Search

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of a cartoon in the Herald Sun on 21 May 2024 captioned “AUSTRALIA’S FRONT DOOR”.   The cartoon depicts Prime Minister Anthony Albanese winding up a drawbridge with Opposition Leader Peter Dutton striding bare chested towards him saying “STEP ASIDE ALBO”. In the background are people with predominantly brown skin, with some wearing head coverings such as hijabs, and carrying suitcases who are clinging to, clambering over, and marching down the drawbridge that is being wound up. In the foreground there are a number of people also wearing head coverings and carrying suitcases, who are all proceeding past Mr Albanese.   In response to a complaint received, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether the material breached its Standards of Practice which requires 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).   The Council noted that the complaint raised concerns that the cartoon suggests that the immigrants are mostly Muslims from the Middle East and Africa and does not portray the reality of immigration into Australia which is led by people from India, China and the Philippines. The complaint noted that in this context, the cartoon’s portrayal of the immigrants’ ethnicity is offensive, and the way they are drawn is a racial stereotype of Muslims from the Middle East and Africa, which is prejudicial. The complaint also expressed concern that the cartoon depicted Dutton as a superhero capable of winding up the drawbridge, and by implication protecting Australia from such immigrants.   In response, the publication said the cartoon should be considered in context of the political debate concerning Australia’s dramatic 73% increase in immigration and whether Australia could sustain such levels. The publication said the cartoon seeks to illustrate the increase in immigration by drawing a crowd of entrants coming in Australia's front door, which is depicted metaphorically as a drawbridge. It said the cartoon is not about who is coming in, but more about the number of immigrants entering, and it depicted a wide range of ethnic groups which are visible in Australian society from India, Africa, Asia and elsewhere. It said the cartoon’s depiction of the immigrants is not critical or racist but simply depicts the diversity of the immigrant intake.  The publication said Mr Albanese’s depiction in the cartoon sees him attempting to stem the flow of intake with the visual metaphor of him labouring hard on raising the drawbridge, while Mr Dutton is depicted in a comedic fashion as a ‘hairy chested’ muscle man. It noted that the term ‘hairy chested’ is used in politics when a politician is voicing strongly worded opinions or is ‘gung-ho’ on an issue.  

Conclusion

  The Council recognises that cartoons are expressions of opinion that often use exaggeration and absurdity to make a point on serious issues. For this reason, the Council has given significant latitude to cartoons when considering whether a publication has taken reasonable steps to avoid substantial offence, distress or prejudice. Nonetheless, the Council also recognises that the significant public interest in allowing freedom of expression must be weighed against the equally significant public interest in not causing or contributing to offence or prejudice.   The Council accepts that the intention of the cartoon was to comment on the political debate surrounding the immigration numbers and not on who or where the immigrants were arriving from. The Council also accepts that it was not the cartoonist’s intention to cause offence or prejudice. However, the Council considers that the depiction of the immigrants, which it notes is not reflective of the ethnic and geographical composition of migrant arrivals into Australia, together with the raising of the drawbridge, implies that such immigrants are undesirable. The Council considers that in the context of a national political debate concerning the potential negative effects of the significant immigration increase on Australian society, the depiction of such people as mostly brown skinned, with prominent facial features and attire that reflects a stereotypical portrayal of people from the Middle East and Africa, including Muslims, is offensive and prejudicial.   While the Council recognises the public interest in commenting on the political debate around immigration, the Council does not consider it was sufficient to justify the substantial offence and prejudice caused or contributed to in choosing to depict the immigrants in the manner in which it did. Accordingly, the Council concludes that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence and prejudice in breach of General Principle 6.  

Relevant Council Standards

  This Adjudication applies the following General Principles of the Council.   “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 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.