Search

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.