Complaints not adjudicated: 1999-2000

• Introduction
  
• Mediation/Withdrawal
  
• Refusal
  
• Withdrawal for legal action
  
• Thank yous

Introduction

One of the entrants in this year's APC Essay Prize, looking at the 1998-99 statistics, drew the following conclusion:

Out of 468 complaints ... only 77 were adjudicated and only six of these were fully upheld. ... With the Council responding to such a small number of complaints, and only successfully dealing with six of them, one can say that journalists are not at all obliged by the Council to be ethical.

This student is making the same error that many critics of the Council make and then compounds it by looking only at those complaints upheld fully. The error the student made was to look at the complaints adjudicated and assume that the rest were not "successfully" dealt with.

In 1998-99, 166 complaints, 37 per cent of those received, were either mediated to a mutually agreeable settlement or withdrawn by the complainant. A further 21 were upheld either in whole or part. That's at least 189 complaints "successfully" dealt with. Many others were referred to a more appropriate authority or just did not represent a breach of the principles.

This year the Council received 403 complaints and had 68 carried forward from the previous year. 429 of these complaints were closed during the year. 66 were followed through to the final stage of the complaints procedure: the issuing of an adjudication on the complaint. There were in total 47 adjudications but many adjudications deal with more than one complaint. We have noted in the Complaints Statistics 1999 - 2000 the way in which the remaining complaints were disposed of. Here are some of those that were not adjudicated.

[ return to top ]

Mediated or withdrawn

176 complaints (41 per cent of the total disposed of in 1999-2000) were mediated to a mutually acceptable settlement or withdrawn by the complainant.

The Council places a strong emphasis on mediation of complaints and both the Executive Secretary and the Office Manager are trained mediators. In 1999-2000, the Council added a further mediation option: public member mediation. The Council's public members are drawn from every state and provide a base for local mediation of complaints where the office has been unable to bring the parties together. The public members have been training for this role and complainants are offered their services in cases where there remains a chance for an agreed settlement even after the publication's initial response to the complaint. Both parties have to then agree to participate in the mediation. This is a new dimension to the complaint's procedure and has yet not been taken up by the parties in a particular case.

In each issue of the APC News, we report on the office's successful mediations. Here is a selection of such matters:

• A report in a regional daily gave details of a minor at a pre-sentence hearing. The editor offered personally to apologise and also to publish a correction. The complainant declined this offer as it would draw attention to the matter again, but was satisfied by the paper's acknowledgment of its mistake.



• An article in a metropolitan newspaper maligned the complainant's professional integrity. The paper offered to publish a lengthy letter from the complainant. She accepted the offer. Additionally, the paper cross-referenced the article on its electronic database with the published letter of the complainant.



• A metropolitan newspaper published an article which was unbalanced. The complainant, the subject of the article, wanted its say. The paper agreed to publish the complainant's letter, and it was satisfied with this action.



• Another metropolitan newspaper published the photograph of a complainant. The photograph was one among photographs of other people. They were linked to juvenile offences. The complainant demanded an apology and retraction. The paper checked with the relevant authority which had supplied the photographs. The authority could not explain how it came into possession of the photograph of the complainant. The paper, satisfied that the complainant was innocent of any wrongdoing, published an apology for any impression which could have led readers to believe the complainant had broken the law.



• The Assistant Principal of a school complained that the local paper did not give sufficient coverage of a huge local event. An amicable arrangement was agreed between the parties in respect of the future reporting of matters of public interest.



• Statistics used by a metropolitan newspaper in an article about firearm deaths were inaccurate. The complainant submitted letters correcting the inaccuracy, but neither were published. After an exchange of correspondence between the parties, the complainant referred the matter to the Complaints Committee for a hearing. The paper reconsidered the matter, and agreed with the complainant on a suitable letter for publication. The complainant then withdrew the complaint.



• A regional daily published an article referring to James Killen as "Mr", and giving Michael Lavarch the title of "former governor-general". The paper admitted that the sub-editor made a mistake in the governor-general assignment, and explained that the young reporter "was not up on the convention" in matters relating to Knights of the Realm. Upon receipt of the secretariat's letter, the paper ran a correction of its errors. The complainant was "satisfied with the correction actioned" by the paper.



• A metropolitan newspaper published an article which had an adverse effect on the complainant's business. The paper offered to publish a correction on an aspect of the article. The complainant added to the correction, which the paper agreed to. The complainant was very happy with the published correction.



• A regional daily newspaper published a series of letters attacking the Mayor and the local Council, without checking the authenticity of the author. After four letters and three phone calls from the Mayor, the paper admitted its error and published an apology to the Mayor and the Council. The Mayor was satisfied with the resolution of the complaint.



• A country newspaper published a photograph of police trying to drag a submerged body from a dam. The complainant was the sister of the victim, and was offended by the photograph. The paper sent a personal letter of apology to the complainant, and published a letter from her which set out her concerns with the photograph. The complainant decided not to proceed with the complaint, given the actions of the paper.



• A regional daily newspaper published a letter over an incorrect name. The editor apologised orally, and published a correction and apology.



• A regional paper published a photograph of a child submerged in water in a garbage bin. The complainant, the local P & C Association, believed the photograph was irresponsible. The paper admitted mea culpa, and published a proactive story to counter the picture, sent a staff member on a two-week study trip to develop a new system of operation, and offered the school to come to the paper to see how the paper works! A meeting between all those involved was very successful, and a fruitful relationship formed between the parties.

Adjudication and mediation are two methods of "successfully" handling complaints. Sometimes, however, all a complainant wants is a response to his or her concern. Many of those who approach the Council have tried first to have their concern ameliorated direct with the publication and received no response. When the publication sends a formal or informal written response to the Council, explaining its reasons for publishing, or not publishing, the material concerned, and this is passed along to the complainant, many are happy to let the matter rest, satisfied that their concern has been acknowledged. Others feel that there is no point in taking the matter further once the newspaper has acknowledged the fact that there was a concern. Such complaints are recorded as "withdrawn" and represent, in a vast majority of cases, a "successful" outcome to the complaint.

[ return to top ]

Refused as inappropriate

Eighty-nine complaints fell into this category. The Council is only concerned with allegations that journalistic ethics have been breached in the publication (or non-publication) of editorial material. It judges such allegations on the basis of the Statement of Principles it espouses, a set of principles that have been developed in co-operation with the press and to which it has agreed. The mere fact that someone writes to the Council does not mean that the complaint will be accepted for processing. The Executive Secretary is given a discretion to refuse complaints. He is obliged to explain why. For example, in normal circumstances, there is no complaint arising from the accurate and balanced reporting of matters raised in an open court. Nor is it a breach of the Council's principles when a complainant disagrees with an opinion expressed in an editorial, a cartoon or a clearly marked by-lined opinion piece. Nor are all allegations of 'vilification' or 'personal attack' found to be sustained by the Executive Secretary.

Complainants who want to press ahead with a complaint can appeal the Executive Secretary's discretion to the Complaints Committee which decides if the particular matter should be accepted for processing. The committee occasionally overturns the Executive Secretary's ruling.

Here are some examples of the sort of matters which the Executive Secretary ruled as inappropriate, some of which were also ruled on by the committee.

Complaints concerned with advertising or promotional material. For example there were concerns with incidental advertising of tobacco products in photos of car races; in the refusal of ads from candidates in local elections; and with the prevalence of "sex ads" in the local newspaper. None of these were matters which the Council could deal with. Some may fall within the purview of the Advertising Standards Board or be subject to ACCC review under trade practices legislation.

"Suppression". In the normal course of events, the Council will not instruct a newspaper that it should publish unsolicited material from readers. Sometimes these opinions are expressed as letters to the editor. The Council only concerns itself when it believes that the newspaper is under some onus arising from principle 2 (need to amend harmfully inaccurate material) or principle 8 (a group or individual has been singled out for criticism). Allegations that the press is 'suppressing' a complainant's conspiracy theory or a journal is refusing to publish a review of a complainant's book or that a "brilliant expose" is being ignored are themselves usually ignored.

Abusive editors/journalists. Complainants have been known to allege that a newspaper employee was rude to them when they made a complaint. This lies outside the Council's remit, which is concerned with what is (or is not) published, not the behaviour of editors or journalists. In particularly egregious cases, the Council may refer the matter to the employer for its action. Experience has taught the Council that such allegations of rudeness are often examples of reciprocity.

Contests. The Council is concerned with journalistic ethics, not publication's commercial activities. Thus the non-receipt of a competition prize or an allegation that a competition was rigged are matters which may be more in the province of the ACCC.

Other matters refused by the Council included:

• One from a complainant who was concerned that Rupert Murdoch used the pronoun 'we' in such a way that implied that he saw himself as an Australian;



• a whinge that the contents of a particularly vile one-off sex magazine did not include all the articles promised in the front page teasers; and



• a concern that editorials not being bylined.

[ return to top ]

Withdrawn for legal action

The Council sometimes requests that the complainant sign a legal waiver. Not all complainants are required to sign a waiver but, in instances where it appears to the office or the publication that a complaint could be the subject of legal action, or there is the threat of legal action, such waivers are sought. Some complainants sign the waiver, and proceed with their complaint through the Council, often to a mediated settlement, sometimes to an adjudication. Others choose to reserve their legal rights. There were 28 of the latter type of complaint this year. Local government candidates, people appearing before the courts, and complainants wishing monetary compensation made up the majority of these complaints.

[return to top]

Bouquets

Sometimes the Council receives a bouquet for its assistance. Some of the nice letters we received include:

We do strongly support the principles, fairness, operating methods and presence of the Australian Press Council. We have appreciated your guidance and advice on quite a number of occasions. Thank you on behalf of our members and supporters.

I thank you for all your help. I was particularly impressed with how promptly I was kept informed each step of the way.

We are satisfied that as much as practicable has been done towards ameliorating the harm done to our organisation. Thank you very much for your assistance, without which it was unlikely that we could have achieved an acceptable outcome.

I wish to thank the Press Council for its efficient and speedy resolution of the issue, and for your courteous service.

[ return to top ]

View the details of complaints not adjudicated for each of the following years:

[ return to top ]