Latest Adjudications

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of an article by Daily Mail Australia on 10 January 2017, headed “Transgender woman, 24, accused of bludgeoning two innocent people with an axe at 7-Eleven was born as a boy named Karl – but had a sex change two years ago in Thailand to become Evie”.

The Press Council has considered a complaint from Cr Greg Bennett about a letter to the editor published under the heading “Choose Wisely” in The Northern star in print on 10 September 2016. The letter, submitted by Cr Simon Clough, Deputy Mayor of Lismore City Council, expressed the writer’s views of what “Cr Greg Bennett, of the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party … and his conservative colleagues … will seek to do” if they “get the majority of seats on Lismore City Council” and the possible implications and risks of such actions, and urged voters to “carefully consider” what they wanted.

The letter was published on the day of the local government election and the publication had not contacted the complainant to inform him or allow him the opportunity to reply in that edition.

The Council considered that the letter set out Cr Clough’s arguments to the electorate against the complainant’s candidacy and the factual material in support of them. As the letter was published on election day, the only fair time for the publication to afford the complainant an opportunity to respond was in the same edition, which did not occur. The Council concluded that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to present factual material with reasonable fairness and balance and afford the complainant a fair opportunity for reply. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principles 3 and 4 in this respect. The Council considered it not necessary for this conclusion to determine the effect, if any, of the publication of the letter on the election result.

The Press Council has considered a complaint by Scott Broadhead about the publication of a letter to the editor on 25 October 2016 headed “Bike path an asset”.

The letter was dated “07.05.09” and was written by the complainant’s father, Mr Bill Broadhead, who died in 2014. It congratulated Port Stephens Council for building and maintaining a local cycling and walking track and was accompanied by a photograph captioned “JOB WELL DONE: Bill Broadhead from Bermagui was impressed by the cycle paths around Grahamstown Dam”.

The Council accepted the editor made a mistake in missing the actual date on the letter and, on the information available, the Council was unable to determine how the email incorporating the letter appeared in the publication’s letters inbox in 2016. Nonetheless, it considered that the publication of the letter suggested the author of the letter was alive, had recently offered his congratulations on the pathways to Port Stephens Council rather than just the Mayor, was recently impressed by the maintenance of the paths, and that this was the first time this letter had been published. The publication could have avoided these misleading impressions by observing the date on the email or contacting the author. As such, the Council considered the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the letter as published was accurate and not misleading, in breach of General Principle 1.

The Council acknowledged that the publication removed the online version of the letter during the course of the Council’s complaints process and since offered to publish an apology. However, the apparent significant delay in responding to the complainant’s concerns amounted to a failure to take reasonable steps to provide a correction or other adequate remedial action, in breach of General Principle 2.

On the material available, the Council did not consider that the level of offence or distress caused by publication of the letter so substantial as to lead to a breach of General Principle 6.

The Press Council has considered a complaint about an article headed “The mysterious and 'horrible' death of Sabrina Bremer” in The Northern Star online on 18 August 2016.

The article concerned a murder victim who had been reported missing, and whose burned body was found at the side of a road in a remote area of northern NSW. The article was updated several times after initial publication. An update at 8.30am the next day, since deleted, reported that: “IT’s understood the woman was tied up to the tree when set alight and, as she decomposed and the rope broke, her body rolled down the roadside embankment”. At 1.45pm, the article was again updated to identify the woman by name, age and residential area.

The Council concluded that in reporting as fact the unverified residents’ claims, later proved false, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the article was accurate and not misleading. The Council also considered that in reporting the death in significant detail, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing substantial distress, particularly to the family, and that the public interest did not justify such detail. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principles 1 and 6.

As the inaccuracy was significant, due to the technical error in updating the website the publication failed to take reasonable steps to correct the accuracy with appropriate promptness, even though the material was ultimately deleted. Accordingly, the publication also breached General Principle 2.

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published by news.com.au on 9 March 2017, headed “Smartphone footage captures Brazilian transgender woman pleading for help prior to being beaten to death”.

An embedded video appeared below the headline with the caption “Transgender woman beaten on the streets of Brazil”. A 32-second video began automatically, and with a four-second warning which read: “WARNING:  The following images and/or content may be disturbing/offensive to some viewers. Viewer discretion is strongly advised.”

The Council considered the warnings provided, at the start of the video and in the opening text, amounted to an adequate warning of the graphic nature of the video. It also considered the public interest in reporting on the serious issue of violence towards transgender people worldwide and in providing access to reliable information demonstrating the due administration of justice. The material shown is substantially distressing, but the most violent footage was not included. On balance, the Council concluded that the publication took reasonable steps to avoid causing substantial offence, distress and prejudice, given the public interest involved.

However, the Council noted that the video played automatically. It also noted that the wording of the warning in the video used only generic language, which would not have been sufficient in itself in the absence of the further warnings contained in the text. Great care needs to be exercised by publications to ensure the true nature of the material is described in the warning, and that the audience is provided with a properly informed and practically exercisable choice.

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published by the Geelong Advertiser in print and online on 16 February 2017, headed “SKULL CLUE TWIST”.

The article included a large image on the front page. The left side of the image showed half of a missing man’s face, while the right side was half of a generic human skull, with the two parts digitally altered to form a face. A sub-headline at the top of the front page read: “REVEALED: Police suspect grim beach find could be missing man believed murdered”, and the words “IS IT PAUL KINGSBURY?” appeared over the bottom of the image. There was a smaller image of what appeared to be officials searching a beach in the bottom right corner of the front page. The article continued on page five with the headline “SKULL TWIST”, including an image of the missing man’s face without digital alteration.

The Council considered that it is unlikely an image of the missing man or an image of a skull alone would have breached the Press Council’s Standards. However, as the image of a skull is an image of human remains, the graphic blending of the two on the front page of the publication was likely to cause substantial offence and distress to the family of the missing man and to the community.
The Council considered further that the publication of the image was unlikely to assist in the investigation into the circumstances in which the man went missing, nor did his criminal record justify publication of the image. There was no sufficient public interest justifying the offence and distress caused by the image. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 6.

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article in The Advertiser on 17 March 2017, headed “BLOWING HIS FUSE: Sparks fly as Premier ambushes minister but exclusive polls reveal SA blames Jay for power crisis” on page one in print, and “As Jay Weatherill confronts Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg, poll shows he’s to blame for SA’s power crisis” online.

The article contained a table setting out details and results of a poll, including the question asked of respondents (“In your opinion, who is mostly to blame for South Australia’s high power prices and blackouts?”) and the responses (“The Weatherill Government”, 39 percent; “The National Energy Market Operator/AEMO”, 35; “Uncommitted”, 16; and “The Turnbull Government”, 10).

The Council considered the statement “polls reveal SA blames Jay for power crisis” implied as a fact that the poll established that South Australians in general blamed the Premier for the crisis. However, the polling was a sample of only three electorates, and that this polling size and distribution—even involving key marginal seats—cannot be said to reflect the opinion of the entire state.

The Council also noted that the first paragraph of the article reported that the poll “show[s] voters in key marginal seats believe he [Mr Weatherill] is most likely to blame”, despite only 39 percent of those sample considering the Weatherill Government responsible.
While the article subsequently made clear the true position, this was not done in a manner sufficient to redress the inaccuracy and misleading nature of the headline and first paragraph. Accordingly, the Council considered that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the headline and first paragraph were accurate and not misleading, which breached General Principle 1. Further, the Council did not consider the offer to publish a letter sufficient to remedy the inaccuracy, which warranted a correction. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 2.

Given the inclusion of other material in the article such as the poll question, results, and methodology, and the publication’s subsequent offer to publish a letter to the editor, the Council does not consider the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure fairness and balance. Accordingly, it did not breach General Principles 3 or 4.

The Press Council has considered a complaint about an article in the real estate magazine of the Northern District Times on 23 November 2016, headed “Building’s high energy surrounds are too good to ignore” in print with a similar headline online. It gave the names and ages of the complainant and her partner, stating that they “bought a north facing studio apartment” in a property development, and provided details of it.

On the information available, the Council accepted the complainant’s statement that she is the sole owner of the apartment, and the suggestion that she and her partner were joint purchasers was not correct. However, as the publication relied on information provided by the developer’s public relations company, the Council considered it reasonable for the publication to expect it to know who the purchaser was. The Council also considered it reasonable for the publication to rely on the manner in which the complainant’s partner discussed the purchase (using the pronoun “we”) and that he never stated he was not a purchaser. Accordingly, the Council considered the publication took reasonable steps to ensure accuracy and General Principle 1 was not breached.

In relation to remedial action, as the complainant’s partner had some practical involvement in the purchase and acted as if he was a purchaser, the Council was not satisfied the inaccuracy was significant. In any event, the publication took steps to remove the article and its traces from its associated channels. Accordingly, General Principle 2 was not breached.

The Council noted that neither the publication nor the complainant provided direct information as to whether consent to publish the information about the complainant and the purchase was requested. The Council was not able to reject the publication’s claim that it reasonably believed the complainant was content for the material to be published. The Council noted the information published about the complainant as purchaser of the apartment is publicly available. Accordingly, the Council concluded that the publication took reasonable steps to avoid intruding on the complainant’s reasonable expectations of privacy, and General Principle 5 was not breached.

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of an article by Daily Mail Australia on 10 January 2017, headed “Transgender woman, 24, accused of bludgeoning two innocent people with an axe at 7-Eleven was born as a boy named Karl - but had a sex change two years ago in Thailand to become Evie”.

The Council was satisfied the woman’s transgender status was suggested by her request in court to be supplied with certain drugs. Also, the factual material published about the woman’s background appeared to have been obtained from her public Facebook page, and there was no suggestion it was presented inaccurately. While the Council was concerned about the many prominent references to the woman’s transgender status, it was satisfied on the material available to it that the publication took reasonable steps to report the factual material with fairness and balance. Accordingly, it did not breach General Principle 3.

In considering whether the publication took reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress, prejudice or a risk to health or safety, the Council considered it appropriate to take into account the nature of the alleged crime as reported, that the woman had requested transgender-related and anti-depressant drugs, and that the personal background material was made publicly available by the woman on Facebook. While the Council was concerned about the extensive material in the article about her transgender status, given the nature of the alleged crime and information about the drugs being taken by the woman, the publication did not breach General Principle 6 in this respect. Notwithstanding this, the Council noted that the Australian community may be at an early stage of understanding the appropriate approach to reporting transgender issues, and there is a need for caution and sensitivity in reporting on such matters.

The publication also included photographs of and the full name of the woman’s partner, as well as some of her personal Facebook comments. It named the woman’s sister and included photographs of her as well as their mother and an unidentified man with them. It was not necessary to include this level of detail and in any case, the faces of the woman’s friends and family could have been pixilated in the photographs. The Council concluded that there was no sufficient public interest justifying this level of detail. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 6 in this respect, having failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or risk to health or safety. For the same reasons, the publication also breached Privacy Principle 7.

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published by Daily Mail Australia on 3 January 2017, headed “Horrific moment a dog is BOILED ALIVE and Chinese villagers rip out its fur in clumps before incredibly it gets up and runs away”
The article began: “This is the disturbing moment villagers in China filmed themselves boiling a tied-up dog in a huge pot of water.” It included a video sourced from another website in which a small dog is depicted in a large steaming wok. In the video. the dog kicked off the lid and barked in apparent agony. The lid was again placed over the dog, before it fell out into another large pan where it laid as villagers removed fur from its body. The dog regained consciousness and attempted to flee the scene as the villagers laughed. The article also included four stills from the video and described the footage in detail.

The Council recognised that the level of offence and distress caused by published material can be reduced by the extent to which the reader has a real choice about whether to view it, and the nature of the warnings given prior to any decision to view the material. In this case, warnings were provided and the article itself alerted readers to the contents of the video, the full version of which only ran when clicked on.

However, the Council considered that even with the warnings and text, the video depicting the cooking of a dog while alive was substantially offensive and distressing. The warnings and text did not adequately prepare readers for this. To reduce the level of offence and distress, the publication could have for instance presented selected extracts of the video.

While the Council considered there may be a public interest in promoting awareness of China’s dog meat trade and the inhumane means used to slaughter animals, such a public interest did not justify the level of offence and distress caused by this video.

As such, the Council concluded that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing substantial offence and distress, and without sufficient justification in the public interest. Accordingly, it breached General Principle 6.

The Press Council has considered a complaint about material published as a letter to the editor, headed “Apartment problems”, in the Inner West Courier on 29 November 2016.

An earlier article concerning local development concluded: “Have you been affected by development in your area?” followed by the journalist’s email address. The complainant’s mother emailed the journalist, who responded asking for opinion on a particular issue, and the complainant’s mother replied, referring to a local developer’s final plan, noting possible effects on the complainant’s home and expressing concerns about her grandchildren’s access to a high school, including identifying the primary school they currently attended. The email content was then published as a letter to the editor.

The Council considered that there was a reasonable expectation that personal, identifying information in the email relating to the complainant, her mother, and her children, would not be published without the complainant’s mother’s prior approval. The publication could have checked that the email was submitted as a letter to the editor for publication but did not do so. The Council concluded that the publication did not take reasonable steps to avoid intruding on the complainant’s reasonable expectations of privacy, and there was no public interest in publishing the personal and identifying information. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 5.

While the Council accepted the complainant’s undoubted distress arising from the publication, it noted that she along with other residents was already the subject of unwanted attention from developers and real estate agents, and the publication acted to eventually remove the letter from the digital print version of the publication. The Council was satisfied the publication took reasonable steps to avoid substantial distress and accordingly, the publication did not breach General Principle 6.

Although the publication could have contacted the complainant’s mother before publication, the Council accepted the email was published under a genuine belief that it was submitted for publication in response to an invitation for comment. Accordingly, the Council concluded that the publication took reasonable steps to avoid publishing material gathered by deceptive or unfair means and as such, General Principle 7 was not breached.

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of an article on news.com.au on 10 January 2017, headed “Woman accused of terrifying 7-Eleven axe attack is transgender unionist once known as Karl”.

In considering the matter, the Council had no material suggesting the information published about the woman’s background was not obtained from her public Facebook page or was not substantially accurate. It acknowledged that in preparing such an article, the publication may have more material relating to one part of a person’s life and it may be reasonable for an article to reflect this. Based on the material available, the Council considered that the publication took reasonable steps to ensure the article presented factual material with reasonable fairness and balance in accordance with General Principle 3.

The Council considered that the article did not suggest the woman’s transgender status caused the alleged attack, nor did it make any derogatory comments or generalisations about transgender people. It did include some repeated references to the woman’s former name and her transition, however the Council accepted these had been publicly and extensively revealed on the woman’s own Facebook page. It also included some repeated references to the accused woman’s request for hormone therapy drugs, though this request was made in open court at her bail hearing, and there is a public interest in reporting about the provision of appropriate health care to accused persons. The Council considered that the publication took reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or risk to health or safety, and the public interest also justified reporting on her request for hormone therapy drugs. Accordingly, General Principle 6 was not breached in this respect.

While the General Principles were not breached in this instance, the Council noted that the Australian community is in the early stages of understanding the appropriate approach to respectfully and intelligently reporting on transgender issues, and accordingly, it acknowledged the need for caution and sensitivity in reporting on such issues.

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by a print article in The Sunday Mail on 16 October 2016, headed “KNOCKERS COME OUT”.

The article appeared during the 2016 United States presidential campaign and reported that in addition to six women who had already made complaints about sexual misconduct by then candidate Donald Trump, two further women had come forward to make complaints.

The Press Council considered that the headline “KNOCKERS COME OUT” had two meanings and could refer to women’s breasts being revealed, particularly given the article made clear all of the complainants were women, its content concerned sexual harassment and the headline was accompanied by the suggestive wording of the sub-headline, “NUMBER OF TRUMP ACCUSERS SWELLS”. The vulgar use of the word “knockers” in such a context could be read as mocking women who raise allegations of being sexually harassed, in focusing on a physical characteristic of women, and trivialising their complaints.

The alternative meaning of the word “knockers” as in ‘critics’, in the context of an article on multiple sexual harassment complaints, also had the effect of trivialising the seriousness of the complaints as mere criticisms. This meaning could also cause or contribute materially to substantial offence, distress and prejudice to people who have experienced sexual harassment or made sexual harassment complaints, or to women generally.

The Council concluded that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, and there was no sufficient public interest in doing so. Accordingly, General Principle 6 was breached in this respect.

The Press Council has considered a complaint about an online article published in the Herald Sun on 13 January 2017, headed “Thousands of public servants got a free week off at Christmas, and critics want to know why”. The article began: “EXCLUSIVE: TENS of thousands of public servants were gifted a bonus week’s paid holiday between Christmas and New Year’s Day”.

The Council considered that in the overall context of the article, a statement that “News Corp Australia can reveal workers at the Australian Taxation Office, Department of Social Services, Safe Work Australia and Treasury were among the governments divisions simply given three days’ leave” was presented as a verified fact, and the article did not include evidence supporting this. The Council accepted that: first, the publication obtained its information from government sources, including the Department of Employment; second, the publication asked the ATO and Treasury whether they were in effect giving “free” days off and that in their response they made no explicit mention of trade-offs for the leave; and third, the publication asked the Department of Social Services and Safe Work Australia whether they were in effect given “free” days off. On the information available, the Council was unable to conclude whether the publication received any response from these divisions or if any such response confirmed there were no trade-offs for the leave, however the Council considered that in the circumstances, the publication needed to make further enquiries to verify this.

The Council did not consider that the absence of either an express denial or any response amounted to sufficient verification to present the statement as a verified fact. Given the unqualified nature of the statement, the Council considered that the publication did not take reasonable steps to ensure accuracy, fairness and balance. In any event, the statements that the three days’ leave constituted a full “free week”, a “free paid-up week” or a “bonus week” were inaccurate and unfair. Accordingly, the Council considered that publication breached General Principles 1 and 3. In the circumstances, and in the absence of any complaint from the identified divisions, the Council did not consider General Principle 2 or 4 breached.

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article headed “Never let despair win” in the Parramatta Advertiser on 14 September 2016.

The article concerned the suicide of a 62-year-old man and was mainly based on the man’s sister’s perceptions of his response to a marriage breakdown and her support for him. It referred to her desire to raise awareness of depression and associated social stigma, that “[p]eople with depression need to keep trying to find someone who can understand them”, and that people ought realise that “[t]he carnage suicide leaves behind is wrenching...”.

The Council acknowledged the article was well-intentioned and initiated by the man’s sister, who provided informed consent. However, the publication was aware the man had two children, one an adult living with him for a period and one under 18 living with the complainant. Given the article used the man’s name and photograph, reported the regions where he lived and was found, and dealt with his possible reasons for suiciding, the effects on his family and what the sister claims might have happened had she not assisted him, the Council considered it was not sufficient to have consent only from the man’s sister. The publication should have sought consent, and invited comment from, his adult son and from the complainant as his wife (albeit estranged) and guardian of his younger son.

The Council recognised there can be substantial public benefit in suicide-related coverage, and the article highlighted some important issues. However, in the absence of such consent and invitation, the public interest did not justify using such detail. Accordingly, the Council upheld the complaint in relation to General Principles 5 and 6 in relation to privacy and avoidance of harm, and Suicide Standards 3 and 4 in relation to the reporting of individual instances of suicide.

As to Suicide Standard 7 in relation to sensitivity and moderation, the Council considered that the article was not unduly prominent or unnecessarily explicit. However, the publication should have sought to avoid hurt to the man’s sons by seeking consent and inviting comment. Accordingly, the complaint was also upheld in this respect.

Note: If you or someone close to you requires personal assistance, please contact Lifeline Australia on 13 11 14.