Latest Adjudications

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by a cartoon in the Sydney Morning Herald on 26 July 2014.

The cartoon was associated with an opinion piece on the conflict in Gaza. It depicted an elderly man with a large nose, wearing the distinctively Jewish head covering called a kippah or yarmulke, and sitting in an armchair emblazoned with the Star of David. He was pointing a TV remote control device at an exploding cityscape, implied to be Gaza.

The Council considered the cartoon’s linkage between the Jewish faith and the Israeli rocket attacks on Gaza was reasonably likely to cause great offence to many readers. A linkage with Israeli nationality might have been justifiable in the public interest, despite being likely to cause offence. But the same cannot be said of the implied linkage with the Jewish faith that arose from inclusion of the kippah and the Star of David.

The Council welcomed the prominent, extensive and closely-reasoned apology by the publication and its subsequent action to reduce the risk of repetition. It commends this approach to other publications.

However, the Council concluded the cartoon was a clear breach of its Standards of Practice because it caused greater offence than was justifiable in the public interest.

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by material in the Sunday Herald Sun on 2 March 2014 while the Australian Sports and Drugs Agency (ASADA) was looking into the possible administration of banned drugs to players at the Essendon Football Club (EFC).

The material included “EXCLUSIVE The 12 AFL stars still in ASADA limbo: DONS DRUG HELL” (on page 1), “BOMBERS IN THE DARK: Thirteen months after the drugs in sport scandal broke, these AFL players are still looking for closure” (on pages 8-9) and an online version “Bombers in the dark: The 12 AFL stars still in ASADA limbo”. It also included prominent photographs of 14 players it named as having told ASADA they thought they had been injected with peptides during their time with the EFC. These disclosures to ASADA had been made on a confidential basis.

The Council considered the disclosures clearly intruded on the players’ privacy and may have caused them significant harm. Despite this impact, disclosure could be regarded as in the public interest due to the importance of the allegations to AFL, its administration and player safety, as well as dispelling unjustified suspicion of other EFC players. On the other hand, disclosure could be regarded as against the public interest due to the risk of discouraging candour with ASADA and hindering investigation of matters of considerable public concern.

Having balanced these competing considerations, the Council was not satisfied there had been a clear breach of its Standards of Practice. It was influenced partly by the late stage of the protracted investigative process at which the disclosure was made.

The Press Council has concluded that its Standards of Practice were breached in relation to an online article in The Sydney Morning Herald on 22 January 2014 headed “Bidding war for Schapelle Corby’s first post-jail interview”. The article said the Corby family was negotiating about the first TV interview with Ms Corby after her release from jail and that her mother, Rosleigh Rose, “even allowed the (Seven) network to fly her to Bali”.

The Council could not be sure whether the Seven network paid or arranged for Ms Rose’s flight and whether the publication took reasonable steps to check the assertion before the article appeared. However, the Council concluded that in the particular circumstances of the case the publication did not make sufficient attempts to contact Ms Rose after the article appeared so she could have a reasonable opportunity for a balancing response. This constituted a breach of the Council’s Standards of Practice.

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by material published on the front page of The Daily Telegraph on 22 May 2014 relating to the Disability Support Pension (DSP).

The material included a large headline “Slackers & Slouch Hats” above which was a secondary heading “NSW Disability Support Pensioners now outnumber Australia’s total war wounded by more than 44,000”. Alongside the headline was a single sentence of text reading: “The state’s army of disability pensioners has hit record levels with NSW’s tally of DSP claimants soaring almost 20,000 in the past 3 years to 270,415, outnumbering Australia’s war-wounded by more than 44,000.”

Above this material were two large photographs presented in a way which reflected the invitation to draw the comparison made in the secondary heading. One photograph showed a queue of about twenty people, none of whom had an apparent disability. Superimposed were the words “NSW DSP Recipients: 270,415”. The other was a well-known and striking photograph of a severely wounded soldier being helped to walk through the jungle of Papua New Guinea during World War II. Superimposed were the words “Nation’s war wounded: 226,016”.

The Council considers the headline and other material on the front page collectively imply that a high proportion of DSP recipients are “slackers” and should not be receiving DSP. The evidence provided did not justify this implication. The Council also considers the implication that a high proportion of DSP recipients are “slackers” and should not be receiving DSP was offensive to an extent not justified by the public interest.

Accordingly, the Council has concluded that the headline, headings and text on the front page collectively breached the Standards of Practice relating to accuracy and fairness, and to causing greater offence than is justifiable in the public interest.

The Press Council has considered a complaint about an article by Elaine McKewon headed “Big Oil-backed climate denier who hoodwinked Fairfax” on the Crikey website on 13 January 2014.

The article described John McLean, the author of an article published in Fairfax newspapers, as being “misinformed”, “falsely presented as an expert on climate science”, “not affiliated with any university”, and having “no verifiable qualifications in the field of climate science” or “standing or expertise in climate science”. It also said he was a member of the ICSC which was a body aimed at “discrediting authoritative science on climate change” and had funding links to the oil company Exxon.

Mr McLean said the claims about his lack of standing and expertise were inaccurate and unfair. He denied deceiving the newspapers about his expertise and said that, in any event, they were under no obligation to publish only the opinions of climate science experts. He especially criticised the word “hoodwinked” in the article’s headline. He also complained that the statements about his links with the ICSC and its funding were inaccurate and unfair.

The Council considered that the word “hoodwinked” in the headline could reasonably be read as implying that Mr McLean had actively deceived the newspapers and readers. As no reasonable basis for that implication had been provided to the Council, this aspect of the complaint was upheld.

Mr McLean’s claims to standing and expertise, however, were not of sufficiently compelling force to establish misrepresentation or suppression by Ms McKewon in that respect. The same applied to his criticisms of her references to the ICSC and its funding. Accordingly, these aspects of the complaint were not upheld.  But it was emphasised that this conclusion did not amount to a finding that her claims were necessarily correct. It also did not involve an endorsement or rejection of any particular theories or predictions about climate change warming and related issues.

The Press Council has considered a complaint about an article by Elaine McKewon headed “Fairfaxfalls for the climate conman” on the Climate Spectator website on 14 January 2014. The heading was subsequently changed to “Fairfax misleads on self-titled climate expert”.

The article described John Mclean, the author of an article published inFairfaxnewspapers, as being “misinformed”, “falsely presented as an expert on climate science”, “not affiliated with any university”, and having “no verifiable qualifications in the field of climate science” or “standing or expertise in climate science”. It also said he was a member of the ICSC, which was a body aimed at “discrediting authoritative science on climate change” and had funding links to the oil company Exxon.

Mr McLean said the claims about his lack of standing and expertise were inaccurate and unfair. He denied deceiving the newspapers about his expertise and said that, in any event, they were under no obligation to publish only the opinions of climate science experts. He especially criticised the word “conman” in the article’s headline. He also complained that the statements about his links with the ICSC and its funding were inaccurate and unfair.

The Council considered the word “conman” in the headline could reasonably be read as implying that Mr McLean had actively deceived the newspapers and readers. As no reasonable basis for that implication had been provided to the Council, this aspect of the complaint was upheld. The publication’s subsequent change to the headline was welcome but did not eliminate the initial breach. In any event, the initial headline was likely to have been read by many people and to be permanently available on the internet through re-publication by others.

Mr McLean’s claims to standing and expertise, however, were not of sufficiently compelling force to establish misrepresentation or suppression by Ms McKewon in that respect. The same applied to his criticisms of her references to the ICSC and its funding. Accordingly, these aspects of the complaint were not upheld.  But it was emphasised this conclusion did not amount to a finding that her claims were necessarily correct. It also did not involve an endorsement or rejection of any particular theories or predictions about climate change warming and related issues.

The Press Council has considered complaints about a photograph in The Daily Telegraph on 27 May 2014. The photograph occupied much of the front page, showing a body-sized shape wrapped in a tarpaulin and floating in the ocean. A foot in a shoe could be seen protruding from the tarpaulin. It was later confirmed that the body was that of student whom police believed had been murdered a week earlier in relation to a drug deal.

The Council considered that, especially by showing the foot, the photograph was likely to cause great offence to a significant number of people, including those who merely saw it on a newsstand. Also, a substantial number of people who saw it are likely to have known the student. On the other hand, the Council considered that powerful exposure in this way of the risks of involvement in drug deals can be of substantial importance in the public interest. This effect would have been less powerful if the foot had not been shown to establish that the bag contained a body.

The Council’s principal concern was that the photograph was shown on the front page and was very large. Placing it on a very prominent inner page, with a clear warning on the front page, could have greatly reduced the risk of offence while not greatly reducing its effectiveness as a warning of the drug trade’s dangers.

On balance, however, the Council concluded that publishing the photograph did not breach its Standards, even though it was very prominent on the front page. This is mainly because there was a very strong justification in the public interest and also because the foot was not shown in graphic detail. Accordingly, the Council concluded that its Standards of Practice were not breached.

The Press Council has upheld a complaint about an article, “Murder sex tape link – Fresh look at killing of mother and daughter”, in the print edition of the Herald Sun on 20 March 2013, relating to unsolved murders more than 25 years earlier. The article said the tape showed the mother with a man whose wife later discovered it and confronted the mother. The article included several other statements tending to suggest the wife arranged the murder of the mother and daughter.

The Council concluded that the newspaper did not take reasonable steps to ensure these statements were accurate and fair, especially as they were presented as being established facts, not allegations. It acknowledged the newspaper said the statements were based on highly credible sources, but said she should have been given an opportunity to comment on them before publication, and in the particular circumstances there was no credible risk of hindering police investigations by doing so.

The Council also concluded that the wife’s privacy had been breached because, although not named, she was likely to be identifiable to some people. It recognised that breaches of privacy in reports of “cold cases” could sometimes be justifiable in the public interest, but that in this particular case there was no sufficient justification.

The Press Council has considered a complaint from Allan House concerning an article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 25 February 2014 about Waratah Rivulet.

The article stated that iron concentrations in the rivulet were at levels which exceeded Australian Drinking Water Guidelines by 30 per cent. It said “the health of part of the water supply to Sydney’s 4.6 million consumers” was “at stake”.

The Council considered that the article was inaccurate and unfair in suggesting the iron levels posed a risk to the health of consumers. The article should have made it clear the level exceeded in the rivulet was an aesthetic standard which only applied to filtered water and was not a health-related standard. Accordingly, this aspect of the complaint was upheld.

The Council considered that use of the term “contamination” in the article might have been accurate in a technical sense but it was likely to be misunderstood by many readers. On balance, the Council concluded that the breach of its Standards was not sufficiently significant for this aspect of the complaint to be upheld.

The Press Council has considered a complaint about an article which was headed "Roo the day" in the Food and Wine section of The Weekend Australian on 11-12 January 2014.

The Council decided that the statements about kangaroo harvesting in the article were likely to be read as subjective assessments by the journalist rather than verified statements of fact. In relation to the methods used by Macro Meats, the producer on which the article focused, the Council concluded that no significant evidence of inhumane or unhygienic processes had been omitted. Accordingly the aspect of the complaint relating to inaccuracy and unfairness was not upheld.

The Council decided that the involvement of Macro Meats in proposing and sponsoring the author’s trip to observe its processes amounted to a potential conflict of interest and should have been disclosed explicitly to readers. Accordingly, that aspect of the complaint was upheld. The publication’s subsequent disclosure in the online archived version of the article was welcome but does not eliminate the breach.

The Press Council has considered a complaint about an article in the Bundaberg News Mail on 23 April 2014 headed “Fatal car crash a sad end to Easter” in print and “Cruel Carving left on tree as tragic crash is investigated” online. The article concerned a fatal collision between a car and tree

The Council considered that the article, coming two days after the initial report of the accident, gave more emphasis than necessary to the selective speculation of the police officer about the possible cause of the accident, and might have given more emphasis to the behaviour of whoever carved the offensive words in the tree (which the witness described as "horrific"). The Council has concluded it was sufficiently in the public interest to report the witness’s statement, the police speculation and the words on the tree, despite the likely impact on the grieving family. Accordingly, while the article might have been written with more sympathy for the family, the complaint is not upheld.

However, the Council reiterates the need for great caution in cases of this kind to avoid causing unnecessary distress or invasion of privacy, particularly in reporting speculation about the cause of an accident

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by material published on The Daily Telegraph's website on 3 February 2014 relating to the death of the actor, Philip Seymour Hoffman. The material was headed “Kids grieve for junkie actor dad” and included a photograph of his children and an assertion about what their response would be to the circumstances in which Mr Hoffman died.

The Council has concluded that the combined impact of the references to the children and their alleged feelings, a photograph of them and the use of the term “junkie”, was highly unfair and offensive, especially as the material was published only a few hours after Mr Hoffman’s death.

The Council also concluded that serious breaches of its Standards of Practice occurred in this case even though the offending aspects were removed from the website within an hour. The Council noted it is entirely foreseeable that, as occurred in this instance, material which has been removed from a website may nevertheless be seen widely before its removal, and remain permanently available from other internet sources.

The Press Council has considered whether a series of articles in The Sydney Morning Herald between August and December 2013 breached its Standards of Practice relating to fairness and balance.The articles concerned public and parliamentary debate about a Bill in the NSW Parliament seeking to define a foetus as a legally recognised person after reaching a specified stage. This would have broadened the scope of the crime of causing grievous bodily harm to a person.The Council considered the publication might well have achieved better fairness and balance, but it concluded that the failure to do so in these particular circumstances was not so significant as to constitute a breach of the relevant Standard of Practice.

The Press Council has not upheld a complaint by a North Sydney Councillor, MaryAnn Beregi, about an article headed “Save our park” in the Mosman Daily on 12 December 2013 concerning proposals for an indoor sports centre and car park underneath St Leonards Park in Sydney. The complaint was that the article was misleading about the status of the proposals and did not give a reasonably balanced coverage of the range of views on the matter.

The Council concluded that the article was not misleading and that, in the context of the newspaper’s continuing coverage of the issue, it was not so unbalanced as to constitute a breach of the Council’s Principles. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld.