Australian Press Council

Radio, Print, and Online Print and Online
182

Ray Hadley comments breach decency rules

An Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) investigation has found radio station Triple M 105.1 Central West breached decency rules for comments made by Ray Hadley in which he allegedly made threats of physical assault against a social media user.

The ACMA investigated a complaint about a broadcast of The Ray Hadley Morning Show on Triple M 105.1 Central West, which aired in May 2019. During the broadcast, Mr Hadley made the comments about an unnamed individual who had allegedly made a remark about Mr Hadley’s granddaughter.

Mr Hadley’s language included terms such as ‘you flea’, ‘you low-life dog’ and inferred that if members of his family could locate the individual they would ‘be drinking through a straw for a long, long time’.

ACMA Chair Nerida O’Loughlin said the comments were not appropriate for public radio broadcasting in Australia.

“The ACMA recognises that Mr Hadley was being defensive of his granddaughter, however it is not appropriate for him to use his position as a public broadcaster to direct threatening comments towards an individual,” she said.

The ACMA investigation found the comments breached generally accepted standards of decency under the Commercial Radio Code of Practice (2017). This is the first breach of the decency provisions in the Code in relation to The Ray Hadley Morning Show .

The investigation also found there was no breach in relation to comments Mr Hadley made about referring matters relating to a junior football match to the police, and the police commissioner.

In response to the findings, Triple M Central West referred the matter to Nine Radio given the program was produced by Nine Radio’s 2GB. In response, 2GB have counselled Mr Hadley and both 2GB and Triple M 105.1 Central West will ensure its staff legal compliance training will reference the broadcast and breach findings.

1 Like
183

Another piece of dirty laundry inherited by Nine of MRN.

What a stinker of a purchase, MRN, led by Singo and his long lunch, boys club management style sure left a lot of skeletons for Nine to clear up.

SCA are still taking this troublesome Hadley program on their Orange licence, why?

Dump the liability, make a cost saving and move on. Either to a local advertiser supported music shift or if Bill and Pam were creative, offer John Laws to SCA and run filler on the AM filler station they own in Orange. Laws’ remains popular in regional Australia. 63 years of broadcasting at 84 years of age, an amazing achievement.

SCA, likely due to Grant’s TV relationship with his counterparts at Nine from his time at Ten seem loathe to save themselves the trouble to remove Hadley from their stations.

In 2017, SCA put Hadley out to pasture in Orange due to his mentioning of a court case of an employee of one of their biggest direct accounts in Orange, West Orange Motors.

You can read the sorry saga here:

https://www.radioinfo.com.au/news/triple-m-dumps-hadley-orange

and here:

1 Like
184
2 Likes
185

Richard Di Natale / The Daily Telegraph

The Press Council considered a complaint from Senator Richard Di Natale about a print article published in The Daily Telegraph on 22 July 2019, headed “Greens put wind up farm”.

The article reported on a proposed wind farm on Robbins Island in Tasmania. It began, “The Greens are opposing a proposed wind farm in Tasmania which would inject $5 billion into the economy and produce 100 megawatts of clean energy into the grid”. The article went on to include a quote from Australian Greens Party leader Senator Richard Di Natale and stated that he “supported Dr Bob Brown’s concerns” over the proposed wind farm.

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 accepts that the views of Dr Brown are not those of the Australian Green Party and that while the party sought a strict planning process it did not unconditionally oppose the wind farm. The Council considers that the statement “The Greens are opposing a proposed wind farm in Tasmania…” implied that it unconditionally opposed the wind farm and this part of the article was inaccurate. The Council notes the material relied on by the publication as a basis for the statement that the party opposed the wind farm. However, the Council considers that in the absence of verifying the position directly with the party, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure accuracy.

Accordingly, the publication failed to take the reasonable steps appropriate to ensure that the statement was accurate, not misleading and fair and balanced. Accordingly, the Council concludes that the Publication breached General Principles 1 and 3.

As to remedial action, the Council accepts that after the article appeared the complainant contacted the publication to advise it of the inaccuracy and requested a correction. The Council considers that the inaccuracy in the report was substantial and that in failing to publish a correction the publication failed to take reasonable steps to provide appropriate remedial action. The Council notes that after a complaint was made to the Council, the publication offered publication of a response, however given the nature of the inaccuracy and the time which had elapsed, the publication also breached General Principle 4.

Read the full adjudication here.

186

Complainant / The Australian

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article by Emeritus Professor Ian Plimer headed “Let’s not pollute minds with carbon fears” published by The Australian in print and online on 22 November 2019.

The article was an opinion piece in which the writer criticised what he described as an “attack” on carbon dioxide. The article included statements that there “are no carbon emissions. If there were, we could not see because most carbon is black. Such terms are deliberately misleading, as are many claims.” The article also referred to “fraudulent changing of past weather records” and “unsubstantiated claims polar ice is melting”, as well as “the ignoring of data that shows Pacific islands and the Maldives are growing rather than being inundated…”.

The Council considered that although the article was an opinion piece, the obligation to take reasonable care to ensure factual material is accurate and not misleading applies to factual material which is included in it.

The Council considered that the statement concerning the Bureau of Meteorology fraudulently changing weather records is one of fact and implies an element of dishonesty or deception on its part. The Council did not consider there was anything in the material relied upon by the publication to substantiate this. The Council also noted a 2017 Federal Government commissioned report which dealt extensively with the issue of adjusting weather data found the BOM dataset to be well maintained and an important source of information on Australian climate records. Accordingly, the Council considered the publication breached General Principles 1 and 3 in this respect.

In regard to the reference to “unsubstantiated claims polar ice is melting”, the Council noted the material in support of the statement provided to it by the publication and considers there is a diversity of scientific opinion on the issue of polar ice. However, it considered that the term “unsubstantiated” misleadingly suggests that there is no reliable evidence whatsoever to support a view that the polar ice is melting. The Council considered that the publication did not take reasonable steps to ensure these statements were accurate and not misleading. Accordingly, the Council concluded General Principle 1 was also breached in this respect.

As to the statement about data showing Pacific Islands and the Maldives are growing rather than being inundated, the publication referred to and provided Council with material providing a basis for its statement. While the Council did not express any opinion on the scientific issue, it considered that the publication has not breached its General Principles in this respect.

As to General Principle 8 and the writer’s past or present mining industry directorships, the Council considered it would have been preferable for the publication to disclose them in the article. A conflict of interest might arise when an interest or duty of the writer or publication conflicts with an interest or duty the writer or publication has in the published material. However, the Council considered it is inherent in an opinion piece that the writer will advocate for a position and considers that in this case his past or present directorships of mining companies and advocacy in the debate around climate change were so well known that reasonable steps to adequately disclose the columnist’s conflict of interest did not in this case require that they be specifically disclosed in the piece. In the case of an opinion piece, reasonable steps to avoid a conflict influencing published material will often be satisfied, as it is in this case. Accordingly, the Council considered that General Principle 8 was not breached.

Read the full adjudication here .

187

Complainant / The Daily Telegraph

The Press Council has considered a complaint about an article published in The Daily Telegraph online on 28 February 2019, headed “Young men ‘at risk’ from new university policies for adjudicating rape”.
The article reported that universities were introducing regulations to adjudicate rape allegations on campus. It reported that social commentator Bettina Arndt said that an Australian Human Rights Commission survey “shows that 0.8 per cent of students surveyed said they’d had some sort of sexual incident; which Ms Arndt says means that 99.2 per cent of students have not experienced sexual assault.”

The Council received a complaint noting that the AHRC Survey referred to in the article said that “Around half of all university students (51%) were sexually harassed on at least one occasion in 2016, and 6.9% of students were sexually assaulted on at least one occasion in 2015 or 2016. A significant proportion of the sexual harassment experienced by students in 2015 and 2016 occurred in university settings.” It also said that “1.6% of students were sexually assaulted in a university setting, including travel to and from university on at least one occasion in 2015 or 2016.”

The Council noted that the article is a discussion of the opinions of Ms Arndt and her criticisms of the proposed policies of the universities, and in particular covers Ms Arndt’s opinion on the appropriate interpretation of the AHRC survey and what it shows.

The Council noted the AHRC survey does clearly distinguish between assault and harassment. However, given the context of the article and the clear contrast between “incident” and “sexual assault” in the summary of Ms Arndt’s opinion, the Council considered that reasonable steps were taken to ensure accuracy and fairness and balance. The Council also considered that reasonable steps were taken to ensure the writer’s opinions were not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts. As General Principles 1 and 3 were complied with, there was no breach of General Principles 2 and 4.

Accordingly, the Council considered that the publication complied with its General Principles.

Read the full adjudication here .

188

Complainant / The Daily Telegraph

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of an article headed “THURSDAY CHATTERBOX” by The Daily Telegraph on 2 May 2019 online. The article described a “case of a US teacher fired due to a trans violation” and said a teacher in America was fired after a “split second decision to call a trans student ‘her’”. It said: “The student was reportedly about to walk into a wall when the teacher instinctively said ‘stop her’. And so his ridiculous fight to keep his job began. That’s it … ‘stop her’, and a man’s livelihood is under fire. Those split-second safety calls are always problematic”.

The article included a thumbnail to a video on YouTube with the words “look out faggot” appearing twice, once in prominent capital letters. The video playable in the thumbnail was of a scene from a television sitcom in which a man sees a piano about to fall on another man walking down a pavement and yells “look out faggot” in an apparent attempt to save the other man while quickly moving to push the man out of its path, narrowly saving him from injury.

The Council noted that the word “faggot” is most used as a pejorative term to describe gay men. The Council considered that, notwithstanding the satirical nature of the article, the inclusion of the word in the thumbnail and in the video itself could be read as demeaning and mocking of gay men and, as the article referred to a “trans violation”, to others with diverse sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics.
The Council concluded that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing substantial offence, distress or prejudice, and there was no sufficient public interest in doing so. Accordingly, General Principle 6 was breached in this respect.

Read the full adjudication here.

189

Complainant / The Ballina Shire Advocate

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published in print by The Ballina Shire Advocate on 5 February 2020 headed “Church in court against Priest”.

The article reported on a claim by a serving priest against the Catholic church for damages for sexual abuse, alleged to have occurred as a child while attending a Catholic boarding school. The article said it was understood that this was the first time a serving priest had brought such proceedings. The article reported that in the alleged incident, the priest engaging in the abuse “allegedly directed the plaintiff to kneel in front of him as he exposed and placed his erect penis into the boy’s mouth while repeatedly thrusting until he ejaculated”.

The Council considered that beyond the strict requirements of the law, publications have a further responsibility to ensure compliance with the Standards of Practice, which may extend to moderating or not reporting particular information that has been presented in open court.

The Council accepted that some readers may have found the specific factual description of the sexual abuse distressing. However, the Council considered that it is in the public interest to report the facts of such abuse without employing general uninformative descriptions or euphemisms and notes that the article was reporting on a single alleged incident. The Council considered that the process and findings of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse support the benefit that specific factual reporting can have in encouraging other victims to report sexual abuse.

In some cases, a warning that an article contains graphic content may be appropriate. However, as in this case, the details were of a single alleged instance and appeared a number of paragraphs into the article, the Council considered that a warning was not required.

The Council concluded that the publication took reasonable steps to avoid causing substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety and that in any event, the article was sufficiently in the public interest. Accordingly, General Principle 6 was not breached.

Read the full adjudication here

1 Like
190

Complainant / The Daily Mail Australia

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published online by Daily Mail Australia on 5 April 2020 headed “Beach bums! Sydneysiders ignore social distancing rules as they flock to Bondi to lap up the final days of summer - risking massive fines for breaking lockdown rules”.

The article reported “Sydneysiders ignored strict social distancing rules as they lounged on the sand and soaked up the final days of the warm weather. Locals flocked to Sydney’s popular Bondi Beach on Friday [3 April 2020], with blatant disregard for the social distancing rules in place to slow the spread of coronavirus.” The article also included several photographs apparently depicting beachgoers at Bondi Beach on that day.

The Council acknowledges that the publication has an ongoing relationship with the picture agency which it relies on as a source of accurate and reliable information, and notes that the article was written entirely based on the erroneous time and date provided by the picture agency. However the events were reported to have occurred on the Friday and it is reasonable to assume, given the significance and potential illegality of the events reported on, that if they had occurred they would be reported on by one or more media outlets on the Saturday. When deciding to publish on the Sunday, the publication should have been alert to the fact that on the Saturday other media outlets had not carried reports of the events and the publication should therefore have taken steps to check the accuracy of the photographs rather than simply relying upon the reputation of the picture agency. Accordingly, the Council considers the publication did not take reasonable steps to verify the photographs, and to ensure that the factual information in the article was accurate and breached General Principle 1.

The Council notes that the publication took action to remedy the complaint, including removing the article from its website, and reviewing its procedures for handling content provided by third parties. However, the Council considers that in this instance General Principle 2 required the publication to publish a correction to inform its readership of the significant inaccuracy in the story. As the publication did not do so, General Principle 2 was breached in this respect.

As to General Principle 6, the Council does not consider the article is likely to cause or contribute to substantial distress or a substantial risk to health or safety. Accordingly, General Principle 6 was not breached.

Read the full adjudication here

1 Like
191

Secondary Complainant / The Australian

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published by The Australian headed “Firebugs fuelling crisis as arson arrest toll hits 183” in print on 7 January 2020 and “Bushfires: Firebugs fuelling crisis as national arson arrest toll hits 183” online on 8 January 2020.

The article reported that “[m]ore than 180 alleged arson cases have been recorded since the start of the bushfire season with 29 fires deliberately lit in the Shoalhaven region of NSW in just three months” and that “Police arrested 183 people for lighting bushfires across Queensland, NSW, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania”. The article reported that since 8 November 2019, 24 people had been arrested in NSW for deliberately lighting bushfires while a further 184 people had been cautioned for bushfire-related offences such as “discarding lit cigarettes, setting off fireworks and failing to comply with a total fire ban.” The article went on to report that 101 people had been “picked up” for setting fires in the bush, that four people “were caught setting fire to vegetation” outside Hobart Tasmania while “Victoria reported 43 charged from 2019”.

The complaints challenged the accuracy of the statements that “arson arrest toll hits 183” as in the headline and that “[m]ore than 180 alleged arsonists have been arrested since the start of 2019”. The complaints also asserted that the figures included people who had not been arrested or charged for ‘arson’ but for lesser offences such as unauthorised lighting of fires in contravention of local fire bans.

The Council accepted that the publication’s initial representation of the data may have led readers to consider that an unusually high number of ‘arsonists’ had been arrested since the beginning of the 2019/20 fire season. The Council also accepted the difficulty in aggregating information from multiple sources while reconciling different definitions of what might constitute arson under various State legislation. The Council considered that although there might have been some discrepancies in the reported figures, the publication nevertheless took reasonable steps to be accurate and not misleading when reporting the data.

The Council noted that in relation to the data concerning NSW the article reports that 24 people had been charged for deliberately starting bushfires, while a further 184 had been charged or cautioned for “bushfire-related offences” which the article reported included “setting off fireworks”, and failing to comply with a “total fire ban”. The Council also noted the publication’s subsequent amendment to the online article to clarify the time period to which the bushfire data applied and to refer to alleged “arson cases” rather than “arsonists” to better reflect the different interpretations of arson in State legislation and crime data.

The Council concluded that the publication took reasonable steps to ensure that the report was accurate and not misleading when reporting information from various authorities. Accordingly, there was no breach of General Principles 1 and 3.

Full adjudication

1 Like
192

Complainant / Herald Sun

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published by the Herald Sun on June 24 and 25, 2020, headed “Why we need to probe if tribalism is behind new coronavirus spike” and “Victoria’s coronavirus crisis: made by multiculturalism” online and ‘Is Tribalism behind spike?’ in print.

It also considered an article published online by the Herald Sun on July 12 and 13 headed “Andrew Bolt: Multiculturalism made Victoria vulnerable to coronavirus” and “Virus thrives in multiculturalism” respectively.

The June article stated “Victoria’s coronavirus outbreak exposes the stupidity of that multicultural slogan ‘diversity makes us stronger’ … It’s exactly that diversity — taken to extremes — that’s helped to create this fear of a ‘second wave’.”

It went on to say most new infections were breaking out in poor outer-suburban areas where more than a third of residents were born overseas, in countries such as India, Sri Lanka, Iraq, China and Vietnam, and “it seems there’s not just a language barrier. There may also be a cultural one”.

The July article stated “Be calm. I am not ‘blaming immigrants’ … But multiculturalism has made Victoria more vulnerable not just because we’re increasingly a nation of tribes, less likely to make sacrifices for people outside our ‘own’.

“There’s also ‘language and cultural problems’ that Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews admitted the virus fighters faced.”

The Council is satisfied that reasonable steps were taken to present factual material in the June and July articles concerning the ethnic makeup of suburbs, places of residence and workplace accurately. Accordingly, there was no breach of General Principle 1 in relation to either article.

The Council notes that opinion articles by their nature make an argument. However, the articles each associated immigrants with the hotspots, and implied immigrants were the cause without any qualification. Under General Principle 3, the publication was obliged, even in an opinion article, to take reasonable steps to present that link and causal connection with reasonable fairness and balance. While some members of those immigrant communities were involved in the transmission of the virus, the Council considers the articles unfairly suggested that the named groups were collectively responsible. In the absence of presenting a more balanced range of reasons behind the transmission, such as population density and insecure employment, the Council considers the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material was presented with reasonable fairness and balance in breach of General Principle 3.

The June and July articles also attributed the coronavirus outbreak to multiculturalism, referring to difficulty in communicating quickly and effectively with a wide range of cultural groups making up the relevant population and cultural factors. The Council acknowledges that some readers may have inferred that the reference to multiculturalism included an implicit reference to immigrants. However, the Council considers a reasonable meaning of multiculturalism is support for the presence of several distinct cultural or ethnic groups within a society. The Council considers the references to multiculturalism causing the outbreak were expressions of the writer’s opinion and was identified as based on difficulties in communication in multiple languages and cultural factors and accordingly did not breach General Principle 3.

In attributing the second outbreak to immigrants without any qualification the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid substantial offence and prejudice. Although the Council notes the very substantial public interest in reporting and commenting on the second Victorian coronavirus outbreak, the public interest did not justify the level of offence and prejudice, and General Principle 6 was breached in this respect. As to the argument that multiculturalism policy had caused the second outbreak, the Council notes the writer identified the argument’s basis as difficulties in communication and cultural differences. The Council acknowledges that some readers may have found the argument offensive and prejudicial, however the Council considers such offence or prejudice as was caused was justified in the public interest in debate on the issue and General Principle 6 was not breached in this respect.

Read the full adjudication here

1 Like
193

Australian Press Council welcomes two small publisher members and a new Council member

The Australian Press Council is pleased to welcome two new small online publisher members along with a new Council member, Hartley Higgins. The new small publisher members are Pro Bono News and The Urban Developer.

The publications join hundreds of other print and online media outlets that have committed themselves to the Press Council’s high standards of practice and its mission to advocate for press freedom and freedom of speech.

Press Council Chair Neville Stevens, AO said these new members demonstrate the Australian Press Council’s ongoing commitment to support smaller, specialist online publications.

“Their membership is an expression of confidence in the Council and signals the growing importance of digital publications in a rapidly changing media landscape,” he said.

The Urban Developer’s Editorial Director Ana Narvaez said Press Council membership would support the organisation’s goal to create strong and independent coverage of Australia’s property markets and built environment.

“With its long history of upholding high editorial standards and advocating for press freedom, membership will help us play a more meaningful part in Australia’s publishing industry,” she said.

Pro Bono News Editor Wendy Williams also welcomed today’s announcement: “Pro Bono News is delighted to be admitted to the Australian Press Council. Membership gives our readers the reassurance of a strong complaints-handling process and provides us with a solid foundation to maintain high standards of practice,” she said.

The Urban Developer was founded by Adam Di Marco in 2014.

Pro Bono News was founded by Karen Mahlab, AM in 2000.

Hartley Higgins has joined as a Council member, nominated by Country Press Australia. Mr Higgins is Chairman and Managing Director of Provincial Press Group, a fourth generation regional and special interest publisher. His nomination was ratified at the most recent Press Council meeting in December 2020.

The Australian Press Council was established in 1976 and is responsible for promoting high standards of media practice, community access to information of public interest and freedom of expression through the media. Press Council members include many of Australia’s major newspaper, magazine and online publishers.

1 Like
194

APC Adjudication March 2, 2021 - Complainant / The Australian

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of a cartoon in The Australian on 2 June 2020. The cartoon depicts a person of colour dressed entirely in black, wearing a face mask and hat and only showing the figure’s eyes. The figure is kneeling on the neck of the Statue of Liberty which is lying on the ground next to a car that has the number plate USA. The cartoon depicts a scene of social unrest with buildings on fire and smoke in background. The figure is saying “I AM FIGHTING FOR THE RIGHT TO DO WHAT I HATE” while the words “I CAN’T BREATHE” emanate from the mouth of the Statue of Liberty.

The Council has consistently expressed a view that cartoons are commonly expressions of opinion examining serious issues and which use exaggeration and absurdity to make their point. For this reason, significant latitude will usually be given in considering whether a publication has taken reasonable steps to avoid substantial offence, distress or prejudice in breach of General Principle 6. However, a publication can, in publishing a particular cartoon, still fail to take reasonable steps to avoid contributing to substantial offence, distress or prejudice without sufficient justification in the public interest and breach the General Principle.

The Council noted that the cartoon could certainly be seen as an offensive and prejudicial portrayal of protestors in the wake of the George Floyd protests, particularly given its depiction of an African-American man kneeling on the neck of the white Statue of Liberty and its use of the words “I CAN’T BREATHE”. However, the Council accepted it was in response to the riots a week after Floyd’s homicide and after the peaceful protests and in which violence was perpetrated by African Americans and other racial and ethnic minorities against their own communities. The Council considered that the cartoon would mostly be considered in the context of the articles about the riots on the front page and other pages, as well as the letters section above which the cartoon appeared.

The Council noted that unlike the similar US cartoon the publisher referred to, this cartoon did not clarify that the assailant was a looter and rioter nor did it portray the victim as communities but as the USA and the Statue of Liberty. Nonetheless the Council accepted that the message (‘I am fighting for the right to do what I hate’) was clearly about the hypocrisy of rioters and did not excuse police brutality or attacks on peaceful protesters.

While the Council accepted that some would be offended by this cartoon, it considered that it was sufficiently in the public interest to comment on the riots and the effects those riots had on the rioters’ own communities. Accordingly, the Council concluded that its Standards of Practice were not breached.

Read the full adjudication here .

1 Like
195

APC Adjudication | March 12, 2021 - Sue-Ellen White / The Border Mail

The Press Council has considered a complaint from Sue-Ellen White about an article published by The Border Mail on 8 May 2020, headed online “Family and friends speak of their grief at the loss of Billy, ‘Buffalo Bill’, White ahead of 2020 Albury-Wodonga Winter Solstice” and in print on page 1 headed “If only love was enough”, leading to an article on page 2 headed "‘I’m empty’: a son’s last words to dad: Gaping grief left by suicide”. The article reported on the death of the complainant’s son Bill, who died by suicide, and particularly focused on the grief experienced by Bill’s father who was named. The article also promoted the Albury-Wodonga Winter Solstice, an event convened by Survivors of Suicide and Friends.

The Council noted that the publication did not take steps to contact the complainant, despite there being no apparent obstacle to doing so. Although the Council acknowledged the article was well-intentioned and had been initiated by Bill’s father, Principles 3 and 4 required, in the circumstances, that consent be sought from both parents. The Council considered it was not sufficient to obtain only the consent of Bill’s father.

The Council recognised there can be substantial public interest in suicide-related coverage, and that an aspect of the article promoted an event broadly aimed at preventing suicide. However, the article predominantly focused on the individual instance of suicide by Bill, and the specific experiences of Bill’s father. Given this focus, the Council considered the public interest did not justify the nature of reporting in the article in the absence of consent from both parents. Accordingly, the Council considered that the Specific Standards on Coverage of Suicide 3 and 4 were breached.

The Council recognised the publication’s intention in attempting to raise awareness in a wider audience by featuring the story in a prominent manner. However, the Council considered that the explicit and large headline, the large front-page photo and the additional images used (one of which featured Bill’s baby) constitutes undue prominence. The Council considered that through this prominence, the publication failed to take sufficient care to avoid unnecessary harm to those who had been affected by the suicide, particularly the complainant. Accordingly, the Council considered that Specific Standards on Coverage of Suicide 7 was breached.

The Council considered that, given the prominence and level of detail relating to the suicide in the article and the lack of consultation, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid substantial distress. Nor, given the focus of the article, was there a sufficient public interest to justify such distress. Accordingly, the Council considered that General Principle 6 was also breached.

However, the Council recognised and welcomed the publication’s comments that it will consider what occurred and be more mindful of the precautions its journalists may need to take in future.

Read the full adjudication here

1 Like
196

MEAA is considering pulling out of Australian Press Council. It will vote next month on whether to withdraw funding and membership of the council.

2 Likes
197

Thanks @TV.Cynic for uploading the latest from the APC.

Out of your control, would be good if the APC would summarise their more lengthy paragraphs to better share information.

2 Likes
198
1 Like
199

APC replies…

1 Like
200
1 Like
201

Complainant / Herald Sun

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published by the Herald Sun online on 10 December 2020 headed “Allergy warning over Pfizer COVID vaccine”.

The article reported “People who suffer severe allergic reactions have been advised by UK regulators not to take the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine after two British nurses who received the jab suffered allergic reactions.” The article went on to report, under the sub headline “ SIX PEOPLE DIED DURING PFIZER TRIAL”, that “Six people that took part in the Pfizer-BioNtech COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial died – including four who had received a placebo shot but the vaccine was unlikely to be the cause of their death.”

The Council accepted that the sub-headline ‘six people died during Pfizer trial’ is accurate based on a report delivered to the United States Food and Drug Administration, as set out in the article, because they did die during the period of the trial. However, the Council considered that the clear implication of this statement is that the six deaths occurred or could have occurred as a result of receiving the vaccine.

The Council accepted that headlines usually refer to only one aspect of a story and the accurate position was established in the first paragraph of the article. However, the obligation on publishers to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is not misleading will vary in the circumstances. The Council considered it is higher in the context of reporting on deaths during vaccine trials in a pandemic. By implying in the headline that the deaths were or could have been due to the vaccine, the publication failed to take steps to ensure factual material is not misleading in breach of General Principle 1 and for the same reasons the publication also breached General Principle 3.

This was compounded by the Facebook post linking to the article, which began “Six people died during Pfizer’s late-stage trial of the COVID-19 vaccine”, and used a similar headline but did not include a statement in the post itself that the deaths were not due to the vaccine. The Council noted the need for publications to exercise great care in statements made in any social media posts without context or clarification.

Read the full adjudication here .

1 Like