Latest Adjudications

The Press Council has considered a complaint by Bob Brown about two articles published in The Daily Telegraph on 17 March 2017. The first report headed “TRIGGS’ GIG FOR GREENS” on the front page, and the second a commentary headed “TRIGG-HUGGER: HUMAN RIGHTS CHIEF A GREENIE DISGRACE”.

The first article began: “AUSTRALIA’S Human Rights Commission chief Gillian Triggs is under pressure to step down after agreeing to headline a fundraiser for ex-Greens leader Bob Brown”. It reported that “Mr Brown was arrested last year in an anti-logging protest”, and the second article repeated that he “was arrested for a logging protest and was escorted by police away from a Tasmanian forest”.

The Council considered the headline “TRIGGS’ GIG FOR GREENS” misleading in implying the event attended by Professor Triggs was for the Greens party and not the Bob Brown Foundation. The first article’s reference to the event being “tied to the Greens party” and the second article’s reference to the “Green-aligned event”, together with the repeated description of the event as a “fundraiser”, was likely to lead readers to incorrectly understand that it was a Greens event, and a fundraiser as opposed to an oration. As the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the article was accurate and not misleading, it breached General Principle 1. In not publishing any corrective remedial action in response, it also breached General Principle 2.

The Council considered the repeated reference to the complainant being arrested, without also reporting that the charges were dropped and later the laws on which they were based were successfully challenged, was unfair by omission. The publication also ought to have contacted the complainant for comment. As the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the article was presented with reasonable fairness and balance, it breached General Principle 3. Further, in not providing a fair opportunity for subsequent publication of a reply from the complainant, the publication also breached General Principle 4.

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by a print article published in the Southern Free Times headed “Very near tragedy” on 23 March 2017.

The article concerned a man who was “reported missing” and later “found by State Emergency Service (SES) volunteers in dense bushland … having spent the night at the location”. It reported the publication understood that “the man inflicted self-harm in an apparent suicide attempt and at some point fell from a height after wandering into the bush…” It further reported he had “told his partner on Friday morning he was leaving for work as usual but he failed to show up, with work colleagues and his partner becoming concerned for his welfare when he was uncontactable during the morning and around lunchtime”. It then reported that his “condition was unknown at the time of printing and family members declined to comment”.

The rest of the article questioned whether the incident was associated with the man’s employment, and whether “[his] behaviour may have been prompted by work-related stress stemming from the current workplace culture…”
The Council recognised there can be substantial public benefit in reporting on suicide, and in this instance accepted the publication was well-intentioned.

However, as the complainant’s sister expressly asked the publication not to report on the incident, there was no clear and informed consent from the man’s family. In such circumstances, the public interest had to be strong enough to report the incident as a suicide attempt notwithstanding the lack of consent. The Council considered the public interest here did not extend to reporting on this individual instance in as explicit a manner as occurred. Accordingly, the Council concluded that the publication breached Suicide Standard 3 in this respect.
The publication did not identify the man, at least not by name, complying with the complainant’s sister’s request in this respect. Accordingly, the Council concluded that the publication did not breach Suicide Standard 4.

The Council also considered that the publication did not sensationalise, glamorise, trivialise or stigmatise suicide in the article. Accordingly, the Council concluded that the publication did not breach Suicide Standard 6. Nor was the article published with undue prominence or unnecessarily explicit headlines or images, but rather the publication exercised sensitivity and moderation in electing not to report on the incident on the front page or online. Accordingly, the Council concluded that the publication did not breach Suicide Standard 7.

Note: If you or someone close to you requires personal assistance, please contact Lifeline Australia on 13 11 14.

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published in news.com.au on 31 May 2017, headed “Islamic State [IS] terror guide encourages luring victims via Gumtree, eBay”.

The opening paragraph read: “ISLAMIC State has released a step-by-step guide on how to murder nonbelievers, which includes how to lure targets via fake ads on Gumtree and eBay”. The article proceeded to relay in detail how an article in “[t]he latest edition of the terror group’s English-language propaganda magazine … encourages would-be terrorists to advertise products on second-hand selling sites … to lure victims and assassinate them”. The article mostly comprised extracts from the source material describing the steps necessary to perform such acts.

The Council considered that the article did publish much of the source material from IS verbatim, with limited accompanying analysis or context, such as comments from experts and websites such as Gumtree. The Council accepted there was no intention to encourage or support terrorism, but considered that republishing content from terrorist entities in this manner can perpetuate the purpose of such propaganda and give publicity to its ideas and practices.

However, the Council accepted the public interest in alerting readers to potential risks to their safety. It considered that on balance, the public interest in alerting readers to the dangerous content of the terrorist propaganda and its instructional detail was greater than the risk to their safety posed by the effective republication of terrorist propaganda content. Given this, the Council concluded that the public interest justified publication of the article. Accordingly, the publication did not breach General Principle 6.

The Council noted that great care needs to be exercised by publications when reporting on terrorist propaganda to ensure that public safety is not compromised. In particular, effectively republishing source material comprising instructional detail in how to carry out particular terrorist acts could pose a risk to public safety, and reasonable steps should be taken to prevent such an outcome.

The Press Council has considered a complaint about a front page article in NT News on 20 April 2017 in print, headed “FALCONIO ‘CUT UP, DUMPED’”, with a large photograph of “Slain British backpacker Peter Falconio with … girlfriend Joanne Lees”. Above the headline was a sub-headline, which read: “Police investigating shock new claims murdered backpacker’s missing body was transported across three states”. The full report was on pages six and seven, headed “Falconio ‘cut and dumped’: letter”. The article was also published online, headed “NT Police investigating claims by letter writer that Peter Falconio's body was 'cut up and dumped”.

The article concerned an anonymous letter received by the publication, which reportedly contained “compelling new claims surrounding the whereabouts of … Peter Falconio’s body”. It reported the anonymous letter writer claimed to have been informed by an associate of Bradley John Murdoch, the man convicted of Mr Falconio’s murder, that he assisted in disposing of Mr Falconio’s body. The article described in detail the letter’s claims about how Mr Murdoch wanted Mr Falconio’s body disposed of and its treatment during this disposal, including  how the associate buried Mr Falconio.

The Council accepted that the publication sought confirmation from police that the letter’s claims had a sufficient degree of credibility and that it undertook some, albeit inconclusive, enquiries concerning the veracity of the claims. On the information available, the Council was not satisfied the publication failed to take reasonable steps to report with accuracy, fairness and balance. Accordingly, it did not breach General Principles 1 and 3.

However, given the article’s prominent and graphic description of the alleged treatment of Mr Falconio’s body after his murder, especially in the headlines, the Council considered that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing substantial offence and distress to the complainant’s family. The Council accepted there was a public interest in reporting of the crime, however in this instance—particularly one concerning anonymous and unverified allegations—this did not justify such detailed and graphic descriptions. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 6.

The Press Council has considered a complaint from The Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy Association of Australasia about an article published in The Daily Telegraph on 12 July 2017, headed “FAT CHANCE OF BEING HEALTHY: Young Aussies have only themselves to blame” in print and “Junk food, alcohol and drugs are fuelling health crisis in young adults” online.

The print article included a graphic below the headline which featured a number of statistics, most of which were health-related, and one of which read “16.8% of secondary school students in Australia are attracted to people of the same sex as them or to both sexes”.
The print headline and graphic featured a similar coloured design and background that distinguished it from the rest of the article. Given this, the Council did not accept that the headline should be read as distinct from the graphic. The Council also considered that there is a significant difference between reporting on same-sex attraction as a demographic factor which may affect young people’s mental health and as a lifestyle-related health factor such as poor diet and drug use.

The Council concluded that the headline, sub-headline and statistic concerning sexuality associated the students reporting same-sex attraction with people affected by unhealthy lifestyle factors. In such circumstances, the presentation of the article was significantly misleading. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 1. The Council noted the publication’s online response to complaints from the public. However, this public statement was not published in print and did not acknowledge or apologise for the misleading nature of the graphic, but rather attributed the impression to readers having misconstrued the article. Given this, the response did not constitute adequate remedial action and accordingly, the publication also breached General Principle 2.

The Council concluded that the reference to ill health and blame in the headlines, with the statistic about same-sex attraction displayed among factors such as obesity and drug use, suggested same-sex attraction is unhealthy and blameworthy. As a result, the article caused substantial offence, distress, prejudice and risk to public health and safety, and there was no public interest justifying this. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 6.

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article in The Courier-Mail on 27 May 2017, headed “FAKE REFUGEE OUTRAGE: Rapists, a hitman, and ice dealers allowed to stay” in print  and “Opinion: Administrative Appeals Tribunal has gone too far by allowing foreign-born criminals to stay” online.

The Council considered that the print headline’s reference to “fake refugee”—as distinct from the online headline’s reference to “foreign-born criminals”—had the potential to mislead readers by conflating two distinct concepts when most of the cited cases concerned legal immigrants from countries such as Scotland ineligible for refugee status in Australia. The article drew together various issues recently receiving media coverage, including the Immigration Minister’s description of asylum seekers awaiting government advice on how their claims would be processed as “fake refugee[s]”, and his criticism of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for overturning some of his decisions to rescind the visas of immigrants on the basis of their convictions for criminal offences.

Taking into account the specific circumstances, the Council considered that readers were unlikely to be misled by the article. Accordingly, it concluded that the publication did not breach General Principles 1 or 2, and for the same reasons, did not breach General Principles 3 and 4.
Given the nature of the opinion article, including that it drew together views held by the columnist on various topical issues, the Council was not satisfied that, on balance, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the article avoided causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice. Accordingly, the publication did not breach General Principle 6.

The Council noted that there appeared to be only one specific instance in the article of the term “fake refugee’” being applied to a person who made a false claim about the risks from deportation to his country of origin. The rest of the examples mentioned were people from countries ineligible for refugee status. To avoid diminishing the integrity of the national debate concerning asylum seekers and refugees, care ought be taken to avoid applying the label “fake refugee” to individuals who have never sought or gained asylum, and to ensure that where such a term is used in the public sphere, it is accurately attributed to its source.

The Press Council has considered a complaint about material published as a letter to the editor in the Manningham Leader in print on 15 May 2017, headed “LETTER OF THE WEEK: Get more buses on roads”.

An article in the publication concerning the Victorian Government’s bus services concluded: “Now we have to make sure Spring St hears the message, so tell us what you think. Email, write letters or comment on our Facebook page. And we’ll tell the Government. Loud and clear. And for free.” These statements were followed by the publication’s email address, to which the complainant wrote with details about her experience using the bus services.

The Council noted that the publication did not provide an email address designated for letters to the editor and the complainant did not submit her email to such an address. Had it been submitted to such an address, it would have been clearer how her comments could be expected to be used. Further, the complainant was responding to a general call for comment, and did not mark her email as a letter to the editor.

The Council considered that the complainant had a reasonable expectation that the comments contained in her email would not be published without her prior consent. The publication could have contacted her before publication and checked the email was submitted as a letter to the editor but did not do so. Given this, the Council concluded that the publication did not take reasonable steps to avoid intruding on the complainant’s reasonable expectations of privacy, and there was no public interest justifying doing so, in particular, publishing the email without the complainant being notified and giving consent. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 5.

The Council also considered the call for comment in the original article was not published with an intention to unfairly gather letters from readers or to deceive. Although the publication could have contacted the complainant before publication to check the basis on which the letter was submitted, the Council accepted the email was received and published under a belief that it was submitted for publication in response to an invitation for comment. Given this, the Council concludes the publication took reasonable steps to avoid publishing material gathered by deceptive or unfair means. Accordingly, the publication did not breach General Principle 7.

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published in news.com.au on 7 March 2017, which began: “A WOMAN has died and two others seriously injured in a head-on crash on the Hume Highway at Wilton, south of Sydney.” It continued: “Emergency crews are also working to release another woman trapped in a second vehicle in the south bound lanes of the Hume Highway, about 1km south of Picton Rd. The two vehicles collided just before 8am today.”

The article, which was published within half an hour of the accident, followed with images of the scene, the first of which depicted a heavily damaged vehicle with its doors open and roof peeled back, and emergency crew members including police surrounding and leaning into the car. In the centre of the frame was a face of a person whose head appears tilted back on a stretcher. The image, which included a television station’s logo, was captioned: “Pheasants Nest: Fatal crash Hume Motorway closed in both directions after serious two-car crash. MUST CREDIT [the television station] NewsSource: [the television station]”.

The Council considered that while the accident occurred on a public road and the injured person would not have been easily identifiable by the public at large, nevertheless the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy and the image of the injured person and the car would be sufficiently clear for relatives and friends to identify the person. The image was of person involved in a fatal car accident, seriously injured, and in a crash site which police had apparently taken steps to cordon off from the public. Given these factors, the Council concluded that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid breaching the injured person’s reasonable expectations of privacy.

Considering the nature of the image, in which a person is shown amongst the wreckage of a car accident with the caption referring to the “[f]atal crash”, and the rapid timing of its publication, the Council also concluded that the publication did not take reasonable steps to ensure the material avoided causing or contributing materially to substantial distress.

The Council recognised the reporting of road accidents is commonplace and often in the public interest, particularly to ensure readers have access to reliable information on driving conditions and matters of road safety. However, the magnitude of the accident and resulting traffic disruption could have been captured visually without showing the injured person, for instance, with a long shot of the scene of the accident. In the circumstances, there was no sufficient justification in the public interest for publishing the image in the manner it did. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principles 5 and 6.

The Press Council has considered a complaint about a front page article in NT News on 27 February 2017 in print, headed “HE TOLD ME HE LOVED ME” in quotation marks, superimposed on a large photograph of a 14-year-old girl. Below this were two sub-headlines, the first of which read “Friends shattered by teen highway tragedy”. The article was also published online, headed “Friends in shock over death of Darwin teens … on Stuart Highway”.

The article concerned the “death of two young men …tragically killed in an accident on the Stuart Highway – now believed to have been the devastating result of a prank gone wrong”. The photograph of the girl occupied most of the page. The article referred in passing to friends and family as missing the deceased, but mostly concerned the girl’s friendship with the boys, her reaction to their deaths and her last contact with them at a party the night of the accident. It also reported comments from the girl that she “would never forget” the boys, with one of whom—the nephew of the complainant—she “had a ‘special connection’”.

The Council accepted the publication’s claim that it relied on several sources for the belief that a “prank gone wrong” caused the accident. This statement was not presented as a verified fact and, accordingly, the Council did not uphold the complaint based on General Principles 1 and 2 in this respect.

The Council considered that the public interest in reporting on matters of road safety outweighed any breach of the complainant’s family’s reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to the coverage. Accordingly, the Council did not uphold the complaint based on General Principle 5.

The Council accepted that the publication intended the article to be a tribute to the boys. However, given the absence of comments or photographs from other friends or family, the heavy emphasis on the girl and on her reaction and comments, and the likely emotional state of those affected, the article was likely to cause substantial offence and distress, without sufficient public interest. Accordingly, the Council upheld the complaint based on General Principle 6.

The Press Council has considered a complaint about a front page article in NT News on 27 February 2017 in print, headed “HE TOLD ME HE LOVED ME” in quotation marks, superimposed on a large photograph of the complainant’s 14-year-old daughter. Below this were two sub-headlines, the first of which read “Friends shattered by teen highway tragedy”. The article was also published online, headed “Friends in shock over death of Darwin teens … on Stuart Highway”.

The article concerned the “death of two young men killed in a car accident”. The photograph of the complainant’s daughter occupied most of the page. The article referred in passing to friends and family missing the deceased, but mostly concerned the daughter’s friendship with the boys, her reaction to their deaths and her last contact with them at a party the night of the accident. It also reported her comments that she “would never forget” the boys, with one of whom she “had a ‘special connection’”.

Given the complainant consented to her daughter being interviewed and photographed, the Council did not consider that a reasonable expectation to privacy had been breached and, accordingly, did not uphold the complaint based on General Principle 5. Nor did the Council consider, in such circumstances, that the material for publication was gathered by deceptive or unfair means. Accordingly, the Council did not uphold the complaint based on General Principle 7.

However, the Council noted the emphasis on the complainant’s daughter and particularly the prominent photograph of her on the front page. It also noted her age and likely emotional state, the subject matter about which she was being interviewed and the close proximity in time to the death of the boys. Given these sensitive circumstances, the publication ought to have informed the complainant that an article that focused on her daughter rather than tributes from a number of friends was proposed. Having regard to these factors, the Council considered that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing substantial offence and distress to those close to the boys. The public interest in the reporting on matters of road safety did not justify the prominent focus on the complainant’s daughter. Accordingly, the Council upheld the complaint based on General Principle 6.

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published in The Australian on 6 March 2017 headed “SICK SYSTEM OPEN TO ABUSE: Fake Medicare claims have led to payouts worth millions” in print and “Medicare: Sick system open to abuse” online.

The article, before proceeding to explore flaws in Medicare that made it susceptible to fraudulent claims, began: “Hung Dien Phan came to Australia as a refugee in 1979 after fleeing Vietnam with his family, obtained a degree in medicine from Monash University and then discovered how easy it can be to make serious money in this country.”

The Council considered that in investigating background for the story, the journalist had been referred to the case by the relevant government department as one of the worst cases of medical fraud in terms of the large sum of money involved and the fact that it went undetected for seven years; that it was routine to commence a complex feature article with some background information on a subject; and that the article did not labour the reference beyond the opening paragraph, before proceeding to an exposition of a broad systemic issue. In the circumstances, the Council concluded that the article was not unfair or unbalanced as to breach General Principles 3 and 4.

The Council considered that the references to the man’s refugee status and ethnicity could be considered gratuitous, and irrelevant given he came to Australia as an infant. The references could cause offence, distress or prejudice to people, especially people of Vietnamese origin and refugees generally, by potentially characterising them in a negative light.

However, the Council considered the harm caused by the article was not substantial, given the man’s personal information had been published in court records and elsewhere, and there was only one reference to his refugee status and ethnicity in a lengthy article, in which his was a most significant example of medical fraud. Had the article continued to focus on the man’s ethnicity and refugee status, it could have caused substantial offence, distress or prejudice. Accordingly, the publication did not breach General Principle 6 in this instance.

The Press Council has considered a complaint from Victoria Police about an article published in The Sunday Age on 25 October 2015, headed “Strip-searched in Carlton on a sunny afternoon” in print and online.

The article, written in the first person, described the writer’s experience being questioned by two police officers at a bus stop. He said one of the officers “squatted with a camera and told [the writer] to take down [his] pants to check whether the stolen T-shirt was hidden there”, and “to drop his underpants” as well. He said the officer “took photographs of [his] pubic hair”, “archived [his] worn out old bum” and asked a number of questions before he was able to “pull [his] pants up again”. The article was accompanied by a cartoon of two police officers photographing a man with his pants at his ankles.

The Council considered that the serious nature of the article’s allegations required the publication to take more steps before publication to verify the writer’s account, such as contacting the complainant for corroboration or comment. The publication’s reliance on its relationship with the writer and his filing of a formal complaint to police did not amount to reasonable steps to ensure the article’s account of events was accurate and not misleading. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 1.

The publication eventually accepted the article was inaccurate but, due to its reservations about the complainant’s version of events, did not publish an apology or correction. Notwithstanding the publication’s reservations, sufficient evidence was provided to it prior to the Magistrate’s Court of Victoria hearing in March 2017—in which the writer was found guilty of making a false report to police—to demonstrate the article was significantly inaccurate and misleading in a number of key respects, including that the police officer directed the writer to take down his pants and photographed his pubic hair. After the Court conviction, there was no doubt about the inaccuracies. The publication’s report on the conviction, which did not identify or acknowledge the inaccuracies in the original article, did not constitute adequate remedial action. As such, it also breached General Principle 2. The Council encouraged the publication to publish a correction and apology, which it considered warranted in the circumstances.

The Press Council has considered a complaint from Fred Thorpe about an article in The Sunday Telegraph on 26 February 2017, headed “Sack ABC board and end the warped bias” in print and online. The article referred to the opinion writer’s appearance as a panel member on the ABC Television’s Q&A program and, among other matters, commented on a question posed by the complainant to the Attorney-General, George Brandis, about an impending review of her pension entitlement.

The Council considered the article’s references to the complainant’s superannuation, her appearance on the television program Backyard Blitz, her having “found the stamina to aggressively campaign” for a political candidate “despite her disability”, and that she “surely has nothing to worry about”, collectively implied she is an undeserving welfare recipient. The references to her superannuation, political allegiances, and the extent of her campaigning were based upon speculation and a small selection of comments made by the complainant on social media. The publication failed to ensure factual material was presented with reasonable fairness and balance, especially given the complainant is not a public figure but simply a member of the public. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 3.

Given the complainant appeared on the Q&A program and commented on her personal circumstances, her reasonable expectation to privacy was diminished as it related to such commentary. Accordingly, the publication did not breach General Principle 5 or Privacy Principle 7.

The Council considered that while it is legitimate journalistic practice to provide background to scrutinise people involved in public debate, the article caused the complainant and her family considerable distress. The complainant merely asked a question, albeit on live television, and could not be reasonably described as either being a public figure or involved in the broader debate about the government’s data-matching program. There was no public interest in scrutinising the complainant’s background to the extent the publication did, and there is a strong countervailing public interest in ensuring the public is free to participate in public debate without unwarranted scrutiny. Given this, the Council concluded that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid contributing materially to substantial distress, which was not sufficiently in the public interest. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 6.

The Press Council has considered a complaint from the Department of Human Services about an article in The Canberra Times on 30 March 2017, headed “Another debt debacle” in print and “Centrelink hits 21,000 families with bogus FTB [Family Tax Benefit] debts” online. The article reported on Centrelink’s “Family Tax Benefit recovery effort” and in particular, the approximately “21,400 of the [65,000] families hit with the debt notices [who] were able to prove they owed Centrelink nothing”.

The Council noted that the publication did not dispute that an FTB debt arose once recipients of the benefit failed to lodge their income tax return, or failed to notify the Department they were not required to lodge an income tax return by the end of the lodgment year. The Council was satisfied the approximately 21,000 debts referred to did exist at the time the notices were issued, despite later being reduced to zero dollars. Further, the complainant’s explanation for this was provided in its submission to the parliamentary inquiry on the subject, referred to in the article. Given this, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure accuracy by describing the approximately 21,000 debts as “bogus” and sent in “error”. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 1.

The Council considered the material significantly inaccurate and misleading. In not publishing a correction or other adequate remedial action in this regard, the publication also breached General Principle 2.

The Press Council has considered a complaint from BirdLife Australia about an article published in The Daily Telegraph on 6 December 2016, headed “ENVIRO-MENTAL STATE FUNDS FOR GREEN MOANERS”, with a different headline online.

The Council considered that the article presented as a verified fact that the complainant was one of a number of organisations using government grants for advocacy against major government projects, and did not report this in a qualified way or with any attribution to a source. The Council did not consider that the level of the complainant’s engagement with Stand Up for Nature amounted to using grants in such a way.

The Council accepted that the publication sought information from the complainant by email prior to publication. However, the suggestions made about the complainant were serious and required greater steps to seek confirmation than were taken by the publication, and there was no apparent urgency requiring publication before taking such steps. The inaccuracy and unfairness was accentuated by further references such as “GREEN MOANERS” and a table headed “CASH AND CARRY ON” which cited the complainant. The Council concluded that the publication did not take reasonable steps to ensure accuracy, fairness or balance in the reporting. Even if the information presented as verified fact was to be considered an expression of opinion, the publication did not take reasonable steps to distinguish factual material from opinion as required by General Principle 1. Accordingly, it breached General Principles 1 and 3.

The publication promptly published a letter from the complainant in which it was given an opportunity to respond to the impression created by the article. In the circumstances, the Council considered that the publication took reasonable steps to provide remedial action and a sufficient response, and did not breach General Principles 2 or 4.