Latest Adjudications

The Press Council has considered a complaint by the National Electrical and Communications Association (NECA) about articles published in The Australian on 9 and 27 September 2014 relating to pattern EBAs.

The Press Council concluded that the statement in the first article that NECA had “forced” its members into pattern EBAs was not an accurate reflection of NECA’s business practice, which was to represent those members that requested NECA to negotiate on their behalf. Although the articles were opinion pieces and the writer was entitled to express her view that there was a lack of disclosure by NECA about its returns from severance funds, the Council noted that the term “secret commissions” used in this context tends to connote illicit payments, and the article lacked fairness and balance in omitting that the payments were in fact disclosed in NECA accounts. Accordingly, these aspects of the complaint were upheld.

The Council also considered that NECA’s letter of 10 September raised claims of serious inaccuracies in the first article. As these claims were not addressed in the second article and the only response published was a letter from a former state director of NECA several weeks later, the Council concluded that reasonable steps were not taken to provide a published response from NECA or other adequate remedial action and these aspects of the complaint were also upheld.

The Press Council has considered a complaint about a headline published on the homepage of The Age on 2 October 2014, which stated “James Hird removed as Essendon coach”. However, Mr Hird was not removed and continued to be the coach.

The Council considered that reasonable steps were not taken to ensure accuracy in the headline and accordingly, concluded that its Standard of Practice relating to accuracy was breached.

The Council’s Standards also require that reasonable steps be taken to publish a correction or take other adequate remedial action where published material is significantly inaccurate. The publication promptly updated the online report, and a print headline the following day confirmed Mr Hird had not been removed as coach. The Council was not satisfied the publication failed to take reasonable steps to take remedial action and concluded there was no breach in this respect.

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by material in The Sunday Mail on 25 May 2014 headed “Poll supports asset sales”. The same text appeared online under a different heading.

The text of the print and online material included the statement that “our Galaxy Poll today clearly shows that Queenslanders are embracing asset sales rather than reduce government services or increase taxes”.

There was no reference to where details of the poll results were. A separate online article on the same day said the survey involved 800 Queenslanders and found “38 percent of peopled believed asset sales were the best option to reduce debt, compared to 21 per cent for increased taxes and 24 per cent for reduced services”.

The Council considered that the material was part of an editorial or of a comment piece. However, in this case, the unexplained and unqualified reference to the poll results relating to asset sales, government services and taxes was not distinguishable as the publication’s opinion about the meaning of the poll. The material was likely to be read as a statement of fact.

The failure to indicate where detail of the poll findings and methodology could be found and the fact that the detail which was provided elsewhere did not enable readers to ascertain whether the statement in the material was opinion or fact, meant that relevant facts were not disclosed.
Accordingly, the Council considered that the material was in breach of its Standards of Practice.

The Press Council has considered a complaint by Diane Frola about articles in The Sun-Herald on 9 and 16 February 2014 respectively.

One article said Ms Frola “has her own page” on a website run by supporters of Schapelle Corby called The Expendable Project and “has uploaded videos” to it. A second article said she and another person were in a “global collaboration” behind the website and claimed to have exposed a conspiracy of the Australian and Indonesian governments, media and others. It said she was a ‘hanger-on’, “Queensland UFO fanatic, anti-vaccine crusader, fluoride sceptic and conspiracy theorist”, has “a career… publishing… conspiracy theories” and is editor of a magazine “which deals with… the paranormal, crop circles, alien abductions and ‘government conspiracies’”.

The Council’s Standards of Practice require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure accuracy, fairness and balance in factual material. The Council considered there were sufficient grounds for the assertion that Ms Frola had a close link to the website and the project, especially as she refused an opportunity to comment before the article was published. It considered that, especially because of that refusal, the publications had not failed to take reasonable steps to ensure fairness in its other statements about her interests and beliefs. It also said the evidence provided by her was not decisive enough to require a correction to be published.

Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld.

The Press Council has considered a complaint by Macquarie Group Ltd (“Macquarie”) about articles published in The Age from 1-5 August 2014, in particular two articles in print on 2 August.

One was headed “Macquarie advisers used ‘cheat’ document” (published online on 1 August under a different headline). The second was headed “Down the hole:  The silver doughnut that left a big hole” (published online on 2 August under a different headline).

In relation to the first article, the Council considered that Macquarie was given a fair opportunity to provide relevant information on the issue of whether a document was circulated and that its responses were adequately reported. Accordingly, the complaint on that ground was not upheld.
The Council considered that the second article’s conjecture about misclassifications was serious enough that Macquarie needed to be given specific notice and a fair opportunity for its response to be included in the article. Accordingly, that aspect of the complaint was upheld.

There was a strong case for Macquarie being given a prior opportunity to comment on the case of the named client. However, the client’s hesitancy about revealing his identity, and the company’s response to the publication’s investigations, lead the Council to conclude that the complaint on that ground should not be upheld.

As the Council considers that Macquarie’s responses to the second article were reasonably reported, the complaint on that ground was not upheld.

The Press Council has considered a complaint by Macquarie Group Ltd (“Macquarie”) about articles published in The Sydney Morning Herald from 1-5 August 2014, in particular two articles in print on 2 August.

One was headed “Financial planning: Existence of ‘Penske File’ revealed. Macquarie supplied cheat sheet to advisers” (published online on 1 August under a different headline). The second was headed “Down the hole:  The silver doughnut that left a big hole” (published online on 2 August under a different headline).

The Council considered the headline of the first article implied that assistance to cheat had been provided with high-level corporate approval. The text, however, did not provide evidence to support that allegation. The complaint about the headline was upheld.

The Council considered that Macquarie was given a fair opportunity to provide relevant information about whether a document was circulated, and that its responses were adequately reported. Accordingly, the complaint on that ground was not upheld.

The Council considered the second article’s conjecture about misclassifications was serious enough that Macquarie needed to be given specific notice and a fair opportunity for its response to be included in the article. Accordingly, that aspect of the complaint was upheld.

There was a strong case for Macquarie being given a prior opportunity to comment on its dealings with a particular client that were reported at length in the article. But the client’s hesitancy about revealing his identity, and the company’s generally uncooperative response to the publication’s investigations, lead the Council to conclude that the complaint on that ground should not be upheld.

As the Council considered that Macquarie’s responses to the second article were reasonably reported, the complaint on that ground was not upheld.

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by a front-page photograph in The Weekend Australian on 19-20 July 2014 of part of the crash site of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH 17.

In the foreground were two or three clothed figures, one was apparently female and lying on her side with an elbow in the air. Another figure appeared to be partially covered by plane wreckage, but the nature and colour of their clothing was distinct.

The Council considered the graphic depiction of bodies was likely to cause substantial offence and distress to a significant number of people, especially as the full impact of the tragedy was still unfolding and many victims were Australian.

It also considered, however, that the nature and scale of the disaster, including many Australian fatalities and the controversy about its cause, provided a very strong justification in the public interest for powerfully conveying the tragic consequences.

The Council noted the importance of avoiding undue distress and especially the risk of victims’ relatives or friends being able to identify the bodies. This risk could have been reduced by, for example, suitable pixilation.

On balance, the Council did not consider there was a clear breach of its Standards of Practice.  This was due mainly to the steps taken by the publication to reduce the risk of severe offence or breaches of privacy; the scale of the tragedy; the undoubted public importance of its alleged causes and implications; and the number of Australian victims.

The Press Council has considered a complaint by Kylie Keel about The Moorabool News Facebook page relating to a car accident on 9 October 2014, in which the driver later died.

Ms Keel said the images of the accident scene and some readers’ comments on the Facebook page caused great offence to the family and breached its privacy.

The Council appreciated that the images would have been distressing to family members but it considered they were not so graphic that they overrode the public interest justification. The Council was concerned about the very rapid posting of the images but considered its Standards of Practice were not breached due to the images’ relative lack of identifying features and the police having said the driver’s father already knew of the collision. Accordingly, those aspects were not upheld. The Council emphasised that its Standards apply to its publisher members’ Facebook platforms. This means the publication must take reasonable steps to monitor readers’ comments and delete them if they breach the Council’s Standards.

In this case, the publication noticed and deleted some comments, but not those the driver’s family understandably found to be very offensive. Indeed, it did not delete them even when asked to do so by the family. The fact that by then the report and comments may already have been read widely did not justify failing to delete them. Accordingly, this aspect was upheld.

The Press Council has considered a complaint about an article headed “$390k tugboat workers to strike for 40pc rise” in The Australian Financial Review on 7 August 2014. It reported about proposed strike action over wage conditions by 52 members of the Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers (AIMPE). The article was published two days before the proposed strike.

The Press Council has concluded that the headline was inaccurate, misleading and unfair in describing the engineers as “390k tugboat workers” when that figure was at the top of a large range of earnings across which individual tugboat workers earnings might lie. The Council has arrived at the same conclusion about the description of the claim as being for a “40pc rise” when negotiations were proceeding on the basis of a much lower figure.

The article itself described each of these aspects of the situation more accurately than did the headline, but that does not adequately compensate for the failings of the headline. It cannot generally be assumed that readers of a striking but inaccurate headline will also read and analyse all or most of an accompanying article which explains the situation more accurately. As there was no adequate justification for such an assumption in this case, the complaint was upheld.

The Press Council has considered a complaint by Jane Butler about material headed “Clarification” published in the Macedon Ranges Free Press on 8 April 2014.

The “clarification” related to a letter by Ms Butler claiming that the Macedon Ranges Shire Council had wrongly issued an Animal Keeping Permit and was not providing honest answers about the issue. The Clarification was written at the instigation of the Shire Council but was not attributed to it and Ms Butler was not consulted about it.

The Press Council considered that the Clarification was presented as if it was a news report and that it inaccurately and unfairly said that Ms Butler had claimed the Macedon Ranges Shire Council did  not respond to her queries. The Press Council also considered that the publication did not take reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy, fairness and balance of its statement in the Clarification that the Shire Council had never denied issuing the permit.

The Press Council considered that the publication was justified in not publishing the very long letter submitted by Ms Butler in response to the “Clarification”, but that in the particular circumstances of this case, the publication should have discussed with Ms Butler the possibility of providing a shorter version of a letter which could be published.

Accordingly, the complaint was upheld.

The Press Council has considered a complaint about the way in which The Observer handled a letter to the editor.

The complainant said that when submitting the letter she explicitly requested that her name and address be withheld to avoid possible adverse effects on her employment. She said the publication nevertheless published her name with the letter, thereby causing severe repercussions from her employer of which the letter had been critical.The publication acknowledged to the Council that publishing her name was a highly regrettable staff error. It said that the letter should not have been published and she should have been contacted to explain its policy of not publishing anonymous letters. It also said the complainant had been contacted by a senior editor, a sincere oral apology had been made and a written apology had been offered. It said it had taken steps to ensure relevant staff understood its procedures for assessing letters and its requirement for greater consultation with letter writers before publication.

The Council considers that publishing the complainant’s letter with her name was a very serious and damaging breach of privacy. The request to withhold her name was clear, and there was no ground on which failure to do so could be justified as in the public interest. Accordingly, the complaint is upheld.

The Council welcomes the publication’s apology to the complainant. It also welcomes the steps which the publication says have been taken to avoid similar mistakes in future. In the absence of these responses, a formal censure might well have been considered necessary in light of the gravity of the mistake and its predictable consequences.

The Press Council has considered a complaint by Tony Murphy about an article headed “Former boss at second building union named as scandal widens” on 10 February 2014.

The article said Mr Murphy was “implicated in kickbacks for contracts racket” and that the publication “can also reveal that [Mr Murphy] sought kickbacks from several subcontractors in return for helping them win work on sites”. It said that senior plumbers union officials removed him from his role in early 2012 “after hearing allegations of his improper behaviour”.

The assertion about kickbacks was very serious and was presented as a statement of fact, not an allegation or suspicion. In these circumstances it is usually necessary in the interests of both accuracy and fairness to make reasonable efforts to contact the person before publishing the article.

The information obtainable by the Council does not enable it to be entirely sure whether the publication made reasonable attempts to contact Mr Murphy, including its reliance on an associate of Mr Murphy to make the necessary contact. However, the apparently incorrect statement by the associate that he could not and did not contact Mr Murphy, together with the subsequent refusal of Mr Murphy to put his side of the case, tend to confirm the publication’s assertion that he was given sufficient opportunity to comment before and after the article appeared. They also tend to confirm that the publication had taken reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of its assertions. On this basis, the complaints were not upheld.

The Press Council has concluded that its Standards of Practice were breached by an article in The Gippsland Times on 15 April 2014 headed “Labor labelled as health ‘hypocrites’”. The article drew substantially on a press release by the Victorian Health Minister David Davis. The passages taken from the release were attributed to him except for the words “Labor MPs voted against the interests of Victorians and voted in favour of Julia Gillard’s $107 million cut to Victorian hospitals in 2012-13”.

The Press Council considered that newspapers are entitled to draw heavily on a press release provided that in doing so they comply with the Council's Standards. Any material taken from a press release should be presented in such a way that facts or opinion being asserted by the issuer of the release are clearly distinguishable from those being asserted by the publication itself.

The Council considered that the article’s failure to present the sentence quoted above as a statement of opinion from the Minister’s release constituted a breach of its Standards of Practice. The Council welcomed the publication’s acknowledgement of error and of the need to avoid repetition. It commended this approach for adoption by other publications.

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of a photograph in The Daily Telegraph on 21 August 2014.

The image occupied much of the front page and showed journalist, James Foley, kneeling in front of a hooded person who had one hand clasped around Mr Foley’s jaw as the other hand brandished a long knife in close proximity to Mr Foley’s throat.

The Council considered that the image was likely to cause substantial offence and distress to a significant number of people. On the other hand, the Council agreed it is sometimes in the public interest for people to be exposed in a powerful way to realities which they may find upsetting but about which it is important that public opinion is well-informed.

The Council considered that the image could well have been published on an inner page without losing its effectiveness. On balance, however, the Council concluded that publication of the image was not a breach of its Standards. This was mainly because of the very strong justification in this case for bringing unpleasant realities to public attention.

The Council welcomed the careful consideration in the publication of images of this nature, but emphasised that where the justification is less powerful than in this case, some images may breach its Standards of Practice if published on the front page rather than less prominently.

The Press Council has considered a complaint by Margaret MacDonald-Hill about lack of accuracy, fairness and balance in a series of articles in the Newcastle Herald relating to chairs of Community Consultative Committees and the selection of arbitrators to preside over land access disputes between mining companies and landowners.

The Council did not consider that it was unfair or unbalanced for one of the articles, in particular, to focus on Ms MacDonald-Hill as part of their examination of the system. She chaired more of the committees than anyone else as well as being a frequent arbitrator.  Her side of the issue was quoted in the articles. Accordingly the Council did not uphold these parts of the complaint.

The Council considered that use of the words “gravy train” in the headline of one of the articles inaccurately and unfairly suggests that Ms MacDonald-Hill was paid highly for minimal work. It concluded that reasonable steps were not taken to ensure accuracy, fairness and balance in this respect. It also considered the headline did not fairly reflect the tenor of the article, which did not say anything about her level of payment or the nature and amount of her work. Accordingly, the Council upheld these aspects of the complaint.