Australian Press Council

Radio, Print, and Online Print and Online
162

Australian Press Council releases guidelines for reporting on people with diverse sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics

The Australian Press Council today released an Advisory Guideline for editors and journalists – Reporting on persons with diverse sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics.
The Advisory Guideline is the culmination of 12 months’ research and community consultation by the Press Council with editors, journalists, peak community and health organisations, mental health specialists, people with lived experience, police and academics. The process included roundtables in Sydney and Melbourne, as well a number of individual consultations with stakeholders.

Freedom of speech and freedom of the media are essential to democracy and central to keeping the community well informed and able to deal with complex social issues. With these freedoms come important responsibilities for the media. The Press Council’s General Principles, which all publisher members are obliged to comply with, reflect an appropriate balance, acknowledging the importance of reporting and expression of opinion in the public interest.

From time to time the Press Council develops Advisory Guidelines in particular areas to inform the operation of the General Principles and as a resource for journalists and publications.

This Advisory Guideline for reporting on people with diverse sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics is intended to help publishers and journalists report on people with diverse sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics and the issues which affect them, with appropriate consideration of a range of sometimes sensitive factors. The Press Council also aims to promote the understanding that unfair or inaccurate reporting about these individuals can have serious adverse mental health outcomes for them.

The Advisory Guideline is not binding on the Press Council’s constituent members, but it provides guidance for:
• Reporters interviewing people with diverse sexual orientation, gender identity and/or sex characteristics
• Publications
• Press Council adjudication panel members and staff

There are numerous other national and international media reporting guidelines from organisations including the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), Transgender Europe, GLAAD, the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, ACON and Intersex Human Rights. Links to these can be found in Attachment 1 of the Advisory Guideline.

The Press Council promotes high journalistic and editorial standards, community access to information in the public interest, and freedom of expression through the media. It is also the principal body with responsibility for responding to complaints about Australian newspapers, magazines and associated digital outlets.

163

Australian Press Council welcomes five new Members

At its final meeting for the year, held last Friday in Sydney, the Australian Press Council welcomed five new Members.

Peter Greste, Julie Flynn and Kirstie Parker were appointed as independent journalist Members. Lyn Maddock was appointed as a public Member and Erik Jensen as a small publisher Member.

  • Peter Greste is an Australian-born journalist and the founding member of the Alliance for Journalists’ Freedom and the UNESCO Chair in Journalism and Communication at the University of Queensland.
  • Julie Flynn is a retired journalist and media executive, former CEO of Free TV Australia and former ABC reporter in the Canberra Press Gallery.
  • Kirstie Parker, a Yuwallarai woman from northern NSW, is the Director of Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation in the South Australian Department of Premier and Cabinet.
  • Lyn Maddock is a retired executive and former Chair of the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).
  • Erik Jensen is the founding editor of The Saturday Paper and editor-in-chief of Schwartz Media.

“Congratulations to our new Members. Their diverse skills and personal qualities will be extremely valuable to the Press Council in these challenging times,” said Neville Stevens, AO, Chair of the Australian Press Council.

Detailed biographies of each of the new Australian Press Council Members can be found on the Press Council website here.

1 Like
164

And former press gallery reporter for 2GB and later 2UE. Odd for them to leave out the two jobs where she came to prominence.

1 Like
165

Perhaps it doesn’t suit their elitist tilt within the APC.

166

Isaac Golden / The Age

The Press Council has considered a complaint from Isaac Golden, the National Secretary and Victorian State President of the Health Australia Party about two articles published in The Age in November 2018. The articles were: “Micro-parties set to win big in Victorian election after vote swap” on 12 November 2018 in print and online and “Socialists, anti-vaxxers, taxi owners: your guide to the microparties” on 22 November 2018 online.
The first article described the Health Australia Party (the party) as “the anti-vaccination Health Australia” party in the body of the article. The second article referred to the party as “anti-vaxxers” in the headline and said the “party formerly known as the Natural Medicine Party claims it is not anti-vaxxer but opposes ‘no jab, no play’ laws aimed at increasing vaccination rates.”

The Council noted the publication’s journalist checked the party’s policy when writing the first article and the Council considered the paragraphs in the opening section of the party’s policy could imply that parents should have a right to refuse to vaccinate their children without any consequences. The Council noted that the previous social media exchanges referred to by the publication would appear to indicate at least that some people who have been associated with the party had anti-vaccination views. The Council was not referred to any material published by the party prior to the first article specifically disputing that it was anti-vaccination. In the circumstances the Council considered that, in relation to the first article, the publication took reasonable steps to be accurate and not misleading and to express factual material with reasonable fairness and balance and did not breach the Council’s Standards of Practice.

As to the second article, the Council noted that by the time the second article was published the party had expressly asserted that it was not anti-vaccination and the article noted the party’s position in the article, but noted it opposed “No jab, No play” laws. While the Council considered that the party does favour homeopathic immunisation over vaccination, the headline in referring to the party as “anti-vaxxers” was inconsistent with the body of the article. On balance the Council considered that in describing the party in the headline in absolute terms as “anti-vaxxers”, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the headline was not misleading and was expressed with reasonable fairness and balance. Accordingly, the Council considered the publication breached General Principles 1 and 3. Given the issues involved and the positions of the complainant and the publication the Council considered there was no breach of General Principles 2 or 4.

Read the full adjudication here

167

Complainant / The Daily Telegraph

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of a cartoon by Warren Brown in The Daily Telegraph on 11 February 2019. The edition in which it appeared also had both a main story and an editorial on the Medivac debate. The cartoon depicted two figures running in a loop around the static figure of Kerryn Phelps, then the Member for the Federal seat of Wentworth. The figure at the front is a bearded man with a head covering, long tunic and sandals, chasing a female doctor or nurse wearing scrubs trailing a stethoscope and with a mobile phone and medicines being thrown up in the air as she appears to run away. Ms Phelps is holding a piece of paper with the words “MEDIVAC” written on it. Behind the scene the word “Nauru” appears and above the scene is a speech bubble with the words “Do you mind not doing that until I’ve got the bill passed?”. The cartoon appeared above an article by an opinion writer headed “Doctoring the system” with the subheading: “A Labor-backed plan would allow activists to effectively end offshore processing”.

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 noted that in isolation the cartoon would certainly convey several offensive stereotypical inferences about asylum seeker men or men from the Middle East. However, the Council accepted it was in response to the charging of the man accused of sexual assault and intimidation and in the context of the political debate taking place about medical evacuation of asylum seekers. The Council considered the cartoon would be viewed in the context of the articles on the front page and page 5 about those events.

The Council noted that even when read in this context the cartoon still conveys a level of stereotypical offence and has a prejudicial inference that the man was guilty although not yet convicted. However, the Council accepted that there was sufficient public interest in commenting on the case of the man in the context of the charges against him and the political debate. The Council considered that to the extent there was substantial offence or prejudice caused it was justified in the public interest. 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 .

Complainant / Woman’s Day

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by a front-page headline published in print by Woman’s Day on 27 May 2019 “PALACE CONFIRMS THE MARRIAGE IS OVER! WHY HARRY WAS LEFT WITH NO CHOICE BUT TO END IT”, leading on to an article on page 12 headed “THIS IS THE FINAL STRAW! Bombshell revelations about Meghan push a distraught Harry to breaking point”.

The Council acknowledged that celebrity and gossip magazines are purchased for light entertainment, with readers not necessarily assuming that everything presented is factual. Accordingly, some latitude was given for factual exaggeration and inaccuracies in publications of this kind and whether statements are really “factual material” for the purposes of applying General Principle 1 and 3. The Council also acknowledged that the reasonable steps required to be accurate and not misleading in an article concerning royalty or celebrities can, depending on the circumstances, be different to those required in respect of other persons, particularly those who are not usually in the public eye.

However, in this case the headline made a statement that was blatantly incorrect and not supported by the article’s contents. While an entertainment publication can be expected to use some exaggeration, the headline was expressed as an unqualified fact that the Palace had confirmed the marriage was over. The Council considered that the error in the headline was such that it was more than just an exaggeration, and that it was misleading. Accordingly, General Principle 1 and 3 were breached.

Given the arguments available to the publication about the application of the Council’s Standards and that the Palace did not make a complaint to the Press Council, it was reasonable for it to not publish a correction or response during the Council’s complaints process and there was no breach of General Principles 2 or 4.
Read the full adjudication here .

168

Interesting to see one of the gossip mags called out for having a “headline made a statement that was blatantly incorrect”

2 Likes
169

A summary of the Woman’s Day adjudication appeared on last week’s issue of the magazine, but the full report was not posted online until now.

1 Like
170

Jade Brent / Toowoomba Chronicle

The Press Council has considered a complaint about an article headed “Killer shows no remorse” published in print in The Toowoomba Chronicle on 23 September 2019. The article concerned the deaths of two young boys in a Toowoomba home on 28 July 2007. The article provided graphic detail of the crimes and also reported various details of the criminal trial. The complainant, the father of one of the victims named in the article, said that he was extremely shocked and distressed by the article and that it had a significant impact on his wellbeing.

The Council noted that the article was not labelled or presented as being part of a historical series. Given the significant lapse of time since the reported crime and the graphic details included in the article, the Council considered the article should have been clearly presented as a historical piece to give context to the story.
The Council noted the publication’s acknowledgement that it failed to adhere to its usual practice of contacting the surviving relatives of victims before publishing a historical crime story. The Council considered that publications should be vigilant in adhering to such practices in order to avoid the gravity of such mistakes and their consequences. 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 acknowledged the publication’s apology to the complainant during the Council’s consideration of the complaint.

Read the full adjudication here .

171

I’m interested that the complainant would know about this.

Perhaps some within the paper were also miffed about the inclusion and tipped him off or a victim’s support group provided advice?

172

I think a variety of people that knew the complainant would have told him what was in the paper - neighbours, family, friends could have been alarmed as well.

1 Like
173

I agree, it has wide reaching consequences.

1 Like
174

Philip Penfold / The Maitland Mercury

The Press Council has considered a complaint from Cr Philip Penfold about an article published in the Maitland Mercury on 19 June 2019, headed “The weighting game” on the front page and continuing on page five, headed “Gym approval on hold over parking: Owner in tears at council’s change of heart” in print.

The article reported that a gym owner who considered that local council approval for her plans to establish an all-female gym would be a formality, was “reduced to tears” when “her application was surprisingly voted down due to concerns over parking” and that “what floored her the most was Cr Penfold’s change of heart”. The article reported “Cr Philip Penfold, who originally posted on social media his support for the proposal, changed his position” and went on to report that “Cr Penfold’s change of motion surprised other councillors too.”

The Council noted that, apart from the publication stating that it had been told by those associated with the proposed gym that Cr Penfold had publicly endorsed it, the publication provided no evidence that this had in fact occurred. Accordingly, taking into particular account the unequivocal manner in which it stated that the complainant publicly endorsed the gym, the Council concluded that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure its reporting was accurate and not misleading in breach of General Principle 1.

The Council accepted, and the complainant did not dispute, the various steps the publication took to seek comment from the complainant concerning the veracity of the claims that he had publicly endorsed the gym. The Council was satisfied that the publication provided the complainant with an adequate opportunity to respond. Accordingly, the Council concluded that the publication took reasonable steps to ensure fairness and balance and did not breach General Principles 3 and 4.

Given the refusal by the complainant to engage with the publication and its view that the article was accurate at the time of publication, and in the absence of a request from the complainant for a subsequent reply, the Council found no breach of General Principle 2.

Read the full adjudication here .

1 Like
175

Complainant / The Daily Telegraph

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of an article headed “KEY WORD: ‘ATTEMPTS’” by The Daily Telegraph on 31 May 2019 online.

The article commented on the reported reaction of offshore asylum seekers to Federal election outcome saying the “election result hasn’t gone down well with our off-shore country-shopper community, currently participating in a wave of plainly inept suicide attempts”. The article included copies of tweets by media and individuals reporting on the events. The article said “Meanwhile, place your bets on the final number. Can they crack the half-century? Or even make it all the way to three figures? Go for it, boaties.” It concluded “(Note: under official Attention-Seeking Refugee rules, multiple attempts by an individual score only a single point.)”

The Council noted the publication’s comments that the columnist was making reference to ‘self-harm’ attempts by asylum seekers rather that suicide attempts and that he was using satire to express his view. However, the Council considered that the article’s comments concerning “plainly inept suicide attempts”, the inclusion of the tweets referencing suicide attempts as well as the headline itself, would lead readers to conclude that the article was commenting on attempted suicides. The Council considered that these comments, together with the reference to betting on the number of suicide attempts that might be reached, the reference to point scoring, as well as the goading “Go for it, boaties” show that the publication did not take reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing materially to some readers experiencing substantial offence, distress and prejudice that was not sufficiently in the public interest.

The Council considered that the publication of the opinion piece behind the paywall did not amount to a reasonable step taken to avoid causing or contributing to substantial offence, distress and prejudice. The Council considered that the reasonable steps to be taken by publication was something other than believing the opinion piece would not be read by the subjects of the article. Accordingly, the Council concluded that the publication breached General Principle 6.

As to the Specific Standards on Suicide, the Council noted the publication’s indication about it taking a leading role in the responsible reporting of suicide in its print and online articles. The Council accepted that in commenting on social issues, columnists are free to express their opinions in strong terms and to use satire to make their points. However, in this instance, the Council considered the mocking tone of the article trivialises the suicide attempts referred to in the article and was presented without sensitivity or moderation. The Council also noted that article was published without a sources of assistance referral. Accordingly, the Council concluded that the publication breached Suicide Standards 6, 7 and 8 in this respect.

Read the full adjudication here .

176

Complainant / The Courier-Mail

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article in The Courier-Mail on 26 May 2019 headed “Greg Inglis’ lost weekend in Brisbane mansion for Magic Round” online and “The weekend Greg forgot” in print.

The article reported on events concerning a former football player’s trip to Brisbane to attend the NRL’s Magic Round event in May 2019. It reported that he spent the weekend “in a Brisbane riverside mansion with friends” and a named “reality TV star”, whilst his “frantic family”, “girlfriend” and football club “officials tried to find him”. The article includes a photograph of the outside of the private residence.

The article further reported the observations of a “witness staying in” the residence, stating: “It seemed to me like he [the man] wanted to escape from the world for a few days and get away from whatever pressures he was feeling”, “He was drinking beer and sort of drifting in and out of consciousness” and “I tried to talk to him a couple of times and finally convinced him to have a shower and gave him some (fresh) clothes”. The article also reported on the contents of communication apparently sent by members of the man’s family and the man’s friends to the “witness”.

The Council noted that public figures, including some current or former national sports players, can have a reduced expectation of privacy and there can also be a public interest justifying intruding on their reasonable expectations of privacy. The Council accepted that the man is a renowned player, has a very high profile and was a role model. Given the man apparently disappeared from Magic Round activities (a major public event) without warning or explanation, the Council considered that the man’s reasonable expectations of privacy were reduced and that there was a public interest in reporting the circumstances in which the man withdrew from these activities. The Council concluded that the publication took reasonable steps to avoid intruding on the man’s reasonable expectations of privacy unless justified in the public interest. Accordingly, the publication did not breach General Principle 5.

As to General Principle 7, the Council noted that the witness provided information to the publication about events that occurred inside the residence, as well as copies of communication from the man’s family and friends. However, on the information available, the Council was not satisfied that this information was gathered by deceptive or unfair means. Accordingly, the Council considered the publication did not breach General Principle 7.

Read the full adjudication here.

1 Like
177

Frances Harrison / Cairns Post

The Press Council has considered a complaint from Frances Harrison about an article published in the Cairns Post on Monday 26 November 2018 headed “Health boss has job loss windfall” in print and “Cairns Hospital HR manager’s six-figure payout after seven months on the job” online.

The article reported that the complainant “received a payment of $106,000 upon her resignation” in March. The article also stated that sources “claimed bullying complaints within the service increased during this period” immediately above an image of the complainant. The article went on to report that the Health Service Chief Executive “declined to say why Ms Harrison had resigned from her position” and that the People and Engagement Executive Director “declined to comment directly about allegations of bullying during Ms Harrison’s tenure”.

The Council considered that on the information available during the complaints process including the Health Service’s Annual Report, it is most likely that the complainant was terminated rather than having resigned. It was inaccurate to assert as a fact that she had resigned. The Council noted the publication’s indication that it relied on emails it sighted through a source and contacted the Health Service. However, the Council did not consider the steps taken were reasonable in light of the complainant’s social media presence, the limited questions put to the Health Service, and the anecdotal nature of the source material.

The Council considered that the article implies that the complainant was linked to an increase in bullying complaints. This is more strongly implied in the online article given the position of a photograph of the complainant. On the material that was available to it, the Council did not consider that the complainant could be reasonably linked to an increase in bullying complaints. Although the publication referred during the Council’s complaints process to emails said to reference bullying claims at the Health Service, these were not provided to the Council. The Council considered the 2016-17 AMA Survey could not be relevant to the complainant’s performance in the role as it concluded at around the time the complainant began in her role. The Survey Report contained an aggregation of reported incidents of bullying, harassment and discrimination, not bullying complaints made by individuals. The 2017-18 AMA Survey was not relevant for the same reasons and in addition, covered the period of the complainant’s employment but the complainant was only there for 8 months of the Survey year. The Council also noted that the AMA surveys are voluntary, the survey response rate was very low, limited to resident medical staff and was not data on the number of complaints raised by staff. Council also noted the survey reported an increase in staff confidence in management’s responses and this factor could account for an increase in complaints.

Accordingly, the Council considered the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material was not misleading and was presented with reasonable fairness and balance and breached General Principles 1 and 3.

As to General Principle 2 and 4, while reference to the complainant’s employment ending by ‘resignation’ was inaccurate, the Council did not consider the reference to be so significantly inaccurate that it requires correction or other remedial action. The Council considered the misleading inference that the complainant was linked to an increase in bullying complaints was so significant that it would have breached General Principle 2 but for the publication amending the online article to remove misleading or unfairly presented factual material and publishing an apology to the complainant, albeit at a late stage in its process.

Read the full adjudication here .

1 Like
178

Stephen Bright / The Daily Telegraph

The Press Council has considered a complaint from Dr Stephen Bright about articles published in The Daily Telegraph headed “Experts accused of skewing statistics to help support their views on pill testing” online on 16 July 2019, “PILL YOUR HEADS IN: Experts’ MDMA testing evidence slammed” in print on 17 July 2019 and the editorial “Sniffer dogs not deadly” in print and online on 16 July 2019.

The articles reported on an inquest into the deaths of “six young revellers at last summer’s dance festivals” as a result of “complications from MDMA use”. The articles reported that Dr Bright is “one of a number of experts contacted by the inquest who have backed pill testing at festivals”, who “have been accused of skewing statistics to support their views” by a prison forensic psychiatrist and a respected medical expert from Brisbane’s Princess Alexandria Hospital who in an expert report indicated that pill testing remains unproven. The editorial also reported on Dr Bright’s statement that “MDMA itself is not a particularly harmful drug” and stated that “[t]he families of those six dead Australians may take issue with Dr Bright’s analysis”.

The Council noted that it is legitimate journalistic practice to comment on public submissions and considered that the article was a reasonably accurate summary of a report that suggested that experts who support pill testing, including Dr Bright, were ‘skewing’ data to support their argument. The Council noted that while the article named the complainant, the article referred to him as being one of a number of experts. Accordingly, there was no breach of General Principles 1 and 2.

The Council considered that by using the public submission of Dr Bright and the expert report of the forensic psychiatrist and medical expert, thus showing both sides of the pill testing debate, the publication took reasonable steps to present factual material with reasonable fairness and balance. The Council noted that given the article was based on material considered by the Coroner in the course of the coronial process, there was no requirement for the publication to contact the complainant for comment. Accordingly, there was no breach of General Principles 3 and 4.

Read the full adjudication here .

1 Like
179

Complainant / Herald Sun

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published by The Herald Sun headed “Time to doubt Greta’s dogma” in print on 1 August 2019, “Andrew Bolt: Greta has no doubts, but we should” online on 31 July 2019 and “The disturbing secret to the cult of Greta Thunberg” online on 1 August 2019.

The article concerned prominent, teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg and commented on her diagnosed mental disorders including “Asperger’s syndrome, high-functioning autism and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.” The article referred to Greta Thunberg as “freakishly influential” “deeply disturbed” and a “strange girl” and commented “I have never seen a girl so young with so many mental disorders treated by so many adults as a guru.”

The Council’s Standards of Practice require that publications take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance (General Principle 3) and to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 6).

The Council accepts that Greta Thunberg’s mental disorders are a matter of public record and have been relayed with reasonable accuracy in the article. As such, the Council does not consider that the writer’s expression of opinion is based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts and concludes that General Principle 3 was not breached.

Nonetheless, in considering the article’s language and treatment of mental health issues, the Council considers the language in the article is likely to cause substantial offence, distress and prejudice as it attempts to diminish the credibility of Ms Thunberg’s opinions on the basis of her disabilities and by pillorying her supporters on the basis of her disabilities. In doing so the Council considered that the publication did not take reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing to substantial distress, offence by people with disabilities, and their families or prejudice towards people with disabilities expressing their opinions in public. The Council considered there was a public interest in the public being informed about Ms Thunberg’s disabilities but that there was no public interest in the undermining the credibility of a person, her opinions or her supporters on the basis of her disabilities in circumstances where many people without disabilities share and express similar opinions. Accordingly, the Council concludes that the article breached General Principle 6.

Read the full adjudication here.

1 Like
180

Colour me shocked!

181

Bolt is a menace to society.

2 Likes