The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published online by the Geelong Advertiser on 20 April 2017, headed “Malop St locked down as police negotiate with distraught man atop Market Square mall”.
The article reported that a “man climbed over a rooftop barrier atop the Market Square complex and dangled over the street” leading to a “rooftop standoff” in which “police shut down the busy street to negotiate with the man who was threatening to jump”. The article included an 11 second video of the incident, captioned “A man perched on the edge of Geelong Market Square’s rooftop” and a photograph of the man sitting with his legs dangling off the rooftop edge with his head in his hands, captioned “Police are negotiating with the man”.
The article reported that “Central Geelong traffic was diverted”, “Shopping centre management were forced to close access to the car park”, and “The Westfield pedestrian bridge over Yarra St was also closed and police stopped traffic down Yarra St from the Little Malop St intersection and along Malop St from near Officeworks”.
The online article was later updated with comments from police, including that “(The man) is well known to police around Geelong”; “It was a difficult negotiation process. We’re glad it was resolved in the way that it was”; and that “[a police source] was surprised to see parents with young children hanging around to catch a look at what was going on”.
The Council asked the publication to comment on whether the original online article breached its Standards of Practice, in particular whether the publication took reasonable steps to avoid intruding on a person's reasonable expectations of privacy (General Principle 5) or causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety (General Principle 6)—unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest.
The Council also asked the publication to comment on whether its Specific Standards on the Coverage of Suicide were breached, in particular Specific Standard 3 which requires that in deciding whether to report a suicide—which includes attempted suicide—consideration should be given to whether clear and informed consent has been provided by appropriate relatives or close friends, or whether such reporting is clearly in the public interest; Specific Standard 5 which requires that the method and location of a suicide should not be described in detail unless the public interest in doing so clearly outweighs the risk, if any, of causing further suicides; and Specific Standard 7 which requires that reports of suicide should not be given undue prominence and great care should be taken to avoid causing unnecessary harm or hurt to people who have attempted suicide or to relatives and others who have been affected by a suicide or attempted suicide.
The publication said it did not name the man involved and did not publish photographs or video in which the man could be identified.
The publication said the man was sitting near the edge of the car park rooftop drinking cans of alcoholic drink and smoking cigarettes. It said the car park was well-known as a location for teenagers to drink, had not previously been the location of any other suicides or attempted suicides and it believed the incident was a nuisance event, or a ‘threatened’ suicide but not an attempted suicide. The publication said that the Council’s Specific Standards on Coverage of Suicide did not apply as there was no suicide nor, in its view, any attempted suicide.
The publication said the article did not directly report on any suicide method and that jumping off tall buildings is a well-known method of suicide. It said its article did not provide any specific detail or instruction that may have increased the risk of further suicides by this method.
The publication said the original online article reflected the information available to it at the time and that it was later updated to remove reference to the man “threatening to jump”. A print article published the following day also did not include this statement, and did not repeat the reference to the man as “distraught”. The publication said it included a reference to a source of assistance to err on the side of caution.
The publication said there was strong public interest in reporting on the incident, given that it shut down a large part of the city and disrupted a large number of people. It also noted the incident was extensively posted on social media, and was covered by other local media outlets.
Conclusion
The Council accepts that the photograph and video included in the article did not identify the man involved and did not intrude on his reasonable expectations of privacy. Accordingly, the publication did not breach General Principle 5.
The Council is not satisfied that the report would cause substantial distress or a risk to the health and safety of any person, including the man involved, particularly given it was published following resolution of the incident. Accordingly, the publication did not breach General Principle 6.
The Council considers that the online article’s heading that “Malop St locked down as police negotiate with distraught man atop Market Square mall”; statements that the man had “climbed over the rooftop barrier”, “was threatening to jump”, and “Police are negotiating with the man”; and the photo of the man dangling off the rooftop edge with his head in his hands amounted to initially reporting the incident as an attempted suicide. This conclusion is corroborated by the police statement in the updated online article that “It was a difficult negotiation process. We’re glad it was resolved in the way that it was”. The Council therefore considers that its Specific Standards on Coverage of Suicide were applicable.
The publication, in deciding whether to report this instance of attempted suicide, did not attempt to contact the man involved or any appropriate relatives or close friends for consent. The Council considers that although it was in the public interest to report on the disruption caused by this incident—namely the diversion of traffic and closures of public space—this public interest could have been served without reporting the incident as an attempted suicide. Accordingly, the publication breached Specific Standard 3 on Coverage of Suicide.
The Council considers that the public interest justified reporting the location of the incident given its relevance to the resulting disruption. However, the Council is not satisfied that it was in the public interest to publish the method of the attempted suicide—ie that the man “was threatening to jump”. Accordingly, the publication breached Specific Standard 5 on Coverage of Suicide.
The Council does not consider the article gave undue prominence to its reporting of the incident. Accordingly, the publication did not breach General Principle 7 on Coverage of Suicide.
Note: If you or someone close to you requires personal assistance, please contact Lifeline Australia on 13 11 14.
Relevant Council Standards (not required for publication)
This Adjudication applies the following General Principles of the Council.
Publications must take reasonable steps to:
General Principle 5 – Avoid intruding on a person’s reasonable expectations of privacy, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest.
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 Standards on Coverage of Suicide.
Specific Standard 3 – In deciding whether to report an individual instance of suicide, consideration should be given to whether at least one of the following criteria is satisfied:
(a) clear and informed consent has been provided by appropriate relatives or close friends; or
(b) reporting the death as suicide is clearly in the public interest.
Specific Standard 5 – The method and location of a suicide should not be described in detail (e.g., a particular drug or cliff) unless the public interest in doing so clearly outweighs the risk, if any, of causing further suicides. This applies especially to methods or locations which may not be well known by people contemplating 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.