Search

The Press Council considered a complaint from Jordan Shanks-Markovina about an article published by The Daily Telegraph on 21 September 2020 headed “Friendlyjordies: Labor members concerned by leader’s links to YouTube star” online; and “Labor Leader’s Controversial New Friend” in print. The article stated “Labor MPs have expressed concern about leader Jodi McKay engaging with controversial YouTube star Friendlyjordies, suggesting it was “risky” to be associated with someone who has made controversial statements about mental health and sexual assault.” The article reported comments from an unnamed Labor source that stated “[i]t’s just risky, you don’t need to take that risk”, and referred to comments made by then NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian, stating “I have heard that he has made inappropriate and racist comments about a number of people and I think that’s completely unacceptable.” The article also reported that “Shanks did not respond to written questions last night. In a subsequent phone conversation, his assistant criticised this reporter, before Shanks claimed he did not have access to the questions sent by The Daily Telegraph.” The complainant said that he was not given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations against him and that the questions put to him by the publication were leading, unfair and impossible to answer within the confines of a quarter-page article. He said that questions regarding his “controversial statements about mental health and sexual assault” were based on comments he had made during an hour-long podcast, that had been deliberately taken out of context and stripped of any nuance. He said another of the publication’s questions, about whether his impersonation of a particular politician was ‘racist’, had already been addressed by him publicly in a ten-minute video on his YouTube channel. The complainant said certain adverse references to him in the article were not specifically put to him by the publication, including the comments of the unnamed Labor source and Gladys Berejiklian. The complainant also said he was given inadequate time to respond to the journalist’s questions. He said the questions were sent to him via Twitter and an email account designed for tip-offs by the public. He received the questions on a Sunday evening and was given less than an hour and a half to respond. The complainant said it was completely unreasonable for him to see and respond to the journalist’s message in that timeframe. The complainant added that it was inaccurate to report that he “did not respond to written questions … [and] … claimed he did not have access to the questions.” He said in a subsequent telephone conversation, recorded by the complainant, the journalist was asked to put questions to him verbally but did not. The complainant said he could not access the journalist’s questions digitally while recording the telephone conversation. The complainant said he preferred for the interview to be conducted by telephone as he wanted to gauge the journalist’s intentions and considered there was a greater risk of any written responses being taken out of context. The complainant also said the publication did not adequately disclose the journalist’s conflict of interest and suggested that the story had been written at the behest of a senior NSW Coalition member. In response, the publication said it put a series of questions to the complainant via email and Twitter following the publication of an earlier article in another publication which raised similar issues. It said its questions were based on public comments by the complainant which had been previously reported by other publications and circulated widely on social media; a tweet sent by the Friendlyjordies twitter account in which he told another user to “produce some serotonin and then get a job”; and an earlier story published by The Daily Telegraph on 21 June 2020 headed “YouTube funnyman in hot water over mocking accents of Gladys Berejiklian, John Barilaro.” It also said the comments attributed to Gladys Berejiklian had been made at a press conference earlier that morning. It said the complainant was given the opportunity to respond to the questions as posed. The publication said on the Sunday in question the Friendlyjordies Twitter account had been actively tweeting and the questions were not deliberately difficult to see, as the complainant suggested. The questions were also emailed to the complainant via an email address to which he invites correspondence. In relation to the subsequent telephone conversation, the publication said the journalist ascertained that he was being recorded for the purposes of uploading to the Friendlyjordies YouTube channel, but nevertheless asked the complainant multiple times if he wished to respond to the written questions as posed via email and Twitter. The publication said nowadays it is commonplace for interviews to be conducted by email and/or Twitter. It also said if the complainant had simply answered the questions, his responses would have been included in the article. The publication said the article did not arise as a result of any improper relationship between the publication and a NSW Coalition member, and that there was no evidence to support this contention. 

Conclusion

 The Council’s Standards of Practice applicable in this matter require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1); and is presented with reasonable fairness and balance (General Principle 3). If the material is significantly inaccurate or misleading, or unfair or unbalanced, publications must take reasonable steps to provide adequate remedial action or an opportunity for a response to be published if that is reasonably necessary to address a possible breach (General Principles 2 and 4). Publications must also take reasonable steps to ensure that conflicts of interests are avoided or adequately disclosed, and that they do not influence published material (General Principle 8). The Council accepts that, based on the material before it, the factual material in the article reflects comments made by a Labor Party source and by Gladys Berejiklian. Accordingly, General Principles 1 and 2 were not breached. In relation to General Principle 3, the Council does not accept that the complainant could not access the questions posed by the journalist. The Council notes that the apparent inability to access the questions was solely due to the complainant’s own actions and not that of the publication. However, the Council considers the article’s comment that the complainant “did not respond to written questions” was an unfair characterisation of the communications between him and the publication.  The Council also notes that the questions as posed lacked necessary context and could not have been fairly answered by the complainant given the deadline provided.  In relation to the comments made by then Premier Gladys Berejiklian, which called into question whether the complainant had in the past made ‘inappropriate’ and ‘racist’ comments, the publication was required to provide him with an opportunity to respond to those comments specifically. Accordingly, the General Principle 3 was breached in these respects. As the complainant did not seek a subsequent right of reply, General Principle 4 was not breached. The Council is satisfied that given both the absence of evidence and the routine and accepted journalistic practice of using confidential sources, that the article was not a result of an improper relationship between the journalist and a politician. Accordingly, there was no breach of General Principle 8. 

Relevant Council Standards

 This Adjudication applies the following General Principles of the Council: Publications must take reasonable steps to:1. Ensure that factual material in news reports and elsewhere is accurate and not misleading, and is distinguishable from other material such as opinion. 2. Provide a correction or other adequate remedial action if published material is significantly inaccurate or misleading. 3. Ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts. 4. Ensure that where material refers adversely to a person, a fair opportunity is given for subsequent publication of a reply if that is reasonably necessary to address a possible breach of General Principle 3. 8. Ensure that conflicts of interests are avoided or adequately disclosed, and that they do not influence published material.

The Press Council considered a complaint from Bayside Council about an article published by the Sydney Morning Herald in print on 31 October 2020 headed “$1b lost in council merger failures” and online headed “‘Rates will have to rise’: Council mergers in crisis as losses mount”. The article reported “[the] NSW government’s controversial merger policy is in crisis, with the 20 amalgamated councils losing $1.05 billion in three years and ratepayers facing hike in rates and cuts in services”. It reported that LSI Consulting, “[u]sing the published audited financial statements of NSW’s 128 councils … created a productivity index to measure the operating performance of councils dating back to 2016, when NSW forced the super council mergers”. It reported that LSI’s productivity index “measures councils’ output relative to input. Output measures the services delivered by each council relative to the income they receive from rates, parking fees and other regulatory income. Input is what each council pays to deliver the services”. The article reported that “[t]he data showed that the productivity index of the 20 merged councils went backwards 16 per cent since amalgamation” and “[t]he worst-performing council in NSW was Bayside Council, formed from the merger of Botany Bay and Rockdale City councils. Its productivity has gone backwards since the merger, losing the equivalent of $155.7 million in productivity losses over three years”. The article also includes a chart compiled by LSI Consulting called ‘In the red: The 10 worst-performing merged NSW councils’ which showed Bayside Council at the top with a loss of $155,721,400. The article reported that a Bayside Council spokesperson said: “‘On a cumulative basis, for the past four financial years since amalgamation, Bayside has reported an operating surplus of $162.5 million (including capital grants and contributions) or a surplus of $17.9 million (excluding capital grants and contributions)’”. It also reported that principal LSI Consultant “disputed the council’s figure and said part of the deterioration in productivity since the merger was due to a blowout in labour and other costs”. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate as Bayside Council is one of the state’s strongest performers, making productivity gains of $78 million from September 2016 to June 2019 and productivity gains of $104 million to June 2020, and is operating in surplus. The complainant said the publication used incorrect figures from LSI Consulting’s report as it failed to include inputs from rates revenue of $70 million for 2016-17, and did not account for the fact that in the 2016-17 financial year the rates revenue for Bayside Council was recorded in the financial accounts of the two former Councils (Rockdale and City of Botany Bay) before the merger. It said while the expenditure was recorded in the accounts of Bayside Council, it was not formally amalgamated until September 2016 and not May 2016, when other NSW councils were amalgamated. The complainant said that re-calculating the index would result in Bayside Council being the best-performing merged council with positive productivity measure. The complainant also said it was factually incorrect to allege that Bayside Council had a blowout in labour costs as Bayside Council’s labour expenses had only risen in line with inflation and standard award increases. The complainant said the publication relied on factually incorrect data and that Bayside Council was not given the opportunity to correct the record or a right of reply to the claims before or after publication. It said the journalist sent a query a week before the article was published and that no questions were asked about productivity gains and losses. The complainant said Bayside Council had written to the Sydney Morning Herald editor about the factual inaccuracies in the article within two days of publication. It said it is looking for a retraction, an apology and for the publication to cease referring to the original article in subsequent articles. The complainant said that the article has caused alarm and unnecessary angst amongst leaders in the community regarding Bayside Council being the worst-performing council. The publication said there were no errors in the original article and that it accurately reported LSI’s findings at the time of the article’s publication and that since publication, LSI’s productivity index has not changed. It said there was no reference to a rates revenue of $70 million in Bayside Council’s annual financial statements for the period of 10 September 2016 to 30 June 2017. It said that, since the $70 million was not included in the publicly available financial statements, it was therefore not included in the 2017 calculations. The publication said that in relation to labour costs, the employee numbers reported by former councils in 2016 were 324 FTE (Full-Time Equivalents) in Botany and 361 FTE in Rockdale, totalling 685 FTE. It said that Bayside Council reported in June 2019 a total FTE of 767, which is an increase of 11.97%. It also said that prior to publication of the article it spoke to the relevant person at LSI who confirmed its calculations included Botany Council revenue from 2016. The publication said it had reported the correct figures from the outset and no error had been made. The publication also noted that Bayside Council’s entire response to its queries was included in the original article. In regard to the correspondence it received from the Mayor of Bayside Council, it said it responded to his concerns and suggested the Mayor contact LSI Consulting about the methodology it used to arrive at the conclusion it did. The publication proposed to attach a footnote to the original story to the effect that a recalculation of the index taking into account unaudited financial information subsequently provided by Bayside Council to LSI, would show that Bayside was not the worst performing council. 

Conclusion

 The Council’s Standards of Practice applicable in this matter require that publications take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material in news reports and elsewhere is accurate and not misleading and is distinguishable from other material such as opinion (General Principle 1) and that material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts (General Principle 3). They also require publications take reasonable steps to provide a correction or other adequate remedial action if published material is significantly inaccurate or misleading (General Principle 2) and provide an opportunity for a response to be published by a person adversely referred to (General Principle 4). The Council considers that in writing the article it was reasonable for the publication to rely on the factual material contained in the report by LSI Consulting, as it was a reputable source of productivity information regarding Local Governments over a number of years and its report was based on publicly available information. The Council accepts the information in the LSI report was relayed accurately in the article and concludes General Principle 1 was not breached. The Council also considers the publication took reasonable steps to present material with reasonable fairness and balance by including comments from Bayside Council and other relevant Councils in the article. Accordingly, the Council concludes that General 3 was not breached. However, while the Council accepts that the publication relied on information that it believed was accurate at the time of publication, and that the authors of the report do not wish to update that information as previously considered, the Council nonetheless considers that the publication had an obligation to update the story. The Council considers that independent of any action by LSI Consulting, once the publication became aware there was an apparent anomaly relating to the base year for the productivity calculation, it was obliged to update the article. While the Council acknowledges the publication’s subsequent offer of a footnote, it does not consider this proposal sufficiently remedies the matter given the relevant information relied on was not itself being updated, and notes the publication ought to cease referring to the original article in any subsequent articles. Accordingly, the Council concludes that General Principles 2 and 4 were breached. 

Relevant Council Standards

 This Adjudication applies the following General Principles of the Council: Publications must take reasonable steps to: 1. Ensure that factual material in news reports and elsewhere is accurate and not misleading, and is distinguishable from other material such as opinion. 2. Provide a correction or other adequate remedial action if published material is significantly inaccurate or misleading. 3. Ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts. 4. Ensure that where material refers adversely to a person, a fair opportunity is given for subsequent publication of a reply if that is reasonably necessary to address a possible breach of General Principle 3.

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by a reader’s letter published in the Byron Shire Echo headed “Midwife quits” on 17 April 2021. The letter stated “… Work with lies and deceit at all levels has led me to despair. I am very good at my job as midwife. You would want me to take care of you. You would be very safe in my care. ‘The jab’ cannot be called a vaccine. It will kill and it will make people very sick with autoimmune disease, which will manifest in many types of diseases. Please do not acquiesce.” In response to a complaint, the Press Council asked the publication to comment on whether the letter complied with the Council’s Standards of Practice, which require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1); that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts (General Principle 3); and to avoid causing or contributing to substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 6). The Council noted that the complaint raised concerns that the letter is likely to excite irrational fears surrounding vaccines. The complaint also expressed concern that the writer, who identified themselves as a ‘professional midwife’, could not be found on the register of midwives and nurses with the Australian Health Practitioner Registration Agency. In response, the publication said the letter was published in the context of providing a balanced debate on vaccine safety. It said it also publishes letters and articles which strongly support vaccination, support an approach based on scientific evidence, and objections to anti-vax opinions, conspiracy theories and untruths. The publication said it reports the reality that there are a range of opinions on vaccination, without giving readers the impression that these opinions are accurate statements of fact. It said that given the longstanding vaccine scepticism in its community, it is in the public interest to publish a curated selection of material on the sorts of views its community holds, balanced with factual information and opposing views, rather than driving the whole debate to social media where there is less opportunity of opposing views being heard. The publication said it has also published criticism of its editorial stance on this issue from people who feel that it should not publish anti-vax opinions. The publication said that there is some validity to the comments noting that some people have died as a result of a particular vaccine. Nonetheless, the publication said while the letter writer was in fact a registered midwife, it took the letter down after further consideration of the letter’s content.  

Conclusion

 The Council notes that while a letter to the editor is very much an expression of the letter writer’s opinion, publications must nonetheless comply with the Council’s Standards of Practice in relation to letters they select and edit for publication. While the Council accepts that there have been reported cases of deaths associated with a particular type of vaccine, on the information available to it, there is no evidence to support the writer’s emphatic comment that vaccines “…will kill and it will make people very sick with autoimmune disease” is accurate. Accordingly, the Council finds the publication failed to take reasonable steps to comply with General Principles 1 and 3. The Council recognises the significant public interest in publishing a range of views on matters of public debate. However, the Council considers there was no public interest in publishing significantly inaccurate and potentially harmful information concerning Covid-19 vaccines particularly in the time of a pandemic and when the letter writer is asserting they are a health professional. Accordingly, the Council concludes that the publication breached General Principle 6.The Council welcomes the publication’s decision to remove the letter.  

Relevant Council Standards

 Publications must take reasonable steps to:1. Ensure that factual material in news reports and elsewhere is accurate and not misleading, and is distinguishable from other material such as opinion.3. Ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts.6. Avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest.

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published by The Australian Financial Review online on 9 May 2021 headed “Apollo Global MD contracts COVID-19 in Sydney”, and in print on 10 May 2021 headed “Apollo Global MD Pizzey contracts COVID-19 in Sydney”. The article reported “Investment giant Apollo Global Management managing director” is the “Sydney person that has been diagnosed with COVID-19”. The article reported that the person, “who is one of only two full-time employees at Apollo in Australia, is still suffering COVID-19 symptoms and is suspected of catching the virus from a returned US traveller.” It also said the person “is understood to be the mystery shopper who ducked into two Sydney-based Barbeques Galore stores on Saturday, May 1, and then his local butcher, in a shopping trip that has since been documented by NSW Health as part of its contact tracing protocols. It is understood the person went to Barbeques Galore looking for a new barbecue, but also as part of his firm’s due diligence on the retailer.” Following complaints it received, the Press Council asked the publication to comment on whether the article complied with the Council’s Standards of Practice. In particular, it asked whether the article intruded on the person’s reasonable expectations of privacy by reporting their name and personal medical information; whether the article may have caused substantial distress to the person or could discourage other members of the public from getting tested for Covid-19; and whether identifying the person in this manner was necessary or justified in the public interest.In response, the publication said it considered the question of privacy in publishing the article. It said its reporter approached Apollo Global Management and outlined the story well before publication. The company confirmed that the managing director had tested positive to the coronavirus, provided comments and did not ask the Financial Review to refrain from identifying him. After the article appeared online on 9 May, the company contacted it and asked that it remove a photograph of the managing director, which it did. The publication said the company did not complain about the story or the naming of the managing director and did not ask for his name to be removed. The company did not express the view that the article had, or would, cause the managing director distress. The publication also said that the named person made no complaint to it after publication. He did not ask for the story to be amended or withdrawn and there is no evidence that he was distressed or harmed by the publication. The publication said the person is a managing director of Apollo Global Management, an international private equity firm listed on the New York Stock Exchange with more than $US460 billion of assets and he is a significant figure in Australian investment circles. Some in the market already knew that he was the person who had contracted COVID-19 while visiting multiple BBQs Galore shops. Helping to fully inform the market on this relevant point involving a potential transaction of $100 million or so is in the public interest. It said the identification of the person has not destroyed, nor would it destroy, public confidence in the contact tracing system, testing or vaccination. There is no evidence, whatsoever, that this occurred. It also said there is no stigma in being identified as a person having COVID-19, noting various prominent people have been identified as such, and said the identification of prominent people having contracted COVID-19 is helpful in reducing any stigma and helping the public’s understanding of the spread of the virus.  

Conclusion

 The Council considers there is a public interest in reporting on the business activities of Apollo Global Management in Australia, and notes the named person is somewhat of a public figure given his position within the organisation. It also notes that such public interest does not necessarily justify identifying a person’s medical information. In this case however, the Council is satisfied the publication took reasonable steps to not intrude on the person’s reasonable expectations of privacy by contacting the company in advance of the article’s publication and by removing a photograph of the person upon request. Accordingly, the Council finds there was no breach of General Principle 5. The Council accepts the publication’s submission that the article did not cause substantial distress to the person, noting that neither the person, nor Apollo Global Management raised such concerns after being notified of the article by the publication. The Council also notes the article was not derisive or critical of the named person and is unlikely to discourage other members of the community from getting tested for COVID-19. Accordingly, the Council finds there was no breach of General Principle 6.  

Relevant Council Standards

 This Adjudication applies the following General Principles of the Council:5. Avoid intruding on a person’s reasonable expectations of privacy, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest.6. Avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest.

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by readers’ letters published in the Great Southern Weekender headed “Still infectious” on 22 July 2021 and “Lockdowns not the answer” 29 July 2021. The 22 July letter stated “The drug Ivermectin has been passed for use in treating COVID-19 infection…” and the 29 July letter stated “…the most prestigious medical journal in the world, “The Lancet”, has published a study indicating that the COVID-19 vaccines are only 0.84 per cent effective.” In response to a complaint, the Press Council asked the publication to comment on whether the letters complied with the Council’s Standards of Practice, which require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1); that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts (General Principle 3); and to avoid causing or contributing to substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 6). The Council noted that the complaint raised concerns that comments in the letters were inaccurate and could contribute to a substantial risk to health and safety. In response, the publication said the letters both appeared on a regular page clearly labelled “Opinion” at the top of the page. Both letters included the author’s name and suburb, which clearly indicated they were the opinions of those individuals. While the letters themselves express erroneous views and incorrect facts, the publication said it had also published other letters, editorial comments and an interview with a clinical trials expert, which refuted those erroneous views and incorrect facts. The publication said, given the vast amount of misinformation freely available on the subject of COVID-19 treatment and prevention, it was unlikely that two letters would cause or contribute materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health and safety. The publication added that a letters page is an excellent public forum for public debate and the exchange of ideas, and that such debate is increasingly absent from the “echo chamber” of social media forums, from which many people source their ideas and opinions. The publication said in relation to the 29 July letter, the comment that vaccines are only 0.84 per cent effective, was a typo that it intended to correct noting that it ought to have said 84 percent effective.  

Conclusion

 The Council notes that while letters to the editor are very much an expression of the letter writer’s opinion, publications must nonetheless comply with the Council’s Standards of Practice in relation to letters they select and edit for publication. The Council considers that, on the information available to it, the letter writers’ comments concerning Ivermectin and vaccine efficacy rates are inaccurate and based on an omission of key facts. Accordingly, the Council finds the publication failed to take reasonable steps to comply with General Principles 1 and 3.The Council recognises the significant public interest in publishing a range of views on matters of public debate. However, the Council considers there was no public interest in publishing significantly inaccurate and potentially harmful information concerning Covid-19 vaccines particularly during the pandemic. Accordingly, the Council also finds the publication failed to take reasonable steps to comply with General Principle 6. The Council acknowledges the publication’s offer of correction of the 29 July 2021 letter.  

Relevant Council Standards

 Publications must take reasonable steps to:1. Ensure that factual material in news reports and elsewhere is accurate and not misleading, and is distinguishable from other material such as opinion.3. Ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts.6. Avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest.

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published in The Daily Telegraph online headed “Retired porn star sparks Surry Hills apartment block controversy” on 11 November 2020. The sub-headline of the article stated “A noisy retired gay porn star has been told to behave and show respect to his neighbours after police were called four times, causing angst in his apartment building”. The article went on to report that “[r]esidents at a landmark apartment block in Sydney’s gay heartland have been told to show more respect after reports a retired US porn star was sparking conflict by working from home”. The article reported that police “had been called four times this year to the same apartment” and that “[i]t is understood the calls have all involved ‘concern for welfare’” and “[o]ne involved an argument between the porn star and the boyfriend he is staying with”. The article also included an embedded video of Mardi Gras 2020 and an image of the rainbow flag flying over “Sydney’s gay community in Darlinghurst”. In response to a complaint received, the Press Council asked the publication to comment on whether the article complied with the Council’s Standards of Practice which require publications to take reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest. The Council noted that the complaint raised concern that the reference to the porn star’s’ sexuality in the sub-headline was not justified by the public interest as the article established no relevance between the person’s sexuality and the noise complaints. In response, the publication said it was merely describing the resident’s past occupation as a ‘gay porn star’. The publication said it was acceptable terminology for people in that profession as it refers to a specific genre of pornography, and is a term that many individuals in the industry use to describe themselves. It said it took this description from the resident’s own social media accounts and used this information as background to the story, as it would for any other individual’s profession. The publication said it chose to report this story in particular because it involved several calls to the police, which were not mere noise complaints, but also expressed concerns for the residents’ welfare. It noted this information was corroborated by police and therefore it was in the public interest to report.  

Conclusion

 The Council has consistently stated over a long period that publications should exercise great care to not place unwarranted emphasis on characteristics of individuals such as race, religion, nationality, country of origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, illness or age.The Council notes that the resident may have described himself in social media accounts as a ‘gay porn star’. However, given the resident’s sexuality was not reported to be a contributing factor in the noise complaints, identifying him as such in the sub-headline of the article, could lead some readers to conclude that his sexuality was either the cause of, or a factor in, the complaints and could contribute to substantial prejudice to the gay community. The Council considers that in prominently referring to the resident’s sexuality in the sub-headline, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid contributing to substantial prejudice and that there was not sufficient public interest justifying doing so. Accordingly, the Council concludes that the article breached General Principle 6.  Note: This Adjudication applies the following Standards of Practice.Publications must take reasonable steps to:6. Avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest.

The Press Council has considered a complaint about an editorial headed "Our part in child abuse" in the Bairnsdale Advertiser on 8 July 2013. The article began by saying “the hunt for child abusers is on”, referred to community concerns and current investigations relating to paedophilia and sexual abuse of children, and mentioned a threat from pornography and sexual content in popular culture. It then focussed on what it called “transgenderism” and described as “the latest manifestation of the revolution”. It gave three overseas examples of people seeking to challenge traditional gender roles involving children. The editorial ended with the comment: “Some parents will welcome the innovation. Some will not. But what adults do or think hardly matters compared with the abuse of children it implies.” Ka Chun Tse complained about linking transgenderism with paedophilia and sexual abuse of children, particularly the description of it as “a subtle form of abuse that inflicts no physical wounds but attacks the minds of children and alters by stealth the attitudes of the adult community as well”. He said the editorial did not acknowledge the perspectives and difficulties of transgender people, including the potential impact of the editorial on those who live in small communities where the newspaper is read. Instead, it likened them to people imprisoned for sexual abuse of children. The publication said the writer had not intended to target transgender people at a personal level. In any event, the editorial was clearly an expression of opinion and freedom of expression required that a newspaper be free to publish strong comment, even at the risk of offending some people. It said it had published several letters, some of which opposed the view adopted in the editorial. The Council’s Standards state that “publications have a wide discretion in publishing material, but they should balance the public interest with the sensibilities of their readers, particularly when the material, such as photographs, could reasonably be expected to cause offence”. It takes the view that this Standard is not breached unless the level of offensiveness is so high that it outweighs the very strong public interest in freedom of expression. Account must also be taken, however, of other aspects of the public interest, including freedom to live safely in the community.The Council noted that the editorial appeared to use the term “transgenderism” to mean discouraging traditional behavioural characteristics of the genders, rather than actual changes in gender. But this limited meaning was not clear. Moreover, parts of the editorial were clearly open to be read in the way the complainant did, namely linking transgenderism with paedophilia. Although the editorial may have caused very great offence to some people, the importance of freedom of expression is so great that the Council considers it did not clearly breach the Council’s Standards. Accordingly, the complaint is not upheld. However, on the assumption that the editorial was not intended to refer to people who are changing, or have changed, their gender, nor to link them with paedophilia, the Council urges the newspaper to publish a prominent clarification to that effect.Note (not required for publication by the newspaper):The complainant also cited a previous editorial, which he described as “homophophic”, but which the Council decided did not breach its Standards. He also referred to campaigns against the paper in relation to its editorials, which had been reported on other media but not in the newspaper. The Council noted these points and encouraged the newspaper to consider reporting any future developments of this kind.  

Relevant Council Standards

(not required for publication by the newspaper): This adjudication applies General Principle 7: “Publications have a wide discretion in publishing material, but they should balance the public interest with the sensibilities of their readers, particularly when the material, such as photographs, could reasonably be expected to cause offence”. View statements of principles

A complaint about an article on 29 January 2013 headed "Carbon tax puts squeeze on business". The article reported the results of a survey by the Ai Group of the impact on businesses of the Federal Government’s carbon tax between 1 July 2012, when the tax was introduced, and November 2012. It said that among manufacturing businesses surveyed, “14.5 per cent had been added to some energy bills”, while “the impact was slightly lower for service provider firms – 13.6 per cent – compared with construction firms, which face an average increase of 14.8 per cent”. Steve Foy complained that the article was inaccurate and misleading because it overstated the survey’s findings. He said businesses had been asked to estimate the increases in their energy bill due to the carbon tax; they had not been asked to report the actual increases.He noted that when releasing the survey the Ai Group had warned: “The high profile of the carbon tax appears to have led to some over-estimation by businesses of the specific impact of the carbon tax on their energy cost increases over the past year”. It had also noted the estimates in the survey were substantially higher than shown by the Australian Bureau of Statistics data covering the first three months of the tax. The Daily Telegraph said it had clearly indicated that the 14.5 per cent increase applied only to “some” manufacturers and that “some [businesses] had said the carbon tax is not as bad as they first feared”. The article also mentioned one business owner who “expected it would add 15 per cent to his energy costs but now estimates the carbon tax will add about 11 per cent”. The publication also said the ABS data was not directly comparable as it related only to electricity costs (not all energy costs) and did not cover all of the survey period. It said the journalist had interviewed the CEO of Ai Group and given an indication of his views in the article. It did not consider the article required any amendment, but it offered to add additional information to the online version of the article. The Council notes the Ai Group’s media release on the survey made numerous references to the increases being estimates and included two prominent warnings about the potential for over-estimation. It has concluded that omission of the key matters led to the article being inaccurate. It welcomes the proposed additions to the online version, but considers they cannot sufficiently rectify the impact of the initial article in print and online. Accordingly, this aspect of the complaint is upheld. The Council does not consider the information about the ABS data needed to be included, given the difference in reporting period and the scope of costs in question. This aspect of the complaint is not upheld.  

Note

(not required for publication):The Council was supplied with two emails from Ai Group on the issue of whether or not the article was a fair reflection of its report. The first was by a media adviser who said that whereas the Ai Group report mentioned business estimates of the impact of the carbon tax on electricity prices, the article published by The Daily Telegraph reported the data as if they were actual impacts. She described this as a “fundamental shortcoming”. The second was by the CEO, who said he had no issue with the article and that he found its use of the data to be “entirely understandable and defensible”. He also provided the Council with a statement indicating he thought the article was a reasonable interpretation of the report. The views of the authors and publishers of survey reports are clearly relevant to the Council when deciding whether the reports have been described accurately and fairly in an article. But the Council must also take account of the interests of readers in being provided with a fair and accurate summary of the aspects of the report on which the article focuses.  

Relevant Council Standards

(not required for publication): This adjudication applies the Council’s General Principle 1: “Publications should take reasonable steps to ensure reports are accurate, fair and balanced”. View statements of principles

The Press Council has considered a complaint about an article in the Herald Sun on 19 May 2013 headed "Veterans lose home support" with a sub-heading "Cut to care program a ‘slap in the face’". The first sentence read: “A crucial in-home care service that provides meals for veterans and war widows has been axed by the Federal Government.” The next two sentences said the Government had withdrawn funding for the “Home and Community Care program” which provides “assessment, co-ordination and home-care services tailored to the needs of ex-servicemen and women and war widows”. The article said the Victorian Government estimated more than 1500 Victorian veterans and widows “will miss out on meals and more than 1500 recipients will no longer benefit from activities groups”. It said many of the recipients will still be eligible to receive similar in-home care, but then reported the Victorian Health Minister’s comment that the veterans and war widows would need to apply “through the general HACC program”, which was “expected to add further strain to the system”. It also quoted critical comments by the RSL. Alan Ashmore complained that the headline was not a fair and accurate assessment of the changes and the article inaccurately said an in-home care service was to be cancelled. He noted that after the article appeared the Federal Minister for Veterans Affairs issued a media release saying the funding being withdrawn was not for direct service provision. The publication said the headline and first sentence accurately reflected the fact that the Government was abolishing a program giving special assistance to help veterans and widows apply for services tailored to their needs at home. In any event, it said they should be read in the context of the whole article, which gave further information on the effect of the Budget cuts. It said the article was written for Victorian readers and did not suggest all veterans would lose their benefits, but accurately reported the concerns raised by the Victorian Health Minister, including in a letter from him to the Federal Veterans’ Affairs Minister. It had interviewed and quoted the spokeswoman for the Federal Minister saying that the Budget had made no changes to the home-care program and “Veterans have the same right of access to Home and Community Care services as other Australians”. The Council notes that, in fact, the program which had been cut by the Federal Government did not provide in-home care. It also was not called the “Home and Community Care program”, which is a separate and continuing program that does provide in-home care. It considers that these important errors in the headline and first two sentences were not sufficiently clarified by later paragraphs. Accordingly, the complaint is upheld.  

Note

(not required for publication by the newspaper): The complainant said that he had sent a letter to the editor about inaccuracies in the article but had received no response and no correction had been published. The publication said it had not received the letter, and the Council was not in a position to decide the issue.  

Relevant Council Standards

(not required for publication by the newspaper): This adjudication applies the Council’s General Principle 1: “Publications should take reasonable steps to ensure reports are accurate, fair and balanced.” and General Principle 2: “Where it is established that a serious inaccuracy has been published, a publication should promptly correct the error, giving the correction due prominence”. View statements of principles

The Australian Press Council has considered a complaint about an article in The Daily Telegraph 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 described by a police officer as “heavily armed and prepared to use the weapons in a public place”. Two of the men were said to have links to a fourth man, described as a “radical young Muslim” involved in a previous raid on an ATM in relation to which the two men had been charged with withholding information from police. The article said all four men were “devout Muslims who prayed together in various Sydney mosques” and the fourth man had been arrested for threatening the life of an intelligence officer. It also said that the fourth man had been under surveillance by counter-terrorism agencies for four years and “intended to give some of the money [from the ATM raid] to known extremists”. Matthew Press, who had no connections with the men, complained that the headline and article placed gratuitous emphasis on the religion of the men who attempted to rob the security van. He said their actions were not due to their Muslim faith and therefore the headline reference to “heavily armed Muslims” was unjustified. The publication said the report did not seek to denigrate Muslims, and that word had only been used once in the secondary part of the headline and twice in the article. It had been included after extensive interviews with police and revelations in court that phone calls had been intercepted between some of the men. Under the Council’s Standards of Practice, publications should not place gratuitous emphasis on the religion of an individual or group, although they may report and express relevant opinions where it is in the public interest. The complaint focused on the very prominent and unequivocal description of the three men as “heavily armed Muslims” in the secondary part of the headline. The Council considers that this reference 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. A similar need to limit the scope of a reference to their faith would have arisen if, for example, they had been Christians or Jews. Accordingly, the complaint about the headline is upheld on that ground. By contrast, 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.  

Relevant Council Standards

(not required for publication by the newspaper): This adjudication applies General Principle 8: “Publications should not place any gratuitous emphasis on the race, religion, nationality, colour, country of origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, illness, or age of an individual or group. Where it is relevant and in the public interest, publications may report and express opinions in these areas”. View statements of principles