Australian Press Council

[TV.Cynic]

Complainant / The Courier-Mail

The Press Council considered a complaint about three online articles published in The Courier-Mail, headed “Brisbane house flipper’s alleged secret life as drug trafficker" 8 July 2021, “’Hectic’: House flipping accused drug kingpin’s texts, associates” 8 July 2021 and “’WTF just happened?’: ANOM text messages revealed” 24 July 2021.

The articles reported on court proceedings of the complainant’s partner who had been charged for allegedly being involved in serious criminal activities. In reporting on the proceedings, the articles also reported the serious criminal enterprise in which the complainant’s partner and others were allegedly involved. The article headed “Brisbane house flipper’s alleged secret life as drug trafficker" reported that “A million-dollar Brisbane house flipper who has virtually no online presence is alleged by police to have been living a secret life as a high-level wholesale drug trafficker” and the article headed “’Hectic’: House flipping accused drug kingpin’s texts, associates” reported “Details of the police claims against Adelaide-born Spurling were revealed in documents filed in the Supreme Court in Brisbane as part of his successful bail application on June 22 charges of trafficking in cannabis and ice and gun trafficking”. The article headed “’WTF just happened?’: ANOM text messages revealed” reported “Text chats between Queensland men who believed they were shielded by using an encrypted app will form the basis of police allegations they plotted million dollar drug deals”.

The Council notes the complainant had a reduced expectation of privacy as the information about which she expressed concern is based on publicly available court documents. The Council also considers that to the extent that those named in the article did have a reasonable expectation of privacy, this was outweighed by strong public interest in open justice, including the freedom of the press to report on matters of public importance, such as the legal proceedings associated with alleged criminality. Accordingly, the Council finds no breach of General Principle 5.

The Council also finds that to the extent the complainant and the named relatives were distressed by the publication of personal information, this was outweighed by the strong public interest in reporting on serious criminal activity and associated legal proceedings. However, the Council does not consider it was necessary or sufficiently in the public interest to include the name and the age of the complainant’s infant child. Accordingly, General Principle 6 was breached in this respect. The Council welcomes the publication’s subsequent amendment to the articles to remove such references.

As to Privacy Principle 7, the Council acknowledges there was no suppression order in place to prevent publication of information concerning the complainant and named relatives. The Council also acknowledges it is clearly in the public interest for publications to report on findings of courts. However, on balance, the Council does not consider the inclusion identifying information, namely photographs of the complainant, the name and age of the complainant’s infant child, and the occupations and suburb locations of named relatives, was necessary for the full, fair and accurate reporting of the crime and subsequent legal proceedings. Accordingly, Privacy Principle 7 was breached.

Read the full adjudication here.

[TV.Cynic]

Complainant / Herald Sun

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published in The Herald Sun headed “Out-of-school sex ed” in print on 22 February 2022. The article reported on the sexual abuse of a minor by his then teacher at a Victorian school in the mid-to-late 1990s.

The sub-headline of the article stated, “Female teacher admits violating boys”. The article went on to report that the teacher “pleaded guilty in the County Court on Friday to several counts of sexual penetration of a child under 16.” It also reported that the teacher “taught one victim how to perform sexual acts,” and said, “She later showed him how to put on a condom.”

The Council notes the limitations of headlines to reflect the tenor of an article. However, the Council also notes that headlines must nonetheless comply with the Council’s Standards of Practice. In this instance, the Council considers the description of the reported child sexual abuse matters as ‘sex-ed’ was an unfair characterisation of the reported events. The Council considers that readers could interpret the headline as implying that the child sexual abuse had some connection to the victim’s school curriculum; or that the teacher’s offences were not sufficiently serious. Accordingly, 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 Council notes the publication’s comments concerning how the perpetrator ‘taught’ the victim how to perform sexual acts. However, the Council considers that describing such acts as ‘sex-ed’ particularly when the reported abuse concerned a teacher student relationship, trivialises the seriousness of the conduct and potentially diminishes the reported emotional impact on the student.

The Council considers that in describing the reported child sexual abuse as ‘sex-ed’, 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.

[TV.Cynic]

Call for nominations for the Australian Press Council’s Press Freedom Medal

The Australian Press Council (APC) is calling for nominations for its Press Freedom Medal, to be awarded to an individual, or individuals, who have demonstrated extraordinary commitment or service to the cause of press freedom.

Nominees can be journalists, editors, or others such as members of the legal profession, educators or whistle-blowers whose work has supported press freedom or cast light upon important issues in Australian society. Nominations may be made by members of the public, any member of the Council and its Secretariat, or any publication that is a member of the Press Council.

“Advocating for freedom of the press is an important responsibility of the Press Council,” said APC Chair Neville Stevens. “The Press Freedom Medal honours those courageous individuals who pursue this freedom, often at great personal risk.”

Nominations for the 2022 Press Freedom Medal open today, Monday May 30, 2022, and should be submitted by Thursday June 30, 2022, along with reasons why the individual(s) should be considered for the award. They can be supplied as Word documents, PDFs, or within the body of an email and should be no longer than 250 words.

Nominations should be sent to media@presscouncil.org.au.

For those without access to email, they can be sent by post to:

The Australian Press Council
PO Box 1014
North Sydney NSW 2059.

At the close of the nomination period, a shortlist will be compiled from which the winner(s) will be selected.

The Press Freedom Medal is awarded for journalism published during the preceding year, in this case 2021. In selecting nominees for the award, the Press Council will be guided by its Constitutional aims to promote freedom of speech through responsible and independent print and digital media, and high journalistic and editorial standards.

If you have any questions about the Press Freedom Medal or need guidance on how to nominate someone for the award, please email info@presscouncil.org.au with the subject line: Press Freedom Medal.

[TV.Cynic]

Complainant / Daily Mail Australia

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published by Daily Mail Australia online on 25 November 2020 headed “Student artist sparks fury by saying war crimes report ‘shows Australia’s character’ and arguing mental health helplines shouldn’t be displayed for struggling veterans”.

The article reported that “a non-binary queer youth worker whose parents are Afghan refugees, wrote a scathing article for university-funded literary magazine Meanjin. [The student’s] comments referred to the Brereton report into alleged Australian war crimes in Afghanistan that was made public last week.” The article also included several photographs of the student attributed to the student’s Instagram account.

A complainant, who was not the subject of the article, raised concerns that the repeated, prominent references to the student’s sexual orientation and gender identity were not relevant to the article written for the university literary magazine and were therefore not in the public interest to report. The complaint also said these references, together with the photographs included in the article, were salacious and contribute to substantial prejudice against persons of diverse gender or sexuality.

The Council notes that General Principle 3 requires publications to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance. The Council accepts that the student identifies as non-binary and queer and acknowledges the publication’s comments that the student raised no concerns with the article in this respect. The Council considers, although prominently identifying the student as non-binary and queer could lead some readers to conclude that the views of the student should be criticised on the basis of irrelevant personal characteristics, on balance the publication took reasonable steps to ensure the presentation of factual material in the article was reasonably fair and balanced. Accordingly, the Council concludes the publication complied with General Principle 3.

The Council notes that given the student’s gender identity and sexuality were not reported as being a relevant factor for their views expressed in the article, prominently identifying the student as non-binary and queer, could lead some readers to conclude that the views of the student should be criticised on the basis of irrelevant, personal characteristics and could contribute to substantial prejudice to others who also identify as either non-binary and/or queer. The Council considers that in prominently referring to the student’s sexual orientation and gender identity, 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.

The Council welcomes the publication’s subsequent amendments to the article, which included the removal of two photographs of the student, and the deletion of all references to the student’s gender identity and sexuality from the article. However, it emphasises that publications are obliged to take reasonable steps comply with its Standards of Practice at the time of publication. In this context, the Council has consistently stated that publications should exercise great care not to place unwarranted emphasis on characteristics of individuals such as race, religion, nationality, country of origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, illness or age.

Read the full adjudication here .

[TV.Cynic]

Rebecca Duncan / The Daily Telegraph

The Press Council considered a complaint about an article published in The Daily Telegraph on 11 February 2021 in print headed “HE’S JUST A GOOD GUY” on the front page and continuing on pages 6 and 7 and online headed “Real estate agent Karl Howard took Viagra before alleged sword attack” on 11 February 2021.

The front page reported that a “former girlfriend” of “the real estate agent accused of a samurai sword attack on a woman at his home has told of her concern for him as he remains in hospital following his arrest, stating he is a ‘good guy’”. The print article went on to report that the complainant is “herself an agent” who “told The Daily Telegraph: ‘We’re very worried for him … he’s scared. ‘We’ve known each other for a very long time’”. The front page included a prominent photograph of the complainant next to the headline “EXCLUSIVE Ex-Partner of agent accused of samurai sword attack struggles to comprehend the allegations”. Page 7 included a prominent photograph of the complainant below the caption “We’re very worried for him…he’s scared”. The online article reported “A prominent real estate agent who police allege choked one woman before turning a samurai sword on another had taken four Viagra pills and had a ‘sexual intent’ before the bloody ordeal at the $2 million home he shared with his former partner, a court has heard”. The article, which also included a prominent photograph of the complainant, went on to include further details of the alleged assault by the agent against two women.

The Council notes there are significant differences between the views of the complainant and the publication as to what was said concerning ‘confidentiality’ and as to whether the complainant’s comments were ‘on the record’. The Council also notes that due to the absence of information to enable it to conclusively determine what was said, the Council is unable to form conclusions on this aspect of the complaint. However, it is not disputed that the journalist clearly identified herself as a journalist for The Daily Telegraph; stated that she was investigating the reported assault; and that conversations did take place between the complainant and the journalist.

The Council also notes that at the time of publication, the complainant’s personal information, including her profession and where she was employed, was publicly available. Although the Council does not accept that all information that is in the public domain will necessarily diminish an individuals’ expectation of privacy, in this instance it is satisfied that the publication took reasonable steps to avoid intruding on the complainant’s expectation of privacy, noting that the personal information was publicly available and the occurrence of conversations between the complainant and the journalist. Accordingly, the Council finds no breach of General Principle 5.

In relation to General Principle 6, the Council notes the complainant was not in any way connected to the alleged assault. Accordingly, the Council considers the article was likely to and did cause substantial distress to the complainant. Although there is undoubted public interest in reporting on the assault allegations, there was no public interest in including large and prominent photograhs of the complainant, particularly on the front page of the print edition when the complainant had made it clear to the publication that she did not wish to be photographed for the story. Accordingly, the Council finds a breach of General Principle 6.

As to General Principle 7, given that the complainant was aware that she was talking to a journalist, the Council concludes that the material published was not gathered by deceptive or unfair means. Accordingly, the Council finds no breach of General Principle 7. However, the Council reminds journalists that it is best practice to clearly identify when a conversation moves from ‘off the record’ to 'on the record’.

Read the full adjudication here .

[TV.Cynic]

Julianne Toogood / Cairns Post

The Press Council considered a complaint from Julianne Toogood concerning an article published in the Cairns Post headed “Council’s legal bill revealed” in print and “Cassowary Coast Council to release legal costs information ” online on 8 August 2020.

The print article reported “DOCUMENTS proving a Far Northern council’s legal matters are covered by insurance have been made public after the Office of the Information Commissioner ruled in favour of a previously denied right to information request”. The online article reported “Documents detailing a Far Northern council’s legal expenditure have been made public after the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) ruled in favour of a previously denied right to information request.” The article went on to report that a “Cassowary Coast spokeswoman said the information would confirm the CEO’s defamation case was covered by council’s insurance provider ….” The article quoted a spokeswoman from the Cassowary Coast Regional Council (CCRC) saying: “We are grateful that the Office of the Information Commissioner deems certain documents to be of sufficient public interest that it should be released to offer assurance to our community”.

The Council considers that publications are entitled to draw heavily on a press release provided that in doing so they comply with the Council’s Standards of Practice. It emphasises that any material taken from a press release should be presented in such a way that facts or opinion being asserted by the issuer of the release are clearly distinguishable from those being asserted by the publication itself. In this context, the Council notes that the publication’s statement in the print article only, that documents “proving” the CRCC’s legal matters are covered by insurance was not attributed to the CCRC press release. Therefore, in this instance, the publication went beyond reporting on the content of the press release to affirming its accuracy without taking reasonable steps to confirm the content of the press release was, in fact, accurate. Accordingly, the Council finds a breach of General Principe 1 in this respect.

The Council notes that a subsequent amendment to the online article removed the words ‘documents proving.’ Accordingly, the Council finds no breach of General Principle 2.

In relation to General Principles 3 and 4, the Council does not consider that the publication was required to contact the complainant for comment. The Council accepts that the article is based on the press release by the CRCC in response to a decision by the OIC. Accordingly, the Council finds no breach of General Principles 3 and 4.

Read the full adjudication here .

[TV.Cynic]

Australian Press Council welcomes new publisher members

The Australian Press Council (APC) welcomes Man of Many Pty Ltd and Mandean Media Network as publisher members.

These new members are in addition to the three publishers the APC announced earlier this year.

• Man of Many Pty Ltd is an Australian men’s lifestyle website publishing news and features relating to consumer products, technology, entertainment, and social equity initiatives. The website has 685,000 unique visitors per month in Australia, and four million visitors globally**.**

• Mandaean Media Network is a community-based media production association producing news for the Mandaean religious community of western Sydney. Mandaean Media Network’s mission is to advance the process of generating community news and current affairs and to inform and educate the Mandaean community.

“It is gratifying that Australia’s small publishers are seeking membership of the Australian Press Council,” said Neville Stevens, AO, APC Chair. “It signifies the value they place on maintaining high editorial standards and protecting press freedom.”

[TV.Cynic]

Complainant / news.com.au

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by articles published by news.com.au headed “Australia’s most sadistic child killer applies for parole, sparking warning from original investigator" on 26 February 2021 and “Cop Reveals Creepy Love Letters Sent from Child Murderer’s Prison Cell" on 27 February 2021.

The 26 February 2021 article reported that “Australia’s most sadistic child killer ‘will kill again’ if freed, warns the detective who helped put the ‘most perverted evil human I have ever come across’ behind bars.” It reported that “Robin Reid is again up for parole consideration next month, 39 years after he kidnapped, tortured, shaved and buried alive Peter Aston, 13.” The article referred to Reid’s accomplice in the crime as his “transgender soldier lover” who the article reported “began hormone treatment” while in prison and changed their name by deed poll.

The 27 February 2021 article reported that a “detective still haunted by the case of a perverted child killer has revealed how the sadistic criminal sent him twisted ‘love’ letters from prison” and that he is “being considered for parole almost 40 years after he and his transgender soldier lover kidnapped two boys and tortured and buried alive Peter Aston, 13, before killing him in 1982.”

The article went on to report the “two men were lovers”, with his accomplice “harbouring a desire to become a woman, and Reid a Satanist and sadist with a desire to torture and kill a male as ‘sacrifice’”. The article included a photograph of the victim with the caption “Murder victim Peter Aston was beaten, shaved, tortured and buried alive by Reid and his transgender soldier lover.”

The Council notes that Reid’s accomplice transitioned to a woman sometime after the crime for which they were convicted. As such, the Council considers the transgender references in the articles were irrelevant. The Council also notes that no information was presented to support the statement in the 27 February 2021 article that around the time of the crime, the accomplice was “harbouring a desire to become a woman”. Accordingly, 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 Council notes that there was a significant public interest in the public being informed about the parole hearing of Reid given the seriousness of the crime he committed. However, the Council does not consider that there was sufficient public interest in the prominent references to his accomplice’s transgender status, which was not reported to have a connection with the crime for which they were convicted. The Council considers that the combined effect of the references to the accomplice’s transgender status together with the statement that, at the time of the crime, the accomplice harboured “a desire to become a woman”, could lead some readers to conclude that there was a connection between transgender status and the commission of the crime reported in the articles. The Council considers that in prominently referring to Reid’s accomplice’s transgender status in the articles, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid contributing to substantial prejudice and that there was not sufficient public interest to justify doing so. Accordingly, the Council concludes that the publication breached General Principle 6.

The Council welcomes the publication’s subsequent amendments to the article to remove the transgender references, its acknowledgement that the transgender references were irrelevant and its newsroom education. The Council emphasises, however, that publications are obliged to take reasonable steps to comply with its Standards of Practice at the time of publication. In this context, the Council has repeatedly stated that publications should exercise great care not to place unwarranted emphasis on characteristics of individuals such as race, religion, nationality, country of origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, illness or age.

Read the full adjudication here

[TV.Cynic]

Complainant / The Daily Telegraph

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published in The Daily Telegraph headed “Transgender Sport Safety and Fairness Concerns Raised by Female Volleyball Players” (Online) on 27 September 2021.

The news article reported “Female community sporting groups are raising concerns about the issue of transgender athletes playing in women’s competitions, saying officials need to begin addressing the issue and lay out clear guidelines. It comes in the wake of a furore in Queensland over an all-male netball team sweeping to victory against all female teams in an under-18 competition.” The article included comments attributed to the president of a local NSW volleyball association, saying “she was very welcoming of transgender players, but felt it would be fairer if they played in existing mixed game competitions where both sexes already play together.”

The article also included comments from a co-founder of Save Women’s Sports Australasia who said, “Not only are we being asked to make sacrifices for men who self-declare a special identity, we are now being asked to sacrifice our own competitions to boys and men who simply want to play in our sports codes” and “The evidence unequivocally demonstrates men retain a significant performance advantage even if they have a ‘female gender identity’ and artificially reduce their testosterone levels.”

In response to a complaint received, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether the article complied with the Council’s Standards of Practice which require publications to take reasonable steps to present factual material with reasonable fairness and balance. The Council noted that the complaint raised concerns that while the article includes comments from people who express concern with transgender athletes playing in women’s competitions, it does not include any balancing comments from a transgender athlete, an LGBTIQA+ sporting association or any other individual or organisation that is supportive of transgender participation in women’s sporting competitions.

The Council notes that General Principle 3 requires publications to take reasonable steps to “ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance”, and acknowledges that it has previously stated that this does not always require complete, or almost complete balance when reporting on a subject. However, the Council also considers that publications should be especially mindful of the need for balance when reporting on matters of important social debate. In certain instances, where a single article is part of a series covering a particular topic, the requisite balance might be achieved through the previous or subsequent publication of articles and letters to the editor that put forward alternative views.

The Council notes however, that subsequent articles that seek to ensure balance on a subject, ought to be published in sufficiently close proximity to the date of the initial article and contain sufficient detail to inform readers that there have been a range of perspectives published on the subject. In this context, the Council does not consider the absence of balance in the article the subject of the complaint was addressed by the other articles put forward by the publication. The Council notes that the articles put forward by the publication would not enlighten readers that there is a range of competing views on transgender participation in women’s sport.

The Council also notes that none of the articles were published in close temporal proximity to the relevant article, and further, that only one article contained comments that could be reasonably described as being supportive of one transgender athlete’s participation in a women’s sporting competition.

The Council also notes that, notwithstanding the publication’s assertion that it was difficult to obtain comment from individuals or organisations that support transgender participation in sporting competitions, the publication sought and included comments from two individuals critical of transgender women’s participation in women’s sporting competitions. The Council also notes that the article contained links to further online articles that were also critical of transgender participation in women’s sporting competitions. Accordingly, the Council finds the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material was presented with reasonable fairness and balance in breach of General Principle 3.

In relation to the publication’s offer of a letter to the editor, the Council has previously stated that while letters can be sometimes used as a remedial tool to address balance, they will not always be an adequate response by a publication to inaccuracy, unfairness or lack of balance in a problematic article or series of articles.

Read the full adjudication here.

[TV.Cynic]

CASPA / The Courier Mail

APC Adjudication August 27, 2022

The Press Council considered a complaint from CASPA, a child welfare and care service provider, about an article published by The Courier-Mail on 13 March 2021, headed “Tragic flood dad on kid sex charge” in print, and “Father who lost wife and two children charged with child sex offence” online.

The article reported that a “Father who lost his wife and two of his children…is charged with having sex with a 14-year-old girl.” The article went on to state that the father “is facing serious criminal charges. He has been charged with six offences including two counts of having sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old girl and supplying and possessing cannabis.” The article also reported on the father’s family history and in particular that a car accident, which he was not involved in, had resulted in the death of his wife and two of this three children. In reporting the circumstances of the accident, the article named the surviving child. The article did not infer that the child was a victim of the alleged crimes.

The complainant said it was unnecessary to name the child and that the intrusion into the child’s privacy, the substantial risk to the child’s health and safety and the obvious distress caused by the report, is not outweighed by any public interest.

The publication acknowledged that the name of the child should not have been published and when the matter was brought to its attention it took steps to remove the child’s name from the online article as well as its digital archive.

The Council considers that given the serious nature of the allegations that were made against the child’s father, there was a reasonable expectation that the child’s privacy should not be intruded upon. The Council also considers that in the circumstances, the reporting of the child’s name was not sufficiently in the public interest to outweigh this expectation of privacy nor was it necessary for the full, fair and accurate reporting of the alleged crimes. Accordingly, the Council concludes that General Principle 5 and Privacy Principle 7 were breached in this respect.

The Council considers that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing substantial distress or a substantial risk to health or safety. Identifying the child in a report concerning allegations of a serious criminal nature against the child’s father, was likely to cause substantial distress. The Council notes that publishing the child’s name was unnecessary and did not add to the report of court proceedings and there was no sufficient public interest justification in doing so. Accordingly, the Council concludes that General Principle 6 was also breached in this respect.

The Council notes that apart from finding that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to comply with its Standards of Practice, this matter highlights for all publications the need to exercise great care and respect when naming children in articles concerning criminal matters. In this context, the Council notes the comments of the complainant concerning the distress this article has caused the child.

Read the full adjudication here.

[JohnsonTV]

Steve Price’s article claiming ‘minority’ white male status prompts press...

Australia’s press watchdog has received multiple complaints about a widely condemned News Corp column by Steve Price in which he complained he was among a white “minority”, a claim that flies in the face of evidence on media diversity.

The Australian Press Council confirmed it had “received complaints about this column”.

“The APC’s policy is to not publicly disclose the numbers or names of complainants about specific articles, in order to preserve the confidentiality and integrity of the Council’s complaints process,” a spokesperson said. “Complaints received by the Press Council about material published by its publisher members are considered on a case by case basis to determine whether they comply with the Press Council’s Standards of Practice.”

[TV.Cynic]

Australian Press Council makes new appointments as two long-serving Members retire

The principal body with responsibility for responding to complaints about the Australian press has today announced the appointments of new Public, Independent Journalist and Adjudication Panel Members and the retirement of two Public Members.

The Australian Press Council (APC) is very pleased to announce the appointment of Simone Carton, ACT Law Society CEO, as a Public Member, and Alan Sunderland, a Walkley-award winning journalist, as an Independent Journalist Member. Veteran cinematographer David Brill, AM, ACS, and Claire Alder, independent workplace investigator, lawyer and former Deputy District Judge (England and Wales), have been appointed as Adjudication Panel Members. At the same time, the terms of two long-serving Public Members, The Hon. John Doyle, AC, and Dr Suzanne Martin, came to an end on 28 August.

Public and Independent Journalist Council 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 appointments announced today bring deep and varied experiences to their roles, which will strengthen the APC’s ability to promote press freedom and uphold high editorial standards in a dynamic media environment,” said APC Chair, Neville Stevens, AO.

The Hon. Mr Doyle and Dr Martin retire after serving on the Press Council for nine years each, across three consecutive terms. “John and Suzanne have made generous and meaningful contributions to all areas of Press Council activity,” said Mr Stevens. “I thank them for their exemplary contributions and wish them all the best in their future endeavours.”

New Public and Independent Journalist Council Members:

Simone Carton has been the CEO of the ACT Law Society (ACTLS) since 2020, leading a team advocating for the legal profession in the ACT and upholding legal professional standards through regulation, education, engagement, and representation. She was previously the CEO of the Australian and New Zealand Society of Palliative Medicine. With more than 25 years in a range of legal, governance and operational roles, Ms Carton also spent nearly ten years as Legal Manager and Company Secretary for the Advertising Standards Bureau and the Australian Advertising Standards Council. She is a Director of Asthma Australia and a Board Member at public charitable foundation Greater Good, ACT.

Alan Sunderland is an award-winning journalist with 40 years’ experience working for the ABC and SBS. Since retiring from full-time work in 2019, he has been writing and advising on editorial issues on a project basis. These projects have included editorial quality reviews for the ABC and The Conversation website and a report on potential media self-regulation models for Ukraine, prepared for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Mr Sunderland is Executive Director of the Organization of News Ombudsmen, a Board Member of the Local and Independent News Association and a member of the Walkley Public Fund Committee. He is also the winner of two Walkley Awards for news reporting.

New Industry and Public Adjudication Panel Members:

David Brill, AM, ACS, is a highly accomplished, internationally recognised Australian news and documentary cinematographer. Mr Brill has worked as a cinematographer, video journalist and producer for numerous current affairs programs, including ABC’s Four Corners and SBS’s Dateline. He has worked for international aid agencies to help draw attention to international crises including wars, conflicts, natural and man-made disasters and humanitarian issues. In 2017 he was awarded an Order of Australia (AM) for significant service to the broadcast media as a cinematographer and journalist. He has won six United Nations media peace awards for humanitarian filmmaking, was inducted into the Australian Cinematographers Society Hall of Fame in 2008 and The Australian Media Hall of Fame in 2018.

Claire Alder is an independent workplace investigator, former barrister specialising in criminal law (UK) and former Deputy District Judge in the Magistrates Courts of England and Wales. She is an Admitted Lawyer of the Supreme Court of New South Wales and a Nationally Accredited Mediator (NMAS). She has been undertaking workplace investigations in Australia since relocating from the UK in 2005. Ms Alder’s expertise covers misconduct investigations, reportable conduct, ICAC referrals, public interest disclosure matters, and unsatisfactory professional performance of clinicians.

[crankymedia]

Good. Every review panel needs a periodical refresh.

[TV.Cynic]

Complainant / Mercury

The Press Council considered a complaint about an article published in The Mercury headed “Interim FVO left standing as Adam Brooks and former partner head to mediation” online on 16 September 2021 and “Court bid on Brooks” in print on 17 September 2021.

The article reported that the complainant, who is an ex-partner of Tasmania’s former Mines Minister, Adam Brooks, “has applied for a family violence order against Mr Brooks.” The article included a photograph of the complainant and quotes from the complainant’s address to the court saying “He kept coming into the house even after he moved to Brisbane. He would come in while I was at work and spend time there … And he would watch me from a lookout.” It reported that the Magistrate upheld an interim Family Violence Order (FVO) against Mr Brooks and set the matter down for mediation at a later date. The article went on to include comments from Mr Brooks’ lawyer saying the “respondent denies any wrong doing whatsoever and the allegations are very much in dispute.”

The Council accepts there were no suppression orders in place to prevent the publication from naming the complainant, nor were there any other legal restrictions preventing it from doing so. It is also clearly in the public interest for publications to report on findings of the courts, including in this case that a former Mines Minister, Adam Brooks was the subject of court proceedings. Nonetheless, the Council considers that given the sensitive nature of the court proceedings in seeking an order to protect the complainant and the fact that the complainant’s actions were not the subject of court scrutiny, there was a reasonable expectation that the complainant’s privacy should not be intruded upon. The Council considers that, in the circumstances, the reporting of the complainant’s name and the inclusion of a prominent photograph of her was not sufficiently in the public interest to outweigh this expectation of privacy. The Council also considers that in this matter, the absence of a suppression order does not reduce this expectation of privacy. Accordingly, the Council concludes that General Principle 5 was breached in this respect.

The Council also considers that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing substantial distress or a substantial risk to health or safety. Identifying the complainant in a report of court proceedings concerning allegations of domestic violence, was likely to cause substantial distress without a sufficient public interest justification. The Council notes that publishing the complainant’s name and a prominent photograph of her was unnecessary and did not add to the report of court proceedings. Accordingly, the Council concludes that General Principle 6 was also breached in this respect.

The Council notes that this matter highlights for all publications the need to exercise great care and respect when reporting on matters concerning family and domestic violence. In this context, the Council notes amongst other matters highlighted in its Advisory Guideline on Family and Domestic Violence Reporting, is that the safety and well-being of those affected by family violence must be the primary consideration. Publications should not publish information that could cause or contribute to the risk of harm, offence or distress.

Read the full adjudication here.

[TV.Cynic]

Josh Bornstein / The Australian

The Press Council considered a complaint from Josh Bornstein concerning an article published by The Australian on 14 February 2022, headed “Josh Bornstein rekindles attack on ‘bonk ban’” online, and “Bornstein rekindles attack on ‘bonk ban’” in print on 15 February 2022.

The article reported that “Would-be Labor senator Josh Bornstein savaged moves by the federal Coalition to introduce measures designed to limit the chance of ministers sleeping with staff.” The article went on to state that “Mr Bornstein argued that then prime minister Malcolm Turnbull’s so-called bonk ban was a ‘panicked and irresponsible’ response to the office scandal that engulfed Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce. This was after Mr Joyce had an affair with his then staffer Vikki Campion, resulting in the end of his marriage.” The article also included comments from Mr Bornstein saying: “I stand by my long record of helping women address gender inequality. I have always highlighted the need for a proper legal framework to underpin efforts to keep workplaces free from bullying and harassment, and my 2018 commentary was emphasising this very point.”

The Council notes the publication’s acceptance that the use of the word “rekindles” in the headline is inaccurate. The Council also notes that on the material before it, there is no suggestion that the complainant had repeated the comments he made in an article in 2018 concerning a government proposal. The Council further notes that the article’s opening sentence adds to the misconception that the complainant’s comments are contemporary. The Council considers that in stating that the complainant had rekindled his attack on a past government proposal, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to be accurate and not misleading. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 1.

The Council notes that in resolution of the complaint, the publication offered to amend the online article and to publish a correction in print when it was notified of the complaint by the Press Council. The Council notes however, that at the time of the Adjudication Panel hearing, the online article remained uncorrected, and the print correction had not occurred. Given the reference to the complainant rekindling his attack on a government proposal is significantly inaccurate and misleading and remained uncorrected for some time, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to provide a correction or other remedial action. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 2.

The Council recognises the publication’s offer of a correction was not accepted by the complainant, and also that the publication subsequently corrected the online article. However, the Council emphasises the obligation under General Principle 2 to provide a correction is unqualified, and should have been made when the inaccuracy was identified.

In relation to the complainant’s comments in response to being contacted by the journalist, the Council acknowledges there is no obligation on the publication to publish his comments in full and it is not standard practice to do so. The Council considers the complainant’s comments included in the article were a fair and reasonable summation of his criticisms of the publication and his views on assisting women in the workplace. Accordingly, the Council concludes the publication did not breach General Principle 3.

The Council considers the publication’s offer of a letter to the editor in relation to the complainant’s views on assisting women in the workplace to address gender inequality was an adequate response. Accordingly, the Council concludes the publication did not breach General Principle 4. This finding is not inconsistent with the finding of a breach of General Principle 2, as General Principle 4 imposes a different and separate obligation.

Read the full adjudication here.

[TV.Cynic]

Complainant / The Daily Telegraph

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published in The Daily Telegraph headed “Global Warming Activist Dies from Local Heating” (Online) on 25 April 2022.

The opinion piece commented on a New York Post article concerning the death of a climate activist, who the New York Post reported had died after he set himself on fire outside the United States Supreme Court Building. The opinion piece included excerpts from the New York Post article including: “The incident happened around 6:30 p.m. on the plaza in front of the court building. He was airlifted to a local hospital, where he died”; “This is a deeply fearless act of compassion to bring attention to climate crisis.”; and “David Buckel, 60, left behind a charred corpse and a typed suicide note that said he was burning himself to death using ‘fossil fuel’ to reflect how mankind was likewise killing itself, police sources said.” In commenting on the activist’s death, the opinion piece said “Let’s hope he used carbon offsets”; “Airlifted? Man, this guy went out in a blaze of fossil fuel glory”; and “He also used fossil fuel because solar would have taken too long.”

The Council notes the reported death of the activist, which took place on Earth Day outside the United States Supreme Court building, appears to have been a politically motivated act that sought to draw attention to climate change. In this context, the Council considers there is a significant public interest in allowing freedom of expression to comment on politically motivated acts even if that commentary is expressed in provocative terms, as in the case here. The Council considers that to the extent the article did cause substantial offence or distress, it was justified in the public interest. Accordingly, the Council finds no breach of General Principle 6.

The Council acknowledges that while the activist died by suicide, it does not consider the Council’s Specific Standards on Coverage of Suicide are applicable in this instance as it was a significant public and politically motivated incident which sought to draw attention to climate change issues. The Council notes that it would have been difficult to report this incident without mentioning the location and method. As previously noted, the Council considers there is a significant public interest in allowing publications the freedom to comment on events that are politically motivated and, in such circumstances, publications should not be constrained from commenting on a cause of a death. Such circumstances are demonstrably different to those involving deaths by suicide of persons not seeking to make a political statement. Accordingly, the Council makes no finding on the Specific Standards on Coverage of Suicide.

Relevant Council Standards

This Adjudication applies the following General Principles of the Council.

Publications must take reasonable steps to:
6. 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.

Note – “Sufficiently in the public interest”: The necessary level of justification in the public interest is proportionate to the gravity of the potential breach of the Principles. Relevant factors to consider may include, for example, the importance in the public interest of: (a) ensuring everyone has genuine freedom of expression and access to reliable information; (b) protecting and enhancing independent and vigorous media; public safety and health; due administration of justice and government, personal privacy, and national security; (c) exposing or preventing crime, dishonesty and serious misconduct or incompetence (especially by public figures).”

This Adjudication also considered the application of the Specific Standards on Coverage of Suicide.

Read the full adjudication here.

[TV.Cynic]

Complainant / The Sydney Morning Herald

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published in the Private Sydney column headed “Rebel starts spreading the news” on 11 June 2022. The article reported that actress Rebel Wilson had announced on Instagram she was in a relationship with Ramona Agruma.

The complaints raised concerns that the columnist’s request for a response about Ms Wilson’s same-sex relationship could be perceived as a threat to “out” her as gay, that Ms Wilson was forced to out herself on social media, and that the article criticised her for not responding.

The publication conceded it breached the Council’s General Principles relating to privacy and avoidance of harm, previously retracted the article from its website and apologised.

Conclusion

The Council considers the publication’s communications with Ms Wilson and the associated commentary intruded on her reasonable expectations of privacy without sufficient public interest. The publication breached General Principle 5.

The Council considers that the article’s reference to “outing” same-sex celebrity couples, its reference to giving Ms Wilson two days to respond, and its criticism of her for not responding, was likely to cause substantial offence and distress without sufficient public interest. The publication breached General Principle 6.

Read the full adjudication here.

[TV.Cynic]

Bruce Burke wins Press Freedom Award 2022

The Australian Press Council (APC) is pleased to announce that Bruce Burke, an accomplished and highly regarded media lawyer with more than 40 years’ experience, has been chosen as the winner of the 2022 Press Freedom Award.

The Press Freedom Award recognises individuals who have demonstrated extraordinary commitment or service to the cause of press freedom. “Bruce Burke is an outstanding media lawyer and individual who has dedicated his career to protecting the rights of media organisations to publish and broadcast important works of journalism, without fear or favour,” said APC Chairman Neville Stevens, AO. “As the many supporters of Bruce’s nomination for this award told us, his manner, dedication, energy, and insight into the dilemmas faced by publishers have been critical to their ability to publish their stories, even in the face of powerful opponents. He is an extremely worthy recipient of the 2022 Press Freedom Award.”

“I have had the privilege of a long and rewarding legal career, often representing media clients who are fighting to expose uncomfortable truths, while abiding by Australia’s restrictive defamation laws,” said Mr Burke. “I have worked with many absolutely remarkable people and continue to do so. It is gratifying that the value of this work to the cause of press freedom has been acknowledged by the Australian Press Council. I feel deeply honoured by this recognition.”

The Press Council has recognised individuals with this award intermittently since 1999, but the honour was previously reserved for people affiliated with the organisation. The Council decided in 2016 to revitalise the award and open it up to people who, through their work as journalists, legal practitioners, community activists or advocates, help ensure the preservation of free speech, press freedom and open and transparent government.

[crankymedia]

@TV.Cynic

Bruce Burke, an accomplished and highly regarded media lawyer with more than 40 years’ experience, has been chosen as the winner of the 2022 Press Freedom Award.

An excellent choice. Thanks @TV.Cynic for supplying updates.

[TV.Cynic]

Complainant / The Daily Telegraph

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published in The Daily Telegraph in print on 14 May 2021 headed “FATHER OF TWO DISMEMBERED IN DRUG DEAL: You can kiss your penis ‘goodbye’”. The article reported on the murder of Sydney father Goran Stevanovic and the sentencing of killer Khanh Xuan Pham. A large photograph of Pham blowing a kiss accompanied the article and was captioned “Penis-lopper Khanh Xuan Pham.”

The article reported “A drug-addict who cut off a father-of-two’s penis and dismembered his corpse after brutally stabbing him to death in a western Sydney unit has been sentenced to at least 22 years in jail.” It also reported “The court heard that because the victim’s body had been mutilated, his family, due to their religious beliefs, were unable to perform funeral rites or see him before he was buried.”

In response to a complaint received, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether the headline in particular complied with the Council’s Standards of Practice which require publications to ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance (General Principle 3); and to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, without sufficient justification in the public interest (General Principle 6).

Conclusion

The Council notes the article is based upon a report of court proceedings concerning a violent drug-related crime. The Council accepts that the headline and the caption are a reasonable reflection of the reported events. Accordingly, the Council considers the article did not breach General Principle 3.

The Council accepts that some readers may have found the specific factual description of the victim’s dismemberment distressing. The Council notes 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. However, in this instance, the Council considers that there is sufficient public interest to report the graphic details of a serious drug-related crime as the article reported that victim’s family had been unable to bury him in accordance with their religious beliefs due to his dismemberment. This brutal aspect of the crime was also reported to be a relevant factor in sentencing. Accordingly, the Council considers the article did not breach General Principle 6.

Read the full adjudication here.