Colin Hampton/Frankston Standard Leader
The Press Council has considered a complaint by Cr Colin Hampton about a front page article in the Frankston Standard Leader on 4 July 2016 headed “Councillor stoush”, which followed the release of the Councillor Conduct Panel Determination on the behaviour of the complainant and another councillor at the launch of an apartment complex in 2015.
The Council noted that the Panel dismissed all allegations against the complainant, except that his conduct in relation to two Council employees was found to be objectively threatening behaviour in breach of the Code of Conduct. It found his conduct in questioning how the other councillor came to speak was inappropriate but not in breach of the Code. The Panel found the other councillor deliberately exaggerated his evidence, and advanced nine additional allegations to assist his case without a sound factual basis, including one that the complainant was ejected from the event.
The Council accepted that the Determination was lengthy and not all aspects could be covered in the article. However, the fact the Panel disbelieved the other councillor’s evidence of his observations while speaking onstage and found he made nine additional allegations without factual basis, simply to advance his case, were very significant to presenting the report in a fair and balanced way, particularly given earlier coverage of the Panel’s formation and preparation of its report. The fact that the developer’s allegations that the complainant had made comments disparaging of the development and had tapped the developer “vigorously on the back” were not upheld was also significant, given an earlier article raised these allegations.
Accordingly, the Council considered that reasonable steps to ensure fairness and balance required the article to include these matters. It concluded that in failing to do so, the publication breached General Principle 3, and in not providing a fair opportunity for a reply after publication, it also breached General Principle 4.
The Council did not consider the reporting went so far as to be misleading, and accordingly, did not consider that it breached General Principle 1 or 2.
Osher Günsberg/Daily Mail Australia
The Press Council has considered a complaint by Osher Günsberg about an article published by Daily Mail Australia on 5 September 2016 headed “The Bachelor host Osher Gunsberg shows off his 'Bali belly’ as he goes shirtless while filming finale of reality TV show on Indonesian island”. The article referred to the complainant as “never [having] a hair out of place”, but who “revealed his portly frame and unkempt hair”. The article featured three photographs of the complainant shirtless, in at least one of which he appeared to be dressing or undressing.
The Council accepted the complainant has not exploited shirtless images of himself. The photographs were taken at a beach far away from the complainant’s filming activities on a day off and he did not see a camera taking photographs. The Council considered that while the complainant is a public figure, he has not forfeited his right to privacy altogether.
The Council considered the subject matter of the article did not relate to the complainant’s public activities. Given the fairly remote location, the care exercised by the complainant in the past to not be photographed shirtless, his lack of alternatives in the circumstances and the covert nature of the photographs, he retained a reasonable expectation of privacy which was intruded upon by the photographs and the references to “Bali belly”. There was no public interest to justify such an intrusion. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 5 and Privacy Principle 1.
The Council considered the complainant’s history of mental illness and weight gain are in the public domain as a result of the complainant’s own doing. But by referring to “Bali belly”, and using the photographs in the manner it did, the article ridiculed the consequences of his mental illness medication and was likely to cause substantial offence or distress. The publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid this, and accordingly, breached General Principle 6.
The publication did not commission the photographs, which were provided unsolicited by an agency. While the complainant did not see the photographer taking the photographs, the Council was not satisfied that the photographs were gathered by deceptive or unfair means. Accordingly, the Council considered the publication did not breach General Principle 7.
Read the full adjudication