Press Council cartoon ruling no laughing matter

In accordance with our obligations as a member of the Australian Press Council, on Friday we publish a ruling critical of a cartoon published on August 14 last year that lampooned the pre-election actions of US President Joe Biden. We publish the APC ruling in good faith and out of respect for the institution. But we profoundly disagree with the APC decision that the cartoon breached its standards of practice.

We will always argue, as the APC itself contends, that cartoons are commonly expressions of opinion examining serious issues and that use exaggeration and absurdity to make their point. For this reason, cartoonists deserve special licence to produce thought-provoking works to which some people inevitably will take offence. In this instance, our cartoonist was operating professionally and in the finest traditions of political comment.

By rejecting this fact, the APC ruling undermines the role of the cartoonist and risks institutionalising the taking of offence on behalf of others, a situation the Independent Press Standards Organisation in Britain has specifically avoided. Unlike the APC, IPSO regulations do not allow the organisation to take forward complaints about issues other than accuracy from people with no connection to the alleged breach of the code.

As we wrote in June 2016 in response to an APC investigation into our first-hand reporting of the treatment of refugees on Nauru: “The council opens itself to politically motivated action if it allows complaints from third parties, often activists, rather than those directly involved.” In that instance, the complaint was lodged by a small number of people including Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young, and the APC ruled in our favour.

In the current adjudication, the APC ruled that we breached general principle No.6 that publications must take reasonable steps to “avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest”.

But by ruling the way it has in the Biden matter, the APC has allowed itself to be used as arbiter in a cultural debate involving issues of race, gender and privilege that are not its place to decide. The APC decision is explicit in this regard when it says: “While many readers might see the cartoon as a criticism of Mr Biden and of ‘identity politics’, the council does not accept the publication’s view that readers would see it is anti-racist or anti-misogynist. Rather, in appearing to demean (Kamala) Harris, and other women, by referring to her as a ‘little brown girl’, it could be seen to contribute to prejudice and to undermining measures to overcome the obstacles facing women, particularly those of colour.”

By ruling in this way, the APC has both missed the joke and overstepped the bounds of protections afforded in racial discrimination laws and trampled on the explicit rights, also provided in law, to protect media debate and freedom of speech. We understand that there will be wide differences of opinion on many issues including those that touch on critical race theory and identity politics, but the APC has no business simply shutting down debate. Nor is it welcome to misrepresent our motives. As we argued before the APC hearing, the subject of the cartoon was not Ms Harris but Mr Biden, the white male candidate who relies on Ms Harris to help heal a nation divided by racism. The cartoon was intended to highlight and mock what were perceived as patronising, condescending and racist remarks by presidential candidate Mr Biden in reference to his vice-presidential candidate Ms Harris. Announcing that Ms Harris would be his running mate, Mr Biden said in a speech, then tweeted: “This morning, little girls woke up across this nation – especially Black and Brown girls who so often may feel overlooked and undervalued in our society – potentially seeing themselves in a new way: As the stuff of Presidents and Vice Presidents.” We may agree with Mr Biden’s sentiments but remain free to question his political motivations. For us, this is not about defending racism or even rebutting accusations of racism but about defending the cartoonist’s role of political commentator. From “Je suis Charlie” to everyday lampooning of Scott Morrison and Mr Biden, this is the function of a cartoonist and the APC, in a ruling at odds with its earlier decisions on similar matters, has failed to elevate the role of the cartoonist to question the political. As editor-in-chief Christopher Dore said at the time of the cartoon’s publication, many commentators in the US had noted that Mr Biden was accused of using racial identity as a political weapon, and that was exactly the point being made in the cartoon. The intention was to ridicule identity politics and demean racism, not perpetuate it. The APC considered the public interest in questioning Mr Biden’s words and actions was not sufficient to justify the substantial offence and prejudice caused, and that criticism of identity politics could have been achieved without such offence and prejudice.

As an institution that claims to care about hurt feelings, the APC should reflect on the real impact of its decision. This will be to invite social media vilification of a professional cartoonist who was doing his job to the highest standard and in the finest traditions of his craft.