Search

The Press Council considered a complaint from Julianne Toogood concerning an article published in the Cairns Post headed “Council’s legal bill revealed” in print and “Cassowary Coast Council to release legal costs information” online on 8 August 2020. The print article reported “DOCUMENTS proving a Far Northern council’s legal matters are covered by insurance have been made public after the Office of the Information Commissioner ruled in favour of a previously denied right to information request”. The online article reported “Documents detailing a Far Northern council’s legal expenditure have been made public after the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) ruled in favour of a previously denied right to information request.” The article went on to report that a “Cassowary Coast spokeswoman said the information would confirm the CEO’s defamation case was covered by council’s insurance provider ….” The article quoted a spokeswoman from the Cassowary Coast Regional Council (CCRC) saying: “We are grateful that the Office of the Information Commissioner deems certain documents to be of sufficient public interest that it should be released to offer assurance to our community”. The complainant said the article is false and misleading. The complainant said the publication had relied solely on a CCRC press release and it should have recognised that the CRCC CEO would benefit directly from false information being published. The complainant said the publication should not have only relied on a media release and should have taken additional steps to query the accuracy of the information it had been provided. She said that the publication ought to have been aware that the information provided by the CCRC should be checked given it had reported on public protest rallies about the CEO’s use of public money to fund his personal defamation claim against herself and her husband. She also said the documents released by the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) do not prove the insurer is covering the CEO’s defamation claim, and that the publication ought to have contacted her for comment. In response, the publication said the article was based upon a press release from the CCRC concerning documents being released by it as a result of a decision by the OIC. The publication said that, as indicated in the press release, the Council received a sum of money from its insurer in relation to a number of legal matters concerning the complainant.  The publication said the documentation referred to in the press release indicated that the defamation proceedings would be covered by insurance. It said the complainant appears to take issue with the fact that the article does not state that the costs paid by the insurer do not include the CEO’s defamation claim against the complainant. The publication said, however, the press release upon which the article is based does not make this distinction. The publication said the article is an accurate and fair report of the CCRC press release. It also said there was no requirement to seek a comment from the complainant given the article was based on a press release concerning a decision by the OIC and the documentation that would be released by the Council as a result of that decision. 

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). The Council considers that publications are entitled to draw heavily on a press release provided that in doing so they comply with the Council's Standards of Practice. It emphasises that any material taken from a press release should be presented in such a way that facts or opinion being asserted by the issuer of the release are clearly distinguishable from those being asserted by the publication itself. In this context, the Council notes that the publication’s statement in the print article only, that documents “proving” the CRCC’s legal matters are covered by insurance was not attributed to the CCRC press release. Therefore, in this instance, the publication went beyond reporting on the content of the press release to affirming its accuracy without taking reasonable steps to confirm the content of the press release was, in fact, accurate. Accordingly, the Council finds a breach of General Principe 1 in this respect. The Council notes that a subsequent amendment to the online article removed the words ‘documents proving.’ Accordingly, the Council finds no breach of General Principle 2. In relation to General Principles 3 and 4, the Council does not consider that the publication was required to contact the complainant for comment. The Council accepts that the article is based on the press release by the CRCC in response to a decision by the OIC. Accordingly, the Council finds no breach of General Principles 3 and 4.

The Press Council considered a complaint about an article published in The Daily Telegraph on 11 February 2021 in print headed "HE’S JUST A GOOD GUY" on the front page and continuing on pages 6 and 7 and online headed "Real estate agent Karl Howard took Viagra before alleged sword attack" on 11 February 2021. The front page reported that a “former girlfriend” of “the real estate agent accused of a samurai sword attack on a woman at his home has told of her concern for him as he remains in hospital following his arrest, stating he is a ‘good guy’”. The print article went on to report that the complainant is “herself an agent” who “told The Daily Telegraph: ‘We’re very worried for him … he’s scared. ‘We’ve known each other for a very long time’”. The front page included a prominent photograph of the complainant next to the headline “EXCLUSIVE Ex-Partner of agent accused of samurai sword attack struggles to comprehend the allegations”. Page 7 included a prominent photograph of the complainant below the caption “We’re very worried for him…he’s scared”. The online article reported “A prominent real estate agent who police allege choked one woman before turning a samurai sword on another had taken four Viagra pills and had a ‘sexual intent’ before the bloody ordeal at the $2 million home he shared with his former partner, a court has heard”. The article, which also included a prominent photograph of the complainant, went on to include further details of the alleged assault by the agent against two women. The complainant, who the article identified as the ‘ex-partner’ of the accused, said the journalist “broke confidentiality” and acted in a completely unethical manner with regards to the story. The complainant said the journalist phoned her several times prior to publication requesting a comment. The complainant also said she refused the journalist’s request for her to pose for a photograph. The complainant said the journalist’s manner was borderline harassment, and that she only agreed to provide a small comment on the proviso that it was confidential and that her name was explicitly not to be included. The complainant said the journalist agreed to this condition and that a colleague was a witness to this agreement. The complainant said that once she became aware she had been identified in the online article and prior to the publication of the print article, she pleaded with the journalist to de-identify her in the article. The complainant said the publication proceeded to publish the print article which included her comments and prominent photographs. The complainant said the article has caused her an enormous amount of stress and unwanted media attention and that since publication of the article, she has received calls from strangers leaving messages threatening and harassing her. The complainant said the reported allegations of assault had nothing to do with her and the inclusion of her photograph, name and business in the article is damaging to her career, emotional state and safety. In response, the publication said the journalist who spoke with the complainant denies strongly the claim that an arrangement was made concerning confidentiality and also does not accept in any way that any of the phone calls to the complainant bordered on harassment. The publication said the journalist kept a log and contemporaneous notes of the calls noting that some lasted several minutes, which it said demonstrates the journalist and the complainant had an ongoing dialogue and were talking completely amicably all day.  The publication said that the complainant was not harassed, rather the journalist spoke to the complainant on numerous occasions to ensure the quotes attributed to her were correct and that she understood they were quotes that would be attributed to her. The publication said no agreement was made to keep the complainant’s name out of the article and no agreement was made not to publish any photographs of the complainant. It said that after the article was first published online the complainant put the journalist on loudspeaker during a call, and the complainant claimed she had never spoken to the journalist or agreed to any of the quotes despite their ongoing dialogue. The publication also said it only published photographs that were available publicly online via her public Facebook profile and from images on her real estate agency website. The publication said that it had amended aspects of the online article to address some of the complainant’s concerns. 

Conclusion

 The Council’s Standards of Practice applicable in this matter require publications to take reasonable steps to avoid intruding on a person’s reasonable expectations of privacy unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 5) and to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 6). They also require publications to avoid publishing material which has been gathered by deceptive or unfair means, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 7). The Council notes there are significant differences between the views of the complainant and the publication as to what was said concerning ‘confidentiality’ and as to whether the complainant’s comments were ‘on the record’. The Council also notes that due to the absence of information to enable it to conclusively determine what was said, the Council is unable to form conclusions on this aspect of the complaint. However, it is not disputed that the journalist clearly identified herself as a journalist for The Daily Telegraph; stated that she was investigating the reported assault; and that conversations did take place between the complainant and the journalist. The Council also notes that at the time of publication, the complainant’s personal information, including her profession and where she was employed, was publicly available. Although the Council does not accept that all information that is in the public domain will necessarily diminish an individuals’ expectation of privacy, in this instance it is satisfied that the publication took reasonable steps to avoid intruding on the complainant’s expectation of privacy, noting that the personal information was publicly available and the occurrence of conversations between the complainant and the journalist. Accordingly, the Council finds no breach of General Principle 5. In relation to General Principle 6, the Council notes the complainant was not in any way connected to the alleged assault. Accordingly, the Council considers the article was likely to and did cause substantial distress to the complainant. Although there is undoubted public interest in reporting on the assault allegations, there was no public interest in including large and prominent photograhs of the complainant, particularly on the front page of the print edition when the complainant had made it clear to the publication that she did not wish to be photographed for the story.  Accordingly, the Council finds a breach of General Principle 6. As to General Principle 7, given that the complainant was aware that she was talking to a journalist, the Council concludes that the material published was not gathered by deceptive or unfair means. Accordingly, the Council finds no breach of General Principle 7. However, the Council reminds journalists that it is best practice to clearly identify when a conversation moves from 'off the record' to 'on the record’. 

Note:

 Publications must take reasonable steps to:

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.
7. Avoid publishing material which has been gathered by deceptive or unfair means, 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 Daily Mail Australia online on 25 November 2020 headed “Student artist sparks fury by saying war crimes report ‘shows Australia’s character’ and arguing mental health helplines shouldn’t be displayed for struggling veterans”. The article reported that “a non-binary queer youth worker whose parents are Afghan refugees, wrote a scathing article for university-funded literary magazine Meanjin. [The student’s] comments referred to the Brereton report into alleged Australian war crimes in Afghanistan that was made public last week.” The article also included several photographs of the student attributed to the student’s Instagram account. In response to a complaint, 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 ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance (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 complainant, who was not the subject of the article, raised concerns that the repeated, prominent references to the student’s sexual orientation and gender identity were not relevant to the article written for the university literary magazine and were therefore not in the public interest to report. The complaint also said these references, together with the photographs included in the article, were salacious and contribute to substantial prejudice against persons of diverse gender or sexuality. In response, the publication said the article does not say or imply that the student has no right to comment or have an opinion on the alleged war crimes in Afghanistan because they are non-binary and queer. The publication said that the article as a whole is focused on the student’s comments made about the alleged war crimes.  The publication also said that it ‘reached out’ to the student for comment after it became aware the student had shared the article on social media. It said that although the student did not accept an offer for comment, it noted that the messages exchange were friendly and no concerns were expressed by the student with the article’s content. The publication noted that the student had the opportunity to raise any concerns about the reference to their gender or sexuality in the article and they chose not to comment. In this context, the publication questioned if the student was offended by the article’s content. Nonetheless, the publication said that in order to remedy the complaint, it amended the online article by removing the words “non-binary queer” and two photographs of the student. 

Conclusion

 The Council notes that General Principle 3 requires publications to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance. The Council accepts that the student identifies as non-binary and queer and acknowledges the publication’s comments that the student raised no concerns with the article in this respect. The Council considers, although prominently identifying the student as non-binary and queer could lead some readers to conclude that the views of the student should be criticised on the basis of irrelevant personal characteristics, on balance the publication took reasonable steps to ensure the presentation of factual material in the article was reasonably fair and balanced. Accordingly, the Council concludes the publication complied with General Principle 3. The Council notes that given the student’s gender identity and sexuality were not reported as being a relevant factor for their views expressed in the article, prominently identifying the student as non-binary and queer, could lead some readers to conclude that the views of the student should be criticised on the basis of irrelevant, personal characteristics and could contribute to substantial prejudice to others who also identify as either non-binary and/or queer. The Council considers that in prominently referring to the student’s sexual orientation and gender identity, 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. The Council welcomes the publication’s subsequent amendments to the article, which included the removal of two photographs of the student, and the deletion of all references to the student’s gender identity and sexuality from the article. However, it emphasises that publications are obliged to take reasonable steps comply with its Standards of Practice at the time of publication. In this context, the Council has consistently stated that publications should exercise great care not to place unwarranted emphasis on characteristics of individuals such as race, religion, nationality, country of origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, illness or age. 

Relevant Council Standards

 This Adjudication applies the following General Principles of the Council: “Publications must take reasonable steps to:

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. 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 Herald Sun headed “Out-of-school sex ed” in print on 22 February 2022. The article reported on the sexual abuse of a minor by his then teacher at a Victorian school in the mid-to-late 1990s. The sub-headline of the article stated, “Female teacher admits violating boys”. The article went on to report that the teacher “pleaded guilty in the County Court on Friday to several counts of sexual penetration of a child under 16.” It also reported that the teacher “taught one victim how to perform sexual acts,” and said, “She later showed him how to put on a condom.” In response to a complaint received, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether the headline in particular complied with the Council’s Standards of Practice which require publications to ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance (General Principle 3); and to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health and safety, without sufficient justification in the public interest (General Principle 6). The Council noted that the complaint raised concerns that the headline was an unfair description of the reported sexual abuse of a child by his teacher. The Council also noted that the complaint raised concerns that the headline and its attitude maybe harmful to sexual abuse survivors, as it may minimise the perception of harm done by sexual abusers. In response, the publication said the reference to “sex ed” in the headline was underpinned by two paragraphs in the story which outline how the perpetrator taught one of her victims how to perform sexual acts. It said this ‘teaching’ formed a prominent part of the evidence of the court case reported on, and pertained directly to the perpetrator’s actions, in that she had control over the students and guided them through the abuse. The publication also pointed to the public interest in reporting instances of child sexual abuse, and the deterrent potential of reporting on abuse cases prominently. The publication denied the possibility that the headline could be harmful to survivors of abuse. 

Conclusion 

 The Council notes the limitations of headlines to reflect the tenor of an article. However, the Council also notes that headlines must nonetheless comply with the Council’s Standards of Practice. In this instance, the Council considers the description of the reported child sexual abuse matters as ‘sex-ed’ was an unfair characterisation of the reported events. The Council considers that readers could interpret the headline as implying that the child sexual abuse had some connection to the victim’s school curriculum; or that the teacher’s offences were not sufficiently serious. Accordingly, the Council considers the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material was presented with reasonable fairness and balance in breach of General Principle 3. The Council notes the publication’s comments concerning how the perpetrator ‘taught’ the victim how to perform sexual acts. However, the Council considers that describing such acts as ‘sex-ed’ particularly when the reported abuse concerned a teacher student relationship, trivialises the seriousness of the conduct and potentially diminishes the reported emotional impact on the student. The Council considers that in describing the reported child sexual abuse as ‘sex-ed’, 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. 

Relevant Council Standards

 This adjudication applies the following General Principles of the Council: Publications must take reasonable steps to:(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 Australian Press Council has considered a complaint by the Gold Coast City Council about an article in The Gold Coast Bulletin on 19 March 2012. The article was the sole item on the front page, with a very prominent heading “City’s Credit Crunch” and an opening paragraph saying that the City Council’s credit rating by Queensland Treasury Corporation (QTC) “has been slashed, meaning ratepayers have to pay more every time the council borrows money”. It also occupied most of page 4, under the heading "Credit downgrade lifts loans costs". The City Council complained that the article was inaccurate in saying that the changed credit rating would increase its interest rates on borrowings. It also claimed there had been no adequate correction of the error. A subsequent article had quoted the acting Mayor as rejecting the assertion but the newspaper itself had not acknowledged the error. In response, the Gold Coast Bulletin did not provide evidence to support its assertion but denied the City Council’s claim that the QTC had told the newspaper the assertion was incorrect. It also said the follow-up article had provided sufficient balance by reporting the City Council’s claim about QTC’s statement to the newspaper. The Press Council has concluded that the newspaper did not take sufficient steps to check the accuracy of its assertion. Subsequent inquiries of the QTC have confirmed unambiguously that the assertion was incorrect. The error was aggravated by being on the front page. Accordingly, the aspect of the complaint relating to inaccuracy is upheld. The Press Council has concluded that having received the Mayor's rejection of the assertion the newspaper should have carefully checked the facts, preferably with the QTC itself. The subsequent article should then have stated that the previous assertion was incorrect, not merely reported the City Council’s claim about it. This failure was especially important because the assertion had been included in a prominent headline and a council election was imminent. Accordingly, the aspect of the complaint relating to failure to correct an inaccuracy is also upheld.

The Australian Press Council has dismissed complaints from Peter Bates against the Central Telegraph, Biloela, Queensland. Mr Bates a mayoral candidate in elections for the Banana Shire complained of four matters arising during the election campaign. In particular, the 7 March edition published the week before local government elections in Queensland contained photographs of mayoral candidates with the caption under Mr Bates’ headshot saying “… did not attend either of the mayoral candidates meetings in Biloela or Moura”. The issue also carried an article referring to the history of the newspaper that recorded Mr Bates as being manager of the newspaper for two decades. Mr Bates said nobody had contacted him about meeting in Moura and he could not attend the Biloela meeting because of a previous commitment. He also complained the history article did not make reference to the contribution he had made during his 25 years in managerial positions with the newspaper. He accused the newspaper of editorial bias in both instances, showing that the newspaper favored another candidate for the mayoral position.In its response the newspaper said the photographs were published with an article covering a “Meet the Mayoral Candidates” public meeting by the Moura Chamber of Commerce. Mr Bates did not attend this meeting or a similar meeting in Biloela. Mr Bates does not dispute this. The newspaper said that the history article had been prepared in advance of publication and was printed in the 7 March edition when space became available. Further material on Mr Bates’ contribution to the newspaper was supplied after the article had been written and prepared for publication. Reference to Mr Bates contribution followed a segment that mentioned “the people who have passionately worked to ensure the paper makes its way into the homes of the 10,000 people who read it every week”.In this context the Press Council believes Mr Bates’ contribution has been recognised. Mr Bates sent two press releases to the newspaper during the election campaign referring to population decline in the shire and complained that neither of the releases was published. The newspaper said that the figures relating to population decline had been published  previously and the material in each of the releases was part of Mr Bates’ election campaigning. The newspaper provided each candidate with equal and fair editorial coverage and made provision for each candidate to run a large introductory article. The Council believes editors have the right to ensure balance in publishing electoral material and in this case believes the newspaper has not breached Council principles. Mr Bates also complained that a letter to the editor he had sent containing criticism by the Queensland Ombudsman of the shire council was not published. The newspaper responded that it had a policy not to publish letters from any mayoral candidate during the election campaign. In the Press Council’s view, such a policy is reasonable but, particularly in a community newspaper, any such policy should be clearly notified by the newspaper.

The Press Council considered a complaint about three online articles published in The Courier-Mail, headed “Brisbane house flipper’s alleged secret life as drug trafficker" 8 July 2021, "’Hectic’: House flipping accused drug kingpin’s texts, associates" 8 July 2021 and "’WTF just happened?’: ANOM text messages revealed" 24 July 2021. The articles reported on court proceedings of the complainant’s partner who had been charged for allegedly being involved in serious criminal activities. In reporting on the proceedings, the articles also reported the serious criminal enterprise in which the complainant’s partner and others were allegedly involved. The article headed “Brisbane house flipper’s alleged secret life as drug trafficker" reported that “A million-dollar Brisbane house flipper who has virtually no online presence is alleged by police to have been living a secret life as a high-level wholesale drug trafficker” and the article headed "’Hectic’: House flipping accused drug kingpin’s texts, associates" reported “Details of the police claims against Adelaide-born Spurling were revealed in documents filed in the Supreme Court in Brisbane as part of his successful bail application on June 22 charges of trafficking in cannabis and ice and gun trafficking”. The article headed "’WTF just happened?’: ANOM text messages revealed" reported “Text chats between Queensland men who believed they were shielded by using an encrypted app will form the basis of police allegations they plotted million dollar drug deals”. The complainant said the 8 July 2021 articles included the names, occupations and suburbs of residence of the accused’s close relatives. The complainant said the articles also included personal information including details of her relationship with her partner, her employment details, a photograph of her as well as the name and age of their infant child. The complainant said the 24 July 2021 article also included a photograph of her as well as her employment details. The complainant said that while she acknowledged that court hearings and outcomes can be reported on, the inclusion of such personal and sensitive information was not necessary for the full, fair and accurate reporting of the alleged crime or legal proceedings. The complainant said the articles have had a direct impact on her personal and professional reputation and have caused great angst and anxiety for all the relatives involved. The complainant also said the publication of personal details and locations of various named relatives had caused serious concerns for their safety, given the seriousness of the allegations. In response, the publication said the articles report on court documents that are available to any member of the public prepared to pay the relevant court fees. The publication said the complainant’s partner and his legal representatives made a decision to highlight the stability of his family and longstanding connections to Queensland to support his bid for bail. The publication said the court documents on which the articles are based, are replete with references to the information the complainant has expressed concern with and noted that at least one the court documents would appear to have been prepared with the complainant’s full cooperation and consent. The publication also said that as the complainant is a solicitor, she would have been aware that once the court documents were filed, these documents would become public documents and could not only be reported on as part of a fair report but also accessed and read by any member of public who chose to apply for the court file. The publication said while it appreciates that the reports may have impacted the complainant’s reputation, this will remain true irrespective of whether the articles continue to be published or not as her partner stands charged with serious alleged drugs offences. The publication added that although the complainant would appear to have consented to her daughter’s name and date of birth being included in at least one of the court documents, it subsequently amended the articles to remove such references. 

Conclusion

 The Council’s Standards of Practice applicable in this matter require publications to take reasonable steps to avoid intruding on a person’s reasonable expectations of privacy unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 5) and to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 6). They also require that unless otherwise restricted by law or court order, open court hearings are matters of public record and can be reported by the press. Such reports need to be fair and balanced. They should not identify relatives or friends of people accused or convicted of crime unless the reference to them is necessary for the full, fair and accurate reporting of the crime or subsequent legal proceedings (Privacy Principle 7). The Council notes the complainant had a reduced expectation of privacy as the information about which she expressed concern is based on publicly available court documents. The Council also considers that to the extent that those named in the article did have a reasonable expectation of privacy, this was outweighed by strong public interest in open justice, including the freedom of the press to report on matters of public importance, such as the legal proceedings associated with alleged criminality.  Accordingly, the Council finds no breach of General Principle 5. The Council also finds that to the extent the complainant and the named relatives were distressed by the publication of personal information, this was outweighed by the strong public interest in reporting on serious criminal activity and associated legal proceedings. However, the Council does not consider it was necessary or sufficiently in the public interest to include the name and the age of the complainant’s infant child. Accordingly, General Principle 6 was breached in this respect. The Council welcomes the publication’s subsequent amendment to the articles to remove such references. As to Privacy Principle 7, the Council acknowledges there was no suppression order in place to prevent publication of information concerning the complainant and named relatives. The Council also acknowledges it is clearly in the public interest for publications to report on findings of courts. However, on balance, the Council does not consider the inclusion identifying information, namely photographs of the complainant, the name and age of the complainant’s infant child, and the occupations and suburb locations of named relatives, was necessary for the full, fair and accurate reporting of the crime and subsequent legal proceedings. Accordingly, Privacy Principle 7 was breached. 

Note:

 Publications must take reasonable steps to:

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.

PP7.  In accordance with Principle 6 of the Council's Statement of General Principles, media organisations should 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. Members of the public caught up in newsworthy events should not be exploited. A victim or bereaved person has the right to refuse or terminate an interview or photographic session at any time. Unless otherwise restricted by law or court order, open court hearings are matters of public record and can be reported by the press. Such reports need to be fair and balanced. They should not identify relatives or friends of people accused or convicted of crime unless the reference to them is necessary for the full, fair and accurate reporting of the crime or subsequent legal proceedings.

The Press Council considered a complaint from Lisa Guglielmucci concerning an article published in The Daily Telegraph headed "Liar cleric's fresh call'" in print and "Disgraced Hillsong singer Michael Guglielmucci launches homeless charity" online on 3 April 2021. The article reported that “Disgraced fake cancer pastor Michael Guglielmucci has resurrected his career, setting up a charity to support the terminally-sick and homeless.” The article went on to state that “The pop star preacher, who performed with the Hillsong church band and confessed to inventing a two-year cancer battle to hide his porn addiction, has resurfaced announcing God has called him to create a community that feeds and supports the homeless, asylum seekers and the chronically and terminally ill in Port Adelaide.” The article included a large and prominent photograph with the caption: “Popstar preacher Michael Guglielmucci is starting a charity”. The complainant said the photo used in the article is of her “deceased husband but the story is not about him, it is about his brother”. The complainant said the incorrect use of the photo caused her deep distress seeing her “amazing, faithful and integrous late husband in a half page newspaper report with words like LIAR and DISGRACED plastered next to his photo”. The complainant said the article which comments on a fake cancer journey and a porn addiction “paints such a shameful horrible picture about [her late] husband when it’s not even about him and he did nothing wrong”. In response, the publication said the photo was published by mistake as the photo taken from its photo library had been incorrectly captioned. The publication said that once it was informed that the photo was incorrect, it immediately removed it from the online article and also removed it from online stories published on other associated news sites. The publication said it also published a clarification in the next print edition and added an editor’s footnote to the online article to advise readers of the error that had occurred. The publication also said that after being contacted by the complainant, it wrote to her to apologise for the mistake and to inform her that the photograph had been removed from the article and also from its photo library to ensure that it could not be used incorrectly again. 

Conclusion

 The Council’s Standards of Practice applicable to 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 to provide a correction or other adequate remedial action if published material is significantly inaccurate or misleading (General Principle 2). The Standards also require publications to take reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 6). The Council accepts that the publication of the photograph was the result of human error. Nonetheless, the Council considers that given the seriousness of the reported conduct of the individual named in the article, there was an obligation on the publication to ensure that the photo was in fact that of the person named in the article. Accordingly, the Council considers the publication did not take reasonable steps to verify the photograph, and to ensure that the factual information in the article was accurate. Accordingly, the Council finds that General Principle 1 was breached. The Council considers that given the seriousness of the mistake it would have been preferable for the publication to publish a prominent correction rather than a clarification. Nonetheless, the Council commends the publication for immediately removing the online photo once the mistake was brought to its attention. The Council also notes that together with a written apology, the publication published a print clarification and added an editor’s note on the online article informing readers of the mistake. Accordingly, the Council finds no breach of General Principle 2. The Council considers that given the prominence of the photo and the seriousness of the reported past conduct of the individual named in the article and the failure to verify the accuracy of the photo, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid substantial distress. Accordingly, the Council finds that General Principle 6 was breached. 

Note:

 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. 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 headed “Lockdowns show Australia has lost its marbles” published online by The Herald Sun on 30 June 2021. The article was an opinion piece in which the columnist was critical of lockdown policies. The ‘precede’ which appeared beneath the headline of the article stated “Half the country is locked down because state leaders are whipping up fears about a virus that’s less dangerous than its vaccine.” The article went on to state, amongst other things, “…we’ve now vaccinated the vast majority of the people most likely to die — people aged over 70, and people in aged-care homes”; “…this dominant Delta strain is half as deadly as last year’s strain, according to Public Health England”; “Our main aim from the start should have been to stop people dying, and live with the fact that others will still get the sniffles. Treat this like the flu”; and “why vaccinate millions of young Australians who won’t get very sick from a virus that almost exclusively kills people over 65?”. The article also stated “Queensland’s health officer, Jeannette Young, exposed the craziness of this when she tried to justify banning the young from taking the AstraZeneca vaccine that’s saved Britain: ‘I don’t want an 18-year-old in Queensland dying from a clotting illness who, if they got Covid, probably wouldn’t die.’ If this virus is less dangerous than even a vaccine, why is half the country in lockdown?” In response to a complaint received, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether the above statements complied with the Council’s Standards of Practice, which require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1) and to ensure factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance and writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts (General Principle 3). In response, the publication noted that the ‘precede’ was written by a digital producer and accurately reflected a statement made by Queensland’s Chief Health Officer concerning risks associated with a vaccine who was quoted in the article. The publication said that at the time of writing more than 50% of Australia's population resided in states where various forms of Covid-19 lockdown restrictions applied, and that in the period (1 January 2021 – 30 June 2021) more Australians had in fact died from vaccine side effects than from Covid-19 through community transmission. The publication said the statements that the majority of people most at risk had already been vaccinated; and that the virus almost exclusively kills people over 65; were factual, and referred to information published by the Commonwealth Department of Health, which it said substantiated these assertions. Similarly, the publication referred to a Technical Briefing from Public Health England dated 18 June 2021, which it said provided the factual basis for the columnist’s comments about the deadliness of the Delta strain. The publication said that the columnist’s pro-vaccination stance has been well publicised and the statement “Treat this like the flu” was clearly an expression of the columnist’s genuinely held opinion. 

Conclusion

 The Council notes that although the article is an opinion piece, the publication is nonetheless obliged to take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material in the article is accurate, not misleading, fair and balanced; and to ensure that the writer’s expressions of opinion are not based on inaccurate factual material. In considering the ‘precede’ to the article, which states “…state leaders are whipping up fears about a virus that’s less dangerous than its vaccine” the Council notes that this assertion is made without any qualification or context, and inaccurately portrays the risks associated with Covid-19 vaccines and the virus itself. Accordingly, General Principles 1 and 3 were breached in this respect. However, the Council considers that where the columnist elsewhere poses the question “If this virus is less dangerous than even a vaccine, why is half the country in lockdown?”, reflected a statement concerning risks associated with a vaccine made by Queensland’s Chief Health Officer who was quoted in the article. Accordingly, General Principles 1 and 3 were not breached in this respect. In relation to the remaining matters detailed above, the Council is satisfied, based on the information before it, that there was a reasonable factual basis for the writer’s expressions of opinion, and that the factual information in the article was accurate and not misleading. Accordingly, General Principles 1 and 3 were not breached in these respects. 

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.
2. 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.

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.