Complaints not adjudicated: 2005-2006

The 2005-2006 statistics note that a small percentage of complaints, only 14.5 per cent, progressed through the complaints procedures (published in the Council's information booklet, Objects, Principles and Complaints Procedure, available from the office and posted on the Council's website at: http://www.presscouncil.org,au/pcsite/complaints/process.html) to the adjudication stage in 2005-2006. This figure can be compared with previous years, in the table on page 46 of this report. Of the remaining complaints, some were refused, some referred to another body and others withdrawn for legal action. Details of the number in each category can be found in the statistics. 8.3 per cent of complainants did not follow-up a request from the Secretariat for more detail on their complaints. And then there are those complainants who were happy to let their complaint rest after receiving the publication's response to the complaint and those whose complaints were conciliated either by the Council Secretariat or by a Public Member of the Council. 51.6 per cent of all complaints ended in this way - to the satisfaction of all parties.

Offensive material

One area where there was an increasing number of complaints in 2005-2006, many of which have been settled without the need for an adjudication, is the area of allegedly offensive or disparaging material. While still a relatively low number, the number of complaints about offensive cartoons doubled. There were large increases in complaints about images and articles that offended readers and in allegations that material disparaged or vilified an ethnic, or religious group. Many of the latter were not accepted by the Council's secretariat.

A number of the complaints arose from material clearly labelled as opinion, commentary or analysis, rather than as news reports. Whether it comes in the form of editorials, opinion articles or cartoons, the Council applies a different standard to commentary than it does to news reporting (and seeks that publications clearly distinguish between the two). In Adjudication No 1257, the Council held:

In the Council's view material clearly labelled as opinion has a wider licence than, for example, news reports. However, this is not an unfettered licence and columnists are still bound by the ethical requirement that they not publish what they could reasonably know is false, nor fail to take reasonable steps to check the accuracy of what they report. This is especially the case where there are no news reports on the same material in the newspaper.

It has since also decided that apart from a requirement for accuracy, there is additionally requirements that commentary does not lapse into the downright offensive nor rely on gratuitously racist material.

As noted in last year's annual report, and reiterated for emphasises here:

The Council recognises that there can be genuine concerns with some areas of reporting, and commentary, on ethnicity, religion or gender, particularly when individuals and groups are singled out unfairly for criticism or, indeed, abuse. The problem emerging is that, with so many claims of unfairness, it is getting harder to discern those where there is a real concern that, for example, a negative stereotype has been reinforced. The Council recognises that, where it is relevant to the story, or in the public interest, publications can allude to questions of race or religion or gender or sexual orientation. Its principles frown on gratuitous emphasis on such characteristics.

The Council has frequently said that the best response to inaccurate or unfair material can often be the submission of a contrary view for publication, either by letter or follow-up article and frequently advises putative complainants first to take up the matter with the publication direct. It is increasingly apparent that publications are happy to discuss the publication of balancing material, especially when it responds to an opinion piece or a commentary on the news. The op/ed and letters pages are frequently used for this purpose, and one of the more common ways in which complaints are settled amicably is by the publication of a letter or article.

There were no adjudications this year arising from cartoons; there were two about offensive material (No. 1293, and No. 1319). There were three adjudications on allegations of racial or religious disparagement: No. 1304, No. 1306 and No. 1313. That leaves 75 complaints in these categories dealt with by other means. Here are some examples of complaints about offensive material that were dealt with by means other than adjudication.

Reviews

Reviews or discussions of pieces of art can lead to heated exchanges. A discussion of the film Brokeback Mountain in a regional community newspaper was based, according to the complainant, on "misinformation that has the potential to influence reader's attitudes and opinions. [It] re-iterated the myths and misconceptions regarding gay and lesbian issues whilst possibly instilling homophobia, intolerance and discrimination ...!" The Council sought a settlement of the complaint and, in its next issue, the newspaper published the complainant's letter in full, together with an editor's note apologising for the original article. These actions redressed the complainant's concerns.

Photographs

A "Photo of the Week" in a country newspaper was seen by the complainant as of a man "lying in shallow water at the seaside. His hands are behind his head, his legs apart, he is grinning and appears to be naked. The photograph is not sharp enough to discern if he is totally naked, but there is clearly some kind of object in his genital area". In response to the compliant, the paper published a letter from another reader, together with an editor's note that read "the reader saw more in the picture than was actually there". The complainant let the matter rest at that point, happy with publication of the letter.

A magazine published a photograph of a woman holding a gagged woman at knifepoint. The complainant, as a parent, found this unacceptable. The magazine was "displayed at child eye level which was an unnecessary exposure to violence". The magazine printed the complainant's letter. The editor also apologised for the image, noting that it would be more careful in future as to what it printed on the front cover.

During a recent inquest, a number of newspapers published a particular image that had been presented in court as part of the evidence. In all but one newspaper, the image was cropped to preserve the privacy and sensibilities of the individual concerned. The exception was a daily newspaper that printed the image uncropped but with a pixilation that implied more than was in the image. There was an outcry from the readership and a dozen written complaints to the Council, which took the matter up immediately with the newspaper. It published the next day a prominent editor's note that said, among other things, that the newspaper "accepts that publication of the photograph in such a way was too confronting and upset many readers. The newspaper apologises for this". It also published a large number of readers' letters critical of the decision to publish the image in the way it did. When the Council forwarded the newspaper's response to their complaints to the complainants, together with copies of the editor's note and the letters, all were happy to let the matter rest, noting the newspaper's prompt reaction to its readership's concerns, in line with Principle 6 of the Council's Statement of Principles that says that when publishing material that may offend readers, publications should note that the public interest should be the criterion and, on occasion, explained editorially.

Headlines

The use of the term "pom" in a headline led a complainant to suggest that a metropolitan daily is "either incapable of understanding or just doesn't give a 'rats' that its anti-British ploy could rebound and affect non-racist law abiding Australians who may travel overseas, who could be addressed or referred to in uncomplimentary terms by locals on the same mental level as the editor". In dealing with the use of terms for racial or religious groups in headlines, the Council has issued a guideline that says,

the Council considers that the use of wide, too-general terms for religious or ethnic groups in headlines could contribute to the promotion of a negative stereotype of that group.

The Council's view is that what needs to be avoided are offensive descriptors and the reinforcement of racial stereotypes. In this case, the term "pom" was used in a heading on an article that described the large number of British migrants living in the city in which the paper was published. The term was neither derogatory nor used in a way that promoted a negative stereotype. The Council refused the complaint.

In a separate and more disturbing case, a sub-heading to article in a metropolitan newspaper unfairly linked followers of a particular religion with acts of violence. The complainant believed the headline could incite religious and ethnic intolerance. He submitted a letter for publication. The Executive Secretary took the view that the paper had, prima facie, failed to abide by the guideline on the use of unmodified religious terms in headlines. The paper agreed, and published a ninety-word clarification. This satisfied the complainant.

Cartoons

A national newspaper published a political cartoon intended as a response to an anti-Australian cartoon published in an Indonesian newspaper. The complainant was offended by the cartoon's "graphically depicting homosexual bestiality and religious racism". The secretariat sent the complainant past adjudications in which the Council outlines its attitude to cartoons. In them the Council states that it believes cartoonists should have a wide licence to comment on the day's events, and that the use of exaggeration, caricature and humour to express those opinions are ethically legitimate. It was suggested to the complainant that he submit a letter to the paper as a contrary view for publication. As the newspaper published a number of letters for and against the cartoon and the issues were discussed in the newspaper's news pages, the Council did not accept the matter for processing as a complaint.

Illustrations

An illustration accompanying an article about federal politicians was based on religious symbolism used by a particular religion. The complainant, a religious organization, believed the illustrator "displayed his ignorance and at the same time insulted" the religion's Deity. The paper responded that it had "no desire to cause offence, nor was there an intent to poke fun at the religion or to desecrate or insult the image of the Deity". It added that it recognised that freedom of speech and expression are not absolute and "must be tempered with a sense of responsibility, but in this case it did not believe publication overstepped the mark". The secretariat advised the complainant the best solution in this case was the submission of a letter to the editor taking issue with the use of its religious symbol in this way.

Opinion columns

The complainant was a representative of the Islamic community and claimed that it had been vilified in a number of opinion columns published in a metropolitan newspaper in the weeks after the disturbances at Cronulla and their aftermath. He cited a number of inaccuracies and distortions and pointed to a gratuitous emphasis on race and religion. The complainant submitted a balancing article that he hoped could be published in the opinion pages of the paper. The paper declined to publish the complainant's article. It did, however, publish a correction of one piece of information it agreed was incorrect, together with letters critical of the opinion pieces. The parties also met at a formal mediation. The complainant asked if it was possible that the view of his community be published in a letter to the editor. The paper agreed to the request. The letter was subsequently published.

Conciliated complaints

A number of the complainants mediated successfully by the secretariat or by a Public Member of the Council, and the sorts of settlements arrived at, are outlined in each edition of the APC News, and these are published on the Council's website.

[ return to top ]

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

[ return to top ]