Australian Press Council

Complainant / NT News

The Press Council has considered a complaint about a front page article in NT News on 27 February 2017 in print, headed “HE TOLD ME HE LOVED ME” in quotation marks, superimposed on a large photograph of the complainant’s 14-year-old daughter. Below this were two sub-headlines, the first of which read “Friends shattered by teen highway tragedy”. The article was also published online, headed “Friends in shock over death of Darwin teens…on Stuart Highway”.

The article concerned the “death of two young men killed in a car accident”. The photograph of the complainant’s daughter occupied most of the page. The article referred in passing to friends and family missing the deceased, but mostly concerned the daughter’s friendship with the boys, her reaction to their deaths and her last contact with them at a party the night of the accident. It also reported her comments that she “would never forget” the boys, with one of whom she “had a ‘special connection’”.

Given the complainant consented to her daughter being interviewed and photographed, the Council did not consider that a reasonable expectation to privacy had been breached and, accordingly, did not uphold the complaint based on General Principle 5. Nor did the Council consider, in such circumstances, that the material for publication was gathered by deceptive or unfair means. Accordingly, the Council did not uphold the complaint based on General Principle 7.

However, the Council noted the emphasis on the complainant’s daughter and particularly the prominent photograph of her on the front page. It also noted her age and likely emotional state, the subject matter about which she was being interviewed and the close proximity in time to the death of the boys. Given these sensitive circumstances, the publication ought to have informed the complainant that an article that focused on her daughter rather than tributes from a number of friends was proposed. Having regard to these factors, the Council considered that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing substantial offence and distress to those close to the boys. The public interest in the reporting on matters of road safety did not justify the prominent focus on the complainant’s daughter. Accordingly, the Council upheld the complaint based on General Principle 6.


Read the full Adjudication

Anne Lobo / NT News

The Press Council has considered a complaint about a front page article in NT News on 27 February 2017 in print, headed “HE TOLD ME HE LOVED ME” in quotation marks, superimposed on a large photograph of a 14-year-old girl. Below this were two sub-headlines, the first of which read “Friends shattered by teen highway tragedy”. The article was also published online, headed “Friends in shock over death of Darwin teens…on Stuart Highway”.

The article concerned the “death of two young men…tragically killed in an accident on the Stuart Highway - now believed to have been the devastating result of a prank gone wrong”. The photograph of the girl occupied most of the page. The article referred in passing to friends and family as missing the deceased, but mostly concerned the girl’s friendship with the boys, her reaction to their deaths and her last contact with them at a party the night of the accident. It also reported comments from the girl that she “would never forget” the boys, with one of whom—the nephew of the complainant—she “had a ‘special connection’”.

The Council accepted the publication’s claim that it relied on several sources for the belief that a “prank gone wrong” caused the accident. This statement was not presented as a verified fact and, accordingly, the Council did not uphold the complaint based on General Principles 1 and 2 in this respect.

The Council considered that the public interest in reporting on matters of road safety outweighed any breach of the complainant’s family’s reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to the coverage. Accordingly, the Council did not uphold the complaint based on General Principle 5.

The Council accepted that the publication intended the article to be a tribute to the boys. However, given the absence of comments or photographs from other friends or family, the heavy emphasis on the girl and on her reaction and comments, and the likely emotional state of those affected, the article was likely to cause substantial offence and distress, without sufficient public interest. Accordingly, the Council upheld the complaint based on General Principle 6.


Read the full Adjudication

Complainant / news.com.au

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published in news.com.au on 7 March 2017, which began: “A WOMAN has died and two others seriously injured in a head-on crash on the Hume Highway at Wilton, south of Sydney.” It continued: “Emergency crews are also working to release another woman trapped in a second vehicle in the south bound lanes of the Hume Highway, about 1km south of Picton Rd. The two vehicles collided just before 8am today.”

The article, which was published within half an hour of the accident, followed with images of the scene, the first of which depicted a heavily damaged vehicle with its doors open and roof peeled back, and emergency crew members including police surrounding and leaning into the car. In the centre of the frame was a face of a person whose head appears tilted back on a stretcher. The image, which included a television station’s logo, was captioned: “Pheasants Nest: Fatal crash Hume Motorway closed in both directions after serious two-car crash. MUST CREDIT [the television station] NewsSource: [the television station]”.

The Council considered that while the accident occurred on a public road and the injured person would not have been easily identifiable by the public at large, nevertheless the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy and the image of the injured person and the car would be sufficiently clear for relatives and friends to identify the person. The image was of person involved in a fatal car accident, seriously injured, and in a crash site which police had apparently taken steps to cordon off from the public. Given these factors, the Council concluded that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid breaching the injured person’s reasonable expectations of privacy.

Considering the nature of the image, in which a person is shown amongst the wreckage of a car accident with the caption referring to the “[f]atal crash”, and the rapid timing of its publication, the Council also concluded that the publication did not take reasonable steps to ensure the material avoided causing or contributing materially to substantial distress.

The Council recognised the reporting of road accidents is commonplace and often in the public interest, particularly to ensure readers have access to reliable information on driving conditions and matters of road safety. However, the magnitude of the accident and resulting traffic disruption could have been captured visually without showing the injured person, for instance, with a long shot of the scene of the accident. In the circumstances, there was no sufficient justification in the public interest for publishing the image in the manner it did. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principles 5 and 6.

Read the full adjudication

Complainant / Manningham Leader

The Press Council has considered a complaint about material published as a letter to the editor in the Manningham Leader in print on 15 May 2017, headed “LETTER OF THE WEEK: Get more buses on roads”.

An article in the publication concerning the Victorian Government’s bus services concluded: “Now we have to make sure Spring St hears the message, so tell us what you think. Email, write letters or comment on our Facebook page. And we’ll tell the Government. Loud and clear. And for free.” These statements were followed by the publication’s email address, to which the complainant wrote with details about her experience using the bus services.

The Council noted that the publication did not provide an email address designated for letters to the editor and the complainant did not submit her email to such an address. Had it been submitted to such an address, it would have been clearer how her comments could be expected to be used. Further, the complainant was responding to a general call for comment, and did not mark her email as a letter to the editor.

The Council considered that the complainant had a reasonable expectation that the comments contained in her email would not be published without her prior consent. The publication could have contacted her before publication and checked the email was submitted as a letter to the editor but did not do so. Given this, the Council concluded that the publication did not take reasonable steps to avoid intruding on the complainant’s reasonable expectations of privacy, and there was no public interest justifying doing so, in particular, publishing the email without the complainant being notified and giving consent. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 5.

The Council also considered the call for comment in the original article was not published with an intention to unfairly gather letters from readers or to deceive. Although the publication could have contacted the complainant before publication to check the basis on which the letter was submitted, the Council accepted the email was received and published under a belief that it was submitted for publication in response to an invitation for comment. Given this, the Council concludes the publication took reasonable steps to avoid publishing material gathered by deceptive or unfair means. Accordingly, the publication did not breach General Principle 7.

Read the full adjudication

InDaily joins Press Council as newest member

InDaily, a South Australian digital news publication, has joined the Australian Press Council as a new member. This adds to the list of more than 900 print and online media outlets that have committed themselves to the Press Council’s high standards of practice and its mission to advocate for press freedom and freedom of speech.

InDaily is owned by Solstice Media. In November 2010 it replaced The Independent Weekly, which was founded in 2004. At present, InDaily has around 84,000 subscribers and 225,000 unique visitors on its online platform.
InDaily’s website states that their editorial team, made up of seven staff members, “investigates issues from a unique South Australian perspective”.

Press Council appoints Neville Stevens AO as its new Chair

The Australian Press Council has appointed Neville Stevens AO as its new Chair, effective 22 January 2018. Mr Stevens has wide experience chairing panels and reviews in the private and public sectors and is a distinguished former public servant who headed two major Australian government departments, one of them dealing with telecommunications, media and broadcasting.

Since retiring as Secretary of the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts in 2001, Mr Stevens has been Chair of a number of public and private organisations, conducted major federal government reviews and worked extensively as a consultant on both business and government-related issues.

These roles have included:
• Chairman of the NSW government’s Council for Innovation and Productivity;
• Chairman of NICTA (Australia’s Information and Communications Technology Research Centre of Excellence);
• Independent Chairman of Communications Alliance (a body founded by the telecommunications industry to assist in self-regulation);
• Independent Chairman of the Broadband Management Committee (a body set up by the NSW government in 2005 to reduce telecommunications costs); and
• Head of a review for the Australian government into Indigenous broadcasting.

Mr Stevens replaces Professor David Weisbrot AM, who stepped down as Press Council Chair in July 2017 after two years of outstanding achievement in the role.

John Doyle AC, one of the Press Council’s two Vice-Chairs, said that Mr Stevens was well-placed to lead the organisation on to the next stage in its development, which is likely to be a time of significant change in the media.

“The work of the Press Council includes setting standards, handling complaints and advocating for freedom of speech and freedom of the press,” Mr Doyle said. “I am confident that Neville Stevens will build on what previous Chairs have accomplished and that the Press Council will continue to achieve its goals effectively.”
Vice-Chair Julie Kinross said: “Neville’s past experience with innovation, convergence and media regulation will enable him to lead the Australian Press Council at a time the industry is undergoing digital transformation and facing the challenges that poses. We welcome Neville’s appointment.”

Neville Stevens said: “The media sector is undergoing rapid change as digital technology disrupts traditional business models. The need for a robust and responsible media sector has never been greater. I believe that the Press Council should be a strong advocate for a free and responsible press and freedom of speech."
“My predecessor, Professor David Weisbrot worked hard to make the Press Council an effective voice in this area and to ensure relevant standards and effective handling of complaints," he said. “I embrace the opportunity to build on what he and others have achieved by working with the Press Council, all its members and the wider community on these issues.”

Complainant / The Courier-Mail

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article in The Courier-Mail on 27 May 2017, headed “FAKE REFUGEE OUTRAGE: Rapists, a hitman, and ice dealers allowed to stay” in print and “Opinion: Administrative Appeals Tribunal has gone too far by allowing foreign-born criminals to stay” online.

The Council considered that the print headline’s reference to “fake refugee—as distinct from the online headline’s reference to “foreign-born criminals”—had the potential to mislead readers by conflating two distinct concepts when most of the cited cases concerned legal immigrants from countries such as Scotland ineligible for refugee status in Australia. The article drew together various issues recently receiving media coverage, including the Immigration Minister’s description of asylum seekers awaiting government advice on how their claims would be processed as “fake refugee[s]”, and his criticism of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for overturning some of his decisions to rescind the visas of immigrants on the basis of their convictions for criminal offences.

Taking into account the specific circumstances, the Council considered that readers were unlikely to be misled by the article. Accordingly, it concluded that the publication did not breach General Principles 1 or 2, and for the same reasons, did not breach General Principles 3 and 4.

Given the nature of the opinion article, including that it drew together views held by the columnist on various topical issues, the Council was not satisfied that, on balance, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the article avoided causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice. Accordingly, the publication did not breach General Principle 6.

The Council noted that there appeared to be only one specific instance in the article of the term “fake refugee’” being applied to a person who made a false claim about the risks from deportation to his country of origin. The rest of the examples mentioned were people from countries ineligible for refugee status. To avoid diminishing the integrity of the national debate concerning asylum seekers and refugees, care ought be taken to avoid applying the label “fake refugee” to individuals who have never sought or gained asylum, and to ensure that where such a term is used in the public sphere, it is accurately attributed to its source.

Read the full adjudication

The Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy Association of Australasia /The Daily Telegraph

The Press Council has considered a complaint from The Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy Association of Australasia about an article published in The Daily Telegraph on 12 July 2017, headed “FAT CHANCE OF BEING HEALTHY: Young Aussies have only themselves to blame” in print and “Junk food, alcohol and drugs are fuelling health crisis in young adults” online.

The print article included a graphic below the headline which featured a number of statistics, most of which were health-related, and one of which read “16.8% of secondary school students in Australia are attracted to people of the same sex as them or to both sexes”.

The print headline and graphic featured a similar coloured design and background that distinguished it from the rest of the article. Given this, the Council did not accept that the headline should be read as distinct from the graphic. The Council also considered that there is a significant difference between reporting on same-sex attraction as a demographic factor which may affect young people’s mental health and as a lifestyle-related health factor such as poor diet and drug use.

The Council concluded that the headline, sub-headline and statistic concerning sexuality associated the students reporting same-sex attraction with people affected by unhealthy lifestyle factors. In such circumstances, the presentation of the article was significantly misleading. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 1. The Council noted the publication’s online response to complaints from the public. However, this public statement was not published in print and did not acknowledge or apologise for the misleading nature of the graphic, but rather attributed the impression to readers having misconstrued the article. Given this, the response did not constitute adequate remedial action and accordingly, the publication also breached General Principle 2.

The Council concluded that the reference to ill health and blame in the headlines, with the statistic about same-sex attraction displayed among factors such as obesity and drug use, suggested same-sex attraction is unhealthy and blameworthy. As a result, the article caused substantial offence, distress, prejudice and risk to public health and safety, and there was no public interest justifying this. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 6.

Read the full adjudication

Joan Falconio / NT News

The Press Council has considered a complaint about a front page article in NT News on 20 April 2017 in print, headed “FALCONIO ‘CUT UP, DUMPED’”, with a large photograph of “Slain British backpacker Peter Falconio with … girlfriend Joanne Lees”. Above the headline was a sub-headline, which read: “Police investigating shock new claims murdered backpacker’s missing body was transported across three states”. The full report was on pages six and seven, headed “Falconio ‘cut and dumped’: letter”. The article was also published online, headed “NT Police investigating claims by letter writer that Peter Falconio’s body was ‘cut up and dumped’”.

The article concerned an anonymous letter received by the publication, which reportedly contained “compelling new claims surrounding the whereabouts of … Peter Falconio’s body”. It reported the anonymous letter writer claimed to have been informed by an associate of Bradley John Murdoch, the man convicted of Mr Falconio’s murder, that he assisted in disposing of Mr Falconio’s body. The article described in detail the letter’s claims about how Mr Murdoch wanted Mr Falconio’s body disposed of and its treatment during this disposal, including how the associate buried Mr Falconio.
The Council accepted that the publication sought confirmation from police that the letter’s claims had a sufficient degree of credibility and that it undertook some, albeit inconclusive, enquiries concerning the veracity of the claims. On the information available, the Council was not satisfied the publication failed to take reasonable steps to report with accuracy, fairness and balance. Accordingly, it did not breach General Principles 1 and 3.

However, given the article’s prominent and graphic description of the alleged treatment of Mr Falconio’s body after his murder, especially in the headlines, the Council considered that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing substantial offence and distress to the complainant’s family. The Council accepted there was a public interest in reporting of the crime, however in this instance — particularly one concerning anonymous and unverified allegations — this did not justify such detailed and graphic descriptions. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 6.

Read the full adjudication

Australian Press Council welcomes a new member publication

Women’s Agenda, a digital news publication for professional and entrepreneurial women, has joined the Australian Press Council as one of more than 900 print and online media outlets formally committed to its high standards of practice and its mission to advocate for press freedom and freedom of speech.

Agenda Media Pty Ltd, trading as Women’s Agenda, was originally part of the Private Media Group (publisher of Crikey, Smart Company and The Mandarin). It launched in 2012 under founding editor Angela Priestley, to whom Private Media sold the title in February 2017.

Based in Sydney, Women’s Agenda has some 18,000 subscribers and approximately 120,000 monthly unique visitors to its website. Content centres on business, politics, technology, lifestyle and finance from the perspective of Australian women.

This latest member is another demonstration of the Australian Press Council’s ongoing committment to supporting smaller print and online publications.

“We’re really pleased to be accepted as a member of the Press Council,” said Women’s Agenda’s Publisher, Tarla Lambert. “Women’s Agenda is a publication 100 per cent owned by women, sharing the latest news and views affecting the careers and lives of its readers.

“As an independent news channel covering the issues that affect the lives of all Australian women, we felt it was important to hold our reporting to account and exercise our responsibility as a media outlet.”

Complainant/news.com.au

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published in news.com.au on 31 May 2017, headed “Islamic State [IS] terror guide encourages luring victims via Gumtree, eBay”.

The opening paragraph read: “ISLAMIC State has released a step-by-step guide on how to murder nonbelievers, which includes how to lure targets via fake ads on Gumtree and eBay”. The article proceeded to relay in detail how an article in “[t]he latest edition of the terror group’s English-language propaganda magazine … encourages would-be terrorists to advertise products on second-hand selling sites … to lure victims and assassinate them”. The article mostly comprised extracts from the source material describing the steps necessary to perform such acts.

The Council considered that the article did publish much of the source material from IS verbatim, with limited accompanying analysis or context, such as comments from experts and websites such as Gumtree. The Council accepted there was no intention to encourage or support terrorism, but considered that republishing content from terrorist entities in this manner can perpetuate the purpose of such propaganda and give publicity to its ideas and practices.

However, the Council accepted the public interest in alerting readers to potential risks to their safety. It considered that on balance, the public interest in alerting readers to the dangerous content of the terrorist propaganda and its instructional detail was greater than the risk to their safety posed by the effective republication of terrorist propaganda content. Given this, the Council concluded that the public interest justified publication of the article. Accordingly, the publication did not breach General Principle 6.

The Council noted that great care needs to be exercised by publications when reporting on terrorist propaganda to ensure that public safety is not compromised. In particular, effectively republishing source material comprising instructional detail in how to carry out particular terrorist acts could pose a risk to public safety, and reasonable steps should be taken to prevent such an outcome.

Read the full adjudication

http://www.news.com.au/national/politics/newscomau-forced-to-remove-islamic-state-article-after-classification-board-decision-sparking-censorship-concerns/news-story/189e2696ae32405a3c102c61b4863c8d

TODAY, news.com.au has published a Press Council decision that ruled in its favour [see above post]— accepting there was public interest in its article publicising the disturbing ways Islamic State was trying to target potential victims through sites like Gumtree.

The problem is, the article titled “Islamic State terror guide encourages luring victims via Gumtree, eBay” no longer exists.

A week after it was published on May 31, 2017, the Attorney-General’s office contacted news.com.au to demand it be taken down, saying the Classification Board had ruled it should be refused classification as it “directly or indirectly” advocated terrorist acts.

News.com.au removed the article as it was facing legal penalties from the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) if it refused, including fines or even civil or criminal legal action.

This is stunning, News stuffed up more than usual.

As always, they couldn’t let it go without a “we’re sorry but…” explanation.

Complainant/Southern Free Times

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by a print article published in the Southern Free Times headed “Very near tragedy” on 23 March 2017.

The article concerned a man who was “reported missing” and later “found by State Emergency Service (SES) volunteers in dense bushland … having spent the night at the location”. It reported the publication understood that “the man inflicted self-harm in an apparent suicide attempt and at some point fell from a height after wandering into the bush…” It further reported he had “told his partner on Friday morning he was leaving for work as usual but he failed to show up, with work colleagues and his partner becoming concerned for his welfare when he was uncontactable during the morning and around lunchtime”. It then reported that his “condition was unknown at the time of printing and family members declined to comment”.

The rest of the article questioned whether the incident was associated with the man’s employment, and whether “[his] behaviour may have been prompted by work-related stress stemming from the current workplace culture…”

The Council recognised there can be substantial public benefit in reporting on suicide, and in this instance accepted the publication was well-intentioned.

However, as the complainant’s sister expressly asked the publication not to report on the incident, there was no clear and informed consent from the man’s family. In such circumstances, the public interest had to be strong enough to report the incident as a suicide attempt notwithstanding the lack of consent. The Council considered the public interest here did not extend to reporting on this individual instance in as explicit a manner as occurred. Accordingly, the Council concluded that the publication breached Suicide Standard 3 in this respect.

The publication did not identify the man, at least not by name, complying with the complainant’s sister’s request in this respect. Accordingly, the Council concluded that the publication did not breach Suicide Standard 4.

The Council also considered that the publication did not sensationalise, glamorise, trivialise or stigmatise suicide in the article. Accordingly, the Council concluded that the publication did not breach Suicide Standard 6. Nor was the article published with undue prominence or unnecessarily explicit headlines or images, but rather the publication exercised sensitivity and moderation in electing not to report on the incident on the front page or online. Accordingly, the Council concluded that the publication did not breach Suicide Standard 7.

Read the full adjudication

What is this standard #3?

Standard 3 – In deciding whether to report an individual instance of suicide, consideration should be given to whether at least one of the following criteria is satisfied:

(a) clear and informed consent has been provided by appropriate relatives or close friends; or

(b) reporting the death as suicide is clearly in the public interest.

1 Like

Thanks, seems they sure missed meeting that.

1 Like

Bob Brown / The Daily Telegraph

The Press Council has considered a complaint by Bob Brown about two articles published in The Daily Telegraph on 17 March 2017, the first a report headed “TRIGGS’ GIG FOR GREENS” on the front page, and the second a commentary headed “TRIGG-HUGGER: HUMAN RIGHTS CHIEF A GREENIE DISGRACE”.

The first article began: “AUSTRALIA’S Human Rights Commission chief Gillian Triggs is under pressure to step down after agreeing to headline a fundraiser for ex-Greens leader Bob Brown”. It reported that “Mr Brown was arrested last year in an anti-logging protest”, and the second article repeated that he “was arrested for a logging protest and was escorted by police away from a Tasmanian forest”.

The Council considered the headline “TRIGGS’ GIG FOR GREENS” misleading in implying the event attended by Professor Triggs was for the Greens party and not the Bob Brown Foundation. The first article’s reference to the event being “tied to the Greens party” and the second article’s reference to the “Green-aligned event”, together with the repeated description of the event as a “fundraiser”, was likely to lead readers to incorrectly understand that it was a Greens event, and a fundraiser as opposed to an oration. As the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the article was accurate and not misleading, it breached General Principle 1. In not publishing any corrective remedial action in response, it also breached General Principle 2.

The Council considered the repeated reference to the complainant being arrested, without also reporting that the charges were dropped and later the laws on which they were based were successfully challenged, was unfair by omission. The publication also ought to have contacted the complainant for comment. As the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the article was presented with reasonable fairness and balance, it breached General Principle 3. Further, in not providing a fair opportunity for subsequent publication of a reply from the complainant, the publication also breached General Principle 4.

Read the full adjudication

1 Like

What is the usual penalty, if any for this?

Probably no penalty as such bit publication of a correction that 0.0001% of people who read the original articles will see.

1 Like

Thai Terrace / The Courier-Mail

The Press Council considered a complaint from Thai Terrace Rosalie about an article published online in The Courier-Mail on 20 April 2017, headed “Prawn prices in Queensland rise in restaurants despite fishermen cutting prices”.

The article reported that as a result of “a ban on exporting locally caught prawns due to an outbreak of white spot disease in Queensland”, local fishermen “have been forced to slash their prices”. It said “despite a glut of prawns on the local market” Thai Terrace Rosalie advised “customers that the temporary ban on imported prawns had led to a price rise that was being passed onto customers”.

The article reported the contents of a notice posted at the complainant’s restaurant that said: “A temporary ban on imported raw prawns by the Agriculture Minister has forced suppliers to significantly increase the cost of prawns … Unfortunately we have had to temporarily pass this increase on by surcharging prawn dishes by $2.00. This is a temporary measure and will be reversed as soon as possible.” The article concluded by stating that the publication “contacted Thai Terrace but has yet to receive a response”.

The complainant said the article’s statement that the publication was yet to receive a response was inaccurate. The complainant said the only enquiry received was through an online booking form completed by the journalist the day before publication, using a personal email address, which asked “[d]o you charge extra for prawns? If so, why?” in the special requests section of the form. The complainant said it replied to the question by email that day but, had it known the enquiry came from a journalist, it would have provided a more detailed answer.

The complainant said the journalist dined at the restaurant on the night before publication and at that time did not make any enquiries of staff and did not identify herself as a journalist. The complainant said it received no call or voicemail message from the journalist and believed she had been deceptive and unfair in her enquiries.

The complainant said that following the article it emailed the publication explaining it did not source its prawns from the area within which prawns caught were banned from export. Instead, it sourced prawns through its usual supplier who “had increased the price of prawns from $19/kg to $27/kg, a 42% increase”. The complainant said that in order to continue to provide prawns on its menu it would “pass on an increase of $2/dish, an 8% increase in price”. It emailed the publication to follow up but did not receive a response.
The complainant said the article’s implication that it was unduly profiting from the outbreak of white spot disease and taking advantage of its patrons was misleading and unfair. It said the publication of the article damaged its reputation and the publication’s proposal to later include its comments in the story did not remedy its concerns.

The publication said the journalist attempted to contact the complainant by telephone several times over several days prior to publication but those calls were not answered. No message was left on the complainant’s voicemail system. The publication said its use of the online booking form was a last resort and the use of the journalist’s personal email in that form was inadvertent.

The publication said the article was accurate and only included information available in the notice distributed by the complainant to its customers. In any event, it stated the response provided to the journalist’s online booking form did not provide any further information.

It said by including the text of the restaurant’s notice, the article accurately and fairly explained the surcharge was due to a temporary ban on imported raw prawns, forcing suppliers to significantly increase the cost of prawns.

The publication offered to amend the article to include the complainant’s comments.

Conclusion
The Council’s Standards of Practice applicable in this matter require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1) and presented with reasonable fairness and balance (General Principle 3). If the material is significantly inaccurate or misleading, or refers adversely to a person, publications must take reasonable steps to provide adequate remedial action or an opportunity for a response to be published (General Principles 2 and 4). The Council’s Standards of Practice also require publications to take reasonable steps to avoid publishing material gathered by unfair means—unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 7).

The Council considers that at the time of the article, the publication had received a response to its question in the booking form. Given this, the article’s statement that the publication had yet to receive a response was inaccurate.

The Council also considers the article’s statements that prawn prices were rising in restaurants “despite a glut of prawns on the local market” and “despite fishermen cutting prices”, did imply the complainant was unduly profiting from the situation. The Council accepts this implies the complainant sourced its prawns from the locality affected by the export ban, at a reduced price, when this was not the case. Given this, the article was also misleading. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 1.

In addition to this, the article omitted that the ban on importing prawns to Australia had actually increased the price of prawns in Australia generally, in line with the surcharge put in place by the complainant. In omitting any reference to this, the article unfairly compared the prawn prices at the complainant’s restaurant to those of local fishermen and, given this, did not present the material with reasonable fairness and balance. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 3.

As to remedial action, the Council acknowledges the publication offered to update the article with the complainant’s comments. However, the Council does not consider that inclusion of the complainant’s comments would adequately remedy the overall misleading and unfair nature of the article. The publication did not correct the inaccuracy, that it had not yet received a response from the complainant. Further, given it failed to respond to the complainant’s two attempts to resolve the matter directly, the Council considers the publication did not take reasonable steps to provide a fair opportunity for publication of a reply. Accordingly, the publication breached both General Principles 2 and 4.

The Council acknowledges it is best practice for journalists to identify themselves when seeking comment for publication, which did not occur in this case. However, the information provided in the article was publicly available and, as such, no published material had been gathered by deceptive or unfair means. Accordingly, the publication did not breach General Principle 7.

1 Like