Search

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published by The Australian online on 28 March 2023, headed "Trans female kills 3 children, 3 staff at Nashville Covenant School” which linked to a homepage headline “Trans woman kills 3 children, 3 staff at US school”.   The article reported that “The attack on a Nashville primary school that left three children and three staff members dead was meticulously planned by the female suspect, according to local police. The transgender attacker, identified by police as Audrey Hale, 28, left a manifesto and a map in her home before heading to the private Covenant School to carry out the mass shooting”. The article reported that “Police chief Don Drake told reporters that police searched the home of the suspect, who was killed by police at the school, and found evidence of a targeted attack.” It also included an embedded video from a television interview recording the Police Chief saying, “she does identify as transgender”.   In response to a complaint, the 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 materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 6). In relation to this the complaint expressed concern that the prominent and repeated references to the accused’s transgender status, were unfair and were not justified by the public interest as the transgender status of Hale is not reported to have been a contributing factor in the shooting.   In response, the publication said the mass shooting happened in the early hours Australian time and as with similar attacks, was a fast moving, developing story that required multiple updates on its website as news and facts became available. The publication said Nashville Police Chief John Drake told media that Hale “feels that she identifies as trans, but we’re still in the initial investigation into all of that and if it actually played a role into this incident”.   It said Nashville police also revealed a sense of resentment might have played a role in Hale’s attack on the private Christian school they once attended and had compiled a detailed manifesto before the shooting. The publication said that with any critical incident like a mass shooting, the name, background and motivation of the shooter is of vital importance to the report and that it is in the public interest to cover all aspects of the story. The publication said that it was law enforcement officials who confirmed Hale was transgender and raised the fact they were investigating if this was a motivating factor for the crime.  

Conclusion

  The Council recognises that in a breaking news report, such as this, early reports of an event may differ significantly from what is reported in a later version. In this context, the Council notes the subsequent updates to the article placed significantly less prominence on Hale’s transgender status than was initially the case. Nonetheless, the Council does not consider that the initial prominent and repeated references to Hale’s transgender status were warranted.   The Council notes that apart from the Police Chief confirming Hale was transgender and noting that the police would consider whether this was a contributing factor, there was no further information to justify the prominent and repeated references. The Council considers that in the absence of a clearer link between the crime and Hale’s transgender status, particularly in a breaking news story, such references were unfair. 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’s long-standing position is that publications should exercise great care to not place unwarranted emphasis on characteristics of individuals such as race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, country of origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, illness or age. Although the Council recognises that the Police Chief made a reference to Hale’s transgender status, it does not consider that this alone was sufficient to justify such prominent and repeated references to this characteristic.   The Council considers the prominence given to the accused’s transgender status, could lead some readers to conclude that this characteristic was either a cause of, or a significant factor in, the mass shooting, and could contribute to substantial prejudice against transgender people. The Council considers that in the absence of a clearer link between Hale’s transgender status and the mass shooting, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid contributing to substantial prejudice and that there was insufficient public interest justifying it doing so.   Accordingly, the Council concludes that the publication 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.
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.

APC Constitution

The Press Council considered a complaint from Curtis Pitt, Speaker of the Queensland Parliament concerning an article published by the Courier Mail, headed “Activists in court is a terrible look” in print and online on 1 February 2023.   The article, an editorial, commented that “In May 1992, the Goss cabinet approved legislation to give Queenslanders the formal right to public protest. The accompanying announcement said the change was a critical part of the Fitzgerald process. Labor premier Wayne Goss declared: ‘Governments who try to restrict the right of the people to freedom of expressions are governments scared of scrutiny. This government is not.’” It went on to say that “In November 2022, Labor Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk reinterpreted that freedom, telling parliament: ‘People have the right to protest silently in public.’ She followed that extraordinary statement by encouraging her Speaker Curtis Pitt to criminally prosecute a group of Extinction Rebellion protesters – most aged over 50 and a number of them grandmothers – who had interrupted proceedings of parliament for three minutes.”   The editorial said that “Sending a clear message that this protest was the wrong thing to do is therefore appropriate. But the response should be proportionate. Nobody was hurt. There was no property damaged. And the entire disruption lasted for a total of three minutes. Charging the protesters with the criminal offence of disturbing the legislature is a punishment that clearly does not fit the crime. Considering our state’s political history, that this was done at the behest of a Labor Premier is troubling.”   The complainant said it is inaccurate to suggest he charged the protestors at the “behest” of Premier Palaszczuk or that she requested or urged that the protestors be charged. The complainant said the comment by the Premier made in parliament that “People have the right to protest silently in public, and I endorse that, but there are rules in this chamber. I will leave that for you to reflect on, Mr Speaker” suggests that there is an important role and function that the Speaker independently performs in maintaining order in the Parliamentary Precinct. He said that he exercises the role of Speaker independent of party politics and that he does not follow any instructions from parliamentarians. The complainant also said that he did not lay the criminal charges as the editorial suggests. He also said the police did so after a request from him and only after their independent assessment, did they consider such charges were warranted. The complainant said the general tenor of the editorial was that he acted as a mouthpiece of a government punishing protestors.   In response, the publication said the general tenor of the editorial was that Mr Pitt's actions had resulted in rarely used charges being laid against a group of protestors who were doing nothing more than exercising their right to freedom of speech in relation to government and politics. The editorial did not say the Premier directed the Speaker to take action or that she gave instructions to him. The publication said any reasonable reading of the Premier’s statement in parliament would suggest she encouraged Mr Pitt to criminally prosecute a group of protesters.   It said that while it agrees that the Speaker is independent, this does not mean he cannot be encouraged by members of parliament to make a decision. It also said that the editorial does not state that Mr Pitt charged the protestors. It said the story which the editorial is commenting on, and which is hyperlinked in the editorial, makes it clear the charges were laid by Queensland police. The publication said, however, that had Mr Pitt not made his complaint to the police, the charges against the protestors would not have been laid at all. That is the criminal prosecution to which the editorial refers.  

Conclusion

  The Council’s Standards of Practice require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material in news material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1), and is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinions are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts (General Principle 3). They also require publications to 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 recognises the public interest in allowing editorials to express robust views on matters of significant public importance, as in this case. Nonetheless, the Council has consistently stated that even in opinion articles, such as an editorial, a publication remains obliged to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is not misleading and is presented with reasonable fairness and balance. Although the Council does not consider the editorial suggests the complainant charged the protestors, the comment that the referral of the protesters to police was done at the “behest” of the Premier was presented as a statement of fact and inaccurately and unfairly suggests the complainant acted on the Premier’s instructions. The Council notes that the Speaker is required to discharge his duties with impartiality. The Council considers that there is an absence of information to suggest that the Speaker did not act independently, and thus failed to act in accordance with his duty of impartiality, when referring the protesters to the police. Accordingly, the Council finds a breach of General Principles 1 and 3.   As to General Principles 2 and 4, the Council notes the absence of a request for correction or other remedial action by the complainant. Accordingly, the Council finds no beach of General Principles 2 and 4.  

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 a complaint from Senator Gerard Rennick concerning an article published by The Australian online on 11 August 2022, headed “Anti-vax Liberal senator Gerard Rennick refused briefings from Greg Hunt”.   The article reported that “Liberal senator Gerard Rennick, who has been criticised for spreading misinformation and Covid-19 conspiracy theories, turned down multiple invitations for individual briefings from former health minister Greg Hunt.” It said “Senator Rennick was offered several one-on-one sessions with Mr Hunt, as well as Health Department Deputy Secretary and Therapeutic Goods Administration boss Adjunct Professor John Skerritt, since the start of the pandemic. However, these standing invitations were never taken up.” The article went on to report that “It’s understood that the TGA has responded to a large number of questions about vaccine safety from Senator Rennick in budget estimates, Covid committee hearings and personal correspondence.”   The complainant said that it is false and misleading to say that he declined meetings with health officials. The complainant said that no meetings were ever offered to him, and that he never declined any meetings or briefings with the then Health Minister or health officials. The complainant said that he did meet with the then Minister of Health or his staff and had also had two telephone conversations with the head of the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). The complainant also said that prior to the article’s publication, he was not contacted for comment and, despite informing the publication after publication that he never declined meetings, no amendment was made to correct the article at the time.   In response, the publication said that it has evidence that offers of meetings were made to the complainant by the head of the TGA, who is also Deputy Secretary of The Department of Health. The publication said that the head of the TGA offered briefings to the complainant during Senate Estimates and Covid-19 committee hearings and through the former Health Minister’s office. It said that subsequent to the article’s publication, the complainant asked the Department of Health directly about the briefings mentioned in the article the subject of the complaint.   The publication said that the Department of Health’s answer to the complainant makes clear that a range of departmental officers offered the complainant briefings and that the reason for not taking up the meetings may lie with the former Health Minister’s office or with the complainant. The publication said that soon after publication it offered the complainant an opportunity to include in the article remarks refuting the claims, however he declined. It said that it subsequently amended the article to include the complainant’s denial that he declined meetings.  

Conclusion

  The Council’s Standards of Practice require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material in news material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1), and is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinions are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts (General Principle 3). They also require publications to 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 accepts that based on the information before it, the complainant was offered briefings by a range of senior officers from the Department of Health, including the head of the TGA. The Council also notes the publication’s reference to Question on Notice, that was provided after publication of the article, which confirms that the complainant was offered briefings. However, while the Council accepts that such offers were made, there is no information before it to suggest that the complainant actively ‘refused’ or ‘turned down’ these offers. The Council notes that ‘refusing’ or ‘turning down’ an offer would require a specific response to an offer, which the Council notes is absent from the material before it. Accordingly, the Council considers that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to be accurate and not misleading in breach of General Principle 1.   The Council notes that soon after the article was published, the publication offered to amend the article to include the complainant’s denial that he refused offers of briefings.  The Council notes however, that the article was not amended until sometime after publication and only after a complaint was lodged with the Press Council. Given the reference to the complainant refusing health department briefings is significantly inaccurate and misleading and remained uncorrected for some time, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to provide a correction or other remedial action. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 2.   The Council recognises the publication’s offer to include his denial was not accepted by the complainant, and also that the publication subsequently amended the online article. However, the Council emphasises the obligation under General Principle 2 to provide a correction or other adequate remedial action is unqualified, and should have been made when the inaccuracy was identified.   The Council considers that given the article specifically concerned the complainant, it was incumbent on the publication to seek comment from the complainant prior to publication regarding the offers of meetings. The Council considers the publication failed to take reasonable steps to present the material with the fairness and balance in breach of General Principle 3.   The Council considers the publication’s prompt offer to amend the article and include his comments refuting the assertion that he was offered meetings, was an adequate response in the circumstances. Accordingly, the Council concludes the publication did not breach General Principle 4. This finding is not inconsistent with the finding of a breach of General Principle 2, as General Principle 4 imposes a different and separate obligation.  

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 a complaint from Louise Milligan concerning an article published in The Australian headed “Greatest enemy of truth is those who conspire to lie” in print and online on 8 June 2021.   The article, an editorial, commented that “Many at the ABC express their displeasure at being held to account by The Australian. Forget that their own Media Watch has a leery obsession with News Corporation, some less thoughtful ABC journalists, and their flacks, one-time reporters who seem to have forgotten where they came from, decry any form of scrutiny”.   It said “Whether they like it or not, the ABC is one of the most powerful institutions in Australia. Not only does the national broadcaster pocket $1bn a year from our pay packets to produce great local radio, at times intoxicating drama and clever, original television, but much of that federal money is spent on journalism. In fact, the ABC, a wholly taxpayer-funded institution, is the biggest media outlet in Australia. The No.1 player in digital text and broadcast news, and awash on the airwaves of radio and television. The ABC is a behemoth. It is both the game and the gamekeeper.”   The editorial also said that “Many senior people at The Australian know well the work, the habits and the hubris of Sally Neighbour and Louise Milligan”. It went on to say “To be good you often need to be brash, and brave. But to be really good, you need to be beyond reproach. Your loyalty to the truth must be without question. Fairness and balance is your currency. It has to be. Think of the opposite qualities to answer why. The subjects of good journalism, of important journalism, lie and dissemble. Good journalists do not. They rely on the truth. They yearn for it. But they understand the limits. In many respects the natural enemy of a journalist, aside from a public relations hack, or a political flack, is the defamation lawyer. The most dangerous enemy of the journalist is bad, lazy, deceitful journalism.”   The complainant said the article implies that she conspires to lie, is the greatest enemy of the truth, lies and dissembles, is bad, lazy and deceitful, and that she has work habits and hubris which were well known by senior editorial people at The Australian. She said the language and the tone of the editorial are unequivocally intended to be read as criticism of her and leave no room for a conclusion other than that she is of low integrity and deserving of severe criticism based on the experience of senior people at the publication. She said that anyone reading the editorial would have concluded that it was alleging that she was not an example of a good journalist, but a bad, lazy and deceitful one who conspires to lie. The complainant said that such imputations were not only inaccurate and unfair, but that they have caused her significant offence and distress.   The publication said the target of the newspaper’s criticism is not the complainant. It said the headline, text and thread of the editorial’s argument is aimed at the institutional obstruction of media freedom and the need for good journalism to hold those in power, including politicians, business leaders and those running big institutions such as churches and universities, to account.   The publication said the reference to the complainant is limited to naming her in the context of the responsibilities of the ABC and the case for good journalism. The publication said there are no specific references to her work and no specific references to her reporting or conduct. The publication said however, that any reference to Ms Milligan would not have been read in isolation, as it was written in the context of separate news reporting about the ABC’s journalism and the complainant’s personal expressions through social media on the day and in the days leading up to the editorial.   The publication said these separate news reports highlighted the missteps made by the complainant and one other ABC journalist in tweets on the case of former attorney-general Christian Porter, who had been suing the ABC for defamation. It said the editorial is about the principles of journalism and how they should be applied, particularly by the publicly funded ABC.   The publication said that the overriding aim of the editorial is to promote the public interest of strong journalism and it raises the difficult position of the ABC, an important institution, which has the dual role as ‘the game and the gamekeeper’ and one which needs to be held to account.  

Conclusion

  The Council’s Standards of Practice applicable to 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 material refers adversely to a person a fair opportunity is to be given for a subsequent reply if that is reasonably necessary to address a possible breach of General Principle 3 (General Principle 4). Publications must also 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 (General Principle 6).   The Council recognises an editorial is the voice of a newspaper and for this reason, it is given significant latitude in expressing its views. Nonetheless, the Council notes that even in an editorial, a publication remains obliged to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is not misleading and is presented with reasonable fairness and balance. In relation to this, the Council notes the statement “Many senior people at The Australian know well the work, the habits and the hubris of … Louise Milligan” was presented as a statement of fact and not merely an expression of opinion.   Although the Council notes the publication’s comments that the editorial was not directed at the complainant, it considers that it is an unavoidable conclusion that she is associated with “bad, lazy, deceitful journalism” and that she ‘lies’ and ‘dissembles’ on the basis that she is specifically named in the article; that she is an ABC journalist; that she was once employed at The Australian and the critical comments concerning her alleged work, habits and hubris. For this reason, the Council considers the editorial, misleadingly and unfairly infers that such undesirable traits are associated with the complainant and her journalism. The Council notes that on the information before it, such an inference is not sustainable. Accordingly, the Council finds a breach of General Principles 1 and 3.   The Council notes that the complainant did not seek a right of reply. Accordingly, the Council finds no breach of General Principle 4.   The Council recognises the significant public interest in allowing an editorial to express robust views on matters of important public interest. However, the Council considers that naming the complainant, an ABC journalist in an editorial that commented on the ABC and what it considers are the attributes of poor journalism, was likely to cause substantial offence and distress without a sufficient public interest justification. Accordingly, the Council concludes that General Principle 6 was 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.
• 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.

• 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.