Charles Pakana:

During 2023 and the Australian referendum for First Nations Voice to Parliament, Australians were subjected to arguably an unprecedented level of misinformation. Undoubtedly, it was instrumental in generating fear, confusion, and division within society that resulted in that referendum’s defeat. Unfortunately, the effectiveness of misinformation has become almost standard operational procedure for many journalists and media outlets.

We decided to gain a First Nations media perspective on this, and I’m joined today by the host of NITV’s The Point, prominent journalist, broadcaster and advocate, Meriam and Wuthathi man John Paul Janke. JP, thanks for joining me today.

John Paul Janke (JP):

Yeah, great to be on the program as always, and great to hear your beautiful voice as always.

Charles:

Oh, that’s always a nice thing to hear. JP, you’ve been very vocal on the dangers of misinformation over the years, and particularly so during the 2023 referendum. Misinformation in the media existed long before 2023, we know that. And the ABC’s Stuart Littlemore particularly brought this to the nation’s attention with the launch of Media Watch in 1989. But 2023 seems to have been that point in time where it experienced a real surge. For you, what were some of the most telling instances of this misinformation and the growth of misinformation during this time?

JP:

Yeah, I think you’re 100% correct there that the 2023 referendum really brought out, I suppose, the new levels of misinformation and disinformation that can be circulated in the age of social media. Remembering that the 2023 referendum was the first referendum really discussed and debated in the age of social media, so it went to new heights.

And I think it’s important to remember that there’s types of false information. There’s misinformation, which is actually information that is false, but the person who is disseminating that actually believes it’s kind of true. Whereas disinformation, the information is false and the person who’s spreading it knows it’s false, but is deliberately and intentionally lying or spreading it to disinform other punters.

Charles:

So mistakes as opposed to propaganda.

JP:

Yes, yes. And we saw both in the referendum. You saw information that was spread that was false that people might’ve believed because they’re really not up to speed with Indigenous affairs. Whereas we also saw disinformation where people who were deliberately spreading false information to further the cause of the no vote against the referendum. So acting on people’s fears to saying, “You’re going to lose your house. The Voice is going to create a new apartheid in Australia.” So spreading all those fears into a wider community, and we saw that in the referendum.

So we saw some really prominent, I suppose, levels of misinformation and styles of misinformation during the Voice referendum. Of course, the big one was Australians fearing that they’re going to lose their homes. That if the Voice got up, Australians would lose their homes, that Aboriginal people had this power to take people’s homes away from them, which we saw in the ’90s with the Native Title Act, and it hasn’t happened. Not one single home has been taken because of Native title. So the Voice had this fear of people would lose their home.

It said it would raise taxes. It had the ability to raise taxes and charge non-Indigenous people for living on Black land. It was going to divide the nation, that Black people would have more power than white people. It would force state governments into treaties and the federal government into treaties. It was some sort of Trojan horse that if the Voice got up, the UN was going to control Australia.

Charles:

Yeah, that was an interesting one I found. I couldn’t work that one out.

JP:

Yeah. So we saw this as it sort of helped ignite maybe some apprehensions that some elements of our society have in terms of overseas powers and some sort of conspiracy theorists reflecting on the information that they’re getting through their social media, that this built on that, that there’d be this UN takeover of Australia. Look, the big one I think for me was that it actually started to challenge institutions that Australia has relied on for a long time. And there was-

Charles:

Which ones in particular are you talking about?

JP:

In particular, there were people saying, “Look, the referendum’s already been decided. The government has already decided that the Voice is going to get up and the AEC will make sure that the Voice gets up. And that’s why you vote in pencil. That they will rub out your votes and they will put in pencil.”

So it started to challenge the institutions that we have entrusted to run our elections for generations. All of a sudden, there was this idea that the AEC could be corrupt, that there was going to be widespread voter fraud in Australia. So it really started to challenge those institutions through that misinformation and also deliberately spreading those false information through social media.

So I think going back to it, there were all these different levels of misinformation and malinformation. Of course, social media enabled that to spread into the homes and workplaces and the hands of everyday Australians. And that was a real challenge during the Voice referendum to counter that.

I think that the other thing is that how quickly something can go from maybe being a mistruth on social media into being accredited story in print and online news. And we saw some really classic examples of that. We saw the letter that was found by Pauline Hanson or the alleged anonymous letter that was found by Pauline Hanson, that was left behind in a cafe in a Canberra suburb where the National Indigenous Australians Agency is located. A punter found this secret letter which had a secret wishlist of all the things that would happen if the Voice got up. That was handed to One Nation. One Nation publishes it on social media. It becomes a news story, so in some way giving credit to that anonymous letter that was found. Now, of course-

Charles:

Oh, this was actually the birth of that claim from Peta Credlin on Sky News that it was more than one page in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Isn’t that right?

JP:

Yeah, so there was the claim by Peta Credlin and Sky News that the Uluru Statement was not one page. It was 200 pages long. And in fact, there was this wishlist of things that were going to happen once the Voice got up, which helped spread those fears that we mentioned before about land being taken back, of people being charged increases in rent, that Aboriginal people will veto Parliament. All those fears that I think were swirling out there, the 200-page Uluru Statement gave it amplification. Now, in fact, the 200-page Uluru Statement is a recording of-

Charles:

That’s right.

JP:

… all the forum. And I think you’ve addressed that before. It’s a wishlist of individual Aboriginal people saying, “Well, if the Voice got up, this is what I think it should do.” That 200-page report feeds into the Uluru Statement and the final decisions of the Uluru Convention in 2017. So it’s basically, it’s a wishlist of individuals who attend those key meetings that feed into one summit that come up to it.

So that gave it some credibility. The letter itself was sent in by an anonymous punter to One Nation, which had no credibility at all. NIAA came out and said, “It’s not anything to do with us.” But somehow it then becomes mainstream because mainstream media report about it.

One of the really bizarre things I saw through the referendum was we had a former One Nation candidate who was actually an Indigenous elder in South Australia come out and say that there is a secret Aboriginal army training and the UN is going to take over. And if the Voice gets up, this is the end of Australia as we know it because there is a secret Aboriginal army in training. Now that gets press. That press enables it to be circulated online without sort of a full understanding of the story. But people see the headlines and then people talk about it.

Now, I kind of knew the Voice was struggling to get up when some really good non-Indigenous friends of mine were saying two weeks before the referendum, “Look, JP, I know you, I know you really well, and I support the Voice, but they’re going to come for my childcare business if the Voice gets up.” That’s what I’m hearing. That’s what people are talking around the kitchen table, that, “If the Voice gets up, I am going to lose my business in downtown Canberra because the Aboriginals want my business.”

Charles:

One of the things you mentioned just a couple of minutes ago was, and it really stuck in my mind, but it was dealing with, it demonstrated the lack of understanding that the majority of Australians have about First Nations people. Right across Australia right now, as you’re well aware, we’re seeing truth telling processes happening. We’re seeing treaty, obviously here in Victoria as well. And whilst a lot of states and territories are stepping backwards in that area, there’s still definitely a groundswell of movement. In order to combat the obvious increase again in misinformation and disinformation around these particular initiatives, just how important is it for Australians right across this country to start gaining a real understanding of First Nations issues and causes, and importantly, history as well?

JP:

Very important. And I think the no slogan during the referendum was, “If you don’t know, vote no.”

Charles:

Shameful. Yeah.

JP:

I think in terms of a treaty, if you don’t know, find out. And there are obviously sites for that information, whether they be the assembly itself or the government, there are online resources where you can find out the truth about a treaty. So if you don’t know, find out. Don’t jump onto social media and go, “Oh my God, my fears are now realized because the treaty’s up.” Actually go beyond social media and find out.

I think the interesting thing about the treaty is looking at why people are spreading misinformation about the treaty. And the number one, I think, misinformation, which I see a lot today and I think will still happen over the next couple of years, especially the next year up to the state election, is that we voted no against a treaty at the 2023 referendum.

Charles:

Oh, we’re hearing that loud and clear in Victoria. Yeah.

JP:

Now, that needs to be corrected on lots of things. People say, “We voted no to welcome to countries. We voted no to this. We voted no to Native title.” You actually, the Australian voting public voted on Constitutional recognition of First Nations people through a Voice department. That’s it, that’s all you voted on. That was all on the ballot, that was the only words that were on the ballot paper was a Constitutional referendum of First Nations people through a Voice. You had no vote for a treaty, Native title, elected body, assemblies, closing the gap policy. You had one vote about Constitutional recognition.

So the misinformation that we voted no against this is incorrect. And we need to correct that because that influences every other bit of thinking against a treaty. And we’ve already voted no against this. So I think once people realize that, we can start to feed them actually what a treaty is about.

The other misnomer about a treaty is that we voted no against this because we voted no in the referendum. But it’s a Victorian treaty and the Victorian Labor government took a treaty to two previous elections and won.

Charles:

Yeah, exactly.

JP:

So Victorians had their say about a treaty in Victoria and the government who was saying, “We will instigate a treaty,” got up. And in the last election, got up with an increased number. So people in Victoria are voting and saying, “Yes, treaty is part of the way forward for us in Victoria.”

Charles:

What dangers do you believe could exist to, sounds a bit dramatic, but the fabric of the Australian society with misinformation and disinformation on the increase and not just specifically when it comes to Black issues?

JP:

Oh, there’s a huge distrust of institutions. So when we automatically see people distrusting the institutions that Australia have put their faith in to run elections for generations, the people start to say, “Oh, actually the AEC is corrupt in some capacity.”

Now, we seen punters on social media saying that. We see politicians questioning sometimes the AEC as well as a way of increasing that support. That challenges those institutions, and it’s the institutions of the AEC. It’s also the trust in state and federal governments. When that starts to erode, people start to push away, then everything becomes a conspiracy theory or everything becomes an issue because they’re losing faith in those institutions that they’ve had for a long time and generations have had for a long time.

The other scary thing about misinformation and disinformation is it is pushing some elements of our society further to the right. So it’s a very attractive ground for very right wing parties to influence young minds. And particularly in Victoria, we’re seeing the rise of the Neo-Nazis, the National Socialist Movement out there. They were anti-Voice, they were saying, “If you voted for the Voice, you are anti-white.” They’re obviously against the treaty, they’re against anything Aboriginal because they want a white Australia policy. So they’re in there spreading that disinformation, helping to fuel that fire to attract more people to their cause. That is quite dangerous.

Charles:

Do you see that this can be remedied in some way, either by a backlash from community or from government intervention?

JP:

Look, I think there needs to be, not just with treaty and post-Voice, but in treaty and leading up to both the Victorian election next year, and of course the federal election in a couple of years, is there needs to be some sort of process where we can, I will say legislate against misinformation, but that can be-

Charles:

Well, that’s a tough one.

JP:

That can be quite dangerous.

Charles:

Yeah.

JP:

That’s a very tough one, but we need mechanisms where information can be spread.

Now, in the ’90s, there was an organization called ATSIC, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. One of its legislative responsibilities was to promote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture and history and society. So it actually had a legislative responsibility to promote Aboriginal information to the wider community. Now, ATSIC was abolished in 2004 and no one, not one organization has that today.

So I see it really important that we still We still need to bring the wider Australian community on that information campaign and they need to be funded whether at the state or national level to help people get more informed when it comes to Indigenous issues, particularly the multicultural community. And as you know, I work for NITV and SBS. So we play a critical role in informing a huge section of our community about Indigenous issues in their own language. And that’s important in terms of them understanding the real history of Australia, the aspirations of First Nations people today and in the future, and the challenges that our communities face and why they’re hoping to address them through things like treaty or closing the gap policy or policies that help reduce disadvantage.

And I think that those communities are important in taking Australia forward together, in saying, “Actually, I understand more about Indigenous issues and I support what the government’s doing because it doesn’t take any rights away from me.” And I think that going back to the misinformation that we hear through the Voice and the misinformation that we hear now through the treaty, it’s the belief that to give First Nations people a voice at the table, white Australians have to lose their voice or will lose their voice, when that is simply not the case.

Charles:

How do we starve it of oxygen, this misinformation and disinformation campaign, especially as you’ve made mention a number of times, the prevalence of the social media platform? Social media, you’re quite right, has been the supporting mechanism for so much misinformation and disinformation. And I really want you to address it from the perspective of the listener who may be listening to this podcast and radio program right now. What can they do, aside from getting online and sort of getting into a slanging match with those people who are giving voice and life to this misinformation, and that’s a negative approach, I recognize, but what can we do to starve the oxygen?

JP:

The first thing is get your news from multiple sources and reliable sources. So public broadcasters, get your news from public broadcasters, read multiple platforms of news. If you’re seeing your news online, which more Australians are, they’re getting their news online, go to another source to find out its validity, to find out if in fact it is true.

And if you see news or information that is wrong and deliberately spread to be wrong, particularly on social media, I always say report it. Report the site. Report it. It’s up to the platforms to govern their site and to make sure their sites are sharing correct information. So report the site. And you might think, “Look, I’m only one online user in multimillions,” but you might be one of thousands that are reporting that site. So I say challenge those falsehoods, challenge those false assertions, and get the platforms to take down that misinformation.

But importantly, you’ve got to get your news from multiple sites. And particularly when it comes to First Nations issues, go to First Nations media. Go to First Nations media that operates, whether they be radio stations, TV stations, or online services, get your news from First Nations platforms.

Charles:

How do we stand when it comes to the rest of the world? You’re a very well-read man when it comes to news from around the world. You’ve obviously traveled a heck of a lot. You’ve seen the levels of disinformation and misinformation in other countries. How does Australia measure up?

JP:

Australia is actually, we’re the number one country in calling out misinformation online because we’re huge users of social media because more Australians now access their news via social media than traditional news outlets. And our younger generations, our younger Australians are increasingly being drawn to video news, in particular on TikTok and Instagram. So they want their news short and sharp. So the number of people who go to the online news platforms is dropping, but Australia is part of this international trend away from that traditional news. And we are looking towards those podcasters, the YouTubers, the TikToks for our news. Now we see the way that politicians are embracing that. The last election, we saw politicians turn to independent commentators and journalists on Instagram and YouTube and TikTok to spread their message. So social media is a very popular place to share that news.

But importantly, Australians are more likely to see influencers as a major source of misinformation. So we have turns about misinformation and I think we lead the US. So I think we’re roughly around 74, 75% of us see social media as sharing misinformation and we have concerns about that. The US is just behind us. So overall, Australians are most likely to consider online influencers and the personalities as major threats to misinformation.

Charles:

It’s a bit of a sad indictment, mate.

JP:

Yeah. I think we’re kind of smart enough to see that misinformation on social media is there, but yet we still circulate it. It can still influence some of our decisions because we are turning to social media for our news more than ever before.

Charles:

Does that represent a danger then to mainstream media, that they feel they need to be more competitive and therefore go for those sensationalist, unsubstantiated headlines and stories? Let’s be realistic about it.

JP:

Look, don’t get me started on that. Absolutely.

Charles:

That’s why you’re here, brother.

JP:

Absolutely, it does. Absolutely, it does. If media owners know that print media is dying and print media is about advertising and getting advertisers in printed papers, they turn to their online platforms and saying, “We need more eyes on our online pages because we advertise on that as well.” So the best way to do that is to turn every story into a sensation, into clickbait.

And I really feel sad for future journos who are wanting to study journalism and media to advocate and tell stories, and they’re placed in newsrooms that go, “Your job is to surf social media. Find me some clickbait stories that we can just write in terms of clickbait that gets people clicking on our stories …, which gets people eyeing off the ads that we put in those stories.” That is really sad for modern news, but that’s the formula for modern news, is to get people looking at your news sites. And to do so, you create really sensational stories.

The other thing you do is you divide opinion. The best way to get people viewing your platforms or sharing your stories is to divide opinions. Now, we see that when it comes to Indigenous affairs. Every time there is something on Indigenous affairs, there is a vote. Yes or no. Do you support welcome to countries, yes or no? Is a treaty divisive, yes or no? And particular conservative newspapers let those comment sections run because they get circulated, they get spread, they get eyes on those platforms, and we know they’re doing it deliberately to sell advertising.

Charles:

So it’s now a case of without fear or favor is dead and sensationalism well and truly is alive. JP, before I let you go, give us two calls to action for our listeners to hang on to and really follow through with when it comes to reporting on misinformation and disinformation, and also in ensuring they get a better and more accurate spread of news.

JP:

I think the first thing, and this builds on what we discussed at the start, post-2023 referendum, particularly when it comes to Indigenous affairs, but it obviously has a huge range of application across our society. If you don’t know, find out. We’re in the age of modern technology. If you don’t know something, find out. Don’t just say, “If you don’t know, I’m going to switch off.” When it comes to treaty, if you don’t know and want to be more informed, find out. There are online resources. There are people like this program who are spreading great in depth detail about the treaty and what a treaty means to First Nations people in Victoria, and in particular, what it doesn’t mean when it comes to the wider community. So if you don’t know, find out.

The other thing is if you hear misinformation being spouted or told, is correct it, correct it with information. Or just say to people, “You might want to go to First Nations media platforms to learn more. You might want to go to this website or this page to read more.” So encourage people, if they don’t know, they can find out more information before that little spark becomes a bushfire as we saw in 2023.

Charles:

JP Janke, thanks so much indeed for your time.

JP:

Thanks very much. Great to have a chat.