Search

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published in The Advertiser headed “200M FOR TERRORISTS” / “Wong under fire for latest grant to Hamas-infiltrated UN group”, 30 January 2024 in print.   The article reported on the Australian Federal Government’s funding of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees. It reported that, “Australia has handed $200m to a UN aid agency that sacked workers for taking part in the October 7 terror attacks on Israel as Penny Wong is facing questions for overlooking concerns about the group”.  The article reported that the “federal government has been accused of ignoring warnings about the involvement of UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA) workers in the murderous assault …”. The article went on to report “A pause has now been placed on the funds, which had not yet been released.”   In response to the complaint received, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether the article complied with the Council’s Standards of Practice, which requires publications to ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance and to ensure that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts (General Principle 3), and to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, without sufficient public interest (General Principle 6).   The Council noted that the complaint raised concerns that the article’s headline was an unfair and prejudicial description of a UN aid agency as it suggested that it was a terrorist organisation. The complaint noted that the UN aid agency has not been designated as a terrorist organisation by the Australian Government or any other nation state.   In response, the publication said that the headline needed to be read in conjunction with the article. The publication pointed to the first paragraph of the front-page article, which stated “Australia has handed $200m to a UN aid agency that sacked workers for taking part in the October 7 terror attacks on Israel as Penny Wong is facing questions for overlooking concerns about the group”. The publication also said that the underlying factual premise of the story was not disputed and that concerns regarding fairness and balance are not supported.   The publication also referred to information that became available after the publication of the article and noted that new evidence presented to the US Congress, the Israeli Parliament and in media reports, showed that not only was UNRWA complicit in the actions of 12 of its staff, but that it was also complicit in harbouring terrorists The publication said it is highly misleading and censorious to suggest that factual reporting, in context, is not in the public interest.  

Conclusion

  The Council recognises the limitations of headlines to reflect the tenor of an article. Nonetheless, headlines are required to comply with the Council’s Standards of Practice. The Council considers that the prominent front-page headline unfairly characterises the UNRWA as being complicit in the actions of the 12 workers who were alleged to have participated in the October 7 terror attacks on Israel.   The Council notes that at the time of publication, UNRWA had not been proscribed as a terrorist organisation by any nation state and it does not accept that the information referred to by the publication was sufficient to characterise it as such. The Council also does not accept that the first paragraph of the front-page article is sufficient to dispel this unfair characterisation. Accordingly, the Council considers the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material was presented with reasonable fairness and balance in breach of General Principle 3.   Although the Council considers the headline to be an unfair characterisation of the reported events, the Council notes that it is referring to a large overseas aid agency. In such circumstances, and in the absence of naming specific individuals within the organisation, the Council does not consider the headline to be substantially prejudicial. Accordingly, the Council finds no breach of General Principle 6.  

Relevant Council Standards

  This Adjudication applies the following General Principles of the Council.   “Publications must take reasonable steps to:

3. Ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts.

6. 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.”

   

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published in the Herald Sun headed “Top cop claims Director of Public Prosecutions knocked back police requests to prosecute racists”, 21 October 2023 online and “Police: DPP set racism high bar”, 22 October 2023 in print.   The article reported on a Press Conference by Victoria Deputy Police Commissioner Neil Paterson. The article reported that “Victoria’s Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has repeatedly knocked back police requests to prosecute racists for breaches of the state’s racial vilification laws, police have confirmed”. The article went on to report that “Deputy Commissioner Neil Paterson … defended the force from allegations police were not properly enforcing the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act.”   The article referred to Mr Paterson as saying that “racial vilification was a ‘complex offence’ to investigate and prosecute, and police regularly sent briefs of evidence to the DPP”. The article quoted Mr Paterson as saying “We’ve got many examples of us taking action and referring those matters to the Director of Public Prosecutions for a decision on whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute”. The article also referred to Mr Paterson as saying that the “DPP had advised the ‘threshold’ for launching prosecutions was ‘high’”.   The article went on to report that the “cases the DPP has refused to prosecute include a rally at which members of the Nationalist Socialist Network performed Nazi salutes and made offensive statements”. The article said that “Mr Paterson’s defence of Victoria Police followed criticism from the Jewish community” that “the force had used the laws to prosecute anti-Muslim racists, but not similar attacks on the Jewish community”.   The complainant said that it was inaccurate and misleading to report that Victoria Police “regularly” provides racial and religious vilification briefs to the DPP for consideration and to also report that the DPP had advised Victoria Police that the threshold for prosecution is “high”. The complainant also said that it was inaccurate and misleading to report that Victoria Police “regularly sent briefs of evidence to the DPP” and omit to report Mr Paterson as saying that “there’s very few charges in any year where we consider a charge under the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act to put a matter before the Director of Public Prosecutions.”   The complainant said the result was an article which conveyed the unmistakable inference that there was a fundamental disagreement or difference of opinion between Victoria Police and the DPP regarding the prosecution of racial and religious vilification offences.   The complainant also said that it had not been given a reasonable opportunity to reply to the content of the article before publication because the publication had not contacted the DPP through its designated media email address or media staff. The complainant said that the publication had been in contact with several DPP media staff in relation to other enquiries and the personal phone numbers and email addresses were known to the publication.   In response, the publication said that its reporting was fair and accurate. The publication said that racial vilification is a rare and somewhat novel offence and in that context it was entirely reasonable to report that Victoria Police “regularly” sends briefs to the DPP in circumstances where the Deputy Commissioner had stated “we’ve got many examples of us taking action and referring those matters to the Director of Prosecutions”.   The publication said that in relation to the comments that the DPP had been advised that the “threshold” for launching prosecutions was “high”, is not intended to be a summary of the precise and obscure minutia of the test applied by the DPP.  In support of this comment, the publication referred to the Deputy Commissioner’s statement that “The threshold is high under that legislation”.   In relation to contacting the DPP for comment, the publication said it made two unanswered calls to the DPP’s switchboard at approximately 5pm on Saturday, 21 October 2023. The publication also noted that the DPP did not have an out of hours contact number.  

Conclusion

  The Council’s Standards of Practice require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material in news material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1), and is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, (General Principle 3). If the material is significantly inaccurate or misleading, or unfair or unbalanced, publications must take reasonable steps to provide adequate remedial action or an opportunity for a response to be published if that is reasonably necessary to address a possible breach (General Principles 2 and 4).   In considering the complaint, the Council had regard to a video recording and transcript of the Press Conference against the content of the news article. The Council notes that Mr Paterson stated that the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act was complex legislation and that “the threshold is high under that legislation.”  He also stated that the offence under the Act was “a complex offence that requires certain elements to be present before police will take action and put a Brief of Evidence together for consideration by the Director of Public Prosecutions.”   Accordingly, the Council considers that Mr Paterson was stating that it was the legislation that set a “high bar” on prosecution and not the DPP. In relation to this, he stated that whether or not an incident leads to a prosecution “rises and falls on the circumstances of any particular matter” and “on the evidence that’s available, the particular behaviour that’s been exhibited.”  While the Council acknowledges that Mr Patterson did say that Victoria Police had “recently put Briefs of Evidence to the Director for a decision, and we’ve had that come back that there is insufficient evidence in other similar sorts of examples of this offence occurring” the Council is satisfied that he did not say that the DPP had advised that the threshold for launching prosecutions was "high” or that the DPP had “repeatedly knocked back requests” to prosecute matters.   The Council also notes that Mr Paterson stated that “there’s very few charges in any year where we consider a charge under the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act to put a matter before the Director of Public Prosecutions. It doesn’t happen very often because the circumstances that give rise to a charge doesn’t happen very often.” Accordingly, the Council considers it was misleading to report that Victoria Police “regularly sent briefs of evidence to the DPP”, without providing the broader context of Mr Paterson’s statement.   The Council notes that in the absence of Mr Paterson’s comments that there are “very few charges” that are put before the DPP, along with the headlines and the opening paragraph, the article misleadingly and unfairly suggest that there was a disagreement between Victoria Police and the DPP in relation to the prosecution of the Act. The Council is satisfied that on the material before it, that the comments by Mr Paterson concerned the complexity of the Act. Accordingly, the Council finds a breach of General Principle 1.   The Council notes the attempts the publication says it took to contact the complainant for comment. However, in the context of reporting on a matter of significant public interest, the Council is not satisfied that two calls to a switchboard late on Saturday afternoon constitutes reasonable steps. Accordingly, the Council finds a breach of General Principle 3.   As to corrective or remedial action, the Council considers the article is significantly misleading. The Council also notes that after the article was published, the complainant contacted the publication to raise its concerns with the article and seek a correction. The Council notes that on the information before it, the publication has not offered the complainant with an opportunity for a subsequent reply. Accordingly, the Council concludes that General Principles 2 and 4 were breached.  

Relevant Council Standards

  This Adjudication applies the following General Principles of the Council:   Publications must take reasonable steps to:

1. Ensure that factual material in news reports and elsewhere is accurate and not misleading, and is distinguishable from other material such as opinion.
2. Provide a correction or other adequate remedial action if published material is significantly inaccurate or misleading.
3. Ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts.
4. Ensure that where material refers adversely to a person, a fair opportunity is given for subsequent publication of a reply if that is reasonably necessary to address a possible breach of General Principle 3.

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by a video published by The Daily Telegraph on its social media platforms on 12 November 2023. The video was titled “Terrifying CCTV footage has emerged of the moment a Melbourne burger store exploded in flames that sparked pro-Palestinian protests exploded in flames”.   The video showed CCTV footage of what has been reported to be a firebombing of a Melbourne burger store. Along with CCTV material, the video also included footage taken by an individual from the community showing the fire’s aftermath which included the individual’s commentary and associated captions on the fire.   In response to a complaint, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether the material complied with the Council’s Standards of Practice, which require publications to take reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice or a substantial risk to health and safety without sufficient public interest justification (General Principle 6).  The Council noted that the complaint raised concerns that the published material may be described as hate speech.   In response, the publication said that the publishing of the video on its social media platforms was a mistake caused by a breakdown in its system, which resulted in the wrong video being published temporarily. The publication said that when the mistake was realised, the video was removed from both social media platforms. The publication said that it has since put in place new safeguards to ensure such a mistake is not repeated.  

Conclusion

  The Council accepts the publication’s comments that the publication of the video was not intentional and notes the steps it says it has taken to prevent further mistakes, such as this, from reoccurring. However, the Council notes that despite being informed of the significant concerns with the video content soon after its publication, it remained online for a number of weeks before it was eventually removed.   The Council considers that given the video’s inflammatory language, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety and that there was insufficient public interest justifying it doing so. Accordingly, the Council concludes that the publication breached General Principle 6.   Given the offensive, distressing or prejudicial nature of the comments made by the individual in the video, the Council has chosen not to republish those words.  

Relevant Council Standards

  Publications must take reasonable steps to:

6. 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.

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by a homepage item published by news.com.au on 15 November 2023 headed “DARK ISLAMIC THREAT: Terrifying one-word warning after store bomb”. The homepage item included a sub-headline “The Palestinian-Australian owner of a popular Melbourne burger joint that was firebombed has revealed the drastic move he made after receiving a death threat”. The homepage item included a CCTV image of the firebombing, an image of the firebombed store and an image of the store owner. The homepage item linked to an article headed "Owner of Melbourne’s Burgertory chain reveals family living in ‘safe house’ after store firebombed, death threats”.   In response to complaints received, the Press Council asked the publication to comment on whether the article complied with the Council’s Standards of Practice that require reasonable steps to be taken to ensure that factual material in news 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). In relation to this, the complaints expressed concern that the headline implies that Islam is making a dark threat.   In response, the publication said that the use of the words “Islamic threat” were clumsy. The publication said it has shared the Council’s guidelines on the use of ‘Religious terms in headlines’ to ensure its homepage editors are better educated when reporting on future stories. The publication also said that the article which the homepage item linked to, had a different headline and that once the article moved of the homepage, the headline was no longer visible to any readers.  

Conclusion

  The Council notes that prominent references to religious or ethnic groups in headlines can imply that a group, as a whole, is responsible for the actions of a minority among that group. Accordingly, in reporting on instances of violence purportedly conducted in the name of religion, publications must take reasonable steps to identify the particular sources of violence as clearly as possible. Although the Council acknowledges that the homepage item linked to an article that had a different headline, it considers that the prominent reference to Islam in headline along with the words “DARK” and “THREAT” unfairly suggests that the religion of Islam as a whole is responsible for the threat and the associated firebombing. The Council notes that in not making it sufficiently clear that the purported ‘Islamic threat’ referred to a comment made on social media, the publication did not take reasonable steps to ensure factual material was presented with reasonable fairness and balance. Accordingly, the Council finds the article breached General Principle 3.   Given that it was not made sufficiently clear that the religion of Islam as a whole was not responsible for the purported ‘Islamic threat’, the Council considers that the publication did not take reasonable steps to avoid contributing to substantial prejudice which was not justified by the public interest. Accordingly, the Council concluded that the publication breached General Principle 6.   The Council welcomes the publication’s comments that it has taken steps to educate its editors on the use of religious terms in headlines.  

Relevant Council Standards

  This Adjudication applies the following General Principles of the Council.   Publications must take reasonable steps to:

3. Ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts.

6. 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.

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published in The Australian on 13 June 2023, headed “’Gender affirming’ care is destroying vulnerable kids” in print and “Why ‘gender affirming’ care is destroying our most vulnerable kids” online.   The article is an opinion piece on what the columnist considers to be the controversies of gender affirming healthcare involving children and adolescents, describing it as a “public health crisis caused not by a virus, not by a disease, but by social contagion”. The columnist said the notion that there are not just “two sexes, or that it is actually possible to change sex or be ‘non-binary’ …” has been embraced with enthusiasm by politicians, noting for example, the passing of “laws that allow people to falsify their birth certificates on the basis that they now feel as if they are a different sex to the one in which they were born”.   The columnist said “Other laws have been passed criminalising the work of therapists who try to help children, adolescents and adults become more comfortable with the only body they have” and that when the Family Court (Re: Kelvin) held that the prescription of cross-sex hormones to adolescents no longer required court approval if parents and doctors were in agreement, it “To a great extent … relied on the affidavit of one medical practitioner from the Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne” when it reached this decision.   The columnist also said that a “substantial portion” of children who identify as a gender other than their biological sex “are on the autism spectrum”; that “Without puberty blockers, the unequivocal research evidence is that most children resolve their gender identity issues before or while going through puberty” and that “After systematic reviews of the medical evidence, the treatment has been all but banned in Finland, Norway and Sweden outside of strictly controlled research programs.”   In response to a complaint received, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether the article breached the applicable Standards of Practice requiring publications to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1), and 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).   The Council noted that the complaint had expressed concern that the statements regarding the falsification of birth certificates, that laws have been passed criminalising the work of therapists who try to help children, adolescents and adults become more comfortable with their body and that the Family Court relied on the affidavit of one medical practitioner from the Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne are without factual basis. Similarly, the complaint noted that statements concerning autism and its links to gender dysphoria, that those who do not use puberty blockers, resolve their gender issues before or while going through puberty, and that gender affirming healthcare has been all but banned in Finland, Norway and Sweden, are without factual basis.   In response, the publication noted that some Australian states allow changes to birth certificates based upon self-identification and because no legal checks are required if a person chooses to change their gender, it raises the possibility that a birth certificate could be altered under false assumptions. The publication also said that the effect of the various State legislation that makes it illegal to engage in ‘conversion therapy’, is to potentially criminalise the work of therapists who try to help children, adolescents and adults become more comfortable with their bodies. The publication hypothesised that someone could complain to authorities that they regard the therapists’ actions or methods as ‘conversion therapy’ unless the therapist chooses to ‘affirm’ that person’s chosen gender identity.   In relation to the Family Courts decision, the publication noted that the columnist is a Law Professor who has provided detailed analysis in a peer reviewed article on the Court’s decision. In support of its comments concerning autism and a link to gender dysphoria, the publication referred to a number of research studies, including a position statement by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists. The publication also referred to a number of studies as evidence to support its comments that there is a high rate of desistance in pre-pubescent children which has not involved the prescription of puberty blockers, or other interventions other than therapeutic support.   In relation to the hospitals in Finland, Norway and Sweden, the publication noted that while the hospitals continue to offer a treatment program, the treatment is strictly controlled and takes place in the context of a research program. The publication said that it recognised that the issue of gender affirming healthcare is a complex and sensitive one and for this reason it has sought to publish a range of views on the matter.  

Conclusion

  The Council recognises that the article is clearly identified as an opinion piece and given the significant public interest of allowing freedom of expression and the undoubted public interest in the debate around gender affirming healthcare, the Council takes the view that such articles are entitled to express opinions with which some or even many may disagree. Nonetheless, even in an opinion piece, the obligation remains to take reasonable steps to comply with the Council’s Standards of Practice.   In regard to the comment that the “…passing of laws that allow people to falsify their birth certificates”, the Council does not accept that there is anything in the material relied on by the publication to substantiate this statement. The Council notes the word “falsify” suggests a level of criminality or deceit that has not been made out by any of the material relied on by the publication. Accordingly, General Principles 1 and 3 were breached in this respect.   In relation to the comment concerning the criminalisation of therapists, the Council notes that by not specifically referring to the illegal practice of conversion therapy, the statement misleadingly and unfairly suggests that therapists could be prosecuted for providing therapeutic care. The Council does not consider there is anything in the material relied on by the publication to substantiate this statement. Accordingly, General Principles 1 and 3 were breached in this respect.   In regard to the statements that there is a link between autism and gender dysphoria; that the Family Court relied on to a great extent, the affidavit of one medical practitioner, and that without puberty blockers, the unequivocal research evidence is that most children resolve their gender identity issues before or while going through puberty, the Council notes that the publication referred to and provided material in support of each of these expressions of opinion and considers that there was a reasonable factual basis for the comments. Accordingly, General Principles 1 and 3 were not breached in this respect.   As to the comments that hospitals in Finland, Norway and Sweden have all but banned gender affirming healthcare, the Council accepts that the publication did not state that this care was no longer provided by the hospitals and notes the publication’s comments that the treatment is strictly controlled in a research setting. Accordingly, General Principles 1 and 3 were not breached in this respect.  

Relevant Council Standards

  This Adjudication applies the following General Principles of the Council.   Publications must take reasonable steps to:   1. Ensure that factual material in news reports and elsewhere is accurate and not misleading, and is distinguishable from other material such as opinion.   3. Ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts.

The Press Council considered a complaint from Townsville Hospital and Health Service (the hospital) concerning two articles published in print and online in The Courier Mail and the Sunday Mail.   The first article is headed “Hospital silent on shooting victim” in print and “Police shot dead Townsville man hours after hospital discharge” online on 23 April 2023. The second article is headed, “HOSPITAL DEATH TRAP /’THEY WON’T HELP ME’” in print on 6 May 2023 and “’They won’t help me’: Teen’s desperate post before suicide” online on 7 May 2023.   The first article reported that “A review will be undertaken into the circumstances surrounding the death of a Townsville man who was shot by police just hours after his release from hospital. The Kirwan shooting on Friday night occurred just a day after police spent two hours negotiating with the same man in a siege situation on Bel Air Ave, before he surrendered and was admitted to Townsville University Hospital.” It said that “Townsville’s Hospital and Health Service chief avoided answering a string of questions on the shocking timeline of events and the hospital’s decision to discharge Steven Angus, 52, after the lengthy siege.” It went on to report that “Townsville Hospital and Health Service chief executive Kieran Keyes confirmed a ‘comprehensive clinical review will be completed by the health service to determine what learnings or actions may result from this tragic incident ... I am unable to provide any details due to patient confidentiality’”.   The second article reported “A young Queensland woman suffering depression and pleading for help was repeatedly told to go home by staff at a Townsville hospital after self-harming and took her own life just hours after being discharged yet again.” It said that the woman’s “care at Townsville University Hospital is now being investigated in a ‘full clinical review’” following her death after she was released from the mental health unit in October.” It reported that “The revelation comes just a week after the same hospital came under scrutiny for sending a veteran “home after trying to harm himself, just hours before he was shot dead by police.”   The article went on to report the hospital’s Chief Executive saying “…Our health service is subject to privacy and confidentiality legislation and for this reason, I am unable to provide any further details about Ms Morison’s care. Intensive mental health care is complex, and it is our priority to ensure the care of each individual person is tailored in a setting that best suits their needs …”.   In relation to the first article, the complainant said it suggests that the man’s death was the direct result of the hospital’s decision to discharge him. The complainant said that despite the publication being made aware on multiple occasions that because of patient privacy and confidentiality legislation, it could not comment on the man’s care, it reported that the hospital “avoided answering questions” to imply that this was a tactic used by the hospital to avoid commenting publicly. The complainant said the publication’s way of reporting has eroded community trust in the hospital’s mental health services creating a genuine risk that someone in need of care may be reluctant to come forward because their confidence in the hospital’s services has been seriously shaken.   In relation to the second article, the complainant said the reporting on a mental health patient who took her own life was sensationalist and reckless. The complainant said the print headline, in particular “… HOSPITAL DEATH TRAP”, and reporting that the woman had died within “hours of discharge” erodes community trust and confidence in the hospital’s mental health service and has also had an adverse effect on the clinical staff who are unable to defend themselves without the benefit of a fair right of reply because of patient privacy and confidentiality legislation.   In response, the publication said that it rejects the accusation that the reporting was sensationalist. It said it takes seriously its reporting on mental health issues in the community and that reporting on such matters is clearly in the public interest. The publication said it is not its job to ensure trust and confidence in public mental health services, but the job of the hospital. It also said that it was not trying to stop people from coming forward for help, but to ask questions and prompt answers, to ensure that when people do come forward they receive the best care possible.   In relation to the first article, the publication said that it was a factual report of what occurred and that it had provided the hospital with a fair right of reply, noting its response to its questions were included in the article. It also said that the hospital has been criticised by the police, the police union and is the subject of a coroner’s investigation. In relation to the second article, the publication said it is a fact that the patient did take her life within hours after leaving the hospital and that the mother and sister of the woman who died had raised questions about the care she received at the hospital. The publication said the hospital was approached for comment, and its response was included in the article.  

Conclusion

  The Council’s Standards of Practice require publications to take reasonable steps 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), and that reports of suicide should not be given undue prominence, especially by unnecessarily explicit headlines or images. Great care should be taken to avoid causing unnecessary harm or hurt to people who have attempted suicide or to relatives and other people who have been affected by a suicide or attempted suicide. This requires special sensitivity and moderation in both gathering and reporting news (Specific Standard 7 – Coverage of Suicide).   In relation to the first article, the Council acknowledges that the comment that the hospital “avoided answering questions” could infer that the hospital was intentionally withholding information on the man’s care. The Council also acknowledges the complainant’s comments that the reporting on this matter, including the headline, caused significant distress to members of its staff. However, although the Council recognises that the hospital’s patient confidentiality obligations limit its ability to respond to media enquiries, it notes the hospital’s response to the enquiries was included in the article.   The Council also considers that, to the extent the reporting on the matter did cause substantial offence or distress, or a substantial risk to health and safety, this was outweighed by the significant public interest in reporting on the shooting and the events which preceded it.  Accordingly, the Council finds that the publication did not breach Principle 6.   In relation to the second article, and specifically in relation to the print headline, the Council accepts that it could have been less emotive given the sensitivities of the issue. However, the Council notes that the immediate family of the woman who died by suicide were highly critical of the hospital.  Accordingly, the Council finds that the publication took reasonable steps to comply with Specific Standard 7 on Coverage of Suicide and finds no breach of this Standard of Practice.   Note: If you or someone close to you requires personal assistance, please contact Lifeline Australia on 13 11 14.  

Relevant Council Standards

  This Adjudication applies the following General Principle of the Council.   Publications must take reasonable steps to:   General Principle 6 – 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.   This Adjudication also applies the following Specific Standard on Coverage of Suicide.   Specific Standard 7 – Reports of suicide should not be given undue prominence, especially by unnecessarily explicit headlines or images. Great care should be taken to avoid causing unnecessary harm or hurt to people who have attempted suicide or to relatives and other people who have been affected by a suicide or attempted suicide. This requires special sensitivity and moderation in both gathering and reporting news.

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published by The Australian online on 28 March 2023, headed "Trans female kills 3 children, 3 staff at Nashville Covenant School” which linked to a homepage headline “Trans woman kills 3 children, 3 staff at US school”.   The article reported that “The attack on a Nashville primary school that left three children and three staff members dead was meticulously planned by the female suspect, according to local police. The transgender attacker, identified by police as Audrey Hale, 28, left a manifesto and a map in her home before heading to the private Covenant School to carry out the mass shooting”. The article reported that “Police chief Don Drake told reporters that police searched the home of the suspect, who was killed by police at the school, and found evidence of a targeted attack.” It also included an embedded video from a television interview recording the Police Chief saying, “she does identify as transgender”.   In response to a complaint, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether the article complied with the Council’s Standards of Practice, which require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure that 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). In relation to this the complaint expressed concern that the prominent and repeated references to the accused’s transgender status, were unfair and were not justified by the public interest as the transgender status of Hale is not reported to have been a contributing factor in the shooting.   In response, the publication said the mass shooting happened in the early hours Australian time and as with similar attacks, was a fast moving, developing story that required multiple updates on its website as news and facts became available. The publication said Nashville Police Chief John Drake told media that Hale “feels that she identifies as trans, but we’re still in the initial investigation into all of that and if it actually played a role into this incident”.   It said Nashville police also revealed a sense of resentment might have played a role in Hale’s attack on the private Christian school they once attended and had compiled a detailed manifesto before the shooting. The publication said that with any critical incident like a mass shooting, the name, background and motivation of the shooter is of vital importance to the report and that it is in the public interest to cover all aspects of the story. The publication said that it was law enforcement officials who confirmed Hale was transgender and raised the fact they were investigating if this was a motivating factor for the crime.  

Conclusion

  The Council recognises that in a breaking news report, such as this, early reports of an event may differ significantly from what is reported in a later version. In this context, the Council notes the subsequent updates to the article placed significantly less prominence on Hale’s transgender status than was initially the case. Nonetheless, the Council does not consider that the initial prominent and repeated references to Hale’s transgender status were warranted.   The Council notes that apart from the Police Chief confirming Hale was transgender and noting that the police would consider whether this was a contributing factor, there was no further information to justify the prominent and repeated references. The Council considers that in the absence of a clearer link between the crime and Hale’s transgender status, particularly in a breaking news story, such references were unfair. Accordingly, the Council considers the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material was presented with reasonable fairness and balance in breach of General Principle 3.   The Council’s long-standing position is that publications should exercise great care to not place unwarranted emphasis on characteristics of individuals such as race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, country of origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, illness or age. Although the Council recognises that the Police Chief made a reference to Hale’s transgender status, it does not consider that this alone was sufficient to justify such prominent and repeated references to this characteristic.   The Council considers the prominence given to the accused’s transgender status, could lead some readers to conclude that this characteristic was either a cause of, or a significant factor in, the mass shooting, and could contribute to substantial prejudice against transgender people. The Council considers that in the absence of a clearer link between Hale’s transgender status and the mass shooting, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid contributing to substantial prejudice and that there was insufficient public interest justifying it doing so.   Accordingly, the Council concludes that the publication breached General Principle 6.  

Relevant Council Standards

  This Adjudication applies the following General Principles of the Council:   Publications must take reasonable steps to:

3. Ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts.
4. 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.

The Press Council considered a complaint from Curtis Pitt, Speaker of the Queensland Parliament concerning an article published by the Courier Mail, headed “Activists in court is a terrible look” in print and online on 1 February 2023.   The article, an editorial, commented that “In May 1992, the Goss cabinet approved legislation to give Queenslanders the formal right to public protest. The accompanying announcement said the change was a critical part of the Fitzgerald process. Labor premier Wayne Goss declared: ‘Governments who try to restrict the right of the people to freedom of expressions are governments scared of scrutiny. This government is not.’” It went on to say that “In November 2022, Labor Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk reinterpreted that freedom, telling parliament: ‘People have the right to protest silently in public.’ She followed that extraordinary statement by encouraging her Speaker Curtis Pitt to criminally prosecute a group of Extinction Rebellion protesters – most aged over 50 and a number of them grandmothers – who had interrupted proceedings of parliament for three minutes.”   The editorial said that “Sending a clear message that this protest was the wrong thing to do is therefore appropriate. But the response should be proportionate. Nobody was hurt. There was no property damaged. And the entire disruption lasted for a total of three minutes. Charging the protesters with the criminal offence of disturbing the legislature is a punishment that clearly does not fit the crime. Considering our state’s political history, that this was done at the behest of a Labor Premier is troubling.”   The complainant said it is inaccurate to suggest he charged the protestors at the “behest” of Premier Palaszczuk or that she requested or urged that the protestors be charged. The complainant said the comment by the Premier made in parliament that “People have the right to protest silently in public, and I endorse that, but there are rules in this chamber. I will leave that for you to reflect on, Mr Speaker” suggests that there is an important role and function that the Speaker independently performs in maintaining order in the Parliamentary Precinct. He said that he exercises the role of Speaker independent of party politics and that he does not follow any instructions from parliamentarians. The complainant also said that he did not lay the criminal charges as the editorial suggests. He also said the police did so after a request from him and only after their independent assessment, did they consider such charges were warranted. The complainant said the general tenor of the editorial was that he acted as a mouthpiece of a government punishing protestors.   In response, the publication said the general tenor of the editorial was that Mr Pitt's actions had resulted in rarely used charges being laid against a group of protestors who were doing nothing more than exercising their right to freedom of speech in relation to government and politics. The editorial did not say the Premier directed the Speaker to take action or that she gave instructions to him. The publication said any reasonable reading of the Premier’s statement in parliament would suggest she encouraged Mr Pitt to criminally prosecute a group of protesters.   It said that while it agrees that the Speaker is independent, this does not mean he cannot be encouraged by members of parliament to make a decision. It also said that the editorial does not state that Mr Pitt charged the protestors. It said the story which the editorial is commenting on, and which is hyperlinked in the editorial, makes it clear the charges were laid by Queensland police. The publication said, however, that had Mr Pitt not made his complaint to the police, the charges against the protestors would not have been laid at all. That is the criminal prosecution to which the editorial refers.  

Conclusion

  The Council’s Standards of Practice require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material in news material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1), and is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinions are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts (General Principle 3). They also require publications to take reasonable steps to provide a correction or other adequate remedial action if published material is significantly inaccurate or misleading (General Principle 2) and provide an opportunity for a response to be published by a person adversely referred to (General Principle 4).   The Council recognises the public interest in allowing editorials to express robust views on matters of significant public importance, as in this case. Nonetheless, the Council has consistently stated that even in opinion articles, such as an editorial, a publication remains obliged to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is not misleading and is presented with reasonable fairness and balance. Although the Council does not consider the editorial suggests the complainant charged the protestors, the comment that the referral of the protesters to police was done at the “behest” of the Premier was presented as a statement of fact and inaccurately and unfairly suggests the complainant acted on the Premier’s instructions. The Council notes that the Speaker is required to discharge his duties with impartiality. The Council considers that there is an absence of information to suggest that the Speaker did not act independently, and thus failed to act in accordance with his duty of impartiality, when referring the protesters to the police. Accordingly, the Council finds a breach of General Principles 1 and 3.   As to General Principles 2 and 4, the Council notes the absence of a request for correction or other remedial action by the complainant. Accordingly, the Council finds no beach of General Principles 2 and 4.  

Relevant Council Standards

  This Adjudication applies the following General Principles of the Council:   Publications must take reasonable steps to:

1. Ensure that factual material in news reports and elsewhere is accurate and not misleading, and is distinguishable from other material such as opinion.
2. Provide a correction or other adequate remedial action if published material is significantly inaccurate or misleading.
3. Ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts.
4. Ensure that where material refers adversely to a person, a fair opportunity is given for subsequent publication of a reply if that is reasonably necessary to address a possible breach of General Principle 3.

The Press Council considered a complaint from Senator Gerard Rennick concerning an article published by The Australian online on 11 August 2022, headed “Anti-vax Liberal senator Gerard Rennick refused briefings from Greg Hunt”.   The article reported that “Liberal senator Gerard Rennick, who has been criticised for spreading misinformation and Covid-19 conspiracy theories, turned down multiple invitations for individual briefings from former health minister Greg Hunt.” It said “Senator Rennick was offered several one-on-one sessions with Mr Hunt, as well as Health Department Deputy Secretary and Therapeutic Goods Administration boss Adjunct Professor John Skerritt, since the start of the pandemic. However, these standing invitations were never taken up.” The article went on to report that “It’s understood that the TGA has responded to a large number of questions about vaccine safety from Senator Rennick in budget estimates, Covid committee hearings and personal correspondence.”   The complainant said that it is false and misleading to say that he declined meetings with health officials. The complainant said that no meetings were ever offered to him, and that he never declined any meetings or briefings with the then Health Minister or health officials. The complainant said that he did meet with the then Minister of Health or his staff and had also had two telephone conversations with the head of the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). The complainant also said that prior to the article’s publication, he was not contacted for comment and, despite informing the publication after publication that he never declined meetings, no amendment was made to correct the article at the time.   In response, the publication said that it has evidence that offers of meetings were made to the complainant by the head of the TGA, who is also Deputy Secretary of The Department of Health. The publication said that the head of the TGA offered briefings to the complainant during Senate Estimates and Covid-19 committee hearings and through the former Health Minister’s office. It said that subsequent to the article’s publication, the complainant asked the Department of Health directly about the briefings mentioned in the article the subject of the complaint.   The publication said that the Department of Health’s answer to the complainant makes clear that a range of departmental officers offered the complainant briefings and that the reason for not taking up the meetings may lie with the former Health Minister’s office or with the complainant. The publication said that soon after publication it offered the complainant an opportunity to include in the article remarks refuting the claims, however he declined. It said that it subsequently amended the article to include the complainant’s denial that he declined meetings.  

Conclusion

  The Council’s Standards of Practice require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material in news material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1), and is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinions are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts (General Principle 3). They also require publications to take reasonable steps to provide a correction or other adequate remedial action if published material is significantly inaccurate or misleading (General Principle 2) and provide an opportunity for a response to be published by a person adversely referred to (General Principle 4).   The Council accepts that based on the information before it, the complainant was offered briefings by a range of senior officers from the Department of Health, including the head of the TGA. The Council also notes the publication’s reference to Question on Notice, that was provided after publication of the article, which confirms that the complainant was offered briefings. However, while the Council accepts that such offers were made, there is no information before it to suggest that the complainant actively ‘refused’ or ‘turned down’ these offers. The Council notes that ‘refusing’ or ‘turning down’ an offer would require a specific response to an offer, which the Council notes is absent from the material before it. Accordingly, the Council considers that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to be accurate and not misleading in breach of General Principle 1.   The Council notes that soon after the article was published, the publication offered to amend the article to include the complainant’s denial that he refused offers of briefings.  The Council notes however, that the article was not amended until sometime after publication and only after a complaint was lodged with the Press Council. Given the reference to the complainant refusing health department briefings is significantly inaccurate and misleading and remained uncorrected for some time, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to provide a correction or other remedial action. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 2.   The Council recognises the publication’s offer to include his denial was not accepted by the complainant, and also that the publication subsequently amended the online article. However, the Council emphasises the obligation under General Principle 2 to provide a correction or other adequate remedial action is unqualified, and should have been made when the inaccuracy was identified.   The Council considers that given the article specifically concerned the complainant, it was incumbent on the publication to seek comment from the complainant prior to publication regarding the offers of meetings. The Council considers the publication failed to take reasonable steps to present the material with the fairness and balance in breach of General Principle 3.   The Council considers the publication’s prompt offer to amend the article and include his comments refuting the assertion that he was offered meetings, was an adequate response in the circumstances. Accordingly, the Council concludes the publication did not breach General Principle 4. This finding is not inconsistent with the finding of a breach of General Principle 2, as General Principle 4 imposes a different and separate obligation.  

Relevant Council Standards

  This Adjudication applies the following General Principles of the Council:   Publications must take reasonable steps to:

1. Ensure that factual material in news reports and elsewhere is accurate and not misleading, and is distinguishable from other material such as opinion.
2. Provide a correction or other adequate remedial action if published material is significantly inaccurate or misleading.
3. Ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts.
4. Ensure that where material refers adversely to a person, a fair opportunity is given for subsequent publication of a reply if that is reasonably necessary to address a possible breach of General Principle 3.

The Press Council considered a complaint from Louise Milligan concerning an article published in The Australian headed “Greatest enemy of truth is those who conspire to lie” in print and online on 8 June 2021.   The article, an editorial, commented that “Many at the ABC express their displeasure at being held to account by The Australian. Forget that their own Media Watch has a leery obsession with News Corporation, some less thoughtful ABC journalists, and their flacks, one-time reporters who seem to have forgotten where they came from, decry any form of scrutiny”.   It said “Whether they like it or not, the ABC is one of the most powerful institutions in Australia. Not only does the national broadcaster pocket $1bn a year from our pay packets to produce great local radio, at times intoxicating drama and clever, original television, but much of that federal money is spent on journalism. In fact, the ABC, a wholly taxpayer-funded institution, is the biggest media outlet in Australia. The No.1 player in digital text and broadcast news, and awash on the airwaves of radio and television. The ABC is a behemoth. It is both the game and the gamekeeper.”   The editorial also said that “Many senior people at The Australian know well the work, the habits and the hubris of Sally Neighbour and Louise Milligan”. It went on to say “To be good you often need to be brash, and brave. But to be really good, you need to be beyond reproach. Your loyalty to the truth must be without question. Fairness and balance is your currency. It has to be. Think of the opposite qualities to answer why. The subjects of good journalism, of important journalism, lie and dissemble. Good journalists do not. They rely on the truth. They yearn for it. But they understand the limits. In many respects the natural enemy of a journalist, aside from a public relations hack, or a political flack, is the defamation lawyer. The most dangerous enemy of the journalist is bad, lazy, deceitful journalism.”   The complainant said the article implies that she conspires to lie, is the greatest enemy of the truth, lies and dissembles, is bad, lazy and deceitful, and that she has work habits and hubris which were well known by senior editorial people at The Australian. She said the language and the tone of the editorial are unequivocally intended to be read as criticism of her and leave no room for a conclusion other than that she is of low integrity and deserving of severe criticism based on the experience of senior people at the publication. She said that anyone reading the editorial would have concluded that it was alleging that she was not an example of a good journalist, but a bad, lazy and deceitful one who conspires to lie. The complainant said that such imputations were not only inaccurate and unfair, but that they have caused her significant offence and distress.   The publication said the target of the newspaper’s criticism is not the complainant. It said the headline, text and thread of the editorial’s argument is aimed at the institutional obstruction of media freedom and the need for good journalism to hold those in power, including politicians, business leaders and those running big institutions such as churches and universities, to account.   The publication said the reference to the complainant is limited to naming her in the context of the responsibilities of the ABC and the case for good journalism. The publication said there are no specific references to her work and no specific references to her reporting or conduct. The publication said however, that any reference to Ms Milligan would not have been read in isolation, as it was written in the context of separate news reporting about the ABC’s journalism and the complainant’s personal expressions through social media on the day and in the days leading up to the editorial.   The publication said these separate news reports highlighted the missteps made by the complainant and one other ABC journalist in tweets on the case of former attorney-general Christian Porter, who had been suing the ABC for defamation. It said the editorial is about the principles of journalism and how they should be applied, particularly by the publicly funded ABC.   The publication said that the overriding aim of the editorial is to promote the public interest of strong journalism and it raises the difficult position of the ABC, an important institution, which has the dual role as ‘the game and the gamekeeper’ and one which needs to be held to account.  

Conclusion

  The Council’s Standards of Practice applicable to this matter require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1); and is presented with reasonable fairness and balance (General Principle 3). If material refers adversely to a person a fair opportunity is to be given for a subsequent reply if that is reasonably necessary to address a possible breach of General Principle 3 (General Principle 4). Publications must also take reasonable steps 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 recognises an editorial is the voice of a newspaper and for this reason, it is given significant latitude in expressing its views. Nonetheless, the Council notes that even in an editorial, a publication remains obliged to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is not misleading and is presented with reasonable fairness and balance. In relation to this, the Council notes the statement “Many senior people at The Australian know well the work, the habits and the hubris of … Louise Milligan” was presented as a statement of fact and not merely an expression of opinion.   Although the Council notes the publication’s comments that the editorial was not directed at the complainant, it considers that it is an unavoidable conclusion that she is associated with “bad, lazy, deceitful journalism” and that she ‘lies’ and ‘dissembles’ on the basis that she is specifically named in the article; that she is an ABC journalist; that she was once employed at The Australian and the critical comments concerning her alleged work, habits and hubris. For this reason, the Council considers the editorial, misleadingly and unfairly infers that such undesirable traits are associated with the complainant and her journalism. The Council notes that on the information before it, such an inference is not sustainable. Accordingly, the Council finds a breach of General Principles 1 and 3.   The Council notes that the complainant did not seek a right of reply. Accordingly, the Council finds no breach of General Principle 4.   The Council recognises the significant public interest in allowing an editorial to express robust views on matters of important public interest. However, the Council considers that naming the complainant, an ABC journalist in an editorial that commented on the ABC and what it considers are the attributes of poor journalism, was likely to cause substantial offence and distress without a sufficient public interest justification. Accordingly, the Council concludes that General Principle 6 was breached.  

Relevant Council Standards

  This Adjudication applies the following General Principles of the Council.   Publications must take reasonable steps to:

• 1. Ensure that factual material in news reports and elsewhere is accurate and not misleading, and is distinguishable from other material such as opinion.
• 3. Ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance,and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts.

• 4. Ensure that where material refers adversely to a person, a fair opportunity is given for subsequent publication of a reply if that is reasonably necessary to address a possible breach of General Principle 3.

• 6. 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.