2008/17: Is Australia responding appropriately to the sexualisation of children by the media?

2007-2008 Echo Issue Outline ... to return to the page you "clicked" from, simply close this window

Related issue outlines:
2008/01: Should girls under 16 be fashion models?

Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).

Analysing the language of the news media: Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis

Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items: Click this icon ...

... to search the Echo newspaper index and enter the following word(s), with just a space in between them.
children
sexualisation

Sydney Morning Herald index: Click here to use the State Library of NSW's online index to the Sydney Morning Herald

Search for listed newspaper items online - see end of this page

2008/17: Is Australia responding appropriately to the sexualisation of children by the media?

What they said ...
'Harm can come from restricting access to things, as well as in being exposed to things'
Australian Democrat senator, Andrew Bartlett

'Instead of ... [trying] to help parents control the tide of erotic imagery washing over their children, the Senate committee washed its hands of the problem'
Dr Clive Hamilton, professor of public ethics at Charles Sturt University

The issue at a glance
On June 27, 2008, a Senate committee considering the sexualisation of children in the media released its report.
The report's recommendations include that broadcasters and publishers review music videos' classifications; that there be an increase in the amount of time specifically set aside for children's programming and that consideration be given to establishing a children's dedicated channel. It also asks publishers to consider more warnings or reader advice on magazine covers.
However the report has not recommended that harsher laws be introduced to monitor advertisements potentially sexualising children. Instead it has asked that self-regulation measures by bodies such as the Advertising Standards Board (ASB) be increased.
These recommendations have met with significant criticism from a number of those with an interest in child protection and the influence of the media.

Background
In 2006, the Australia Institute published two discussion papers on the issue of the sexualisation of children in the contemporary media: 'Corporate paedophilia: sexualisation of children in the media' and 'Letting children be children: stopping the sexualisation of children in Australia.'
The two papers prompted considerable public debate amongst parents, media and retail industry stakeholders, academics and others, indicating a high level of public interest in the issue.
On 15 August 2007, the Senate passed an Australian Democrat's motion noting the harmful effects of sexualisation of children in the media and calling on the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to specifically comment on the issue in its then current review of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice and the Commercial Radio Code of Practice.
ACMA was also called on to make recommendations on the effectiveness of different approaches and strategies to reduce and/or prevent sexualisation of children in the media.
On 12 March 2008, the Senate referred the matter to the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts for inquiry and report by 23 June 2008.
The sexualisation of children in the contemporary media environment was to include radio and television, children's magazines, other print and advertising material and the Internet.

Some definitions of the sexualisation of children
In their 2006 report on what they termed metaphorically, 'corporate paedophilia', Dr Emma Rush and Andrea La Nauze attempted to define the sexualisation of children. Their definition follows, 'In the past, the sexualisation of children occurred indirectly, primarily through exposure of children to representations of teen and adult sexuality in advertising and popular culture.
The very direct sexualisation of children, where children themselves are presented in ways modelled on sexy adults, is a new development. The pressure on children to adopt sexualised appearance and behaviour at an early age is greatly increased by the combination of the direct sexualisation of children with the increasingly sexualised representations of teenagers and adults in advertising and popular culture.'

Advertising and marketing self-regulation in Australia
The Advertising Standards Board (ABS) investigates complaints. If it finds an advertisement breaches certain Australian Association of National Advertisers codes, it can request it be withdrawn.
The Australian Association of National Advertisers (AANA) has two codes relevant to the sexualisation of children. One says advertisements should comply with Commonwealth law and should treat the matter with 'sensitivity to the relevant audience'. It also has a special code for advertising to children, defined as those under 14. It has no specific reference to sex or sexualisation.
Commonwealth law concerning child pornography is covered by the Criminal Code Act 1995. It says that depictions of those under or appearing to be under 18 cannot include sexual acts or poses.

Internet information
The full text of The Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts into the Sexualisation of Children in the contemporary media was released on June 27, 2008.
The report can be read at http://www.aph.gov.au/SENATE/committee/eca_ctte/sexualisation_of_children/report/report.pdf

The recommendations of The Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts into the Sexualisation of Children in the contemporary media were released on June 27, 2008. These recommendations can be read at http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/eca_ctte/sexualisation_of_children/report/b01.htm

In October 2006, the Australia Institute issued a report titled 'Corporate Paedophilia: sexualisation of children in Australia'. The report, written by Emma Rush and Andrea La Nauze can be read at https://www.tai.org.au/?q=node/8
The relevant report can currently be found at the bottom of page one of this list of Australia Institute publications. 'Corporate Paedophilia' argues that the sexualisation of children is a major problem and requires significant action. It is designated DP90 pdf (indicating it is a pdf file and is discussion paper number 90)

The Australia Institute also issued another report covering similar territory titled, 'Letting Children be Children: Stopping the sexualisation of children in Australia'
It is also written by Emma Rush and Andrea La Nauze. It too can be read at https://www.tai.org.au/?q=node/8 where a clickable link can be found. It is designated DP93 pdf (indicating it is a pdf file and is discussion paper number 93)

A summary of the Australia Institute 'Corporate Paedophilia' report can be found at a https://www.tai.org.au/documents/downloads/DP90.pdf

On June 26, 2008, the ABC Radio National program PM presented a report on the recommendations of the Senate committee into the Sexualisation of Children. The report titled, 'Inquiry recommends media self-regulation over child sexualisation' presents a range of points of view on the appropriateness of the recommendations.
A full text of the broadcast can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2287201.htm

On September 26, 2007, Emma Rush, one of the author's of the Australia Institute's 'Corporate Paedophilia' had an opinion piece published on Online Opinion. The comment is titled, 'Child sexualisation is no game'. The piece outlines instances of and suggests some of the negative consequences that might result from the sexualisation of children. The full text of this comment can be found at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6422

On October 11, 2006, the ABC's 7.30 Report presented a segment in which a range of commentators gave their views regarding the Australia Institute's 'Corporate Paedophilia'.
A full transcript of this program can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1762698.htm

On January 17, 2008, Online Opinion published an opinion piece by Mark Bahnisch is a Lecturer in the Creative Industries Faculty at Queensland University of Technology. The opinion piece is titled, 'The religious politics of puritan purity' and argues that many reactions to supposed child sexualisation are exaggerated and run the risk of denying the autonomy of young people.
The full text of this article can be found at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6871

Former Australian Democrat senator, Andrew Bartlett has a current affairs and politics blog. On June 29, 2008, Mr Bartlett commented favourably on the recommendations of the Senate committee into the sexualisation of children in the media. These comments can be found at http://andrewbartlett.com/?p=2065

Arguments suggesting that Australia is doing sufficient to counter the sexualisation of children
1. Young people need to be allowed to mature
There are those who claim that we need to be wary of infantilising young people. According to this line of argument, economically and legally our society treats young people as less than adults for longer than has historically been the case. This does not mean, however, that we should deny their growing social or sexual maturity.
Those who hold this view argue that we must be careful not to stifle young people while trying to protect them.
These points have been made by Professor Catherine Lumby. Professor Lumby, an activist on issues of sexual violence against women and children, has argued, 'We live in an era when most teenagers leave school at 18, not 14. A few decades back, many working-class girls were getting married at 16, and a few decades before that they were in domestic service or working on farms at 12. We have extended childhood and that's also why we need to ensure that we are not treating 14-year-olds as six-year-olds.
Many well-intentioned adults want to protect young people. But we also need to be wary of sending teenagers the message that adults are in control of their (teenagers') bodies...
Protecting children and young teenagers involves respecting their difference from adults. It means allowing them a space in which to explore their emerging selves free of the demand to always be seen in relation to adulthood - as either pure or entirely knowing. It means involving them in the debate rather than always speaking on their behalf.'
A similar point has been made by former Democrat senator, Andrew Bartlett. Commenting on the 2008 Senate committee's report into the sexualisation of children, Senator Bartlett stated, 'The report rightly notes the wisdom of a precautionary approach in trying to shield children from harm. But harm can come from restricting access to things, as well as in being exposed to things. The sexuality of children might not be as developed as an adult, but it doesn't help to act as though young teenagers have no sexuality at all until the moment they turn 16.'
Those who hold these views claim that much of what is seen as an inappropriate sexualisation of children is merely a recognition that they are reaching toward maturity.

2. There is no compelling evidence to suggest that exposure to advertising and magazines is harmful to children
It has been claimed that there is no solid evidence that exposure to certain images in advertising or magazines is harmful to children. This point has been made by Democrat's Senator Andrew Bartlett. After the Senate Committee released its report on the sexualisation of children, Senator Bartlett noted, 'In the absence of more specific evidence about the harmfulness of specific types of advertisements or magazines aimed at young teenagers, I would have been concerned if proposals had been adopted to too tightly restrict or regulate what can and can't be done.'
It has further been noted that harmful behaviours like eating disorders in children may be caused by factors other than images shown in advertisements or magazines.
The Senate report stated, 'The evidence from practitioners ... does show that some young people, particularly girls, have difficulties with their body image and this may lead in extreme cases to clinical problems such as eating disorders. However, what cannot be said with any certainty is what the significant influences in causing these problems are. A child may internalise parental anxieties or dietary habits long before any 'sexualising' influence from the media has an impact.'
The Senate Committee was cautious in its assumptions about cause and effect. It noted, 'Many of the submissions to the committee relied on anecdotal evidence derived from individual experience and assume that, for example, because an adult is angered, offended or embarrassed by a billboard advertising a lap dancing club or 'male sexual dysfunction services', then the child interprets the material in the same way and is harmed by it.' The committee did not automatically accept such assumptions.

3. Australia has a regulatory system to protect children against inappropriate advertising content
It has been repeatedly claimed that Australia's system of self-regulation is effective in protecting children against exposure to unsuitable advertising.
Australia 's advertising self-regulatory system is managed by the Advertising Standards Bureau (ASB), which is funded voluntarily by the industry through the Australian Advertising Standards Council.
Self-regulation of the advertising industry has been achieved by establishing a set of rules and principles of best practice to which the industry voluntarily agrees to be bound. These rules are expressed in a number of Codes and have been drawn up in accord with the belief that advertisements should be legal, decent, honest and truthful, prepared with a sense of social responsibility to the consumer and society as a whole and with due respect to the rules of fair competition.
It has been claimed that a self-regulatory system is quite rigorous enough to be effective. The Senate Commission included the following judgement, 'The consequences of a complaint being upheld is a request to the advertiser or marketer to modify or discontinue the advertisement. The ASB [has noted] ... that there has been only one case of an advertiser refusing to comply with such a request. Generally, given the costs involved in producing, for example, a television advertising campaign, the prompt compliance with ASB requests for advertisements to be removed suggests that self-regulation is taken seriously by the industry.'

4. The principal responsibility for preventing the sexualisation of children rests with their parents
It has been claimed that it should not be a responsibility of government to ensure that children are not prematurely sexualised. According to this line of argument, the development of children is primarily the responsibility of their parents. Dr Amanda Gordon, President of the Australian Psychological Society has made this point. Dr Gordon has stated, 'I tell parents "don't buy sexy clothes for your children". There's nothing smart about having a 4 yr old in a little bra. It's time for adults to take a stand, for parents to take a stand and say "this is what we want for our children" - instead of children saying 'this is what I want for me"... [and] ... 'If the message is that you should be sexy and grown up, instead of being a kid - then kids aren't practising and learning how to be whole human beings that will actually make them into great adults. They are instead only imitating adult behaviour, without understanding it - and that's very dangerous for their development.'
Though the Senate Committee acknowledged that parents needed support, it also stated, 'Throughout this report the committee has made a number of recommendations and suggestions whose object is to assist parents in managing the influences to which their children are exposed, to assist children in dealing with these influences. It is ... the primary responsibility of parents to make decisions about what their children see, hear, read or purchase. These parental decisions can have a significant impact on the market for sexualising products and services.' This judgement stresses the power of parents to shape the market to which their children are exposed. Its implication is that, as consumers, parents can influence what is presented for sale to them and their children.
In summary, the Senate Committee stated, 'It must be recognised that ... individual and parental choice, expressed through consumer decisions, are ultimately the factors that dictate corporate behaviour and commercial standards:
One of the commercial realities of magazines, television and radio in the commercial sphere is that they rely on ratings to sell advertising. If people do not watch it, they will not keep that programming on. Voting with the remote is the best way to change commercial programming.'

5. Video clips, television programs and magazine content in Australia are generally age-appropriate
It has been claimed that Australian children are not generally exposed to inappropriate material in television programs, video clips and magazines.
Australian television material is classified to indicate its suitability for children. On the basis of these classification systems, ratings are provided for television programs, films and some advertising and other publications. The familiar classifications of G, PG , M, et cetera are provided as a guide to the public as to the content of the material and its suitability for various age groups. These ratings are supplemented by consumer advice which gives more detailed descriptions of the content; and the use of time zones in broadcast media to restrict access by children to programs designed for adults.
Where video clips are approved for showing during G rated time zones, the coarse language is 'bleeped' or edited out but ... Free TV Australia advised the Senate committee on the sexualisation of children that all music video clips are subject to classification, and subsequently are monitored.
If the material is considered unsuitable for the relevant time zone (usually G or PG), then the video is edited before broadcast or else is it not included in the respective program.
For G classified programs networks take extra steps to ensure the videos are very mild in impact and safe for children to watch without adult supervision as required under the Code. For a PG show, the networks apply the Code at the lower end of the PG classification requirements as they are mindful that younger viewers could be watching these programs.
Publishers of children's magazines claimed that they are overwhelmingly positive in terms of the influence they have on their young readers. The publishers of Girlfriend magazine described the magazine as containing carefully selected age-appropriate material that sought to interest, inform and empower young girls.10
Mrs Nicole Sheffield, Publisher, Pacific Magazines, observed, 'We understand the role that the information and entertainment we provide...[children] with has. We take that role seriously. In no way do we support the sexualisation of children and never have done.'

Arguments suggesting that Australia is not doing sufficient to counter the sexualisation of children
1. The sexualisation of children can harm them emotionally
It has been claimed that the sexualisation of children can psychologically harm young people. It has the capacity to harm the self image of young people and to make them less willing to participate in a range of positive activities, especially sporting activities, which could boost their self esteem. This point has been made in the 2006 report 'Corporate Paedophilia' prepared for the Australia Institute.
The report states, 'Studies have shown that exposure to "appearance-focused
Media" increases body dissatisfaction among children. Apart from contributing to the development of eating disorders, this may have further effects that are not yet fully understood. For example, it is widely recognised that body image concerns are a barrier to teenage girls' participation in sporting activities. It is possible that as younger girls develop higher body dissatisfaction; this barrier may also affect their participation.'
It has also been claimed within this report such sexualisation of children might also encourage premature sexual activity among young people which has the capacity to further damage their self image and divert them from other valuable age-appropriate activities.
The Australia Institute report of 2006 stated, 'Psychologists have also noted that, given that precocious sexual behaviour is an attention-getting strategy used by some older children and young teenagers, the general sexualisation of children may escalate the level of sexual behaviour necessary to attract attention.
It has ... been observed that premature sexualisation can lead to other aspects of child development being neglected; if large amounts of time, money and mental energy are devoted to appearance this will distract from other developmental activities, be they physical, intellectual or artistic.'
Finally, the report states, 'In discussion of the sexualisation of children it is often noted that in developed nations children now reach puberty earlier than they did in the past. For example, Odone cites a UK study of 1,150 eight-year-old children called 'Children of the Nineties' that found that one-sixth of all eight-year-old girls show some signs of puberty, compared to one in100 a generation ago. Also, one in 14 eight-year-old boys have pubic hair, compared with one in 250 a generation ago ... To place these physical changes in context, however, experts in childhood development often note that children's emotional and cognitive development has not advanced at the same pace ... As a result, children's bodies are maturing before they are psychologically mature. Children are thus ill-equipped to deal with sexualising pressure which implies that only a limited range of mature body types are attractive and desirable. An increasing emphasis on a particular body type as the ideal is central to the evidence of sexualisation presented in the previous section.'

2. The sexualisation of children can harm them physically
It has been claimed that the sexualisation of children can result in physical harm to young people. One significant concern is that the images of extremely slim young women promoted to young readers and viewers as an attractive ideal leads to eating disorders, especially in girls. This point has been made in the 2006 report 'Corporate Paedophilia' prepared for the Australia Institute.
The report states, 'Firstly, many studies have linked exposure to the ideal "slim, toned" body type that is considered sexy for adults to the development of eating disorders in older children and teenagers.
There is already some evidence that children in Australia are developing eating disorders at a younger age than previously. Even a "mild" eating disorder can have significant effects on a child's physical health. The idea that increased emphasis on body image for children might be helpful in the context of significant increases in childhood obesity is misguided, since negative motivations stemming from a sense of inadequacy can be very counterproductive. Positive motivations like self-acceptance are more effective in the promotion of healthy living.'
The Australia Institute 2006 report further states, 'Children may be encouraged to initiate sexual behaviour at an earlier The Age: well before they have full knowledge of the potential consequences. Earlier sexual activity in teenagers is linked to a higher incidence of unwanted sex (particularly for teenage girls) and to increasing potential to contract sexually transmitted infections. Both unwanted sex and sexually transmitted infections can have serious long-term consequences.'
Finally the Australia Institute report notes, 'One Australian study found that among 100 girls aged nine to twelve years, exposure to appearance-focussed media ... is indirectly related to body dissatisfaction via conversations about appearance among peers ...
Beyond the effects of highly idealised media images on children's body satisfaction, some child development experts note that as children are exposed to increasingly sexualised popular culture, those children who have 'rebellious, creative or freethinking tendencies' are at particular risk.
They want to be non-conformists, but the symbols of their nonconformity (from skateboard culture to hip hop) become popularized. The more adventurous - and often angrier - kids seek out increasingly outrageous expressions of their rebellion. In media, this often means more graphic violence, more outrageous behaviour, and more explicit sex.'

3. The sexualisation of children can lead to increased instances of paedophilia and child abuse
It has been claimed that sexualising children encourages paedophiles to believe that their behaviour is acceptable and that children are actually ready for and enjoy sexual activities.
This point has been made by Dr Emma Rush. Dr Rush is a researcher at the Australia Institute and the lead author of the report Corporate Paedophilia, published in October 2006 by the Australia Institute. Dr Rush has argued, 'To sexualise children in the way that advertisers do - by dressing, posing, and making up child models in the same ways that sexy adults would be presented - ... implicitly suggests to adults that children are interested in and ready for sex. This is profoundly irresponsible, particularly given that it is known that paedophiles use not only child pornography but also more innocent photos of children.'
Dr Rush further stated, 'Because sex is widely represented in advertising and marketing as something that fascinates and delights adults, the sexualisation of children could play a role in 'grooming' children for paedophiles - preparing children for sexual interaction with older teenagers or adults.
This is of particular concern with respect to the girls' magazines, which actively encourage girls of primary school age to have crushes on adult male celebrities. At the same time, the representation of children as miniature adults playing adult sexual roles sends a message to paedophiles that, contrary to laws and ethical norms, children are sexually available.'
It has also been claimed that such representations of children encourages child abuse. In April 2007 a group of child psychologists sent a letter to The Age in which they stated, 'Marketing to, and media representations of children in age-inappropriate ways send a clear message to the community that this is acceptable, and can contribute to the increasing rates of child abuse. And there is much more to the story.
Perhaps The Age could convene a roundtable of children's professionals and marketers where the facts of life could be explained?'

4. Self-regulation is not sufficient to protect children from sexually explicit advertising and other material
It has been claimed that self-regulation is not sufficient to ensure that children are protected from inappropriate advertising and other material.
Referring to the recent Senate Committee investigating the sexualisation of children, Clive Hamilton, professor of public ethics at Charles Sturt University and former head of the Australian Institute, has stated, 'Instead of proposing even the mildest regulation to help parents control the tide of erotic imagery washing over their children, the Senate committee washed its hands of the problem, declaring it a "community responsibility" and politely suggesting that the advertising industry might think about ways of allaying community concerns. The sexualisation of children has occurred because of the failure of self-regulation, yet the senators' answer is to recommend more."
Dr Hamilton summed up his view in this manner, 'The recommendations of the committee veer from the weak to the pathetic and suggest that the inquiry allowed itself to be snowed by the advertising industry ... The timidity of the recommendations indicates that the committee is happy to invest its faith in the system of self-regulation that has, in fact, brought about the situation that the inquiry was launched to investigate.'
Referring to the same report, Australian Christian Lobby managing director, Jim Wallace, stated, 'Instead of dealing with the need for greater government regulation which gives priority to the interests of children, they have been snowed by the very industry they were inquiring into, effectively leaving the issue in their hands.'

5. Parents need government regulation to help prevent the sexualisation of their children
It has been claimed that it is not reasonable to expect parents to take on the sole responsibility for regulating what their children read and watch and for what their children wear.
This point has been made by Dr Emma Rush. Dr Rush is a researcher at the Australia Institute and the lead author of the report Corporate Paedophilia, published in October 2006 by the Australia Institute. Dr Rush has argued, 'It is unrealistic to expect parents to stop the sexualisation of children by "just saying no" to sexy clothing, children's make-up and so on. As any parent knows, it is not that simple. Peer friendships take on much greater importance in middle childhood and the pressure to conform is keenly felt by children. No parents want their child to be the one left out in the schoolyard.
And no parents want to be put in a position where they must monitor and regulate their children's activities. The sexualisation of children should be tackled at its source: the advertisers and marketers who are seeking to create ever-younger consumers for their products. The burden of remedying the damage caused by sexualising children should not fall on parents, teachers, paediatricians and child psychologists.'
In response to the supposed failure of the Senate Committee into the sexualisation of children, Clive Hamilton, professor of public ethics at Charles Sturt University and former head of the Australian Institute, has stated, 'Instead of proposing even the mildest regulation to help parents control the tide of erotic imagery washing over their children, the Senate committee washed its hands of the problem, declaring it a "community responsibility" and politely suggesting that the advertising industry might think about ways of allaying community concerns. The sexualisation of children has occurred because of the failure of self-regulation, yet the senators' answer is to recommend more.'

Further implications
It is difficult not to agree with Senator Andrew Bartlett, that the recent Senate committee investigating the supposed sexualisation of children in the media did a comprehensive job and made a series of reasonable recommendations.
The committee has been criticised for not being more decisive. The fact remains, however, that any set of committee recommendations are no more than that. It remains to be seen whether the various branches of media will take any of them up with sufficient vigour to have them make an impact. What the committee did not do was make any recommendations that would have required the Government to pass new legislation in order to enact them.
In the short-term this is probably a good thing. The type of law that might have been enacted would include a scaling back of or substantial alteration to the system of self-regulation currently applied within the advertising industry and elsewhere. As the recent controversy surrounding the work of Bill Henson demonstrated, there is a fine balance to be struck between protecting vulnerable members of the community and not intruding on the rights of others.
The current set of recommendations give the various arms of the media industry encouragement to put their own house in order. Given the apparently growing sensitivity within the general public, and among a number of our most prominent political leaders, to the whole issue of how children are depicted, it would clearly be in the interests of the media industry to ensure it treats this matter appropriately. If it does not it seems likely that the next Senate committee to investigate the sexualisation of children will make some recommendations to change the law. It may well then find a Parliament ready to do so.

Newspaper items used in the compilation of this outline
THE AUSTRALIAN: April 15, page 12, comment by Phillip Adams, `No age limit for corporate molesters'.
THE AUSTRALIAN: April 24, page 13, comment by Emma Tom, `Sexy baby clobber in the eye of sick, perverted beholder'.
THE HERALD-SUN: May 1, page 18, news item by D Murray, `The girl behind the glam'.
THE HERALD-SUN: May 11, page 11, news items by Moran and Caines, `Let kids be kids / Outcry over topless shoot with model, 16'.
THE AUSTRALIAN: May 13, page 3, news item (ref to Zippora Seven), `Anger at photos of model, 16, topless'.
THE HERALD-SUN: May 26, page 10, news item by Holly Ife, `Child policy to look at advertising'.
THE HERALD-SUN: June 8, page 11, news item (photo of child model) by Liam Houlihan, `Kids' boots cop a kick'.
THE AGE: June 7, page 3, news item by J Topsfield, `Teen mags "not for tweens"'.
THE AGE: June 23, page 11, comment by Tracie Winch, `Let's stop trying to turn girls into probationary sexpots'.
THE HERALD-SUN: July 1, page 15, news item by Anne Wright, `Sexualising girls lifts glass ceiling'.
THE AGE: June 29, page 17, comment by Clive Hamilton, `Child sexualisation shrouded in weasel words'.
THE HERALD-SUN: June 27, page 5, news item by Peter Jean, `Drive to protect kids from sexy TV'.
THE AUSTRALIAN: June 27, page 3, news item by Nicola Berkovic, `Guide to portrayal of children in media'.
THE AGE: June 27, page 3, news item by Leo Shanahan, `Canberra rapped on child sexualisation'.

Using google to find newspaper items still available on the Web
Use your mouse to copy a newspaper headline (just the headline, not the entire entry as it appears in the sources) and paste it into the google search box below. Click search to see if the item is still accessible.