Adjudications and other outcomes
Complaints to the Australian Press Council may lead to the one of three broad types of outcome:
- Adjudicated: the Council issued an adjudication on the complaint;
- Resolved: the publisher took action (eg, provided an explanation, right of reply, correction or apology) which led the complainant not to proceed to an adjudication by the Council;
- Other: the complaint did not proceed to resolution or adjudication because, for example, it did not fall within the Council’s mandate, the Executive Secretary decided that there was clearly no breach of the Council’s standards, or the complainant did not pursue the matter to finalisation by the Council.
This section provides the following information about the outcomes of complaints:
Compendium of Adjudications
Summaries of latest adjudications
- Adjudication No. 1518: AWI Limited/The Weekly Times (December 2011)
A complaint by the wool industry's peak body, AWI, that an article about aspects of its governance was inaccurate and misleading. The Council concluded that the description of recent re-arrangements contained a number of errors which, although not seriously misleading, needed to be corrected. Only some of them had been corrected by the newspaper prior to the adjudication. The complaint was upheld on that ground and the Council called on the newspaper to correct the remaining errors. The Council concluded that AWI had not established that the article’s account of a conflict of interest amongst directors, and the Board’s response thereto, was inaccurate or misleading. Accordingly, that aspect of the complaint was dismissed. - Adjudication No. 1517: Penny Campton/Northern Territory News (December 2011)
A complaint that a front-page pointer to a court report of an incident that involved a single asylum seeker making a threat to kill Australians had erroneously referred to "asylum seekers" making the threats. The newspaper did not correct the error when it was pointed out to it, but offered the reader an opportunity to have a letter to the editor published. The Council concluded that it was a serious inaccuracy requiring immediate correction. A letter to the editor would have been insufficient. Accordingly, it called on the newspaper to take the remedial action which should have been taken at the time. - Adjudication No. 1516: Harshula/The Sydney Morning Herald (December 2011)
A complaint about an article concerning the war between the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE (Tamil Tigers). The description of an incident when Tamil leaders, allegedly under a white flag, were killed by government troops was said to be inaccurate. The Council concluded that the description was misleading and lacking in balance because, although saying a UN report rejected the government's version of some events during the period, it did not point out that the UN explicitly said it could not reach a conclusion about the white flag incident. The complainant also said the reporting of a named official was unfair by casting him as a likely war criminal yet not specifying any law he may have broken. The Council dismissed this aspect of the complaint because the official had been quoted extensively in his defence in a front-page article in the same edition. - Adjudiciation No. 1515: Jamie Benaud/The Daily Telegraph (December 2011)
A complaint that three separate articles in June and July 2011 about aspects of the National Broadband Network were inaccurate. The complaint said that the first article understated the number of NBN customers taking up offers; the second misstated the costs of not taking up current NBN offers; and the third made misleading comparisons of the costs of connections. The Council upheld all three complaints on the basis that they were inaccurate and, in two cases, also misleading and unfair, and that the errors were not corrected promptly when brought to the newspaper's attention. - Adjudication No. 1514: Fluer Blum/HRmonthly (November 2011)
A complaint that the words Executive Education: Can women be ‘taught’ to lead? on a magazine's front cover were offensive, largely by implying that women are inherently incapable of leadership. The words related to a later article in the magazine about how much emphasis should be placed on leadership courses as a way of increasing the number of women in executive positions.
The Council concluded that the words could reasonably be interpreted as having the meaning being complained of or as conveying the same unobjectionable message as the article itself. Accordingly, it did not uphold the complaint although it emphasised the need for care to avoid using words which might cause great offence even if not intended to do so. - Adjudication No. 1513: Dale Mills and Vivienne Porszolt/The Australian (November 2011)
A complaint that print and online headlines on reports of a protest about the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against the Israeli government were inaccurate and presented opinion as fact. The print headline was Anti-Jew protest condemned and the online headline was Prominent Australians fight anti-Semitism with hot chocolate. The complainant said that the BDS protests were against Israeli government policies, not "anti-Jew" or "anti-Semitic".
The Council upheld the complaint about the print headline because it presented opinion as fact and misrepresented the tenor of the article. The Council dismissed the complaint about the online headline because it could be reasonably read as describing the opinions of the prominent Australians, not as a statement of fact. - Adjudication No. 1508: Matt Durrant/The Maitland Mercury (October 2011)
A complaint that an article named a deceased victim of a traffic accident before his identity had been confirmed. The Council upheld the complaint because it considered that the newspaper did not have sufficient basis for absolute certainty on the identity of the victim and because it did not use some qualifying words such as "believed to be" when naming the deceased man. - Adjudication No. 1512: John Barnes/The Ballarat Courier (September 2011)
A complaint about a front-page headline and article on the incidence of youth crime. The Council upheld the complaint because the article seriously misstated the incidence and the newspaper then failed to correct the error when brought to its attention or to publish the letter to the editor which did so. - Adjudication No. 1511: Naomi Anderson/The Australian (September 2011)
A complaint that an article comparing the Disability Support Pension and Newstart was inaccurate and unfairly misrepresented the views of the people mentioned in it. The Council upheld the complaint on these grounds. - Adjudication No. 1510: Andrew Robertson/The Daily Telegraph (September 2011)
A complaint that an article, by implying that climate scientists deserved abuse and death threats, was unfair and offensive. The Council did not uphold the complaint because it considered that the words in question were reasonably open to other interpretations. - Adjudication No. 1509: Just Media Advocacy/heraldsun.com.au (September 2011)
A complaint about an online headline, “Court theatrics sees Islam rear its ugly head again” on an opinion article relating to a confrontation outside a court. The Council upheld the complaint because the headline was inaccurate and unfair and did not reflect the tenor of the article. - Adjudication No. 1507: Prof Donovan and Prof Wilkes/The West Australian (September 2011)
A complaint that the newspaper misrepresented a previous complaint to the Council and the reason why it was upheld. The Council considered that the article incorrectly implied that the earlier complaint and the Council’s reason for upholding it had related solely to photograph. They had actually related to the cumulative effects of the photograph, its caption and some letters to the editor. Accordingly, the second complaint was upheld.
- Adjudication No. 1506: The Australian Greens/The Daily Telegraph (September 2011)
A complaint from the Greens about an article stating that their negotiations about the Federal Budget had reduced funding for flood relief. The Council upheld the complaint because there was no evidence to support the key assertion, which remains uncorrected. - Adjudication No. 1505: Steve Foy/smh.com.au (September 2011)
A complaint that an online comment was unfairly edited and an introductory line added, without consultation with the writer. The Council said it was unable to determine that the newspaper had deleted or added words but it would be developing specific Standards of Practice on the editing of readers’ comments. - Adjudication No. 1495: Angus Calder/The Age (August 2011)
A complaint that a court report was seriously unfair and inaccurate, particularly in linking the defendant to the National Party in the midst of an election. The Council concluded that the newspaper was entitled in the particular circumstances to rely on what was said in court as the basis for its report and dismissed the complaint. - Adjudication No. 1504: Jarvis/The Courier-Mail (August 2011)
A complaint that a report about a possible new NRL team in Brisbane did not disclose News Limited's majority ownership of the current Brisbane-based team. The Council said, in general, a newspaper’s close financial relationship should be disclosed in articles which may affect that interest. In this case, however, the complaint was dismissed because the relationship was well-known amongst the vast majority of likely readers and the article was clearly not favourable to the newspaper’s interests. - Adjudication No. 1503: Save Albert Park/Herald Sun & Sunday Herald Sun (August 2011)
A complaint by a lobby group, Save Albert Park, concerning four articles about the Australian Formula One Grand Prix. It related principally to quotes from the Grand Prix Chair stating specific figures for the financial benefits of the Grand Prix and for attendance at it. The Council upheld the complaint because although the papers had previously reported material contesting the claims, they should have stated that the claims were disputed.
Texts of all Council adjudications
For the full text of all Council adjudications from March 2005 onwards, search here >>
Council adjudications before 2005 are available through the AustLII (Australasian Legal Information Institute) website.
Summaries of resolved complaints
During the latter half of 2011, the Council will begin publishing selected summaries of the nature and outcomes of complaints which have been resolved prior to adjudication.
Statistics about complaints
Each year, the Australian Press Council publishes a statistical analysis of its receipt, processing and finalisation of complaints.
Most recent statistics
The APC has released preliminary data about the numbers and outcomes of complaints considered by it during the year 2010-11. Information about types of complaints and other aspects will be provided in the Council's Annual Report later in 2011.
All statistics
Statistics are available for the financial year 2009-10.
Statististics from earlier years are available in the Council's Annual Reports.
