Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma

Almost nine years after the Lake Alice article was published, "Stephen McMahon" approached the Dart Centre for Journalism and Trauma through an intermediary asking that the article be removed from the centre’s web site.

"Stephen" soon confirmed he wished the article taken off mainly because his son was using the internet at school and he didn’t want his experiences at Lake Alice revealed in such a manner. He also needed to move on with his life and was uncomfortable with the knowledge that anyone could access his highly personal story. He argued he hadn’t given permission for the story to appear on the internet.

"A Long Ride on the Thunderbolt" was first published in The Age in 1999 and appeared on the Dart Centre’s website later that year after winning the Australian Dart Award.

"Stephen’s" request posed a dilemma for Dart, which on one hand resolutely stands for the sensitive treatment of victims but whose members include hard-nosed journalists who believe it is often in the public interest to publish stories of personal tragedy, despair and pain.

A lively discussion ensued on an internet discussion site with contributions from more than 20 Dart members. It was suggested that perhaps a fictitious name could be used. After a day’s consideration, "Stephen’s" position shifted from wanting the article removed to agreeing that it remain but with a fictitious name.

Substituting a fictitious name “honours the Dart emphasis on
doing no harm and it honours the journalistic principle of maximum possible disclosure,’’ Dart Australasia member Matthew Ricketson noted.

Dart member Kimina Lyall recognised the key, and sometimes conflicting, principles involved. They included respect for the interviewee, allowing a traumatised person to control their story, the public’s right to know and the principle of informed consent.

“The question is, which principle is more important?’’ she asked. “At first flush, the first two principles are pretty compelling. But if we believe we are compelled to ‘unpublish’ every story just because someone in it didn't like it, it would set up an interesting precedent.’’

She also raised the question of whether interview subjects could give wise consent in a digital age. “How should journalists advise subjects when they're asking for informed consent? There is a very strong chance that the story can be posted all over the internet for decades to come … it is likely to publicly haunt you for the rest of your life and forever remove your right to disclose your story to any future personal or professional contact you make. Would you still like to tell me your story?"

Dart Executive Director Bruce Shapiro’s tentative view was that there was no overriding principle in those articulated by Kimina, but that “the important thing is not that there is one answer, but that these questions routinely be on the radar.’’

Dart Australasian Director Cait McMahon noted that while stories may be old or "dead" as far as the public is concerned, for the victims “It is not just a story, but it is their life’’.

The discussion illuminated the fact that many victims wish to move on, want to protect their loved ones from the trauma of their experiences and wish to control their lives. Despite this, their stories remain snap frozen on the Internet for millions to read. It’s an issue that hasn’t received much attention but one that warrants further discussion.