Yesterday i read and heard media reports about changes being made the ACMA in relation to reporting of refugees. These changes are alleged to be the result of the media breaching the privacy of refugees because their photos are appearing which show their anguish and pain in daily news reports. However based on past experience it is a crude attempt to sanitise the truth so as to control the message being presented to the Australian public.
Sadly this is not the first time governments have attempted to sanitise a message so that only their version reaches the public. In the past the media has been as guilty as governments of sanitising the message. Here are some of the media reports that have actually affected this writer personally:
On Wednesday 3rd September 1947 An article in the Launceston Examiner reports;
Child Hungry couples are besieging the registrar of births (the person responsible for approving adoptions) and that demand for children was exceeding supply. 200 adoptions occurred in 1946. The department made enquiries into the suitability of applicants. age limits for applicants were set at 45 for women and 50 for men. They were able to select the best homes for the babies.
On Wednesday 26 January, 1949 and article in the Hobart mercury reports;
The registrar of births in Tasmania reports that he is concerned that the demand for babies would create a black market. he reiterated that careful enquiries were made concerning those who wished to adopt.
This was the message being put out by the Tasmania government authorities and the media lapped it up and as result the Tasmanian public were not aware of what was going on.
The reality was somewhat different. Centacare Tasmania website when recording the history of adoptions in Tasmania:
At that time, a couple who wished to adopt a child in Tasmania, registered with the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages. There was no assessment, virtually no waiting time and no follow up. Once the adoption Order was granted, the adoptive parents received a copy of the Order of Adoption, which contained the original surname and Christian names, if given, of the child.
As you can see this is contrary to what the public was being told at the time. The final piece of evidence is the fact that my father was 52 and one half years when i was adopted, contrary to what the registrar was telling the pubic. Also the application to Adopt and the Approval of adoption was dated the very same day 14 April 1950. And the Extract of Birth which was issued in place of a new birth certificate was not even signed by the said registrar.
I have often said that the public was responsible for the horror inflicted upon mothers during the 1940's to early 1980's and i still stand by that. I do this mainly because of the way society had reverted to a phony and hypocritical view of themselves. Society had in general forgotten what they were like as young people and acted in a Upper Class Victorian era manner. Because of this those in power who had no regard for an individuals well being were able to pull the wool over the eyes of the populace with impunity with disinformation and a media campaign that hides the grim reality. much like what the immigration department are now attempting to do in the name of privacy.
In the past adoptees and the public were given the first class mushroom treatment. And the mothers we're handled in such a way as to ensure their silence.The media has been guilty of portraying other incidents like the Stolen Generations and the Forgotten Australians. In other words the media has been used and abused by the governments of the day. THEY MUST ENSURE THAT NO LONGER OCCURS. Embedding reporters within military units is one example of such abuse and now the attempt to doctor the reports on refugees is another