Australian Press Council

Radio, Print, and Online Print and Online
101

This is a good outcome. Lazy journalism caught again.

I’m impressed this small business managed to pursue the complaint so far.

Gold Coast Bulletin journalists don’t have the ability for simple maths.

Yesterday, an article calculated a rise in parking costs from $5 to $25 as a 400% increase.

Firstly, 400% does not exist, of course we understand they were trying to say it had increased four times.

Four times five is twenty.

Should have been five times increase.

Worst of all, the lazy journalism continues with 9 Gold Coast news repeating this error. No one picks up on simple maths?

1 Like
102

Chair Neville Stevens addresses Mebourne Press Club

In his first public address since taking on the role of Chair, Neville Stevens has examined the major challenges facing the media industry and the Press Council itself.

Read the speech here.

1 Like
103

Press Freedom Medals awarded to Peter Greste and Gerard Ryle

The Australian Press Council has awarded Press Freedom Medals to two outstanding individuals for their major contributions to furthering the causes of free speech and freedom of the press.

Peter Greste
One of Australia’s most respected and experienced foreign correspondents, a vocal proponent of press freedom and now Professor of Journalism and Communications at University of Queensland.

Gerard Ryle
Director of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), a network of more than 200 journalists and 100 media organisations in 70 countries who collaborate on major investigative stories.

The awards were to be made at a World Press Freedom Day event hosted at Twitter’s Sydney offices.

“We received a substantial number of extremely strong nominations again this year, all of them outstanding individuals and well worthy of congratulations,” said Press Council Chair Neville Stevens. “However, the selection committee agreed unanimously that Peter Greste and Gerard Ryle demonstrated all of the qualities these medals are meant to celebrate.”

“Peter’s work as a courageous foreign correspondent is well known, but his more recent work as a vocal press freedom advocate and communications scholar is less known, though no less laudable. Gerard, after a long and distinguished career as a journalist here and in Ireland, now runs an organisation that is fundamentally changing the way investigative journalism can be done in a time of dwindling revenues and staff in media companies.”

Ryle said: “Never have we seen such calculated campaigns of misinformation from positions of authority. It has never been so easy for powerful people to undermine the work of journalists. It is more important than ever for journalists to stand together to protect each other and to protect the integrity of our profession."
Greste said: "This award is a great personal honour of course, but more importantly, it recognises the importance of the continued fight to defend media freedom and the safety of journalists at a time when both are under enormous pressure.”

Journalists, communications academics, members of the legal profession and others were invited to attend the ceremony and a panel discussion afterwards organised by Twitter. The panelists: Kate McClymont (Fairfax Media), Michael Cameron (News Corp Australia), Peter Greste, as well as Behrouz Boochani (an Iranian journalist and refugee on Manus Island) via audio link and Gerard Ryle via video link.

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

Past winners of the Press Freedom Medal:
2016 - Kate McClymont of Fairfax Media and Paul Maley of News Corp Australia.
2017 - Peter Timmins of the Australian Open Government Partnership Network and Michael Cameron, National Editorial Counsel for News Corp Australia.

1 Like
104

Press Council member is asked to resign after conflict of interest review

The Australian Press Council has completed its review of formal declarations by all of its members as to potential conflicts of interest at its quarterly meeting in Sydney on 11 May. The review follows the decision by the Council in December 2017 to revise its existing practices and approve an overarching conflict of interest policy.

As part of the new policy and procedures, the Council examined written declarations submitted by all Council members as to their affiliations and decided that Carla McGrath’s position as Deputy Chair of GetUp! is incompatible with her continued role as a public member of Council.

In a resolution passed by Council, Ms McGrath was asked to resign. However, Ms McGrath said she did not believe her resignation was necessary.

Council will now take the necessary steps to remove Ms McGrath as a public member of Council in accordance with the Constitution, a process which should be completed at the next Council meeting in August.

“Public members need to not only reflect the community, they must also be independent and be seen as independent,” said Council Chair Neville Stevens. “The Council noted that GetUp! has taken a public position on a range of issues and takes action on these, including raising funds for and actively campaigning against some sitting politicians.

“The Council considered that the nature and extent of these activities result in a conflict between Carla McGrath’s interest as Deputy Chair of GetUp! and her duties as a public member of the Council which is irreconcilable and likely to continue. This will inevitably give rise to the perception of a lack of independence of the Council itself.”

The Chair acknowledged that Carla McGrath, as a respected member of Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community, would have brought an important perspective to the work of the Council. He emphasised, though, the overriding need for the Council to be independent and to be seen to be independent.

The Council remains committed to increasing diversity among its public members and adjudication panel members.

1 Like
105

Exactly what we all knew, simple commonsense but these minority degenerates trying to change the majority finally get caught.

106

Rachael Petrak / The Sunday Telegraph

The Press Council considered a complaint from Rachael Petrak about an article published in The Sunday Telegraph on 30 July 2017, headed “Mum died from her toddler’s sickness” in print and “Dead mum Imogen Petrak may have caught pneumococcal disease from her child” online. The article reported on the death of Imogen Petrak, the complainant’s sister-in- law. It began: “A PREGNANT mother who was rushed to hospital with an ear infection and later died after an emergency Caesarean may have caught the deadly pneumococcal disease from her own unvaccinated toddler.” Further on, the article stated: “Ms Petrak’s 17-month- old son … who was not vaccinated, was also unwell in the days leading up to her death. Tests confirmed the infection was pneumococcal type 19F, which is covered by the pneumococcal vaccine … The bacteria can spread between people through infected droplets in the air and by touching an infected person.”

The complainant said the article was incorrect, as Imogen’s son was not ill with pneumococcal disease prior to Imogen’s death and he was not the cause or likely cause of her death. She said that as a result of the article a number of other publishers also reported that Imogen’s son may have caused her death. This had been distressing to the family. The complainant said Imogen’s son might encounter this article in the future and believe he was responsible for her death, which would be especially distressing.

The complainant said information about Imogen’s blood test results and Imogen’s son’s vaccination status was published without the family’s knowledge or consent. She said the hospital assured the family its staff had not passed this information to the publication. She said publishing medical information relating to Imogen and her son was unethical and insensitive, and there was no serious threat to public health or a mandatory disease notification that made such disclosure in the public interest. She said that as the circumstances of Imogen’s death were rare reporting on it did not have the same public interest as more common matters of public health and safety.

The publication said although the print headline could be misleading, it was qualified by the reference in the opening sentence that Imogen “may” have caught the disease from her son, which it said was true at the time. It said senior health sources confirmed that because the bacteria can present itself as a harmless cold, medical authorities were examining the possibility that Imogen’s son may have carried the bacteria and displayed cold-like symptoms, and this might be how Imogen had contracted the disease. The publication said that having confirmed this investigation with a senior health source, it was under no legal obligation to seek the consent of the family to report on the matter.

The publication said the pneumococcal bacteria is very common and is airborne and easy to catch. It said the article concerned serious matters of public safety and health and it was in the public interest to report.

The publication said the issue of vaccinations and the possible health risks of unvaccinated children have been of major public importance in Australia and the subject of recent federal government initiatives to encourage parents to vaccinate their children.

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 intruding on a person’s reasonable expectations of privacy (General Principle 5), causing or contributing materially to substantial distress (General Principle 6), and publishing material gathered by unfair means (General Principle 7) — unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest.

The Council considers the print headline “Mum died from her toddler’s sickness” is presented as a statement of fact not qualified in any way, and is inaccurate. Although the publication reportedly relied on a highly-trusted source at the hospital, given the information was obtained from a single source confidential to the publication and the claim was of a highly speculative nature, the Council concludes that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the statement that Imogen “may” have caught the disease from her son was accurate and not misleading, and that it did not present factual material with reasonable fairness and balance. Based on the material provided, reporting that Ms Petrak’s death resulted from the transmission of pneumococcal disease from her child was without factual basis. This was especially so for the print headline, which was not qualified by the word “may”. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principles 1 and 3.

The publication has neither amended or removed the online article, nor published a print correction.

Although the publication later indicated it might be willing to write a follow-up article, this would not adequately remedy the significant inaccuracy and unfairness of the article. Given this, the Council concludes that the publication also breached General Principles 2 and 4.

The Council considers that Imogen’s family had a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to details of Imogen’s health and her son’s vaccination status. In publishing such information, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid intruding on this expectation of privacy. The Council accepts there is a strong public interest in reporting on matters of public health. However, having regard for the unusual medical circumstances surrounding Imogen’s death, the relevance to the public in reporting on this matter was less strong than it might have otherwise been. Given this, the Council concludes that the intrusion on the family’s reasonable expectations of privacy was not sufficiently in the public interest. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 5.

The Council also considers that in suggesting that Imogen’s son was the cause — or the likely cause — of her death, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing substantial distress to the complainant’s family, which for the same reasons was not justified by the public interest. Accordingly, the Council concludes the publication breached General Principle 6.

Reliance on whistleblowers and other confidential sources is normal journalistic practice. The Council does not consider the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid publishing material gathered by deceptive or unfair means. Accordingly, the publication did not breach General Principle 7.

2 Likes
107

How many principles are there? Feels like almost a full set.

108

Complainant / The Daily Telegraph

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of an article in The Daily Telegraph on 24 August 2017, headed “AUSSIE TALIBAN: PC vandals’ bid to tear down our history” on the front page, which continued on pages 8 and 9. It also appeared online, headed “STATUES OF LIMITATIONS: WARREN MUNDINE SPEAKS OUT ON PUSH TO REMOVE CAPTAIN COOK STATUE”.

The front page article featured a large image of what presumably were intended to be two Taliban members attempting to tear down or perhaps push over a statue of Captain Cook. It began “THE groundswell of PC activists threatening to tear down or alter Sydney monuments to founding fathers such as Captain Cook and Arthur Phillip have been likened to the worst extremes of rewriting history”. On page 8, the article reported: “Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore has not ruled out the removal of the statue of Captain Cook in Hyde Park because it says the explorer ‘discovered this territory’ in 1770.” The article said: “The debate began when indigenous ABC journalist Stan Grant attacked the inscription on the memorial to Captain Cook in Hyde Park stating that the British explorer ‘discovered this territory’”. It stated that “Mr Grant never called for any statues to be removed”.

The Council considered that the prominent references to a “push” or “bid” by “PC vandals” and to a “groundswell” of PC activists threatening to tear down or alter Sydney monuments” are presented as statements of fact. However, the publication did not point to any material supporting the statements made.

The Council accepted the article appeared following a column by Stan Grant, published by another publisher commenting on recent American experience of removing monuments, but notes ‒ as reported in the article ‒ that Stan Grant did not propose removing monuments. Aside from reference to that column and Cr Moore, including her referring the issue of the Captain Cook statue to an Advisory Panel of the City of Sydney Council, the article did not identify anyone in fact proposing to remove or alter any monument. There is nothing in the article that could reasonably justify the statements in question, especially the reference to a “groundswell of PC activists”. The article also identified Sydney monuments not mentioned in Stan Grant’s column, which focused on the Captain Cook statue.

While the article contained neither comments from, nor identification of, anyone advocating the removal or alteration of the monuments, the article included comments from several people critical of a supposed “push”, “bid” or “groundswell” of threats to tear down or alter Sydney monuments. The Council concluded that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that the article was accurate and not misleading and accordingly breached General Principle 1. The Council further concluded that by publishing the unsupported assertion of threats to pull down the statute, the article lacked reasonable fairness and balance and breached General Principle 3.

Read the full adjudication here.

1 Like
109

Chrissie Swan/Woman’s Day

The Press Council has considered a complaint by Chrissie Swan about an article published by Woman’s Day in print, headed “It’s McHappy day!”, on 27 March 2017.

The article featured a large photograph of the complainant walking with her three children caught unawares by a photographer and two other smaller photographs. The article began: “These guys must’ve been doing their chores!” and said the complainant treated her children ‒ stating their names and ages ‒ “to a lunch date at McDonald’s”.

The photograph of the complainant and her children was taken without her consent or knowledge. Children have a reasonable expectation of privacy, although this can be limited in various ways, in particular by what their parents do or cause the children to do.

The complainant (but not her children) is a celebrity with a reduced expectation of privacy. While the complainant had shared information about her children in the media, she made efforts in recent years to reduce their public exposure, particularly in relation to images identifying them. The complainant’s sharing of information about her children in the media did not mean they were consistently ‘in the public eye’. Nor did the comparatively small number of photos of the children on the complainant’s Instagram account lessen their reasonable expectations of privacy.

The content of the article, except for one small caption, concerned the private life of the complainant and her children. The level and nature of engagement with the media by the complainant and her children did not reduce the children’s reasonable expectation of privacy so as to justify the article’s intrusion on that expectation. Nor was the publication in the public interest so as to justify the level of intrusion. Accordingly, the Council concluded the publication breached General Principle 5.

The Council considered the article was likely to cause substantial distress to the family. In publishing the article with the unauthorised photograph of the children with their pacifiers and a security blanket visiting “Maccas” with the accompanying caption “… caught on camera”, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing substantial offence, distress or prejudice. Nor did any public interest justify this. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 6.

Read the full adjudication here.

1 Like
110

Thanks @TV.Cynic, very interesting. Press Council finds in Swan’s favour, however without a tort of privacy, no protection exists via court.

111

Phillip Penfold / The Maitland Mercury

The Press Council has considered a complaint about a letter to the editor published under the heading “Family Affair” in The Maitland Mercury in print on 8 September 2017. The letter was published on the day before local government elections took place. The letter expressed the writer’s concern about “instances of more than one nomination from the same family” and referred specifically to the complainant, noting that seven members from his family had nominated for election to council and that if all the family members were elected, there would be a “council with a majority from the one family.”

The Council considers that the letter suggested that only one member of a “family” should be permitted to stand for elections. In this respect, the letter was adverse to the complainant’s candidacy for the position of mayor, because it could be understood as suggesting that to vote for the complainant could contribute to what the writer considered was an undesirable outcome.

As the letter was published on the day before the election with no balancing comment or response from any source, 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 concludes that the publication breached General Principles 3 and 4 by publishing the letter, which contained material adverse to the candidate and failing to afford the complainant a fair opportunity for reply before the election was held. The Council considers it was 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 here

1 Like
112

Complainant / The Sunday Telegraph

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article in The Sunday Telegraph on 30 April 2017, headed “What genius gave this Islam idiot a soapbox” in print and with a similar headline online. The print article appeared on a page headed “OPINION: YOURS AND OURS”.

The article attacked “the failed concept of multiculturalism” and those who have “fallen over themselves to promote multiculturalism”. In that context, it focused on Yassmin Abdel-Magied, a Muslim woman, referring to her being promoted and self-promoted as an exponent of multiculturalism.

It referred to Ms Abdel Magied as a “silly Muslim woman” in the opening sentence, and further on as “stupid”, someone who “was always bound to utter great inanities”, “a fool”, “non-entity” and “halfwit”. The article referred to some of Ms Abdel-Magied’s public comments, including “her ridiculous (and extremely offensive) Facebook remarks about Anzac Day” and earlier, her “proclaim[ing] to great hilarity that Islam was ‘the most feminist religion’”. It made reference to her “part-time job as an ABC presenter” and position “on the Council for Australian-Arab Relations, one of the little perks run by … the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade”, and questioned: “Is the government, is the ABC, really so blind to the flaws in multiculturalism that they seek out individuals who appear to demonstrate that they grotesquely misunderstand the nature of the nation?” The article concluded: “Don’t deny nonentities their right to freedom of speech but at least deprive them of having a hand in the public pocket while they’re on their silly soap boxes.”

The Council accepted that the article is, in its entirety, an expression of opinion in relation to multiculturalism and to Ms Abdel-Magied as exponent and exemplar of multiculturalism. The article attacked her suitability as a proponent of multiculturalism, a concept which it also attacks.

As a clear expression of opinion, it does not breach General Principle 3. The opinion expressed is based on explicit and implied opinions about multiculturalism.

Nor did the article breach General Principle 6. The columnist’s opinions are likely to offend many. But it is in the public interest in freedom of speech that vigorous public debate be permitted, even when expressed in extreme terms, as is the case here.

Accordingly, the Council considered that there had been no breach of its Standards of Practice.

Read the full adjudication here

1 Like
113

Good, I’m glad that smarmy, divisive thing didn’t get a win here either.

It was amusing some weeks ago, Morry’s left centrist hand wringers at The Saturday Paper thought Abdel Magied would get sympathy among its readers. They were very mistaken. Online, social and published letters to the editor very much against her.

114
1 Like
115

Sporting Shooters Association of Australia / Herald Sun

The Press Council has considered a complaint from Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia (SSAA) about an article published in the Herald Sun on 20 June 2017, headed “Gun trolls target charity: Members distraught” in print and “Gun lobby trolls trying to shut down Alannah & Madeline Foundation [AMF] over anti-firearm stance” online, published the prior evening.

The article reported that the AMF “has had to offer counselling support for staff distressed by ‘aggressive’ trolling from the firearms lobby”. The remainder of the article comprised statements attributed to the Chief Executive of the AMF who said that “gun-lobby bullies have tried to ‘intimidate, shout down and abuse’ the foundation”. The article also included comments by the Chief Executive saying that “the gun industry worked to increase demand by telling disenfranchised men they were being victimised if their right to own better weapons was denied”.

The Council considered that the article claims that there was “aggressive trolling” from the firearms industry and drew no distinction between reputable orgainstions in the firarms industry and online trolls. Accordingly, the Council considers that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid the misleading implication that reputable members of the firearms lobby may have been involved in the abuse.

The Council also considered that the article implicates reputable organisations within the “gun lobby”, “firearms lobby” and “gun industry” as being involved in the online abuse of AMF staff and appealing to “disenfranchised young men”. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 1. As the misleading aspects of the article were not addressed by a correction or other adequate remedial action, the publication breached General Principle 2.

The Council also considered that the failure to seek a response or comment from any organisation or body in the gun lobby, firearms lobby or the gun industry amounted to a failure to take reasonable steps to ensure the article was presented with reasonable fairness and balance. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 3.

Read the full adjudication here.

1 Like
116

Complainant/news.com.au

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published on news.com.au on 8 September 2017, headed “Marriage equality supporters clash with churchgoers in Brisbane protest”.

The sub-heading read: “SAME-SEX marriage supporters claim cars were used as weapons in the first violent clash between ‘yes’ and ‘no’ campaigners ahead of the postal vote.” Below this was a 27-second excerpt of video from the scene which “shows protesters gathering around a four-wheel drive trying to make its way through the crowd”. The opening paragraph began: “THE debate over same-sex marriage turned ugly last night when a protest by ‘yes’ campaigners erupted into violent scenes. Protesters outside a Brisbane church claimed they were attacked with cars as they gathered to oppose a meeting they described as a ‘homophobic forum’”. Further on, it reported: “The event, which gathered support on Facebook, was billed as a ‘protest/dance party/street festival/glitter fest’, but quickly deteriorated into a violent clash between ‘yes’ and ‘no’ campaigners.”

The article also reported that police “attended the gathering at St Michael’s Dorrington Catholic Church at Ashgrove and at least one woman was treated by paramedics”, the person who reportedly “was injured at the scene”. She was the only individual from the scene whose words were quoted. She said she “suffered an injury because people drove their cars nearly at full speed into the yes campaigners”. A caption to one of the three photographs, attributed to the television station from which the video excerpt was sourced, said: “Police officers were called in to bring the crowd under control but no arrests were made.”

The second half of the article referred to the protest in the broader context of the “national postal vote”, including comments from two politicians, and mentioned a “petition calling for support for the Australian Medical Association’s position in favour of marriage equality”.

The Council asked the publication to comment on whether, in reporting on the protest, it took reasonable steps to ensure factual material was accurate and not misleading and distinguishable from other material such as opinion (General Principle 1), and was presented with reasonable fairness and balance (General Principle 3).

The publication said the reference to “clash” in the headline was appropriate and correct use of the word does not require or necessarily imply violence. It said proponents for and against same-sex marriage clash in their beliefs and demands.

The publication said the article, for instance in the sub-heading, makes it clear that allegations such as cars being used to attack people were mere claims. It said paramedics treated one woman at the scene and police at the time said one person was arrested for obstructing police.

It also said the article did not deal solely with the protest but reports a number of developments in the same-sex marriage issue and a range of views from both sides. It said the article was based on witness accounts and footage from the protest – included in the story – as well as information provided at the time by police and ambulance services confirming the incident.

Conclusion
The Press Council considers that the reference to a “clash” in the headline, the statement in the sub-heading that “cars were used as weapons” and the statement “quickly deteriorated in to a violent clash” amounted to statements of fact and an assertion that there was a violent clash.

The article appeared to rely on untested claims of a single demonstrator that “people drove their cars nearly at full speed into the yes campaigners”. The article contained no material supporting the claim that the clash was violent. The claims were questionable on the information presented. Police were said to be in attendance but “no arrests were made”. The video depicted protestors chanting with placards and police ushering a slow-moving car through the crowd of demonstrators.

The publication said that although the reporter made some inquiries with police about the protest, the reporter was not at the scene and had based the coverage of the protest on footage from a television station broadcast the evening before publication.

The Council concludes that in reporting a “violent clash” in the manner that it did, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material was accurate and not misleading and was distinguishable from other material such as opinion. Accordingly, it breached General Principle 1.

The Council also considers that in reporting a “violent clash”, the basis for which appeared to be only one quoted demonstrator, there was no attempt to test the reliability of the claims, particularly an allegation as serious as people driving their cars “nearly at full speed into the yes campaigners”. Absent police or other comments supporting such statements and absent an opportunity for anyone from the church to provide comment, the Council concludes that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure fairness and balance in the article. Accordingly, the publication also breached General Principle 3.

117

Whether rightly or wrongly, you can deduce who has made a complaint regarding the aforementioned article.

You will also note that it’s over 9 months since publication of the article for the complaint & its review to be published.

Whatever benefit the complainant thought they might derive from doing so has long since evaporated with the gay marriage referendum long gone.

Press Council not doing itself any favours by being as slow, if not slower than ACMA and many other quasi judicial bodies.

1 Like
118

Complainant / Daily Mail Australia

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published online on 30 May 2017 by Daily Mail Australia headed “Commuter chaos as man throws himself in the path of a train in front of horrified passengers on a busy Sydney platform – and drivers have to drag him from under the carriage”. Below the headline were several bullet point sub-headlines, including “Young man jumped in front of train” and the name of the station, that “He tried to kill himself in front of horrified passengers” at a stated time, repeated the reference to drivers having to “drag the badly injured man from under the front carriage” and that trains were shut down between two major stations in Sydney “just before peak hour”.

The article reported that a “Young man jumped in front of a train” at a named station in Sydney in front of “horrified passengers” and went on to describe witness accounts that “train drivers rushed to help the man who was wedged under the front carriage while commuters looked on”. The article contained seven photographs showing ambulance and emergency officers at the train station, including one of the platform which, although it did not show detailed activity, was accompanied by a caption including the words “police cleaning blood off the train pictured” and three other photographs showing a stretcher, with one of these depicting the lower half of a covered body on a stretcher being placed in an ambulance. It also said “Thousands of office workers in North Sydney would likely need to take buses home as police said trains could be cancelled for several hours”.

The Council asked the publication to comment on whether the article breached its Standards of Practice, in particular whether the publication took reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety (General Principle 6) – unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest.

The Council also asked the publication to comment on whether its Specific Standards on the Coverage of Suicide were breached, in particular Specific Standard 3 which requires that in deciding whether to report a suicide – which includes attempted suicide – consideration should be given to whether clear and informed consent has been provided by appropriate relatives or close friends, or whether such reporting is clearly in the public interest; Specific Standard 5 which requires that the method and location of a suicide should not be described in detail unless the public interest in doing so clearly outweighs the risk, if any, of causing further suicide; and Specific Standard 7 which requires that reports of suicide should not be given undue prominence and great care should be taken to avoid causing unnecessary harm or hurt to those who attempted suicide or to relatives and others who have been affected by a suicide or attempted suicide.

The publication said its reporter was a witness to the incident and provided information and photographs to its news desk. It said the news desk carefully considered the images before publishing them and determined they would not be likely to cause distress. It decided against publishing other more graphic photographs. The publication said it did not intend to cause offence and took care to ensure that all information was published with sensitivity.

The publication said the article was in the public interest as the attempted suicide took place in public with dozens of witnesses and caused major disruption to the transport network and the article highlighted that trains were cancelled around peak travel times. It said the location of the attempted suicide was a key part of the story and in the public interest to report, and that the method was well-known.
The publication said it acknowledged some of the wording in the article was strong, but this and the included photographs did not glamorise suicide or present it as a solution to a vulnerable person’s problems. It also said the one photograph featuring the young man did not depict anything likely to cause distress.
The publication said the article also included details of how witnesses to the incident felt, and it hoped this would show vulnerable people that committing such a public act can emotionally impact others around them.

Conclusion
The Council notes the use of explicit language such as “leaping”, “wedged under the front carriage”, “drag him from under the carriage” and “cleaning blood off the train” in the headlines, text and captions. The Council considers that this language together with the photographs would contribute to some readers experiencing some offence and distress. However the Council considers it was not such as to contribute to substantial offence and distress. Accordingly, the publication did not breach General Principle 6.

The publication, in deciding whether to report the attempted suicide, did not try to contact appropriate relatives or close friends for consent. Although the Council accepts that reporting on the public transport disruption was in the public interest, this public interest could have been served without reporting the incident as an attempted suicide. Accordingly, the publication breached Specific Standard 3 on Coverage of Suicide.

The Council accepts that the public interest justified the reporting of the location of the incident given its relevance to the resulting public transport disruption. However, the Council considers it was not sufficiently in the public interest to publish the method of the attempted suicide. Accordingly, the publication breached Specific Standard 5 on Coverage of Suicide.

The Council considers that the use of explicit language to describe the accident and its aftermath in the headlines, text and captions together with the photographs themselves gave undue prominence to the attempted suicide rather than the disruption to public transport. In doing so, the publication did not exercise special sensitivity and moderation in reporting the incident and breached Specific Standard 7 on Coverage of Suicide.

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

119

Complainant / The Sydney Morning Herald

The Press Council considered a complaint about an article in The Sydney Morning Herald on 17 October 2017 headed in print “Teacher fatally stabbed at bus stop tried in vain to flee” and online “Special hearing begins into death of teacher Brian Liston at Camperdown bus stop”.

The article reported on a hearing in the NSW Supreme Court concerning the murder of Brian Liston on the evening of 10 December 2015. The article reported that the accused had been found unfit to stand trial due to the state of his mental health. The article drew on witnesses’ descriptions of the incident detailing the weapon used to murder Mr Liston, the areas of the body where the wounds were inflicted, the approximate number of wounds inflicted, and the actions of the accused when inflicting the wounds and pursuing Mr Liston. The online article included a photograph of Mr Liston holding his two young children and included a short excerpt of a video recording of police interviewing the accused soon after the murder.

The complainant said reporting the explicit and disturbing details concerning the manner in which Mr Liston was murdered breached the family’s reasonable expectation of privacy and caused substantial offence and distress to his family, friends, community, and former primary school students. The complainant said the high level of detail concerning the murder should not have been published without considering the effect on Mr Liston’s family—particularly his young children, who are unaware of the precise details of how their father died. The complainant said the inclusion of the photograph of Mr Liston holding his two children was taken from the funeral booklet and was published without their consent. She said the funeral booklet included a clear request that no attendee cooperate with, or comment to, the media, as the family requested that its privacy be respected.

In response, the publication said the case was heard in open court and there is no part of the article that was not on the public record. The information in the article was widely available. The publication said there was a public interest in reporting on the case as it raises questions about the care and support available for mentally ill people and, more broadly, safety on suburban streets. The publication said it acknowledges the incident was distressing but the incident was widely known. The publication volunteered, however, that the online article ought to have had a ‘graphic content’ warning at the top to signal to readers that they may not wish to read it and also conceded it ought to have pixelated the faces of the children. The publication said, in relation to the funeral booklet, that it was handed to its reporter after she introduced herself to a funeral organiser at the public service. At a late stage in the Council’s process the publication altered the online article by including a ‘graphic content’ warning and removing the images of Mr Liston’s children from the photograph.

Conclusion

The Council’s Standards of Practice applicable in this matter require publications to take reasonable steps to avoid intruding on a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy (General Principle 5) and causing or contributing materially to substantial offence and distress (General Principle 6), and to avoid publishing material which has been gathered by deceptive or unfair means (General Principle 7) without sufficient justification in the public interest.

The Council accepts there is a strong public interest in reporting on the due administration of justice and matters of public health and safety, particularly in this instance in drawing attention to the care and support available for people with serious mental illness and the risk that a lack of such care may pose to the broader community. However, the public interest in this matter did not extend to publishing the photograph from the funeral booklet. The Council notes the family’s explicit request for privacy in the funeral booklet and considers the family—in particular the children depicted in the photograph—had a reasonable expectation of privacy in this regard. As the publication did not take reasonable steps to avoid intruding on the family’s reasonable expectations of privacy, and there was no public interest justifying this, the publication breached General Principle 5, in this respect only.

With regard to offence and distress, the Council recognises that what was reported in the article was a matter of public record. However, the Council emphasises that, beyond the strict requirements of the law, publications have a responsibility to ensure compliance with the Standards of Practice which may extend to not reporting particular information that has been given in open court. The application of General Principle 6 can call for difficult judgments to be made. The Council considers the explicit description of how Mr Liston was pursued and murdered, which included where on his body the injuries were inflicted, an estimate of the number of wounds and, in particular, precisely how they were inflicted was more than necessary or appropriate to achieve the publication’s understandable aims of serving the public interest. The Council concluded that by including the level of detail that it did, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing substantial distress to Mr Liston’s family, without sufficient public interest justifying this. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 6.

The Council accepts that the funeral was not a private service and that the journalist was provided with the funeral booklet upon introducing herself to the funeral organisers. Given this, the Council concludes the publication did not publish material gathered by deceptive or unfair means. Accordingly, the publication did not breach General Principle 7.

1 Like
120

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. SMH/Fairfax no angels either.

Mediawatch run strong on privacy, Paul Barry enjoys saying 'priv-a-see; in this UK accent, but will we hear of this on the show, ABC ratting on their SMH mates? Unlikely.