In SA, most of the time the face of the accused is blurred until the initial hearings and a ruling on suppression by the judge. That way there's less chance of a defence lawyer complaining about the evidence of witnesses or judgment of potential jurors being tainted. Which means more chance of a conviction.
I wonder if it's the same in WA.
Definitely different in the eastern states. (Except if you're a cardinal supported by two former PMs.) If I'm right, the ABC would tend to report in the style of SA or WA media (having local reporters and editors), and thus pixellate a picture until a court hearing. Eastern states editors would do what they normally do in their capital city.
I know this thread is yet another white male grievance troll against the ABC and Aborigines, and not really about understanding the convention of identifying alleged perpetrators, but I was interested in the question about different approaches in different media.
