Latest Adjudications

The Press Council considered a complaint by Brisbane City councillor Nicole Johnston, about a Brisbane Times article on Monday 13 April 2015 headed “Councillor Nicole Johnston charged with being drunk in a public place”.

The article, first published at 8:01am, referred to an incident in the early hours of the previous Saturday in which Cr Johnston had been “arrested and detained by police outside a bar in Ann Street” and that she “became aggravated after being refused entry” and was “charged with being drunk in a public place”. It also said she had been “ejected from the council chamber 39 times since 2010” for “inappropriate behaviour” and the police had been called to “forcibly remove her” a number of times.

The Council considered that it could not determine the precise circumstances of Cr Johnston’s arrest nor whether the publication took reasonable steps to ensure accuracy, and made no finding in relation to General Principle 1 or 2.

The article appeared to be based on police sources and an earlier report by another publication. The disputed assertions about the circumstances of the arrest were significant enough to require that Cr Johnston be given a fair opportunity for her response to be included in the first version of the article. The earlier report of the incident by another publication had not included these details. The failure to give that opportunity was unreasonable, and was compounded by the statement in the revised article at 9.47am that Cr Johnston had declined to comment, despite her contacting the publication to dispute aspects of its account. The Council concluded that the publication failed to ensure reasonable fairness and to give a fair opportunity for a reply.

The reference to Cr Johnston being “forcibly” removed was not necessarily inaccurate. However, the Council considered that it unfairly suggested a pattern of behavior linked to the statements about the circumstances of her arrest. This enhanced the Council’s concerns about the publication’s failure to comply with its Standards in relation to fairness and balance, and an opportunity for a reply. Accordingly, the Council found a breach of its Standards in relation to General Principles 3 and 4.

The Press Council has considered a complaint by NSW Labor MP and Shadow Attorney General Mr Paul Lynch about an article published by AAP on 5 February 2015 headlined “Labor MPs at pro-Russian rebel event” which related to his attendance at the 24th St Sava Youth Festival at the Serbian Cultural Club.

The article referred to the event as “a meeting organised in support of pro-Russian separatists”. It said the meeting was attended by Mr Lynch and others, including Mr Semyon Boikov the “leader” of the Zabaikal Cossack Society of Australia, and that Mr Boikov spoke “calling for a swift victory in Ukraine by pro-Russian separatists”.

The Council considered the description of the event as being “in support of Pro-Russian separatists” was not accurate. The terms used, including the word “meeting”, implied that Mr Lynch was party to the pro-Russian separatist sentiment. The focus on Mr Lynch’s attendance was compounded by the failure to mention the many other attendees and, as a result, the event was not reported with reasonable fairness or balance. The failure by the publication to seek more accurate information about the event from other sources or to provide more time for the complainant to respond resulted in the material not being presented with reasonable fairness and balance. Accordingly, the Council found a breach of its Standards in this respect.

The Council also noted the revised version, “NSW: Anger as MP poses with man on ASIO list”, maintained a focus on pro-Russian separatist elements and described the event as a “meeting” rather than a traditional St Sava celebration. The revised article also failed to correct inaccurate and unfair aspects of the original article. Accordingly, the Council also found a breach of its Standards about adequate remedial action.

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an editorial in the Hamilton Spectator on 25 April 2015 about the punishment of two child sex offenders.

The editorial said a suspended sentence for an 83 year old priest “seemed pointless”. It also said that a former teacher had “got 18 months gaol for merely touching an U16 girl’s breast and genitals”. It suggested that it could be seen as “misguided curiosity” and more like “appalling manners”.
The Council accepted that some of the opinions in the editorial may have been poor expression, but its effect was to trivialise the crime. The expressions “merely touching” and “misguided curiosity” reflected a significant misunderstanding of the seriousness of this type of offending.
The newspaper published a number of critical responses. A follow-up editorial on 29 April expressed regret, although no apology, and it stood by the comments which had been made. A subsequent piece published on 2 May contained a more general but qualified apology.

Council concluded that the editorial would have caused substantial offence to a large number of victims and others. The measures taken by the newspaper in publishing responses had not removed the effects of the breach, nor did the rather grudging apology prevent it being treated as a significant breach. Accordingly, the Council found a breach of General Principle 6 of its Standards of Practice.

The Press Council has considered a complaint about an article published in The Age on 8 December 2014 which appeared in the Education supplement of the print edition, headed “Young refugees learn by joining in” and online as “Refugees learn English by doing, playing, working”. It referred to successful students in a youth program run by Victorian-based Adult Migrant Education Service (AMES) and “a research paper commissioned by AMES” said to confirm the benefits of the program but did not disclose that the researcher was a long-term employee of AMES. The article was authored by an employee of AMES.

The Council considered the print version of the article clearly indicated the author was employed by AMES and welcomed the publication’s prompt action in applying the same disclosure to the online version. The Council concluded that the disclosure was adequate in advising readers of the writer’s connections. Based on the available evidence, the Council was not able to determine with sufficient certainty whether or not reasonable steps were taken to ensure there was no influence on published material.

The Council concluded that the term “research…commissioned” suggests an independent, external evaluation of the program, but the article failed to reveal such research was produced by an employee, and this omission created a misleading impression. It also concluded that there was a lack of clarity regarding the nature of the funding relationships between AMES and AMEP which was also misleading. Accordingly, these aspects of the complaint were upheld.

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication on 16 April 2015 of an online article in the Gold Coast Bulletin headlined “Police forced to use taser on transgender woman in dramatic Southport arrest”.

The article reported the arrest of a transgender woman in the early hours of a morning. The woman allegedly became violent during a confrontation with police, during which she allegedly produced a knife, which she refused to drop. The woman was tasered during the confrontation. The material included references to the woman's transgender status in the headline, the first paragraph and four other places in the article. The article referred to her as a "pre-surgery” transgender woman. It included five photographs of the woman taken during the incident.

The Council was sensitive to the issue of the media’s portrayal of transgender issues. However, the alleged offender’s transgender status was central to the police explanation of the reason for use of the taser.  Accordingly, there was no breach of General Principle 3 or 6.

The Council also noted the steps taken by the publication to address the complaint and to ensure such issues are covered sensitively.

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by material published on 30 January 2015 about the apparent discovery of a discarded syringe at a local sports oval. The material consisted of a newsagent display poster headed “JUNKIE SCUM: PICK UP SYRINGES” and two associated articles published in print and online, one on the cover page of the paper headed “Blood filled syringe a sharp reminder” and the online article “Blood-filled syringe found on junior sports ground”.

The Council considered that the headlines prominently promoted the claim that the syringe was “blood-filled”. It is apparent from the image that this is an exaggeration. At most there appears to be some trace of what might be blood. The Council noted that the basis of the report was material taken from a social media source and the publication had adopted the information with little effort to establish the accuracy of the assertion and without qualifying the assertion about the location of the syringe. Similarly, the publication did not take reasonable steps to provide fairness and balance in the report by reporting the circumstances in a more qualified way. Accordingly, the Council found a breach of its General Principle 1 in relation to accuracy and General Principle 3 in relation to fairness and balance.

The Council also considered an implication that all syringe users are “junkie scum” was likely to cause substantial offence. Accordingly, the Council also found a breach of its General Principle 6. In doing so, the Council noted and welcomed the publication’s apology in this regard.

The Press Council considered a complaint by Ms Dale Gietzelt about a report in The Weekend Australian of 11-12 January 2014 headed “Colleagues suspected Gietzelt was a communist” and an opinion piece in the same issue. The articles concerned whether the complainant’s father Mr Arthur Gietzelt, a former Labor Senator and Minister, was at any time a member of, or had close associations with, the Communist Party.

The Council concluded that as the articles did not state a firm and specific conclusion about Mr Gietzelt’s involvement, there was not a failure to take reasonable steps to be accurate and that aspect of the complaint was not upheld.

The Council considered that the requirements for fairness and balance take account of the length of the articles and their publication at a highly sensitive time for the family. The article should have quoted or paraphrased statements from two ASIO documents, one of which stated “without further corroborating evidence a statement that Gietzelt was a secret Party member would not stand close scrutiny”.

The detailed nature of the articles, including new evidence, meant that Ms Gietzelt should have been given more detail and a longer period to comment before publication. Also, the basis of denials by her father and his family should have been reported in greater detail and prominence. Failure to do so made it unreasonable not to publish any of the critical letters which were subsequently sent to the newspaper. The Council concluded that there was a failure to provide reasonable fairness and balance and a reasonable opportunity for a balancing response. Accordingly, that aspect of the complaint was upheld.

The Council does not consider that publication of the articles constituted a greater intrusion on the family’s privacy and grief than could be justified in the public interest and that aspect of the complaint was not upheld.

The Council considered that the letter on which the complainant’s allegation of conflict of interest on the part of the reporter was based showed only a tenuous link so disclosure was not required. Accordingly, that aspect of the complaint was not upheld.

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article in The Advertiser on 3 January 2015. The headline was “How Labor jihad dented PM’s law on terror travel” (in print) and “Labor to blame for watering down law that make it harder to jail returning jihadis” (online, published a day earlier). The article asserted the federal Labor opposition was responsible for “watering down” proposed amendments to the Commonwealth Foreign Fighters Bill.

The Council considered that “jihad” is a term with connotations of extremist behaviour. Its use in the headline had the result that the material was not presented with reasonably fairness and balance.

The Council was not satisfied the article is inaccurate or misleading in that it accurately attributes the recommended changes to the “joint intelligence committee, which included Liberal MPs”. However the 11 member Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security which recommended the changes had a majority of six Coalition members and Labor members made up the minority. The Council concluded that the omission of this significant fact from the article together with the headline, and the lack of any explanation to support the assertion that the recommendation is wholly attributable to the Labor opposition, contributed to the article’s lack of fairness and balance.

Accordingly, the Council was not satisfied that the material was in breach of General Principle 1. The material was accurate as far as it went, but the material was presented in a manner which gave rise to a breach of General Principle 3.

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by articles in The Sydney Morning Herald on 22 January 2015 about police investigations into a missing child, William Tyrrell.  The print article was headed “Investigation focuses on tradesman” and the online article, “William Harrie Spedding the focus of William Tyrell [sic] investigation”.

The Press Council’s General Principles require material to be presented with reasonable fairness and balance and to avoid intruding on a person’s reasonable expectations of privacy. This is especially so in cases reporting on police investigations, as prominent treatment of a person may cause readers to infer the culpability of a person who may not in fact be implicated in a crime. However, this does not necessarily require omission of matters which are on the public record or significantly in the public interest, provided such details are reported accurately and fairly.

The Council considered the articles accurately reflected the shifting focus of a lengthy police operation of great public interest. The police interest in Mr Spedding had intensified with police conducting searches of two properties of his in the public gaze. The expectation of privacy in such circumstances is lower and the article did not infringe on a reasonable expectation of privacy. As to fairness and balance, the article informed the public of the progress of the investigation and of the level of scrutiny focused on Mr Spedding at that time. The headline did not imply that Mr Spedding was the only person of interest.

Accordingly, Council concluded that its Standards of Practice were not breached.

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of articles in The Courier Mail on 7 October 2014 reporting on the murder and mutilation of Mayang Prasetyo by her partner Marcus Volke. The material consisted of a front page article and headline together with a large photo of the victim wearing a bikini. The reporting on later pages included a further headline and included additional photos of the victim from an “escort website” and a photo of Ms Prasetyo in a white swimsuit from her Facebook page. The articles contained references to the victim’s sex work activities and also quoted from her advertisements for sex work.

The Council considered the prominent treatment given to Ms Prasetyo’s gender and the repetitive detail of her sex work was gratuitous and contributed to substantial offence which was not sufficiently warranted in the public interest. For the same reasons, Ms Prasetyo’s death was presented in a manner that was not reasonably fair and balanced. The Council found a breach of its Standards in General Principles 3 and 6.

The Council noted the steps taken by the publication to address the complaints and commended its work to ensure such issues are covered sensitively in future, including a follow up editorial, letters to the Editor and training and counselling of its relevant editorial staff. This aspect of the complaint was not found to be a breach of General Principle 4.

The Press Council considered a complaint about an article published on 31 August 2014, in the Sunday Times print edition headed “IT’S NOT FAIR: Tanning salons snub safety laws”, and in Perth Now online headed “Pressure on WA Health Minister Kim Hames to pull plug on solariums, with tanning salons in Perth flouting safety regulations”. The article dealt with a reporter’s attendance at three tanning solariums to enquire about having tanning.

The Council’s Standards of Practice require publications to take reasonable care to ensure factual material is accurate and presented with reasonable fairness, and that opinions are not based on inaccurate or omitted key facts. The Council considered the article did not adequately explain the way in which the reporter’s skin type analysis was arrived at, nor reveal the extent to which the reporter had misrepresented her self-assessment, and the impact this information may have had in triggering a more rigorous assessment by the operators or further interrogation which may have been deemed necessary.

The Council considered that while the article could have highlighted deficiencies in the regulations, it did not do so but instead alleged that the operators were flouting the regulations. In addition, the omission to inform readers that the assertions that operators “snub” or “blatantly flout” safety laws was predicated on forms that were filled out untruthfully by the reporter was unfair and significantly misleading. Accordingly, the Council upheld the complaint.

The Press Council has considered a complaint by the National Welfare Rights Network (NWRN) about articles published in The Daily Telegraph on 30 September 2014.

The articles referred to how recipients of the Disability Support Pension (DSP) could “fudge a bludge” and quoted website forums said to share information for claimants on how to obtain or remain on the DSP, including the use of “form letters” for doctors.

The Council concluded the article inaccurately and unfairly implied the NWRN ran a forum, that quotes in the article came from its website, and that the form letter it produced was part of an attempt to “con” doctors. The Council considered this implication was particularly strong in the online version given the nature of the online headline. Accordingly, this aspect of the complaint is upheld.

Given the article’s inaccurate imputations about the complainant’s practices, the Council did not accept that using parts of the complainant’s letter in a subsequent article without consulting the complainant was adequate remedial action. However, the publication’s subsequent offer to print the complainant’s letter in full did constitute the taking of reasonable steps under the Council’s standards. It was not obliged to meet the complainant’s request for placement in the paper other than in the letters section. Therefore the Council considered there was a no breach of its Standards in this respect.

The Press Council considered a complaint about an article in New Weekly (NW) on 5 January 2015, headlined “Full-colour photo prince”.

The article featured a large photo of young African children sitting with UK Prince Harry, who appeared to be showing the children a camera screen. The image is captioned with speech bubbles, and Prince Harry’s speech bubble says to the children ‘these are the “private” Christmas pics’. A second speech bubble positioned below one of the young boys says ‘Hot damn! Granny is a GILF’ (an acronym for Grandmother I’d Like to F-ck).

The Council considered that the image involved children in a sexual theme, and many readers would consider the material to be inappropriate and offensive for this reason. However, the Council concluded that the level of offence must be considered in the overall context of the magazine and its readership, and the article was not so substantially offensive as to breach the Council’s Standards.

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article “When babies are a good career move” in The Australian Financial Review on 3 September 2014.

It referred to the “gender pay gap” as being “18.2%” and described it as a measure of “the difference between what men and women are paid for the same job, same hours”. It quoted a report by an Agency that the “national gender pay gap” is 18.2%. However, the report defined that gap as “the difference between women’s and men’s average weekly full-time equivalent earnings, expressed as a percentage of men’s earnings”.

The Council considered that the article clearly stated as fact that the “gender pay gap” was 18.2% when measured by reference to remuneration for the “same job, same hours”. However, the agency report on which it relied for this statistic defined and measured the gap as being, in effect, for the same hours but not necessarily in the same jobs.

The Council concluded there was a failure to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is accurate and not misleading.

The Council’s Standards also require a publication to provide a correction or other adequate remedial action if a significant inaccuracy occurs. In this instance, the publication failed to do so. Where an inaccuracy is significant and not reasonably disputable it is usually necessary for the publication to make the correction in its own name.

Accordingly, the Council concluded that there was a breach of the Standards of Practice in these respects.