SBS’s controversial three-part series Struggle Street raises a large number of serious ethical issues, the central one being the issue of consent.

There are also questions about betrayal of trust, fairness of portrayal, and the effects of stereotyping. But consent, as a cornerstone of professional ethics, is fundamental. 

The opening episode, focused largely on 11 people. 

Of these, Ashley Kennedy was said in the program to be suffering from a cognitive impairment that caused periods of confusion. One such occurrence was shown on screen. His confusion and anxiety were clear to see.

One of Mr Kennedy’s sons, Corey, was said to be a user of the drug ice, and several scenes in the program were about events connected with his drug use.

Another of Mr Kennedy’s sons, Tristan, had suffered brain damage in an accident, and his slightly slurred speech attested to this.

Three more of the participants were depicted as being habitual drug users, and one was shown in what the context suggested was a drug-induced torpor.

Serious questions arise, therefore, about the capacity of six of the 11 participants in Episode One to give even simple consent, much less informed consent.

Informed consent is the required standard in doing a story like this, where prolonged and intrusive exposure is given to people in what otherwise would be their private lives.

Informed consent requires that a potential participant be given a truthful account of what is intended to be done, the true nature and purpose of the story, and an assessment of the foreseeable risks and benefits to the participant from their involvement.

In response to inquiries about the consent process, SBS sent a copy of a letter they had written to the Mayor of Blacktown, Councillor Stephen Bali, after he had protested against the airing of the program. The full text of the letter can be read here.

In essence, SBS said in the letter that:

• “No one was badgered to take part;
• Signed release forms were obtained from all major participants;
• Regular contact was maintained between the participants and the program makers so that any concerns could be addressed;
• Participants would be given a copy of the program if they asked for one, and
• No inducements had been paid to participants.

All this is good as far as it goes, but it misses the fundamental point about the capacity of some of the participants to give informed consent and to appreciate the implications of signing the release forms.

Moreover, it is difficult for anyone to know what their concerns might be until they have seen the finished product, unless it is the conduct of the film crew that has given rise to any disquiet.  

This brings us to the issues of betrayal and fair portrayal.

Peta Kennedy, wife of Ashley, has accused SBS and the program makers of not keeping faith with what they told her they were intending to do.

Without wishing to be condescending, it is clear from her depiction in Episode One and her leadership in the protest against ther program that Mrs Kennedy is a person with full capacity to give or withhold informed consent.

‘The content of the trailer suggests that in the minds of at least some at SBS, the real selling point of the program was its exposure of a level of vulgarity and squalor that would excite the moral disgust of the broad middle of Australian society.’

For that reason, her allegations of betrayal have weight. If someone of her competence now says she was misled about how she and her family and the community of Mount Druitt were going to be portrayed, it is pertinent to ask what the potential participants were told about the nature and purpose of the program.

SBS has supplied a copy of the invitation to participate (above right).

The critical paragraphs are these:  

“Our aim is to learn about how people in your community get by day to day – with issues such as employment, housing, lack of money and family struggles, as well as the things that make the community strong and resilient.

By hearing the stories of people and seeing how they live we plan to show communities in western Sydney with depth and complexity – not as clichéd stereotypes often portrayed by the media.”  

Mrs Kennedy and Mr Bali clearly believe that the program makers and SBS broke faith with these promises, and it is easy to see why. They are general statements that say nothing about how these high-minded objectives might be fulfilled.

It is obvious from what Mrs Kennedy, in particular, has said that they certainly did not anticipate portrayals of the kind that finished up going to air.

Whether those portrayals were fair and whether they were faithful to the general statements made in the invitation are subjective questions. Those most closely affected think not, and since it is their reputation that is at stake, and it is they who will suffer any harmful consequences, their opinion matters more than anyone else’s.

From a more objective standpoint, while Episode One consisted of content that certainly included many of the issues about employment, lack of money and family struggles, it is difficult to see how it avoided negative stereotyping.

That is certainly the view of the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS), who put out a statement after having seen the promotional trailer for the program on Tuesday. In it, ACOSS described the kind of journalism shown in the trailer as degrading, demeaning and insulting of people doing it tough.

It called on SBS to suspend the broadcast until the participants had had a chance to see the documentary in full and make their views known.

This raises a question about whether SBS or the program makers were genuinely open to hearing the concerns of the participants.

SBS, in its letter to Mr Bali, acknowledged that Mrs Kennedy had asked last week for a copy of the finished program, but the arrangements to give her one had miscarried.

This is a weak explanation in a case where the material had such a patently obvious potential to offend and hurt people, with no compensating benefit to them.

A likelier explanation is that SBS thought that if Mrs Kennedy saw the material, she would have objected strenuously to it, and that subsequent negotiations about content might have meant delaying the scheduled broadcast indefinitely.

At the same time, the promotional trailer, with its gratuitous vulgarities, did the program as a whole a disservice.

In contrast to the relentless negativity of the trailer, the program itself contained some quite inspiring examples of courage, loyalty and resilience:

• Mrs Kennedy’s care for her husband;
• Their joint determination to support their children through tough times;
• The indefatigable spirit of a woman who ran a community help centre;
• The loyalty of a young woman, Erin, to her troubled friend Bailee;
• The steadfastness of Corey’s wife in the face of his drug problems.

The content of the trailer suggests that in the minds of at least some at SBS, the real selling point of the program was its exposure of a level of vulgarity and squalor that would excite the moral disgust of the broad middle of Australian society. Otherwise, why would they beat up the promotion in that direction?

SBS has several other questions to answer if it is to dispel the impression that this was really an exercise in the exploitation of vulnerable people:

• What were the criteria for choosing these 11 lives in Episode One, and not others?
• In what ways does it think this series breaks down the stereotyping of the poor in western Sydney?
• Is it really open to responding to the views of the participants by showing them Episodes Two and Three and making changes accordingly?
• What good, if any, does it expect the series to do for the participants and their community?

SBS’s managing director, Michael Obeid, has been reported as saying the series gives a voice to people in hardship. Maybe, but at what price – and is it a price the participants think they should be asked to pay?  

► Dr Denis Muller is a long-time journalist and leading expert on media ethics. He is a Fellow at the University of Melbourne’s Centre for Advancing Journalism.

► This article is based on an analysis first broadcast on ABC Radio Victoria Statewide Drive’s ‘Behind the Media’ segment on May 5.