annual report 2017–2018 · newspapers and magazines, as well as a growing number of online-only...

Annual Report 2017–2018

ANNUAL REPORT NO 42 Year ending 30 June 2018

The Australian Press Council

Level 6, 53 Berry Street North Sydney 2060 02 9261 1930 1800 025 712

[email protected] www.presscouncil.org.au

ISSN: 0156-1308

Annual Report 2017–2018

Design: SavvyGraphics.com.au Photography: Rick Stevens, Michael Rose, AAP

The Press Council is responsible for promoting good standards of media practice, community access to information of public interest and freedom of expression through the media.

It also sets standards and responds to complaints about material in Australian newspapers and magazines, as well as a growing number of online-only publications.

ContentsForeword from the Chair 5

Executive Director’s Report 7

Key Numbers for the Year 8

The Year in Review 11

Complaints Handling 14

Case Studies 16

Complaints and Complainants 20

Council Membership and Staff 22

Finances 25

Member Publications 29

Summaries of Adjudications 37

Full Adjudications 39

Foreword from the Chair

The months immediately prior to my taking on the role of Chair were exceptionally challenging ones for the Press Council, in light of the unexpected resignation of my predecessor, Professor David Weisbrot.

I would like to pay tribute to the Vice-Chairs for having steered the Council through this difficult time. It also placed increased pressure on the Executive Director and the staff and, again, I would like to recognise their work during this period.

An early priority was to ensure that the Council was independent and seen to be independent. The subsequent decisions and actions in this regard are outlined elsewhere in this Annual Report.

My other early priority was to meet with Council members and publishers to help me to get across the many issues facing the organisation and the Australian media industry.

I made clear in those meetings, and at every other opportunity in recent months, that my aim as Chair is to ensure that the Press Council is a respected and independent self-regulatory body, which has the confidence of publishers and the community, contributes to a strong and free press – particularly in this digital world – and values and promotes quality journalism.

To that end, I saw it as extremely important, for example, that the Press Council prepare a thorough and thoughtful submission to the ACCC Inquiry into the impact of digital platforms on the supply of news and journalistic content and the implications of this for media content creators, advertisers and consumers. Similarly, we made a submission to the South Australian government on its proposals to amend shield laws to protect journalists in that State.

I have also made it clear that the Press Council must continue to refine, improve and speed up its complaints handling and standards-setting processes, to make them ever more relevant and responsive to journalists and citizens in a time of rapid change. The Press Council must have efficient and effective standards of practice and complaints handling that take into account the realities of the digital age.

2017–2018 was far from an easy year for the Press Council, but, in my view, the Council is well placed to continue its important work and to respond to emerging challenges.

Neville Stevens AO

2017–2018 was far from an easy year for the Press Council, but, in my view, the Council is well placed to continue its important work and to respond to emerging challenges.

5

Although the news industry continued to undergo significant change during the year, the Press Council’s work of promoting freedom of speech and responsible journalism continued.

Given the ease with which disinformation and misinformation can spread, the Press Council, and the responsible journalism to which its publisher members aspire, has never been more important.

The Council’s strategic goal of ensuring effective complaints handling is important for publishers, the community and other stakeholders. While the complaints-handling process is undoubtedly valuable to publishers by promoting reader trust and loyalty, it is no small thing that in times when the industry is undergoing substantial change the publishers have continued their financial support of the Council and continue to cooperate as quickly as possible with its processes. Importantly, sometimes the arguments raised during the complaints-handling process mirror debates within society, something which no complaints-handling process can resolve.

Another strategic goal – developing and refining standards, guidelines and industry education – is also important in an age where disinformation and misinformation can be readily spread. Standards establish a balance for Press Council members between valuable but contradictory factors such as perfect accuracy and delivering news in a timely way, or an individual’s expectation of privacy and the benefits of certain information to the broader community. The Press Council’s Advisory Guidelines can provide an opportunity for journalists, publishers and members

Executive Director’s Report

of the community to gain a valuable shared awareness of the complex issues that can arise in the day-to-day practice of media reporting.

Advocating for press freedom, free speech and responsible journalism – the third strategic goal – has also never been more important. Without these our society will be less able to address its problems.

The Vice-Chairs of the Council, the Hon John Doyle AC and Julie Kinross, who were appointed Acting Chairs following the resignation of the former Chair Professor David Weisbrot in mid-2017, led the Press Council’s work for the first half of the year. In addition to leading broad work on the strategic goals, they steered efforts to improve the Council’s corporate governance through development of the Conflict of Interest Policy and the Public Member Policy, which encapsulated practices around potential conflicts and the important role of public members. They also furthered a process of constitutional review, which had been initiated due to legislative changes, and successfully led the process for recruiting a new Chair.

On 20 January 2018 the Secretariat welcomed Neville Stevens AO to the role of Chair. It is entirely appropriate that one of his first achievements was finalisation of reform of the Constitution and the comprehensive review of potential conflicts of interest.

I would like to express my deep appreciation to the Vice-Chairs and the Chair for their enormous contribution and thank all Council and Adjudication Panel members for their effective work. Most of all, I would like to express my appreciation to Secretariat staff past and present for their outstanding work during a challenging period. It has been a privilege to work collaboratively with every one of them.

John Pender

7

“My objective is to ensure that the Press Council is a respected and independent self-regulatory body, which has the confidence of publishers and the community, contributes to a strong and free press and promotes quality journalism.”PRESS COUNCIL CHAIR / NEVILLE STEVENS

COMPLAINANTS IN 2017–2018

95988

COMPLAINTS UPHELD OR PARTIALLY UPHELD BY THE ADJUDICATION PANEL

STAFF WORKING AT THE COUNCIL SECRETARIAT

FORMAL ADJUDICATIONSCOMPLAINTS

55483% 10

309599

Key Australian Press Council activitiesThe purpose of the Press Council is to promote freedom of speech and responsible journalism and, as identified in its Strategic Plan 2016-2020, it does so by: • ensuring effective complaints handling• developing and refining standards, guidelines and

industry education; and• advocating for press freedom, free speech and responsible journalism.

The 2017–2018 reporting year was one of transition for the Press Council. The Vice-Chairs, the Hon John Doyle and Julie Kinross, acted as Chairs of the Council until 20 January 2018, when the appointment of Neville Stevens as Chair took effect.

Ensure effective complaints handlingThe Press Council continued to respond in accordance with its process to complaints about material in Australian newspapers and magazines, as well as a growing number of online-only publications. There were 554 complaints in 2017–2018 from 959 complainants. A discussion of the complaints process, case studies of a number of complaints, and detailed complaint statistics for the year are set out in other sections of this Annual Report.

The Council completed a project to improve efficiency of its complaints-handling software during the year, but deferred commencement of a larger software enhancement project.

Develop and refine standards, guidelines and industry educationThree of the Press Council’s Advisory Guidelines were updated in the reporting period; one concerning reporting on opinion polls and two others regarding publication of readers’ letters to the editor and digital alteration of images. Extensive work was done on revising the Advisory

The Year in Review

Guideline on Reporting Elections, which was finalised in the following year. There are a number of other areas where work in updating or developing Advisory Guidelines would have been valuable and the Council will progress those projects in the period ahead.

During the year the federal government established a Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund, which allows publishing companies with an annual turnover of less than $30 million to apply for grants of up to $1 million. The Press Council made some submissions in relation to the grants and provided support in other ways. The Australian Communications and Media Authority, which is responsible for administering the grants program, asked the Press Council to nominate a representative to sit on an Advisory Panel and independent journalist member Anna Reynolds was nominated to do so.

Significantly, one of the criteria for applying for a grant is that the publication in question must be a member of the Press Council or demonstrate that it has a similarly robust complaints-handling system. At least partly as a result of this, inquiries from smaller publications about joining the Press Council began to increase significantly during the reporting period.

Once again the Press Council awarded prizes to outstanding students in partnership with the Journalism Education and Research Association of Australia (JERAA). These are part of an existing program, known as the Ossie Awards, organised by JERAA to recognise outstanding achievement by students in university journalism schools in Australia, New Zealand and Fiji. This year, more than 170 entries were submitted to the Ossie awards across 18 categories, with 21 universities in Australia, New Zealand and Fiji eligible to take part.

The winner of the Australian Press Council 2017 Prize for Journalism Student of the Year was Rochelle Kirkham of RMIT University. This prize is for a student who has performed well in all academic subjects and who has also produced outstanding journalism as part of their coursework or freelance articles.

A number of media and journalism events were attended during the year. A unique and valuable conference for school-aged children called Media Me was convened by Crinkling News, a newspaper for children published by a member of the Press Council. The Executive Director and the Director of Strategic Issues observed children learning about media literacy in the digital era.

11

Advocate for press freedom, free speech and responsible journalismThe Press Council made a submission to the Digital Platforms Inquiry undertaken by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). The Press Council’s submission noted, among other things, the profound impact on public interest journalism of the technological and other changes faced by the media industry in Australia and overseas.

The Council stated in its submission that a major issue in this transformation has been the growing power of digital platforms such as Facebook and Google to influence a number of extremely important elements in the news media industry, including newsgathering, subject matter and techniques, as well as the format, presentation and distribution of news content.

Following receipt of that submission, the Executive Director, the Director of Strategic Issues and the Acting Director of Research and Communications attended a meeting with the ACCC on 25 June 2018 to further discuss issues raised in the document.

The Press Council also made a submission to the South Australian government about its proposed journalist shield law provisions.

Senior staff attended meetings with other key stakeholders during the year, including the Executive Director and the Director of Research and Communications who visited the Australian headquarters of Facebook and Google, which provided insights into their operations. Discussions with a range of media stakeholders provided insights into so-called “fake news” and public-interest journalism.

The Press Council continued to award its annual Press Freedom medal, a prize that generates much community and media interest. The 2018 winners were Peter Greste, one of Australia’s most respected and experienced foreign correspondents, a vocal proponent of press freedom and now Professor of Journalism and Communications at the University of Queensland, and Gerard Ryle, Director of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, a network of more than 200 journalists and 100 global media organisations collaborating on major investigative stories.

The awards were made at a World Press Freedom Day event hosted at Twitter’s Sydney offices on 3 May 2018.

Key organisational enablersThe Press Council continued to develop the key organisational enablers identified in its Strategic Plan:

• managing relationships well with members and external stakeholders

• supporting and growing the membership base • developing skills and capabilities • refining governance structures, and • ensuring ongoing financial sustainability.

The Press Council’s Conflict of Interest policy was reviewed and updated, given the importance of Council members reflecting the community, being independent and being seen as independent. A new Conflict of Interest Policy and a Public Member Policy were approved in December 2017.

A significant amount of work was undertaken to review the Press Council’s Constitution – the foundational legal document setting out, among other things, the objectives, powers and procedures of the Association and the Council, and the rights and obligations of publisher members. The review of the Constitution was instigated by amendments to the Associations Incorporation Act 2009 (NSW), which set a number of default provisions that were ill-fitted to the Press Council’s circumstances.

In May 2018, the Press Council adopted a new form of Constitution with a number of provisions, which were more appropriate for the Council than the default provisions, to improve the governance structure of the Association and the Council. The new Constitution was registered in May 2018 and is available on the Press Council’s website.

The Council at its quarterly meeting in Sydney on 11 May 2018 carefully examined formal declarations of interest by all of its members as to any potential conflicts of interest. As a result of that process, one member, Carla McGrath,

Journalists at work in Budget lock-up

1212

was asked to resign because the Council regarded her position as Deputy Chair of the Board of GetUp! as incompatible with her continued role as a public member of the Council. Carla McGrath was removed as a member of Council on 31 August 2018.

Online-only publications InDaily, based in Adelaide, joined the Council in December 2017 and Women’s Agenda, based in Melbourne, joined in January 2018.

During the year the Press Council continued to pursue goals established under its Reconciliation Action Plan. The Council also joined the Media Reconciliation Industry Network Group (Media RING), which brings together many of Australia’s major media organisations with the shared purpose of developing and enhancing career opportunities for Indigenous Australians in the media.

During the year the Secretariat was also engaged in finding more suitable premises. A lease agreement was negotiated for office space in 53 Berry St, North Sydney and the Secretariat moved into the new premises from 1 July 2018.

Chair’s keynote address to the Melbourne Press ClubIn a keynote speech to the Melbourne Press Club in April 2018, the Chair, Neville Stevens, outlined some of the major challenges, and his own priorities, for the Press Council.

“The Internet and the digital world have changed publishing forever,” he said. “They have also changed and will continue to change the operations of the Press Council. One of the challenges for the Press Council is to reconcile these changes with its core function of promoting and upholding standards crucial to public trust in media…

“We need to be talking together about such things as the need for ever-more rigorous checking of facts by journalists, not always an easy thing with fake news and a potentially heavy new cost when publishers are struggling to remain profitable. We need to talk about the need for greater media literacy among information consumers…

“My objective is to ensure that the Australian Press Council is a respected and independent self-regulatory body, which has the confidence of the community and publishers, which contributes to a strong and free press and which values and promotes quality journalism.”

Press Freedom Medal Winner Peter Greste

Chair Neville Stevens at the Melbourne Press Club

Council members Sean Aylmer, John Bedwell, Paul Merrill, Zione Walker-Nthenda

13

The Press Council members enter a binding agreement to comply with its Standards of Practice and its complaints process.

Complaints about material published by Press Council members are submitted using the form on the Press Councils website or by post for people without Internet access.

Details of the complaints are entered into the Press Council’s complaint management system (CMS). The implementation of the CMS in June 2016 has enabled the Press Council to more efficiently maintain its complaint files. A number of improvements were made to the CMS during 2018.

The Press Council’s complaints team reviews all complaints in detail and meets regularly to discuss them and make recommendations to the Executive Director for further action. This may include obtaining further information from the complainant or a response from the publication, contacting the subject of the article (where that person is not the complainant) or exploring with the complainant and publication a possible resolution, such as a correction, an amendment, an apology or publication of a letter to the editor.

Some complaints can be eliminated at the outset as out-of-scope if they do not fall within the Press Council’s area; for example complaints about television or radio content. Other complaints may be declined early in the process.

If the complaint is not declined or resolved, it will be investigated further.

Where a complainant has been identified or is directly affected by an article, they are regarded as a ‘primary complainant’ and have a role throughout the process.

Complaints HandlingWhere a complainant is not identified or directly affected they are regarded as a ‘secondary complainant’ and usually cease to have a direct role in the process after lodging the complaint.

The Executive Director decides which issues are to be considered by the Council as a result of secondary complaints. He or she does so after considering the complaints themselves and also any other possible breaches of the Council’s Standards of Practice that may arise from the material or action in question. The issues will not necessarily include, or be strictly limited to, those which are raised explicitly by the complainant. If a complaint is to be considered further, a Provisional Summary of Issues document is used to clarify the issues. This provides a focus for the Press Council’s assessment of whether an article complained about complies with the Standards of Practice.

The Executive Director discontinues the complaint if it is considered unlikely that a breach of the Council’s Standards of Practice has occurred. Sometimes a complainant will withdraw a complaint or cease to respond to communication from the Council about it, in which case it will be discontinued. Complaints may also be dealt with by the Executive Director issuing a letter of advice to the publication and discontinuing the complaint, or by referring the complaint to an Adjudication Panel.

Adjudication Panels are made up of five to seven people. They are chaired by the Press Council’s Chair, or one of the Vice-Chairs or a designated Council member. They have equal numbers of public and industry members. Publisher members of the Council do not take part in an Adjudication Panel.

The Final Adjudication is published by the publication as requested by the Executive Director, and also published on the Press Council’s website.

1414

TOTAL NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS, COMPLAINANTS AND ISSUES

2017–2018 2016-17 2015-16 2014-15 2013-14

New in-scope complaints received during year 554 582 500 525 467

Complainants making these complaints 959 1387 801 3742 849

Out-of-scope complaints received during the year 158 120 167 287 78

Executive Director John Pender

Complaints and Governance Officer Alice Beasley with Complaints Officer Tanith Chippendale

Director of Complaints Paul Nangle

The Press Council has no power to order compensation, fines or other financial sanctions. Where a complaint is upheld, the Adjudication may include a reprimand or censure, and may explicitly call for (but not require) apologies, retractions, corrections or other specified remedial action by the publisher. The Adjudication may also call for specific measures to prevent recurrence of the type of breach in question.

Of the 554 complaints received last year, 30 were considered by an Adjudication Panel. Just over 80 per cent of those were upheld or partially upheld.

15

Case Studies

These examples, along with the full texts of the Press Council’s adjudications during the year, illustrate the breadth of complaints and issues considered by Adjudication Panels and how the Press Council’s Standards of Practice are applied in particular situations.

Michelle Box/The Northern Star (July 2017)The Press Council considered a complaint about an article headed “The mysterious and ‘horrible’ death of Sabrina Bremer” in The Northern Star online on 18 August 2016.

The article concerned a murder victim who had been reported missing and whose burned body was found on the side of a road in a remote area of northern NSW. The article was updated to report that: “It’s understood the woman was tied up to the tree when set alight and, as she decomposed and the rope broke, her body rolled down the roadside embankment.” Later, the article was again updated to identify the woman by name, age and place of residence.

The complainant, a family member of the victim, said reporting what was claimed to have happened to the victim caused the family serious distress and that police had later indicated the reporting was incorrect.

The publication said the article was written by a journalist from a related publication and published there before it was republished on the publication’s own website without editorial checking. It said that an updated version failed to appear on its own website due to a technical error. The publication apologised to the complainant and said that during the Council’s complaints process the residents’ claims were removed from online and the reporter in question counselled.

The Council concluded that in reporting as fact the unverified claims by residents, which later proved false, the publication had failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the article was accurate and not misleading and also failed to remedy the inaccuracy with appropriate promptness. The Council considered that in reporting the death in significant detail the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing substantial distress, particularly to the family.

The Council upheld the complaint and the publication published the adjudication in print and online on 27 July 2017.

1616

Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy Association of Australasia/Daily Telegraph (December 2017)The Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy Association of Australasia complained that an article by The Daily Telegraph, which included statistics about people attracted to the same sex among other statistics relating to poor health, was misleading and offensive. The complainant said the headline “FAT CHANCE OF BEING HEALTHY” and a subheading “Young Aussies have only themselves to blame”, followed by the statistic about same-sex attraction as well as statistics relating to matters such as obesity and drug use, suggested same-sex attraction is unhealthy and warrants blame.

The publication said the article did not link the issue of sexual identity to ill health. The headline, which focused on diet and obesity, was not intended to refer to the non-diet issues in the graphic and should be read along with the article. Additionally, in response to criticism from the public, the publication issued a statement on social media, which said that the article was not intended to suggest that same-sex relationships are unhealthy.

The Council considered that there is a significant difference between reporting on same-sex attraction as a demographic factor which may affect young people’s mental health as referred to in the NSW youth health framework and reporting it as a lifestyle-related health factor such as poor diet and drug use. The Council concluded that the headline and the sub headline associated students reporting same sex attraction with people affected by unhealthy lifestyle factors.

The Council noted the publication’s online response to complaints from the public. However, this public statement was not published in print and did not acknowledge or apologise for the misleading nature of the graphic, but rather attributed the impression to readers having misconstrued the article. The response did not constitute adequate remedial action.

The Council concluded that the article was misleading and caused substantial offence, distress, prejudice and risk to public health and safety, and there was no public interest justifying this.

The Council upheld the complaint. The publication published the adjudication in print and online on 20 December 2017.

“Thank you heaps for your action in this. I appreciate it a lot.”Hannah Braithwaite

Complainant/news.com.au (February 2018)The Press Council considered a complaint that an article that included material about Islamic State’s “step-by-step guide on how to murder…” caused a risk to public safety.

The article reported that “the latest edition of the terror group’s English-language propaganda magazine…encourages would-be terrorists to advertise products on second-hand selling sites…to lure victims and assassinate them”.

The publication said the article was published with the intent of providing readers with an insight into how IS operates and the intention was to discourage terrorism and support for IS. The publication also removed the article after being informed by a federal government department that the Classification Board had designated the material “Refused Classification”.

The Press Council considered that the article did publish verbatim much of the source material from IS, with limited accompanying analysis or context. The Council accepted there was no intention to encourage or support terrorism, but considered that republishing content from terrorist entities in this manner could perpetuate the purpose of such propaganda and give publicity to its ideas and practices.

However, the Council accepted the public interest in alerting readers to potential risks to their safety. It considered that, on balance, the public interest in alerting readers to the dangerous content of the terrorist propaganda and its instructional detail outweighed the risk to their safety posed by the effective republication of terrorist propaganda. Given this risk, the Council concluded that the public interest justified publication of the article.

The Council did not uphold the complaint, but noted that great care needs to be exercised by publications when reporting on terrorist propaganda to ensure that public safety is not compromised. In particular, effectively republishing source material comprising instructional detail in how to carry out particular terrorist acts could pose a risk to public safety and reasonable steps should be taken to prevent such an outcome.

The publication published the adjudication in print and online on 28 February 2018.

17

Victoria Police / The Sunday Age (November 2017) Victoria Police complained that an article reporting on a man being questioned by two officers about a theft was inaccurate.

The article, written in the first person, described the writer’s experience being questioned by two police officers at a bus stop. The complainant said the writer’s assertions in the article were found to be false by the Victoria Police Professional Standards Command and the publication was informed. The writer was later found guilty by the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria of making a false report to police. The complainant asked the publication on a number of occasions over a lengthy period of time to publish a correction but no correction was made.

The publication said it accepted the article from the writer in good faith because it had a four-decade long association with him and he had published a book on the police force. It said that it had refrained from publishing the article until after a formal statement by the writer was lodged with the police. The publication later published an article referring to the writer’s account of events as published in the original item, the complainant’s immediate denial, and the Court’s findings regarding the conduct of the officers.

The Council considered that the serious nature of the article’s allegations required the publication to take more steps before publication to verify the writer’s account. The publication’s reliance on its relationship with the writer and his filing of a formal complaint to police did not amount to reasonable steps to ensure the article’s account of events was accurate and not misleading.

The publication’s report on the writer’s conviction, which did not identify or acknowledge the inaccuracies in the original article, did not constitute adequate remedial action.

The Council encouraged the publication to publish a correction and apology, and upheld the complaint. The publication published the adjudication in print and online on 5 November 2017.

“Thank you immensely for your support regarding this matter. The family are very much relieved that this can be put to rest.”Joshua Lacey

“We appreciate the Council’s thorough consideration and welcome the final adjudication outcome.”Scott Anderson, Department of Human Services

“I wish to pass on our thanks to the Press Council for this outcome, which is a great success for suicide prevention in Australia.”Sara Bartlett, Mindframe Project Lead

1818

Complainant / Geelong AdvertiserThe complainant expressed concern that an article about the closure of a restaurant was offensive in referring to a family as “Indian-born” when it was not relevant to the subject matter.

In response to the complaint, the publication informed the Council that the references to the family were intended to do nothing more than provide some biographical details on the new owners of the restaurant.

Press Council staff asked the publication to consider removing the article’s reference to the family’s being “Indian-born”, which it did. The Executive Director considered the removal of this reference to be a sufficient remedy in the matter.

Complainant / Daily Mail AustraliaThe complainant, a close personal friend of a deceased person and of his widowed spouse, complained about a photograph showing where her friend had died and with what was described as a red ‘blood splatter’ graphic showing where the accident occurred. She also said that the “unfortunate positioning of the inaccurate ‘absolutely shattered’ quote also verges on a morbidly inappropriate pun”.

In response to the complaint, the publication said the graphic was not intended to represent blood splatter but to demonstrate the area where the person had fallen in order to give context for readers. It said that upon receiving the initial complaint and reviewing the picture, it could appreciate how this could be misinterpreted and removed the photograph with the graphic from the article.

The complainant was satisfied with the publication’s response to the complaint.

Complainant / The Gladstone ObserverThe complainant expressed concern that an article was unfair and caused distress when it reported on a court proceeding of a woman without referring to the fact that she had disabilities and mental health issues that impaired her decision-making. The complainant, a carer for the woman, said this information was made public in the courtroom where the reporter was present.

In response, the publication informed the Council that it had a new editor who discussed the matter with the journalist and agreed to change the way they approached court reporting in order to ensure fairness and balance. The publication removed the article and offered to meet with the complainant and the woman who was the subject of the article to offer an apology. This offer was accepted by the complainant.

Some alternative remedies

19

Complaints and Complainants

Complaints received

New in-scope complaints received during the year554 Out-of-scope complaints received during the year158Complainants making these complaints959

Complaints closed

In-scope complaints518Complainants1030Out-of-scope complaints 151Issues raised in complaints998

2020

COMPLAINANTSIndividuals 627

Associations, companies and other non-government bodies

16

Government and other public bodies 7

Politicians, councillors, electoral candidates and political parties

4

Other 15

Total (in-scope and out-of-scope) 669

COMPLAINANT LOCATION NSW 235

VIC 175

QLD 113

WA 50

SA 41

TAS 13

ACT 11

NT 8

Overseas 8

Unspecified 15


PUBLICATIONSNewspapers and their digital platforms

National 58

State 282

Regional and rural 97

Suburban 7

Magazines and their digital platforms 10

Online-only publications 193

Other 22


TYPE OF PLATFORM Online-only 354

Online and social media 9

Print 116

Print and online 178

Print, online and social media 4

Social media 4

Unspecified 4


OUTCOMES OF COMPLAINTS

Declined by the Council at initial stage 275

Discontinued 76

Discontinued with Letter-of-Advice 7

Withdrawn 15

Remedy without adjudication 66

Not pursued by complainant 49

Adjudication – complaint fully or partially upheld

25

Adjudication – not upheld 5

Out-of-scope 151

Total 669

REMEDIES WITHOUT ADJUDICATION Apology (public or private) 5

Retraction, correction or clarification published 5

Material deleted entirely 9

Follow-up article published 2

Amendment to article 42

Other private action/explanation 1

Other published action 2

Total 66

ISSUES RAISED

Accuracy/misleading 298

Corrective action 60

Fairness and balance 192

Publication of a reply 41

Intrusion on privacy 94

Offence/prejudice/distress 278

Unfair or deceptive means 18

Conflict of Interest 17

Total 998

21

Professor David Weisbrot AM resigned as Chair on 18 July 2017. The Vice-Chairs, the Hon John Doyle AC and Julie Kinross, acted as Chairs from then until 22 January 2018 when Neville Stevens AO took up his appointment.

The Council welcomed a number of new constituent members. Andrew Porter, the Chief Operating Officer for Australian Metro Publishing, was appointed to the Council on 11 November 2017, replacing Sean Aylmer who resigned as the constituent member nominated by Fairfax Media on 25 October 2017; Simon King, Network Editor of nine.com.au was appointed on 27 July 2017; and Amity St Claire joined as Bauer Media nominee on 27 July 2017 and was replaced in turn by Paul Merrill, then Editor-in-Chief Real Life Titles, who was appointed on 25 August 2017.

The Council farewelled Anita Quigley, the representative for Community Newspapers Australia, on 4 August 2017 as well as independent journalist members Peter Kerr on 27 March 2018 and Simon Mann on 28 February 2018. The Council and Secretariat thank them for their valuable contribution.

There were also a number of reappointments to the Council. The Hon John Doyle AC was reappointed as Vice-Chair on 5 October 2017. There were reappointments as public members of John Bedwell on 1 July 2017, Jennifer Elliott on 22 May 2018, Dr Felicity-ann Lewis on 28 August 2017 and Robyne Schwarz AM on 1 December 2017. Tony Gillies, AAP Editor-in-Chief, was reappointed as a constituent member on 13 June 2018 and Anna Reynolds was reappointed as an independent journalist member on 1 December 2017.

CONSTITUENT BODIES OF THE PRESS COUNCIL

The constituent bodies are the publishers and other organisations in the media industry that have agreed to abide by the Australian Press Council’s Constitution, provide funding, cooperate with the Council’s handling of complaints against them and publish any resultant adjudications.

InDaily, a digital-only publication based in South Australia and Women’s Agenda, a digital-only publication based in Victoria joined the Press Council as constituent bodies in December 2017 and February 2018, respectively.

Council Membership and StaffThe governing body of the Press Council comprises the independent Chair; public members who have no affiliation with a media organisation; constituent members nominated by publishers of newspapers, magazines and online media, as well as by the principal union for employees in the media industry; and independent journalist members.

Vice-Chair Julie KinrossVice-Chair John Doyle

Chair Neville Stevens AO

2222

COUNCIL MEMBERS AT 30 JUNE 2018Neville Stevens AO ChairHon John Doyle AC Vice-ChairJulie Kinross Vice-Chair

John Bedwell Public MemberJennifer Elliot Public MemberDr Felicity-ann Lewis Public MemberDr Suzanne Martin Public MemberCarla McGrath Public MemberAndrew Podger AO Public MemberRobyne Schwarz AM Public MemberZione Walker-Nthenda Public Member

Anna Reynolds Independent Journalist MemberMike Steketee Independent Journalist Member

Tony Gillies AAP Chris Graham Smaller publishers’ representativePeter Holder Daily Mail AustraliaSimon King nine.com.auPaul Merrill Bauer Media GroupAndrew Porter Fairfax MediaMatthew Ricketson MEAAGlenn Stanaway News Corp AustraliaBob Yeates Country Press Australia

ADJUDICATION PANEL MEMBERS AT 30 JUNE 2018David FaganJohn FleetwoodJulian Gardner AMBob OsburnKirstie ParkerRussell RobinsonMelissa Seymour-DearnessSusan SkellyBarry Wilson

SECRETARIAT AT 30 JUNE 2018John Pender Executive DirectorAlice Beasley Complaints and Governance OfficerIsabella Cosenza Director of Strategic IssuesPaul Nangle Director of ComplaintsJoelle Patten Office ManagerMichael Rose Director of Research and CommunicationsMelissa Salfi Complaints Officer

Director of Strategic Issues Isabella Cosenza

Complaints Officer Melissa Salfi

Office Manager Joelle Patten

PRESS COUNCIL SUB-COMMITTEES

The Press Council has an Adjudication Panel (Complaints Sub-Committee), a Constituent Funding Sub-Committee and an Administration and Finance Sub-Committee.

The Adjudication Panel considers and decides complaints referred to it for adjudication by the Executive Director. It usually comprises the Chair, a Vice-Chair or an appointed Panel Chair, three public members and three constituent members.

The Constituent Funding Sub-Committee determines the overall level of funding for the Press Council and the contributions to be made by each constituent body. It comprises the Chair, Vice-Chairs and one nominee of each constituent body.

The Administration and Finance Sub-Committee oversees administration and finances for the Press Council. It comprises the Chair and at least two other public members, two publisher members and either one journalist member or the Council member nominated by the MEAA.

SECRETARIAT

There were also a number of changes in Secretariat staffing during the year. Shamim Islam resigned as Office Manager and Rosemarie Ryan acted in that role on a temporary basis until Joelle Patten was appointed Office Manager in January 2018. The Secretariat farewelled Information Officer Amado Jovellana and Research and Standards Officer Betheli O’Carroll. Betheli, however, continued to perform some consulting work for the Council from time to time.

Justin Levy resigned as Complaints and Compliance Officer and Catherine Nguyen resigned as Complaints and Governance Officer. Alice Beasley joined the Council as Complaints and Governance Officer in April 2018 and Melissa Salfi joined as Complaints Officer in May. A number of part-time Administrative Assistants – Sophie Trigger, Sophie Edmondstone, Srinidhi Paranji and Chrissy Christofa assisted the Secretariat following the departure of Lynda Burke.

The Press Council thanks all past staff for their contribution and wishes them well.

23

Funding in 2017-2018Contributions are made by constituent bodies according to a sliding scale based on the agreed budget for the year. Contribution bands for 2017-2018 were as follows:

• Up to one per cent each: Adelphi Printing, At Large Media, Australian Rural Publishers Association, The Koori Mail, The Bushland Shire Telegraph, Emanila, Community Newspapers Australia, Country Press Australia, Crinkling News, Echo Publications, Focal Attractions, The Huffington Post Australia, Independent Australia, The New Daily, Private Media, Australian Property Journal, Schwartz Media (Trustee for the Liberty 2701 Trust in relation to The Saturday Paper and Trustee for The Monthly Trust in relation to The Monthly), Urban Cinefile, WorkDay Media, Women’s Agenda

• 1-10 per cent each: Australian Associated Press, APN News & Media, Bauer Media Group, Daily Mail.com Australia, Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, nine.com.au

• 11-30 per cent: Fairfax Media

• 31-60 per cent: News Corp Australia.

Triennial commitmentsConstituent bodies agree specific funding commitments three years in advance. The agreed increase in contributions for 2017–2018 at 2.5 per cent, for 2018–2019 at 2 per cent and for 2019–2020 at nil.

Finances

As stated in its Constitution, the Australian Press Council Inc. is “an incorporated association of organisations and persons established on 22 July 1976”. It is funded by contributions made by its constituent bodies and receives no government funding.

There was no significant change to the nature of activities that occurred during the financial year. The main activities of the Press Council were to promote good standards of media practice and to be the principal body for responding to complaints about material in Australian newspapers, magazines and online media.

Total member contributions for the year 2017–2018 amounted to $2,100,706; an increase of 2.88 per cent from 2016–2017.

25

ACCOUNT 2018 2017

IncomeCore funding (constituent bodies) 2,100,706 2,041,932Interest 9,517 6,526Other Income 1,024 495

Total Income 2,111,247 2,048,953

ExpensesAmortisation expense 32,453 29,374Auditors 9,000 10,000Provision for impairment 39,423 0Leave expenses (22,937) 6,424Bank fees 3,750 2,655Consulting and professional fees 127,567 97,699Meetings and consultations 130,903 143,549Consultations, working groups 0 24,731Depreciation 9,751 60,037Donations 262 0Insurance 20,753 10,413IT development and support 31,606 22,332IT equipment/software 5,337 1,920Light and power 4,977 4,100Long service leave expense 2,727 13,248Make good expense 37,500 25,000Office equipment (<$300) 109 0Office expenses/stationery 15,198 17,118Office refit 40,468 0Other – Chair recruitment 64,795 0Payroll tax 24,346 30,073Postage and couriers 3,539 2,497Printing 15,636 14,627Prizes 681 2,466Rent and cleaning 216,142 183,848Salaries 1,094,388 1,178,654Superannuation 102,654 111,037Security costs 3,742 4,344Staff training 12,057 973Storage/filing 3,255 3,009Subscriptions 30,057 24,994Telephone and internet 21,059 21,515Temp labour hire 54,987 1,944

Total Expenses 2,136,184 2,048,582(Deficit)/Surplus before income tax (24,937) 371

PROFIT AND LOSS THE AUSTRALIAN PRESS COUNCIL INC For the year ended 30 June 2018

2626

ACCOUNT 30 June 2018 30 June 2017

AssetsCurrent Assets

Cash and cash equivalents 905,527 877,153

Trade debtors and other receivables 835,473 27,657

Total Current Assets 1,741,000 904,810

Non-current Assets

Property, plant and equipment 12,397 19,800

Intangible assets 17,075 49,528

Total Non-current Assets 29,471 69,327

Total Assets 1,770,471 974,137

LiabilitiesCurrent Liabilities

Trade and other payables 16,860 54,852

Current tax liabilities 137,477 33,912

Short-term provisions 60,000 25,000

Employee benefits 44,744 67,681

Deferred income 1,073,934 333,024

Total Current Liabilities 1,333,014 514,469

Non-current Liabilities

Employee benefits 15,975 13,248

Total Non-current Liabilities 15,975 13,248

Total Liabilities 1,348,989 527,717

Net Assets 421,482 446,419

EquityRetained earnings 421,482 446,419

Total Equity 421,482 446,419

BALANCE SHEET THE AUSTRALIAN PRESS COUNCIL INC As at 30 June 2018

27

Australian Rural Publishers AssociationAgriculture TodayALFA Lot FeedingAustralian Cotton and Grain OutlookAustralian DairyfarmerAustralian Farm JournalAustralian Horticulture Farm WeeklyFarming Small AreasGood Fruit and VegetablesGrapeGrowers and Vignerons Horse DealsIrrigation and Water ResourcesNorth Queensland RegisterNorthern Dairy FarmerQueensland Country LifeRipeSmart FarmerStock and Land Stock JournalThe Grower The LandTurfcraft International

Bauer Media Group 4 x 4 AustraliaAustralian Gourmet Traveller MagazineAustralasian Bus and CoachAustralian GeographicAustralian House & Garden MagazineAustralian Transport NewsAustralian Women’s WeeklyBelle (excluding Band-ons)CosmopolitanDeals On WheelsEarth Movers & Excavators MagazineElleEmpire MagazineFarms & Farm MachineryGood Health MagazineHarper’s Bazaar

The following titles are published by, or are members of, the constituent body under which they are listed. They are subject to the Press Council’s jurisdiction in relation to standards of practice and adjudication of complaints.

Money MagazineMotorNWOK! MagazineOwner Driver MagazinePeople MagazinePicture MagazineAWW Puzzle BookReal Living MagazineStreet MachineTake 5Take 5 Pocket PuzzlerTake 5 Mega PuzzlerTV WeekUnique Cars MagazineWheelsWoman’s DayWoman’s Day Super Puzzler100% Home Girls

Community Newspapers AustraliaAdelaide MattersAdvocateAlbert and Logan NewsAuburn Review PictorialBankstown Canterbury TorchBayside LeaderBerwick LeaderBerwick NewsBlacktown AdvocateBlacktown SunBrimbank & NorthWest Star WeeklyBrimbank LeaderCaboolture Shire HeraldCamden Narellan AdvertiserCampbelltown-Macarthur AdvertiserCanning TimesCanterbury Bankstown ExpressCaulfield Glen Eira/Port Phillip LeaderCentral Coast Express Advocate

Central SydneyCity North MessengerCity North NewsCity South NewsCooks River Valley TimesCranbourne LeaderCranbourne NewsDandenong JournalDiamond Valley LeaderEast Torrens MessengerEastern Courier MessengerEchoFairfield AdvanceFairfield City ChampionFerntree Gully, Belgrave MailFrankston Standard LeaderFree Press LeaderFremantle/Cockburn GazetteGeelong IndyGeelong NewsGreater Dandenong LeaderGuardian MessengerHawkesbury GazetteHeidelberg LeaderHills Gazette/Avon Valley GazetteHills NewsHills Shire TimesHobsons Bay LeaderHornsby AdvocateHume LeaderInner West CourierJournal NewsKnox LeaderLeader MessengerLilydale & Yarra Valley LeaderLiverpool City ChampionLiverpool LeaderLogan West LeaderMacarthur ChronicleManly DailyManningham LeaderMaribyrnong & Hobsons Bay Star WeeklyMaribyrnong LeaderMaroondah LeaderMelbourne LeaderMelton & Moorabool Star WeeklyMelton LeaderMelville TimesMidland/Kalamunda Reporter

Member Publications

29

Mitcham & Hills MessengerMonash LeaderMoonee Valley LeaderMoorabbin Kingston/Moorabbin Glen Eira LeaderMordialloc Chelsea LeaderMoreland LeaderMornington Peninsula LeaderMosman DailyMountain Views MailMt Druitt – St Marys StandardNorth Lakes TimesNorth Shore TimesNorth-West NewsNorthcote LeaderNorthern District TimesNorthern MessengerNorthern Star WeeklyNorthern TimesNorthside ChroniclePakenham GazettePakenham Officer NewsParramatta AdvertiserParramatta SunPenrith City GazettePenrith PressPine Rivers PressPort Stephens ExaminerPortside MessengerPreston LeaderProgress LeaderRanges Trader MailRedcliffe & Bayside HeraldRouse Hill CourierRouse Hill TimesSouth-East AdvertiserSouth-West NewsSouthern CourierSouthern GazetteSouthern Times MessengerSpringfield NewsSt George and Sutherland Shire LeaderSt Marys-Mt Druitt StarStonnington LeaderSunbury & Macedon Ranges Star WeeklySunbury/Macedon Ranges LeaderThe CityThe Weekly TimesUpper Yarra Mail

Weekly Times MessengerWentworth CourierWestside NewsWhitehorse LeaderWhittlesea LeaderWollondilly AdvertiserWyndham LeaderWyndham Star WeeklyWynnum Herald

Country Press Australia

Bairnsdale AdvertiserBarrier Daily TruthBenalla EnsignBendigo WeeklyCampaspe NewsCastlemaine MailCobden Timboon Coast TimesCoonabarabran TimesCorowa Free PressCorryong CourierDeniliquin Pastoral TimesFassifern GuardianGeelong IndependentGilgandra WeeklyGippsland Times & Maffra SpectatorGolden Plains MinerHigh Country HeraldHopetoun Courier & Mallee PioneerKoondrook & Barham BridgeKyabram Free PressLakes PostLatrobe Valley ExpressMansfield CourierMidland ExpressMildura MidweekMildura WeeklyMolong ExpressMoorabool NewsMountain Views MailMyrtleford Times & Alpine ObserverNhill Free Press & Kaniva TimesNorth Central NewsNorth West ExpressNumurkah LeaderPakenham GazettePhillip Island & San Remo AdvertiserPortland Observer and GuardianPyrenees Advocate

Riverine HeraldSea Lake & Wycheproof TimesSeymour TelegraphShepparton NewsSnowy River MailSouth Gippsland Sentinel TimesSouthern Riverina NewsTatura GuardianThe Alexandra Eildon Marysville StandardThe Baw Baw Shire & West Gippsland TraderThe Border TimesThe Border WatchThe Buloke TimesThe BunyipThe Camperdown ChronicleThe Casterton NewsThe Colac HeraldThe CourierThe Courier CobramThe Dimboola BannerThe East Gippsland NewsThe Euroa GazetteThe Gannawarra TimesThe Great Southern StarThe Guardian Swan HillThe LeaderThe Loddon TimesThe Loxton NewsThe Maryborough District AdvertiserThe McIvor TimesThe MirrorThe Mortlake DispatchThe Murray PioneerThe North Central ReviewThe Ovens & Murray AdvertiserThe Penola PennantThe Plains ProducerThe Rainbow Jeparit ArgusThe River NewsThe Riverine GrazierThe Robinvale SentinelThe Shepparton AdviserThe Southern ArgusThe SpectatorThe Tarrangower TimesThe Terang ExpressThe Warragul & Drouin GazetteThe Weekly Advertiser

Member Publications

30

The Yea ChronicleWangaratta ChronicleWaracknabeal HeraldWest Wimmera AdvocateWest Wyalong AdvocateYarram StandardYarrawonga ChronicleYorke Peninsula Country Times

Fairfax Media

AgTrader MonthlyAugusta-Margaret River MailAustralian Cotton OutlookAustralian SeniorBarossa & Light HeraldBay PostBeaudesert TimesBega District NewsBlacktown City SunBlayney ChronicleBlue Mountains GazetteBombala TimesBoorowa NewsBorder ChronicleBorder NewsBraidwood TimesBunbury MailBusselton-Dunsborough MailCamden Haven CourierCamden Narellan AdvertiserCanberra TimesCanowindra NewsCentral Western DailyCoastal LeaderColeamabally ObserverCollie MailColourworld Cootamundra HeraldCountry LeaderCountry Music Capital NewsCowra GuardianCrookwell GazetteDaily Liberal (Dubbo)Donnybrook-Bridgetown- Manjimup MailDungog ChronicleEurobadalla IndependentEastern Riverina ChronicleExplore Tasmania

Express Extra (Armidale)Eyre Peninsula TribuneFairfield City ChampionFarm Weekly MagazineFarming Small AreasFinancial Review BOSSFinancial Review Smart InvestorFocus (Coffs Coast)Focus (Greater Port Macquarie)Focus (Manning-Great Lakes)Focus (New England)Forbes AdvocateGippsland FarmerGippsland TimesGlen Innes ExaminerGloucester AdvocateGood Fruit + VegetablesGood Weekend Good Wine GuideGoondiwindi ArgusGoulburn PostGoulburn Post WeeklyGreat Lakes AdvocateGreat Lakes ExtraGuardian News (Nambucca)Harden Murrumburrah ExpressHawkesbury CourierHawkesbury GazetteHibiscus HappyningsHighlands PostHills NewsHorse DealsHortguideHunter Valley NewsHunter Valley Star NewsIllawarra MercuryJimboomba TimesKatherine TimesKiama IndependentLatrobe Valley ExpressLife & Leisure LuxuryLife & Leisure The Sophisticated TravellerLithgow MercuryLiverpool City ChampionLotfeedingMacleay Valley HappyningsMagnetMailbox Shopper (Dubbo)

Mandurah MailManning River TimesMerimbula News WeeklyMid Coast HappeningsMid Coast ObserverMid State ObserverMilton Ulladulla TimesMoree ChampionMoruya ExaminerMudgee GuardianMuswellbrook ChronicleMy Family MagazineNamoi Valley IndependentNaracoorte HeraldNarooma NewsNarromine NewsNewcastle HeraldNorth Queensland RegisterNorthern ArgusNorthern Star WeeklyNyngan ObserverOberon ReviewOfficial Guide to Tamworth Country Music FestivalOn the CoastOut & AboutParkes Champion – PostParramatta & Holyroyd SunPenrith City GazettePort Lincoln TimesPort Macquarie ExpressPort Macquarie NewsPort Stephens ExaminerPost WeeklyPro-AgProperty PressPublic Sector InformantQueensland Country LifeQueensland Cotton & Grains OutlookQueensland SeniorQueensland Smart FarmerRedland City BulletinReview MagazineRipeRouse Hill Courier Sapphire CoasterSenior PostSenior TravellerShoalhaven & Nowra News

2017-2018

31

Smart FarmerSMH Good Café GuideSMH Good Food GuideSMH Good Food Guide under $30SMH Good Pub Food GuideSnowy TimesSouth Australia SeniorSouth Coast RegisterSouth West AdvertiserSouthern Cross (Junee)Southern Highland NewsSouthern Weekly MagazineSt George & Sutherland Shire LeaderSt Mary’s-Mt Druitt StarStock and LandStock JournalSunday Canberra TimesSunday Examiner Sunday LifeSunraysia DailyTamworth TimesTasmanian FarmerTasmanian SeniorTenterfield StarThe Advertiser (Bendigo)The Advertiser (Cessnock)The Advertiser & Lake TimesThe Advocate (Burnie)The Advocate (Hepburn)The AgeThe Age Bar GuideThe Age Good Food GuideThe Age Good Food Guide Under $30The Ararat AdvertiserThe Area News (Griffith)The Armidale ExpressThe Australian DairyfarmerThe Australian Financial ReviewThe Australian Financial Review MagazineThe Avon Valley & Wheatbelt AdvocateThe Bellingen Shire Courier SunThe Border MailThe Campbelltown Macarthur AdvertiserThe Courier (Ballarat)The Daily Advertiser (Wagga Wagga)The Esperance ExpressThe ExaminerThe Flinders NewsThe Grenfell Record

The GrowerThe Guyra ArgusThe Guardian (Swan Hill)The Inverell TimesThe Irrigator (Leeton)The IslanderThe Lakes MailThe LandThe Leader (Wagga Wagga)The Macleay ArgusThe Maitland MercuryThe Moyne GazetteThe Mudgee WeeklyThe Murray Valley StandardThe Newcastle and Lake Macquarie StarThe North West StarThe Northern Daily LeaderThe Queanbeyan Age incorporating The ChronicleThe Queensland Good Food GuideThe RecorderThe RuralThe Scone AdvocateThe Singleton ArgusThe Standard (Warrnambool)The Stawell Times-NewsThe Sunday AgeThe Sun-HeraldThe Sydney Morning HeraldThe Times (Port Lincoln)The TranscontinentalThe Weekend Financial ReviewThe Wimmera Mail-TimesThe Young WitnessTown & Country (Hunter Valley/North Coast)Town & Country MagazineTravelwaysTurfcraftVictorian SeniorWalcha NewsWauchope GazetteWellington TimesWest Australian SeniorWest Coast SentinelWestern AdvocateWestern MagazineWestern TimesWhyalla News

Wingham ChronicleWollondilly AdvertiserYass Tribune

News Corp Australia

Advertiser AdvocateAlbert & Logan News The AustralianBallina Shire Advocate Balonne BeaconBayside LeaderBayside Northern Suburbs StarBig LeagueBig RigsBlacktown Advocatebodyandsoul.com.auBowen Independent Bribie WeeklyBrisbane News Buderim ChronicleBuro.com.auByron Shire NewsCaboolture HeraldCairns PostCaloundra WeeklyCanning TimesCanterbury-Bankstown ExpressCapricorn Coast Mirror Caulfield Glen Eira/Port Phillip Leader Central (Sydney)Central & North Burnett TimesCentral Coast Express AdvocateCentral Queensland NewsCentral TelegraphCentralian Advocate Chinchilla NewsCity MessengerCity North NewsCity South NewsCoast City Weekly Coastal ViewsCoolum & North Shore NewsCourier-Mail Cranbourne LeaderDalby HeraldDaily MercuryDaily TelegraphDarwin SunDelicious

Member Publications

32

Derwent Valley GazetteDiamond Valley LeaderEastern Courier Eastern Reporter Echo – GeelongFairfield AdvanceFrankston Standard/Hastings Fraser Coast ChronicleFremantle/Cockburn GazetteGattonGeelong AdvertiserGold Coast Bulletin Gold Coast Sun GQGreater Dandenong LeaderGuardian ExpressHeidelberg Leader Herald SunHerbert River Express Hervey Bay IndependentHills Shire TimesHornsby and Upper North Shore Advocate Hume LeaderInner West CourierInnisfail Advocate Joondalup/Wanneroo Times KidspotKnox LeaderLaidley Plainland LeaderLilydale & Yarra Valley Leader Lismore EchoLiverpool Leader Lockyer and Brisbane Valley StarMacarthur ChronicleMandurah Coastal Times Manly Daily Manningham LeaderMaribyrnong Leader Maroochy and Kawana WeeklyMaroondah Leader Melville TimesMercuryMonash LeaderMoonee Valley LeaderMoorabbin Kingston LeaderMordialloc Chelsea LeaderMoreland LeaderMornington Peninsula Leader

Mosman DailyMurilla AdvertiserNambour Weeklynews.com.auNewsMailNoosa NewsNorth Coast TimesNorth Shore TimesNorthcote LeaderNorthEastern WeeklyNorthern District Times Northern WeeklyNorthern Miner Northside ChronicleNorth-West News NT News DarwinParramatta AdvertiserPenrith PressPine Rivers Press/North Lake TimesPort Douglas & Mossman GazettePortside WeeklyPreston LeaderProgress Leader Redcliffe & Bayside Herald Rouse Hill TimesRural WeeklyScenic Rim LeaderSeniors NewspaperSouth-East AdvertiserSouthern Courier Southern GazetteSouthern StarSouthern TimesSouth-West News/Springfield News Sportsman SydneyStanthorpe Border PostStirling Times Stonnington LeaderSunbury/Macedon Ranges LeaderSunday Herald Sun Melbourne Sunday MailSunday TasmanianSunday TelegraphSunday Territorian DarwinSunshine Coast DailySuper Food IdeasTablelands AdvertiserTasmanian CountryTaste

The ChronicleThe Coffs Coast AdvocateThe Daily ExaminerThe Gympie TimesThe Ipswich AdvertiserThe Maryborough HeraldThe MidweekThe Morning BulletinThe Northern StarThe ObserverThe Queensland TimesThe Richmond River Express ExaminerThe TablelanderThe Western StarSouth-West News/Springfield NewsTownsville Bulletin Tweed Daily NewsVogue AustraliaVogue LivingWanneroo-Joondalup Weekender Warwick Daily News Weekend CourierWeekly TimesWentworth Courier Western TimesWestside NewsWhitehorse LeaderWhitsunday TimesWhitsunday Coast GuardianWhittlesea LeaderWhimn.com.auWynnum Herald

Adelphi Printing Pty LtdMonthly Chronicle

Agenda Media Pty LtdWomen’s Agenda

At Large MediaNew Matilda

Budsoar Pty LtdKoori Mail

The Bushland Shire Telegraph Pty LtdBush Telegraph Weekly

Crinkling News Pty LtdCrinkling News

33

Dailymail.com Australia Pty LtdDaily Mail Australia

Echo Publications Pty Ltd The Byron Shire Echo Echonetdaily

Emanila Pty Ltd The Filipino Australian

Focal Attractions Mumbrella

HT&E Limited The Roar Lost at E Minor Techly

The Huffington Post Australia Pty Ltd Huff Post

Independent Australia Pty Ltd Independent Australia

The New Daily The New Daily

nine.com.au nine.com.au

Private Media Crikey The Mandarin SmartCompany

Propertyreview.com.au Australian Property Journal

Schwartz Media The Saturday Paper The Monthly

Urban Cinefile Urban Cinefile

WorkDay Media Banking Day

Member Publications

34

Summaries of all the Press Council’s adjudications for the 2017-2018 reporting year and the full adjudications are set out in this section.

3636

ADJUDICATION 1715: Complainant/The Advertiser (July 2017)A complaint that an article containing a poll about “South Australia’s high power prices and blackouts” was inaccurate or misleading.

ADJUDICATION 1719: Complainant/Geelong Advertiser (July 2017)A complaint that an article showing a digitally altered image that merged half of a missing man’s face with a generic human skull was offensive and distressing.

ADJUDICATION 1714: Complainant/news.com.au (July 2017) A complaint that an article containing an embedded video that showed the beating of a Brazilian woman caused substantial offence and distress.

ADJUDICATION 1713: Michelle Box/The Northern Star (July 2017)A complaint that an article concerning the murder of a woman was incorrect and caused the victim’s family serious distress.

ADJUDICATION 1716: Scott Broadhead/Port Stephens Examiner (August 2017)A complaint that the republishing of a deceased man’s letter to the editor was misleading and distressing.

ADJUDICATION 1706: Greg Bennett/The Northern Star (August 2017)A complaint by a Councillor that material was not presented fairly when a publication published a letter to the editor on an election day without giving the Councillor an opportunity to respond.

ADJUDICATION 1720: Birdlife Australia/The Daily Telegraph (August 2017)A complaint that an article reporting that certain organisations use federal and state grants to “campaign against major government policy decisions” was misleading and inaccurate.

ADJUDICATION 1722: Department of Human Services/The Canberra Times (August 2017)A complaint that an article about Centrelink’s Family Tax Benefits scheme was unfair, inaccurate and misleading.

ADJUDICATION 1721: Fred Thorpe/The Sunday Telegraph (October 2017)A complaint that an article reporting on an audience member of ABC Television’s Q & A was misleading, unfair, offensive and intruded on her reasonable expectations of privacy.

Summaries of Adjudications

2017–2018

ADJUDICATION 1728: Victoria Police/The Sunday Age (November 2017)A complaint that an article reporting on a man being questioned by two police officers about the theft of a T-shirt was inaccurate.

ADJUDICATION 1725: Complainant/The Australian (November 2017)A complaint that an article was unfair and offensive in referring to a specific man in relation to abuse of the Medicare system.

ADJUDICATION 1730: Anne Lobo/NT News (November 2017)A complaint that an article referring to a car accident involving teens as a “prank gone wrong” was misleading, caused substantial offence and intruded on a person’s expectation of privacy.

ADJUDICATION 1729: Complainant/NT News (November 2017)A complaint that an article reporting on a 14-year-old girl’s friendship with two teenagers who were killed in a car accident breached a number of the Press Council’s General Principles.

ADJUDICATION 1726: Complainant/news.com.au (November 2017)A complaint that an article about a car accident containing a picture of an injured person, whose head appears tilted back on a stretcher, was an intrusion of that person’s reasonable expectation of privacy and caused distress.

ADJUDICATION 1724: Complainant/Manningham Leader (November 2017)A complaint that a publication intruded on a complainant’s reasonable expectation of privacy and gathered information unfairly when a letter was published as a letter to the editor without her express consent.

ADJUDICATION 1723: Complainant/The Courier-Mail (December 2017)A complaint that an article referring to certain people as “fake refugees” and “foreign-born criminals” was misleading, unfair and prejudicial.

ADJUDICATION 1727: The Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy Association of Australasia/The Daily Telegraph (December 2017)A complaint that an article referring to statistics of people attracted to the same sex among other statistics relating to poor health was misleading and offensive.

37

Summaries of Adjudications

ADJUDICATION 1733: Joan Falconio/NT News (February 2018)A complaint that an article reporting on an anonymous letter detailing the murder of a missing man was substantially distressing.

ADJUDICATION 1732: Complainant/news.com.au (February 2018)A complaint that an article publishing material about Islamic State’s “step-by-step guide on how to murder…” caused a risk to public health and safety.

ADJUDICATION 1734: Complainant/Southern Free Times (March 2018)A complaint that an article breached a number of the Press Council’s Standards of Practice when it reported on a man inflicting self-harm before his death.

ADJUDICATION1735: Bob Brown/The Daily Telegraph (March 2018)A complaint that an article concerning Australian Human Rights Commission chief Gillian Triggs agreeing to speak at a fundraiser for ex-Greens leader Bob Brown was misleading and inaccurate.

ADJUDICATION 1731: Thai Terrace/The Courier-Mail (April 2018)A complaint that an article concerning a restaurant’s change in the price of prawns due to a ban on imported prawns was misleading and gathered by unfair means.

ADJUDICATION 1738: Complainant/The Sunday Telegraph (May 2018)A complaint that an article referring to Yassmin Abdel-Magied when criticising “the failed concept of multiculturalism” was substantially offensive.

ADJUDICATION 1718: Chrissie Swan/ Woman’s Day (May 2018)A complaint that an article that incorporated a photograph of Chrissie Swan’s children subjected them to ridicule, caused distress and intruded on their reasonable expectations of privacy.

ADJUDICATION 1736: Rachel Petrak/The Sunday Telegraph (May 2018)A complaint that an article, which attributed the death of a pregnant woman to her “unvaccinated toddler,” was inaccurate, intruded on the family’s reasonable expectation of privacy and caused substantial distress.

ADJUDICATION 1740: Phillip Penfold/The Maitland Mercury (June 2018)A complaint that publishing a letter to the editor a day before an election, concerning multiple members of a family being nominated for a local council, was unfair and misleading.

ADJUDICATION 1744: Complainant/Daily Mail Australia (June 2018)A complaint that an article reporting on a “man who jumped in front of a train” breached the Press Council’s Specific Standards on Coverage of Suicide.

ADJUDICATION 1739: Complainant/news.com.au (June 2018)A complaint that an article concerning a protest about same-sex marriage was misleading and unfair.

ADJUDICATION 1742: Sporting Shooters Association of Australia/Herald Sun (June 2018)A complaint that an article was misleading and unfair in making sweeping references to “the gun lobby”, “firearms lobby” and “gun industry” in an article about online abuse.

ADJUDICATION 1741: David Gallagher/The Sun-Herald (June 2018)A complaint that an article reporting on the death of a young woman on the eve of her birthday was misleading, intruded on the family’s reasonable expectation of privacy and caused substantial distress.

3838

Complainant/The Advertiser Adjudication 1715 (July 2017)The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of an article in The Advertiser on 17 March 2017, headed “BLOWING HIS FUSE: Sparks fly as Premier ambushes minister but exclusive polls reveal SA blames Jay for power crisis” in print, and “As Jay Weatherill confronts Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg, poll shows he’s to blame for SA’s power crisis” online.

The first paragraph said “Advertiser-Galaxy polls show voters in key marginal seats believe he [Mr Weatherill] is ‘mostly to blame’ for the state’s power crisis.” The article continued on page six, where it contained a table setting out the details and results of the poll, showing it had asked respondents: “In your opinion, who is mostly to blame for South Australia’s high power prices and blackouts?”. The responses were: “The Weatherill Government”, 39 per cent; “The National Energy Market Operator/AEMO”, 35; “Uncommitted”, 16; and “The Turnbull Government”, 10. This table was captioned: “Poll conducted by Galaxy Research on the evening of March 14. The results are based on the opinions of 519 voters in Adelaide, 555 in Mawson and 517 in Newland. The data has been weighted and projected to reflect the population of each electorate.”

In response to a complaint, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether it took reasonable steps to ensure the article was accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1) and presented with reasonable fairness and balance (General Principle 3).

The publication said opinion polls conducted by Galaxy Research are highly reputable and this poll weighed and projected its responses to reflect the population of each electorate. It said the table spelling out the question, response and methodology was prominently displayed in both the print and online version of the article and the detail of the opinion poll was reported in an accurate, fair and balanced way.

The publication said the electoral seats polled were specifically chosen because of their crucial importance for the state election in March 2018 and this was the first poll conducted under new electoral boundaries made after the 2014 election. It said those who read the full article and the poll details as published, both in print and online, would have understood that the headlines faithfully summarised the findings. The publication also said it had offered the complainant an opportunity to submit a letter to the editor to address these concerns, but this offer was not accepted.

CONCLUSION

The Council’s Standards of Practice require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1) and presented with reasonable fairness and balance (General Principle 3). The Council has also issued an Advisory Guideline on Opinion Polls suggesting that publications disclose a number of details about the poll in order to allow readers to assess its value.

The Council considers the statement “polls reveal SA blames Jay for power crisis” implied as a fact that the poll established that South Australians in general blamed the Premier for the crisis. However, the polling was a sample of only three electorates, and the Council does not consider that this polling size and distribution – even involving key marginal seats – can be said to reflect the opinion of the entire state.

The Council notes that the first paragraph of the article says the poll “show[s] voters in key marginal seats believe he [Mr Weatherill] is most likely to blame”. However, only 39 per cent of those sample voters considered the Weatherill Government responsible, with a remaining majority of voters considering otherwise.

While the article subsequently made clear the true position, the Council considers that it was not done in a manner sufficient to redress the inaccuracy and misleading nature of the headline and first paragraph. Accordingly, the Council considers that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the headline and first paragraph were accurate and not misleading, which breached General Principle 1. Further, the Council did not consider the offer to publish a letter sufficient to remedy the inaccuracy, which warranted a correction. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 2.

Given the inclusion of other material in the article such as the poll question, results and methodology, and the publication’s subsequent offer to publish a letter to the editor, the Council does not consider the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure fairness and balance. Accordingly, the publication did not breach General Principles 3 or 4.

Complainant/Geelong Advertiser Adjudication 1719 (July 2017)The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published by the Geelong Advertiser in print and online on 16 February 2017, headed “SKULL CLUE TWIST”.

Full Adjudications 2017–2018

39

The article included a large image on the front page. The left side of the image showed half of a missing man’s face, while the right side of the image was half of a generic human skull, with the two parts digitally altered to form a face. A sub-headline at the top of the front page read: “REVEALED: Police suspect grim beach find could be missing man believed murdered”, and the words “IS IT PAUL KINGSBURY?” appeared over the bottom of the image. There was a smaller image of what appeared to be officials searching a beach in the bottom-right corner of the front page. The article continued on page five with the headline “SKULL TWIST”, including an image of the missing man’s face without digital alteration.

The Press Council’s Standards of Practice require publications to take reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing materialIy to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 6).

The complainant, the mother of the missing man’s child, said the image was offensive and distressing and had the potential to affect the mental health and safety of her child. The complainant said she feared her child might see the image as the newspaper is accessible to her in many ways that the complainant cannot control. She felt the publication did not act in a responsible way to avoid distress or offence to her child. The complainant said there was nothing scientific about the image.

The publication said the article related to a high-profile case that had received significant publicity across media – that of the mystery of a skull that had washed up in Corio Bay. It said there were no inaccuracies raised, and in the telling of this story, generic images of skulls were used across media, which was a routine scientific-style display. The publication also said by illustrating the story with a digitally altered image of the missing man, an illustration of a skull and the headline employed, it was conveying that this was a development in the ‘skull case’ – that, essentially, the two stories the readers were aware of could possibly come together.

On the issue of distress, the publication believed it was important to consider the context of this story. The publication said the missing man had links to a bikie club and a series of convictions involving assault and criminal damage. Having regard to this, the publication thought it was not unreasonable to focus attention on his disappearance by using the image on the front page.

The publication said the story and its presentation – text and images – were sufficiently in the public interest, conveying an

important development in a highly publicised criminal saga. It said there was a broader public interest in the sense that it was an unsolved case, and the compelling presentation of the story would afford the greatest chance of a member of the public contacting the publication or the authorities with an important piece of information on the case.

The publication added that a relative of a person who has been the subject of ongoing crime reporting had less right to complain about the use of images of the person or about possible access of the children to such images. The publication noted that it had removed the image online in response to concerns raised.

CONCLUSION

The Press Council considers that it is unlikely that an image of the missing man or an image of a skull, by themselves, would have breached the Press Council’s Standards. However, as the image of a skull is an image of human remains, the graphic blending of the two on the front page of the publication was likely to cause substantial offence and distress to the family of the missing man and to the community.

The Council considers that the publication of the image was unlikely to assist in the investigation into the circumstances in which the man went missing. It does not consider that his criminal record justified publication of the image. The Council considers there was no sufficient public interest justifying the offence and distress caused by the image. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 6.

Complainant/news.com.au Adjudication 1714 (July 2017)The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published by news.com.au on 9 March 2017, headed “Smartphone footage captures Brazilian transgender woman pleading for help prior to being beaten to death”.

An embedded video appeared below the headline with the caption “Transgender woman beaten on the streets of Brazil”. The 32-second video began automatically, and with a four-second warning which read: “WARNING: The following images and/or content may be disturbing/offensive to some viewers. Viewer discretion is strongly advised.”

The video began by showing two men standing near a woman with her back to the camera sitting on a rough pavement outside a building. The woman was wearing shorts and nearly naked on the upper part of her body, with only a small remnant

Full Adjudications

4040

of torn clothing remaining, which she repeatedly tried to pull down to cover herself. The men appear to be talking to her in a foreign language, directing her to get into a wheelbarrow. They kick her in the shoulder and back, forcefully pushing her into the side of the wheelbarrow, and repeatedly strike her on the head with shoes.

The accompanying article began with the emboldened text: “WARNING: Graphic images”; “HARROWING footage has emerged of a transgender woman begging for her life before beaten to death”. It said “the video shows the victim being dragged from her home and beaten by men with … planks of wood” and the men “fling her into a wheelbarrow before taking her to a side street where she was allegedly then murdered”, but the embedded video did not feature these parts of the attack.

The article said much of the ordeal was filmed on a smartphone, that the footage was released in an effort to track down her killers, and that another publication had reported that the video was first circulated among LGBT groups and had helped identify some suspects. It said the murder was the latest in a long series of murders and attacks on transgender people in Latin America and according to a named source, the victim “was the fifth transgender person to be murdered last month” in Brazil. It said: “Globally, one transgender person is murdered every 3 days and that more than 2000 transgender people were unlawfully killed between 2008 and 2015, of these 88 were in Brazil alone.”

The article featured four photographs, one a close-up of the victim showing her in extreme distress. They were captioned: “Dandara dos Santos is beaten moments before she was murdered by transphobic thugs...”; “Dandara dos Santos lies, bloodied, in the street...”; “She is kicked in the face by one of the men...”; and “The woman is then flung into a wheelbarrow and taken away where she was allegedly murdered…”.

The Council asked the publication to comment on whether the material breached its Standards of Practice, in particular General Principle 6, requiring publications to take reasonable steps to ensure they avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice or risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest.

The publication said it provided multiple warnings to its audience about the graphic nature of the content, including at the beginning of the video and article in bold text. It said these warnings demonstrated it had taken appropriate steps to inform readers that the content was graphic and may distress some people, and readers could make their own

independent decisions about whether to view it.

The publication said it considered there was significant public interest in reporting on the serious issue of violence towards transgender people, not only in Brazil but in Australia and worldwide, as well as a public interest in providing access to reliable information concerning public safety, exposing crime and demonstrating the due administration of justice, which might assist with the prevention of more such crimes in future. It said highlighting such attacks on transgender victims could only be done effectively by showing the video.

CONCLUSION

The Press Council considers the content of the article, and particularly the video, to be substantially distressing. The warnings provided before the video played, and summary of the video in the opening text, amounted to an adequate warning of the graphic nature of the video.

The Council considers there is a public interest in reporting on the serious issue of violence towards transgender people worldwide and in providing access to reliable information demonstrating the due administration of justice. The material shown is distressing, but the most violent footage was not included. On balance, the Council concludes that the publication took reasonable steps to avoid causing substantial offence, distress and prejudice, given the public interest involved.

However, the Council notes that the video played automatically. It also notes that the wording of the warning at the beginning of the video used only generic language, which would not have been sufficient in itself in the absence of further warnings contained in the text. Great care needs to be exercised by publications to ensure the true nature of the material is described in the warning, and that the audience is provided with a properly informed and practically exercisable choice.

Michelle Box/The Northern Star Adjudication 1713 (July 2017)The Press Council considered a complaint by Michelle Box about an article headed “The mysterious and ‘horrible’ death of Sabrina Bremer” in The Northern Star online on 18 August 2016.

The article concerned the murder of a woman who had been reported missing by her 15-year-old daughter, and whose burned body was found at the side of a road in a remote area of northern NSW. The article was updated several times after its initial publication. An update at 8.30am the next day, which has

2017–2018

41

since been deleted, reported: “It’s understood the woman was tied up to the tree when set alight and, as she decomposed and the rope broke, her body rolled down the roadside embankment.” At 1.45pm, the article was again updated to identify the woman by name, age and residential area.

The complainant – the victim’s cousin who acted on behalf of the extended family – said the reporting of what was claimed to have happened to the victim caused the family serious distress, and that police had later indicated the reporting was incorrect. She said the article was gratuitous and deprived the deceased of dignity and respect. She said such details should not have been reported as fact without being verified, and even then should not have been published without consideration of the victim’s family.

The publication said the article was written by a reporter from a related publication and published there before it was republished on the publication’s own website without editorial checking. It said the report of what happened to the victim was obtained from interviews with two nearby residents and should have quoted them rather than reporting as fact. It said there had been significant speculation about what occurred, much of which was not included in the article. It acknowledged that at a later press conference police refuted the residents’ claims. It said the article on the related publication’s website had been updated but, due to a technical error, this failed to occur with the article on its own website. The publication apologised to the complainant for the error and said that during the Council’s complaints process the residents’ claims were removed from online and the reporter counselled.

CONCLUSION

The Council’s Standards of Practice require that publications take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1) and presented with reasonable fairness and balance (General Principle 3). If the material is significantly inaccurate or misleading, or not reasonably fair and balanced, publications must take reasonable steps to provide adequate remedial action or an opportunity for a response to be published (General Principles 2 and 4).

The Standards of Practice also require that publications take reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or to a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 6).

The Council concludes that in reporting as fact the unverified residents’ claims, which later proved to be false, the

publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the article was accurate and not misleading. The Council also considers that in reporting the death in significant detail, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing substantial distress, particularly to the family, and that the public interest did not justify such detail. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principles 1 and 6.

The Council considers that the inaccuracy was substantial and concludes that, due to the technical error in updating the website, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to correct the inaccuracy with appropriate promptness, even though the material was ultimately deleted. Accordingly, the publication also breached General Principle 2.

Given this, the Council considers it unnecessary to reach conclusions as to General Principles 3 and 4.

Scott Broadhead/Port Stephens Examiner Adjudication 1716 (August 2017)The Press Council considered a complaint by Scott Broadhead about the publication on 25 October 2016 of a letter to the editor in print and online, headed “Bike path an asset” in the Port Stephens Examiner.

The letter was dated “07.05.09” and was written by the complainant’s father, Mr Bill Broadhead, who died in 2014. It congratulated Port Stephens Council for building and maintaining a local cycling and walking track and was accompanied by a photograph captioned “JOB WELL DONE: Bill Broadhead from Bermagui was impressed by the cycle paths around Grahamstown Dam”.

The complainant said the letter was written by his father, submitted to the publication and published seven years earlier. For it to be republished again two years after his father’s death was totally insensitive and misled the public that its message was current. He said the letter should never have been reprinted and, if there was reason to do so the author should have been contacted, which would have revealed that the letter was not current and the author had died. He said he was concerned the publication had not observed the clear date on his father’s email which, incorporated the letter, that his father’s original letter had been addressed to the Mayor of Port Stephens Council yet the republished version of the letter was addressed to Port Stephens Council, and queried whether the publication has a policy of recycling letters to the editor. The complainant also said the editor could have easily contacted him prior to publication, given he was well

Full Adjudications

4242

known to the publication. He also said numerous attempts to contact the editor after publication to discuss the letter went unanswered.

The publication said the publication of the letter was an honest mistake for which the editor sincerely apologises and takes full responsibility. It said it did not intend to cause distress or offence in any way. It removed the online version of the letter when it was contacted by the Press Council. The editor received the email incorporating the letter in the Letters inbox on 21 October 2016, relied on the time of receipt and missed the original date in the letter. The publication said above the date was a sentence with a current time stamp which read “Please include this in your Letters to the Editor column … many thanks Bill Broadhead,” which added to the perception that the letter was sent that day. The publication said its IT staff had investigated the source of the email and confirmed it was sent on 21 October 2016. It said the editor did not know that Mr Bill Broadhead was the complainant’s father, that Mr Bill Broadhead had passed away or that the letter had previously been published. The publication also said the complainant had only contacted it twice.

The publication said normally it would contact any author of a letter to the editor providing a controversial opinion but this subject matter was innocuous, and given the renewed focus on completed bike paths across Port Stephens, entirely relevant. It said its lack of reply to the complainant was attributable to problems with the communication system resulting partly from new staff. The publication indicated its willingness to publish an apology in print, which was accepted by the complainant. It advised that it had since changed its procedures to contact all authors of letters to the editor prior to publication, as well as its procedures for staff communicating phone messages from complainants.

CONCLUSION

The Council’s Standards of Practice require that publications take reasonable steps to ensure factual material in news reports and elsewhere is accurate and not misleading, and is distinguishable from other material such as opinion (General Principe 1), provide a correction or other adequate remedial action if published material is significantly inaccurate or misleading (General Principle 2), and avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 6).

The Council accepts that the editor made a mistake in missing the actual date on the letter, and on the information available, the Council is unable to determine how the email

incorporating the letter appeared in the publication’s Letters inbox in 2016. Nonetheless, the Council considers that the publication of the letter suggested the author of the letter was alive, had recently offered his congratulations on the pathways to Port Stephens Council rather than just the Mayor, was recently impressed by the maintenance of the paths, and that this was the first time this letter had been published. The publication could have avoided these misleading impressions by observing the date on the email or contacting the author. As such, the Council considers the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the letter as published was accurate and not misleading, in breach of General Principle 1.

The Council acknowledges that the publication removed the online version of the letter during the course of the Council’s complaints process and has since offered to publish an apology. However, the apparent significant delay in responding to the complainant’s concerns amounts to a failure to take reasonable steps to provide a correction or other adequate remedial action, in breach of General Principle 2.

On the material available, the Council does not consider that the level of offence or distress caused by publication of the letter was so substantial as to lead to a breach of General Principle 6.

Greg Bennett/The Northern Star Adjudication 1706 (August 2017)The Press Council considered a complaint from Cr Greg Bennett about a letter to the editor published under the heading “Choose Wisely” in The Northern Star in print on 10 September 2016. The letter, submitted by Cr Simon Clough, Deputy Mayor of Lismore City Council, expressed the writer’s views of what “Cr Greg Bennett, of the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party … and his conservative colleagues … will seek to do” if they “get the majority of seats on Lismore City Council”, and the possible implications and risks of such actions, and urged voters to “carefully consider” what they wanted.

The complainant said the letter had been published on the day of the local government election and the publication had not contacted him to inform him and allow him the opportunity to reply in that edition of the newspaper. He said he had previously submitted letters for publication and would have done so had he known the letter was to be published on the day of the election. He said the letter was not accurate but this was the subject of a complaint by him to another body and he

2017–2018

43

Full Adjudications

did not raise this issue with the Council.

The complainant said he believed the letter was published to cause maximum damage to his electoral prospects. He said the letter was signed off as “Deputy Mayor”, when on the day of the election that position was declared vacant, and it created a misleading or unfair impression that the complainant stood as a Shooters member when he stood as an Independent candidate.

He said he was the leading candidate for mayor at pre-polling and most likely lost the mayoral election due to votes cast on election day. He said a retraction or apology was of no value as the damage had already been done.

The publication acknowledged the complainant did not have an opportunity to respond to the letter and in retrospect, regretted this. However, it said the letter appeared to be Cr Clough’s honestly held view on the stated positions of the complainant and there was no significantly inaccurate material or omission of key facts. It said as the letter ran on the YOUR SAY page, it was clearly understood by readers to be the writer’s opinion. The publication also said the complainant had not to its knowledge submitted a letter to the editor in the last two years.

The publication denied the letter was published to inflict damage to the complainant’s electoral prospects. It said its coverage had been fair and balanced and it had published articles supportive of some issues raised by the complainant, and provided fair and balanced coverage of all mayoral team, which was more prominent than the letter. It said that when submitted the reference to Cr Clough as Deputy Mayor was accurate and the letter did not state the complainant was standing as a Shooters candidate.

It said the letter ran in print only and the readership includes four other local government areas besides Lismore, all holding elections on that day, so there was only a very small per centage of readers eligible to vote in the Lismore election, certainly not enough to sway the result one way or the other. It noted that after first preference formal votes were counted, the complainant trailed by a significant margin behind the candidate elected as mayor and was in any event returned as a councillor.

CONCLUSION

The Council’s Standards of Practice require that publications take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance and writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual

material or omission of key facts (General Principle 3) and where material refers adversely to a person, should provide a fair opportunity for subsequent publication of a reply if that is reasonably necessary to address a possible breach of General Principle 3 (General Principle 4).

The Council considers that the letter set out Cr Clough’s arguments to the electorate against the complainant’s candidacy and the factual material in support of them. As the letter was published on election day, the only fair time for the publication to afford the complainant an opportunity to respond was in the same edition, which did not occur. The Council concludes that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to present factual material with reasonable fairness and balance and afford the complainant a fair opportunity for reply. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principles 3 and 4 in this respect. The Council considers it was not necessary for this conclusion to determine the effect, if any, of the publication of the letter on the election result.

BirdLife Australia/The Daily Telegraph Adjudication 1720 (August 2017)The Press Council has considered a complaint from BirdLife Australia about an article published in The Daily Telegraph on 6 December 2016, headed “ENVIRO-MENTAL STATE FUNDS FOR GREEN MOANERS” in print and “Environmental protesters receiving state and federal grants even as they disrupt major projects” online. The print article began on page one, headed “EXCLUSIVE: Taxpayers’ funding for Gang Green”.

The article reported that “ECO-activists who rely on taxpayer millions in funding [are] disrupting major projects and government policies and lawsuits.” It said: “The groups are pocketing the generous state and federal grants to campaign against major government policy decisions” and this “collection of Baird government-funded environment groups have banded together to target the Premier specifically, even protesting outside his Manly electoral office”.

It reported that the “Nature Conservation Council [NCC] … launched five protests against the Baird government in the last year and formed an umbrella activist group called Stand Up for Nature to lead the charge”; that “[f]ive other taxpayer-funded groups including Total Environment Centre, WIRES, Birdlife Australia and the National Parks Association of NSW joined the organisation and started protesting”; and that “[e]ach organisation tapped into a $1.2 million grant offered

Full Adjudications

4444

by The Environmental Trust and were paid between $30,000 and $141,000 over two years to ‘engage’ the community”. The article also featured a table headed “CASH AND CARRY-ON” listing four organisations, firstly BirdLife Australia, which it said “received two grants from the environmental trust, one for $132,000 and another for $963,276”.

The complainant said it is a non-partisan conservation organisation that relies on volunteers to protect birds and is proud of its public standing. It said the article was untrue in suggesting it uses money from government grants to campaign against major government policies. All funds from the NSW Environmental Trust grants referred to in the table, the Saving Our Species Partnership Grants Program and the Lead Environmental Community Groups Program, are used under contract with clear deliverables in targeted species recovery programs.

The complainant said Stand Up for Nature is a loose and diverse group with which it has no formal relationship; it is not represented on its governing board, nor has it received any resources or funding from it. Its only interaction is to allow Stand Up for Nature to use its logo and promote a couple of events on BirdLife Australia’s Facebook page.

The complainant said the facts could have been easily checked prior to publication. However, the only attempt the publication made to check the facts or seek comment was via an email at 5.02pm on the evening prior to publication, which did not provide any deadline and could not be responded to in the limited time available. After reading the article, the complainant promptly submitted a letter to the editor in which it denied using government funds for advocacy, which was published on 8 December. It said a second article, published on 9 December, referred to the earlier coverage without any correction, qualification or reference to the complainant’s denial, and so continued to imply wrongdoing.

The publication said the point of the story was to highlight a public interest concern as to whether taxpayer funds are being used appropriately. It did not state that the complainant had misused money from grants to campaign against major policy decisions. Instead, the article said groups campaigning against the government received government funds to carry out their work and projects. The publication said an audit was established to ascertain whether any of the groups had misappropriated or misused such public money on protests and political campaigns.

It said the complainant is part of Stand Up for Nature, which displays the complainant’s logo on its website. Stand Up for Nature directly received funds through the NCC, which also

received an Environment Trust grant. The NCC started Stand Up for Nature to specifically fight various government policies shortly before the complainant joined. The publication said it had information that the $141,000 government grant to the NCC goes directly into funding the NCC’s core costs of operation and its 2015–16 annual report states that its work included conservation groups combining to form the Stand up for Nature Alliance to stop then Premier Baird rolling back land-clearing laws, and the complainant was one of these groups. The publication also said while the complainant receives money from multiple grants for specific programs which do not involve advocacy, it also involves itself in protests such as advertising them on its Facebook page.

The publication said its journalist attempted to contact the complainant prior to publication both by email and by telephone and received no response. As the complainant was only one of a number of organisations referred to in the article, it did not consider it appropriate to delay publication until the complainant’s response was obtained. It said that following publication, it published the complainant’s letter, so providing it with an opportunity for response. It said the second article was a follow-up story focused on the audit of all existing allocations and eligibility criteria and did not name the complainant.

CONCLUSION

The Council’s relevant Standards of Practice require that publications take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is accurate and not misleading and is distinguishable from other material such as opinion (General Principle 1), that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or an omission of key facts (General Principle 3). If the material is significantly inaccurate or misleading, or unfair or unbalanced, publications must take reasonable steps to provide adequate remedial action or an opportunity for a response to be published (General Principles 2 and 4).

The Council considers that the article presented as a verified fact that the complainant was one of a number of organisations using government grants for advocacy against major government projects. It was not reported in a qualified way or with any attribution to a source.

On the information available, the Council considers that the complainant does not use money from government grants for advocacy or disrupting major projects and government policies. The Council does not consider that the level of

2017–2018

45

Full Adjudications

the complainant’s engagement with Stand Up for Nature amounted to using grants in such a way.

The Council accepts the publication sought information from the complainant by email prior to publication, and is not able to reach conclusions about the disputed information as to telephone contact. However, the suggestions being made about the complainant were serious, and required greater steps to seek confirmation than were taken by the publication, and there was no apparent urgency requiring publication before taking such steps. The inaccuracy and unfairness was accentuated by the references such as “GREEN MOANERS” and “CASH AND CARRY ON”. The Council concludes that the publication did not take reasonable steps to ensure accuracy, fairness or balance in the reporting. Even if the information presented as verified fact was to be considered an expression of opinion, the publication did not take reasonable steps to distinguish factual material from opinion as required by General Principle 1. Accordingly, it breached General Principles 1 and 3.

The publication promptly published a letter from the complainant in which it was given an opportunity to respond to the impression created by the article. In the circumstances, the Council considers the publication took reasonable steps to provide remedial action and a sufficient response, and did not breach General Principles 2 or 4.

Department of Human Services/ The Canberra Times Adjudication 1722 (August 2017) The Press Council considered a complaint by the Department of Human Services about an article in The Canberra Times on 30 March 2017, headed “Another debt debacle” in print and “Centrelink hits 21,000 families with bogus FTB [Family Tax Benefit] debts” online. The article reported on Centrelink’s “Family Tax Benefit recovery effort” and in particular, the approximately “21,400 of the [65,000] families hit with the debt notices [who] were able to prove they owed Centrelink nothing”.

The complainant said the article’s references to the FTB debt notices as “bogus”, being sent in “error” and a “debacle” were inaccurate and misleading. It said the 21,000 debt notices were sent to recipients of the benefit if they or their partners had failed to lodge an income tax return, or did not notify the Department that they were not required to lodge an income tax return by the end of the lodgement year. It said the law clearly considers a debt to exist in these circumstances and

the debt notices were therefore not “bogus” or sent in “error”. The complainant said these debts were reduced to zero dollars once the recipients lodged their return or indicated lodgement was not required, which allowed the Department to properly assess their entitlements. It said this practice in regard to FTB debts has operated for many years, and that beneficiaries are fully and repeatedly advised of the arrangements and their obligations. It added that the article’s front-page placement and its headline reference to this as a “debacle” gave prominence to these inaccuracies.

It said the article’s statements that “the federal government has conceded” Centrelink “hit … 21,000 families with bogus FTB debts” and that the Department “blames the error rate of at least 33 per cent on its clients’ failure to ‘engage’”, imply it accepted the debt notices were “bogus” and an “error”. The complainant said this is also inaccurate and misleading as the Department maintains the debt notices were lawful and correct, and that this was clearly explained in its submission to the parliamentary inquiry on the subject.

The complainant said it was given no opportunity to respond to the assertions in the article prior to publication and, following publication, was denied a correction or letter to the editor in response.

The publication said the description of these debts as “bogus” was accurate because in its view the debts never really existed, and the complainant sent 21,400 families demands to repay debts that were later proven not to be owed. It said debts proven not to be owed are legitimately described as “bogus” debts. The publication said at no point was it reported, claimed, or even implied in the article that the complainant was acting illegally in making its demands for money and the article prominently reported the complainant’s position that its demands for money not actually owed were a direct result of the recipients’ failure to lodge a tax return. The publication said the placement of the article on the front page duly reflects the gravity of a government agency demanding money from more than 21,000 Australian families on a false premise. It said citizens being targeted by the Department for alleged debts not owed should be fully apprised of the processes that led to demands for money in order to adequately defend themselves.

It said references to the government “conced[ing]” it sent “bogus” debt notices and “blam[ing] the error rate … on its clients’ failure to ‘engage’” are accurate and not misleading. It said that the words “bogus” and “error rate” were not directly attributed to the Department as quotes but were based on the publication’s reading of the complainant’s submission to a parliamentary inquiry.

4646

2017–2018

It also said the article relied on, and was a fair and accurate report of, facts disclosed in the complainant’s submission to a parliamentary inquiry, which was produced with the full expectation of it becoming public. In such circumstances, the publication said it had no obligation to contact the complainant to seek comment on the facts disclosed in that document. It said that, as the article included the complainant’s side of the issue and the reporting was not inaccurate, no remedial action was offered.

CONCLUSION

The Council’s Standards of Practice applicable in this matter require that publications take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material is accurate and not misleading and is distinguishable from other material such as opinion (General Principle 1), that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or an omission of key facts (General Principle 3). If the material is significantly inaccurate or misleading, or unfair or unbalanced, publications must take reasonable steps to provide adequate remedial action or an opportunity for a response to be published (General Principles 2 and 4).

The Council notes that the publication does not dispute that a FTB debt arises once recipients of the benefit fail to lodge their income tax return, or fail to notify the Department they were not required to lodge an income tax return by the end of the lodgment year. The Council is satisfied the approximately 21,000 debts referred to in the article did exist at the time the notices were issued, despite later being reduced to zero dollars. The Council considers that, especially as the complainant’s submission explained how the relevant debts arose, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure accuracy by describing the approximately 21,000 debts as “bogus” and sent in “error”. Accordingly, the Council concludes that General Principle 1 was breached. The Council accepts, however, that there was no requirement to seek the complainant’s comment prior to publication, in circumstances in which it relied on the complainant’s public submission.

As to remedial action, the Council considers that the material was significantly inaccurate and misleading. In not publishing a correction in this regard, or a letter to the editor from the complainant, the Council considers the publication failed to provide adequate remedial action. Accordingly, General Principle 2 was breached.

Given its conclusions on other aspects of the complaint, the Council considers it unnecessary to reach conclusions in relation to General Principles 3 and 4.

Fred Thorpe/The Sunday Telegraph Adjudication 1721 (October 2017)The Press Council considered a complaint by Fred Thorpe about an article in The Sunday Telegraph on 26 February 2017, headed “Sack ABC board and end the warped bias” in print and online. The article referred to the opinion-writer’s appearance as a panel member on the ABC Television’s Q&A program and, among other matters, commented on a question posed by the complainant to the Attorney-General, George Brandis, about an impending review of her pension entitlement.

Appearing as an audience member on the program, the complainant asked: “Can George Brandis explain why politicians’ expenses are extravagant and go unchecked, while I am having my Disability Support Pension reviewed, despite a 28-year exemplary career as a teacher then having to resign because of ill health? My $22,000 yearly pension with which I am raising three exceptional children, would be less than most pollies spend in a month.” In responding to a question from the host of the program, the complainant said she had spent most of her “weekend throwing up from absolute fear” that her pension might be removed.

In commenting on the complainant’s appearance on the program, the article referred to her as “aggrieved at being selected for review by Centrelink’s current automated data-matching program”, and as a “Labor-Greens supporter who despite her disability found the stamina to aggressively campaign for former Australian Idol host James Mathison”. The article also mentioned the complainant’s appearance on an episode of “the Backyard Blitz television program”, referring to her as “the beneficiary of one of their home makeovers and [who] had a rooftop garden constructed atop the family’s Manly beachside apartment”.

It added: “She might have chilled a little if she had sat by her designer ‘glazed water bowl and fountain’ which ‘provide the calming sounds of trickling water’. Impossible not to feel sympathetic for anyone finding it difficult to cope, but surely Ms Thorpe has nothing to worry about?” The article also speculated about the superannuation of the complainant, identified as “a former teacher of 28 years”: “No mention of her superannuation, which, if she were a member of the uber-generous defined benefit scheme under the old teachers plan, almost bankrupted NSW.”

The complainant said the article was misleading and unfair in a number of respects, intruded on her reasonable

47

Full Adjudications

expectation of privacy, and caused her substantial distress. The complainant said it was misleading and unfair to refer to her as a “Labor-Greens supporter” who had “aggressively campaign[ed] for … James Mathison”. The complainant said she does not support any one party or person. Her Twitter profile, from which the publication apparently sourced its information, and which has since been deactivated, reflected that she had previously voted for an Independent and a Liberal candidate. Her campaigning for James Mathison extended only to letter-boxing leaflets in a few streets with her children. The complainant also said she was not a member of the “uber-generous” superannuation fund to which the article referred, and her comments on the program did not concern the issue of “data-matching program” raised in the article.

The complainant said she had been humiliated by the article’s comments and that her name had been maligned and her honesty and integrity brought into question. The complainant said by simply asking a question of an elected representative, she did not make herself a public figure that enabled the publication to publicly ransack her life.

The publication responded that the opinion column did not state what, if any, superannuation scheme the complainant was or is a member of, nor did it claim the complainant was a member of any teachers’ superannuation scheme. In relation to political affiliations, it said the complainant is on the public record as supporting James Mathison, her Twitter profile photo showed a picture of former Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard, she has commented publicly that she did not vote for Malcolm Turnbull, and publicly urged people to vote against former Liberal Prime Minister Tony Abbott. In relation to the reference to the complainant’s appearance on Backyard Blitz, the publication said this contributed to the complainant’s public profile and helped the reader understand who she is. The publication said by appearing on Q&A, the complainant had chosen to take part in a public debate before more than a million people, and it is legitimate journalistic practice to scrutinise such people, particularly when the issue of audience selection of the program is a matter of public record, public debate and public interest.

CONCLUSION

The Council’s Standards of Practice applicable in this matter require that publications take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or an omission of key facts (General Principle 3). The Standards of Practice also require that publications take reasonable steps to avoid

intruding on a person’s reasonable expectations of privacy (General Principle 5) or causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or to a substantial risk to health or safety (General Principle 6), unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest.

The Council considers the article’s references to the complainant’s superannuation, her appearance on the television program Backyard Blitz, her having “found the stamina to aggressively campaign” for a political candidate “despite her disability”, and that she “surely has nothing to worry about”, collectively implied she is an undeserving welfare recipient. The references to her superannuation, political allegiances, and the extent of her campaigning were based upon speculation and a small selection of comments made by the complainant on social media. The Council considers that the publication failed to ensure factual material was presented with reasonable fairness and balance, especially given the complainant is not a public figure but simply a member of the public. Accordingly, the Council concludes that General Principle 3 was breached. As the complainant did not seek a right of reply, the Council concludes that General Principle 4 was not breached.

The Council considers that given the complainant appeared on the Q&A program and commented on her personal circumstances, her reasonable expectation to privacy was diminished as it related to such commentary. Accordingly, the Council concludes that the publication did not breach General Principle 5 or Privacy Principle 7.

The Council accepts that the article caused the complainant and her family considerable distress.

The Council also accepts that it is legitimate journalistic practice to provide background to scrutinise people involved in public debate. However, in this instance, the Council does not accept the complainant was a public figure who warranted the level of scrutiny applied by the publication to her personal life.

The Council notes that the complainant merely asked a question, albeit on live television, and could not be reasonably described as either being a public figure or being involved in the broader debate about the government’s data-matching program. There was no public interest in scrutinising the complainant’s background to the extent the publication did, and there is a strong countervailing public interest in ensuring the public is free to participate in public debate without unwarranted scrutiny. Given this, the Council concludes that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid contributing materially to substantial distress which was not sufficiently in the public interest. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 6 in this respect.

4848

2017–2018

Victoria Police/The Sunday Age Adjudication 1728 (November 2017) The Press Council considered a complaint from Victoria Police about an article published in The Sunday Age on 25 October 2015, headed “Strip-searched in Carlton on a sunny afternoon” in print and online.

The article, written in the first person, described the writer’s experience of being questioned by two police officers at a bus stop in Lygon Street about a theft of a T-shirt from a nearby store. The article suggested that the police considered the writer to be a possible suspect. The incident occurred mid-afternoon, in view of any passers-by and passengers in a stationary bus. The writer said one of the officers “squatted with a camera and told [the writer] to take down [his] pants to check whether the stolen T-shirt was hidden there”, and “to drop his underpants” as well. He said the officer “took photographs of [his] pubic hair”, “[t]hen demanded that [he] take down [his] trackies at the back” and the officer “knelt and archived [his] worn out old bum”. The article stated that a number of other questions were asked of the writer before he was then able to “pull [his] pants up again”. The article was accompanied by a cartoon of two police officers photographing a man with his pants at his ankles.

The writer made a detailed complaint to Victoria Police on 23 October 2015.

The complainant said the writer’s assertions in the article were found to be false by the Victoria Police Professional Standards Command. In a letter dated 1 November 2015, Victoria Police informed the publication of this and called for a correction. In March 2017, the writer was found guilty by the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria of making a false report to police. The complainant asked the publication on a number of occasions over a lengthy period of time to print a correction, including a request following the Court’s finding of guilt, but no correction was printed. The complainant also said that given the seriousness and unusual nature of the writer’s allegations, the publication ought to have contacted it prior to publication to seek comment on the alleged events. The complainant said the article unfairly tarnished its reputation and could have significantly affected the careers of the officers involved.

The publication said it had a four-decade-long association with the writer, who was “of some renown” and who had published a book on the police force. It said it accepted the article in good faith. It had refrained from publishing the article until after a formal statement by the writer was lodged with the police.

The publication said this demonstrated the writer’s confidence in his version of events and these factors contributed to the publication’s belief in the accuracy of the events as described. The publication said because the article was not a news piece, its processes were less stringent than they might otherwise have been. Accordingly, it did not seek comment from the complainant.

The publication said upon receiving the complainant’s concerns about the article, it immediately removed the online version. The publication said it did not issue a correction or apology as it had observed discrepancies in the complainant’s version of events as against CCTV footage of the incident. The publication said it accepted the writer had been found guilty of making a false report to police, but maintained its belief that an inappropriate search had been conducted by the police officers, albeit not as described in the article. The publication said it was not willing to print a correction in the absence of conclusive evidence supporting the complainant’s version of events and it had instead suggested the matter be referred for investigation by an independent ombudsman.

The publication said following the Court’s decision, it published an article in print and online headed “Writer found guilty of making a false report” on 4 June 2017. This article referred to the writer’s account of events as published in the original article, the complainant’s immediate denial, and the Court’s findings regarding the conduct of the officers. The publication said it believed this article accurately and ethically corrected the record.

CONCLUSION

The Council’s Standards of Practice applicable in this matter require that publications take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material is accurate and not misleading, is distinguishable from other material such as opinion (General Principle 1), is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts (General Principle 3). If the material is significantly inaccurate or misleading, or refers adversely to a person, publications must take reasonable steps to provide adequate remedial action or an opportunity for a response to be published (General Principles 2 and 4).

The Council considers that the serious nature of the article’s allegations required the publication to take more steps than it took before publication to verify the writer’s account, such as contacting the complainant for corroboration or comment. The Council does not consider the publication’s reliance on its

49

Full AdjudicationsFull Adjudications

relationship with the writer and his filing of a formal complaint to the police amounted to reasonable steps to ensure the article’s account of events was accurate and not misleading. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 1.

The publication eventually accepted the article was inaccurate but, due to its reservations about the complainant’s version of events, did not at any stage make an apology or correction. The Council considers that, notwithstanding the publication’s reservations about the events of the day, sufficient evidence was provided to the publication prior to the Court hearing to demonstrate the article was significantly inaccurate and misleading on a number of key points, including statements that the police officer directed the writer to take down his pants and underpants and photographed his pubic hair. After the Court hearing and conviction, there was no doubt about the inaccuracies. The article in June 2017, which did not identify or acknowledge the inaccuracies in the original article, does not constitute adequate remedial action. As such, the publication also breached General Principle 2. The Council encourages the publication to publish a correction and apology, which it considers is warranted in the circumstances.


Complainant/The Australian Adjudication 1725 (November 2017)The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published in The Australian on 6 March 2017 headed “SICK SYSTEM OPEN TO ABUSE: Fake Medicare claims have led to payouts worth millions” in print and “Medicare: Sick system open to abuse” online.

The article, before proceeding to explore flaws in Medicare that made it susceptible to fraudulent claims, began: “Hung Dien Phan came to Australia as a refugee in 1979 after fleeing Vietnam with his family, obtained a degree in medicine from Monash University and then discovered how easy it can be to make serious money in this country.”

Following a complaint, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether, in making specific references to the man’s refugee status and ethnicity, it took reasonable steps to ensure factual material was presented with reasonable fairness and balance (General Principle 3), and avoid contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, without sufficient justification in the public interest (General Principle 6).

The publication stated that the man’s refugee status, ethnicity and conviction and sentence for fraud were matters of public record; they had been published in a Victorian Court of Appeal judgment and had also been the subject of considerable publicity.

The publication said the reference to the man’s refugee status was of public interest, and not intended to be pejorative. Rather, it could be interpreted as an example of a refugee making a success of his life in Australia by going to university and graduating in medicine. It said the article did not suggest the man’s refugee status or ethnicity had anything to do with his defrauding Medicare. It said a government department cited the man’s circumstance as one of the prime examples of medical fraud and the only reason it was highlighted was because of the large sum of money involved and the fact it went undetected for seven years. It said the phrase “how easy it can be to make serious money in this country” went to the thrust of the article that the Medicare system is open to abuse.

The publication said any offence, distress or prejudice caused would be minor compared to that caused by the man’s conviction and sentence, and would also be outweighed by the public interest in highlighting such a major case of medical fraud.

CONCLUSION

The Council considered the detailed personal information provided about the man’s life story – including his refugee status and ethnicity in the opening paragraph – could be considered unbalanced and unfair as it stood in contrast to personal information provided in relation to other cases of medical fraud highlighted, which provided no further background beyond the gender of the perpetrators. However, the Council accepted that in investigating background for the story the journalist had been referred to the case by the relevant government department as one of the worst cases of medical fraud in terms of the large sum of money involved and the fact that it went undetected for seven years; that it was routine to commence a complex feature article with some background information on a subject; and that the article did not labour the reference beyond the opening paragraph, before proceeding to an exposition of a broad systemic issue. In the circumstances, the Council concluded that the article was not sufficiently unfair or unbalanced as to breach General Principles 3 and 4.

The Council considered that the references to the man’s refugee status and ethnicity could be considered gratuitous and irrelevant given that he came to Australia as an infant. The references could cause offence, distress or prejudice to people,

5050

2017–2018

especially people of Vietnamese origin and refugees generally, by potentially characterising them in a negative light.

However, the Council considered that offence, distress or prejudice caused by the article was not substantial, given the man’s personal information had been published in court records and elsewhere, and there was only one reference to the man’s refugee status and ethnicity in a lengthy article, in which his was a most significant example of medical fraud. Had the article continued to focus on the man’s ethnicity and refugee status, the Council considered that it could have caused substantial offence, distress or prejudice. Accordingly, the publication did not breach General Principle 6 in this instance.

NOTE: The article was written by a member of the Council who is presently on a leave of absence, and has had no involvement in the Council’s complaints-handling process.

Anne Lobo/NT News Adjudication 1730 (November 2017)The Press Council considered a complaint about a front-page article in NT News on 27 February 2017 in print, headed “HE TOLD ME HE LOVED ME” in quotation marks, superimposed on a large photograph of a 14-year-old girl. Below this were two sub-headlines, the first of which read “Friends shattered by teen highway tragedy”. The article was also published online, headed “Friends in shock over death of Darwin teens … on Stuart Highway”.

The article concerned the “death of two young men … tragically killed in an accident on the Stuart Highway – now believed to have been the devastating result of a prank gone wrong”. The photograph of the teenage girl occupied most of the page and showed her gazing pensively into the distance. The article referred in passing to friends and family as missing the deceased, but most of the article concerned the girl’s friendship with the boys, her reaction to their deaths and her last contact with them at a party the night of the accident. It also reported comments from the girl that she “would never forget” the boys, with one of whom she “had a ‘special connection’”.

The complainant, the aunt of the latter boy, said that reporting the accident as the result of a “prank gone wrong” did not match the information conveyed by the police to the family. The complainant also said the print headline, together with the prominent photo of the girl and the focus on her reaction, with only passing reference to the family, caused them added stress.

The publication said that the accident was then “believed to have been the devastating result of a prank gone wrong”, according to several sources at the time. The publication said police at the time corrected some of the media for falsely reporting that the driver had “swerved” but the publication had not reported the “swerving” allegation at any time.

The publication said it attempted to present the relationship between the teenage girl and the complainant’s nephew in a context of friendship. It also made attempts to speak with members of the boys’ families but was told they were too distraught to speak on the day, which it respected.

The publication said the article was presented as a strong and heartfelt tribute to two popular young men, which was unfortunately misconstrued. It said it never intended the story to exacerbate a tragic and terrible time and if the families thought it had done so, it apologised.

CONCLUSION

The Council’s Standards of Practice require that publications take reasonable steps to ensure factual material in news reports and elsewhere is accurate and not misleading, and is distinguishable from other material such as opinion (General Principle 1), provide a correction or other adequate remedial action if published material is significantly inaccurate or misleading (General Principle 2), and to avoid intruding on a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy (General Principle 5) or causing or contributing materially to substantial distress or risk to health or safety (General Principle 6), unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest.

The Council accepts the publication’s claim that it relied on several sources for the belief that a “prank gone wrong” had caused the accident. The Council considers that this statement was not presented as a verified fact. Accordingly, the Council does not uphold the complaint based on General Principles 1 and 2 in this respect.

The Council considers that the public interest in reporting on matters of road safety outweighed any breach of the complainant’s family’s reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to the coverage. Accordingly, the Council does not uphold the complaint based on General Principle 5.

The Council accepts that the publication intended the article to be a tribute to the boys. However, given the absence of comments or photographs from other friends or family, the heavy emphasis on the teenage girl and on her reaction and comments, and the likely emotional state of those affected, the article was likely to cause substantial offence and distress, without sufficient public interest. Accordingly, the Council upholds the complaint based on General Principle 6.

51

Full Adjudications

Complainant/NT News Adjudication 1729 (November 2017) The Press Council considered a complaint about a front page article in NT News on 27 February 2017 in print, headed “HE TOLD ME HE LOVED ME” in quotation marks, superimposed on a large photograph of the complainant’s 14-year-old daughter. Below this were two sub-headlines, the first of which read “Friends shattered by teen highway tragedy”. The article was also published online, headed “Friends in shock over death of Darwin teens … on Stuart Highway”.

The article concerned the “death of two young men killed in a car accident”. The photograph of the complainant’s daughter occupied most of the page and showed her gazing pensively into the distance. The article referred in passing to friends and family missing the deceased, but most of the article concerned the daughter’s friendship with the boys, her reaction to their deaths and her last contact with them at a party the night of the accident. It also reported her comments that she “would never forget” the boys, with one of whom she “had a ‘special connection’”.

The complainant said she was not informed the article would focus on her daughter and was led to believe it would be a tribute to the two boys from various people who knew them. She said the focus on her daughter offended many of the boys’ family and friends. As a result, her daughter was a victim of cyberbullying, which led to significant distress. The complainant said if they had been told how the article would be presented, she and her husband would not have agreed to their daughter being interviewed and photographed.

The complainant said she asked the publication to apologise to the families and friends of the boys but this had not occurred.

The publication said the article accurately recorded what family, friends and the complainant’s daughter told it. It said the report of the death of two boys was in the public interest as road tragedies are a serious matter of public interest. The article was sympathetic to the boys and the thoughts of their friends who described them in kind and considered words.

The publication said the complainant consented to it interviewing and photographing her daughter and was present when this took place and, accordingly, it did not agree to publish an apology.

It said it nevertheless took the complaint very seriously. It accepted that the story was particularly sensitive to the families and friends involved due to the ages of the boys.

It said it was aware of the stress a story of this nature could cause to those affected. It was never its intention to cause offence or distress; the story was only ever meant as a strong tribute to two popular young men, with the complainant’s daughter featured upfront as a close friend. The publication said this unfortunately appeared to have been misconstrued and, for that, it apologised.

The publication said it would strive to improve its processes for handling such sensitive issues. It said staff involved in the story had met to discuss why it triggered the response it did and to consider ways to ensure it did not occur in future.

CONCLUSION

The Council’s Standards of Practice require publications to take reasonable steps to avoid intruding on a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy (General Principle 5), causing or contributing materially to substantial, distress offence or a substantial risk to health or safety (General Principle 6), or publishing material gathered by unfair means (General Principle 7) – unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest.

Given the complainant consented to her daughter being interviewed and photographed, the Council does not consider that a reasonable expectation of privacy had been breached. Accordingly, the Council does not uphold the complaint based on General Principle 5. Nor did the Council consider, in such circumstances, that the material for publication was gathered by deceptive or unfair means. Accordingly, the Council does not uphold the complaint based on General Principle 7.

However, the Council notes the emphasis on the complainant’s daughter and particularly the prominent photograph of her on the front page. It also notes her age and likely emotional state, the subject matter about which she was being interviewed and the close proximity in time to the death of the boys. Given these sensitive circumstances, the publication ought to have informed the complainant that an article that focused on her daughter rather than tributes from a number of friends was proposed. Having regard to these factors, the Council considers that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing substantial offence and distress to those close to the boys. The public interest in the reporting on matters of road safety did not justify the prominent focus on the complainant’s daughter. Accordingly, the Council upholds the complaint based on General Principle 6.

5252

2017–2018

Complainant/news.com.au Adjudication 1726 (November 2017)The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published in news.com.au on 7 March 2017, which began: “A WOMAN has died and two others seriously injured in a head-on crash on the Hume Highway at Wilton, south of Sydney.” It continued: “Emergency crews are also working to release another woman trapped in a second vehicle in the southbound lanes of the Hume Highway, about 1km south of Picton Rd. The two vehicles collided just before 8am today.”

The article, which was published within half an hour of the accident, followed with images of the scene of the accident, the first of which depicted a heavily damaged vehicle with its doors open and roof peeled back, and emergency crew members including police surrounding and leaning into the car. In the centre of the frame was a face of a person whose head appears tilted back on a stretcher. The image, which included a television station’s logo, was captioned: “Pheasants Nest: Fatal crash Hume Motorway closed in both directions after serious two-car crash. MUST CREDIT [the television station] NewsSource: [the television station].”

The Council asked the publication to comment on whether the material breached its Standards of Practice, in particular, whether the publication took reasonable steps to ensure it avoided breaching a person’s reasonable expectations of privacy (General Principle 5) and causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice or risk to health or safety (General Principle 6), unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest.

The publication said the image was taken in a public place, from a helicopter at least 30 metres above the scene, and that at such a distance, the person in the image was not readily identifiable. It said the article identified the person as a woman though it was not possible from the image to identify her gender, age, ethnicity or any distinguishable features of her face or hair. It said there was no blood shown or visible signs of injury. It said the image demonstrated the admirable efforts of rescue personnel and their difficult task of freeing the person, as well as the magnitude of the accident.

The publication said the image was published for only approximately an hour and it received only one complaint, to which it responded by removing the image. It said it is regular and longstanding journalistic practice to publish images of

road accidents, which are often graphic, and similar images were published on other major media in this instance, including websites and television.

It also said the public interest in this instance outweighed any issues of privacy or distress. The accident was a major public event causing significant traffic disruption. It occurred on one of the busiest roads in Australia, in which southbound traffic was closed and banked up for five kilometres from 7.50am until past noon on the day. Given this, it was in the public interest to report on the accident and update the story regularly with developments in rescue efforts and traffic mobility. It said the issue of road fatalities is also one of significant public interest and reporting on an accident, such as this one, provides access to reliable information on matters of public health and safety.

CONCLUSION

The Press Council considers that while the accident occurred on a public road and the injured person would not have been easily identifiable by the public at large, nevertheless the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy and the image of the injured person and the car would be sufficiently clear for relatives and friends to identify the person. The image was of a person involved in a fatal car accident, seriously injured, and in a crash site which police had apparently taken steps to cordon off from the public. Given these factors, the Council concludes that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid breaching the injured person’s reasonable expectations of privacy.

Considering the nature of the image, in which a person is shown amongst the wreckage of a car accident with the caption referring to the “[f]atal crash”, and the rapid timing of its publication, the Council also concludes that the publication did not take reasonable steps to ensure the material avoided causing or contributing materially to substantial distress.

The Council recognises the reporting of road accidents is commonplace and is often in the public interest, particularly to ensure readers have access to reliable information on driving conditions and matters of road safety. However, the magnitude of the accident and resulting traffic disruption could have been captured visually without showing the injured person, for instance, with a long shot of the scene of the accident. In the circumstances, there was no sufficient justification in the public interest for publishing the image in the manner it did. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principles 5 and 6.

53

Full Adjudications

Complainant/Manningham Leader Adjudication 1724 (November 2017)The Press Council considered a complaint about material published as a letter to the editor in the Manningham Leader in print on 15 May 2017, headed “LETTER OF THE WEEK: Get more buses on roads”.

An article in the publication concerning the Victorian Government’s bus services concluded: “Now we have to make sure Spring St hears the message, so tell us what you think. Email, write letters or comment on our Facebook page. And we’ll tell the Government. Loud and clear. And for free.” These statements were followed by the publication’s email address, Facebook page, and postal address.

The complainant said in response to the article, she emailed the publication with details about her experience using the bus services, believing that the publication was conducting a petition and would pass on her comments to the government. The complainant said the article did not indicate that her response would be published, and implied the comments received by the publication would be collected and provided to the government in an effort to lobby on the community’s behalf.

The complainant said her email was published as a letter to the editor without notice or consent, and provided her first and last name, details of her daily commute, and the suburb in which she lives. The complainant said consent should not simply be inferred from her contacting the publication. She said she takes great care to maintain her privacy, and this has been compromised by the publication of these details, particularly given her distinct surname. She said she would have expected the publication to contact her and seek consent for her comments to be published, especially as her comments were made a more prominent “letter of the week” and were edited without her consent.

The publication said the complainant made contact via its email address in response to a campaign and that most letters to the editor are received and published in this way. The publication said it receives all correspondence through its general email address, and a reporter and its editor determine whether each item is a letter to the editor or some other material.

The publication said it was not its usual practice to contact letter writers to confirm their identity or consent to publish, unless there were concerning content or legal issues. It said it does not have a published policy on, or specific email address

for, letters to the editor, although its letters page on its website states that it reserves the right to edit letters.

The publication said the email was not marked “not for publication”, there was no indication the complainant did not want her name to be used or did not intend the email for anyone other than the publication, and it had no reason to believe the complainant did not want her letter published. It said the complainant would have been aware it is a publication that publishes letters and comments submitted to it, and that it aims to give a voice to people by publishing views and opinions from the public so decision makers can become aware of public sentiment; to just pass on a batch of submitted letters to the government would be futile. The publication said the original article’s call for letters followed the form and spirit of the words it has used for decades.

The publication said the published letter includes the complainant’s name and details of her commute, and this is not sufficient information to allow anyone to determine her residential address. It said that it acted in good faith, there had been a misunderstanding, it had no intention of upsetting the complainant and it apologised to her for publishing the letter.

CONCLUSiON

The Council’s Standards of Practice require publications to take reasonable steps to avoid intruding on a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy (General Principle 5), or publishing material gathered by unfair means (General Principle 7) – unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest.

The Council notes that the publication did not provide an email address designated for letters to the editor and the complainant did not submit her email to such an address. Had it been submitted to such an address, it would have been clearer how her comments could be expected to be used. Furthermore, the complainant was responding to a general call for comment, and did not mark her email as a letter to the editor.

The Council considers that the complainant had a reasonable expectation that the comments contained in her email would not be published without her prior consent. The publication could have contacted her before publication and checked the email was submitted as a letter to the editor but did not do so. Given this, the Council concludes that the publication did not take reasonable steps to avoid intruding on the complainant’s reasonable expectations of privacy, and there was no public interest justifying doing so, in particular, publishing the email without the complainant being notified and giving consent.

5454

2017–2018

Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 5.

The Council also considers the call for comment in the original article was not published with an intention to unfairly gather letters from readers or to deceive. Although the publication could have contacted the complainant before publication to check the basis on which the letter was submitted, the Council accepts the email was received and published under a belief that it was submitted for publication in response to an invitation for comment. Given this, the Council concludes the publication took reasonable steps to avoid publishing material gathered by deceptive or unfair means. Accordingly, the publication did not breach General Principle 7.

Complainant/The Courier-Mail Adjudication 1723 (December 2017)The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article in The Courier-Mail on 27 May 2017, headed “FAKE REFUGEE OUTRAGE: Rapists, a hitman, and ice dealers allowed to stay” in print and “Opinion: Administrative Appeals Tribunal has gone too far by allowing foreign-born criminals to stay” online.

The article commented on decisions made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) and began: “THERE was a troubling twist in the fake refugee controversy this week. Out of the blue we learned that murderers, rapists, pedophiles, armed robbers and ice dealers were among the scores of criminals who should have been booted out of the country but were allowed to stay. They were saved from deportation by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The tribunal overruled the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Peter Dutton, who attempted to eject 81 foreign-born criminals by revoking their visas.” The article went on to comment that “The tribunal, to my mind, has usurped the proper functions of the democratically elected government”, and mentioned several people who were “allowed to stay”, citing their countries of origin.

Further on, the article referred to “the Immigration Department finding th[at] 20 fake asylum seekers lied on their visa applications by saying they were at risk of being killed or persecuted if they returned to their own countries”.

Following a complaint, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether it took reasonable steps to ensure that referring to “foreign-born criminals” as “fake refugee[s]” was not inaccurate or misleading (General Principle 1), was presented with reasonable fairness and balance (General

Principle 3), and avoided contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, without sufficient justification in the public interest (General Principle 6).

The publication said it was not misleading, unfair or prejudicial to refer to “foreign-born criminals” as “fake refugee[s]”. The publication said the opinion piece commented on decisions by the AAT to overrule the Minister’s attempts to “eject 81 foreign-born criminals by revoking their visas”, which it described as a “troubling twist”. The publication said the term “fake refugee” was not used in the legal sense of “refugee” but rather in the sense that the tribunal has allowed people, whom the columnist believes ought be deported, to enjoy the shelter that Australia provides them. It said the term was used in the context of the preceding week’s news in which many references were made by the Minister to refer to a group of people not granted refugee status in Australia. It said in that context, reasonable readers would understand that “fake refugee[s]” are not technically refugees.

CONCLUSION

The Council considers that the print headline’s reference to “fake refugee” – as distinct from the online headline’s reference to “foreign-born criminals” – had the potential to mislead readers by conflating two distinct concepts when most of the cited cases concerned legal immigrants from countries such as Scotland who would be ineligible for refugee status in Australia.

The article drew together various issues that had recently received media coverage, including the Minister’s description of asylum seekers awaiting government advice on how their claims would be processed as “fake refugees” and the Minister’s criticism of the AAT for overturning some of his decisions to rescind the visas of immigrants on the basis of their convictions for criminal offences. Taking into account the specific circumstances, the Council considers that readers were unlikely to be misled by the article. Accordingly, the Council concludes that the publication did not breach General Principles 1 or 2.

For the same reasons, the Council is not satisfied the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the opinion article was presented with reasonable fairness and balance and was not based on significantly inaccurate factual material. Accordingly, the Council concludes the publication did not breach General Principles 3 and 4.

Given the nature of the opinion article, that it drew together views held by the columnist on various issues, and the Minister having recently used the phrase “fake refugee”, the Council is not satisfied, on balance, that the publication failed to take

55

Full Adjudications

reasonable steps to ensure the article avoided causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice. Accordingly, the publication did not breach General Principle 6.

The Council notes that there appears to be only one specific instance in the article of the term “fake refugee’” being applied to a person who made a false claim about the risks from deportation to his country of origin, the rest of the examples mentioned being people from countries ineligible for refugee status. To avoid diminishing the integrity of the national debate concerning asylum seekers and refugees, care ought be taken to avoid applying the label “fake refugee” to individuals who have never sought or gained asylum, and to ensure that where such a term is used in the public sphere, it is accurately attributed to its source.

The Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy Association of Australasia/The Daily Telegraph Adjudication 1727 (December 2017) The Press Council considered a complaint from The Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy Association of Australasia about an article published in The Daily Telegraph on 12 July 2017, headed “FAT CHANCE OF BEING HEALTHY: Young Aussies have only themselves to blame” in print and “Junk food, alcohol and drugs are fuelling health crisis in young adults” online.

The print article included a graphic below the headline featuring the following statistics: “1/3 of Australia’s young people live in New South Wales”; “37% of 16-to-24-year-olds consume alcohol at levels posing a lifetime risk to health”; “12.2% of 16-to-24-year-old males, 21.6 per cent of females experiencing high or very high psychological distress”; “16.8% of secondary school students in Australia are attracted to people of the same sex as them or to both sexes”; “11% of 12-to-17-year-olds used illicit drugs in the past 12 months”; “37% of males and 21 per cent of females aged 16 to 24 are overweight or obese”; “30% of 18-to-24-year-olds used illicit drugs in the past 12 months”; and “Cannabis most used illicit drug”.

The article referred to “[t]he worrying findings … contained in a new wide-ranging report that reveals the true state of the health of NSW’s young people, covering everything from sexuality to obesity”. Further on, the article repeated that “Sexuality was also canvassed, with 16.8 per cent of secondary school students in Australia reporting they are attracted to people of the same sex or to both sexes.”

The complainant said the headline “FAT CHANCE OF BEING HEALTHY” and sub-headline “Young Aussies have only themselves to blame”, followed by the statistic about same-sex attraction in the centre among statistics relating to matters such as obesity and drug use, suggested same-sex attraction is unhealthy and warrants blame. The complainant said this association between ill health and sexual orientation was inaccurate, unfair and significantly harmful.

The complainant said any notion that sexual identity, in whatever form it takes, is either a choice or a medical problem is false, and coverage like this contributes to health concerns such as increased suicide risk for young same-sex-attracted people.

The publication said the graphic was composed by someone other than the person who composed the headline and was placed on the page just before deadline. If it were to publish the article again, the publication said it would not have run the headline and graphic together.

However, it said the article, including the statistics in the graphic, were gathered from the NSW report referred to in the article – the Youth Health Framework 2017-2024 – which noted the per centage of reported same-sex attraction, that LGBTI young people are at a higher risk of poorer mental health, and that sexuality is one of the demographic factors which may impact how young people approach and manage their health.

It said the article did not link the issue of sexual identity to ill health. The headline, which focused on diet and obesity, was not intended to refer to the non-diet issues in the graphic and should be read with the article. It said the graphic was designed to mirror the statistics in the article and not to single out sexuality as an aspect of ill health, pointing out the other non-diet related statistic in the graphic, which referred to one third of Australia’s young people being in NSW.

In response to criticism of the article, its editor promptly issued a statement via social media, which said the presentation of the article had unfortunately been misinterpreted, that the article in no way suggested or intended to suggest that same-sex relationships are unhealthy, and there was no judgement expressed in the article other than relating to diet.

CONCLUSION

The Council’s Standards of Practice require that publications take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1) and

5656

2017–2018

presented with reasonable fairness and balance (General Principle 3). If the material is significantly inaccurate or misleading, or not reasonably fair and balanced, publications must take reasonable steps to provide adequate remedial action or an opportunity for a response to be published (General Principles 2 and 4).

The Standards of Practice also require that publications take reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or to a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 6).

The print headline appeared as part of the graphic with a similar coloured design and background that distinguished it from the rest of the article below the graphic. Given this, the Council does not accept that the headline should be read as distinct from the graphic.

The Council also considers that there is a significant difference between reporting on same-sex attraction as a demographic factor which may affect young people’s mental health, as referred to in the NSW Youth Health Framework, and reporting it as a lifestyle-related health factor such as poor diet and drug use.

The Council concludes that the headline “FAT CHANCE OF BEING HEALTHY” and sub-headline “Young Aussies have only themselves to blame” with the statistic that “16.8% of secondary school students are attracted to people of the same sex or to both sexes” associated the students reporting same-sex attraction with people affected by unhealthy lifestyle factors. In such circumstances, the presentation of the article was significantly misleading. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 1.

The Council notes the publication’s public response online to complaints from the public. However, this public statement was not published in print and did not acknowledge or apologise for the misleading nature of the graphic. Rather, it attributed the impression to readers having misconstrued the article. Given this, this response did not constitute adequate remedial action and accordingly, the publication also breached General Principle 2.

The Council concludes that the reference to ill health and blame in the headlines, with the statistic about same-sex attraction displayed among factors such as obesity and drug use, suggested same-sex attraction is unhealthy and blameworthy. As a result, the article caused substantial offence, distress, prejudice and risk to public health and safety, and there was no public interest justifying this.

Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 6.


Joan Falconio/NT News Adjudication 1733 (February 2018)The Press Council considered a complaint about a front page article in NT News on 20 April 2017 in print, headed “FALCONIO ‘CUT UP, DUMPED’”, with a large photograph of “Slain British backpacker Peter Falconio with … girlfriend Joanne Lees.” Above the headline was a sub-headline, which read: “Police investigating shock new claims murdered backpacker’s missing body was transported across three states.” The full report was on pages six and seven, headed “Falconio ‘cut and dumped’: letter.” The article was also published online, headed “NT Police investigating claims by letter writer that Peter Falconio’s body was ‘cut up and dumped”.

The article concerned an anonymous letter received by the publication, which reportedly contained “compelling new claims surrounding the whereabouts of … Peter Falconio’s body”. It reported the anonymous letter writer claimed to have been informed by an associate of Bradley John Murdoch, the man convicted of Mr Falconio’s murder, that he assisted in disposing of Mr Falconio’s body. The article described in detail the letter’s claims about how Mr Murdoch wanted Mr Falconio’s body disposed of and its treatment during this disposal, including how the associate buried Mr Falconio. It also included a vague description of the place where the body was allegedly buried.

The complainant, the mother of Peter Falconio, said the article was published without any regard to the likely distress it would cause her and her family, and which was substantially felt both emotionally and physically. She said anyone can send a letter anonymously to newspapers about anything, fact or fiction, and given this and the distressing nature of the unsubstantiated content, the publication should have simply referred the letter to the police; it was not in the public interest to publish the anonymous letter.

The publication said the disappearance of Mr Falconio and the conviction of Mr Murdoch for his murder are matters of public record and of major public interest. It said the most pertinent outstanding issue from the crime and Mr Murdoch’s conviction is what happened to Mr Falconio’s body, and the letter contained new allegations related to this specific point. It said prior to publication it presented the letter to a most

57

Full Adjudications

senior officer in the Northern Territory Police Force who said the letter may be authentic, and police confirmed in a public statement that they were – and still are – investigating the letter and its claims. It said it also made some enquiries before the article was published. It said it delayed publication of the story to allow police to first contact the complainant’s family and make it aware of the letter. Police made that contact.

The publication acknowledged and apologised for the distress the article caused the complainant and her family. It said given the significant coverage of the murder over the years and the lapse of time, it was of the view that the presentation given to the story at the time was appropriate.

CONCLUSION

The Council’s Standards of Practice applicable in this matter require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1) and presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or an omission of key facts (General Principle 3). The Standards of Practice also require that publications take reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or to a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 6).

The Council accepts that the publication sought confirmation from police that the letter’s claims had a sufficient degree of credibility and that it did undertake some, albeit inconclusive, enquiries concerning the veracity of the letter writer’s claims. On the information available, the Council is not satisfied the publication failed to take reasonable steps to present the letter with accuracy, fairness and balance. Accordingly, it did not breach General Principles 1 and 3.

However, given the article’s prominent and graphic description of the alleged treatment of Mr Falconio’s body after his murder, especially in the headlines, the Council considers that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing substantial offence and distress to the complainant’s family. The Council accepts there is a public interest in reporting of the crime, however in this instance – particularly one concerning anonymous and unverified allegations – this did not justify such detailed and graphic descriptions. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 6.

Complainant/news.com.au Adjudication 1732 (February 2018) The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published in news.com.au on 31 May 2017, headed “Islamic State [IS] terror guide encourages luring victims via Gumtree, eBay”.

The opening paragraph read: “ISLAMIC State has released a step-by-step guide on how to murder nonbelievers, which includes how to lure targets via fake ads on Gumtree and eBay.” The article proceeded to relay in detail how an article in “[t]he latest edition of the terror group’s English-language propaganda magazine … encourages would-be terrorists to advertise products on second-hand selling sites … to lure victims and assassinate them”. The article mostly comprised extracts from the source material describing the steps one would take to perform such acts.

The Council asked the publication to comment on whether the material breached its Standards of Practice, in particular, whether the publication took reasonable steps to ensure it avoided causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice or risk to public health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 6).

The publication said the article was published with the intent of providing readers with an insight into how IS operates. It said it has, along with other publishers, published countless stories about the workings of IS and their strategies since they rose to prominence and there was no intention to encourage terrorism or support for IS, but rather to discourage it.

The publication said shortly after the article was published, a federal government department notified it that the Classification Board designated the material Refused Classification (banned content). The Board was of the opinion that notwithstanding being a news article, the limited author text and overwhelming reliance on detailed references and substantial verbatim quotations from the terrorist propaganda magazine indirectly provided instruction on the doing of a terrorist act, pursuant to section 9A (2)(b) of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995. The publication said after receiving this notice, it immediately removed the article and any associated traces from its website, and alerted staff to the decision and relevant legislative section, about which it was not aware. It said the effect of the Board’s decision was to provide a legal direction for the publication to remove the material, without affording it

5858

2017–2018

an opportunity to defend the article on public interest grounds.

The publication ultimately said that it took reasonable steps to ensure the published material did not cause a substantial risk to public safety and nonetheless, it was justified in the public interest. It said the impetus for the article was to advise readers that IS was trying to infiltrate Australia using everyday networks. The public interest pertained to public safety and national security, preventing crime, and the legitimate right of an independent media to provide the public with reliable information particularly on situations which could put them at risk of attack. It said there is actually greater risk to public safety from the public not knowing the intentions and strategies of IS to target Australians for attacks.

CONCLUSION

The Press Council considers that the article did publish much of the source material from IS verbatim, with limited author input and accompanying analysis or context, such as comments from experts and websites such as Gumtree. The Council accepts there was no intention to encourage or support terrorism, but considers that republishing content from terrorist entities in this manner can perpetuate the purpose of such propaganda and give publicity to its ideas and practices.

However, the Council accepts the public interest in alerting readers to potential risks to their safety. The Council considers that on balance, the public interest in alerting readers to the dangerous content of the terrorist propaganda and its instructional detail was greater than the risk to their safety posed by the publication’s effective republication of terrorist propaganda content. Given this, the Council concludes that the public interest justified publication of the article. Accordingly, the publication did not breach General Principle 6.

The Council notes that great care needs to be exercised by publications when reporting on terrorist propaganda to ensure that public safety is not compromised. In particular, effectively republishing source material comprising instructional detail in how to carry out particular terrorist acts could pose a risk to public safety, and reasonable steps should be taken to prevent such an outcome.

Complainant/Southern Free Times Adjudication 1734 (March 2018) The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by a print article published in the Southern Free Times headed “Very near tragedy” on 23 March 2017.

The article concerned a man who was “reported missing” and later “found by State Emergency Service (SES) volunteers in dense bushland … having spent the night at the location”. It reported the publication understood that “the man inflicted self-harm in an apparent suicide attempt and at some point fell from a height after wandering into the bush …” The publication further reported he had “told his partner on Friday morning he was leaving for work as usual but he failed to show up, with work colleagues and his partner becoming concerned for his welfare when he was uncontactable during the morning and around lunchtime”. It then reported that his “condition was unknown at the time of printing and family members declined to comment”.

The rest of the article questioned whether the incident was associated with the man’s employment and whether “[his] behaviour may have been prompted by work-related stress stemming from the current workplace culture …”

The complainant, the daughter of the man, said the article was inaccurate or misleading in reporting that “the man told his partner on Friday morning he was leaving for work as usual” as this did not happen and no member of the family told anyone this. Moreover, the complainant said the implication that workplace issues were the cause of the incident was inaccurate and that other issues were involved.

The complainant said her sister, also the man’s daughter, was contacted by the publication prior to publication of the article and she specifically said she did not want any article published or any details or personal information to be reported. She said the publication published an article against their express wishes and included personal information such as her father’s suburb of residence and where the incident happened, as well as where he worked. She said even though his name was not mentioned, her father was effectively identified in the small community and those who did not know it was a suicide attempt now would.

The publication said the article was at least the fourth in a series reporting on detailed accounts from family members of both past and present employees of the same employer about mental health concerns associated with bullying and intimidation. The publication said it was very familiar with reporting on mental health concerns associated with employment stress. It said it was alerted to this instance by a family member of another colleague with the same employer, and confirmed the details reported with other reliable sources, including the man’s colleagues as well as members of the search party who said the man himself had associated the incident with work.

59

Full Adjudications

It said it exercised discretion and sensitivity in omitting from the article the man’s name, as requested by his daughter, as well as further details it had. It also did not publish the article on the front page or online in order to minimise the impact of the story on the family and avoid online and social media commentary and speculation. However, it accepted that, in hindsight, the reference to the man inflicting self-harm could have been worded more appropriately given the potential impact on his family.

It said it stood by the decision to publish the article, given the significant public interest involved. The article followed previous stories and previous allegations about serious and widespread mistreatment at the same place of employment. Its motivation was to expose this and pressure the employer to change its management practices, as well as to acknowledge the newsworthiness of the search itself, which involved many people who put their own safety at risk. It said the feedback it has received since publication of the series of articles, especially from family members of employees of the same employer, has been overwhelmingly positive and encouraging.

CONCLUSION

The Council’s Standards of Practice require that publications take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material is accurate and not misleading and is distinguishable from other material such as opinion (General Principle 1) and to provide corrective remedial action if published material is significantly inaccurate or misleading (General Principle 2), avoid intruding on a person’s reasonable expectations of privacy (General Principle 5) or causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety (General Principle 6)—unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest.

In addition, Specific Standards on the Coverage of Suicide 3 and 4 require that in deciding whether to report a suicide—which includes apparent suicide attempts—and disclose the name of the person, consideration should be given to whether clear and informed consent has been provided by appropriate relatives or close friends, and whether such reporting is clearly in the public interest. Further, Suicide Standard 6 requires that reports should not sensationalise, glamorise, trivialise or stigmatise suicides, and Suicide Standard 7 requires that reports of suicide should not be given undue prominence and great care should be taken to avoid causing unnecessary harm or hurt to people who have been affected by suicide, which requires special sensitivity and moderation in both news gathering and reporting.

The Council recognises there can be substantial public benefit

in reporting on suicide, and in this instance accepts that the publication was well-intentioned.

However, as the complainant’s sister expressly asked the publication not to report on the incident, there was no clear and informed consent from the man’s family. In these circumstances, the public interest had to be strong enough to report the incident as a suicide attempt notwithstanding the lack of consent. The Council considers the public interest here did not extend to reporting on this individual instance in as explicit a manner as occurred. Accordingly, the Council concludes that the publication breached Suicide Standard 3 in this respect.

The Council notes that the publication did not identify the man, at least not by name, and accepts that the publication complied with the complainant’s sister’s request in this respect. Accordingly, the Council concludes that the publication did not breach Suicide Standard 4.

The Council also considers that the publication did not sensationalise, glamorise, trivialise or stigmatise suicide in the article. Accordingly, the Council concludes that the publication did not breach Suicide Standard 6. Nor was the article published with undue prominence or unnecessarily explicit headlines or images, but rather the publication exercised sensitivity and moderation in electing not to report on the incident on the front page or online. Accordingly, the Council concludes that the publication did not breach Suicide Standard 7.

Given its conclusions on other aspects of the complaint, the Council considers it unnecessary to reach conclusions in relation to General Principles 1, 2, 5 and 6.

Note: If you or someone close to you requires personal assistance, please contact Lifeline Australia on 13 11 14.

Bob Brown/The Daily Telegraph Adjudication 1735 (March 2018)The Press Council considered a complaint by Bob Brown about two articles published on 17 March 2017 in The Daily Telegraph. The first article was headed “TRIGGS’ GIG FOR GREENS” on the front page, and continued on page four headed “Human rights chief not partial to impartiality”. The second article, on page 13, was headed “TRIGG-HUGGER: HUMAN RIGHTS CHIEF A GREENIE DISGRACE”, also published online headed “Sharri Markson: Gillian Triggs has revealed her true colour … and it’s green”. That opinion article was followed with an editorial on page 64, headed “Forget politics and concentrate on job”.

6060

2017–2018

The first article began: “AUSTRALIA’S Human Rights Commission chief Gillian Triggs is under pressure to step down after agreeing to headline a fundraiser for ex-Greens leader Bob Brown.” It reported that “Mr Brown was arrested last year in an anti-logging protest and the [Bob Brown Foundation] regularly issues press releases advocating its pro-forestry and anti-mining stance.” The second article included a large cartoon depicting Professor Triggs hugging the complainant depicted as a tree. It repeated that the complainant “was arrested for a logging protest and was escorted by police away from a Tasmanian forest”.

The complainant said the articles are inaccurate, misleading, unfair and unbalanced in a number of key respects. First, the complainant said the headline “TRIGGS’ GIG FOR GREENS” would have misled a reasonable reader to believe the event was a fundraiser for the Australian Greens political party when it had no such purpose.

Second, the complainant said the “gig” referred to was not a fundraiser for the Bob Brown Foundation but an event organised by the Foundation to provide Tasmanians with annual orations by significant speakers. He said the event has regularly run at a loss and profits, if any, were donated to charity. The complainant said the editorial admitted this in its concluding paragraph: “For her part Triggs asserts that the event is not political, nor is it a fundraiser. Technically true, perhaps, but given her history in the office, not a good look either.”

Third, the complainant said the articles referred to the fact he had been arrested in 2016 for participating in a protest, but unfairly omitted that all charges were later dropped (and that the laws were being challenged, later successfully). He said this fostered a false impression that he had broken the law. The complainant also said the article inaccurately refers to the Foundation as “pro-forestry” although it seeks to end logging of native forests.

Fourth, the complainant said although he is prominently referred to in both articles, as well as the accompanying editorial, and depicted in a prominent cartoon with Professor Triggs, he was not contacted by the publication for comment. He said he was subsequently contacted after publication of the article with a list of emailed questions and he offered the publication a telephone interview instead, to which it did not respond.

The publication responded that the headline “TRIGGS’ GIG FOR GREENS” did not state the gig was for the Australian Greens party, nor does the article. It said the headline is accurate and reasonably reflects the context of the article, focusing

on Professor Triggs’ “gig” for a foundation which regularly supports “green” causes and is headed by the Greens’ former leader. The publication said the first two paragraphs of the article make this clear.

Second, the publication said it was not misleading or unfair to describe the event as a “fundraiser” in the opening paragraph. The publication said the money raised from tickets for the event went in the first instance to the complainant’s Foundation and Professor Triggs (whose comments were included in the article) had said if there were extra funds after covering costs these would go to a charity.

Third, the publication said the reference to the complainant’s arrest was to demonstrate that he remained a green activist. It said the article did not state that he was charged and it did not need to as it had previously reported on these charges being dropped.

Fourth, the publication said the focus of the articles was on Professor Triggs and not the complainant, and there was no suggestion he had done anything wrong or improper. It said following publication of the articles, it contacted the complainant concerning a potential follow-up piece and put detailed questions to him, which he refused to answer.

In relation to the “pro-forestry” comment, it said the use of the term meant to convey that the complainant and his Foundation support the preservation of forests, and any reasonable reader would understand it this way.

CONCLUSION

The Council’s Standards of Practice applicable in this matter require that publications take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is accurate and not misleading, distinguishable from other material such as opinion (General Principle 1), is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or an omission of key facts (General Principle 3). If the material is significantly inaccurate or misleading, or unfair or unbalanced, publications must take reasonable steps to provide adequate remedial action or an opportunity for a response to be published (General Principles 2 and 4).

The Council considers the headline “TRIGGS’ GIG FOR GREENS” is misleading in implying that the event attended by Professor Triggs was for the Greens party and not for the Bob Brown Foundation. The first article’s statement that the event was “tied to the Greens party” and the second article’s reference to the “Green-aligned event”, together with the repeated description of the event as a “fundraiser”, was likely

61

Full Adjudications

to lead readers to understand that it was a Greens event. The Council also considers that referring to the event as a fundraiser as opposed to an oration was inaccurate. Whether or not there was any profit from the event, its purpose was not to raise funds but to cover the costs of the event. Based on the information provided, the Council accepts there had been limited if any surplus in the event’s history. In reporting these matters in the manner it did, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the article was accurate and not misleading. Accordingly, it breached General Principle 1.

Having been alerted to these significantly misleading aspects, the publication did not publish a clarification or any corrective remedial action. Accordingly, it breached General Principle 2.

The Council considers the repeated reference to the complainant being arrested, without also reporting what came of this, was unfair by omission. Although the Council accepts the publication previously reported that charges were dropped, this was many months before and did not outweigh the unfairness of the repeated reference and omission in this instance. The Council also considers that the publication ought to have also contacted the complainant for comment. Given the above factors, the publication, in not affording the complainant a right of reply prior to publication, failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the article was presented with reasonable fairness and balance. Accordingly, it breached General Principle 3.

The Council does not accept that the complainant refused to answer the publication’s questions for a potential follow-up article. Based on the information provided, the complainant reasonably responded to the publication’s list of questions by asking to be interviewed, which was not followed up. In not providing a fair opportunity for subsequent publication of a reply, the publication also breached General Principle 4.

Thai Terrace/The Courier-Mail Adjudication 1731 (April 2018)The Press Council considered a complaint from Thai Terrace Rosalie about an article published online in The Courier-Mail on 20 April 2017, headed “Prawn prices in Queensland rise in restaurants despite fishermen cutting prices”.

The article reported that as a result of “a ban on exporting locally caught prawns due to an outbreak of white spot disease in Queensland”, local fishermen “have been forced to slash their prices”. It said “despite a glut of prawns on the local market” Thai Terrace Rosalie advised “customers that the

temporary ban on imported prawns had led to a price rise that was being passed onto customers.”

The article reported the contents of a notice posted at the complainant’s restaurant that said: “A temporary ban on imported raw prawns by the Agriculture Minister has forced suppliers to significantly increase the cost of prawns … Unfortunately we have had to temporarily pass this increase on by surcharging prawn dishes by $2.00. This is a temporary measure and will be reversed as soon as possible.” The article concluded by stating that the publication “contacted Thai Terrace but has yet to receive a response”.

The complainant said the article’s statement that the publication was yet to receive a response was inaccurate. The complainant said the only enquiry received was through an online booking form completed by the journalist the day before publication, using a personal email address, which asked “[d]o you charge extra for prawns? If so, why?” in the special requests section of the form. The complainant said it replied to the question by email that day but, had it known the enquiry came from a journalist, it would have provided a more detailed answer.

The complainant said the journalist dined at the restaurant on the night before publication and at that time did not make any enquiries of staff and did not identify herself as a journalist. The complainant said it received no call or voicemail message from the journalist and believed she had been deceptive and unfair in her enquiries.

The complainant said that following the article it emailed the publication explaining it did not source its prawns from the area within which prawns caught were banned from export. Instead, it sourced prawns through its usual supplier who “had increased the price of prawns from $19/kg to $27/kg, a 42% increase”. The complainant said that in order to continue to provide prawns on its menu it would “pass on an increase of $2/dish, an 8% increase in price”. It emailed the publication to follow up but did not receive a response.

The complainant said the article’s implication that it was unduly profiting from the outbreak of white spot disease and taking advantage of its patrons was misleading and unfair. It said the publication of the article damaged its reputation and the publication’s proposal to later include its comments in the story did not remedy its concerns.

The publication said the journalist attempted to contact the complainant by telephone several times over several days prior to publication but those calls were not answered. No message was left on the complainant’s voicemail system.

6262

2017–2018

The publication said its use of the online booking form was a last resort and the use of the journalist’s personal email in that form was inadvertent.

The publication said the article was accurate and only included information available in the notice distributed by the complainant to its customers. In any event, it stated the response provided to the journalist’s online booking form did not provide any further information.

It said by including the text of the restaurant’s notice, the article accurately and fairly explained the surcharge was due to a temporary ban on imported raw prawns, forcing suppliers to significantly increase the cost of prawns.

The publication offered to amend the article to include the complainant’s comments.

CONCLUSION

The Council’s Standards of Practice applicable in this matter require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1) and presented with reasonable fairness and balance (General Principle 3). If the material is significantly inaccurate or misleading, or refers adversely to a person, publications must take reasonable steps to provide adequate remedial action or an opportunity for a response to be published (General Principles 2 and 4). The Council’s Standards of Practice also require publications to take reasonable steps to avoid publishing material gathered by unfair means – unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 7).

The Council considers that at the time of the article, the publication had received a response to its question in the booking form. Given this, the article’s statement that the publication had yet to receive a response was inaccurate.

The Council also considers the article’s statements that prawn prices were rising in restaurants “despite a glut of prawns on the local market” and “despite fishermen cutting prices”, did imply the complainant was unduly profiting from the situation. The Council accepts this implies the complainant sourced its prawns from the locality affected by the export ban, at a reduced price, when this was not the case. Given this, the article was also misleading. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 1.

In addition to this, the article omitted that the ban on importing prawns to Australia had actually increased the price of prawns in Australia generally, in line with the surcharge put in place by the complainant. In omitting any reference to this, the article unfairly compared the prawn prices at the complainant’s

restaurant to those of local fishermen and, given this, did not present the material with reasonable fairness and balance. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 3.

As to remedial action, the Council acknowledges the publication offered to update the article with the complainant’s comments. However, the Council does not consider that inclusion of the complainant’s comments would adequately remedy the overall misleading and unfair nature of the article. The publication did not correct the inaccuracy, that it had not yet received a response from the complainant. Further, given it failed to respond to the complainant’s two attempts to resolve the matter directly, the Council considers the publication did not take reasonable steps to provide a fair opportunity for publication of a reply. Accordingly, the publication breached both General Principles 2 and 4.

The Council acknowledges it is best practice for journalists to identify themselves when seeking comment for publication, which did not occur in this case. However, the information provided in the article was publicly available and, as such, no published material had been gathered by deceptive or unfair means. Accordingly, the publication did not breach General Principle 7.

Complainant/The Sunday Telegraph Adjudication 1738 (May 2018)The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article in The Sunday Telegraph on 30 April 2017, headed “What genius gave this Islam idiot a soapbox” in print and with a similar headline online. The print article appeared on a page headed “OPINION: YOURS AND OURS”.

The article attacked “the failed concept of multiculturalism” and those who have “fallen over themselves to promote multiculturalism”. In that context, it focused on Yassmin Abdel-Magied, a Muslim woman, referring to her being promoted and self-promoted as an exponent of multiculturalism.

It referred to Ms Abdel-Magied as a “silly Muslim woman” in the opening sentence, and further on as “stupid”, someone who “was always bound to utter great inanities”, “a fool”, “non-entity” and “halfwit”. The article referred to some of Ms Abdel-Magied’s public comments, including “her ridiculous (and extremely offensive) Facebook remarks about Anzac Day” and earlier, her “proclaim[ing] to great hilarity that Islam was ‘the most feminist religion’”. It made reference to her “part-time job as an ABC presenter” and position “on the Council

63

Full Adjudications

for Australian-Arab Relations, one of the little perks run by … the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade”, and questioned: “Is the government, is the ABC, really so blind to the flaws in multiculturalism that they seek out individuals who appear to demonstrate that they grotesquely misunderstand the nature of the nation?” The article concluded: “Don’t deny nonentities their right to freedom of speech but at least deprive them of having a hand in the public pocket while they’re on their silly soap boxes.”

Following a complaint, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether, in emphasising Ms Abdel-Magied’s religion in its criticism of her, it took reasonable steps to ensure factual material was presented with reasonable fairness and balance (General Principle 3), and whether more generally, in light of the terms applied to Ms Abdel-Magied, it avoided contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, without sufficient justification in the public interest (General Principle 6).

The publication said the content of the article was clearly identified as opinion. The columnist was entitled to express his opinion of Ms Abdel-Magied and his opinion of her actions. It said that at the time of publication Ms Abdel-Magied was at the centre of a widespread public debate about comments she made relating to Anzac Day. Her religion was relevant to the content of the article, to her public profile (which emphasised her identity and experiences as a Muslim woman in Australia) and to her position on the publicly-funded Council for Australian-Arab Relations. It said it was in the public interest for an opinion article to discuss these realities from the columnist’s viewpoint, exercising his freedom of speech, however critical he might be.

CONCLUSION

The Council accepts that the article is, in its entirety, an expression of opinion in relation to multiculturalism and to Ms Abdel-Magied as an exponent and exemplar of multiculturalism. The article attacked her suitability as a proponent of multiculturalism, a concept which it also attacks.

As a clear expression of opinion, it does not breach General Principle 3. The opinion expressed is based on explicit and implied opinions about multiculturalism.

Nor does the article breach General Principle 6. The columnist’s opinions are likely to offend many. But it is in the public interest in freedom of speech that vigorous public debate be permitted, even when expressed in extreme terms, as is the case here.

Accordingly, the Council considers that there has been no breach of its Standards of Practice.

Chrissie Swan / Woman’s Day Adjudication 1718 (May 2018)The Press Council considered a complaint by Chrissie Swan about an article published by Woman’s Day in print, headed “It’s McHappy day!”, on 27 March 2017.

Above the headline, the article featured a large photograph of the complainant walking with her three children caught unawares by a photographer. It was accompanied by a caption which read “STAR SPOTTER Your favourite stars … caught on camera”. Another caption next to the youngest child, whom it named, said she “leads the way!”, and another much smaller caption said “Chrissie’s Nova radio segment was just announced Melbourne’s number-one brekkie show.” Two smaller photographs showed the complainant in a car, apparently in the drive-through of a McDonald’s, one captioned “Drive-through Maccas is every kid’s dream treat!” The article began: “These guys must’ve been doing their chores!” and said the complainant treated her children – stating their names and ages – “to a lunch date at McDonald’s”. It noted the complainant had previously expressed a wish to have more children.

The Council’s Standards of Practice require publications to take reasonable steps to avoid intruding on a person’s reasonable expectations of privacy (General Principle 5) or causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress, prejudice or risk to health or safety (General Principle 6), unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest.

Ms Swan said her complaint was not about the coverage of herself but of her young children. The photograph showed them in an unflattering light, one with a pacifier and a security blanket and another with a pacifier. She said the effect of the picture was to expose the children to ridicule. The photograph had been taken without her knowledge or approval, and the article caused considerable distress to her family, made the children feel unsafe, and exposed them to threats and abuse, especially cyberbullying.

She said that about five years previously she and two of her children had been photographed on an unpaid basis for an article published in another magazine, which resulted in significant and painful criticism of her and her children. Since that time she had taken steps to keep her children out of the media. She said she engaged in publicity at the behest of her employers, arising from contractual obligations for a television

6464

2017–2018

or radio show she was appearing in, but typically this did not involve her children. Exceptions to this included photographs of her then newborn baby released to try to contain attention from photographers, an unpaid photograph she consented to for a charity for women, and some footage of her son taken without her approval when he came to meet her at a television production, which the producer agreed to significantly limit for broadcast.

The complainant said she enters into agreements with publicists to ensure her children are not photographed or reported on at events they attend with her. If that agreement is not reached, she attends without her children. She said her children do not have any commercial endorsement or representation arrangements with anyone, are not in the media industry and are not in the public domain or of any interest to the public.

Ms Swan said she no longer posts photographs to her social media accounts that identify her children’s faces, even if only her “friends” can see them. While images of her children were obtainable via a Google search, these were mostly unauthorised photographs taken while they were going about their lives. Others were taken from a private Facebook page, which she had since deactivated, or sourced from acquaintances. She said some photographs of her children on her Instagram account were obscured, showing only part of their faces, and presenting them positively.

The publication said the article was positive and not disparaging, simply depicting an ordinary public outing of the kind enjoyed by many Australian families. It said a significant proportion of its editorial content was focused on documenting the lives of celebrities and their families in which the public was very interested. The publication said it was aware of the sensitivities associated with images of children and it refrained from publishing photographs of children who were not “in the public eye”. However, it disputed the complainant’s view that she had not placed her children in the public eye in the last five years. It said there were many instances of the complainant having done so, including publishing a memoir which discussed her children, giving television and magazine interviews and hosting a radio show in which she mentioned her children, and posting several photographs of her children to Instagram.

It noted that, unlike a number of other celebrities, the complainant had not contacted it at an earlier stage to seek a general agreement to not publish photographs of her children. It also said that, at the request of the complainant, it did not publish the article online.

The publication said that on the information available to it at the time of publication, it believed the complainant chose to publicise images of her children, including by entering into contracts with commercial incentives. It said the complainant regularly published photographs of her children to social media accounts on which she has a significant public following, and Internet searches revealed multiple posed photographs of the complainant and her children. The publication maintained it was reasonable to publish the article at the time; however, it said it would take into account the complainant’s concerns and the degree to which she has placed her children in the public eye in any future editorial consideration of images of her children.

CONCLUSION

The Council notes that the photograph of the complainant and her children was taken without her consent or knowledge. Children have a reasonable expectation of privacy, although this can be limited in various ways, in particular by what their parents do or cause the children to do. Particular care is required when publishing material concerning children, given that children have a limited degree of choice. This will involve exercising judgment in individual cases.

The Council notes that the complainant (but not her children) is a celebrity; a public figure with a reduced expectation to privacy. It accepts that, while the complainant had shared information about her children on radio, in print and on television – and that one of her children made a brief appearance with her on a television show – she made efforts in recent years to reduce their public exposure, particularly in relation to images which would identify them. The Council does not consider that the complainant’s sharing of information about her children in the media – particularly instances where the complainant talked solely about her children – resulted in their being able to be considered as consistently “in the public eye”. Nor does it consider that the comparatively small number of photos of the children on the complainant’s Instagram account lessened their reasonable expectations of privacy.

The content of the article, except for one small caption, concerned the private life of the complainant and her children. On the material available, the Council is satisfied that the level and nature of engagement with the media by the complainant and her children did not reduce the children’s reasonable expectation of privacy so as to justify the article’s intrusion on that expectation. Although members of the public might have found the photographs of interest, the Council considers that their publication was not in the public interest so as to justify the level of intrusion. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 5.

… the article featured a large photograph of the complainant walking with her three children caught unawares by a photographer.

65

Full Adjudications

The Council considers the article was likely to cause substantial distress to the family. In publishing the article with the unauthorised photograph of the children with their pacifiers and a security blanket visiting “Maccas” with the accompanying caption “… caught on camera”, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing substantial offence, distress or prejudice. Nor did any public interest justify this. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 6.

Rachael Petrak/The Sunday Telegraph Adjudication 1736 (May 2018) The Press Council considered a complaint from Rachael Petrak about an article published in The Sunday Telegraph on 30 July 2017, headed “Mum died from her toddler’s sickness” in print and “Dead mum Imogen Petrak may have caught pneumococcal disease from her child” online.

The article reported on the death of Imogen Petrak, the complainant’s sister-in-law. It began: “A PREGNANT mother who was rushed to hospital with an ear infection and later died after an emergency Caesarean may have caught the deadly pneumococcal disease from her own unvaccinated toddler.” Further on, the article stated: “Ms Petrak’s 17-month-old son … who was not vaccinated, was also unwell in the days leading up to her death. Tests confirmed the infection was pneumococcal type 19F, which is covered by the pneumococcal vaccine … The bacteria can spread between people through infected droplets in the air and by touching an infected person.”

The complainant said the article was incorrect, as Imogen’s son was not ill with pneumococcal disease prior to Imogen’s death and he was not the cause or likely cause of her death. She said that as a result of the article a number of other publishers also reported that Imogen’s son may have caused her death. This had been distressing to the family. The complainant said Imogen’s son might encounter this article in the future and believe he was responsible for her death, which would be especially distressing.

The complainant said information about Imogen’s blood test results and Imogen’s son’s vaccination status was published without the family’s knowledge or consent. She said the hospital assured the family its staff had not passed this information to the publication. She said publishing medical information relating to Imogen and her son was unethical and insensitive, and there was no serious threat to public health

or a mandatory disease notification that made such disclosure in the public interest. She said that as the circumstances of Imogen’s death were rare, reporting on it did not have the same public interest as more common matters of public health and safety.

The publication said although the print headline could be misleading, it was qualified by the reference in the opening sentence that Imogen “may” have caught the disease from her son, which it said was true at the time. It said senior health sources confirmed that because the bacteria can present itself as a harmless cold, medical authorities were examining the possibility that Imogen’s son may have carried the bacteria and displayed cold-like symptoms, and this might be how Imogen had contracted the disease. The publication said that having confirmed this investigation with a senior health source, it was under no legal obligation to seek the consent of the family to report on the matter.

The publication said the pneumococcal bacteria is very common and is airborne and easy to catch. It said the article concerned serious matters of public safety and health and it was in the public interest to report. The publication said the issue of vaccinations and the possible health risks of unvaccinated children have been of major public importance in Australia and the subject of recent federal government initiatives to encourage parents to vaccinate their children.

CONCLUSION

The Council’s Standards of Practice applicable in this matter require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1) and presented with reasonable fairness and balance (General Principle 3). If the material is significantly inaccurate or misleading, or refers adversely to a person, publications must take reasonable steps to provide adequate remedial action or an opportunity for a response to be published (General Principles 2 and 4). The Council’s Standards of Practice also require publications to take reasonable steps to avoid intruding on a person’s reasonable expectations of privacy (General Principle 5), causing or contributing materially to substantial distress (General Principle 6), and publishing material gathered by unfair means (General Principle 7) – unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest.

The Council considers the print headline “Mum died from her toddler’s sickness” is presented as a statement of fact not qualified in any way, and is inaccurate. Although the publication reportedly relied on a highly-trusted source at the hospital, given the information was obtained from a single

6666

2017–2018

source confidential to the publication and the claim was of a highly speculative nature, the Council concludes that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the statement that Imogen “may” have caught the disease from her son was accurate and not misleading, and that it did not present factual material with reasonable fairness and balance. Based on the material provided, reporting that Ms Petrak’s death resulted from the transmission of pneumococcal disease from her child was without factual basis. This was especially so for the print headline, which was not qualified by the word “may”. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principles 1 and 3.

The publication has neither amended or removed the online article, nor published a print correction. Although the publication later indicated it might be willing to write a follow-up article, this would not adequately remedy the significant inaccuracy and unfairness of the article. Given this, the Council concludes that the publication also breached General Principles 2 and 4.

The Council considers that Imogen’s family had a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to details of Imogen’s health and her son’s vaccination status. In publishing such information, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid intruding on this expectation of privacy. The Council accepts there is a strong public interest in reporting on matters of public health. However, having regard for the unusual medical circumstances surrounding Imogen’s death, the relevance to the public in reporting on this matter was less strong than it might have otherwise been. Given this, the Council concludes that the intrusion on the family’s reasonable expectations of privacy was not sufficiently in the public interest. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 5.

The Council also considers that in suggesting that Imogen’s son was the cause – or the likely cause – of her death, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing substantial distress to the complainant’s family, which for the same reasons was not justified by the public interest. Accordingly, the Council concludes the publication breached General Principle 6.

Reliance on whistleblowers and other confidential sources is normal journalistic practice. The Council does not consider the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid publishing material gathered by deceptive or unfair means. Accordingly, the publication did not breach General Principle 7.

Phillip Penfold/The Maitland Mercury Adjudication 1740 (June 2018)The Press Council considered a complaint about a letter to the editor published under the heading “Family Affair” in The Maitland Mercury in print on 8 September 2017. The letter was published on the day before local government elections took place. The letter expressed the writer’s concern about “instances of more than one nomination from the same family” and referred specifically to the complainant, noting that seven members of his family had nominated for election to the local council and that if all the family members were elected, there would be a local council “with a majority from the one family”.

The complainant said the suggestion that a majority of the local council might be from his family was inaccurate and unfair and the publication would have been well aware of this given its experience in reporting on elections. The complainant said it was virtually impossible in a proportional preferential election that a majority of local council members could be made up from his family.

The complainant said that the publication of the letter on the day before the election was unfair and lacked balance as he was not afforded the opportunity to respond in the same edition. The complainant also expressed concern about the effect the letter had on his mayoral candidacy, saying that he lost the mayoral election by a small margin and noting that copies of the letter were distributed by his political opponents via social media.

The complainant said he wanted the publication to publish an apology and a correction to resolve the complaint.

The publication said it published the letter the day before the election as it considered the views expressed by the writer were newsworthy, relevant and represented a concern within its community. The publication said that over the course of the election, it published a number of articles concerning candidates in what it described as an unusual election campaign that involved anonymous threatening letters, police being called, and verbal attacks on the outgoing mayor. The publication said that, in the course of reporting such stories and seeking comment from the complainant, relations with the complainant became strained and communications with him eventually ceased. It said in this context, and with the letter not containing any offensive comments or comments suggesting the complainant was acting inappropriately, it did not contact the complainant for comment.

67

Full Adjudications

CONCLUSION

The Press Council’s Standards of Practice require that publications take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance and writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts (General Principle 3) and where material refers adversely to a person, provide a fair opportunity for subsequent publication of a reply if that is reasonably necessary to address a possible breach of General Principle 3 (General Principle 4).

The Council considers that the letter suggested that only one member of a “family” should be permitted to stand for elections. In this respect, the letter was adverse to the complainant’s candidacy for the position of mayor, because it could be understood as suggesting that to vote for the complainant could contribute to what the writer considered was an undesirable outcome.

As the letter was published on the day before the election with no balancing comment or response from any source, the only fair time for the publication to afford the complainant an opportunity to respond was in the same edition, which did not occur. The Council concludes that the publication breached General Principles 3 and 4 by publishing the letter, which contained material adverse to the candidate, and failing to afford the complainant a fair opportunity for reply before the election was held. The Council considers it was not necessary, in reaching this conclusion, to determine the effect, if any, of the publication of the letter on the election result.

Complainant/Daily Mail Australia Adjudication 1744 (June 2018)The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published online on 30 May 2017 by Daily Mail Australia headed “Commuter chaos as man throws himself in the path of a train in front of horrified passengers on a busy Sydney platform – and drivers have to drag him from under the carriage.” Below the headline were several bullet point sub-headlines, including “Young man jumped in front of train” and the name of the station, that “He tried to kill himself in front of horrified passengers” at a stated time, repeated the reference to drivers having to “drag the badly injured man from under the front carriage” and that trains were shut down between two major stations in Sydney “just before peak hour”.

The article reported that a “Young man jumped in front of

a train” at a named station in Sydney in front of “horrified passengers” and went on to describe witness accounts that “train drivers rushed to help the man who was wedged under the front carriage while commuters looked on”. The article contained seven photographs showing ambulance and emergency officers at the train station, including one of the platforms which, although it did not show detailed activity, was accompanied by a caption including the words “police cleaning blood off the train pictured” and three other photographs showing a stretcher, with one of these depicting the lower half of a covered body on a stretcher being placed in an ambulance. It also said “Thousands of office workers in North Sydney would likely need to take buses home as police said trains could be cancelled for several hours.”

The Council asked the publication to comment on whether the article breached its Standards of Practice, in particular whether the publication took reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety – unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 6).

The Council also asked the publication to comment on whether its Specific Standards on the Coverage of Suicide were breached, in particular Specific Standard 3, which requires that in deciding whether to report a suicide – which includes attempted suicide – consideration should be given to whether clear and informed consent has been provided by appropriate relatives or close friends, or whether such reporting is clearly in the public interest; Specific Standard 5, which requires that the method and location of a suicide should not be described in detail unless the public interest in doing so clearly outweighs the risk, if any, of causing further suicide; and Specific Standard 7, which requires that reports of suicide should not be given undue prominence and great care should be taken to avoid causing unnecessary harm or hurt to those who attempted suicide or to relatives and others who have been affected by a suicide or attempted suicide.

The publication said its reporter was a witness to the incident and provided information and photographs to its news desk. It said the news desk carefully considered the images before publishing them and determined they would not be likely to cause distress. It decided against publishing other more graphic photographs. The publication said it did not intend to cause offence and took care to ensure that all information was published with sensitivity.

The publication said the article was in the public interest as the attempted suicide took place in public with dozens

6868

2017–2018

of witnesses and caused major disruption to the transport network and the article highlighted that trains were cancelled around peak travel times. It said the location of the attempted suicide was a key part of the story and in the public interest to report, and that the method was well known.

The publication said it acknowledged some of the wording in the article was strong, but this and the included photographs did not glamorise suicide or present it as a solution to a vulnerable person’s problems. It also said the one photograph featuring the young man did not depict anything likely to cause distress.

The publication said the article also included details of how witnesses to the incident felt, and it hoped this would show vulnerable people that committing such a public act can emotionally impact others around them.

CONCLUSION

The Council notes the use of explicit language such as “leaping”, “wedged under the front carriage”, “drag him from under the carriage” and “cleaning blood off the train” in the headlines, text and captions. The Council considers that this language together with the photographs would contribute to some readers experiencing some offence and distress. However, the Council considers it was not such as to contribute to substantial offence and distress. Accordingly, the publication did not breach General Principle 6.

The publication, in deciding whether to report the attempted suicide, did not try to contact appropriate relatives or close friends for consent. Although the Council accepts that reporting on the public transport disruption was in the public interest, this public interest could have been served without reporting the incident as an attempted suicide. Accordingly, the publication breached Specific Standard 3 on Coverage of Suicide.

The Council accepts that the public interest justified the reporting of the location of the incident given its relevance to the resulting public transport disruption. However, the Council considers it was not sufficiently in the public interest to publish the method of the attempted suicide. Accordingly, the publication breached Specific Standard 5 on Coverage of Suicide.

The Council considers that the use of explicit language to describe the accident and its aftermath in the headlines, text and captions together with the photographs themselves gave undue prominence to the attempted suicide rather than the disruption to public transport. In doing so, the publication did

not exercise special sensitivity and moderation in reporting the incident and breached Specific Standard 7 on Coverage of Suicide.

Note: If you or someone close to you requires personal assistance, please contact Lifeline Australia on 13 11 14.

Complainant/news.com.au Adjudication 1739 (June 2018) The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published on news.com.au on 8 September 2017, headed “Marriage equality supporters clash with churchgoers in Brisbane protest”.

The subheading read: “SAME-SEX marriage supporters claim cars were used as weapons in the first violent clash between ‘yes’ and ‘no’ campaigners ahead of the postal vote.” Below this was a 27-second excerpt of video from the scene, which “shows protesters gathering around a four-wheel drive trying to make its way through the crowd”. The opening paragraph began: “THE debate over same-sex marriage turned ugly last night when a protest by ‘yes’ campaigners erupted into violent scenes. Protesters outside a Brisbane church claimed they were attacked with cars as they gathered to oppose a meeting they described as a ‘homophobic forum’.” Further on, it reported: “The event, which gathered support on Facebook, was billed as a ‘protest/dance party/street festival/glitter fest’, but quickly deteriorated into a violent clash between ‘yes’ and ‘no’ campaigners.”

The article also reported that police “attended the gathering at St Michael’s Dorrington Catholic Church at Ashgrove and at least one woman was treated by paramedics”, the person who reportedly “was injured at the scene”. She was the only individual from the scene whose words were quoted. She said she “suffered an injury because people drove their cars nearly at full speed into the ‘yes’ campaigners”. A caption to one of the three photographs, attributed to the television station from which the video excerpt was sourced, said: “Police officers were called in to bring the crowd under control but no arrests were made.”

The second half of the article referred to the protest in the broader context of the “national postal vote”, including comments from two politicians, and mentioned a “petition calling for support for the Australian Medical Association’s position in favour of marriage equality”.

The Council asked the publication to comment on whether, in reporting on the protest, it took reasonable steps to ensure

69

Full Adjudications

factual material was accurate and not misleading and distinguishable from other material such as opinion (General Principle 1), and was presented with reasonable fairness and balance (General Principle 3).

The publication said the reference to “clash” in the headline was appropriate and correct use of the word does not require or necessarily imply violence. It said proponents for and against same-sex marriage clash in their beliefs and demands.

The publication said the article, for instance in the subheading, makes it clear that allegations such as cars being used to attack people were mere claims. It said paramedics treated one woman at the scene and police at the time said one person was arrested for obstructing police.

It also said the article did not deal solely with the protest but reports a number of developments in the same-sex marriage issue and a range of views from both sides. It said the article was based on witness accounts and footage from the protest – included in the story – as well as information provided at the time by police and ambulance services confirming the incident.

CONCLUSION

The Press Council considers that the reference to a “clash” in the headline, the statement in the subheading that “cars were used as weapons” and the statement “quickly deteriorated in to a violent clash” amounted to statements of fact and an assertion that there was a violent clash.

The article appeared to rely on untested claims of a single demonstrator that “people drove their cars nearly at full speed into the yes campaigners”. The article contained no material supporting the claim that the clash was violent. The claims were questionable on the information presented. Police were said to be in attendance but “no arrests were made”. The video depicted protestors chanting with placards and police ushering a slow-moving car through the crowd of demonstrators.

The publication said that although the reporter made some inquiries with police about the protest, the reporter was not at the scene and had based the coverage of the protest on footage from a television station broadcast the evening before publication.

The Council concludes that in reporting a “violent clash” in the manner that it did, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material was accurate and not misleading and was distinguishable from other material such as opinion. Accordingly, it breached General Principle 1.

The Council also considers that in reporting a “violent clash”, the basis for which appeared to be only one quoted demonstrator, there was no attempt to test the reliability of the claims, particularly an allegation as serious as people driving their cars “nearly at full speed into the ‘yes’ campaigners”. Absent police or other comments supporting such statements and absent an opportunity for anyone from the church to provide comment, the Council concludes that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure fairness and balance in the article. Accordingly, the publication also breached General Principle 3.

Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia/Herald Sun Adjudication 1742 (June 2018)The Press Council considered a complaint from Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia (SSAA) about an article published in the Herald Sun on 20 June 2017, headed “Gun trolls target charity: Members distraught” in print and online the previous evening, headed “Gun lobby trolls trying to shut down Alannah & Madeline Foundation [AMF] over anti-firearm stance”.

The first paragraph of the article reported that the AMF “has had to offer counselling support for staff distressed by ‘aggressive’ trolling from the firearms lobby”. The remainder of the article comprised statements attributed to the Chief Executive of the AMF who said that “gun-lobby bullies have tried to ‘intimidate, shout down and abuse’ the foundation”, that it was “a tactic the (US gun lobby group) NRA does all the time” and that each time someone made a positive comment on its social pages about its work, “the gun lobby piles on to them and abuses them”. The article also included comments by the Chief Executive saying that “the gun industry worked to increase demand by telling disenfranchised men they were being victimised if their right to own better weapons was denied”, and that this “is what the gun lobby tells them, that if they had these guns, they wouldn’t feel disempowered anymore”.

The complainant said the article’s sweeping references to “the gun lobby”, “firearms lobby” and “gun industry” misleadingly and unfairly implicated individuals and organisations that promote the sensible and lawful use of firearms. The complainant said the sweeping terms of the article imply its involvement in or encouragement of the alleged behaviour despite the fact that it condemns the conduct of trolls. The complainant also said the article implies that it and other reputable organisations that are part of the “gun industry”

7070

2017–2018

campaign to recruit “disenfranchised young men as gun owners”.

The complainant said it was the state’s largest gun industry body but no balancing comment was sought from it or from any other body that is part of the gun industry such as retailers, suppliers and member organisations. It said that members of the gun industry were given no opportunity to respond to the article’s implication that they were involved in the online “trolling” and that they campaign to recruit “disenfranchised young men as gun owners”.

In response, the publication said the article did not name the complainant or state that it was involved in any of the activities reported on in the article. It said the use of the word “lobby” referred only to a group of like-minded people seeking to lobby for an outcome. The publication said the clear implication from the interview given by the AMF’s chief executive was that those involved in the abuse were fringe elements of the gun industry.

The publication said that given the article did not identify any single group – including the complainant – and that the online abuse was perpetrated by anonymous individuals using social media accounts, it did not require balancing comment from the complainant or any other responsible group within the gun industry.

CONCLUSION

The Council’s Standards of Practice applicable in this matter require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1) and presented with reasonable fairness and balance (General Principle 3). If the material is significantly inaccurate or misleading, or refers adversely to a person, publications must take reasonable steps to provide adequate remedial action or an opportunity for a response to be published (General Principles 2 and 4).

The Council considers that the article claims that there was “aggressive trolling” from the firearms industry and drew no distinction between reputable organisations in the firearms industry and online trolls, and that the criticism in the article applied to all parts of the industry. Accordingly, the Council considers that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid the misleading implication that reputable members of the firearms lobby may have been involved in the abuse.

The Council also considers that the article implicates reputable organisations within the “gun lobby”, “firearms lobby” and “gun industry” as being involved in the online abuse of AMF staff and appealing to “disenfranchised young men”. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 1. As

the misleading aspects of the article were not addressed by a correction or other adequate remedial action, the publication breached General Principle 2.

The Council also considers that the failure to seek a response or comment from any organisation or body in the gun lobby, firearms lobby or the gun industry amounted to a failure to take reasonable steps to ensure the article was presented with reasonable fairness and balance. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 3.

As the complainant did not seek the publication of a reply in response to the article, the Council concludes that the publication did not breach General Principle 4.

A complaint was made that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure an alleged conflict of interest was avoided or adequately disclosed, but this complaint was not pursued.

David Gallagher/The Sun-Herald Adjudication 1741 (June 2018)The Press Council considered a complaint from David Gallagher about a front-page article in The Sun-Herald on 9 July 2017 headed “The deadly hidden disorder inside our university colleges”, featuring a large photograph of the complainant’s deceased daughter and her mother. The full article began on page eight, headed “Deadly conditions hidden inside unis”, followed by the subheading: “Students living on campus could be heading into a culture that makes eating disorders worse …” The article was also published online, headed “The deadly hidden disorder inside our universities”.

The article referred to the death of the complainant’s daughter, Rebecca Gallagher, in June 2016. It stated that she “had died from complications believed to be associated with anorexia nervosa”. It said she was a resident at a particular college and described the circumstances in which she was found dead inside her dormitory. It said Rebecca’s death notice asked that donations be made to a charity supporting those suffering from eating disorders. The article included comments from various people “about the impact of eating disorders in university college settings”, including from a university researcher who “said communal living, rigid meal times, and the college culture of sexual objectification could exacerbate eating disorders”. It included comments from some female university students about their experiences with college culture and its effect on their dieting and body image. The article also included the names and occupations of Rebecca’s parents and the region in

71

Full Adjudications

which they worked. It said a “NSW Police spokeswoman said a report was being prepared for the coroner,” and concluded with support contact details for anyone “experiencing an eating disorder or body image concerns”.

The complainant said the article was published on the eve of his daughter’s birthday without regard to the distress it would cause his family despite their wish to have details identifying Rebecca withheld. The complainant said this intensified and prolonged the family’s grieving. He said the inclusion of details identifying him and Rebecca’s mother – together with the prominent photograph – intruded on their privacy. The complainant also said by including this information, and adding to the online version of the article that “the family [ … was] contacted before publishing this story”, it misleadingly suggested they cooperated in the publication of the article and agreed with the account of Rebecca’s death and its association with her college attendance. Moreover, the publication asserted the cause of death before the coroner had made a finding in relation to this.

In response, the publication said the article was in the public interest on a subject of health and safety, and Rebecca’s tragic death was reported in the context of a significant problem of eating disorders in Australian university settings. It said the circumstances of Rebecca’s death were corroborated by authorities at the college, those who first found her body, police and multiple friends. It also said that prior to publication it read the article to the complainant’s lawyer and was informed that while the family would prefer the article not be published, the accuracy of the factual material was largely undisputed. The publication said the inclusion of Rebecca’s parents’ names and occupations was to outline her background and give a sense of her life. It said the article did not include quotes from her parents and the phrase the “family was contacted” in the online article was not intended to imply cooperation. It said this was deeply regrettable, as was publishing the article on the eve of Rebecca’s birthday. It apologised for the distress this caused the family.

CONCLUSION

The Council’s Standards of Practice applicable in this matter require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1) and presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or an omission of key facts (General Principle 3). If the material is significantly inaccurate or misleading, or not reasonably fair and balanced, publications must take reasonable steps to provide adequate

remedial action or an opportunity for a response to be published (General Principles 2 and 4). The Standards of Practice also require publications to take reasonable steps to avoid intruding on a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy (General Principle 5) and causing or contributing materially to substantial offence and distress (General Principle 6), without sufficient justification in the public interest.

The Council notes the uncertainty regarding the cause of Rebecca Gallagher’s death, given there is no coronial finding at this time. However, it accepts that the publication sought confirmation from the college, the police and other sources concerning the cause of her death. In such circumstances, the Council is not satisfied the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the presentation of factual material was accurate and fair in this respect. Accordingly, the publication did not breach General Principles 1 and 3 in this respect. For the same reasons, General Principles 2 and 4 were not breached.

However, the addition of the words “the family [ … was] contacted before publishing this story” to the online article did misleadingly suggest the family had cooperated with the publication. Accordingly, the publication did breach General Principle 1. Given the publication was aware of the complainant’s concern in relation to this, General Principle 2 was also breached.

The Council notes the public interest in reporting matters of public health and safety; for instance, in exposing potential risk factors for young university college students. However, the publication was aware of the complainant’s wish that the article not be published. The Council considers that the complainant and Rebecca’s mother had a reasonable expectation of privacy and that the details relating to them would not be published. As the publication did not take reasonable steps to avoid intruding on the complainant’s reasonable expectations of privacy, and there was no public interest justifying this, the publication breached General Principle 5.

The Council notes that the publication of the article occurred on the eve of Rebecca’s birthday, a year after her death. The Council accepts that this exacerbated the complainant’s distress, as did the inclusion of details relating to him and Rebecca’s mother. The statement in the online article that the family was contacted prior to publication implied they cooperated with the publication. This would also have exacerbated their distress. In such circumstances, the Council concludes that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing substantial distress to the complainant and his family, without sufficient public interest justifying this. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 6.

7272

THE AUSTRALIAN PRESS COUNCIL

Level 6, 53 Berry Street North Sydney 2060 02 9261 1930 1800 025 712


annual report 2017–2018 · newspapers and magazines, as well as a growing number of online-only...

Documents