Latest Adjudications

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by two articles in The Australian, the first on 20 October 2015 headed “Rape refugee seeks new abortion location”,  in print and online, and the second the following day headed “Refugee declines to report rape to police” in print with similar heading online. The articles concerned a Somalian refugee known by the pseudonym ‘Abyan’, detained by the Australian Government on Nauru, who claimed she had been raped and unsuccessfully sought to procure an abortion when taken to Australia.

The Council considered the matter was of significant public interest and that Abyan’s fraught situation was already on the public record. Although determining consent in the context of a person held in offshore detention is difficult, the material put to the Council suggested Abyan’s interview with the reporter was agreed to, as was the photo session. The report was also consistent in its use of the pseudonym applied throughout previous weeks’ coverage and the publication took steps not to include other identifying features. Accordingly, the Council found no breach of General Principles 5 or 7.

The Council also noted that publications ought take care to express crimes of sexual violence with a great degree of sensitivity for the victims and agreed with the publication that the headline was ‘inelegant’ and ‘blunt’. However, on balance, the Council considered the single use of the phrase “rape refugee”, not repeated in the following day’s headlines, did not amount to causing substantial offence, distress or prejudice. Accordingly, the articles were not in breach of General Principle 6.

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of an online article in The Age on 6 January 2016, headed “Man drowns himself using murdered wife’s head: police", which reported an account by authorities of an apparent murder-suicide in Austria.

The Council noted that while publications must comply with its Standards – including the General Principles and Specific Standards on the Coverage of Suicide – the nature and circumstances of the material and the relevance to local audiences are matters to be taken into account in the application of these Standards.

In the Council’s view, the unusual nature of the crime gave weight to the public interest in the article’s contents. A warning to readers might have warranted consideration, though this was recognised as not always necessary. In these circumstances, the Council concluded that the article was not so substantially offensive as to breach General Principle 6.

The Council also considered there was no breach of Suicide Standards 3 or 5 – which concern whether to report individual instances, methods and locations of suicides – having regard to the article’s focus on the unusual nature of this particular apparent murder-suicide; that the information had been provided by authorities; and that the events described and location were outside Australia.

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published on news.com.au on 1 November 2015. The article was headed “Brutal torture of four women captured on camera" and the homepage item which linked to the article was headed “Sickening torture caught on camera”. An embedded video in the article was positioned near a map of Papua New Guinea, captioned “WARNING: The following video contains extremely disturbing images”. The article stated: “The footage shows at least four naked women tied up, burned and beaten while being prodded with hot wire and interrogated by a group of machete-wielding men".

The Council accepted the article was of significant public interest in raising awareness among readers of sorcery-related violence in a neighbouring country. It noted the article was prompted by the YouTube post which was reportedly “uploaded to YouTube by the Commission for Social Concerns, Catholic Bishops' Conference of Papua New Guinea”, and its attempts to highlight this serious matter.

The Council considered that some readers may have found the contents of the video distressing, however it acknowledged the publication’s steps to alert readers to the nature of the content in providing sufficient warnings on both the homepage item and the linked article. The Council considered the steps taken to avoid causing distress were reasonable and that any distress caused was sufficiently outweighed by the public interest. Accordingly, the Council concluded that the article did not breach its Standards of Practice.

The Press Council considered a complaint by Michael Sutherland MLA about an article on 14 June 2014 in Perth Now (online), “WA Parliament Speaker Michael Sutherland racks up $26,000 entertainment bill” and on the following day in The Sunday Times (print), “HEY BIG SPENDER: Speaker happy to charge taxpayers $500 a week for his dining bill – on top of his base salary of $246,000”.

In the Council’s view, the publication’s scrutiny of the Speaker’s personal expenses, salary and entitlements was a legitimate pursuit for the media and the contents of the article were reasonably fair and balanced.

However, the Council considered that the headline in the print article did not fairly reflect the content of the article’s examination of the spending within the office of the Speaker during Mr Sutherland’s tenure. In particular, the use of the terms “Hey Big Spender” and “his” when juxtaposed to the references to “dining bill” and “salary” implied the spending was of a personal nature and that the complainant’s office expenses and parliamentary allowances are of personal benefit in the same way as his salary when they are not. Accordingly, this aspect of the complaint was upheld.

The Council considered reporting that the complainant entertained “former colleagues from the City of Perth” was not unreasonable given the complainant’s history with that organisation. The Council also accepted that the publication’s offer to publish a 200 word letter from the complainant provided an adequate opportunity for him to respond to the matters raised in the article. Accordingly, these aspects of the complaint were not upheld.

The Press Council considered a complaint, about an article in The Queensland Times on 1 July 2015 (in print and online) containing an image of an accused person. While the image in print was only of the accused person, the image on the mobile platform and the Facebook version, headed “Goodna dad accused of drug, weapons and robbery offences”, included an image of two children. The children were not the subject of the article and consent had not been obtained to publish their image.

The Council accepted the publication’s claim that a technical error in the digital publishing process had resulted in the article appearing on a mobile platform without the cropping seen in the online digital version. It acknowledged the publication’s admission of error, its apology and offer to the complaint to assist with having Facebook references removed. However, the Council noted the understandably significant impact on the family and the children, and the serious breach of their privacy. Accordingly, it upheld the complaint. The Council also acknowledged the publication’s mention of a newly implemented policy of blurring or cropping images of children in its court-related image library.

However, the Council noted the publication still cannot preview what it publishes to mobile. The Council emphasised the importance of appropriate checks and balances when using new technologies particularly when publishing images of children.

The Press Council has considered a complaint by Jennifer Rankine MP about nine articles in The Australian between 3 February and 5 May 2015, prompted by her resignation as the South Australian Minister for Education on 2 February, and repeating allegations concerning herself and the appointment of a public servant.

The Council has concluded that reporting that she had resigned “amid an investigation by authorities into an appointment of a public servant” was not technically incorrect and was not implying a causal link. However, the Council concluded there was no basis for reporting there were multiple investigations and that the Office of Public Integrity’s referral of the matter to ICAC was not a sufficient basis for reporting there were investigations by two bodies.

The Council also concluded that paraphrasing of the complainant’s remarks in the article on 4 February as “Ms Rankine has said ongoing investigations that first began in 2013…” was not an accurate paraphrase and inaccurately suggested she had resigned due to such investigations. Accordingly, this aspect of the complaint was upheld.

The Council noted the final article on 5 May is headed, “Ex-minister cleared by ICAC”, but the main section of article unfairly reprises allegations that had been found to be unsubstantiated and did not refer to the clearance by the ICAC Commissioner until late in the article. Accordingly, this aspect of the complaint was upheld.

In considering whether the complainant was provided a fair opportunity to respond to what was reported, the Council took account of the publication’s attempts to solicit comments, the substance of the article on 5 May, and that the complainant’s letter to the editor focuses on the principal issues in that article. Accordingly, this aspect of the complaint was not upheld.

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached in an article in the Herald Sun on 6 July 2015, headed “Welfare reforms ‘needed’”.

The article reported on the Commonwealth Government’s proposed welfare reforms, particularly for the long term unemployed. The first sentence read: “MORE than 70 percent of people on the dole have been milking the tax payer for more than a year.” The following sentence reported that “more than 500,000 people, or 70 percent, on the Newstart Allowance had received it for more than a year”.

The Press Council considered that the first sentence in the article clearly referred to all of the 70 percent of long term unemployed in suggesting recipients are “milking the taxpayer”, and the term “milking” clearly had a pejorative sense. No basis for that factual statement was identified elsewhere in the article. Accordingly, the Council concluded that the article breached General Principle 1.

The Council further noted a claim that all 70 percent of such recipients were “milking the taxpayer” was not attributed to any government minister. To the extent the reference may have been an opinion of the journalist, the Council noted no facts were presented to support that opinion, nor did the article include any balancing explanatory comment. Moreover, the article did not purport to be an opinion piece but was presented as news. Accordingly, the article was also a breach of General Principle 3.

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached in an article in The Australian on 3 June 2015, headed “Green protest fines ‘paid by public’” in print and online.

The report concerned a submission by Senator Canavan to a House of Representatives inquiry into the use of the Register of Environmental Organisations, which confers tax-deductible status on donations to registered groups. The article reported that the Senator provided evidence “of environmental organisations soliciting for tax-deductible donations to pay court fines” and also that “following substantial fines to anti-coal protesters who disrupted mining activities at Maules Creek, the Forest Alliance solicited for donations to cover the costs of fines”.

The Council considered that the article amounts to an accurate summary of a submission by Senator Canavan to a parliamentary inquiry and noted that the reporter made an effort to contact some of the organisations named in the submission for comment. The Council also considered that the article summarised the submission with fairness and balance.

Further, the Council found no remedial action was required but noted in any case that the publication provided an opportunity for the Forest Alliance to state their position in a subsequent article.  Accordingly, the Council found no breach of its Standards in these respects.

The Press Council considered a complaint by Rhonda Hall about an article in the Pakenham Gazette, headed “Devastated Drydens working to prevent suicide” on 17 August (online) and “Walk to keep going” on 19 August 2015 (in print). The article promoted a Lifeline community event and referred to the suicide of the complainant’s grandson the year before, including detail of the some of the problems he had faced.

The Council considered that the reporting of the circumstances of the suicide in the degree of detail given amounted to an unreasonable intrusion on his mother’s reasonable expectation of privacy and would have caused substantial distress. Neither the intrusion on privacy nor the distress was sufficiently justified in the public interest. Accordingly, the Council considered there was a breach of its General Principles 5 and 6 in these respects.

The Council’s Specific Standards on Coverage of Suicide 3 and 4 require that each report of suicide must be clearly in the public interest, and that informed consent is obtained prior to publication. In such sensitive circumstances, the publication should have sought confirmation from both parents that the story was accurate and agreed to its publication with the degree of detail given. Accordingly, these aspects of the complaint were also upheld.

The Council also noted that the nature of the report warranted the addition of an appropriate contact for crisis support or a source of assistance in accordance with Specific Standard 8, and this aspect the complaint was also upheld.

The Press Council has considered a complaint about an article in WA Today on 9 May 2015 headlined “Bong claims Santa Maria teacher’s job: You’ve got to be toking?”, which was also posted by the publication on Twitter and Facebook.

The article referred to a teacher losing her position at a named Catholic girls’ school as a result of a “social media incident”, said to involve a photograph of her holding a bong . The incident had been referred to in a local radio station’s “Rumour File” segment. The WA Today article was accompanied by a stock image of a person apparently smoking a bong. That article suggested a topless photograph of the teacher may also have been behind the loss of her position.

The Council concluded that drugs played no part in the teacher’s resignation and accepted that no photograph of the teacher with a bong or topless existed. As the article had originated from the radio station’s “Rumour File” segment and the allegations were serious, the publication was required to take greater care to establish the facts. In addition, even after the school Principal's denials, the publication repeated the allegations and the article remained online without sufficient remedial action, despite concerns raised by the teacher.

The Council concluded that the publication failed to ensure accuracy and fairness in the initial article and subsequent revisions or to provide adequate remedial action and therefore found a breach of its Standards of Practice.

The Council accepted there is public interest in highlighting the impact of social media on individuals’ professional lives. However, the inaccuracy in the headline and the reporting of unsubstantiated serious allegations that intruded upon the teacher’s privacy and caused her significant distress were not justified in this public interest. Accordingly, the Council also found a breach of its Standards of Practice in this respect.

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of two articles published in the The Daily Advertiser – the first a letter to the editor published on 16 June headed “Maccas’ ads in bad taste, just like gay marriage”, and the second a “Wheeler’s Wisdom” column published on 14 July 2015 headed “Gay marriage is not all it seems”.

The letter suggested suggested homosexuality was analogous to “a little-discussed disorder of coprophagia” and was “unhealthy and abnormal”. The column opined that “homosexual campaigners do not want you to know the facts” about marriage equality, referring to an increased rate of HIV and AIDS, the “plight of adopted children” and suggesting changes to marriage laws could result in recognition of polyamorous marriage as reasons to support “opposition to homosexual marriage”.

The Council accepted some of the views expressed in the letter and column may have caused significant offence to a number of people, however it found the publication clearly treated the overall material as part of a long-running series of articles including a broad range of views (some strongly expressed and controversial) within a responsible and balanced debate. The publication also published a number of subsequent, critical responses.

The Council concluded that the articles were not so offensive as to outweigh the public interest in allowing robust expressions of opinion on issues of national debate. Accordingly, the Council found no breach of General Principle 6.

The Press Council considered a complaint by Peter Burke of Handle Property Group about an article in WA Today on 4 September 2014 headed “High-rise process ignores rights of Perth residents”. It referred to planning approvals through the WA Planning Commission's Development Assessment Panel and proposed developments in the City of St Vincent, and focused on the complainant’s development.

The Council considered the article misleading in stating the approval procedures gave developers the “right” to bypass councils when they had no choice. The images published were not the design for which relevant approval was sought. Further, the statement that 60 units were “already pre-sold” did not accurately reflect the sales. Accordingly, General Principle 1 was breached in these respects.

The Council also considered the publication ought to have taken remedial action when contacted by the complainant. The publication’s offer to include the complainant’s views in future stories was inadequate. Accordingly, the Council found a breach of General Principle 2.

While an article may often be instigated by a reporter’s personal experience or those of relatives, the article was heavily focused on the particular development which related to the reporter’s interest in the development and was published without seeking a response from the developer. No follow-up stories were published to provide further balance beyond the issue that arose from the reporter’s interest. Accordingly, a disclaimer was required to clarify the reporter’s interest in the development, and General Principle 8 was breached in this respect.

The Press Council has considered a complaint about two articles in The Age concerning Austin Hospital’s waiting times and booking system.

The Council concluded that the first article implied a particular knee replacement did not occur until more than three years after it was needed. In fact, it occurred only about eight months after the specialist recommended it. The operation could have been earlier if the patient had not wanted to wait for a particular surgeon.

Accordingly, the complaint about this article was upheld on the ground of failure to take reasonable steps to ensure accuracy and fairness. The related complaint that the error should have been promptly corrected was not upheld because the hospital had not promptly provided adequate evidence of the error and had refused an offer of a follow-up article.

The Council concluded that the headline of the second article stated as a fact that a miscommunication between the hospital and a patient had been due to a new booking system. But the publication had not taken reasonable steps to ensure that statement was accurate and fair, and the headline did not fairly reflect the text of the article in which the hospital’s differing version was mentioned at some length. Accordingly, the complaint about the headline was upheld on those grounds.

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article in The Courier-Mail on 9 April 2015 relating to a NSW woman’s disappearance six days before her wedding. It consisted of a large front page photograph of the woman wearing a dress and pink sash bearing the words “Bride to Be”, a very prominent headline “BRIDE AND SEEK” and two smaller headings, “FAIRYTALE TURNS NIGHTMARE” and “Six days to wedding and she just vanished”.

The article said police could not say whether the disappearance was a result of “cold feet” or “something more sinister”. However, a public statement by police early on the morning of publication said murder charges were expected following the arrest of a suspect.

The Council accepted that on the information available at the time of printing and distribution, it was possible the woman was a missing person. The publication did not know of the arrest. It repeated statements by friends and family and concerns expressed by police suggesting flight was a remote and slender possibility.

However, the Council concluded that the publication’s elevation of this possibility to the very prominent headline “BRIDE AND SEEK”, with its light-hearted tenor and front page treatment, was substantially offensive to many people, and could be expected to have caused distress in particular to those who knew the woman. Accordingly, the Council found a breach of its Standards of Practice in relation to General Principle 6.