Australian Press Council

Radio, Print, and Online Print and Online
61

Australian Press Council Statement re Appointment of Carla McGrath

Public Members of the Australian Press Council are appointed and sit on the Council as individuals, not as representatives of any particular organisation or employer they may be associated with.

The sort of people that are likely to be appointed as Public Members will probably have been active in their professions and in their communities, so there is always the potential for a real or perceived conflict of interest to arise.

The Australian Press Council currently has 26 members, comprising
• the independent Chair and 10 “Public Members”, who have no affiliations with a media organisation;
• 11 nominees of media organisations and the MEAA, which are “constituent bodies” of the Council
• four independent journalist members, who are not employed by any of the member media organisations.

Every member of the Press Council is aware of their duties to disclose potential conflicts of interest and the Press Council has a long history of successfully — and conservatively — managing these conflicts to avoid any suggestion of bias.

In the case of Carla McGrath, Australian Press Council Chair Professor David Weisbrot specifically flagged the issue of perceived or actual conflicts of interest as a result of her multiple Board and leadership roles and her long history of community engagement and advocacy on a range of issues, including Indigenous and youth affairs.

The issue was canvassed at length at the May meeting of Council. Following that discussion, the overwhelming majority of the Council Members was satisfied that any potential conflicts of interest could be successfully managed, and Ms McGrath’s appointment was made.

In the normal course of events, a new Public Member of the Press Council would not be rostered to sit on an adjudication panel for a period of at least six to 12 months. It is not anticipated that Ms McGrath will be assigned to adjudicate complaints until early to mid-2018, and all such assignments take into account potential conflict of interest issues. It is worth noting that adjudication panels are made up of five to seven members, including the Chair or a Vice-Chair, and an even balance of Public Members and independent journalists. Publisher Members of Council do not sit on these panels.

62

Complainant/Daily Mail Australia

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published by Daily Mail Australia on 3 January 2017, headed “Horrific moment a dog is BOILED ALIVE and Chinese villagers rip out its fur in clumps before incredibly it gets up and runs away”.

The article began: “This is the disturbing moment villagers in China filmed themselves boiling a tied-up dog in a huge pot of water.” It included a video sourced from another website in which a small dog is depicted in a large steaming wok. In the video, the dog kicked off the lid and barked in apparent agony. The lid was again placed over the dog, before it fell out into another large pan where it laid as villagers removed fur from its body. The dog regained consciousness and attempted to flee the scene to run away as the villagers laughed. The article also included four stills from the video and described the footage in detail.

The Council recognised that the level of offence and distress caused by published material can be reduced by the extent to which the reader has a real choice about whether to view it, and the nature of the warnings given prior to any decision to view the material. In this case, warnings were provided and the article itself alerted readers to the contents of the video, the full version of which only ran when clicked on.

However, the Council considered that even with the warnings and text, the video depicting the cooking of a dog while alive was substantially offensive and distressing. The warnings and text did not adequately prepare readers for this. To reduce the level of offence and distress, the publication could have for instance presented selected extracts of the video.

While the Council considered there may be a public interest in promoting awareness of China’s dog meat trade and the inhumane means used to slaughter animals, such a public interest did not justify the level of offence and distress caused by this video.

As such, the Council concluded that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing substantial offence and distress, and without sufficient justification in the public interest. Accordingly, it breached General Principle 6.

Read the full adjudication

63

Further statement from Australian Press Council on the Appointment of Carla McGrath

The Australian Press Council wishes to clarify some issues involving its processes and how it adjudicates complaints and handles perceived or actual conflicts of interest. These issues have arisen in the reporting and commentary on the recent appointment of Ms Carla McGrath as a public member.

Upon receipt of a complaint, Press Council staff undertake a triage process, making an initial assessment and analysis of each complaint received. The vast majority of complaints are resolved without formal adjudication, such as through a correction or agreement to publish a letter to the editor or an op-ed piece. Decisions at this stage are made by the Executive Director exercising powers conferred on him by the Council—there is no involvement of Council members. For example, in 2015-16, only six per cent of complaints (30 cases) resulted in referral to the Press Council’s Adjudication Panel for formal determination involving an Adjudication Panel.

An Adjudication Panel usually comprises the Chair (or one of the two Vice-Chairs), two public members and two independent journalists. It is important to note that publisher members never sit on Adjudication Panels.
Ms McGrath is now one of 10 public members. In any given year, a public member could expect to be asked to sit on one or two Adjudication Panels, subject to availability, and the absence of any conflicts of interest.

It is routine for the Press Council to consider any actual or perceived conflicts of interest that may arise.

For example, in recent times, the Press Council identified a perceived conflict of interest involving a Council member. A news organisation that had previously expressed concern about his appointment was the subject of a complaint; the member did not sit on this adjudication.

In another instance, a public member who had previously published an op-ed piece on an issue that involved broadly the same subject matter declared this conflict and, erring on the side of caution, stood down from consideration of that complaint.

The Press Council will apply the same rigorous principles in future to any Adjudication Panels on which Ms McGrath might be available to serve in future. That is, she will not sit if the Press Council or Ms McGrath considers there is a real or perceived conflict of interest involving the complainant or the publisher, the subject matter of the complaint, or the activities of the numerous organisations with which she is or has been associated.

As previously noted, in the normal course of events, Ms McGrath would not be asked to sit on an Adjudication Panel for at least the next 6-12 months.

Ms McGrath’s duties as public member will also require her to attend quarterly meetings of the Press Council. She is one of 26 members of the Press Council and, therefore, her voice will be one of 26 around the table. The Press Council has deliberately sought to add diversity to its membership, representing a wide range of viewpoints and backgrounds. It should go without saying that the Council does not apply any litmus test in relation to a potential member’s religious, political or other views.

The Press Council notes its previous statement that, in relation to the appointment of Ms McGrath as a public member, Australian Press Council Chair Professor David Weisbrot specifically flagged the issue of perceived or actual conflicts of interest as a result of her multiple Board and leadership roles and her long history of community engagement and advocacy on a range of issues, including Indigenous and youth affairs.

The issue was canvassed at length at the May meeting of Council. The date of the May meeting of Council was set last year. The Agenda Papers are sent to all members of Council about one week before the meeting. Any Council member not able to attend a meeting in person is able to appoint a proxy.

Following discussion at the May meeting of Council, the overwhelming majority of the Council Members were satisfied that Ms McGrath was eminently appointable and that any potential conflicts of interest would be successfully managed. The Press Council can confirm that after a full and frank discussion, the Council voted to appoint Ms McGrath by 14-1, with one abstention. The Council confirms public statements already made by representatives of Fairfax Media and the MEAA that they voted in favour of appointing Ms McGrath. We note that the MEAA has since publicly reversed the position expressed in the Council meeting. The Council confirms statements made by News Corp that its representative voted against the appointment of Ms McGrath. The Council makes no further comment on the Council vote.

64

Australian Press Council Statement regarding vote on Carla McGrath appointment

As stated in its media release on Tuesday 6 June, the Press Council has recorded the vote in relation to Carla McGrath’s appointment as a public member of the Council as 14-1 in favour, with 1 abstention. Mr Peter Holder of the Daily Mail Australia has since contacted the Council to indicate that he voted against the appointment and that when the draft minutes of the May meeting are considered for approval at the next meeting, he will ask that his vote be recorded as being against the appointment.

The Council, on behalf of public member Robyne Schwarz, would like to correct the report in The Australian on 7 June regarding her vote.

The Council confirms, at Robyne Schwarz’s request, that she abstained from the vote to appoint Carla McGrath as a public member of the Australian Press Council, contrary to the report in The Australian, which claimed she voted in favour.

The Council makes no further comment as to the meeting.

65

Another three lengthy articles in The Australian today about Carla McGrath, GetUp!, and The Australian Press Council. It is being argued​ that GetUp! should be regarded as a publisher as they are paying journalist Michael West a reported $100,000 per year to write stories for the GetUp! website, stories that are also published on his own website. Publishers are not allowed to have employees appointed as public members to the Press Council. It is also being alleged by the paper that APC chairman David Weisbrot has a conflict as he sat as a director on a GetUp! funded not-for-profit litigation board in 2015 while he was APC chairman.

66

Complainant/Daily Mail Australia

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of an article by Daily Mail Australia on 10 January 2017, headed “Transgender woman, 24, accused of bludgeoning two innocent people with an axe at 7-Eleven was born as a boy named Karl - but had a sex change two years ago in Thailand to become Evie”.

The Council was satisfied the woman’s transgender status was suggested by her request in court to be supplied with certain drugs. Also, the factual material published about the woman’s background appeared to have been obtained from her public Facebook page, and there was no suggestion it was presented inaccurately. While the Council was concerned about the many prominent references to the woman’s transgender status, it was satisfied on the material available to it that the publication took reasonable steps to report the factual material with fairness and balance. Accordingly, it did not breach General Principle 3.

In considering whether the publication took reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress, prejudice or a risk to health or safety, the Council considered it appropriate to take into account the nature of the alleged crime as reported, that the woman had requested transgender-related and anti-depressant drugs, and that the personal background material was made publicly available by the woman on Facebook. While the Council was concerned about the extensive material in the article about her transgender status, given the nature of the alleged crime and information about the drugs being taken by the woman, the publication did not breach General Principle 6 in this respect. Notwithstanding this, the Council noted that the Australian community may be at an early stage of understanding the appropriate approach to reporting transgender issues, and there is a need for caution and sensitivity in reporting on such matters.

The publication also included photographs of and the full name of the woman’s partner, as well as some of her personal Facebook comments. It named the woman’s sister and included photographs of her as well as their mother and an unidentified man with them. It was not necessary to include this level of detail and in any case, the faces of the woman’s friends and family could have been pixilated in the photographs. The Council concluded that there was no sufficient public interest justifying this level of detail. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 6 in this respect, having failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or risk to health or safety. For the same reasons, the publication also breached Privacy Principle 7.

Read the full adjudication

67

###Professor David Weisbrot reigns as Chair of the Australian Press Council

Reason for leaving was “persistent personal attacks” and a campaign of “misinformation” over the Council’s appointment of public member Carla McGrath

The Vice-Chairs of the Australian Press Council have expressed their “deep regret” at the decision made today by Professor David Weisbrot AM to resign as Chair of the organisation, effective 18 July.

The Hon John Doyle AC and Ms Julie Kinross praised Professor Weisbrot for his outstanding contribution to the Press Council over the past two and a half years, saying the Council “will be the poorer for the loss of his leadership”.

The Vice-Chairs said they had made concerted efforts to convince Professor Weisbrot to stay.

In his letter of resignation, Professor Weisbrot said the reason for leaving was “persistent personal attacks” and a campaign of “misinformation” over the Council’s appointment of public member Carla McGrath, made after a “fair and open process” and a convincing vote by the full Council.

Professor Weisbrot said “my heart is simply no longer in the job, and it’s a difficult enough job at the best of times.”

Professor Weisbrot stated: “For the record, the basis of these attacks is thoroughly misconceived, suggesting that the appointment of a public member to the Council is within the gift of the Chair, and that I have the authority unilaterally to ‘rescind’ that appointment. In fact, the whole appointment process was carried out with careful attention to good process and the requirements set down by the Council’s Constitution.”

Professor Weisbrot expressed his “profound appreciation” to the Press Council’s Executive Director John Pender and the secretariat, the current and previous Vice-Chairs and members of the Press Council.

The Vice-Chairs of the Press Council acknowledge the outstanding work of Professor Weisbrot. Some of the highlights of his tenure include:

  • re-energising the Council’s role as a strong public advocate for free speech, press freedom and open and transparent government;
  • revamping and refreshing the Council’s Press Freedom Medal awards, to make them more outward looking and relevant to the industry and the community;
  • the development of the Council’s first-ever Strategic Plan and first-ever Reconciliation Action Plan;
  • increasing membership, including, for the first time, membership by Indigenous and multicultural publications, as well as from new online-only publications, such as Daily Mail Australia, Huffington Post, and Schwartz Media;
  • developing a new and much needed Advisory Guideline on Reporting Family Violence;
  • increasing collaboration with journalism schools to support education and training, especially in media ethics;
  • increasing collaboration and information sharing with other press councils in our region and internationally; and
  • organising an outstanding international conference on press freedom to help mark the Council’s 40th anniversary.
68

Complainant/Northern District Times

The Press Council has considered a complaint about an article in the real estate magazine of the Northern District Times on 23 November 2016, headed “Building’s high energy surrounds are too good to ignore” in print with a similar headline online. It gave the names and ages of the complainant and her partner, stating that they “bought a north facing studio apartment” in a property development, and provided details of it.

On the information available, the Council accepted the complainant’s statement that she is the sole owner of the apartment, and the suggestion that she and her partner were joint purchasers was not correct. However, as the publication relied on information provided by the developer’s public relations company, the Council considered it reasonable for the publication to expect it to know who the purchaser was. The Council also considered it reasonable for the publication to rely on the manner in which the complainant’s partner discussed the purchase (using the pronoun “we”) and that he never stated he was not a purchaser. Accordingly, the Council considered the publication took reasonable steps to ensure accuracy and General Principle 1 was not breached.

In relation to remedial action, as the complainant’s partner had some practical involvement in the purchase and acted as if he was a purchaser, the Council was not satisfied the inaccuracy was significant. In any event, the publication took steps to remove the article and its traces from its associated channels. Accordingly, General Principle 2 was not breached.

The Council noted that neither the publication nor the complainant provided direct information as to whether consent to publish the information about the complainant and the purchase was requested. The Council was not able to reject the publication’s claim that it reasonably believed the complainant was content for the material to be published. The Council noted the information published about the complainant as purchaser of the apartment is publicly available. Accordingly, the Council concluded that the publication took reasonable steps to avoid intruding on the complainant’s reasonable expectations of privacy, and General Principle 5 was not breached.

Read the full adjudication

69

Complainant/The Advertiser

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article in The Advertiser on 17 March 2017, headed “BLOWING HIS FUSE: Sparks fly as Premier ambushes minister but exclusive polls reveal SA blames Jay for power crisis” on page one in print, and “As Jay Weatherill confronts Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg, poll shows he’s to blame for SA’s power crisis” online.

The article contained a table setting out details and results of a poll, including the question asked of respondents (“In your opinion, who is mostly to blame for South Australia’s high power prices and blackouts?”) and the responses (“The Weatherill Government”, 39 percent; “The National Energy Market Operator/AEMO”, 35; “Uncommitted”, 16; and “The Turnbull Government”, 10).

The Council considered the statement “polls reveal SA blames Jay for power crisis” implied as a fact that the poll established that South Australians in general blamed the Premier for the crisis. However, the polling was a sample of only three electorates, and that this polling size and distribution—even involving key marginal seats—cannot be said to reflect the opinion of the entire state.

The Council also noted that the first paragraph of the article reported that the poll “show[s] voters in key marginal seats believe he [Mr Weatherill] is most likely to blame”, despite only 39 percent of those sample considering the Weatherill Government responsible.

While the article subsequently made clear the true position, this was not done in a manner sufficient to redress the inaccuracy and misleading nature of the headline and first paragraph. Accordingly, the Council considered that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the headline and first paragraph were accurate and not misleading, which breached General Principle 1. Further, the Council did not consider the offer to publish a letter sufficient to remedy the inaccuracy, which warranted a correction. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 2.

Given the inclusion of other material in the article such as the poll question, results, and methodology, and the publication’s subsequent offer to publish a letter to the editor, the Council does not consider the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure fairness and balance. Accordingly, it did not breach General Principles 3 or 4.

Read the full adjudication

70

Complainant/Geelong Advertiser

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published by the Geelong Advertiser in print and online on 16 February 2017, headed “SKULL CLUE TWIST”.

The article included a large image on the front page. The left side of the image showed half of a missing man’s face, while the right side was half of a generic human skull, with the two parts digitally altered to form a face. A sub-headline at the top of the front page read: “REVEALED: Police suspect grim beach find could be missing man believed murdered”, and the words “IS IT PAUL KINGSBURY?” appeared over the bottom of the image. There was a smaller image of what appeared to be officials searching a beach in the bottom right corner of the front page. The article continued on page five with the headline “SKULL TWIST”, including an image of the missing man’s face without digital alteration.

The Press Council considered that it is unlikely an image of the missing man or an image of a skull alone would have breached the Press Council’s Standards. However, as the image of a skull is an image of human remains, the graphic blending of the two on the front page of the publication was likely to cause substantial offence and distress to the family of the missing man and to the community.

The Council considered further that the publication of the image was unlikely to assist in the investigation into the circumstances in which the man went missing, nor did his criminal record justify publication of the image. There was no sufficient public interest justifying the offence and distress caused by the image. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 6.

Read the full adjudication

71

Complainant/news.com.au

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published by news.com.au on 9 March 2017, headed “Smartphone footage captures Brazilian transgender woman pleading for help prior to being beaten to death”.

An embedded video appeared below the headline with the caption “Transgender woman beaten on the streets of Brazil”. A 32-second video began automatically, and with a four-second warning which read: “WARNING: The following images and/or content may be disturbing/offensive to some viewers. Viewer discretion is strongly advised.”

The Council considered the warnings provided, at the start of the video and in the opening text, amounted to an adequate warning of the graphic nature of the video. It also considered the public interest in reporting on the serious issue of violence towards transgender people worldwide and in providing access to reliable information demonstrating the due administration of justice. The material shown is substantially distressing, but the most violent footage was not included. On balance, the Council concluded that the publication took reasonable steps to avoid causing substantial offence, distress and prejudice, given the public interest involved.

However, the Council noted that the video played automatically. It also noted that the wording of the warning in the video used only generic language, which would not have been sufficient in itself in the absence of the further warnings contained in the text. Great care needs to be exercised by publications to ensure the true nature of the material is described in the warning, and that the audience is provided with a properly informed and practically exercisable choice.

Read the full adjudication

1 Like
72

Autoplay videos finally came back to kick them in the arse. Annoying feature.

1 Like
73

Michelle Box/The Northern Star

The Press Council has considered a complaint about an article headed “The mysterious and ‘horrible’ death of Sabrina Bremer” in The Northern Star online on 18 August 2016.

The article concerned a murder victim who had been reported missing, and whose burned body was found at the side of a road in a remote area of northern NSW. The article was updated several times after initial publication. An update at 8.30am the next day, since deleted, reported that: “IT’s understood the woman was tied up to the tree when set alight and, as she decomposed and the rope broke, her body rolled down the roadside embankment”. At 1.45pm, the article was again updated to identify the woman by name, age and residential area.

The Council concluded that in reporting as fact the unverified residents’ claims, later proved false, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the article was accurate and not misleading. The Council also considered that in reporting the death in significant detail, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing substantial distress, particularly to the family, and that the public interest did not justify such detail. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principles 1 and 6.

As the inaccuracy was significant, due to the technical error in updating the website the publication failed to take reasonable steps to correct the accuracy with appropriate promptness, even though the material was ultimately deleted. Accordingly, the publication also breached General Principle 2.

Read the full adjudication

74

Scott Broadhead/Port Stephens Examiner

The Press Council has considered a complaint by Scott Broadhead about the publication of a letter to the editor on 25 October 2016 headed “Bike path an asset”.

The letter was dated “07.05.09” and was written by the complainant’s father, Mr Bill Broadhead, who died in 2014. It congratulated Port Stephens Council for building and maintaining a local cycling and walking track and was accompanied by a photograph captioned “JOB WELL DONE: Bill Broadhead from Bermagui was impressed by the cycle paths around Grahamstown Dam”.

The Council accepted the editor made a mistake in missing the actual date on the letter and, on the information available, the Council was unable to determine how the email incorporating the letter appeared in the publication’s letters inbox in 2016. Nonetheless, it considered that the publication of the letter suggested the author of the letter was alive, had recently offered his congratulations on the pathways to Port Stephens Council rather than just the Mayor, was recently impressed by the maintenance of the paths, and that this was the first time this letter had been published. The publication could have avoided these misleading impressions by observing the date on the email or contacting the author. As such, the Council considered the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the letter as published was accurate and not misleading, in breach of General Principle 1.

The Council acknowledged that the publication removed the online version of the letter during the course of the Council’s complaints process and since offered to publish an apology. However, the apparent significant delay in responding to the complainant’s concerns amounted to a failure to take reasonable steps to provide a correction or other adequate remedial action, in breach of General Principle 2.

On the material available, the Council did not consider that the level of offence or distress caused by publication of the letter so substantial as to lead to a breach of General Principle 6.

Read the full adjudication

75

Greg Bennett/The Northern Star

The Press Council has considered a complaint from Cr Greg Bennett about a letter to the editor published under the heading “Choose Wisely” in The Northern star in print on 10 September 2016. The letter, submitted by Cr Simon Clough, Deputy Mayor of Lismore City Council, expressed the writer’s views of what “Cr Greg Bennett, of the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party … and his conservative colleagues … will seek to do” if they “get the majority of seats on Lismore City Council” and the possible implications and risks of such actions, and urged voters to “carefully consider” what they wanted.

The letter was published on the day of the local government election and the publication had not contacted the complainant to inform him or allow him the opportunity to reply in that edition.

The Council considered that the letter set out Cr Clough’s arguments to the electorate against the complainant’s candidacy and the factual material in support of them. As the letter was published on election day, the only fair time for the publication to afford the complainant an opportunity to respond was in the same edition, which did not occur. The Council concluded that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to present factual material with reasonable fairness and balance and afford the complainant a fair opportunity for reply. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principles 3 and 4 in this respect. The Council considered it not necessary for this conclusion to determine the effect, if any, of the publication of the letter on the election result.

Read the full adjudication

76

BirdLife Australia/The Daily Telegraph

The Press Council has considered a complaint from BirdLife Australia about an article published in The Daily Telegraph on 6 December 2016, headed “ENVIRO-MENTAL STATE FUNDS FOR GREEN MOANERS”, with a different headline online.

The Council considered that the article presented as a verified fact that the complainant was one of a number of organisations using government grants for advocacy against major government projects, and did not report this in a qualified way or with any attribution to a source. The Council did not consider that the level of the complainant’s engagement with Stand Up for Nature amounted to using grants in such a way.

The Council accepted that the publication sought information from the complainant by email prior to publication. However, the suggestions made about the complainant were serious and required greater steps to seek confirmation than were taken by the publication, and there was no apparent urgency requiring publication before taking such steps. The inaccuracy and unfairness was accentuated by further references such as “GREEN MOANERS” and a table headed “CASH AND CARRY ON” which cited the complainant. The Council concluded that the publication did not take reasonable steps to ensure accuracy, fairness or balance in the reporting. Even if the information presented as verified fact was to be considered an expression of opinion, the publication did not take reasonable steps to distinguish factual material from opinion as required by General Principle 1. Accordingly, it breached General Principles 1 and 3.

The publication promptly published a letter from the complainant in which it was given an opportunity to respond to the impression created by the article. In the circumstances, the Council considered that the publication took reasonable steps to provide remedial action and a sufficient response, and did not breach General Principles 2 or 4.

Read the full adjudication

77

Department of Human Services/The Canberra Times

The Press Council has considered a complaint from the Department of Human Services about an article in The Canberra Times on 30 March 2017, headed “Another debt debacle” in print and “Centrelink hits 21,000 families with bogus FTB [Family Tax Benefit] debts” online. The article reported on Centrelink’s “Family Tax Benefit recovery effort” and in particular, the approximately “21,400 of the [65,000] families hit with the debt notices [who] were able to prove they owed Centrelink nothing”.

The Council noted that the publication did not dispute that an FTB debt arose once recipients of the benefit failed to lodge their income tax return, or failed to notify the Department they were not required to lodge an income tax return by the end of the lodgment year. The Council was satisfied the approximately 21,000 debts referred to did exist at the time the notices were issued, despite later being reduced to zero dollars. Further, the complainant’s explanation for this was provided in its submission to the parliamentary inquiry on the subject, referred to in the article. Given this, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure accuracy by describing the approximately 21,000 debts as “bogus” and sent in “error”. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 1.

The Council considered the material significantly inaccurate and misleading. In not publishing a correction or other adequate remedial action in this regard, the publication also breached General Principle 2.

Read the full adjudication

78

Australian Press Council new appointments

The Australian Press Council has made three new appointments and said farewell to a valued industry member, who has stepped down.

Simon King was nominated as an industry member by nine.com.au and appointed by the Council for a period of three years. Paul Merrill was nominated by Bauer Media Group and also appointed by the Council for a period of three years.
Dr Felicity-ann Lewis has been re-appointed as a public member for a further period of three years. Dr Lewis was first appointed to the Press Council in 2014.

Simon King is the Network Editor of nine.com.au. He has 20 years’ experience working in media in Australia and Europe. Before moving to nine.com.au he worked at The Australian in various senior production and writing roles. He is the winner of the Australian Sports Commission’s Best Analysis of the Business of Sport, a Kennedy Award for online news breaking and a Voiceless Award for a feature in The Weekend Australian Magazine.

Paul Merrill has worked in publishing for 27 years, editing and launching monthly and weekly titles in the UK and Australia. He started in newspapers and local radio before editing Chat for IPC Media, where he also launched and published a series of specialist magazines. After winning the Magazine of the Year award, he was asked to launch Zoo Weekly for Emap and in 2006 he launched Zoo in Australia.

Dr Lewis retired in 2014 as Mayor of the City of Marion in suburban Adelaide, after holding the position since 2000. She was President of the South Australian Local Government Association from 2009-2011 and President of the Australian Local Government Association from 2012-14. She was the South Australian of the Year for 2014, previously a school teacher for more than twenty years and retired in 2016 from her role as a Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Education, Humanities and Law at Flinders University, where she had worked since 2007.

Anita Quigley, who is stepping down as the member nominated by Community Newspapers Australia, served the Press Council with distinction since February 2016
“We will miss Anita’s broad experience as a journalist and editor in our work at the Press Council,” said Executive Director John Pender. “She was a staunch advocate for the community newspapers sector.”

“I warmly welcome the two new industry members, Paul Merrill and Simon King, whose media experience is also broad and deep, and of course I am pleased that Felicity-ann Lewis will stay on for another three years and continue her excellent work for us.”

At present, the Australian Press Council has two Vice-Chairs, acting in the role of Chair, and eight other public members, who have no affiliations with a media organisation. There are also 10 nominees of media organisation and four independent journalist members, who are not employed by a media organisation.

79

Fred Thorpe/The Sunday Telegraph

The Press Council has considered a complaint from Fred Thorpe about an article in The Sunday Telegraph on 26 February 2017, headed “Sack ABC board and end the warped bias” in print and online. The article referred to the opinion writer’s appearance as a panel member on the ABC Television’s Q&A program and, among other matters, commented on a question posed by the complainant to the Attorney-General, George Brandis, about an impending review of her pension entitlement.

The Council considered the article’s references to the complainant’s superannuation, her appearance on the television program Backyard Blitz, her having “found the stamina to aggressively campaign” for a political candidate “despite her disability”, and that she “surely has nothing to worry about”, collectively implied she is an undeserving welfare recipient. The references to her superannuation, political allegiances, and the extent of her campaigning were based upon speculation and a small selection of comments made by the complainant on social media. The publication failed to ensure factual material was presented with reasonable fairness and balance, especially given the complainant is not a public figure but simply a member of the public. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 3.
Given the complainant appeared on the Q&A program and commented on her personal circumstances, her reasonable expectation to privacy was diminished as it related to such commentary. Accordingly, the publication did not breach General Principle 5 or Privacy Principle 7.

The Council considered that while it is legitimate journalistic practice to provide background to scrutinise people involved in public debate, the article caused the complainant and her family considerable distress. The complainant merely asked a question, albeit on live television, and could not be reasonably described as either being a public figure or involved in the broader debate about the government’s data-matching program. There was no public interest in scrutinising the complainant’s background to the extent the publication did, and there is a strong countervailing public interest in ensuring the public is free to participate in public debate without unwarranted scrutiny. Given this, the Council concluded that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid contributing materially to substantial distress, which was not sufficiently in the public interest. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 6.

Read the full adjudication

1 Like
80

Victoria Police / The Sunday Age

The Press Council considered a complaint from Victoria Police about an article published in The Sunday Age on 25 October 2015, headed “Strip-searched in Carlton on a sunny afternoon” in print and online.

The article, written in the first person, described the writer’s experience of being questioned by two police officers at a bus stop in Lygon Street about a theft of a T-shirt from a nearby store. The article suggested that the police considered the writer to be a possible suspect. The incident occurred mid-afternoon, in view of any passers-by and passengers in a stationary bus. The writer said one of the officers “squatted with a camera and told [the writer] to take down [his] pants to check whether the stolen T-shirt was hidden there”, and “to drop his underpants” as well. He said the officer “took photographs of [his] pubic hair”, “[t]hen demanded that [he] take down [his] trackies at the back” and the officer “knelt and archived [his] worn out old bum”. The article stated that a number of other questions were asked of the writer before he was then able to “pull [his] pants up again”. The article was accompanied by a cartoon of two police officers photographing a man with his pants at his ankles.

The Council considers that the serious nature of the article’s allegations required the publication to take more steps than it took before publication to verify the writer’s account, such as contacting the complainant for corroboration or comment. The Council does not consider the publication’s reliance on its relationship with the writer and his filing of a formal complaint to the police amounted to reasonable steps to ensure the article’s account of events was accurate and not misleading. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 1.

The publication eventually accepted the article was inaccurate but, due to its reservations about the complainant’s version of events, did not at any stage make an apology or correction. The Council considers that, notwithstanding the publication’s reservations about the events of the day, sufficient evidence was provided to the publication prior to the Court hearing to demonstrate the article was significantly inaccurate and misleading on a number of key points, including statements that the police officer directed the writer to take down his pants and underpants and photographed his pubic hair. After the Court hearing and conviction, there was no doubt about the inaccuracies. The article in June 2017, which did not identify or acknowledge the inaccuracies in the original article, does not constitute adequate remedial action. As such, the publication also breached General Principle 2. The Council encourages the publication to publish a correction and apology, which it considers is warranted in the circumstances.

Given its conclusions on other aspects of the complaint, the Council considers it unnecessary to reach conclusions in relation to General Principles 3 and 4.

Read the full adjudication