Latest Adjudications

The Press Council has considered a complaint about an article on 13 June 2013 headed "Extreme danger – How elite police stopped heavily armed Muslims from hit on armoured van". It concerned an attempted armed robbery of a security van by three men. Matthew Press complained that the headline and article placed gratuitous emphasis on the religion of the men who attempted to rob the security van. The publication said the report did not seek to denigrate Muslims, and that word had been included after extensive interviews with police and revelations in court that phone calls had been intercepted between some of the men.

The Council upheld the complaint about the headline. It considered the very prominent and unequivocal description of the three men as “heavily armed Muslims” was unjustifiably gratuitous because there was no evidence that their actions were due simply to being Muslim, rather than, for example, possibly being extremist or jihadist Muslims. However, the references in the body of the article were not gratuitous and, in any event, were sufficiently in the public interest to comply with the Council’s Standards.

The Press Council has considered a complaint from The Hon. Catherine Cusack MLC about a report on 2 April 2013, “Gay slurs take AIDS fighter by surprise”. Ms Cusack complained about several aspects of the report, including the heading, which she said implied she had made slurs about gay people. The publication said the report accurately reflected her remarks, and the heading was not intended in the way Ms Cusack suggested. Ms Cusack also said a statement suggesting her questions at a parliamentary committee “stunned colleagues” was inaccurate and unfair.

The Council found the heading was ambiguous but the text clearly referred to slurs made by gay men against women, not to slurs by Ms Cusack against gay men. Accordingly, on balance the Council did not consider that the headline’s ambiguity was sufficiently serious to breach its Principles. However, it decided there was no evidence to justify the claim that her colleagues had been stunned by her remarks. Accordingly, that aspect of the complaint was upheld.

The Press Council has considered a complaint about an article on 4 March 2013 headed “Union secretary asked to cover the tab”, above which was a smaller heading, “Debt case: Sex worker to get money owed under court’s ruling”. The report concerned a court order that Luke Walladge pay an amount to a Perth woman who was described as a sex worker. The court was said to have ordered that any debt owed to Mr Walladge by the secretary of the Health Services Union in Victoria be “appropriated” to pay the Perth woman.

The Council found that the transcript of court proceedings did not show that a debt by the union secretary had been appropriated. As Mr Walladge had subsequently claimed there was no such debt, the publication should have made further inquiries before publication. In addition, while it was reasonable for the article to refer to the woman’s occupation as a sex worker, references in the headline and first sentence, and in an accompanying tweet, unfairly suggested the debt was for sexual services. Accordingly, these aspects of the complaint were upheld, but a complaint about breach of Mr Walladge’s privacy was not upheld.

The Press Council has considered a complaint from Michael Costa about three reports between December 2012 and February 2013. The reports mentioned Mr Costa’s involvement with Australian Water Holdings. As NSW Treasurer in 2008, after seeking advice from the Solicitor-General, he had ordered AWH and Sydney Water to attend mediation over a contractual dispute. After leaving Parliament, he served for a period as Chair of AWH.

The Council decided that accuracy and fairness required the publication to report that before consulting the Solicitor-General, he had been given two conflicting sets of legal advice. Instead, it had mentioned only that he had received advice favouring Sydney Water and had then “sought another legal opinion”. The Council also decided that, having noted the benefits he received as Chair of AWH, it should have noted that they were no greater than his predecessor, Arthur Sinodinos, had received. Accordingly, these aspects of the complaint were upheld. Another aspect was not upheld and two more were withdrawn.

The Press Council has considered a complaint from Cr Ben Shields about a report headed “Naturalists object to Shields’ claims”. It was published on 28 August 2012, shortly before the local government elections, and reported objections by a local conservation group to claims made by Cr Shields in a campaign leaflet. Cr Shields complained that the article criticised him unfairly and he was not given an opportunity to comment. The newspaper acknowledged comment should have been sought before publication, but said it lacked the resources to do so.

The Council decided Cr Shields should have been given an opportunity to comment prior to publication, or at least before the election. It acknowledged the paper’s lack of resources, but emphasised the need to ensure fairness. The Council stressed it is particularly important to avoid the unfairness that can arise when an electoral candidate is not given an opportunity to respond to criticisms before an election.

The Press Council has considered complaints about an opinion article published on 27 May 2013 headed “Don’t look now, the white elephants are multiplying”, particularly about the part of the article dealing with the National Broadband Network.

The Council decided that while some statements of fact had less convincing support than others, there was at least some tenable basis for each of them. The journalist should have qualified or explained the basis for some of his comments, but the absence of such information was not of sufficient significance to constitute a breach of the Council’s Standards. Accordingly the complaints were not upheld.

The Press Council has upheld a complaint from the journalist Jonathan Marshall about a report in The Sydney Morning Herald on 2 October 2012 which mostly described his early career in New Zealand.

The Council decided the publication did not take reasonable steps to ensure accuracy and fairness in relation to claims about the methods Mr Marshall used to obtain stories, and that it should have given him a reasonable opportunity to comment before publication.

The Press Council has considered a complaint about a report on 25 March 2013 headed, “Scientology tore my family apart”. It presented the story of Adrian Kelsey, describing his separation from his wife and children and from the Church of Scientology.

The Council upheld complaints from Mr Kelsey’s former wife, Fransyl Marmolejo, and the Church of Scientology. It decided the publication did not take reasonable steps to ensure accuracy and fairness in describing the family situation, and that it should have published comments from Ms Marmolejo and the Church of Scientology in the original article or in some other manner. The Council also decided the publication in full of a highly personal email from Mr Kelsey’s 13-year old daughter breached her privacy.

The Press Council has considered a complaint from Cr Len Roberts about a letter published on 6 September 2012, in the lead-up to the local council elections. The letter was from a constituent opposing a pro-development view for the area, including what he called the “bigger than Forster” vision of Cr Roberts, who was standing for re-election.

The Council has previously urged publications to be wary of causing unfairness by publishing critical material about an election candidate when there will be no opportunity to publish the candidate’s response before the election. In this case, the newspaper should have avoided unfairness by either declining to publish the constituent’s letter in that edition or seeking agreement with Cr Roberts on an edited version of his response to be published at the same time as the letter.

The Press Council has considered a complaint about a series of three articles on the subject of suicide, published in April 2013. Two of the articles presented the story of a woman who had recently taken her life, and one was headed “Rational Suicide: Why Beverley Broadbent chose to die”.

The Council decided the articles handled the subject in a serious and restrained manner rather than sensationalising or trivialising the issues, and included prominent publication of other views. On an issue of such importance and sensitivity, it might have been preferable to avoid the term “rational suicide”, and to avoid providing other information that could possibly assist with the process. On balance however, these matters were not of sufficient significance to breach the Council’s Standards and the complaint was not upheld.

The Press Council has considered a complaint by law firm Slater & Gordon about two articles relating to the role of former Prime Minister Julia Gillard while a partner at the firm and the impact of publicity about the matter on the friendship of two of the firm’s former partners. Both articles were published on 13 October 2012.

The Council found the publications failed to take reasonable steps to ensure fairness in the articles because they included seriously adverse statements by several people about Slater & Gordon, about which the firm was given no opportunity to comment prior to publication. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld.

The Press Council has considered a complaint about a report on 18 January 2013 that was based on an estimate of the cost of welfare fraud in South Australia. The headline stated “Welfare fraud costs us $78m”, a claim repeated in the first sentence of the article. Single-parent women were said to be the “most likely to cheat”.

The Council has decided the article was seriously inaccurate. The cost of welfare fraud was vastly overstated, with the real cost to the state being about $2.5 million. While recognising the publication’s efforts to address the error, the Council found the “Clarification” published on the following day did not sufficiently explain the issue for readers. It should have been headed “Correction”, with both a reference to the subject matter and published in a more prominent position.

The Press Council has considered a complaint about a report on the conflict between Israel and Palestine in November 2012. The complainant said the article provided no substantiation for the claim that “Israel also stepped up its attacks on journalists in Gaza for the third day in a row”.

The Council decided that while some strikes may have been principally targeted at communications infrastructure, there were reasonable grounds for concluding that journalists had been the target of at least some of the attacks. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld.

The Press Council has considered a complaint about a report on the conviction of a man for the murder of his mother. The report was titled “Autistic man convicted of murdering WA mum” and the first sentence also referred to the man’s autism.

The Council decided the headline and first sentence were likely to have led many readers to conclude, incorrectly, that autism had been found to be the main cause of the murder, or at least one of the causes. Nothing in the remainder of the article would have corrected this misunderstanding and, accordingly, the complaint was upheld.

The Press Council has considered a complaint about a report from 2 December 2012 of comments by Hillary Clinton, regretting the announcement of new Israeli settlements. The complaint was that the report was unfair and unbalanced in not mentioning Mrs Clinton's comments were made in the middle of a speech in which she strongly reiterated the United States’ general support of Israel and its opposition to the recent UN admission of Palestine as a non-member observer state.

The Council does not necessarily require each news report on a particular topic to provide a fair and balanced overview of that topic. This applies especially where the report is principally describing a new development in a long-running topic. In this case, the new development was Mrs Clinton’s criticism of the settlements. US opposition to the UN vote had been reported promptly and the generally supportive position of the US towards Israel had been reported on many previous occasions. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld.