Search

The Press Council considered a complaint from former ACT Chief prosecutor, Shane Drumgold, concerning three articles published by The Australian in March and May 2024. The articles are:   “Shane Drumgold’s reputation remains in tatters” online 4 March 2024; “DPP’s reputation remains in tatters” in print 5 March 2025;  “Losing its faculties: university employs disgraced Drumgold to teach law students” in print 6 March 2024; “Shane Drumgold lands new job teaching law to Canberra students” online 6 March 2024; "Territory justice in full retreat at DPP" in print 22 May 2024 and "'Only in the ACT’? Justice is now in full retreat at DPP", online 22 May 2024.   The 4 March opinion article said “a ­Victorian Supreme Court judge sitting in the ACT Supreme Court looked at the forensically gathered evidence in the Sofronoff ­report, and at eight of Walter ­Sofronoff KC’s findings against the former chief prosecutor, and concluded that seven of the eight damning findings against him should stand”. The article added that “Although the finding by Justice Stephen Kaye of apprehended bias against Sofronoff is of great interest to some because it involves delving into the private communications between the former judge and myself, Drumgold’s legal challenge in the ACT Supreme Court amounts to yet another own goal.” The 6 March news article reported on the complainant’s appointment saying that “Students at Canberra University have been startled to discover the identity of their new lecturer in the law of evidence: disgraced former ACT director of public prosecutions Shane Drumgold”. It reported that he “resigned as DPP last year following the damning findings of misconduct by the Sofronoff inquiry …”. The article said that the inquiry had found that “Mr Drumgold was guilty of a serious breach of duty by failing to comply with the ‘golden rule’ of disclosure by failing to disclose documents under the Evidence Act 2011; that he ‘kept the defence in the dark’ about the steps he was taking to deny it the documents; and that he ‘constructed a false narrative to support a claim of legal professional privilege’”. The article went on to state that “All of these findings were upheld on Monday by Judge Stephen Kaye in response to a legal challenge by Mr Drumgold to the ­Sofronoff inquiry’s report that he was in breach of his duties…”. The 22 May opinion article said about the complainant that “Only in the ACT would a corruption commission investigate not the chief prosecutor whose misconduct has now been confirmed by two judges in separate forums but the man who uncovered the wrongdoing.”   The complainant said that the articles’ statements that the seven of the eight findings made against him in the Sofronoff inquiry were upheld and/or remain standing or that he had been found to have engaged in misconduct, misrepresent the findings of Justice Kaye. The complainant said that the essence of the misrepresentation is that because not all the orders he sought regarding the Sofronoff inquiry were granted, in particular that the Sofronoff findings were legally unreasonable, this overturns Justice Kaye’s finding of apprehended bias. The complainant said that all of the Sofronoff findings were declared unlawful by Justice Kaye by virtue of the finding of apprehended bias. The complainant said that the basis for a finding of a reasonable apprehension of bias was the columnist’s consistently critical views of his conduct over a period of time, together with her close contact with Mr Sofronoff, the Chairman of the Inquiry. The complainant said that when he drew the misrepresentation to the publication’s attention on 4 March requesting a correction, it proceeded to publish the 6 March article that criticised his appointment as a university lecturer and reiterated the misrepresentation that the findings from the Sofronoff inquiry were all upheld. The complainant said that the 22 May article repeated the misrepresentation and inaccurately stated that “two inquiries” had confirmed his misconduct.   In response, the publication said that the articles are an accurate and fair report of the findings by Justice Kaye and do not require a correction. In relation to the 4 March opinion article, the publication said that the columnist was entitled to her view that the complainant had won a ‘pyrrhic victory’ because he failed to restore his reputation. It said that this is an opinion that is not only reasonably held but is also reasonable to express. The publication said that while it accepts that Justice Kaye’s finding of a reasonable apprehension of bias applies to all the findings of Mr Sofronoff, it does not follow that the findings are therefore overturned nor does it preclude the findings from being upheld. It said that the columnist did not write an opinion contrary to any of Justice Kaye’s orders. It said the columnist wrote that Justice Kaye made a finding of apprehended bias against Mr Sofronoff, then went on to write about the impact of Justice Kaye’s other findings – specifically that the complainant failed to establish that seven of the eight findings by Sofronoff about the complainant’s conduct were legally unreasonable. In relation to the 6 March article, the publication said it is a fair and accurate news piece on a matter of public interest, namely the employment of the complainant at Canberra University as a lecturer of law of evidence despite the findings of the Sofronoff inquiry in relation to his misconduct in this area of law. It said the article accurately states that Justice Kaye upheld the findings of the Sofronoff inquiry and clearly spells out those findings to which it referred.   In relation to the 22 May opinion article, the publication said the comments were accurately grounded in the findings by Justice Kaye in relation to the Sofronoff inquiry. It said that in the complainant’s legal action concerning the inquiry by Mr Sofronoff, the complainant sought a declaration that its findings concerning his conduct were invalid and of no effect.   Conclusion The Council’s Standards of Practice require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material in news reports and elsewhere is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1), and 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 (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 a fair opportunity for a reply to be published by a person adversely referred to (General Principle 4).   The Council notes that in deciding whether the articles have complied with the Council’s Standards of Practice, it has had regard to the role of the Board of Inquiry and to the legal analysis of the findings by Justice Kaye submitted by the complainant and the publication. The Council emphasises however, that the issue under consideration is not whether each parties’ legal analysis is correct, but whether the publication has taken reasonable steps to comply with the Council’s Standards of Practice.   In relation to the 4 March opinion article, the Council acknowledges that Justice Kaye found that seven of the eight findings made in the Sofronoff inquiry were not “legally unreasonable” conclusions to reach. The Council notes however, that the comments in the article that “seven of the eight damning findings” against the complainant “should stand”; “remain standing” or that “the Sofronoff report remains standing” imply that these findings have been upheld by Justice Kaye. The Council notes that based on the information before it, this is a misleading and unfair interpretation of the comments made by Justice Kaye and the role of the Board of Inquiry.   In relation to the 6 March news article, and for reasons previously given, the Council considers the comment that “all of the findings were upheld” is a misleading and unfair characterisation of the findings by Justice Kaye and an inaccurate interpretation of the Board of Inquiry role. The Council also considers that in commenting on the findings of Justice Kaye and its criticism of the complainant, it is a significant omission to not report with due prominence that the finding of a reasonable apprehension of bias was reached due to the communications that took place between Mr Sofronoff and one of the authors of the article, before and during the inquiry.   In relation to the 22 May opinion article, the Council considers the article’s comment that the complainant’s “misconduct has now been confirmed by two judges” is inaccurate and unfair. The Council does not consider the findings of Justice Kaye can be interpreted to say that it endorsed or upheld the findings of the Sofronoff Inquiry as it relates to the complainant. The Council also considers that in the context of commenting on the Sofronoff inquiry and the findings of Justice Kaye, that it is a significant omission to not report with due prominence that the finding of a reasonable apprehension of bias was reached due to the communications that took place between Mr Sofronoff and the writer of the article, before and during the inquiry.   Accordingly, the Council finds the publication failed to take reasonable steps to comply with General Principles 1 and 3 in these respects.   As to remedial action, the Council recognises the publication considered its interpretation of Justice Kaye’s findings to be accurate and did not require correction. In these circumstances, the Council finds no breach of General Principle 2.   The Council notes however, that after the 4 March article was published, the complainant did contact the publication to raise his concerns with the publication and to seek a correction. The Council notes that on the information before it, the publication has not offered the complainant an opportunity for a subsequent reply. Accordingly, the Council finds that General Principle 4 was breached. This finding is not inconsistent with not finding 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 Priceple 3.

 

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published in The Australian headed “Palestinians are complicit in the horror of Hamas” 17 January 2025 in print; “World waits to hear fate of little Kfir, Israel’s youngest hostage” 16 January 2025 online; and “Kfir Bibas was just 262 days old when the gorillas of Gaza called. If he has been kept alive by these black-hearted Arabs, then God help him. If he has been murdered by Gazans, then God help them”, Social media 16 January 2025.   The article, an opinion piece, commented on the fate of Israel’s youngest hostage Kfir Bibas and more broadly, the extent of Gaza’s civilian population’s support for Hamas. The article said “Kfir was just 262 days old when the gorillas of Gaza called. If they have not killed him, he has spent 451 days in captivity. Literally. Some released hostages said they saw his dad in a cage underneath the Gaza city of Khan Yunis, just a few kilometres from Kfir’s home”.   It said that “The fate of Kfir may well decide the fate of all Gazans. The world is watching what happens to the youngest hostage. If he has been kept alive by these black-hearted Arabs, then God help him. If he has been murdered by Gazans, then God help them.” The article said that Yahya Sinwar and Ismail Haniyeh, the leaders of the terrorist organisation Hamas responsible for the 7 October 2024 atrocities, “could easily have secured the baby’s safety. They chose not to. They planned and rehearsed, over several years, those October 7 raids in which 1200 innocents were hacked to death, blown up, shot and burned alive, while 240 were kidnapped; not all for being Jewish, but for working and living in mostly Jewish lands.”   The article also referred to the murder of Shani Louk, saying “The world was revolted by the scenes of celebrating young Arabs parading her body through city streets on the back of a truck shouting ‘Alluha Akbar’(God is great)”. It went on to say that “there is so much more that condemns Gazans, not just its Hamas-trained terrorists.”   In response to complaints received, 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 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 complaints raised concerns that the term “gorillas of Gaza” perpetuates a harmful stereotype that has historically been used to portray entire groups of people as savage or subhuman. The complaints also expressed concern the terms “gorillas of Gaza” and “black-hearted Arabs” suggests that all Arabs and all Gazans are collectively responsible for the actions of Hamas.   In response, the publication said the language used in the article reflects the anger, grief and horror felt by many at the grotesque nature of the October 7 attacks and the ongoing plight of those still held hostage. The comments were made in the broader context of public interest debate, firstly, about the terrorist atrocities committed by Hamas and secondly, around the civilian population of Gaza, their relationship to Hamas which follows their decision to elect the terrorist organisation to govern them, and the question  of collective responsibility in times of war.   The publication said that the language used in the article is clearly referring to the Hamas perpetrators of these atrocities, not to all Palestinians or Arabs. The text does not refer to all people in Gaza as ‘gorillas’ or all Arabs as ‘black-hearted.’   The publication said that to suggest otherwise was never the intention of the opinion article’s author nor would it accurately describe the points he made in his arguments. These are plainly rhetorical flourishes aimed at a terrorist group and the people who enabled or supported their actions.   The phrase ‘gorillas of Gaza’ is a pointed play on words, referring to Hamas as guerrilla fighters who carried out the October 7 atrocities. Any reasonable reader would understand that this is a critique of the perpetrators of specific crimes and not a blanket characterisation of an ethnic group or entire population. The reference to ‘black-hearted Arabs’ is similarly directed at those responsible for or complicit in the abduction and possible murder of a child. The term ‘black-hearted’ is a widely accepted idiom denoting cruelty or evil intent.   The publication said the comments are a form of robust opinion, entirely within the realm of legitimate political expression, and are protected in any open democracy with a free press.  

Conclusion

  The Council recognises that the article is clearly identified as opinion and given the significant public interest of allowing freedom of expression, the Council takes the view that such articles are entitled to use robust language and to express views to which some or even many may disagree. Nonetheless, the obligation remains to take reasonable steps to comply with the Council’s Standards of Practice.   The Council notes the publication’s comments that the terms complained about were directed at Hamas and were made in the context of a discussion concerning the civilian population of Gaza and their relationship with the terrorist group and the nature of collective responsibility. Nonetheless, the Council notes that the print headline, “Palestinians are complicit in the horror of Hamas” and comments in the article, such as “there is so much more that condemns Gazans, not just its Hamas-trained terrorists in conjunction with the repeated and prominent references throughout the article to “Gazans”, go beyond debating the extent to which the civilian population of Gaza was or is supportive of Hamas, and imply that they are collectively responsible for the October 7 atrocities and the fate of the hostages. In this context, the Council considers that a reasonable reader would consider the terms “gorillas of Gaza” and “black hearted Arabs” are not solely directed at Hamas, but to all Gazans.   The Council considers that in a period of heightened community sensitivity around the Israel/Palestine conflict, great care must be taken to avoid comments that characterise an entire population or ethnic group in terms that are potentially offensive or prejudicial, and which are not justified in the public interest. Accordingly, the Council concludes that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress, or prejudice in breach of General Principle 6.  

Relevant Council Standards

  This Adjudication applies the following General Principle 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 print on 4 December 2024 in The Daily Telegraph headed “To keep peace at home, Labor backs Hamas”.   The article reported that Penny Wong, the Minister for Foreign Affairs “is set to strengthen Australia's support for a two-state-solution in the Middle East by backing a United Nations vote calling for an ‘irreversible pathway’ to the measure after abstaining in recent years, in a move the Coalition claims will further open a rift with Israel”.  The article attributed comments that the “Albanese government voting for the measure in the UN after abstaining previously was a play for domestic votes”, to the former ambassador to Israel Senator Dave Sharma.   The article went on to quote Senator Sharma as saying "These potential changes in Australia's UN voting pattern are against our national interests. They will do nothing to advance the cause of peace in the Middle East," and "All they do is reward Hamas for its terrorist acts. And they further damage Australia's relations with an important partner in the Middle East, Israel. Labor is seeking to placate domestic constituencies, rather than putting Australia's national interests first."   In response to a complaint received, 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 accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1); 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).   The Council noted that the complaint raised concerns that the headline does not support the tenor of the article and that it is editorial opinion to state that “Labor backs Hamas”.   In response, the publication said that in the article, Senator Sharma criticised the Albanese government for backing a UN resolution that he claims rewards the terrorist organisation Hamas for its acts of terrorism. The publication said that in this context, the headline reflects the opinion of Senator Sharma and readers would view the headline as accurately reflecting the senator's view. The publication also said that readers can discern the difference between an opposition senator's criticism of government decision-making, as opposed to the editorial direction of the publisher.   Conclusion   The Council recognises the limitations of headlines to reasonably reflect the tenor of an article. The Council also recognises that what constitutes reasonable steps to ensure factual material is accurate and not misleading may vary in the circumstances. In relation to this, the Council considers that publications need to take great care in order to satisfy the reasonable steps standard in the context of heightened community sensitivities around the Israel/Palestine conflict and on matters of significant public interest.   In the absence of inverted commas to signify a paraphrase or a quote, the Council considers the headline is presented as statement of fact with the clear implication being that the Labor government is ‘backing’ Hamas. The Council considers that the headline goes beyond what was said by Senator Sharma in his criticisms of the government support for a two-state-solution in the Middle East. Accordingly, the Council concludes the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is accurate and not misleading in breach of General Principle 1.   In noting the complaint is limited to the headline, the Council finds no breach of General Principle 3.  

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 whether its Standards of Practice were breached by a series of front-page articles published on 2 December 2024 headed “DARK AGES” in The Advertiser and The Daily Telegraph, and “STEP ON THE GAS” in The Courier Mail and the Herald Sun and an online article headed “Australia’s new Dark Ages: Gas offers energy crisis lifeline as summer blackout warnings are bought forward”.   The print articles’ sub headlines stated that “We must step on the gas to keep lights on”; “Australia told to step on the gas or lights will go out”; “Only way to avoid higher bills, blackouts” and “Homes face blackouts and soaring prices without action on Australia’s power shortage”.   The first paragraphs variously reported that governments, politicians and regulators must end lengthy gas project approval delays to avoid “summer blackouts” or households “being plunged into darkness”. The front-page articles referred to further coverage on pages 6-7. The online article reported that “Aussie households face being plunged into summer blackouts unless politicians and regulators take urgent action on gas supplies. See what the experts say needs to happen now.”   In response to complaints received, the Council asked the publications to comment on whether the articles breached the applicable Standards of Practice requiring publications to take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1), and to ensure that conflicts of interests are avoided or adequately disclosed, and that they do not influence published material (General Principle 8). The Council noted that the complaints raised concerns that the front-page articles did not disclose to readers that the reports pointed to on pages 6-7 concerned a series of sponsored content articles. It was also noted that apart from the heading “KEEP THE LIGHTS ON” located at the bottom of the online article, there is no indication to suggest that the article is sponsored content.   In response, the publications said the front-page articles are normal editorial content which is neither inaccurate nor misleading. The publications said the headlines, sub-headlines and first paragraphs were written independently of the sponsors of the series who are clearly disclosed to readers on pages 6 and 7. The publications said the sponsors had no involvement with the writing, publishing or selection of information that appeared on the front pages.   The publications said the front-page articles summarise the concerns of the gas industry and implications facing Australia and energy consumers that have been publicly canvassed by industry bodies such as the Australian Energy Market Operator and the Australian Energy Regulator as well as many media sources.   The publications said, however, in subsequent Editorials, that it was acknowledged they should have disclosed to readers on the same front-pages that they were publishing a week-long series of articles sponsored by gas companies. This disclosure would have also highlighted that the sponsors had no editorial veto over what was published or any views expressed. In relation to the online article the publications said the article’s text states the story is part of a ‘week-long in-depth series’ and the information box in the online article discloses to the readers the sponsors of the series and says that it is “a week-long series of reports on Australia's energy needs, sponsored by …”.  

Conclusion

  The Council accepts on the information before it, the publications' submissions that the front-page articles are editorial content and not undisclosed sponsored content. The Council also agrees with the publications that to avoid any confusion, it would have been preferable to disclose to readers on the front-page that the articles it pointed to on pages 6-7 are part of a series of sponsored articles. However, in noting that the articles on pages 6 and 7 are clearly and prominently identified as sponsored content, the Council does not consider the absence of a front-page disclosure alone is sufficient to render the articles misleading. Accordingly, the Council finds no breach of General Principle 1.   The Council considers that good journalist practice would have been to disclose to readers on the front-pages that they were publishing a series of sponsored articles. However, the Council accepts that the front-page articles are not undisclosed sponsored content, and that the disclosure on pages 6-7 were prominent enough to constitute reasonable steps by the publications to ensure that any conflicts of interest (or, indeed, the appearance thereof) are adequately disclosed.   In relation to the online article, the Council considers that it would be preferable to give more prominence to the disclosure that it is part of a series of sponsored articles, and that this be similar in nature and positioning to the disclosure on the same articles published in print. Nonetheless, the Council notes that the article does report that it is part of a ‘week-long in-depth series’ of articles and also discloses to readers the sponsors of the series. Accordingly, the Council finds no breach of General Principle 8.   The Council notes that while finding the publications took reasonable steps to comply with the Council’s Standards of Practice, this matter highlights the need for all publications to consider including in their printed editions and on their websites, information concerning their approach to sponsored content, including how they distinguish such content from editorial copy.   While noting the clear difference between advertorials and sponsored content, the Council does not consider there is a difference between sponsored content (content which a third party approaches a publication to publish in return for sponsorship), and content that is sponsored (content the publication independently decides to publish and then seeks sponsorship for).  

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. 8. Take reasonable steps to ensure that conflicts of interests are avoided or adequately disclosed, and that they do not influence published material.

The Press Council considered a complaint from Yoti Ltd concerning an article published by Crikey on 14 June 2024, headed “I tricked a selfie AI age-verification tool into letting a child ‘buy’ a knife" (Online).   The article’s subheading said that “Governments are looking at using AI to estimate people’s age using a selfie. I fooled it using a stock image and an old aging filter.” The article reported that “A tool used to estimate age using facial analysis that is being promoted as a way to stop underage children from accessing social media or online pornography can be fooled using an aging filter on a popular photo-editing app.”   The article went on to report that “One of Yoti’s methods for age estimation, which Opposition Leader Peter Dutton spruiked just yesterday — is ‘facial analysis’, which can calculate someone’s age using a selfie.” It reported that “Critics argue that age estimation through facial scans is flawed and vulnerable to being tricked. Yoti offers some measures to stop people from fooling its system, but it doesn’t change the underlying technology’s reliance on easily falsifiable information.” The article went on to say, “I know because I tricked Yoti’s age estimation into letting me ‘buy’ a fixed-blade knife using the photograph of a 10-year-old that I had put through an aging filter on a photo-editing application.”   The complainant said that the article is entirely misrepresentative noting in particular the headline and the accompanying social media posts. The complainant said it had conversed with the publication and explained in detail how the “demo” the publication had used for the basis of the article, was a limited demo version of the age assurance technology and how it did not include Yoti's liveness technology which would detect a manipulated image. The complainant said it explained how actual customers would always use liveness detection in a working model to ensure that manipulated images could not fool the system.   The complainant said that the demo was designed to allow people to explore the technology in full to see what you could and could not do with this version. The complainant said that despite its explanation, the publication proceeded to report that it had “tricked the technology” when it had not and used an inflammatory and misleading headline. The complainant said the article damages Yoti's reputation which is highly regarded in the age assurance sector and endorsed by numerous government and industry bodies.   In response, the publication said the article made clear from the beginning that the article was about the underlying technology utilised in Yoti’s demo. It said that it updated the article and included the word “demo” in the headline and the article and added a clarification out of an abundance of caution after it was contacted by Yoti.   The publication said that while Yoti disputes that the underlying technology used in the demonstration was “tricked” or “fooled”, it is obvious that this article demonstrates a fundamental flaw in the age verification technology that allows it to be tricked or fooled. Its system relies on visual cues that are able to be manipulated irrespective of someone’s age. That is why Yoti has separate liveliness detection technologies that it sells. The technology has a vulnerability which the publication demonstrated, even if it’s one that can be mitigated.  

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 the publication has accurately reported how it used a used an image of a child to buy a knife when it used an online demo tool provided by Yoti on its website. The Council also accepts that age verification technology may be manipulated. However, on the information before it, the Council notes that the online demo used by the publication for the premise of the article, was limited in its purpose and designed only to demonstrate to potential purchasers, how age verification technology works in an online environment. The Council accepts that the demo was not designed to detect, as in this instance, the manipulation of an image.   The Council also notes that it was clearly stated on Yoti’s website, that its ‘Anti spoofing software’ which is designed to detect the manipulation of an image, was not enabled on the demo. In this context, the Council considers it is misleading to state that technology used by Yoti to estimate age using facial analysis was “tricked” or “fooled”. The Council also considers that in context of an article that questions the fallibility of facial analysis technology, the article unfairly suggests that the technology used by Yoti is flawed.   Accordingly, the Council concludes General Principles 1 and 3 were breached in these respects.   As to corrective or remedial action, the Council considers the article is significantly misleading. While the Council recognises the remedial steps taken by the publication, the Council does not consider that this constituted adequate remedial action for the implication that the complainant’s technology can be “tricked” or “fooled”. The Council notes that even with the inclusion of the word “demo” in the headline and article and the additional clarification in the article, the article’s premise that the technology used by Yoti can be fooled remains misleading and unfair.   The Council again notes that the demo used in support of the article’s premise that age estimation software is flawed, was designed for a different purpose. 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 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.