Australian Press Council

Radio, Print, and Online Print and Online
142

Complainant / The Sunday Mail

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by three articles published by The Sunday Mail headed “Stadiums Showdown” (front page in print), “We’ve been hit high” (print), “NRL, AFL and Super Rugby unite to fight soaring rents and levies from Stadiums Queensland” (online), “Ball dropped on footy” (print editorial) and “Stadiums Queensland gouging footy franchises into oblivion” (online), all of which were published on 15 April 2018.

The articles reported on the rents and levies that sporting teams incur for the use of stadiums operated by Stadiums Queensland and discussed the impact of this on various sporting codes, including the NRL. The articles said “Price gouging by Stadiums Queensland is threatening the fiscal viability of the state’s top footy clubs”, “A Sunday Mail investigation reveals the Broncos … are all facing massive financial challenges on the back of soaring rental costs”, “Even the … Broncos, who have by far the best arrangement with the Government, get slugged with well over $1 million in levies” and “Even the Broncos … struggle to survive under the current economic structure being imposed by Stadiums Queensland”.

The Council’s Standards of Practice require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure that conflicts of interest are avoided or adequately disclosed, and do not influence published material (General Principle 8).
The Council considered that the prominent focus of the articles is Stadiums Queensland’s operation and the management of stadiums used by various Queensland sporting clubs, including the rents and levies it imposes on those sporting clubs. Whilst the articles’ focus may not have specifically been on the Broncos, the Council considered that Stadiums Queensland’s operation and management of sporting stadiums, and the rents and levies charged, are of financial concern to the Broncos and therefore are also of financial concern to News Corp Australia.

The Council acknowledged that many readers of the publication’s sports coverage would be aware of the relationship between News Corp Australia and the Broncos, however the Council considered this is not necessarily the case for all readers. This is especially so in the case of a front page news story and online content which is accessible interstate.

The Council considered that News Corp Australia has a financial interest in the level of the rent and levies imposed on the Broncos by Stadiums Queensland and that it failed to take reasonable steps to ensure this conflict of interest was adequately disclosed in the articles. Accordingly the Council considered the publication breached General Principle 8.

Read the full adjudication here .

1 Like
143

This will receive virtually no coverage in Qld.

Despite shrinking reader numbers, the rest of the Qld media, including the ABC are frightened of News Ltd, dare not rock the boat.

It’s another great example of the blatant misuse of a media outlet to directly push one’s barrow, in this case the lack of disclosure of a major conflict of interest that the Broncos (News Ltd controlled) have with the stadium owner, the subject of criticism of the article.

Would be nice to see a penalty imposed but the APC doesn’t work that way sadly.

2 Likes
144

Complainant / The Daily Telegraph

The Press Council has considered a complaint from Dr Fiona Martin about three articles published in The Daily Telegraph on 8 August 2018. The first article was headed “The Nutty Professor” on the front page, with the full report continued on pages four and five with articles headed “Degrees of Hilarity” and “Bizarre rants of a class clown”. The third article was published online under the headline “Sydney University lecturer shocks students with internet search advice on ‘committing suicide’”.

The front page article reported that students in universities in Sydney were being subjected to “absurdly dark humour” and “excessive political correctness”. It reported that “…the most shocking example was modern media lecturer Fiona Martin…, who described the late legendary artist Bill Leak as ‘vile’ and added ‘may he not rest in peace’” and “…flippantly taught [students] how to cover their digital tracks if contemplating suicide or murder”. The article also referred to Dr Martin as “a former ABC reporter”, and included a photo of her with the headline, “The Nutty Professor” capitalised in large letters below it, and the caption “University Life 2018: Class clowns, vile rants, fluffy dogs & cotton wool” on top.

The Council considered that readers would recognise “The Nutty Professor” as a popular reference to unconventionality, and not as suggesting that the complainant had a mental illness. Given that the publication otherwise accurately referred to the complainant as “Dr Martin” throughout the articles, readers were unlikely to be misled about her title.

The Council accepted that it is a legitimate journalistic practice to provide background information when writing on matters of public interest and was not satisfied that references to “ABC reporter” and “modern media” were significantly inaccurate or misleading having regard to the complainant’s university profile and her course description.

The publication was inaccurate in reporting that Dr Martin referred to Bill Leak as vile. As the publication itself reported, she said that a particular cartoon of his was vile. In some circumstances, the distinction might be significant. But in the present case, and bearing in mind her comment “may he rest not in peace”, the Council considered that the ordinary reader is likely to read her remarks as descriptive of Bill Leak, and not as limited to the particular cartoon. Accordingly, there was no breach of General Principles 1 and 2.

The Council was satisfied that the publication provided the complainant with an adequate opportunity to respond, in addition to publishing a balancing article in the next print edition and online. Accordingly, the Council concluded that the publication took reasonable steps to ensure fairness and balance and did not breach General Principles 3 and 4.

The Council considered that the reporting on university teaching was in the public interest and noted that opinion pieces are entitled to express robust and at times provocative views. The Council was not satisfied that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid contributing materially to substantial offence or distress. Accordingly, the publication did not breach General Principle 6.

As universities are public institutions, the Council did not consider that the reporter acted deceptively or unfairly in attending the lectures or photographing the complainant leaving the second lecture. Accordingly, there was no breach of General Principle 7.

Read the full adjudication here .

145

A rare win for the combative Tele.

Looking forward to reading their outcome on the yarn Bill ended up crying about re his mum.

1 Like
146

Australian Press Council response to AFP raids

The Press Council recognises the essential role that a free press plays in a democratic society such as Australia. Investigative reporting and a questioning of Government activities is essential to Government accountability to the community.

The Press Council views with concern recent raids on the ABC and a News Corp journalist by Australian Federal Police as this could have a chilling effect on journalists, and may intimidate them from pursuing legitimate stories in the public interest.

The Press Council promotes freedom of speech through responsible and independent print and digital media and adherence to high journalistic and editorial standards. It views with concern any brake on the ability of journalists to pursue legitimate stories, or Governments discouraging such investigations.

147

Complainant / The Daily Telegraph

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published by The Daily Telegraph on 13 September 2017 headed in print “An identity crisis” and online “WHAT MADNESS CAN JUSTIFY MUTILATING OUR CHILDREN” and a Podcast on 16 April 2018 titled “Ryan T. Anderson joins Miranda Devine live on gender identity”.

The article referred to a “pernicious social fad for transgenderism in children which has been embraced by an activist subset of the medical profession” and stated that “new laws in Victoria can punish therapists who oppose transitioning children”.

The Council noted that the article and the podcast contained expressions of the author’s opinion. However, the Council considered they also contained material presented as facts, including the statement in the article that there was “No evidence that changing sex will reduce the incidence of self-harm or suicide or lessen the impact of other associated mental states such as depression or autism” and in the podcast that there was “no evidence that these hormones are safe to be used on kids, no evidence of any reduction in self-harm or suicide”.

The Council accepted that it was open to an author to question the appropriateness of particular medical treatments and procedures. There may be conflicting evidence in support of, or opposition to, such treatments which the Council would not be in a position to resolve. However the statements that there was “no evidence” was not qualified in any way, such as asserting that there was no reliable evidence. The Council noted that the publication did not rely on any particular medical article as supporting a statement that there was “no evidence”. The Council considered that, given the existence of medical guidelines which recommended various treatments and procedures to assist transitioning children and adolescents, the statement that there was “no evidence” was made in such absolute terms that it was inaccurate and misleading. The Council considered the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure these statements were accurate and not misleading.

Accordingly, the Council found that the publication breached General Principles 1 and 3 in these respects. This conclusion did not amount to a finding on the appropriateness of the medical treatments available.
As to the new laws in Victoria, the Council considered that the broad term ‘therapists’ could include persons who, if providing a general health service, may fall under the remit of the new Victorian Health Complaints Act and therefore be subject to penalties under the Act. The Council was satisfied on the material available to it that the statement “… new laws in Victoria can punish therapists who oppose transitioning children …” was not inaccurate or misleading. Accordingly, the Council did not consider that General Principles 1 and 3 were breached in this respect.

As the publication was not approached for a correction or right of reply, the Council considered there was no breach of General Principles 2 and 4.

The Council accepted that the columnist’s descriptions of medical procedures as “mutilation”, “child surgical abuse” and a “monstrous assault on their developing bodies” were likely to cause offence and distress amongst those undergoing such treatment and amongst their families, and were also likely to cause or exacerbate prejudice. However, the Council considered there was public interest in vigorous public debate about the issue, even when an argument was expressed in very strong terms, as is the case here. The Council considered that to the extent there was substantial offence, distress and prejudice, it was justified in the public interest. Accordingly, General Principle 6 was not breached.

Read the full adjudication here

148

Very odd interpretation of the public interest here.

1 Like
149

The Threatened Species Recovery Hub / The Courier-Mail

The Press Council has considered a complaint from the Threatened Species Recovery Hub (“Hub”) about an article published by The Courier-Mail on 21 January 2019 headed in print “Mega-mine’s future in hands of greenies” on page 2, “Birds of a feather in review of mega-mine” on page 4 and “QLD POLITICS: Anti-coal group could have final say on Adani mine" online.

The article reported that “the Threatened Species Recovery Hub has been hand-picked by the Palaszczuk Government to review one of the [Adani] mine’s environmental management plans” and reported them as “an environmental group whose members champion radical action on climate change, oppose coal and have appeared as expert witnesses against Adani”. It said the “Hub’s leaders have also used social media to advocate for radical action to tackle climate change, oppose coal-fired power and condemn mining.” The article quoted an Adani spokesperson who criticised the Hub for being “compromised” and “incapable of providing an independent review”.

The Council accepted that the Queensland Government incorrectly informed the publication that the Hub itself was conducting the review and accordingly, the publication took reasonable steps to ensure accuracy and fair and balanced presentation of factual material. Given the nature and purpose of the Hub, the Council considered the publication also took reasonable steps to be accurate, fair and balanced in using the terms “greenies” and “environmental group”.

The Council accepted that the Hub is a collaboration of research scientists engaged in issues of threatened species. The Council considered that the activities of some individual members of the Hub referred to in the article did not provide a reasonable factual basis for describing the Hub itself in the online headline as an “anti-coal group”. The Council considered the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the “anti-coal group” headline was accurate, not misleading and fair and balanced. Accordingly, the Council concluded that the Publication breached General Principles 1 and 3.

The Council noted that the terms “compromised” and “incapable of carrying out a review” are not presented as fact or comment by the publication but as direct quotations from the Adani spokesperson. However the publication did not contact the Hub for comment prior to publication and the Council considers that it was not reasonably fair and balanced to only present Adani’s perspective. In these circumstances the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that Adani’s views of the Hub were presented with reasonable fairness and balance and breached General Principle 3.

As to remedial action the Council noted the later article, print correction, note to the online article and the complainant’s acceptance of these as reasonable in relation to correcting the substantial inaccuracy that the Hub itself had been appointed. Although the reference to “anti-coal group” in the online headline was inaccurate, the Council considered that given the views held by the publication it was reasonable for the publication to not publish a correction of it during the Council’s complaints process. As to providing a fair opportunity for subsequent publication of a reply, the Council considered there was some ambiguity in the nature of the complainant’s request and is not satisfied that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to provide a reply. Accordingly, the Council concluded the publication did not breach General Principles 2 or 4.

Read the full adjudication here

1 Like
150

Breached princple 1 and 3 but not 2 and 4, that’s enough, Courier Mail is light on for accuracy.

1 Like
151

Premier Palaszczuk / Sunshine Coast Daily

The Press Council has considered a complaint from the Queensland Government on behalf of Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk about an article published in the Sunshine Coast Daily on 20 May 2019, headed “ANNA, YOU’RE NEXT: Labor rout puts Premier in crosshairs. Full election coverage from page 2" in print and “Anna, you’re next: State LNP buoyed by Labor rout” online.

The front page included prominent target ‘crosshairs’ superimposed on an image of the Queensland Premier’s face next to the headline “ANNA, YOU’RE NEXT” and the sub-headline “Labor rout puts Premier in crosshairs”. A page 3 article was headed “LNP eyeing off state after federal romp” and the online article reported “SCOTT Morrison’s demolition of the Labor Party in Queensland has sent spirits soaring in State LNP MPs, with a target now firmly fixed on Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk.” The article went on to report a State Shadow minister as saying that the election win “sent a message to Ms Palaszczuk that ‘doing nothing isn’t going to cut it for six years’”.

The Council acknowledged the publication’s comments that it did not intend to incite violence against Premier Palaszczuk and was instead suggesting that the State Labor Party was a political target. However, by superimposing an image of crosshairs on a photograph of the Premier’s face next to the headlines “ANNA YOU’RE NEXT” and “Labor rout puts Premier in crosshairs”, the article went beyond political comment and showed the premier being the subject of potential significant violence. This could have been taken by some readers as condoning violence against the Premier or had the potential to trigger violence against the Premier. In this respect, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to the health and safety without a justifiable public interest. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 6.

The Council considered it was deeply regrettable that the publication made the original decision to publish the image, initially refused to apologise and delayed in removing the image page from its digital platforms. However, the Council welcomed the prominent apology by the publication and its subsequent action in addressing the complaint.

Read the full adjudication here .

152

They won’t care up in Sunny Coast Daily readerland, most are retirees who vote Liberal habitually.

SCD better off following the lampooning style of the NT News and whilst distasteful, the crosshairs on the Qld Premier wouldn’t have incited violence.

153

Complainant / news.com.au

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published online by news.com.au titled “‘Freak of Nature’: The child killer the world has forgotten” on 27 February 2018.

The article reported on Robert Thompson who, along with Jon Venables, was convicted of murdering two-year-old James Bulger in a high profile case in the United Kingdom in 1993, when both Robert Thompson and John Venables were ten years old. The article reported on several details of Thompson’s life including his role in James Bulger’s murder, his incarceration, and his life after being released on licence at the age of eighteen. The article contained the subheading “WHEN DID HE COME OUT AS GAY?” and reported that “In 2006, reports claimed Robert Thompson was in a stable gay relationship…”. It also stated “It is believed Thompson remains in a long-term relationship with a man who knows his real identity.”

The Council 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, particularly when reporting on crime.
The Council however considered that, while the subheading prominently refers to Thompson’s sexuality, Robert Thompson’s personal relationship is one of very few details actually known about him due to Court orders concealing his identity. The Council considered on balance that the publication took reasonable steps to ensure the presentation of factual material in the article was reasonably fair and balanced, and concluded the publication complied with General Principle 3.

The Council also considered that given the considerable expanse of time between the crime committed by Robert Thompson and the publication of the article, there was no implicit connection between his reported sexuality and his crime. The Council considered it unlikely that readers would infer an association between Thompson’s reported relationship as an adult and the crime that he committed as a ten-year-old based on the article. Accordingly, the Council concluded the publication complied with General Principle 6.

Read the full adjudication here.

154

Complainant / The Australian

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published in The Australian on 10 November 2018, headed “Violent Islam Strikes Bourke Street” on the front page and continuing on page six, headed “Violent Islam hits at heart of Bourke St”. The article was also published online headed “Violent Islam terror attack strikes Melbourne’s Bourke St.”

The article reported that a “terrorist who drove a burning ute into the heart of Melbourne’s Bourke Street yesterday and stabbed three people, killing one, had links to Islamic terrorist, was a person of interest to Victoria Police and was known to federal intelligence agencies”.

The Council acknowledged that the headline can be read in a way that does not attribute responsibility for the attack to the religion of Islam as a whole and that the contents of the article report specifically about the individual who perpetrated the attack. However, readers could also infer from the headline that “violent” is being used a descriptor for Islam generally and as such, the headline may give an impression that the religion of Islam as a whole is responsible for the Bourke Street attack.

The Council considered that, in not making it sufficiently clear that the “violent” descriptor referred to the conduct of the attacker and not Islam as a whole, the publication did not take reasonable steps to present factual material in the headline with reasonable fairness and balance. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 3.

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

Read the full adjudication here .

1 Like
155

Complainant / The Daily Telegraph

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of an article headed “Allegedly Axey Evie” by The Daily Telegraph on 11 January 2018 online. The article said “Having been chopped herself, Sydney tranny Evie Amati allegedly sought to share the experience. The previous he apparently doesn’t like people who buy pies or milk” and added that Ms Amati “is a transgender union employee who used to be known as Karl” who had “transitioned to female four years ago.” It concluded “Click for frightening video” (which was a link to video of the attack) and noted “Ms Amati, currently in custody after being refused bail, is charged with intentionally causing grievous bodily harm and being way too Adelaide for Sydney.”

The Council noted the processing of this matter was delayed due to circumstances beyond its control, namely legal proceedings brought in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) in respect of the article, which necessitated the temporary suspension of the Council’s consideration of the complaints.

The Council noted that the crime for which Ms Amati was accused and later convicted was one of serious violence which the community struggled to understand and, in commenting on it, columnists are free to express their opinions in strong terms and to use satire. However, publications are required to comply with the Council’s Standards of Practice which among other things, require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance and writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts (General Principle 3).and avoid contributing to substantial offence, distress, prejudice or risk to health and safety unless sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 6).

The Council considered that a reasonable reader would have recognised that, as an opinion piece, the article was satirical and was using exaggeration to make its point. The Council concluded that the facts summarised in the article about Ms Amati were reasonably accurate. Accordingly, the publication did not breach General Principle 3.

The Council considered that the reference to the accused “Having been chopped herself” referred to gender reassignment surgery and transgender people in an offensive way. The reference to Ms Amati as a “Sydney tranny” was also offensive. The suggestion that Ms Amati “sought to share the experience” of being “chopped” linked being transgender with Ms Amati’s violent act. The Council has considered that the cumulative effect of these comments led to substantial offence. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 6.

The Council noted that NCAT, in September 2018, concluded in a decision in relation to this article that it was not persuaded that an ordinary reader would be so lacking in intelligence or taste that he or she would be incited to severe contempt for, or severe ridicule of, Ms Amati or transgender people at large. The Council notes that its task in assessing whether there has been a breach involves it applying its General Principles, and not the legislative provisions that were considered by NCAT.

Read the full adjudication here .

156

Australian Press Council supports media freedom campaign

Many of Australia’s media organisations, including Press Council members, have commenced a national campaign to put a spotlight on threats to media freedom. Working together as a coalition – Australia’s Right to Know – the campaign involves media outlets across the country and includes print and digital advertising.
The Press Council supports this campaign.

Following raids by the Australian Federal Police on the ABC and the home of News Corp journalist Annika Smethurst in June this year, the Press Council issued a statement which emphasised the essential role that a free press plays in a democratic society such as Australia.

The Press Council promotes freedom of speech through responsible and independent print and digital media and adherence to high journalistic and editorial standards. It views with concern any brake on the ability of journalists to pursue legitimate stories, or Governments discouraging such investigations.

1 Like
157

Gary Ebeyan / The Age – Domain

The Press Council has considered a complaint from Gary Ebeyan about an article published in The Age online via the Domain section on 6 December 2018, headed “Toorak mansion to sell for $52 million, in Victoria’s second-most expensive sale”. The article reported that the property at 53-55 Irving Road was “set to change hands” for a record $52 million. It stated that multiple industry sources confirmed the deal. The article referenced the names of the owners, provided details regarding the past transfer of the property and included a photo of the property above the headline. The complainant, one of the owners of the property, said the article inaccurately reported that the property was being sold for $52 million. The complainant said there was no sale or transfer, they had not been in any negotiations for its sale, and that they do not intend to sell the property.
The Council considered that the absence of documentation corroborating a sale and a sale price should have prompted the publication to take further steps to confirm the existence of a possible sale before publishing the article. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 1.

The Council recognised the publication’s acknowledgement that it did not take reasonable steps to check the accuracy of their sources’ claims. The Council further noted that the publication ultimately removed the article and published an appropriate correction and apology in a prominent and highly circulated position. However, the Council considered that the publication ought to have taken prompt remedial action as soon as it was brought to its attention that the article was inaccurate shortly following publication. Given that the material was significantly inaccurate, the Council concluded that the lengthy delay in taking remedial action breached General Principle 2.

The Council considered that the complainant had a reasonable expectation that the details regarding his property and family would not be published as it was not accurate. There was no such sale price and the stated sale price was inconsistent with the property’s market value. The publication could have sought prior comment from the complainant but did not. The Council concluded that the publication breached General Principle 5.

Read the full adjudication here .

1 Like
158

What penalties, if any apply for breaching these general principles?

159

EDIT: the APC adjudication is posted below.

160

Did they run out of News Corp stories to plagiarise that day?

161

Bachmai Ledinh / Daily Mail Australia

The Press Council has considered a complaint about an article headed “Tears and prayers for a murdered father: Vietnamese lawyer Ho Ledinh is farewelled in a traditional Buddhist funeral service - as mystery gunman remains on the loose after daylight Sydney cafe shooting”, published on the Daily Mail website on 31 January 2018. The article reported on the funeral service for the late Mr Ledinh and included eight photographs of mourners at the funeral. The complainant was a family member of the late Mr Ledinh.

The Council considered that consent to attend and cover a funeral should usually be sought from the family or the funeral director. The Council considered that consent was not provided by the funeral director or directly by the family. However it considered the publication had a reasonable basis for believing that a friend had provided consent on behalf of the family. The Council noted that the publication was ultimately ushered into the funeral by a man who presented himself to the publication and to other media representatives as authorised to grant or refuse entry. The Council accepted that the publication specifically asked the man whether it was permitted to cover the funeral because consent had earlier been refused and was then given permission by the man as ‘they were journalists’.

However, the Council considered that subsequently family members made it clear to the publication at the funeral that they did not have consent from the family to attend or to take or use photographs. The Council considered that this overrode any earlier indications of consent and that the publication should not have used the information and images obtained previously at the funeral. Accordingly, the Council considered that in publishing the photographs of the funeral ceremony, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid intruding on the family’s reasonable expectation of privacy. While there was a public interest in the circumstances of Mr Ledinh’s death and in reporting on the funeral, that public interest was not sufficient to justify the publication of photographs once the wishes of the family had been clearly conveyed to the publication. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 5.

For these same reasons, the publication also breached one aspect of Privacy Principle 1 in that it failed to show respect for the dignity and sensitivity of the family by publishing photographs once it was made clear that consent had not been given. However, Privacy Principle 1 was not breached in other respects.
The Council also considered that the use of the photographs in the circumstances would have given rise to substantial offence and distress and that the public interest in the circumstances of Mr Ledinh’s death was not sufficient to justify the offence and distress caused. Accordingly, the Council considered that the publication breached General Principle 6 and Privacy Principle 7.

The Council did not consider the material was published by deceptive or unfair means, as there was a reasonable basis for the publication’s reporter and photographer to believe initially that the family consented to them entering the venue and taking photographs. Accordingly, the publication did not breach General Principle 7.

Read the full adjudication here .

1 Like