More Media
Understanding the Media Landscape in Australia
Sometimes we come across media content that feels racist, inflammatory, or deeply unjust. While these reactions are completely valid, it’s important to understand the broader media landscape in Australia. The majority of media outlets, apart from public broadcasters like the ABC and SBS, are privately owned. This means they have greater freedom to set their own editorial policies and decide what kind of content they choose to publish.
Although freedom of speech protects a wide range of expression in Australia, it does not protect speech that amounts to racial or religious vilification, which remains unlawful. However, not every harmful or biased article will meet the legal threshold for vilification. As a result, privately owned media organisations such as Sky News, NewsCorp, Nine, and 7 News often operate within the law even if their content is unfair or offensive.
This legal grey area makes it more difficult to seek formal accountability or justice when problematic content appears in these outlets. They are not bound by the same standards as public broadcasters and are generally only guided by their own internal policies, which may not prioritise fairness or balance, particularly when it comes to coverage of marginalised communities.
Understanding this context helps us focus our advocacy, complaints, and public pressure in the right places and reminds us why community-led media monitoring is so important.
In Australia, there are regulatory bodies that some media organisations voluntarily choose to join. These bodies provide a set of ethical standards and are seen as markers of credibility and accountability within the industry. The most prominent of these is the Australian Press Council (APC), which offers a detailed framework outlining what constitutes fair, accurate, and balanced reporting.
The APC has a more specific set of criteria regarding what can and cannot be said in public reporting, particularly around issues of discrimination, racism accuracy, and fairness. If a media organisation is a member of the APC, they are bound by their guidelines and therefore giving the public the right to lodge formal complaints when its reporting breaches these guidelines.
This allows us to hold such organisations to account through an independent process. It’s important to note that not all media outlets are members, and those that aren’t, are not subject to these standards.
What to Look For?
When submitting an article for review, it’s helpful to take a moment to reflect on why it feels concerning or harmful. We’ve created a simple guide to support you in identifying key issues that may need to be flagged. This process helps ensure that we’re addressing media content thoughtfully and effectively, and strengthens our ability to hold outlets accountable for how they represent communities.
Opinion Pieces
When reading news content, especially on sensitive issues like Palestine, Islam, or the Muslim community, it’s important to know the difference between news reporting and opinion or commentary pieces.
Opinion pieces are designed to express a personal or editorial view. They often reflect the writer’s perspective, and they don’t need to present a balanced or neutral view like standard news articles do. This is how media outlets can publish viewpoints that may feel deeply unfair or offensive to Muslim communities, and still fall within the protections of “freedom of expression.” Because of this, they are legally and ethically allowed to include strong, controversial, or even offensive opinions as long as:
- The views are clearly labelled as opinion or commentary (not presented as objective fact),
- They don’t rely on false or misleading information, and
- They don’t incite hatred, violence, or discrimination (though unfortunately, this line is often pushed, and further action requires a court trial)
Check whether a piece is labelled as opinion or commentary, usually at the top or under the author’s name
Using Loaded/ Inflammatory Terms
Most articles contribute significantly to Islamophobic perceptions of Muslims and Islam through the language used. Whether it is done consciously or not, articles that use emotionally charged words like “radical,” “extremist,” “fundamentalist,” or “threat” used broadly is done to further instill fear into the community of Muslims and Islam by heavily focusing on the rhetorical power of these terms. Such language frames Islam as inherently dangerous, shaping readers’ subconscious associations through repetition and connotation. These words carry strong emotional weight, and when applied indiscriminately or without context, they construct a narrative in which Islam is not just different, but menacing. Over time, this creates a discursive environment where fear becomes the default lens through which Islam is understood, driven not by facts, but by the language itself.
Example: Calling a Muslim community “radicalised” without proof or specific incidents.
Blaming the Whole Community for an Individual’s Actions
Media coverage often contributes to the unjust practice of holding entire communities responsible for the actions of a few individuals. When an act of violence or terrorism is committed by someone who identifies as Muslim, the media frequently frames the incident in a way that implicates the broader Muslim community, asking for collective condemnation or suggesting communal responsibility. This pattern of representation creates an environment where Muslims are expected to answer for crimes they did not commit, reinforcing suspicion and deepening social divisions. Such coverage not only misguides public understanding but also fuels stigma, making it more difficult for Muslim communities to exist without constant scrutiny or pressure to defend their identity.
Example: A criminal act by a Muslim individual being framed as a “Muslim problem.”
Excluding Muslim Voices in Stories about Muslims
Media often reports on issues involving Muslims without including the perspectives of Muslims themselves. This exclusion reduces complex communities to objects of analysis rather than participants in the conversation. Decisions about representation, context, and meaning are frequently made without input from those directly affected, leading to skewed or incomplete narratives. When Muslim voices are absent, stereotypes go unchallenged, and audiences are left with one-dimensional portrayals shaped by external viewpoints. This lack of inclusion not only marginalizes Muslim experiences but also undermines the credibility and depth of the coverage itself.
Are Muslims being spoken about, or are they given a chance to speak for themselves?
Misrepresenting Islamic beliefs or Practices
Media coverage frequently simplifies or distorts Islamic beliefs and practices, presenting them through a lens of suspicion or misunderstanding. Complex theological concepts or cultural traditions are often reduced to sensational headlines or inaccurately portrayed rituals, stripping them of context and meaning. Practices such as prayer, fasting, or modest dress are sometimes framed as symbols of oppression or extremism rather than expressions of faith. These misrepresentations reinforce misconceptions among audiences unfamiliar with Islam, contributing to a climate of fear and alienation. By failing to engage with accurate and nuanced interpretations, media narratives perpetuate a shallow and often prejudiced understanding of the religion.
Example: Claiming that hijab is a “symbol of oppression” without offering Muslim women’s views.
Headline that Exaggerates or Misleads
Headlines play a powerful role in shaping first impressions, and in coverage related to Muslims or Islam, they are often written to provoke fear or draw attention at the expense of accuracy. Sensationalist headlines may exaggerate the nature of an event, imply guilt before facts are established, or use vague associations like “Muslim-linked” or “Islamic-inspired” without clear evidence. Even when the article itself is more balanced, the headline can skew public perception, as many readers only engage with headlines. This kind of framing contributes to a distorted view of Muslims and Islam, reinforcing stereotypes through implication rather than fact.
Example: A headline suggesting a “Muslim takeover” where the article is just about a mosque expansion.
Applying Double Standards to Muslims
When a Muslim individual is involved in a violent incident, their religion is often highlighted and scrutinized, while similar actions by non-Muslims are typically framed as isolated cases with little attention to ideology or belief. This discrepancy reveals a pattern in how responsibility and identity are portrayed, where Muslim actions are linked to a broader faith community, while others are treated as personal deviations. Such double standards contribute to a narrative that views Islam as uniquely tied to violence, despite similar acts occurring across all backgrounds. The result is a distorted public perception in which Muslims are judged collectively, reinforcing stigma and deepening social divides.
Example: A white individual is described as “mentally ill,” while a Muslim is labelled “terrorist” for the same act.
Omission of Important Context
Stories involving Muslims or Islamic-related issues are often presented without the historical, political, or social context necessary for accurate understanding. Key factors such as foreign policy, socio-economic conditions, or the diversity within Muslim communities are frequently left out, leading to oversimplified or misleading narratives. Without this context, complex situations are reduced to surface-level explanations that frame Islam as the root cause of conflict or tension. This absence of background not only distorts the truth but also reinforces harmful assumptions, making it easier for audiences to accept biased or incomplete portrayals as objective reporting.
What’s missing that would change how the Muslim community is viewed?
Linking Muslims to Terrorism or Violence Without Evidence
Associating Muslims broadly with terrorism or violence without clear evidence is a common and harmful practice that reinforces fear and suspicion. Such links are often made through insinuations, vague language, or unnecessary emphasis on a person’s Muslim identity, even when it has no direct relevance to the incident. This unjust association contributes to the perception that Muslims are inherently dangerous or prone to violence, perpetuating stereotypes that overshadow the vast majority of peaceful Muslims worldwide. By implying guilt through association rather than fact, these portrayals undermine fair and accurate reporting, fueling Islamophobia and social division.
Example: Reporting on a Muslim refugee and mentioning global terrorism, despite no link.
Example: Reporting on a Muslim refugee and mentioning global terrorism, despite no link.
Who Can You Report To?
You can report any articles you find concerning to our Media Watch team. We will assess the content, review your concerns, and take appropriate action where necessary.
You also have the option to lodge a complaint directly with the media organisation (we can help you find the right contact details), or with the Australian Press Council if the media outlet is a member. You can check if an organisation is a member here.
