage of suspected terrorism cases. Although the AFP’s handling of the case has been criticised by many, Mr Keelty’s point had some merit when applied to certain aspects of the media coverage of the story,” Dr Ewart said.
Dr Ewart, who details the case in her book Haneef: A Question of Character, says the onus is on the news media to correct errors. Failure to do so diminishes the media’s importance in the eyes of public institutions, the individuals affected and the public.
Dr Haneef, who was working at the Gold Coast Hospital, hit the headlines in mid-2007 when he was arrested on suspicion of supplying material support to a terrorist organisation. The medico was held without charge for 12 days under anti-terrorism laws introduced in 2004 and 2005.
He was eventually charged, given bail, but effectively had his bail revoked when his visa was withdrawn by the-then immigration minister Kevin Andrews. Haneef was moved from the Brisbane watchhouse to Wolston Correctional Centre, but the case eventually fell apart when a review of the charge and evidence in the case by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions led to the withdrawal of the charge.
Haneef left Australia for his home in Bangalore India on July 29, while his lawyers continued to fight the case in the Australian court system. They are now seeking access to government documents and files from the case and are working on a compensation claim for their client.
Crikey is committed to hosting lively discussions. Help us keep the conversation useful, interesting and welcoming. We aim to publish comments quickly in the interest of promoting robust conversation, but we’re a small team and we deploy filters to protect against legal risk. Occasionally your comment may be held up while we review, but we’re working as fast as we can to keep the conversation rolling.
The Crikey comment section is members-only content. Please subscribe to leave a comment.
The Crikey comment section is members-only content. Please login to leave a comment.