Australian Press Council

Radio, Print, and Online Print and Online
121

Complainant / Geelong Advertiser

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published online by the Geelong Advertiser on 20 April 2017, headed “Malop St locked down as police negotiate with distraught man atop Market Square mall”.

The article reported that a “man climbed over a rooftop barrier atop the Market Square complex and dangled over the street” leading to a “rooftop standoff” in which “police shut down the busy street to negotiate with the man who was threatening to jump”. It included a short video of the incident and a photograph of the man sitting with his legs dangling off the rooftop edge with his head in his hands. The article reported in detail about traffic diversion and closures of public spaces.

The Council accepted the photograph and video did not identify the man involved and did not intrude on his reasonable expectations of privacy. Accordingly, the publication did not breach General Principle 5. The Council was also not satisfied that the report would cause substantial distress or a risk to the health and safety of any person including the man involved, since it was published following the incident’s resolution. Accordingly, the publication did not breach General Principle 6.

The Council considered that the article’s heading, photo, and statements that the man “climbed over the rooftop barrier”, “was threatening to jump”, and “Police are negotiating with the man”, amounted to reporting the incident as an attempted suicide. The police comments in the updated article reinforced this. The Specific Standards on Coverage of Suicide therefore applied. The publication did not attempt to obtain consent from the man involved, appropriate relatives or close friends. The Council considered that although it was in the public interest to report on the disruption the incident caused, this could have been served without reporting about it as an attempted suicide. Accordingly, the publication breached Specific Standard 3 on Coverage of Suicide.

The Council considered that while the traffic disruption justified reporting the location, it was not in the public interest to publish the method of attempted suicide. Accordingly, the publication breached Specific Standard 5 on Coverage of Suicide. The Council did not consider the article gave undue prominence to its reporting of the incident. Accordingly, the publication did not breach General Principle 7 on Coverage of Suicide.

Read the full adjudication here.

1 Like
122

Complainant / NT News

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an anonymous “Txt the editor” text message published in NT News on 17 May 2018. The message appeared on a page titled “Your Say – The People’s Voice in the Northern Territory”, and read “I am not happy about the Eurovision winner and I would prefer another grand final solution” .

The Council considered that published text messages are comparable to published letters to the editor and publications should exercise editorial control over them to ensure compliance with the Council’s Standards of Practice.

The Council considered that as Israel was the winner of the 2018 Eurovision Song Contest, the use of the phrase “grand final solution” would be taken by many readers to be a reference to the Holocaust. The effect was to trivialise the Holocaust and imply that another holocaust may be a remedy to the author’s displeasure at Israel winning and hosting the next grand final. Whether the language used was the result of poor expression or an ill-advised attempt at humour rather than deliberately offensive, it was likely to cause substantial offence and distress to readers.

The Council considered that the text message was not sufficiently in the public interest to justify such offence and distress. While the Eurovision Song Contest can attract great publicity, controversy and community interest, the fact that the community may find a subject of interest does not mean that its publication is in the public interest.

Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 6.

Read the full adjudication here .

1 Like
123

Press Council removes Carla McGrath as member

The Australian Press Council has removed Carla McGrath as a public member because her position as Deputy Chair of GetUp! is incompatible with her continued role as a public member of the Council.

At its meeting in May, the Australian Press Council resolved that Ms McGrath’s position at GetUp! created an ongoing and irreconcilable conflict of interest with her role on the Press Council. As Ms McGrath chose not to resign either from the Press Council or as an officer of GetUp!, the Council further resolved to take steps in accordance with its Constitution to remove her as a public member.

This action was concluded today at a General Meeting of the Press Council.

“I believe this is the best outcome in a very difficult situation,” said Chair Neville Stevens. “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. While the Council is committed to increasing diversity among its members, there is an overriding need for it to be independent and to be seen to be independent.”
Under the Press Council’s Constitution, any resolution to remove a public member before the expiration of their term must be passed by at least 75 per cent of members present at such a meeting. Details of the actual vote numbers, or how individual members voted, are never made public.

1 Like
124

Presbyterian and Methodist Schools Association / The Courier-Mail

The Press Council has considered a complaint from Presbyterian and Methodist Schools Association (PMSA) about five articles published in the Courier Mail in February 2018. The articles were: 14 February “College on the brink” in print and “Elite school Clayfield College in shock debt crisis” online; 16 February “Clayfield College being used as a political football claims parent” online; 23 February “Clayfield College’s big drop in top OP scores revealed”; 23 February “PMSA scandal: Elite schools’ damning fall from grace” online and 24 February “Bath boss’ six figure payout” in print and “PMSA schools scandal: Rick Hiley to get six-figure payout” online.

The first article reported on the “independent analysis” undertaken by a “forensic accountant” into the finances of PMSA, which said that Clayfield College, “was on the brink of collapse” as a result of PMSA’s “financial mismanagement”. The second article referred to the “analysis” of PMSA’s finances and reported findings that the PMSA had “mismanaged funds” and had experienced a drop in student numbers. The third article reported on the “forensic account analysis”, its findings that PMSA had mismanaged funds, and that the school had recorded one “of the biggest drops” in “OP scores”. The fourth article reported that the four schools managed by the PMSA had all “posted alarming falls” in OP scores and Brisbane Boys’ College had a “big fall” in OP scores. The fifth article reported on the resignation of a former Executive Manager of the PMSA, the scandal involving him, and his “six figure” settlement.

All articles included comments from the PMSA responding to the claims of financial mismanagement, the reports regarding drops in tertiary entry scores and its former Executive Manager. After the complainant raised concerns with the publication, the references to “forensic accountant” and “accountant” were amended to “finance and corporate governance specialist”. A print correction was published stating that the author was not a forensic accountant but was a finance and corporate governance specialist.
The Council considered that the articles’ description of the report writer as a “forensic accountant” or “accountant” were inaccurate and misleading since he is not a forensic accountant and does not have formal accountancy qualifications. The Council considered the attributed qualification gave the claims in the report a level of credibility that would not be associated with the report writer’s actual qualifications. Accordingly, the Council concluded that General Principles 1 and 3 were breached.

The Council considered that the articles regarding the tertiary entrance scores of PMSA managed schools were factually correct and did not omit key facts. The articles’ inclusion of tables and their prominence, enabled readers to assess and compare the performance of PMSA schools against other schools based on the same objective measures. The Council also noted that the article included comments from the complainant on the scores, the schools’ performances and student achievement. As to the article concerning PMSA’s former Executive Manager, the Council accepted the publication sought comment from the complainant and published its response. Accordingly, General Principles 1 and 3 were not breached.

The Council considered that the publication took reasonable steps to provide adequate remedial action to correct the original inaccurate and misleading qualifications attributed to the report writer. The Council noted the amendment to the online articles, the published print correction, and its offer to publish an article. Accordingly, there was no breach of General Principle 2 and 4.

Read the full adjudication here

1 Like
126

Complainant/Spectator (Portland Observer & Casterton News)

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by material, intended as humorous, published in an area headed “Smile and Be Happy” in the Portland Observer on 9 July 2018 and the Casterton News on 11 July 2018.
The material referred to a man who texted his neighbour confessing to having an affair with the man’s wife, saying “I have been helping myself to your wife day and night whenever you’re not around.” It proceeded to say that the man, “anguished and betrayed, went into his bedroom, grabbed his gun, and without a word shot his wife and killed her. A few moments a second text came to the man saying ‘Bloody autocorrect! I meant ‘wifi’, not ‘wife’…”

The Council considered that the material caused substantial offence and distress, as it implicitly conveyed the message that, had there not been a typographical error in the text message, the action of the husband in killing his wife in a fit of jealousy was excusable and, in so doing, communicated a disregard for the serious issue of domestic violence and violence against women. It also implicitly objectified women as sexual objects that men ‘can help themselves to’ on the one hand but not seek their views on the other.
The Council accepted that the material was contributed by a reader, however it noted it is the responsibility of the publication to comply with the Council’s Standards of Practice and exercise editorial control over such material.

The Council welcomed the measures taken by the publication, including the apology and the published response. The measures taken by the publication do not, however, remove the effects of the breach. Accordingly, the Council considered that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing substantial offence, distress or prejudice, without sufficient justification in the public interest. In doing so it breached General Principle 6.

Read the full adjudication here

1 Like
127

This joke has been doing the rounds of email and social media for years. Interesting that in the context of a country newspaper, a reader is that offended that they made a complaint through to the press council.

128

Stephen Caldwell / The Border Mail

The Press Council has considered a complaint from Stephen Caldwell about an article published in The Border Mail on 13 June 2018 headed “Nude snap an agenda item” in print and “Towong councillors to discuss mayor’s exposed bottom picture sent as Christmas greeting” online, a day earlier.

The article reported that the Mayor of the Towong Shire Council had sent a text message to the complainant with an image of two naked men decorating a Christmas tree and with the accompanying message: “Here’s a new Christmas wish for you” and that the Mayor had announced he would write a formal apology to the complainant for sending it. The article further said the complainant would not be accepting the apology and said “The homosexual rejected (the Mayor’s) explanation that he had sent the text as a joke after receiving it from a female friend.” The complainant was quoted saying “If (the Mayor) thinks it’s a laugh, what’s he laughing at, is he laughing at my sexuality?”

The Council’s Standards of Practice relevant in this matter require the publication to take reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, without sufficient justification in the public interest (General Principle 6).

The Council accepted that the complainant told the publication about his sexuality and indeed pointed to his sexuality as a possible reason why the text was sent to him. However, the Council considered that in referring to the complainant as “The homosexual” the publication gave a strong and unnecessary emphasis to his sexuality.

The Council considered that neither participating in the story nor telling the journalist he preferred to describe himself as “homosexual” rather than “gay” was consent by the complainant to his sexuality being emphasized in this manner. The Council considered that given the concerns expressed by the complainant about the Mayor possibly ridiculing his sexuality by sending the text message, the obligation to take reasonable steps to avoid causing distress or prejudice required the publication to ensure that the complainant agreed to his sexuality being explicitly referred to in the story, and being referred to in a way that gave such strong emphasis to it.

Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 6.

Read the full adjudication here

129

Complainant / The Daily Telegraph

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by a front page article published in The Daily Telegraph on 1 April 2017, headed “SECRET LIVES OF BRUTAL KILLERS - Mental health justice system puts monsters on the streets". The full report was on pages six and seven, headed “KILLERS AND RAPIST ARE BEING FREED IN SECRECY”. The article was also published online on 31 March 2017, headed “Mental Act review demand: Telegraph calls for changes to law that allows details suppression”.

The article began: “HUNDREDS of the state’s most vile and vicious criminals are being secretly protected by the state with their fate and whereabouts unknown. Under secretive laws designed to protect criminals deemed to be mentally ill — many of them killers and rapists — all details about their treatment and incarceration are suppressed, including the identity of their victims”. It commented on decisions made by the Mental Health Review Tribunal to release into the community some of the 460 forensic patients for which it is responsible. It provided what was described as “sickening examples” of the acts committed by those deemed to be mentally ill.

The article reported on concerns about the treatment of people whose actions would have constituted a criminal offence if not for the defence of mental illness, and who were released into the community. The Council noted such persons were found to have committed the act alleged but were found not guilty. While the Mental Health Review Tribunal would have been aware of a range of information about such persons, the Council noted that they were released into the community and their release was not made public by the Tribunal at the time. Accordingly, the Council considered that the publication took reasonable steps to ensure the material published was accurate and not misleading, and reasonably fair and balanced, in describing them as criminals whose whereabouts were unknown.

The Council noted that the Mental Health Tribunal’s Annual Report for 2016–17, which was issued after the article appeared, reported that there were 149 such forensic patients released into the community. The Council considered that referring to “hundreds” was an accurate description, not misleading and reasonably fair and balanced.

Accordingly, the Council concluded that the publication did not breach General Principles 1 or 3. Given its conclusions regarding General Principles 1 and 3, the publication also did not breach General Principles 2 and 4.

Read the full adjudication here

130

Australian Press Council welcomes six new members

The Australian Press Council has welcomed six new members, adding to the approximately 900 print and online media outlets that have formally committed to its high standards of practice and its mission to advocate for press freedom and freedom of speech. The new members are:

  • Western Sydney Publishing Group Pty Ltd, publisher of Western Weekender

  • Highlife Publishing Pty Ltd, publisher of Highlife Magazine, Escape Southern Highlands and Property Life

  • Inside Story Publishing Pty Ltd, publisher of insidestory.org.au

  • Radiowise Productions Pty Limited, publisher of radioinfo.com.au

  • Altmedia Pty Ltd, publisher of City Hub, City News, Bondi View and Inner West Independent

  • Beaconwood Holdings, publisher of Great Southern Weekender
    The Chair of the Press Council, Neville Stevens, said the new members are the latest expression of confidence in the Council.

“It is important for the Council to represent as close to 100 per cent of print and online publishers as possible and to continue to expand its membership in the online-only area," Stevens said.

1 Like
131

How much does membership cost?

132

Complainant / nine.com.au

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published online by Nine.com.au titled “Brighton Le Sands death: Dylan Walker’s sister in court over boyfriend’s death” on 21 May 2018.

The article began “The transgender sister of” a named football player “allegedly killed her boyfriend”. The article identified the woman by name and the Sydney suburb involved. It reported that the man allegedly died from injuries to his head and face. It said the woman appeared in court with swelling to her face and bruising under one of her eyes and had been charged with manslaughter and “aggravated enter dwelling with intent”. The article included a photograph of the woman and her brother. The charges were later withdrawn.

The Council noted that it has for a long period considered that publications should exercise great care to not place unwarranted emphasis on characteristics of individuals such as race, religion, nationality, country of origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, illness or age.

The Council accepted that the woman had publicly stated on social media accounts that she was transgender. However, the Council noted the woman was already identified in the article by name and photograph, as was her brother. The man who had died, and the suburb involved were also identified by name. The Council considered that it was not relevant to the alleged criminal acts reported to identify the woman as being transgender. Although it provided some further identification of the woman, it was not necessary to do so. The Council considered that as being transgender was not relevant to the alleged criminality, prominently identifying the woman as transgender in the first sentence of the article could have had the effect of generating substantial prejudice towards transgender people.

The Council considered that, although being transgender was not relevant to the alleged criminality, on balance the publication took reasonable steps to ensure the presentation of factual material in the article was reasonably fair and balanced. Accordingly, the publication complied with General Principles 3 and 4.

However, given the woman’s transgender status was not relevant to the alleged criminality, identifying her as such in the first sentence of the article could lead some readers to conclude that this characteristic was either the cause of, or a factor in, the alleged crime and could contribute to substantial prejudice against transgender people. The council considered that in prominently identifying the woman as transgender the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid contributing to substantial prejudice and that there was no sufficient public interest justifying doing so. Accordingly the Council concluded that the publication breached General Principle 6.

Read the full adjudication here .

133

Angela Owen / Brisbane Times

The Press Council has considered a complaint from Cr Angela Owen, Chairman of the Brisbane City Council, about an article published in Brisbane Times on 26 March 2018 headed "Council chairman accused of being abusive and being biased”, later amended to "Council chairman accused of bullying and bias” and then to "Council chairman accused of allowing bullying and being biased”.

The article said in its first paragraph that the complainant “had been accused of allowing bullying and being partisan during full council meetings”. It said that the complainant had chaired seven meetings of the City Council, councillors were warned seven times and a councillor was once ordered to leave. It said these incidents involved Labor or independent councillors and that no LNP councillors were warned. It referred to a letter written by the Opposition Leader to formally complain to the City Council’s Chief Executive, describing the complainant’s actions at a recent meeting as “ruthlessly biased”.

The Press Council considered that the initial headline stated that the complainant had personally been accused of being abusive and being a bully. Neither the article nor any material put forward by the publication during the Press Council’s complaints process supported this statement. The Press Council noted the publication did seek comment from the media unit before publication. However, given the seriousness of the allegation, the Press Council considered the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure it was accurate, not misleading and fair and balanced. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principles 1 and 3.

The Press Council noted that it took six hours after initial request for the headline to be revised to remove the statement that the complainant had been accused of being a bully. The Press Council considered that a revision could and should have been made earlier. The Press Council concluded that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to provide a correction or other remedial action. Accordingly, it breached General Principle 2.

In light of the request for comment to the City Council’s media unit before publication and the reasonably prompt inclusion of the complainant’s denial on the morning of 27 March, the Press Council considered the publication took reasonable steps to provide a fair opportunity for a reply. Accordingly, General Principle 4 was not breached.

Read the full adjudication here

1 Like
134

Complainant / Daily Mail Australia

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published online by the Daily Mail Australia titled “EXCLUSIVE: Transgender sister, 31, of football star is charged with manslaughter over the death of her boyfriend, 51, after ‘domestic violence’ incident at a house in Sydney’s south” on 21 May 2018 and updated on 22 May 2018.

The article reported that a named woman, the sister of a named rugby league player, had been charged with manslaughter following the death of a named man with whom she had been in a relationship. The article said that the publication understood the named woman “a transgender woman, had been involved in an “on and off” relationship” with the named man. It also said the woman described herself on social media accounts as transgender and the article included her post “#transgender #transisbeautiful”, although it was not suggested her transgender status was of particular relevance to any of the events described. The article included several photographs of the woman and a photograph of her with her brother. The article named the suburb where the man had died and said a neighbour heard “a woman yelling” followed by “a ‘loud bang’”. The charges were later withdrawn.

The Council noted that it has for a long period considered that publications should exercise great care to not place unwarranted emphasis on characteristics of individuals such as race, religion, nationality, country of origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, illness or age.

The Council accepted that the woman had publicly stated on social media accounts that she was transgender. However, the Council noted the woman was already identified in the article by name and photograph, as was her brother. The man who had died, and the suburb involved were also identified by name. The Council considered that it was not relevant to the alleged criminal acts reported to identify the woman as being transgender. Although it provided some further identification of the woman, it was not necessary to do so. The Council considered that as being transgender was not relevant to the alleged criminality, prominently identifying the woman as transgender in the headline and again in the article could contribute to substantial prejudice towards transgender people.

The Council considered that, although being transgender was not relevant to the alleged criminality, on balance the publication took reasonable steps to ensure the presentation of factual material in the article was reasonably fair and balanced. Accordingly, the publication complied with General Principles 3 and 4.

However, given the woman’s transgender status was not relevant to the alleged criminality, identifying her as such in the headline and again in the article could lead some readers to conclude that this characteristic was either the cause of, or a factor in, the alleged crime and could contribute to substantial prejudice against transgender people. The Council considered that in prominently identifying the woman as transgender the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid contributing to substantial prejudice and that there was no sufficient public interest justifying doing so. Accordingly the Council concludes that the publication breached General Principle 6.

Read the full adjudication here

135

Complainant / Herald Sun

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of an article in The Herald Sun on 21 May 2018, headed "BAN THE BOOKS Councils’ gender war to hit kinders, libraries” on the front page, continuing on page 2, headed “Favourite children’s tales face gender ban”. The article was also published online, headed “Councils could ban children’s books, toys and characters for not meeting gender test”.

The opening paragraph read “Victorian councils are auditing libraries, schools and kindergartens and urging a ban on the terms ‘boy’ and ‘girl’ in a bid to teach kids as young as three to have ‘gender equitable relationships’.” The article referred to Melbourne City Council being “among a number of local authorities responding to radical new research” by the Australian National University (ANU) which suggests that educators “AVOID classifying kids by gender, and boys and girls-only activities; AVOID comments defining what females or males do, or should do; and AVOID using the terms ‘boys’ and ‘girls’, and ‘minimise the extent to which gender is labelled’”. The article proceeded to discuss the research and said that under “the new guidelines, children’s favourites including Thomas the Tank Engine, Noddy and Winnie the Pooh could be banned for not meeting gender tests”.

The Press Council noted that the article reported on the ANU research responses from some local councils to it. These included material from Darebin City Council which recommended that educators apply a “gender lens” to books to ensure “a range of different stories and experiences” and material from Manningham City Council resource which the article reports “checks books for gender modelling and diversity”. However, the Press Council also noted a statement by the Municipal Association of Victoria, published on the day the article appeared and in response to the article, said: “There will be no book or toy bans”. Additionally, the Press Council noted that the publication did not refer the Press Council to any instance where banning of books was proceeding.

The Press Council considered that the headline “BAN THE BOOKS Councils’ gender war to hit kinders, libraries” on the front page, the headline on page two headed “Favourite children’s tales face gender ban”, and the article itself went beyond implying that a ban of books was possible and implied the councils were proceeding to ban books. The Council considered that the information available to the publication was not sufficiently clear to justify the implication that banning of books was proceeding. The publication informed the Press Council that it contacted three local councils prior to publication of the article and the Press Council noted that two local councils were quoted in the article. However, as the publication declined to release the content of such communications, the Press Council was not able to consider it.

The Press Council concluded that the publication did not take reasonable steps to ensure the article was accurate and not misleading and was presented with fairness and balance. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principles 1 and 3. In the absence of a request for correction by or response, the Press Council does not consider the publication breached General Principles 2 and 4.

Read the full adjudication here

1 Like
136

Complainant / Herald Sun

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of a Cartoon by Mark Knight in the Herald Sun on 10 September 2018. The cartoon depicted Ms Serena Williams on a tennis court, jumping in the air with her arms out to her sides and her hands in fists above a broken tennis racquet. A baby’s pacifier was depicted on the ground in front of the broken tennis racquet. In the background, an umpire was shown saying “Can you just let her win?” to a woman standing on the other side of the net. The cartoon referred to an incident during a tennis match between Ms Williams and Ms Naomi Osaka.

The Council noted that cartoons are commonly expressions of opinion examining serious issues and which use exaggeration and absurdity to make their point. For this reason significant latitude will usually be given in considering whether a publication has taken reasonable steps to avoid substantial offence, distress or prejudice in breach of General Principle 6. However a publication can, in publishing a particular cartoon, still fail to take reasonable steps to avoid contributing to substantial offence, distress or prejudice without sufficient justification in the public interest and breach the General Principle.

The Council accepted that the cartoon was illustrated in response to the events that occurred at the US Open final on 9 September 2018 that attracted global attention. The Council considered that the cartoon uses exaggeration and absurdity to make its point but accepts the publisher’s claim that it does not depict Ms Williams as an ape, rather showing her as ‘spitting the dummy’, a non-racist caricature familiar to most Australian readers. Nonetheless, the Council acknowledged that some readers found the cartoon offensive.
However, the Council also accepted that there was a sufficient public interest in commenting on behaviour and sportsmanship during a significant dispute between a tennis player with a globally high profile and an umpire at the US Open final. As such, the Council did not consider that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing substantial offence, distress or prejudice, without sufficient justification in the public interest.

Accordingly the Council concluded that its Standards of Practice were not breached.

Read the full adjudication here

1 Like
137

ClubsNSW / The Sydney Morning Herald

The Press Council considered a complaint from ClubsNSW about an article published in The Sydney Morning Herald on 12 March 2018 headed “Pokie numbers are set to rise under new laws” in print and “Law changes could see pokie machine numbers rise in vulnerable areas” online.

The Council notes that before the proposed changes, the ‘sinking lid’ provisions of gaming laws required clubs to forfeit one machine for every three machines sold by a club to another club and that this would most likely lead to an eventual reduction of machine numbers. The Council considers that, as the proposed changes allow clubs the option of leasing machines to other clubs without the previous forfeiture requirements, it is less likely that a reduction in machine numbers will take place by forfeiture of machines upon sale. The Council considers it is possible there will be more machines as a result of the proposed changes than would otherwise have been the case. The Council concludes the article was not inaccurate or misleading or unfair and unbalanced in this respect.

The Council also notes that while clubs outside Fairfield cannot lease their machines to clubs in Fairfield, machines in low turnover areas of Fairfield could be moved to high turnover areas within Fairfield. While the expression used in the article may not have been ideal, the Council concludes the article is not significantly inaccurate or misleading or unfair and unbalanced in this respect.

As to the right to activate dormant licences, the Council notes this existed before the proposed changes. However this comment is attributed to the Mayor—not stated as a fact— and is in the context that, for the first time, clubs are able to lease machines. The Council concludes the article was not inaccurate or misleading or unfair and unbalanced in this respect.

Accordingly the Council concludes the publication did not breach General Principles 1 and 3, nor General Principles 2 and 4.

Read the full adjudication here

1 Like
138

Good! As it should be. The political correctness wankers that love to limit freedom of speech lost out this time.

139

Complainant / The Daily Telegraph

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of a front page article in The Daily Telegraph on 6 August 2018, headed “Army drops the ‘H’ bomb: Soldiers told words like ‘him’ or ‘her’ can be gender bullying”. The article continued on page 8 headed “Identity goes MIA in gender wars”. The article was also published online, headed “Australian Defence Force guide bans soldiers from saying ‘him’ or ‘her’ to avoid LGBTI offence”.

Considering the Guide as a whole, and the article, the Council considered that the factual material in the article was not misleading and was presented with reasonable fairness and balance.

However the Council considered that the headline of the online article was likely to lead readers to believe that the ADFA had banned the use of “him”, “her” or “they” entirely rather than stating that the deliberate use of inappropriate pronouns will amount to unacceptable behaviour. The Council noted the Guide stated “All ADFA personnel need to appreciate that the deliberate use of non-inclusive language, exclusion and bullying due to gender diversity are some of the behaviours which can affect LGBTI members,” but did not ban the use of such pronouns.

The Council did not consider that it was accurate to say the ADF “banned” the use of such pronouns and concluded that the publication breached General Principle 1. The Council also considered that the publication failed to sufficiently remedy the misleading headline, and accordingly breached General Principle 2.

Read the full adjudication here

1 Like
140

Good. Won’t change behaviour at the Tele, they’re going down the plughole screaming.

141

Complainant / King Island Courier

The Press Council has considered a complaint from Emma Little, on behalf of King Island Council, about an article published in the King Island Courier on 26 September 2018, headed “Directive denied by Auditor General”, about the use made by the publication of an email from the complainant to the publication printed on the same page.

The article reported that, in increasing the airport charges of the only airport on King Island, the King Island Council had publicly claimed it was following a directive from the Auditor General to get “the facility to break even and beyond”. However, the Auditor General had denied issuing such a directive. The article concluded: “the King Island Council did not respond to a request for comment.”

Ms Little’s email to the publication advised that the King Island Council was withdrawing its advertising from the publication due to “[unacceptable]…continued degradation of the organisation, its staff and Councillors”. The email was published in place of the Council’s regular half page booked piece.

The Press Council accepted that the complainant’s response to the publication’s request for comment did not directly address the central question of why King Island Council had invoked a directive, which the Auditor General denied issuing. However, the Press Council considered that a response that is thought by the publication to be irrelevant or otherwise inadequate, can constitute a response. The statement “The King Island Council did not respond to a request for comment” was inaccurate, misleading and unfair since a response was in fact provided, whether or not the content was persuasive. Accordingly, the Press Council concluded that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure its reporting was accurate and fair in breach of General Principles 1 and 3 and did not provide a correction in breach of General Principle 2.

The Press Council considered that although the publication followed up in an email, it did not provide an adequate opportunity for subsequent publication of a reply. The Press Council had regard to both the timing of the email, its proximity to the printing deadline, as well as the content which briefly repeated the first query and did not meaningfully ask for clarification. Accordingly, the Press Council concluded that General Principle 4 was breached in this respect.

The Press Council considered that publishing the complainant’s email was in the public interest. Withdrawing advertising from the publication was a significant step which would not only cause a significant loss of revenue to the newspaper, but also affect the local community. Withdrawing this established means of communication affects the manner in which the community becomes aware of local council matters. Given the size of the publication and short notice provided, it was reasonable for the publication to use the space reserved to inform the community of this development. However, the Press Council noted that it would have been more appropriate to include the correspondence by way of an article to provide context. The Press Council concluded that the publication did not breach General Principle 7.

Read the full adjudication here .

1 Like