Australian Press Council

1 Like

Complainant / NT News

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published by NT News in print on 14 September 2019 headed “Man granted hospital leave killed himself”.

The article reported on a coronial inquest of a young man who committed suicide “after being granted leave from the mental health ward at the Alice Springs Hospital despite showing symptoms of psychosis.” The article included information heard at the inquest, including details of the man’s history with mental health services, his discharge from a hospital’s mental health ward while apparently delusional, a prior suicide attempt and his subsequent suicide. Amongst the information included in the article was the location of the suicide and the method used in a suicide attempt, expressed in thoughts about suicide and in the subsequent article.

The Council’s Standards of Practice relevant to this complaint provide 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 suicides. This applies especially to methods or locations which may not be well known by people contemplating suicide (Specific Standard 5).

They also provide that reports of suicide should not be given undue prominence, especially by unnecessarily explicit headlines or images. Great care should be taken to avoid causing unnecessary harm or hurt to people who have attempted suicide or to relatives and other people who have been affected by a suicide or attempted suicide. This requires special sensitivity and moderation in both gathering and reporting news (Specific Standard 7).

The Council acknowledged the strong public interest in reporting on the coronial inquest and on the medical care received by the Deceased. It also notes that the description of the location was not specific. However, the Council did not consider it was necessary for the publication to report the method of the Deceased’s attempted suicide and subsequent suicide to the extent it did in order to legitimately scrutinise the health care provided to the Deceased. Accordingly, the Council concluded that Specific Standards 5 was breached.

As to Specific Standard 7 in relation to sensitivity and moderation, the Council recognised that although the family of the Deceased would likely find the article distressing, given the death was the subject of an inquest it does not consider the article was unduly prominent or unnecessarily explicit. The Council also recognised there is public interest in reporting on the quality of medical services and treatment being provided in the Northern Territory. Accordingly, the Council found Specific Standard 7 was not breached.

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

Read the full adjudication here

1 Like

Complainant / The Sunday Telegraph

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published in print by The Sunday Telegraph on 14 June 2020 headed “Where’s the real justice?”.

The article commented on the ‘Black Lives Matter’ protests in Australia in June 2020 concerning police behaviour and black deaths in custody. The article said: “The reality in this country – and the US – is that the greatest danger to aboriginals and negroes – is themselves” and that until “we address this issue, protests damning white police officers are nebulous”. In support of this view, the article said that the “protests are facile and irrelevant because police and indigenous deaths in custody are a small part of the complex jigsaw that goes into making black lives matter.”

The article referred to the death of four Aboriginal teenagers in a stolen car and asked “Where was the protection for four innocent children? Police say they knew the car was stolen and decided not to pursue”. The article also referred to a university study which said that “indigenous females and males are 35 times and 22 times as likely to be hospitalised due to family violence related assaults as other Australians”, and to the death of a four-month-old Aboriginal girl while her mother was in police custody and said “Blaming police and the Corrective Services system for their ills is, frankly, a cop out”. The article also referred to the killing by a policeman of an Australian woman (presumably non-Indigenous) in the US and asked “where were the marches through the streets of Australia after Ms Damond died?”.

The Council recognised that opinion articles by their nature make an argument. However, even in an opinion article, the publication is obliged to ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance and expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts. The Council noted that, in criticising the protests, the article drew on factual material about deaths and family violence amongst Indigenous people not related to police behaviour or deaths in custody. In doing so, however, the article omitted any reference to well-documented societal factors contributing to Indigenous community and family dysfunction including unemployment and poverty, poor housing and overcrowding, and poor education and health, and that the attitudes of non-Indigenous Australians can also contribute. In referring to an Australian woman killed in the US, the article in the Council’s view includes factual material that bears no relevance to the protesters’ concerns or actions or to Indigenous welfare.

The Council believed the columnist’s criticisms of the protesters could have been made based on a fair and balanced presentation of factual material, highlighting the deeper problems in many Indigenous communities than caused by alleged police brutality and deaths in custody. However, the article published did not do so.

Accordingly, the Council considered the publication did not take reasonable steps to ensure the factual material was presented with reasonable fairness and balance and to ensure the writer’s expression of opinion was not based on significantly inaccurate material or omission of key facts in breach of General Principle 3.

The Council also considered the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid substantial offence and prejudice. Although the Council noted the very substantial public interest in allowing freedom of expression, the public interest did not justify the level of offence and prejudice in its assertion that the greatest danger to Indigenous Australians and African Americans is themselves. The lack of fairness and balance in the presentation of factual material was also likely to have caused substantial offence and prejudice beyond that which might have been justified in the public interest. In relation to the use of the term “negroes”, the Council welcomed the apologies from the publication and the columnist. The measures taken by the publication do not, however, remove the effects of the breach.

Accordingly, the Council considered that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing substantial offence, distress or prejudice, without sufficient justification in the public interest. In doing so it breached General Principle 6.

Read the full adjudication here .

1 Like

The Australian Press Council appoints Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer

The Australian Press Council welcomes Yvette Lamont as its new Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer. Ms Lamont was previously Group General Counsel and Company Secretary of ASX-listed media and entertainment business HT&E Limited (formerly APN News & Media Limited).

“Yvette brings to her new role a wealth of relevant experience to assist Council in navigating the profound changes taking place in the media industry. She has deep media executive expertise in commercial, governance, legal, regulatory and corporate affairs, and understands the challenges and opportunities presented by media convergence and evolving digital platforms,” said Neville Stevens, AO, Chair of The Australian Press Council. “I extend Yvette a warm welcome to Council and I look forward to working with her as Council addresses these challenges.”

“I am delighted to be joining The Australian Press Council and to be part of the important work of the Council in an evolving media environment, at a time when the promotion of high standards of media practice and community access to information of public interest are so important given the current critical issues Australia faces. I look forward to the many challenges and opportunities ahead,” said Ms Lamont.

Ms Lamont is a Graduate member of the Australian Institute of Company Directors and is admitted to the Supreme Court of New South Wales and the High Court of Australia. She was HT&E’s representative on Australia’s Right to Know coalition, formed to address concerns about freedom of speech in Australia. She also sits on the Law Council of Australia’s Media & Communications Committee, is a member of the Communications and Media Law Association and Women in Media and was recently appointed a Non-executive Director of CAAMA (Central Australian Aboriginal Media Association).

Ms Lamont’s appointment follows a thorough executive search which Council commenced in June this year. Her appointment takes effect this Monday, 13 September 2021.

1 Like

Who was the cartoonist?

Johannes Leak.

1 Like

According to The Australian, The Guardian Australia has come under renewed criticism for its refusal to join the Australian Press Council, arguing its internal “corrections” system — which has only issued a handful of minor local clarifications in the past four months — is “rigorous”.

1 Like

Complainant / Herald Sun

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published in The Herald Sun on 12 November 2020 headed “Islam butchers slaughter women and kids” in print on page 19.

The article reported that “Heavily armed Islamic militants have killed dozens of unarmed villagers in a campaign to establish a caliphate in southern Africa… Up to 50 people, including women and children, were murdered, with some beheaded and dismembered in a three-day rampage in north Mozambique.”

The Council noted that prominent references to religious or ethnic groups in headlines can imply that a group, as a whole, is responsible for the actions of a minority among that group. Accordingly, in reporting on instances of violence purportedly conducted in the name of religion, publications must take reasonable steps to identify the particular sources of violence as clearly as possible. In this instance, the Council considered the headline could have been clearer by referring specifically to ‘Islamic State militants’ for example, rather
than ‘Islam’ which could be read more generally. However, the Council was satisfied that the attribution of the violence to ‘Islamic militants’ in the first paragraph of the article was sufficient to avoid the suggestion that their conduct was associated with all of those who adhere to the religion of Islam.

The Council also accepted that the references to Islam were relevant in the context of reporting on attempts by Islamic militants to establish a caliphate in southern Africa. The Council considered that, in making it sufficiently clear that the violence was perpetrated by Islamic militants, the publication took reasonable steps comply with its Standards of Practice. Accordingly, there was no breach of General Principles 3 and 6.

Read the full adjudication here .

1 Like

Jared Owens on behalf of Hon Kevin Rudd / The Australian

The Press Council has considered a complaint from Jared Owens on behalf of Hon Kevin Rudd about an article published by The Australian headed “New Chinese era of living dangerously” online on 29 November 2019; and “Radical new Chinese era signals years of living dangerously” in print on 30 November 2019.

The article commented on Australia-China relations and the scale of Chinese foreign intelligence activities. It stated that “The development of the Quadrilateral Dialogue — involving the US, Japan, India and Australia — is one of many important developments. That the Quad recently­ held its first meeting at foreign minister level is encouraging. The decision by Rudd and his then foreign minister, Stephen Smith, to unilaterally kill the Quad in 2008, to please Beijing, was one of the most foolish and counter-productive foreign policy moves of any modern Australian government. It did immense harm to the Canberra-New Delhi relationship. It was a decision that had to be reversed and the Quad now enjoys bipartisan support in Australia.”

The Council is satisfied, based on all the submissions before it, that Foreign Minister Smith’s announcement in Tokyo on 1 February 2008 that “we are not proposing to add to the trilateral by including India…and that view is shared by the Japanese government” affirmed the Rudd Government was effectively continuing the Howard government’s position on the Quad as reflected in 2007 statements by Defence Minister Brendan Nelson. The position was consistent with the previous Howard government’s position and therefore not “unilateral”.

The Council is also satisfied that the submissions and the Tokyo announcement together with Foreign Minister Smith’s announcement at a joint press conference with the Chinese foreign minister on 5 February 2008 that “The United States has indicated a similar disposition in recent weeks and I think that’s been welcomed by all” is sufficient to show that the Australian Government’s position was shared at least by Japan and the United States and not unilateral in this respect. Accordingly, General Principles 1 and 3 were breached in this respect.

The Council notes the publication offered the complainant a right of reply which was not pursued by the complainant. Accordingly, General Principles 2 and 4 were not breached.

Read the full adjudication here

1 Like

Complainant / The Daily Telegraph

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published in The Daily Telegraph online headed “Retired porn star sparks Surry Hills apartment block controversy” on 11 November 2020.

The sub-headline of the article stated “A noisy retired gay porn star has been told to behave and show respect to his neighbours after police were called four times, causing angst in his apartment building”. The article went on to report that “[r]esidents at a landmark apartment block in Sydney’s gay heartland have been told to show more respect after reports a retired US porn star was sparking conflict by working from home”. The article reported that police “had been called four times this year to the same apartment” and that “[i]t is understood the calls have all involved ‘concern for welfare’” and “[o]ne involved an argument between the porn star and the boyfriend he is staying with”. The article also included an embedded video of Mardi Gras 2020 and an image of the rainbow flag flying over “Sydney’s gay community in Darlinghurst”.

The Council has consistently stated over a long period 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 notes that the resident may have described himself in social media accounts as a ‘gay porn star’. However, given the resident’s sexuality was not reported to be a contributing factor in the noise complaints, identifying him as such in the sub-headline of the article, could lead some readers to conclude that his sexuality was either the cause of, or a factor in, the complaints and could contribute to substantial prejudice to the gay community.

The Council considers that in prominently referring to the resident’s sexuality in the sub-headline, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid contributing to substantial prejudice and that there was not sufficient public interest justifying doing so. Accordingly, the Council concludes that the article breached General Principle 6.

Read the full adjudication here.

Complainant / Great Southern Weekender

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by readers’ letters published in the Great Southern Weekender headed “Still infectious” on 22 July 2021 and “Lockdowns not the answer” 29 July 2021. The 22 July letter stated “The drug Ivermectin has been passed for use in treating COVID-19 infection…” and the 29 July letter stated “…the most prestigious medical journal in the world, “The Lancet”, has published a study indicating that the COVID-19 vaccines are only 0.84 per cent effective . ”

The Council notes that while letters to the editor are very much an expression of the letter writer’s opinion, publications must nonetheless comply with the Council’s Standards of Practice in relation to letters they select and edit for publication. The Council considers that, on the information available to it, the letter writers’ comments concerning Ivermectin and vaccine efficacy rates are inaccurate and based on an omission of key facts. Accordingly, the Council finds the publication failed to take reasonable steps to comply with General Principles 1 and 3.

The Council recognises the significant public interest in publishing a range of views on matters of public debate. However, the Council considers there was no public interest in publishing significantly inaccurate and potentially harmful information concerning Covid-19 vaccines particularly during the pandemic. Accordingly, the Council also finds the publication failed to take reasonable steps to comply with General Principle 6.

The Council acknowledges the publication’s offer of correction of the 29 July 2021 letter.

Read the full adjudication here.

Complainant / Australian Financial Review

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published by The Australian Financial Review online on 9 May 2021 headed “Apollo Global MD contracts COVID-19 in Sydney”, and in print on 10 May 2021 headed “Apollo Global MD Pizzey contracts COVID-19 in Sydney”.

The article reported “Investment giant Apollo Global Management managing director” is the “Sydney person that has been diagnosed with COVID-19”. The article reported that the person, “who is one of only two full-time employees at Apollo in Australia, is still suffering COVID-19 symptoms and is suspected of catching the virus from a returned US traveller.” It also said the person “is understood to be the mystery shopper who ducked into two Sydney-based Barbeques Galore stores on Saturday, May 1, and then his local butcher, in a shopping trip that has since been documented by NSW Health as part of its contact tracing protocols. It is understood the person went to Barbeques Galore looking for a new barbecue, but also as part of his firm’s due diligence on the retailer.”

The Council considers there is a public interest in reporting on the business activities of Apollo Global Management in Australia, and notes the named person is somewhat of a public figure given his position within the organisation. It also notes that such public interest does not necessarily justify identifying a person’s medical information. In this case however, the Council is satisfied the publication took reasonable steps to not intrude on the person’s reasonable expectations of privacy by contacting the company in advance of the article’s publication and by removing a photograph of the person upon request. Accordingly, the Council finds there was no breach of General Principle 5.

The Council accepts the publication’s submission that the article did not cause substantial distress to the person, noting that neither the person, nor Apollo Global Management raised such concerns after being notified of the article by the publication. The Council also notes the article was not derisive or critical of the named person and is unlikely to discourage other members of the community from getting tested for COVID-19. Accordingly, the Council finds there was no breach of General Principle 6.

Read the full adjudication here.

1 Like

Complainant / Byron Shire Echo

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by a reader’s letter published in the Byron Shire Echo headed “Midwife quits” on 17 April 2021. The letter stated “… Work with lies and deceit at all levels has led me to despair. I am very good at my job as midwife. You would want me to take care of you. You would be very safe in my care. ‘The jab’ cannot be called a vaccine. It will kill and it will make people very sick with autoimmune disease, which will manifest in many types of diseases. Please do not acquiesce.”

The Council notes that while letters to the editor are very much an expression of the letter writer’s opinion, publications must nonetheless comply with the Council’s Standards of Practice in relation to letters they select and edit for publication. While the Council accepts that there have been reported cases of deaths associated with a particular type of vaccine, on the information available to it, there is no evidence to support the writer’s emphatic comment that vaccines “…will kill and it will make people very sick with autoimmune disease” is accurate . Accordingly, the Council finds the publication failed to take reasonable steps to comply with General Principles 1 and 3.

The Council recognises the significant public interest in publishing a range of views on matters of public debate. However, the Council considers there was no public interest in publishing significantly inaccurate and potentially harmful information concerning Covid-19 vaccines particularly in the time of a pandemic and when the letter writer is asserting they are a health professional. Accordingly, the Council concludes that the publication breached General Principle 6.

The Council welcomes the publication’s decision to remove the letter.

Read the full adjudication here.

1 Like

Bayside Council / The Sydney Morning Herald

The Press Council considered a complaint from Bayside Council about an article published by the Sydney Morning Herald in print on 31 October 2020 headed “$1b lost in council merger failures” and online headed “‘Rates will have to rise’: Council mergers in crisis as losses mount”.

The article reported “[the] NSW government’s controversial merger policy is in crisis, with the 20 amalgamated councils losing $1.05 billion in three years and ratepayers facing hike in rates and cuts in services”. It reported that LSI Consulting, “[u]sing the published audited financial statements of NSW’s 128 councils … created a productivity index to measure the operating performance of councils dating back to 2016, when NSW forced the super council mergers”. It reported that LSI’s productivity index “measures councils’ output relative to input. Output measures the services delivered by each council relative to the income they receive from rates, parking fees and other regulatory income. Input is what each council pays to deliver the services”.

The article reported that “[t]he data showed that the productivity index of the 20 merged councils went backwards 16 per cent since amalgamation” and “[t]he worst-performing council in NSW was Bayside Council, formed from the merger of Botany Bay and Rockdale City councils. Its productivity has gone backwards since the merger, losing the equivalent of $155.7 million in productivity losses over three years”. The article also includes a chart compiled by LSI Consulting called ‘In the red: The 10 worst-performing merged NSW councils’ which showed Bayside Council at the top with a loss of $155,721,400.

The article reported that a Bayside Council spokesperson said: “‘On a cumulative basis, for the past four financial years since amalgamation, Bayside has reported an operating surplus of $162.5 million (including capital grants and contributions) or a surplus of $17.9 million (excluding capital grants and contributions)’”. It also reported that principal LSI Consultant “disputed the council’s figure and said part of the deterioration in productivity since the merger was due to a blowout in labour and other costs”.

The Council’s Standards of Practice applicable in this matter require that publications take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material in news reports and elsewhere is accurate and not misleading and is distinguishable from other material such as opinion (General Principle 1) and that material 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). They also require publications take reasonable steps to provide a correction or other adequate remedial action if published material is significantly inaccurate or misleading (General Principle 2) and provide an opportunity for a response to be published by a person adversely referred to (General Principle 4).

The Council considers that in writing the article it was reasonable for the publication to rely on the factual material contained in the report by LSI Consulting, as it was a reputable source of productivity information regarding Local Governments over a number of years and its report was based on publicly available information. The Council accepts the information in the LSI report was relayed accurately in the article and concludes General Principle 1 was not breached. The Council also considers the publication took reasonable steps to present material with reasonable fairness and balance by including comments from Bayside Council and other relevant Councils in the article. Accordingly, the Council concludes that General 3 was not breached.

However, while the Council accepts that the publication relied on information that it believed was accurate at the time of publication, and that the authors of the report do not wish to update that information as previously considered, the Council nonetheless considers that the publication had an obligation to update the story. The Council considers that independent of any action by LSI Consulting, once the publication became aware there was an apparent anomaly relating to the base year for the productivity calculation, it was obliged to update the article.

While the Council acknowledges the publication’s subsequent offer of a footnote, it does not consider this proposal sufficiently remedies the matter given the relevant information relied on was not itself being updated, and notes the publication ought to cease referring to the original article in any subsequent articles. Accordingly, the Council concludes that General Principles 2 and 4 were breached.

Read the full adjudication here.

1 Like

Jordan Shanks-Markovina / The Daily Telegraph

The Press Council considered a complaint from Jordan Shanks-Markovina about an article published by The Daily Telegraph on 21 September 2020 headed “Friendlyjordies: Labor members concerned by leader’s links to YouTube star” online; and “Labor Leader’s Controversial New Friend” in print.

The article stated “Labor MPs have expressed concern about leader Jodi McKay engaging with controversial YouTube star Friendlyjordies, suggesting it was “risky” to be associated with someone who has made controversial statements about mental health and sexual assault.” The article reported comments from an unnamed Labor source that stated “[i]t’s just risky, you don’t need to take that risk”, and referred to comments made by then NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian, stating “I have heard that he has made inappropriate and racist comments about a number of people and I think that’s completely unacceptable.” The article also reported that “Shanks did not respond to written questions last night. In a subsequent phone conversation, his assistant criticised this reporter, before Shanks claimed he did not have access to the questions sent by The Daily Telegraph.”

The Council accepts that, based on the material before it, the factual material in the article reflects comments made by a Labor Party source and by Gladys Berejiklian. Accordingly, General Principles 1 and 2 were not breached. In relation to General Principle 3, the Council does not accept that the complainant could not access the questions posed by the journalist. The Council notes that the apparent inability to access the questions was solely due to the complainant’s own actions and not that of the publication. However, the Council considers the article’s comment that the complainant “did not respond to written questions” was an unfair characterisation of the communications between him and the publication.

The Council also notes that the questions as posed lacked necessary context and could not have been fairly answered by the complainant given the deadline provided. In relation to the comments made by then Premier Gladys Berejiklian, which called into question whether the complainant had in the past made ‘inappropriate’ and ‘racist’ comments, the publication was required to provide him with an opportunity to respond to those comments specifically. Accordingly, the General Principle 3 was breached in these respects.

As the complainant did not seek a subsequent right of reply, General Principle 4 was not breached.

The Council is satisfied that given both the absence of evidence and the routine and accepted journalistic practice of using confidential sources, that the article was not a result of an improper relationship between the journalist and a politician. Accordingly, there was no breach of General Principle 8.

Read the full adjudication here.

1 Like

I look forward to seeing how his (FJ) band of followers try to spin this as being unjust and unfair

Complaining about not being able to access the questions is hilarious though

3 Likes

The Australian Press Council welcomes new Public Members, an Adjudication Panel Member and farewells long-serving Vice-Chair

The Australian Press Council (APC) is pleased to announce the appointment of three new Public Members and one new Adjudication Panel Member. The new Public Members are Mohamed el Roubi, Dr Sid Vohra and Diana Nestorovska. Shenal Basnayake is the new Adjudication Panel Member. Vice-Chair Julie Kinross is leaving the Press Council after serving the maximum number of terms in her role.

Public Members have an important leadership and governance role in the operations of the APC, and Adjudication Panel Members are critical in upholding the APC’s standards. “The new Members announced today bring a diversity of thought and experience to their roles which will assist us in our work of promoting freedom of speech and responsible journalism in Australia’s print and digital media,” said Neville Stevens, AO, APC Chair.

Ms Kinross has served on the Press Council for more than nine years, across three consecutive terms. “Julie has made an enormous contribution to all areas of Press Council activity, and has been a constant source of wise counsel,” said Mr Stevens. “Her outstanding personal qualities, legal acumen and wide-ranging public policy experience will be missed. We wish her all the best in her future endeavours,” he added. Ms Kinross’ term as Vice-Chair ends on December 31, 2021.

The APC’s new Public Members:

• Mohamed el Roubi is a General Counsel with extensive experience in a range of multinational companies and is currently working remotely for Cairo corporate law firm Adsero – Ragy Soliman & Partners. Based in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), Mr el Roubi is a Director and member of the Audit and Risk Committee at Mental Illness Education ACT. He has lived and worked in the Middle East, US and Europe, and is bi-lingual in English and Arabic. He has broad legal, governance, risk and compliance experience across a range of industries and is a Fellow of the Governance Institute of Australia and a Member of the Australian Institute of Company Directors. He is also a licensed Attorney and Counsellor at Law in Massachusetts and the District of Columbia.

• Dr Sid Vohra is Director of Medical Services and Chief Medical Officer at Orange Health Service in NSW, with responsibility for Orange Hospital, Australia’s largest regional health facility. He has extensive experience in developing and managing stakeholder relationships at a community, State and Federal level in matters relating to health care systems and rural and regional health care. Dr Vohra’s general management covers full executive level management of all specialised medical services at the hospital. He has around 160 health professionals reporting directly to him. Previously, he worked as a Medical Consultant at CommInsure and was a Consultant at McKinsey & Company. He is a specialist medical practitioner and Fellow of the Royal Australasian College of Medical Administrators (FRACMA). He is also a Fellow of the Australasian College of Health Service Management (FCHSM). Dr Vohra’s qualifications include an MBA from INSEAD France and a Master of Health Management from the University of NSW.

• Diana Nestorovska is a governance and legal professional with extensive experience working across diverse sectors and industries in Australia and overseas. Ms Nestorovska is a former Australian diplomat, speaks multiple languages and understands the workings of government at an international, State and Federal level. She is currently employed as the General Counsel for eCommerce business New Aim Pty Ltd. Based in Victoria, she is a non-executive Director of the South Gippsland Water Corporation and is a current MBA candidate at the Melbourne Business School. She is a sessional academic at Monash University’s Department of Business Law and Taxation and a Member of La Trobe University’s Human Research Ethics Committee. She is a Member of the Association of Corporate Counsel Australia and the Australian Institute of Company Directors.

The APC’s new Adjudication Panel Member:

• Shenal Basnayake is the CEO of the Australian Science Teachers Association (ASTA), a federation of Australia’s eight science teacher associations and the national advocate for school science educators, where he led a major transformation to ensure ongoing relevance for the organisation with its constituents. He has lived and worked internationally in Europe, Asia and the Middle East and spent a decade working across Northern Australia (and most recently in parts of regional NSW where he was involved as the senior executive champion for Indigenous staff across the NSW Department of Industry cluster and oversaw delivery of the cluster’s first Reconciliation Action Plan). Based in Sydney, Mr Basnayake is also on the Board of the Science Schools Foundation and is a Member of Westmead Hospital’s Member Safety and Quality Committee.
The APC is responsible for promoting high standards of media practice, community access to information of public interest and freedom of expression through the media. Members include the majority of Australia’s major newspaper, magazine and online publishers. These publishers agree to comply with the APC’s binding standards of practice. When complaints about these members are made to the APC, the material is evaluated against these standards by the APC’s Adjudication Panels, which are independent of publishers.

Complainant/ Herald Sun

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article headed “Lockdowns show Australia has lost its marbles” published online by The Herald Sun on 30 June 2021.

The article was an opinion piece in which the columnist was critical of lockdown policies. The ‘precede’ which appeared beneath the headline of the article stated “Half the country is locked down because state leaders are whipping up fears about a virus that’s less dangerous than its vaccine.” The article went on to state, amongst other things, “…we’ve now vaccinated the vast majority of the people most likely to die — people aged over 70, and people in aged-care homes”; “…this dominant Delta strain is half as deadly as last year’s strain, according to Public Health England”; “Our main aim from the start should have been to stop people dying, and live with the fact that others will still get the sniffles. Treat this like the flu”; and “why vaccinate millions of young Australians who won’t get very sick from a virus that almost exclusively kills people over 65?”.

The article also stated “Queensland’s health officer, Jeannette Young, exposed the craziness of this when she tried to justify banning the young from taking the AstraZeneca vaccine that’s saved Britain: ‘I don’t want an 18-year-old in Queensland dying from a clotting illness who, if they got Covid, probably wouldn’t die.’ If this virus is less dangerous than even a vaccine, why is half the country in lockdown?”

The Council notes that although the article is an opinion piece, the publication is nonetheless obliged to take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material in the article is accurate, not misleading, fair and balanced; and to ensure that the writer’s expressions of opinion are not based on inaccurate factual material.

In considering the ‘precede’ to the article, which states “…state leaders are whipping up fears about a virus that’s less dangerous than its vaccine” the Council notes that this assertion is made without any qualification or context, and inaccurately portrays the risks associated with Covid-19 vaccines and the virus itself. Accordingly, General Principles 1 and 3 were breached in this respect.

However, the Council considers that where the columnist elsewhere poses the question “If this virus is less dangerous than even a vaccine, why is half the country in lockdown?”, reflected a statement concerning risks associated with a vaccine made by Queensland’s Chief Health Officer who was quoted in the article. Accordingly, General Principles 1 and 3 were not breached in this respect.

In relation to the remaining matters detailed above, the Council is satisfied, based on the information before it, that there was a reasonable factual basis for the writer’s expressions of opinion, and that the factual information in the article was accurate and not misleading. Accordingly, General Principles 1 and 3 were not breached in these respects.

Read the full adjudication here .

1 Like

Lisa Guglielmucci / The Daily Telegraph

The Press Council considered a complaint from Lisa Guglielmucci, concerning an article published in The Daily Telegraph headed “Liar cleric’s fresh call’” in print and “Disgraced Hillsong singer Michael Guglielmucci launches homeless charity” online on 3 April 2021.

The article reported that “Disgraced fake cancer pastor Michael Guglielmucci has resurrected his career, setting up a charity to support the terminally-sick and homeless.” The article went on to state that “The pop star preacher, who performed with the Hillsong church band and confessed to inventing a two-year cancer battle to hide his porn addiction, has resurfaced announcing God has called him to create a community that feeds and supports the homeless, asylum seekers and the chronically and terminally ill in Port Adelaide.” The article included a large and prominent photograph with the caption: “Popstar preacher Michael Guglielmucci is starting a charity”. Ms Guglielmucci said the photo used in the article is of her “deceased husband but the story is not about him, it is about his brother”.

The Council accepts that the publication of the photograph was the result of human error. Nonetheless, the Council considers that given the seriousness of the reported conduct of the individual named in the article, there was an obligation on the publication to ensure that the photo was in fact that of the person named in the article. Accordingly, the Council considers the publication did not take reasonable steps to verify the photograph, and to ensure that the factual information in the article was accurate. Accordingly, the Council finds that General Principle 1 was breached.

The Council considers that given the seriousness of the mistake it would have been preferable for the publication to publish a prominent correction rather than a clarification. Nonetheless, the Council commends the publication for immediately removing the online photo once the mistake was brought to its attention. The Council also notes that together with a written apology, the publication published a print clarification and added an editor’s note on the online article informing readers of the mistake. Accordingly, the Council finds no breach of General Principle 2.

The Council considers that given the prominence of the photo and the seriousness of the reported past conduct of the individual named in the article and the failure to verify the accuracy of the photo, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid substantial distress. Accordingly, the Council finds that General Principle 6 was breached.

Read the full adjudication here .

1 Like

Australian Press Council welcomes three new publisher members

The Australian Press Council (APC) has announced three new publisher members – Nascon Media Pty Ltd, Out Publications Pty Ltd and Region Group Pty Ltd.

As the mainstream print media continues to adapt its business models to new digital frameworks, readers also rely on smaller, local, and community-focused publications for news and information. “Small and niche publishers play an important role in keeping their communities reliably informed on matters of interest to them. I welcome these new publishers who have chosen to join the Australian Press Council and commit to its editorial standards,” said Neville Stevens, AO, APC Chair.

  • Nascon Media Pty Ltd, a privately-held company based in Queensland, provides news and market intelligence to Australia’s agricultural sector through online publications including Beef Central, Grain Central, Sheep Central and Ag Tech Central. It is independently owned and produced by experienced rural journalists Jon Condon and James Nason. www.beefcentral.com
  • Out Publications Pty Ltd is based in Sydney’s Ultimo and publishes the LGBTQI magazine The Star Observer. Previously a not-for-profit, community-owned organisation, The Star Observer was purchased by Out Publications in 2019. The Star Observer is produced in both print and online formats. www.starobserver.com.au
  • Region Group Pty Ltd is based in Canberra and publishes locally sourced online news and editorial content from Canberra and the surrounding region. Its mastheads are RiotAct and AboutRegional. It was founded by Canberra-based tech entrepreneurs Tim White and Michael McGoogan. https://region.com.au/#publications
1 Like