does the APC own a lettuce farm? the amount of smacks they give with wet lettuce they should
2 Likes
Kate Mostert / Gladstone Observer
The Press Council has considered a complaint from a teacher about an article published in the Gladstone Observer headed âPregnant woman hit by shot put at Calliopeâ online on 18 September 2020. The article reported on an incident at Calliope State High School in which the complainant was hit by a shot put. It reported her age, that she was pregnant and the stage of pregnancy reached. The article was subsequently updated to report statements by a Queensland Ambulance spokesman, Department of Education spokeswoman and a Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service spokeswoman who said that the woman had been discharged from Hospital.
The Council welcomed the publicationâs apology to the complainant and its indication that that it will take greater care in reporting on pregnancy in the future. However, the Council considered that the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy and that it was her own decision as to when she made it known that she was pregnant. The Council also considered that the premature public reporting of her pregnancy would be substantially distressing to any person in her situation. The fact that the article attributed the information to a Queensland Ambulance spokesman did not alter the complainantâs reasonable expectation of privacy nor the likelihood of distress. The Council considered there was no sufficient public interest to justify reporting against the complainantâs reasonable expectations of privacy or in causing her substantial distress. Accordingly, the Council concluded that the publication breached General Principles 5 and 6.
As to General Principle 7, the Council was unable to conclude that an emergency scanner had in fact been used to obtain the information and the Council does not conclude that General Principle 7 was breached in this respect. The Council noted that it should not be assumed that use of all information obtained from a scanner would necessarily be unfair, but cautions publications who may obtain information from a scanner to verify that information from an appropriately reliable source.
1 Like
The complaint was lodged by former South Australian Labor attorney-general Michael Atkinson.
1 Like
Australian Press Council farewells Executive Director
The Executive Director of the Australian Press Council has left the Council after seven years in the role. Two Public Members of the Press Council are also stepping down.
Press Council Chair Neville Stevens AO paid tribute to John Penderâs contribution as Executive Director. âHe has provided invaluable guidance and wisdom to three Council Chairs and to Council members more generally. His knowledge and expertise have underpinned Council operations over this period, and he has provided necessary stability in challenging times."
A recruitment process is well advanced to appoint a new Executive Director and pending this appointment Paul Nangle, Director of Complaints, will be the Acting Executive Director.
The Press Council also farewells Public Members Andrew Podger, AO, and Zione Walker-Nthenda. Mr Stevens thanked them for their valuable service to Council. âThey have each played an important part in progressing the Press Councilâs work of upholding high editorial standards and freedom of expression at a time of great change in Australiaâs media landscape.â
He added that âPublic members play a major leadership and governance role in the operations of the Australian Press Council. They bring a diversity of thought and an appreciation of contemporary social issues and community to Council activities and in conjunction with community representatives on Adjudication Panels provide independent assessment of material published by publisher members against the Press Councilâs Standards of Practice.â
The Press Council will shortly be advertising for Public and Independent Journalist members to serve on its governing Council and on Adjudication Panels.
Complainant / Daily Mail Australia
The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by articles published in Daily Mail Australia headed âCross-dressing serial killer, 75, wants YOU to pay for his sex change surgery when heâs released from jail â and he looks almost certain to get his wayâ on 20 October 2020 and âNotorious cross-dressing serial killer who bludgeoned his fiancĂ©e to death with a piece of wood walks free after 23 years in jail â despite her brotherâs pleas for him never to be releasedâ on 12 November 2020.
The October article reported âA cross-dressing serial killer set to be freed from jail wants a taxpayer-funded sex change upon his releaseâŠâ. The article quoted the brother of one of the murder victims saying: âItâs disgusting to think this man will be out and trying to use taxpayersâ money to have a sex changeâ. The article went on to report that the âNSW State Parole Authority said there is nothing it can do in its power to prevent the convicted murderer from having the surgeryâ and included the comments from the NSW Attorney General saying that he âhad sought legal advice on applying for a continuing detention order to keep Arthurell behind bars.â
The November article reported that the person had been released from prison and âcame out as a transgender while in custody and told authorities he hopes to have a sex change and live the remainder of his life a womanâ. The article said âhe has been referring to himself as a female and asked all prison workers to treat him as a woman inside jailâ. The article quoted the brother of one of the murder victims saying there âwouldnât be a member of the (parole) board that would like this person living in their neighbourhood, let alone living as a neighbourâ.
The Council recognised the importance of allowing the brother of a murder victim to express his robust personal views on the release of the prisoner. However, in relation to the October article, the Council considered that the headlineâs prominent reference to gender affirming surgery being at the cost of the âtaxpayer,â together with the comments in the article stating that the parole board is powerless to stop the surgery, diminishes the importance of the surgery. The Council considered the headline and comments in the article unfairly imply that such surgery is either not medically necessary or that such surgery should not be paid for by Medicare. The Council considered this unfairness is compounded by an absence of any balancing comments, either in support of why such surgery is medically necessary treatment, or in support of rights of released prisoners to access public health care. Accordingly, the publication failed to present factual material with reasonable fairness and balance in breach of General Principle 3.
The Council considered there was a public interest in the public being informed about the prisonerâs release given the seriousness of the crimes committed. However, the Council did not consider there was sufficient public interest in the prominent references to the personâs transgender status, which was not reported to have a connection with the crimes for which the person was convicted. The Council considered the prominent references to the person being transgender could lead some readers to conclude this was somehow connected to the crimes and could contribute to substantial prejudice against transgender people. Accordingly, the Council concluded that the publication breached General Principle 6.
The Council considered in relation to the November article, that the publication on balance took reasonable steps to ensure the presentation of factual material in the article was reasonably fair and balanced, and concludes the publication complied with General Principle 3. The Council also accepted the strong public interest in reporting on the release of the prisoner and concludes that the publication complied with General Principle 6. The Council acknowledged the publication amended the article after receiving the complaint to remove the irrelevant and potentially prejudicial references to the personâs transgender status.
Uh, so which is it?
1 Like
It breached it in relation to the reporting on transgender issues but not in relation to reporting the release of the prisoner.
2 Likes
Odd that a publication can simultaneously breach and not breach a principle.
1 Like
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 21 January 2021 headed âMill Park fire: Samantha Noack allegedly detonates homemade bombâ.
The article reported a âtransgender woman allegedly detonated a homemade petrol bomb in a Mill Park park then threw a molotov cocktail at a truck, starting several fires. Samantha Noack, 49, was refused bail for a second time ⊠with a magistrate deeming her a too greater risk to public safety.â It went on to state âNoack, who was formerly known as Kenneth Noack, allegedly set off a homemade petrol bombâŠâ. The article also reported that the court heard âNoack was a transgender woman who suffered from personality disorder, PTSD and depression and had struggled with drug use. Her lawyer submitted she was particularly vulnerable to exclusion in custody, proposing she be bailed to live in temporary accommodation organised by support services.â
The Council has for a long period considered that publications should exercise great care to not place unwarranted emphasis on characteristics of individuals such as race, religion, nationality, country of origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, illness or age.
The Council noted that the article was presented as a purely factual report of bail proceedings in relation to a serious crime. It is satisfied based on the publicationâs responses that the information in the article fairly and accurately reflects statements made in open court. Accordingly, the Council concluded the publication complied with General Principle 3.
However, while the accusedâs transgender status may have been relevant in relation to the bail hearing given the concerns expressed by the accusedâs lawyer, it does not appear to have been relevant in any way to the commission of the crime itself. The Council considered the repeated and prominent references to the accusedâs transgender status, including in the opening paragraph of the article which did not refer to the bail proceedings, could lead some readers to conclude that this characteristic was either a cause of, or a factor in, the alleged crime, and could contribute to substantial prejudice against transgender people.
The Council considered that in prominently identifying the woman as transgender, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid contributing to substantial prejudice and that there was no sufficient public interest justifying it doing so. Accordingly, the Council concluded that the publication breached General Principle 6.
Complainant / The Daily Telegraph
The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of an article headed âExclusive: Serial killer wants Medicare gender change: FIENDâS SEX OP ON YOUâ (front page), âKillerâs sex change farceâ (page 6) in print and âSerial killer Reginald Arthurell planning sex change after jail releaseâ online on 21 October 2020.
The article reported âA SERIAL killer due for imminent release from jail wants a taxpayer funded sex change operation infuriating the familyâ. The article quoted the brother of one of the murder victims saying: âItâs disgusting to think this man will be out and trying to use taxpayersâ money to have a sex changeâ. The article went on to report that the âParole Authority said it has no power to stop Arthurell having a sex changeâ and that âall he will need is referral from his doctor to have most of the procedure covered by Medicare.â The article stated that relatives of one of the victims had passed on evidence to police that âArthurell had told two inmates he has plans to kill them and police when he gets outâ.
The Council accepted that a brother of one of the murder victims expressed his strong negative views on the prospect of the personâs release and that in his view taxpayer money should not go towards gender affirming surgery. As such, the Council considered the publication took reasonable steps to ensure the presentation of factual material in the article was reasonably fair and balanced and concludes that General Principle 3 was not breached.
Nonetheless, in considering the treatment of the personâs apparent request for gender affirming surgery, the Council considered that the prominent and repeated references to âsex changeâ and the description of it as a farce is likely to cause offence, distress and prejudice to those in the community having either undergone or seeking such surgery. The Council considered that the prominent emphasis on the gender affirming surgery diminishes the importance of such surgery by both implying that it is not warranted and questioning whether it should be covered by Medicare.
The Council considered there was a public interest in the public being informed about the personâs release but that there was no public interest in diminishing the personâs request for gender affirming surgery. Accordingly, the Council concluded that the article breached General Principle 6.
David Lindenmayer / The Weekly Times
The Press Council has considered a complaint from Professor David Lindenmayer concerning articles published by The Weekly Times headed âChipping away at the factsâ in print and âNative forest logging: ANU academicâs claims on timber industry scrutinisedâ online on 10 June 2020 (âthe June articleâ); and âLoggers can expect classic action: academicâ in print and âAcademic says forest industry face class action over bushfiresâ online on 1 July 2020 (âthe July articleâ).
The June article reported the âacademic who first called for an end to native forest logging across Victoriaâs Central Highlands to create a new 355,000ha Great Forest National Park, has been accused of distorting facts to further his arguments. Evidence has emerged which appears to show Australian National University Professor David Lindenmayer is feeding environment groups and the media information on logging, fire harvesting and threatened species that contradicts critical facts.â The article set out several of Professor Lindenmayerâs comments on a range of issues including fire-damaged trees and salvage logging, employment figures in the East Gippsland forestry area, plantation forestry, and trends in the size of the Leadbeaterâs Possum population. The article then set out counterpoints on each of these topics, including statements attributed to forestry industry representatives, consultants and other academics, and data from sources such as the Victorian Government which it said contradicted Professor Lindenmayerâs claims.
The July article reported âANTI-logging academic David Lindenmayer claims legal action is about to be taken against the forestry industry for loss of property in this summerâs fires.â The article included various comments made by Professor Lindenmayer at a recent zoom seminar, and quoted him as saying âIâm quite surprised there hasnât been a class action around the issue (logging near urban areas)⊠Iâm sure there will be fairly soonâ and â[w]e need to rethink logging of forests, that are becoming more fire prone, particularly near human settlementsâ. The article then reported an opposing view attributed to a âprofessional foresterâ as well as comments from a bushfire scientist.
In relation to the June article, the Council considered its definition of the East Gippsland forestry area to be misleading, noting in particular that information provided to the publication by the complainant made it clear he was utilising the relevant VicForestsâ definition. The Council considered that the article misleadingly conflated sightings of the Leadbeaterâs Possum with trends in the possumâs population. The Council also considered the article should have made clear that the âprofessional foresterâ referred to is also a forestry industry consultant. The Council accepted that the information contained in Professor Lindenmayerâs email, which gave rise to the article, was provided to the media. However, it considered the statement ââŠLindenmayer is feeding environmental groups and the media informationâŠâ unfairly implies a political motivation on the part of the complainant. On the issue of âcontracting crewsâ in the East Gippsland area, the Council noted the complainantâs original statement was relayed accurately, but considered the publication should have sought a response from the complainant to the criticism in the article. Accordingly, General Principles 1 and 3 were breached in these respects.
In relation to the July article, the Council considered the references to Professor Lindenmayer as âanti-loggingâ were unfair and misleading, given the evidence of the complainantâs extensive, ongoing involvement in sustainable logging. The Council also considered that the article did not accurately report the complainantâs statement regarding possible legal action, and the publication failed to seek a response from the complainant on this issue. Accordingly, General Principles 1 and 3 were breached in these respects.
As the claims in the articles called into question the validity of statements made by the complainant as an expert, the Councilâs Standards of Practice required the publication to put such adverse claims to the complainant in their entirety. It was not reasonable in the circumstances to simply criticise comments the complainant may have made in the past, without giving him a fair opportunity to respond to those criticisms in the article. As such, the publication breached GP4.
Complainant / The Daily Telegraph
The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by a readerâs letter published in print by The Daily Telegraph headed âBrieflyâ on 14 November 2020. The letter read â With reference to the serial murderer Reginald Arthurell wanting taxpayers to fork out for his sex change operation, my husband said heâd perform this procedure absolutely free!â.
In response to a complaint noting the letter appeared to be threatening genital mutilation of a person on the basis of their transgender status, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether the letter complied with General Principle 6. This requires the publication to take 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.
The Council noted that publications must comply with the Councilâs Standards of Practice in relation to letters they select and edit for publication, while also acknowledging that letters to the editor are very much an expression of the letter writerâs opinion. The Council did however recognise that passive or incidental promotion of violence and prejudice against transgender persons, including in the guise of humour, could breach the Councilâs Standards of Practice and those choosing and editing letters for publication should be aware of the need for care.
The Council considered that in this instance, rather than being a serious call to violence, the letter very much reflects the strong disapproval of the writer at the crimes of the convicted person and what the letter writer considers in the circumstances to be an unjust use of community money to fund the personâs transition. The Council also considered that the letter was intended as morbid humour and most readers would recognise this. While some readers would regard the letter as offensive, distressing and prejudicial, the Council considered that in context it did not reach the level of the publication failing to take reasonable steps to avoid substantial offence, distress and prejudice.
Accordingly, the Council considered that General Principle 6 was not breached.
Complainant / The Australian
The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of a cartoon in The Australian on 14 August 2020. The cartoon depicts a scene of the then United States Presidential candidate Joe Biden giving a speech congratulating Kamala Harris on being the Vice-Presidential candidate. Joe Biden is depicted saying âItâs time to heal a nation divided by racismâ followed by âSo Iâll hand you over to this little brown girl while I go for a lie downâ.
In response to complaints received, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether the material breached its Standards of Practice which require it to take reasonable steps to avoid causing substantial offence, distress or prejudice, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 6). The Council noted that the complainants were concerned that Joe Biden was depicted in the cartoon calling Kamala Harris a âlittle brown girlâ and that this appeared to reference Joe Bidenâs tweet on 13 August 2020 saying: âThis morning, little girls woke up across this nation â especially Black and Brown girls who so often may feel overlooked and undervalued in our society â potentially seeing themselves in a new way: As the stuff of Presidents and Vice Presidentsâ. The complainants were concerned that a tweet intended as a positive and affirmative message was instead portrayed by the cartoonist as offensive and prejudicial to all women of colour because the phrase âlittle brown girlâ used race and gender to demean and belittle, and portrays Joe Bidenâs words as condescending, derogatory and racist.
The Council has consistently expressed the 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 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 acknowledges that the cartoon is a comment on what the cartoonist considers a hypocritical choice by Joe Biden to secure votes from people of colour rather than out of any genuine concern to address racial inequality. The Council does not dispute the public interest in dissecting politiciansâ statements and the words and actions of US Presidential candidates in particular. Nor does the Council dispute a publicationâs right to publish its and its cartoonistâs partisan views. The question is whether, in doing so, the publication took reasonable steps to avoid substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or whether such offence, distress or prejudice was sufficiently justified by the public interest involved.
The Council notes that, by rearranging Joe Bidenâs words, the cartoon not only attacks Joe Bidenâs alleged hypocrisy but could also be interpreted as demeaning Kamala Harris and other women, particularly those of colour, by referring to her specifically as a âlittle brown girlâ. This is far from what Joe Biden was doing when using the words âlittle black and brown girlsâ in his tweet to reference the role modelling aspect of having a Vice-Presidential nominee who is both female and of colour. While many readers might see the cartoon as a criticism of Joe Biden and of âidentity politicsâ, the Council does not accept the publicationâs view that readers would see it is anti-racist or anti-misogynist. Rather, in appearing to demean Kamala Harris, and other women, by referring to her as a âlittle brown girlâ, it could be seen to contribute to prejudice and to undermining measures to overcome the obstacles facing women, particularly those of colour.
While the Council notes that the publication and the cartoonist have strongly stated that there was no intention to cause offence, distress or prejudice, the Council considers the prejudice to women and particularly women of colour which the cartoon contributes to is substantial and that it offended a wide range of people, in particular women. The Council considers the public interest in questioning Joe Bidenâs words and actions was not sufficient to justify the substantial offence and prejudice caused, and that criticism of identity politics could have been achieved without such offence and prejudice. Accordingly, the Council concludes that the publication breached General Principle 6.
2 Likes
Complainant / The Sydney Morning Herald
The Press Council has considered a complaint from John Nagle, the former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of NSW workers compensation scheme, icare NSW, concerning 25 articles published in The Sydney Morning Herald. The articles complained of were published between 27 July 2020 and 1 October 2020.
The articles, which included opinion pieces, concerned the performance of icare and its financial position, and reported criticism of the system by injured workers, referencing a NSW treasury document that said 52,000 injured workers had been underpaid $80 million. The articles also reported on a NSW Government Parliamentary inquiry into the workersâ compensation scheme. In this context, it was initially reported in August 2020 during the parliamentary inquiry that the complainant âhad quit after it had emerged he was stripped of a bonus for failing to properly declare his wife had been given a contract with the agencyâ. It was reported that the inquiry heard that the complainantâs wife was âpaid $750 a day for contract work performed between 2016 and 2019, totaling more than $800,000.â
It was also reported that the complainant failed to declare in icareâs annual report, âbusiness class flights to Las Vegas to speak at a conference organised by a software companyâ which the inquiry heard had received âmillions of dollars in contracts from icare to provide claims management softwareâ and that the complainant had appeared in a promotional video for the company. It was also reported that the complainant had ârefusedâ to disclose his pay details to the inquiry.
The Council noted the complainantâs concerns that the volume and tenor of articles concerning icare were intended to discredit him personally. However, the Council was not provided with any material that is consistent with this view. The Council noted that it is legitimate journalistic practice to comment on parliamentary inquiries and accepts that the publicationâs reporting was based on an accurate record of comments made at the NSW parliamentary inquiry, including by the complainant. This includes reporting on the complainantâs failure to properly declare a conflict of interest; that his business trip ought to have been included in icareâs annual report; and comments concerning his response to questions about his salary.
In relation to the estimated $80 million reportedly owed by icare to injured workers, the Council accepted this figure is based on information on the public record referred to at the inquiry, which is of significant public interest. The Council noted that the complainant was given a fair opportunity to respond to the matters concerning him but did not pursue it. Accordingly, the Council found no breach of its General Principles.
The Council acknowledged the publicationâs offer to publish a footnote clarifying that the inquiry was subsequently informed that the value of the relevant contract was $772,524.
The Council also acknowledged that the publication has amended its original article which stated the complainant had refused to disclose his salary.
1 Like
Australian Press Council introduces complaints-handling processes for global digital publishers
At its most recent meeting, the Australian Press Council (APC) considered the best way of adapting its complaints-handling practices to respond to the emergence of global digital publishers.
These publishers use news content across multiple publications in their world-wide operations. In many cases this content is not under the control of individual publications based in particular countries. Against this backdrop the APC has approved a 12-month trial to manage complaints about articles published by global digital publishers. In Australia, the only global digital publisher in this position and who is a member of the APC is Daily Mail Australia (DMA).
The APC approach has been informed by a similar approach taken by the UKâs press standards organisation IPSO, which has also been required to deal with the complexities associated with global digital publishers whose editorial content is published across multiple jurisdictions.
Under this trial, the Press Council will no longer accept complaints which appear on DMAâs website that have been written by journalists for DailyMail.com, a US-focused publication, and Mail Online, a UK-focused website, except when:
- The article relates to events within Australia, or,
- The article concerns an Australian national, or resident at the time of publication, who is âdirectly and personally affectedâ by an alleged breach of the Councilâs standards of practice.
Articles written by DMAâs Australian journalists will continue to be subject to the APCâs Standards of Practice.
The decision follows concerns raised by DMA that as a global digital publisher it was neither practical nor reasonable for the APC to apply its Standards of Practice to articles written by journalists that are not employed by it and over which it has no editorial control concerning events in either the US or UK.
âThe approach we have taken ensures that DMA continues to be bound by the Australian Press Councilâs standards while at the same time acknowledges that, as a global digital publisher, it has content on its website over which it has no editorial control,â said Neville Stevens, AO, Chair of the APC. âIt is a practical solution to a complex issue that other Press Councils have sought to address,â Mr Stevens added.
The model being trialled recognises that DailyMail.com and Mail Online are not members of the APC, but that the DMA is. It aims to provide DMA â and any other future GDP member â clarity in terms of the complaints that the APC can handle. The APC will assess the results of the 12-month trial next year and consider whether any changes to the approach are required.
1 Like
Complainant / The Courier-Mail
The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published by The Courier-Mail in print on 30 July 2020 headed âENEMIES OF THE STATE: Outrage as deceptive teens cause COVID chaosâ.
The article reported â[T]wo 19-year-old girls with COVID-19 have been fined $4000 each after travelling to Melbourne and lying to authorities about where theyâd beenâ. The article reported âOlivia Winnie Muranga⊠a cleaner at the now-closed Parklands Christian College â called in sick on Friday after days of feeling ill. Despite this she continued to socialise, visiting restaurants and bars in Ipswich and Brisbane, according to authorities. It is believed she even went shopping after she took a COVID test on Monday.â It also stated â[h]er travel companion Diana Lasu⊠has also tested positiveâ. The article appeared on the front page and included photos of Ms Muranga and Ms Lasu underneath the headline âENEMIES OF THE STATEâ.
The Council noted that, at the time of publication, it was a matter of public record that the women in question had been charged with criminal offences related to their failure to comply with COVID- 19 travel restrictions. As such, the Council considered their reasonable expectations of privacy had been diminished. Accordingly, the Council found no breach of General Principle 5.
The Council acknowledged that the headline is provocative given the language used and the prominence of the womenâs images alongside it. However, the Council accepted that the reporting reflects the seriousness of the womenâs actions and risk to the community and was not due to any personal characteristic of the women involved. Accordingly, the Council found no breach of General Principle 6.
However, the Council accepted that the reporting reflects the seriousness of the womenâs actions and risk to the community and was not due to any personal characteristic of the women involved
Sure.
1 Like
1 Like
Complainant / The Australian
The Press Council has considered a complaint from Dr Michelle Telfer, the Head of Department of Adolescent Medicine at the Royal Childrenâs Hospital and Director of the Royal Childrenâs Hospital Gender Service (RCHGS), concerning 45 articles published in The Australian which appeared online and some in print. The complainant expressed concern that the articles contained inaccurate information, were unfair and caused her and others considerable distress.
The first article complained about was published on 9 August 2019 and the last on 29 June 2020. The articles concerned the role of gender affirming healthcare and its application by the RCHGS; transgender children and adolescents; the safety and ethics of giving hormone treatment to young people experiencing gender dysphoria; what the articles referred to as social contagion amongst young girls identifying as transgender; rates of de-transitioning in transgender young people; and a call for an inquiry into a gender affirming model of healthcare for transgender young people.
The Council noted that it is unable to resolve the apparent conflict in research material relating to issues such as regret rates for hormone therapy, high rates of de-transition and social contagion. The Council also noted that while the Royal Australian College of Physicians was not undertaking a statutory inquiry, it was undertaking enquiries and is a national body. Accordingly, it finds no breach in this respect. However as to the statements that the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists had abandoned reliance on the Australian Standards of Care and Treatment Guidelines for Trans and Gender Diverse Children and Adolescents (ASOCTG) the Council was satisfied it is not correct and was a breach of General Principle 1.
The Council noted that there is a relatively high threshold before a publication will be considered to have failed to take reasonable steps to present factual material with reasonable fairness and balance. While many articles approached the issue from a particular perspective, the publication did take steps to try to achieve a measure of fairness and balance in an area of social uncertainty. It was also reasonable to refer to the complainant in her role as head of the RCHGS. While the Council accepted that many in the medical community would consider that only transgender treatment specialists are regarded as experts, it considered there is no requirement for the publication to rely only on such experts. On the other hand, the Council noted that gender affirming healthcare has been used for 20 years internationally and for 16 years in Australia. Aspects of the treatment have been authorised by the Family Court and it is supported by specialist doctors treating gender dysphoria as currently the best medical treatment which was largely not reported in the articles. In quoting opinions of named persons critical of gender affirming treatment, the publication omitted that they were not medical specialists in transgender treatment. Also, in a number of articles the RCHGS was described as âthe Telfer Clinicâ. The Council considered that by repeatedly quoting the views of professionals from various fields of medicine and psychology that the treatment was experimental and harmful without explaining they are not medical specialists in the area, and linking the criticism so personally to the complainant, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure fairness and balance and breached General Principle 3.
The Council accepted the publication did repeatedly contact the complainant for comment during the series of articles and its offer of an opinion piece was not accepted by the complainant and accordingly finds no breach in this respect.
The Council considered the articles were likely to and did cause substantial distress to the complainant. There is undoubted public interest in a journalistic analysis of the debate on the many issues connected with transgender issues and people, and associated healthcare. However, the public interest did not justify the extent of references to the complainant in so many of the articles or implying that the healthcare practised at the RCHGS is out of step with mainstream medical opinion and this was a breach of General Principle 6.
As to offence, distress and prejudice affecting gender diverse persons and their families, the Council recognised that such a series of articles is likely to have such an effect, even a substantial one particularly given the lack of material published from the specialist part of the medical profession which was supportive of affirmative gender treatment. However, the Council noted that even medical treatment accepted as appropriate by a specialist part of the medical profession is open to examination and criticism and the difficult issues connected with treatment of gender dysphoria need to be debated to allow society to move forward. The Council considered, given the range of issues and concerns such as those expressed in the UK concerning the Tavistock clinic and at least some medical opinion, that the material dealing with the issues was sufficiently justified in the public interest and General Principle 6 was not breached in this respect. The Council noted that a number of the articles would be read by a vulnerable section of the community and might be taken to be challenging their experience of life and including sources of assistance might have been a prudent step.
1 Like