A statement by the Press Council Executive Director:
Media Watch: "Paparazzi, privacy and the Press Council”, aired on 27 March 2017
A segment in the Media Watch program on 27 March 2017 entitled “Paparazzi, privacy and the Press Council”, focusing on the Press Council’s Osher Günsberg/Daily Mail adjudication, contained a significant factual error and omitted some important background material.
The segment stated that “the Daily Mail’s only punishment was a requirement to post this link on the story”. In fact, on the date of publication of an Adjudication involving an online-only publisher, the Press Council requires the publication concerned to publish the Council’s summary at a prominent place on its home page for 24 hours with a link to the full Adjudication, and the Adjudication is also permanently published on the publication’s website. The publication is also required to attach permanently the archive note which links to the Adjudication.
The Press Council also issues a media release about the Adjudication, publishes it in full on our website, and posts it on Twitter. All of these steps are an important part of the public expression of the Press Council’s consideration of the complaint, and are very important from the complainant’s point of view. All these steps were followed in this case.
Importantly, the program omitted all reference to Mr Günsberg’s public statements that he was very happy with the result of the Press Council’s process and had no complaint about the Daily Mail’s “punishment” being lacking. Links to these statements are available at http://www.pedestrian.tv/news/entertainment/osher-on-the-mail-shaming-his-bod-everyone-has-a-r/b44a0ce0-4e22-4445-84db-ae9e10cd6659.htm and https://www.imediaethics.org/au-bachelor-host-complains-fat-shaming-bali-belly-story-press-council-rules/
The program also offered no acknowledgement of the benefits of the broad publication of an Adjudication, and specifically in attaching it to the article complained about, in promoting responsible journalism. The way the Council publicly calls out poor practice of an individual publication has a powerful educational effect on all publishers, editors and journalists, who are placed on notice about what is expected of them. The vigorous manner in which publishers defend their actions during the Council’s process strongly suggests that they take this seriously, and do not wish to be seen by their peers or by the public as falling short of the acceptable standards of practice in the media industry.
Prior to airing of this segment, the Press Council provided Media Watch with details about the process for publication of Adjudications and alerted it to Mr Günsberg’s public statements, which of course were publicly available. After the program, the Press Council requested that Media Watch correct these matters, but while Media Watch has since included a note on its website about the Daily Mail’s publication of the Adjudication, it has declined to take any other remedial steps.
I believe it is appropriate to issue this Statement because the incorrect impressions created by the program have not been adequately remedied by Media Watch itself, and could lead the public into a mistaken understanding of what occurs during and after the Press Council’s complaints-handling process. It is of the utmost concern that this segment could potentially deter bona fide complainants from availing themselves of the Press Council’s complaint-handling process.