Australian Press Council

Radio, Print, and Online Print and Online
284

Townsville Hospital and Health Service / The Courier Mail

The Press Council considered a complaint from Townsville Hospital and Health Service (the hospital) concerning two articles published in print and online in The Courier Mail and the Sunday Mail.

The first article is headed “Hospital silent on shooting victim” in print and “Police shot dead Townsville man hours after hospital discharge” online on 23 April 2023. The second article is headed, “HOSPITAL DEATH TRAP /’THEY WON’T HELP ME’” in print on 6 May 2023 and “’They won’t help me’: Teen’s desperate post before suicide” online on 7 May 2023.

The first article reported that “A review will be undertaken into the circumstances surrounding the death of a Townsville man who was shot by police just hours after his release from hospital. The Kirwan shooting on Friday night occurred just a day after police spent two hours negotiating with the same man in a siege situation on Bel Air Ave, before he surrendered and was admitted to Townsville University Hospital.” It said that “Townsville’s Hospital and Health Service chief avoided answering a string of questions on the shocking timeline of events and the hospital’s decision to discharge Steven Angus, 52, after the lengthy siege.”

It went on to report that “Townsville Hospital and Health Service chief executive Kieran Keyes confirmed a ‘comprehensive clinical review will be completed by the health service to determine what learnings or actions may result from this tragic incident … I am unable to provide any details due to patient confidentiality’”.

The second article reported “A young Queensland woman suffering depression and pleading for help was repeatedly told to go home by staff at a Townsville hospital after self-harming and took her own life just hours after being discharged yet again.” It said that the woman’s “care at Townsville University Hospital is now being investigated in a ‘full clinical review’” following her death after she was released from the mental health unit in October.”

It reported that “The revelation comes just a week after the same hospital came under scrutiny for sending a veteran “home after trying to harm himself, just hours before he was shot dead by police.” The article went on to report the hospital’s Chief Executive saying “…Our health service is subject to privacy and confidentiality legislation and for this reason, I am unable to provide any further details about Ms Morison’s care. Intensive mental health care is complex, and it is our priority to ensure the care of each individual person is tailored in a setting that best suits their needs …”.

The Council’s Standards of Practice require publications to take reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 6), and 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 – Coverage of Suicide).

In relation to the first article, the Council acknowledges that the comment that the hospital “avoided answering questions” could infer that the hospital was intentionally withholding information on the man’s care. The Council also acknowledges the complainant’s comments that the reporting on this matter, including the headline, caused significant distress to members of its staff. However, although the Council recognises that the hospital’s patient confidentiality obligations limit its ability to respond to media enquiries, it notes the hospital’s response to the enquiries was included in the article. The Council also considers that, to the extent the reporting on the matter did cause substantial offence or distress, or a substantial risk to health and safety, this was outweighed by the significant public interest in reporting on the shooting and the events which preceded it. Accordingly, the Council finds that the publication did not breach Principle 6.

In relation to the second article, and specifically in relation to the print headline, the Council accepts that it could have been less emotive given the sensitivities of the issue. However, the Council notes that the immediate family of the woman who died by suicide were highly critical of the hospital. Accordingly, the Council finds that the publication took reasonable steps to comply with Specific Standard 7 on Coverage of Suicide and finds no breach of this Standard of Practice.

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

Read the full adjudication here.

285

Complainant / The Australian

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published in The Australian on 13 June 2023, headed “’Gender affirming’ care is destroying vulnerable kids” in print and “Why ‘gender affirming’ care is destroying our most vulnerable kids” online.

The article is an opinion piece on what the columnist considers to be the controversies of gender affirming healthcare involving children and adolescents, describing it as a “public health crisis caused not by a virus, not by a disease, but by social contagion”. The columnist said the notion that there are not just “two sexes, or that it is actually possible to change sex or be ‘non-binary’ …” has been embraced with enthusiasm by politicians, noting for example, the passing of “laws that allow people to falsify their birth certificates on the basis that they now feel as if they are a different sex to the one in which they were born”.

The columnist said “Other laws have been passed criminalising the work of therapists who try to help children, adolescents and adults become more comfortable with the only body they have” and that when the Family Court (Re: Kelvin) held that the prescription of cross-sex hormones to adolescents no longer required court approval if parents and doctors were in agreement, it “To a great extent … relied on the affidavit of one medical practitioner from the Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne” when it reached this decision.

The columnist also said that a “substantial portion” of children who identify as a gender other than their biological sex “are on the autism spectrum”; that “Without puberty blockers, the unequivocal research evidence is that most children resolve their gender identity issues before or while going through puberty” and that “After systematic reviews of the medical evidence, the treatment has been all but banned in Finland, Norway and Sweden outside of strictly controlled research programs.”

In response to a complaint received, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether the article breached the applicable Standards of Practice requiring publications to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1), and to ensure factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance and writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts (General Principle 3).

The Council noted that the complaint had expressed concern that the statements regarding the falsification of birth certificates, that laws have been passed criminalising the work of therapists who try to help children, adolescents and adults become more comfortable with their body and that the Family Court relied on the affidavit of one medical practitioner from the Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne are without factual basis. Similarly, the complaint noted that statements concerning autism and its links to gender dysphoria, that those who do not use puberty blockers, resolve their gender issues before or while going through puberty, and that gender affirming healthcare has been all but banned in Finland, Norway and Sweden, are without factual basis.

The Council recognises that the article is clearly identified as an opinion piece and given the significant public interest of allowing freedom of expression and the undoubted public interest in the debate around gender affirming healthcare, the Council takes the view that such articles are entitled to express opinions with which some or even many may disagree. Nonetheless, even in an opinion piece, the obligation remains to take reasonable steps to comply with the Council’s Standards of Practice.

In regard to the comment that the “…passing of laws that allow people to falsify their birth certificates”, the Council does not accept that there is anything in the material relied on by the publication to substantiate this statement. The Council notes the word “falsify” suggests a level of criminality or deceit that has not been made out by any of the material relied on by the publication. Accordingly, General Principles 1 and 3 were breached in this respect.

In relation to the comment concerning the criminalisation of therapists, the Council notes that by not specifically referring to the illegal practice of conversion therapy, the statement misleadingly and unfairly suggests that therapists could be prosecuted for providing therapeutic care. The Council does not consider there is anything in the material relied on by the publication to substantiate this statement. Accordingly, General Principles 1 and 3 were breached in this respect.

In regard to the statements that there is a link between autism and gender dysphoria; that the Family Court relied on to a great extent, the affidavit of one medical practitioner, and that without puberty blockers, the unequivocal research evidence is that most children resolve their gender identity issues before or while going through puberty, the Council notes that the publication referred to and provided material in support of each of these expressions of opinion and considers that there was a reasonable factual basis for the comments. Accordingly, General Principles 1 and 3 were not breached in this respect.

As to the comments that hospitals in Finland, Norway and Sweden have all but banned gender affirming healthcare, the Council accepts that the publication did not state that this care was no longer provided by the hospitals and notes the publication’s comments that the treatment is strictly controlled in a research setting. Accordingly, General Principles 1 and 3 were not breached in this respect.

Read the full adjudication here.

1 Like
286

Complainant / news.com.au

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by a homepage item published by news.com.au on 15 November 2023 headed “DARK ISLAMIC THREAT: Terrifying one-word warning after store bomb”.

The homepage item included a sub-headline “The Palestinian-Australian owner of a popular Melbourne burger joint that was firebombed has revealed the drastic move he made after receiving a death threat”. The homepage item included a CCTV image of the firebombing, an image of the firebombed store and an image of the store owner. The homepage item linked to an article headed "Owner of Melbourne’s Burgertory chain reveals family living in ‘safe house’ after store firebombed, death threats”.

The Council notes 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.

Although the Council acknowledges that the homepage item linked to an article that had a different headline, it considers that the prominent reference to Islam in headline along with the words “DARK” and “THREAT” unfairly suggests that the religion of Islam as a whole is responsible for the threat and the associated firebombing. The Council notes that in not making it sufficiently clear that the purported ‘Islamic threat’ referred to a comment made on social media, the publication did not take reasonable steps to ensure factual material was presented with reasonable fairness and balance. Accordingly, the Council finds the article breached General Principle 3.

Given that it was not made sufficiently clear that the religion of Islam as a whole was not responsible for the purported ‘Islamic threat’, the Council considers that the publication did not take reasonable steps to avoid contributing to substantial prejudice which was not justified by the public interest. Accordingly, the Council concluded that the publication breached General Principle 6.

The Council welcomes the publication’s comments that it has taken steps to educate its editors on the use of religious terms in headlines.

Read the full adjudication here.

2 Likes
287

Complainant / The Daily Telegraph

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by a video published by The Daily Telegraph on its social media platforms on 12 November 2023. The video was titled “Terrifying CCTV footage has emerged of the moment a Melbourne burger store exploded in flames that sparked pro-Palestinian protests exploded in flames”.

The video showed CCTV footage of what has been reported to be a firebombing of a Melbourne burger store. Along with CCTV material, the video also included footage taken by an individual from the community showing the fire’s aftermath which included the individual’s commentary and associated captions on the fire. The Council noted that the complaint raised concerns that the published material may be described as hate speech.

The Council accepts the publication’s comments that the publication of the video was not intentional and notes the steps it says it has taken to prevent further mistakes, such as this, from reoccurring. However, the Council notes that despite being informed of the significant concerns with the video content soon after its publication, it remained online for a number of weeks before it was eventually removed.

The Council considers that given the video’s inflammatory language, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety and that there was insufficient public interest justifying it doing so.

Accordingly, the Council concludes that the publication breached General Principle 6.

Given the offensive, distressing or prejudicial nature of the comments made by the individual in the video, the Council has chosen not to republish those words.

Read the full adjudication here.

1 Like
288

Complainant / Herald Sun

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published in the Herald Sun headed “Top cop claims Director of Public Prosecutions knocked back police requests to prosecute racists”, 21 October 2023 online and “Police: DPP set racism high bar”, 22 October 2023 in print.

The article reported on a Press Conference by Victoria Deputy Police Commissioner Neil Paterson. The article reported that “Victoria’s Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has repeatedly knocked back police requests to prosecute racists for breaches of the state’s racial vilification laws, police have confirmed”. The article went on to report that “Deputy Commissioner Neil Paterson … defended the force from allegations police were not properly enforcing the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act.”

The complainant said that it was inaccurate and misleading to report that Victoria Police “regularly” provides racial and religious vilification briefs to the DPP for consideration and to also report that the DPP had advised Victoria Police that the threshold for prosecution is “high”. The complainant also said that it was inaccurate and misleading to report that Victoria Police “regularly sent briefs of evidence to the DPP” and omit to report Mr Paterson as saying that “there’s very few charges in any year where we consider a charge under the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act to put a matter before the Director of Public Prosecutions.”

The complainant said the result was an article which conveyed the unmistakable inference that there was a fundamental disagreement or difference of opinion between Victoria Police and the DPP regarding the prosecution of racial and religious vilification offences.

In considering the complaint, the Council had regard to a video recording and transcript of the Press Conference against the content of the news article. The Council notes that Mr Paterson stated that the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act was complex legislation and that “the threshold is high under that legislation.” He also stated that the offence under the Act was “a complex offence that requires certain elements to be present before police will take action and put a Brief of Evidence together for consideration by the Director of Public Prosecutions.”

Accordingly, the Council considers that Mr Paterson was stating that it was the legislation that set a “high bar” on prosecution and not the DPP. In relation to this, he stated that whether or not an incident leads to a prosecution “rises and falls on the circumstances of any particular matter” and “on the evidence that’s available, the particular behaviour that’s been exhibited.” While the Council acknowledges that Mr Patterson did say that Victoria Police had “recently put Briefs of Evidence to the Director for a decision, and we’ve had that come back that there is insufficient evidence in other similar sorts of examples of this offence occurring” the Council is satisfied that he did not say that the DPP had advised that the threshold for launching prosecutions was "high” or that the DPP had “repeatedly knocked back requests” to prosecute matters.

The Council also notes that Mr Paterson stated that “there’s very few charges in any year where we consider a charge under the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act to put a matter before the Director of Public Prosecutions. It doesn’t happen very often because the circumstances that give rise to a charge doesn’t happen very often.” Accordingly, the Council considers it was misleading to report that Victoria Police “regularly sent briefs of evidence to the DPP”, without providing the broader context of Mr Paterson’s statement.

The Council notes that in the absence of Mr Paterson’s comments that there are “very few charges” that are put before the DPP, along with the headlines and the opening paragraph, the article misleadingly and unfairly suggest that there was a disagreement between Victoria Police and the DPP in relation to the prosecution of the Act. The Council is satisfied that on the material before it, that the comments by Mr Paterson concerned the complexity of the Act. Accordingly, the Council finds a breach of General Principle 1.

The Council notes the attempts the publication says it took to contact the complainant for comment. However, in the context of reporting on a matter of significant public interest, the Council is not satisfied that two calls to a switchboard late on Saturday afternoon constitutes reasonable steps. Accordingly, the Council finds a breach of General Principle 3.

As to corrective or remedial action, the Council considers the article is significantly misleading. The Council also notes that after the article was published, the complainant contacted the publication to raise its concerns with the article and seek a correction. The Council notes that on the information before it, the publication has not offered the complainant with an opportunity for a subsequent reply. Accordingly, the Council concludes that General Principles 2 and 4 were breached.

Read the full adjudication here.

1 Like
289

Complainant / The Advertiser

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published in The Advertiser headed “200M FOR TERRORISTS” / “Wong under fire for latest grant to Hamas-infiltrated UN group”, 30 January 2024 in print.

The article reported on the Australian Federal Government’s funding of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees. It reported that, “Australia has handed $200m to a UN aid agency that sacked workers for taking part in the October 7 terror attacks on Israel as Penny Wong is facing questions for overlooking concerns about the group”. The article reported that the “federal government has been accused of ignoring warnings about the involvement of UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA) workers in the murderous assault …”. The article went on to report “A pause has now been placed on the funds, which had not yet been released.”

The Council recognises the limitations of headlines to reflect the tenor of an article. Nonetheless, headlines are required to comply with the Council’s Standards of Practice. The Council considers that the prominent front-page headline unfairly characterises the UNRWA as being complicit in the actions of the 12 workers who were alleged to have participated in the October 7 terror attacks on Israel.

The Council notes that at the time of publication, UNRWA had not been proscribed as a terrorist organisation by any nation state and it does not accept that the information referred to by the publication was sufficient to characterise it as such. The Council also does not accept that the first paragraph of the front-page article is sufficient to dispel this unfair characterisation. 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.

Although the Council considers the headline to be an unfair characterisation of the reported events, the Council notes that it is referring to a large overseas aid agency. In such circumstances, and in the absence of naming specific individuals within the organisation, the Council does not consider the headline to be substantially prejudicial. Accordingly, the Council finds no breach of General Principle 6.

Read the full adjudication here.

1 Like
290

Complainant / Herald Sun

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of a cartoon in the Herald Sun on 21 May 2024 captioned “AUSTRALIA’S FRONT DOOR”.

The cartoon depicts Prime Minister Anthony Albanese winding up a drawbridge with Opposition Leader Peter Dutton striding bare chested towards him saying “STEP ASIDE ALBO”. In the background are people with predominantly brown skin, with some wearing head coverings such as hijabs, and carrying suitcases who are clinging to, clambering over, and marching down the drawbridge that is being wound up. In the foreground there are a number of people also wearing head coverings and carrying suitcases, who are all proceeding past Mr Albanese.

In response to a complaint received, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether the material breached its Standards of Practice which requires publications to take reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 6).

The Council noted that the complaint raised concerns that the cartoon suggests that the immigrants are mostly Muslims from the Middle East and Africa and does not portray the reality of immigration into Australia which is led by people from India, China and the Philippines. The complaint noted that in this context, the cartoon’s portrayal of the immigrants’ ethnicity is offensive, and the way they are drawn is a racial stereotype of Muslims from the Middle East and Africa, which is prejudicial. The complaint also expressed concern that the cartoon depicted Dutton as a superhero capable of winding up the drawbridge, and by implication protecting Australia from such immigrants.

The Council recognises that cartoons are expressions of opinion that often use exaggeration and absurdity to make a point on serious issues. For this reason, the Council has given significant latitude to cartoons when considering whether a publication has taken reasonable steps to avoid substantial offence, distress or prejudice. Nonetheless, the Council also recognises that the significant public interest in allowing freedom of expression must be weighed against the equally significant public interest in not causing or contributing to offence or prejudice.

The Council accepts that the intention of the cartoon was to comment on the political debate surrounding the immigration numbers and not on who or where the immigrants were arriving from. The Council also accepts that it was not the cartoonist’s intention to cause offence or prejudice. However, the Council considers that the depiction of the immigrants, which it notes is not reflective of the ethnic and geographical composition of migrant arrivals into Australia, together with the raising of the drawbridge, implies that such immigrants are undesirable. The Council considers that in the context of a national political debate concerning the potential negative effects of the significant immigration increase on Australian society, the depiction of such people as mostly brown skinned, with prominent facial features and attire that reflects a stereotypical portrayal of people from the Middle East and Africa, including Muslims, is offensive and prejudicial.

While the Council recognises the public interest in commenting on the political debate around immigration, the Council does not consider it was sufficient to justify the substantial offence and prejudice caused or contributed to in choosing to depict the immigrants in the manner in which it did. Accordingly, the Council concludes that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence or prejudice in breach of General Principle 6.

Read the full adjudication here.

291

I think this is the second time a Mark Knight cartoon has been subject to complaints. The previous one was his cartoon depicting Serena Williams throwing a tantrum, during her loss to Naomi Osaka at the 2018 US Open final. In February 2019, the Press Council ruled the cartoon did not breach media standards.

Today’s Herald Sun allocated the entire page 4 to the latest APC adjudication and Mark Knight’s response, and an editorial on page 20.

1 Like
292

Yoti Ltd / Crikey

The Press Council considered a complaint from Yoti Ltd concerning an article published by Crikey on 14 June 2024, headed “I tricked a selfie AI age-verification tool into letting a child ‘buy’ a knife" (Online).

The article’s subheading said that “Governments are looking at using AI to estimate people’s age using a selfie. I fooled it using a stock image and an old aging filter.” The article reported that “A tool used to estimate age using facial analysis that is being promoted as a way to stop underage children from accessing social media or online pornography can be fooled using an aging filter on a popular photo-editing app.”

The article went on to report that “One of Yoti’s methods for age estimation, which Opposition Leader Peter Dutton spruiked just yesterday — is ‘facial analysis’, which can calculate someone’s age using a selfie.” It reported that “Critics argue that age estimation through facial scans is flawed and vulnerable to being tricked. Yoti offers some measures to stop people from fooling its system, but it doesn’t change the underlying technology’s reliance on easily falsifiable information.” The article went on to say, “I know because I tricked Yoti’s age estimation into letting me ‘buy’ a fixed-blade knife using the photograph of a 10-year-old that I had put through an aging filter on a photo-editing application.”

The Council’s Standards of Practice require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material in news material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1), and is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinions are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts (General Principle 3). They also require publications to 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 accepts that the publication has accurately reported how it used a used an image of a child to buy a knife when it used an online demo tool provided by Yoti on its website. The Council also accepts that age verification technology may be manipulated. However, on the information before it, the Council notes that the online demo used by the publication for the premise of the article, was limited in its purpose and designed only to demonstrate to potential purchasers, how age verification technology works in an online environment. The Council accepts that the demo was not designed to detect, as in this instance, the manipulation of an image.

The Council also notes that it was clearly stated on Yoti’s website, that its ‘Anti spoofing software’ which is designed to detect the manipulation of an image, was not enabled on the demo. In this context, the Council considers it is misleading to state that technology used by Yoti to estimate age using facial analysis was “tricked” or “fooled”. The Council also considers that in context of an article that questions the fallibility of facial analysis technology, the article unfairly suggests that the technology used by Yoti is flawed. Accordingly, the Council concludes General Principles 1 and 3 were breached in these respects.

As to corrective or remedial action, the Council considers the article is significantly misleading. While the Council recognises the remedial steps taken by the publication, the Council does not consider that this constituted adequate remedial action for the implication that the complainant’s technology can be “tricked” or “fooled”. The Council notes that even with the inclusion of the word “demo” in the headline and article and the additional clarification in the article, the article’s premise that the technology used by Yoti can be fooled remains misleading and unfair.

The Council again notes that the demo used in support of the article’s premise that age estimation software is flawed, was designed for a different purpose. The Council notes that on the information before it, the publication has not offered the complainant with an opportunity for a subsequent reply. Accordingly, the Council concludes that General Principles 2 and 4 were breached.

Read the full adjudication here.

293

Complainant / The Advertiser, The Daily Telegraph, The Courier Mail, Herald Sun

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by a series of front-page articles published on 2 December 2024 headed “DARK AGES” in The Advertiser and The Daily Telegraph, and “STEP ON THE GAS” in The Courier Mail and the Herald Sun and an online article headed “Australia’s new Dark Ages: Gas offers energy crisis lifeline as summer blackout warnings are bought forward”.

The print articles’ sub headlines stated that “We must step on the gas to keep lights on”; “Australia told to step on the gas or lights will go out”; “Only way to avoid higher bills, blackouts” and “Homes face blackouts and soaring prices without action on Australia’s power shortage”. The first paragraphs variously reported that governments, politicians and regulators must end lengthy gas project approval delays to avoid “summer blackouts” or households “being plunged into darkness”. The front-page articles referred to further coverage on pages 6-7.

The online article reported that “Aussie households face being plunged into summer blackouts unless politicians and regulators take urgent action on gas supplies. See what the experts say needs to happen now.”

In response to complaints received, the Council asked the publications to comment on whether the articles breached the applicable Standards of Practice requiring publications to take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1), and to ensure that conflicts of interests are avoided or adequately disclosed, and that they do not influence published material (General Principle 8). The Council noted that the complaints raised concerns that the front-page articles did not disclose to readers that the reports pointed to on pages 6-7 concerned a series of sponsored content articles. It was also noted that apart from the heading “KEEP THE LIGHTS ON” located at the bottom of the online article, there is no indication to suggest that the article is sponsored content.

The Council accepts on the information before it, the publications’ submissions that the front-page articles are editorial content and not undisclosed sponsored content. The Council also agrees with the publications that to avoid any confusion, it would have been preferable to disclose to readers on the front-page that the articles it pointed to on pages 6-7 are part of a series of sponsored articles. However, in noting that the articles on pages 6 and 7 are clearly and prominently identified as sponsored content, the Council does not consider the absence of a front-page disclosure alone is sufficient to render the articles misleading. Accordingly, the Council finds no breach of General Principle 1.

The Council considers that good journalist practice would have been to disclose to readers on the front-pages that they were publishing a series of sponsored articles. However, the Council accepts that the front-page articles are not undisclosed sponsored content, and that the disclosure on pages 6-7 were prominent enough to constitute reasonable steps by the publications to ensure that any conflicts of interest (or, indeed, the appearance thereof) are adequately disclosed. In relation to the online article, the Council considers that it would be preferable to give more prominence to the disclosure that it is part of a series of sponsored articles, and that this be similar in nature and positioning to the disclosure on the same articles published in print. Nonetheless, the Council notes that the article does report that it is part of a ‘week-long in-depth series’ of articles and also discloses to readers the sponsors of the series. Accordingly, the Council finds no breach of General Principle 8.

The Council notes that while finding the publications took reasonable steps to comply with the Council’s Standards of Practice, this matter highlights the need for all publications to consider including in their printed editions and on their websites, information concerning their approach to sponsored content, including how they distinguish such content from editorial copy. While noting the clear difference between advertorials and sponsored content, the Council does not consider there is a difference between sponsored content (content which a third party approaches a publication to publish in return for sponsorship), and content that is sponsored (content the publication independently decides to publish and then seeks sponsorship for).

Read the full adjudication here.

294

The Australian Press Council’s chair Neville Stevens will retire before the end of the year, the council has confirmed.

Stevens has been chair of the APC since January 2018, after a 30-year career in the public service, and chairs on the board of various private and public organisations.

https://mumbrella.com.au/australian-press-council-chair-to-retire-873012

295

Complainant / The Daily Telegraph

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published in print on 4 December 2024 in The Daily Telegraph headed “To keep peace at home, Labor backs Hamas”.

The article reported that Penny Wong, the Minister for Foreign Affairs “is set to strengthen Australia’s support for a two-state-solution in the Middle East by backing a United Nations vote calling for an ‘irreversible pathway’ to the measure after abstaining in recent years, in a move the Coalition claims will further open a rift with Israel”. The article attributed comments that the “Albanese government voting for the measure in the UN after abstaining previously was a play for domestic votes”, to the former ambassador to Israel Senator Dave Sharma.

The article went on to quote Senator Sharma as saying “These potential changes in Australia’s UN voting pattern are against our national interests. They will do nothing to advance the cause of peace in the Middle East,” and “All they do is reward Hamas for its terrorist acts. And they further damage Australia’s relations with an important partner in the Middle East, Israel. Labor is seeking to placate domestic constituencies, rather than putting Australia’s national interests first.”

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 ensure that factual material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1); to ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance and to ensure that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts (General Principle 3).

The Council noted that the complaint raised concerns that the headline does not support the tenor of the article and that it is editorial opinion to state that “Labor backs Hamas”.

In response, the publication said that in the article, Senator Sharma criticised the Albanese government for backing a UN resolution that he claims rewards the terrorist organisation Hamas for its acts of terrorism. The publication said that in this context, the headline reflects the opinion of Senator Sharma and readers would view the headline as accurately reflecting the senator’s view. The publication also said that readers can discern the difference between an opposition senator’s criticism of government decision-making, as opposed to the editorial direction of the publisher.

Conclusion

The Council recognises the limitations of headlines to reasonably reflect the tenor of an article. The Council also recognises that what constitutes reasonable steps to ensure factual material is accurate and not misleading may vary in the circumstances. In relation to this, the Council considers that publications need to take great care in order to satisfy the reasonable steps standard in the context of heightened community sensitivities around the Israel/Palestine conflict and on matters of significant public interest.

In the absence of inverted commas to signify a paraphrase or a quote, the Council considers the headline is presented as statement of fact with the clear implication being that the Labor government is ‘backing’ Hamas. The Council considers that the headline goes beyond what was said by Senator Sharma in his criticisms of the government support for a two-state-solution in the Middle East. Accordingly, the Council concludes the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is accurate and not misleading in breach of General Principle 1.

In noting the complaint is limited to the headline, the Council finds no breach of General Principle 3.

Read the full adjudication here

296

Complainant / The Australian

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published in The Australian headed “Palestinians are complicit in the horror of Hamas” 17 January 2025 in print; “World waits to hear fate of little Kfir, Israel’s youngest hostage” 16 January 2025 online; and “Kfir Bibas was just 262 days old when the gorillas of Gaza called. If he has been kept alive by these black-hearted Arabs, then God help him. If he has been murdered by Gazans, then God help them”, Social media 16 January 2025.

The article, an opinion piece, commented on the fate of Israel’s youngest hostage Kfir Bibas and more broadly, the extent of Gaza’s civilian population’s support for Hamas. The article said “Kfir was just 262 days old when the gorillas of Gaza called. If they have not killed him, he has spent 451 days in captivity. Literally. Some released hostages said they saw his dad in a cage underneath the Gaza city of Khan Yunis, just a few kilometres from Kfir’s home”.

It said that “The fate of Kfir may well decide the fate of all Gazans. The world is watching what happens to the youngest hostage. If he has been kept alive by these black-hearted Arabs, then God help him. If he has been murdered by Gazans, then God help them.” The article said that Yahya Sinwar and Ismail Haniyeh, the leaders of the terrorist organisation Hamas responsible for the 7 October 2024 atrocities, “could easily have secured the baby’s safety. They chose not to. They planned and rehearsed, over several years, those October 7 raids in which 1200 innocents were hacked to death, blown up, shot and burned alive, while 240 were kidnapped; not all for being Jewish, but for working and living in mostly Jewish lands.”

The article also referred to the murder of Shani Louk, saying “The world was revolted by the scenes of celebrating young Arabs parading her body through city streets on the back of a truck shouting ‘Alluha Akbar’(God is great)”. It went on to say that “there is so much more that condemns Gazans, not just its Hamas-trained terrorists.”

In response to complaints 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 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 (General Principle 6).

The Council noted that the complaints raised concerns that the term “gorillas of Gaza” perpetuates a harmful stereotype that has historically been used to portray entire groups of people as savage or subhuman. The complaints also expressed concern the terms “gorillas of Gaza” and “black-hearted Arabs” suggests that all Arabs and all Gazans are collectively responsible for the actions of Hamas.

The Council recognises that the article is clearly identified as opinion and given the significant public interest of allowing freedom of expression, the Council takes the view that such articles are entitled to use robust language and to express views to which some or even many may disagree. Nonetheless, the obligation remains to take reasonable steps to comply with the Council’s Standards of Practice.

The Council notes the publication’s comments that the terms complained about were directed at Hamas and were made in the context of a discussion concerning the civilian population of Gaza and their relationship with the terrorist group and the nature of collective responsibility.

Nonetheless, the Council notes that the print headline, “Palestinians are complicit in the horror of Hamas” and comments in the article, such as “there is so much more that condemns Gazans, not just its Hamas-trained terrorists in conjunction with the repeated and prominent references throughout the article to “Gazans”, go beyond debating the extent to which the civilian population of Gaza was or is supportive of Hamas, and imply that they are collectively responsible for the October 7 atrocities and the fate of the hostages.

In this context, the Council considers that a reasonable reader would consider the terms “gorillas of Gaza” and “black hearted Arabs” are not solely directed at Hamas, but to all Gazans. The Council considers that in a period of heightened community sensitivity around the Israel/Palestine conflict, great care must be taken to avoid comments that characterise an entire population or ethnic group in terms that are potentially offensive or prejudicial, and which are not justified in the public interest.

Accordingly, the Council concludes that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress, or prejudice in breach of General Principle 6.

Read the full adjudication here.

297

Alan Howe, who wrote the opinion piece for The Australian that was the subject of the complaints, has told The Guardian Australia’s Amanda Meade:

News readers are mostly smart, informed Australians who like to keep it that way. The Press Council has a sneeringly dismissive view of the readers’ intelligence that I do not share. My column clearly referred to those Gazans who had invaded Israel on October 7, 2023 and who shot dead, blew up, incinerated, tortured, stabbed, raped and sodomised the innocents they found there while kidnapping children they later tortured and manually murdered.

298

Press Council appoints Dr Bronte Adams AM as its new Chair

The Australian Press Council has appointed Dr Bronte Adams AM as its new Chair, effective 1 December 2025.

Dr Adams brings a distinguished career in leadership, governance and public policy. A Rhodes Scholar and Member of the Order of Australia, she has worked across technology, innovation, education, telecommunications and the creative industries. She has held senior roles in government, was a consultant at McKinsey & Co, and is the founder of consulting firm Dandolo Partners.

Dr Adams holds or has held leadership roles including:

  • Member, AICD Governance of Innovation and Technology Panel
  • Director, Innovation and Science Australia
  • Deputy Chair, Melbourne University Publishing
  • Deputy Chair, Victorian Government ICT Advisory Council
  • Member, Australian Broadband Advisory Council

Outgoing Chair, Neville Stevens said:
“Dr Adams’ breadth of expertise in governance, innovation and the media landscape, combined with her deep commitment to public service, will be an invaluable asset to the Press Council as it continues its vital role in upholding high editorial standards and protecting freedom of expression.”

Dr Adams said:
“The Australian Press Council plays a critical role in supporting a free and responsible press and ensuring the community can rely on high standards in journalism. I am honoured to take on this role at a time when public trust in media is more important than ever.”

Dr Adams succeeds Neville Stevens AO, who has served as Chair since January 2018. The Council thanks Mr Stevens for his leadership over the past eight years.

The Australian Press Council (APC) was established in 1976 and is responsible for promoting high standards of media practice, community access to information of public interest and freedom of expression through the media.

301

Summary of latest adjudication

Shane Drumgold / The Australian

The Press Council considered a complaint from former ACT Chief prosecutor, Shane Drumgold, concerning three articles published by The Australian in March and May 2024.

The articles are: “Shane Drumgold’s reputation remains in tatters” online 4 March 2024; “DPP’s reputation remains in tatters” in print 5 March 2025; “Losing its faculties: university employs disgraced Drumgold to teach law students” in print 6 March 2024; “Shane Drumgold lands new job teaching law to Canberra students” online 6 March 2024; “Territory justice in full retreat at DPP” in print 22 May 2024 and “'Only in the ACT’? Justice is now in full retreat at DPP”, online 22 May 2024.

The 4 March opinion article said “a ­Victorian Supreme Court judge sitting in the ACT Supreme Court looked at the forensically gathered evidence in the Sofronoff ­report, and at eight of Walter ­Sofronoff KC’s findings against the former chief prosecutor, and concluded that seven of the eight damning findings against him should stand”. The article added that “Although the finding by Justice Stephen Kaye of apprehended bias against Sofronoff is of great interest to some because it involves delving into the private communications between the former judge and myself, Drumgold’s legal challenge in the ACT Supreme Court amounts to yet another own goal.” The 6 March news article reported on the complainant’s appointment saying that “Students at Canberra University have been startled to discover the identity of their new lecturer in the law of evidence: disgraced former ACT director of public prosecutions Shane Drumgold”. It reported that he “resigned as DPP last year following the damning findings of misconduct by the Sofronoff inquiry …”. The article said that the inquiry had found that “Mr Drumgold was guilty of a serious breach of duty by failing to comply with the ‘golden rule’ of disclosure by failing to disclose documents under the Evidence Act 2011; that he ‘kept the defence in the dark’ about the steps he was taking to deny it the documents; and that he ‘constructed a false narrative to support a claim of legal professional privilege’”. The article went on to state that “All of these findings were upheld on Monday by Judge Stephen Kaye in response to a legal challenge by Mr Drumgold to the ­Sofronoff inquiry’s report that he was in breach of his duties…”. The 22 May opinion article said about the complainant that “Only in the ACT would a corruption commission investigate not the chief prosecutor whose misconduct has now been confirmed by two judges in separate forums but the man who uncovered the wrongdoing.”

The Council’s Standards of Practice require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material in news reports and elsewhere is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1), and 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 to 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 a fair opportunity for a reply to be published by a person adversely referred to (General Principle 4).

The Council notes that in deciding whether the articles have complied with the Council’s Standards of Practice, it has had regard to the role of the Board of Inquiry and to the legal analysis of the findings by Justice Kaye submitted by the complainant and the publication. The Council emphasises however, that the issue under consideration is not whether each parties’ legal analysis is correct, but whether the publication has taken reasonable steps to comply with the Council’s Standards of Practice.

In relation to the 4 March opinion article, the Council acknowledges that Justice Kaye found that seven of the eight findings made in the Sofronoff inquiry were not “legally unreasonable” conclusions to reach. The Council notes however, that the comments in the article that “seven of the eight damning findings” against the complainant “should stand”; “remain standing” or that “the Sofronoff report remains standing” imply that these findings have been upheld by Justice Kaye. The Council notes that based on the information before it, this is a misleading and unfair interpretation of the comments made by Justice Kaye and the role of the Board of Inquiry.

In relation to the 6 March news article, and for reasons previously given, the Council considers the comment that “all of the findings were upheld” is a misleading and unfair characterisation of the findings by Justice Kaye and an inaccurate interpretation of the Board of Inquiry role. The Council also considers that in commenting on the findings of Justice Kaye and its criticism of the complainant, it is a significant omission to not report with due prominence that the finding of a reasonable apprehension of bias was reached due to the communications that took place between Mr Sofronoff and one of the authors of the article, before and during the inquiry.

In relation to the 22 May opinion article, the Council considers the article’s comment that the complainant’s “misconduct has now been confirmed by two judges” is inaccurate and unfair. The Council does not consider the findings of Justice Kaye can be interpreted to say that it endorsed or upheld the findings of the Sofronoff Inquiry as it relates to the complainant. The Council also considers that in the context of commenting on the Sofronoff inquiry and the findings of Justice Kaye, that it is a significant omission to not report with due prominence that the finding of a reasonable apprehension of bias was reached due to the communications that took place between Mr Sofronoff and the writer of the article, before and during the inquiry.

Accordingly, the Council finds the publication failed to take reasonable steps to comply with General Principles 1 and 3 in these respects.

As to remedial action, the Council recognises the publication considered its interpretation of Justice Kaye’s findings to be accurate and did not require correction. In these circumstances, the Council finds no breach of General Principle 2.

The Council notes however, that after the 4 March article was published, the complainant did contact the publication to raise his concerns with the publication and to seek a correction. The Council notes that on the information before it, the publication has not offered the complainant an opportunity for a subsequent reply. Accordingly, the Council finds that General Principle 4 was breached. This finding is not inconsistent with not finding a breach of General Principle 2, as General Principle 4 imposes a different and separate obligation.

For the full Adjudication, see: https://www.presscouncil.org.au/document/1853-complainant

302

When the press watchdog ruled that Murdoch’s broadsheet published three misleading, unfair and inaccurate articles about the former ACT prosecutor Shane Drumgold, The Australian responded by having a tantrum.

We say tantrum because the newspaper published on Thursday an extraordinary 4,000-word riposte, including a front-page story, a timeline, two comment pieces and a thundering editorial questioning the Australian Press Council’s competence and integrity.

This railing against the umpire is all the more bizarre, given News Corp effectively controls the APC as a majority member which pays up to 70% of its annual $1.7m budget.

303

Well…News Corp have never been known for doing things remotely sensible.