Search

Annual Report 2021-2022 (No. 46)

Media Diversity in Australia Inquiry - Opening Statement

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published by the Daily Telegraph online on 11 March 2020 headed “Rian Ross Toyer in court accused of killing Mhelody Polan Bruno”.   The article reported “A Wagga man accused of choking a transgender woman to death one week before she was reportedly set to fly home has fronted court.” The article went on to report that “Emergency services were called to a Tarcutta Street unit where they found the 25-year-old transgender woman from the Philippines unresponsive.” Mr Toyer was sentenced in 2021. 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 without sufficient public interest justification (General Principle 6).  The Council noted that the complaint expressed concern that the prominent and repeated references to the victim’s transgender status were unfair and not justified by the public interest as the article established no relevance between the victim’s transgender status and the alleged crime.   The publication noted the fact that the victim identified as a transgender person was  referred to in a sentencing judgment delivered on 21 March 2021, where it was noted that the victim was born male but identified as female and would be referred to in the judgment as such. The publication said given the victim’s transgender status formed part of the judgment, it was in the public interest to report this fact.  

Conclusion

  The Council notes that the victim’s transgender status was only referred to in the sentencing judgment, which was published approximately 12 months after the article was published, for the purpose of recording the victim’s correct pronoun. The Council notes that there was no evidence provided that stated or implied that, during the hearing of the matter, the victim’s transgender status was raised as a contributing factor to her manslaughter. The Council has repeatedly stated over a long period that publications should exercise great care to not place unwarranted emphasis on characteristics of individuals such as gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, nationality, country of origin, marital status, disability, illness, or age.   The Council has also stated that, beyond the strict requirements of the law, publications have a further responsibility to ensure compliance with the Standards of Practice, which may extend to moderating or not reporting particular information that has been said in open court. Given the victim’s transgender status was not a contributing factor to her manslaughter, the Council considers the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness in the absence of a public interest justification. While the Council has previously noted that there is a public interest in reporting on the serious issue of violence against transgender people, it notes that the facts of this matter did not give rise to such a public interest.  Accordingly, the Council concludes General Principle 3 was breached.   Given the victim’s transgender status was not raised in Court proceedings at the time as being a contributing factor to her manslaughter, the Council considers the repeated references to that status could lead some readers to conclude that this characteristic motivated her accused to take her life and was therefore either a cause of, or a factor in, her death. This could contribute to substantial prejudice against transgender people. The Council considers that in prominently identifying the woman as transgender in the sub-headline the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid contributing to substantial prejudice and that there was no sufficient 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.

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of a cartoon in The Daily Telegraph in print on 16 November 2022 captioned “NOT THE QUESTION YOU WANT TO HEAR FROM AN ISIS BRIDE…”. The cartoon depicts a Muslim woman dressed entirely in black wearing a full veil or niqab and only showing her eyes. The woman is depicted asking a man, who is standing behind a ticket box that has the words “ALP FUND RAISER TICKETS” on the front of it, “HOW MUCH PER HEAD?”.   In response to a complaint received, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether the material breached its Standards of Practice which require the publication 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 (General Principle 6). The Council noted that the complaint raised concerns that the cartoon was offensive to Muslims.   In response, the publication said the cartoon should be considered in context of the news of the day. It said that as reported on its front page and in its editorial, the Australian Labor Party (ALP) had proposed a fundraising dinner in Sydney’s western suburbs. The publication said the Mayors of Fairfield, Liverpool and Campbelltown announced they were attending the dinner to confront the Prime Minister over his handling of the repatriation of women colloquially known as “ISIS Brides” - widows of Australian ISIS terrorists who were being brought back to Australia from camps in Syria. It said the mayors were angry about what they viewed as secrecy and a lack of consultation from the federal government that these women would be repatriated within their communities. It said that this action had caused great distress to families living within Western Sydney who had been refugees fleeing ISIS.   In relation to the cartoon, the publication said it reminds us of the violent reality of terrorism and the Prime Minister’s tone-deaf attitude in holding an ALP fundraiser squarely in the heart of where these women were to be resettled. The publication said the cartoonist deliberately refrained from depicting the figure graphically, noting that the words in the speech bubble are chilling enough.   The publication said the cartoonist drew the figure based on factual information and photographs of widows of Australian ISIS terrorists available online. It said the cartoonist had considered the harmful potential that readers could associate the figure with women of Muslim faith, who may also wear niqabs, and for this reason captioned the cartoon to clearly explain that the figure depicted was an ‘ISIS bride’. The publication said there is absolutely no intention for the cartoon to cause offence to Muslims, noting many of those who suffered at the hands of ISIS are Muslims themselves.  

Conclusion

  The Council recognises that cartoons are expressions of opinion that often use exaggeration and absurdity to make a point on serious issues. For this reason, the Council has consistently given significant latitude to cartoons when considering whether a publication has taken reasonable steps to avoid substantial offence, distress or prejudice. However, the Council considers that the significant public interest in allowing freedom of expression must be weighed against the equally significant public interest in not promoting prejudice.   The Council also considers that a stated absence of intention by publication to cause offense, distress, or prejudice to a particular group or individual is not relevant to the consideration of whether a publication has taken reasonable steps to comply with its Standards of Practice. The Council notes that particularly in the context of race, ethnicity and religion, that publications should exercise great care to avoid going beyond exaggeration and absurdity by using graphical depictions that may instead reinforce offensive and prejudicial stereotypes.   In relation to this, the Council notes the cartoon’s depiction of the ‘ISIS bride’ dressed in black wearing a full veil or niqab has the potential to associate all Muslim women who wear such clothing with Islamic terrorism. However, the Council concludes that the cartoon’s specific reference to ISIS brides in the caption, along with the comments made in a front page news report and accompanying editorial in the same edition of the cartoon, that some western suburb mayors had expressed concern with the ALP’s decision to repatriate ISIS brides into their communities, was sufficient to demonstrate that the publication took reasonable steps to comply with General Principle 6.  

Relevant Council Standards

  This Adjudication applies the following General Principles of the Council.   “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 considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published by the Herald Sun online on 19 November 2022, headed "Daniel Andrews’ chief of staff met with election fixer".   The article reported that “Daniel Andrews’ chief of staff has had direct contact with the election fixer who was caught boasting about rorting Victoria’s elections”. It reported that "Glenn Druery was exposed in a bombshell video, revealed by the Herald Sun on Thursday, boasting how he would ‘control’ who wins several key upper house seats in next week’s election – with ‘his’ MPs likely to share the balance of power.” It reported that “Mr Druery was also caught on film saying the ALP was happy not to reform the system he is rorting because he delivers the party a ‘crossbench they can work with’ in government.” The article went on to state that “Amid furore over the damning revelations, Mr Andrews on Thursday said: ‘I don’t believe I have ever met him, spoken to him, I don’t know him’. But the Herald Sun can reveal Mr Druery has had direct contact with Mr Andrews’ chief of staff, Lissie Ratcliff, during this term of government, and met with his office.”   In response to a complaint received, 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 accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1); to ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance and to ensure that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts (General Principle 3). The Council noted that the complaint raised concerns that the headline and article misleadingly and unfairly imply that Daniel Andrew’s chief of staff met with the “election fixer” in the context of the then upcoming Victorian election.   In response, the publication said the article and headline are entirely factual and accurate. The publication said it rejects the proposition that the headline unfairly and misleadingly suggests that Daniel Andrews chief of staff met with an election fixer in the lead up to the November 2022 Victorian election. The publication said there is one “fleeting” reference to the State election in the article, however it is clear from the sixth paragraph of the 31-paragraph article that the meeting was held in 2019. The publication said that undermining of the democratic process is a matter of enormous public interest, and that the article was one of a series of 3 produced by the publication that questioned the preference distribution system under the Victorian Electoral Act and whether it was being manipulated by so-called “preference whispers in return for a commercial fee”.  

Conclusion

  The Council recognises that the ability of headlines to accurately reflect the tenor of an article may vary in the circumstances and that an article’s initial paragraphs often establishes a more accurate position. The Council also recognises that what constitutes reasonable steps to ensure factual material is not misleading may also vary in the circumstances. However, the Council considers that publications need to take great care in order to satisfy the reasonable steps standard in the context of reporting on an election, which is a subject of significant public interest. In this instance, the Council considers that the clear implication of the headline is that the “election fixer” met with Daniel Andrew’s chief of staff in the context of the then upcoming Victorian election.   The Council also considers that given the article’s repeated references to the “election fixer” in the initial paragraphs followed by the revelation of the meeting with Mr Druery, the subsequent inclusion of Daniel Andrew’s denial of having met Mr Druery and his spokesman’s statement regarding the nature of Mr Druery’s meeting with the chief of staff, were insufficient to remedy this misconception. The Council considers that by referring to the “election fixer” in the headline and that the “election fixer” met with the chief of staff in the article, which was published immediately before an upcoming election, the publication failed to take steps to ensure factual material is not misleading in breach of General Principle 1.   The Council also considers, that by making repeated and prominent references to the “election fixer”, the article unfairly implied that Daniel Andrew’s office was involved in election fixing in the context of the then upcoming election. Accordingly, the Council concludes the publication failed to take reasonable steps to present factual material with reasonable fairness in breach of General Principle 3.  

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

  The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by four articles published by Daily Mail Australia concerning gender affirming healthcare.   The articles were: “Young Woman Left Devastated after she transitioned to a man and had her breasts, uterus and ovaries removed sues psychiatrist for approving hormone therapy after meeting him ONCE ”, 24 August 2022; “Call for urgent inquiry into irreversible gender changes  as woman sues psychiatrist after he approved her hormone therapy to transition into a man after a single appointment  leaving her unable to get pregnant”, 25 August 2022; “Australians share their stories of regret after transitioning to a different gender amid calls for urgent inquiry into irreversible sex changes”, 26 August 2022 and “Australian TV host loses it at a doctor who's helping teenagers change their genders: 'Causing irreversible damage to children should be banned'”, 5 September 2022.   The first article reported on the content of a NSW Supreme Court Statement of Claim which said that “A woman who transitioned to a man is suing her psychiatrist for professional negligence after he approved her hormone therapy despite only seeing her for a single appointment”. The article reported that the woman “says her social phobia should have been treated before any hormone therapy and that she wasn’t given any information on how transition would affect her fertility” and that the “surgeries have left her suffering with ‘injuries and disabilities’.”   The second article, reporting on the same court documents concerning the same woman, included comments from former Liberal Party candidate Katherine Deves who said: “‘Those left harmed by these irreversible hormonal interventions and surgeries that cause a myriad of lifelong health problems were always likely to seek legal remedy and compensation. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of Australian children and young people being subjected to these interventions.’” The article went on to include a comment from a prominent Australian actress and LGBTI advocate who was critical of Ms Deves' views.   The third article reported the comments of an individual’s personal experience with gender transition who said he “… only identified as a transgender woman for a few months before he sat down with a psychiatrist, a requirement before commencing hormone therapy.” The article went on to say the individual: “… claims the professional failed to understand he was depressed, anxious and had a ‘f*****-up relationship with [his] sexuality’.” The article went on to quote the individual saying: “'I think there is a massive population of people who actually don't have gender dysphoria who are now either being pushed toward or themselves being drawn toward this gender affirmative care pathway.'” The article also reported on the same court documents repeating the same woman’s concerns as set out in the first and second articles.   The fourth article reported that “A social media post of a teenager happily showing off the scars of breast removal beside her smiling mother has sparked outrage from a conservative commentator”. It reported that the social media post “… is a picture of someone transitioning from female to male after a double mastectomy performed by Dr Gallagher, who is based in Miami, Florida and promotes herself as a ‘leader in the field of gender affirmation surgery’.” The article went onto report that the conservative commentator “…has previously criticised the practice of giving children trans surgery, including praising Florida Republican politician Randy Fine for moving to ban providing 'gender assignment' drugs or surgery to minors” and “'Good. Causing irreversible damage to children should be banned'”. The article also included comments from an individual who is quoted as saying “It's transphobic to say it but after I've been through the system, I 100 percent feel like I was part of some cruel medical and social experiment - except nobody checked in on me.” The article also included comments from those critical of the views expressed by the conservative commentator.   In response to complaints received, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether the articles complied with the Council’s Standards of Practice which require publications to take reasonable steps to present factual material with reasonable fairness and balance. The Council noted that the complaints raised concerns in regard to the absence of balancing comments in a series of news articles published over a period of time from individuals or organisations who are supportive gender affirming healthcare.   In response, the publication said in relation to the first article, that it is a report on a Statement of Claim provided to it by the law firm acting on behalf of the named woman. The publication said it had sought comment from the psychiatrist named in the Statement of Claim. The publication said as it had made reasonable attempts to contact the individuals involved, it saw no need to contact any other individual or organisation that was not named in the court proceedings. In relation to the second article, the publication said it included a comment from an individual criticising Ms Deves’ views. It also said that after receiving the Press Council complaint it amended the article to include a position statement from the Australian Professional Association for Trans Health (AusPATH). In relation to the third article, the publication said it had also subsequently amended the article to include the same position statement from AusPATH. In relation to the fourth article, the publication said it reported on the comments of a conservative commentator concerning a social media post. The publication said for balance, it included quotes, both positive and negative, in relation to the public reaction to the commentor’s tweet and also included a quote taken from the website of the doctor who performed the surgery, concerning the effects on a person’s mental health if they wait for an extended period of time before they start the transitioning process.  

Conclusion

  In relation to the article published on 24 August 2022, the Council acknowledges that the article is based on court documents and recognises the publication’s attempts to contact the individuals involved in the proceedings. In relation the article published on 5 September 2022, the Council notes that the article is based on social media commentary, and that it includes comments, both positive and negative, on the views expressed in a tweet by the conservative commentator. The Council also notes the inclusion of comments concerning gender affirming health taken from the doctor’s website who was the subject of the tweet. Accordingly, the Council concludes that the publication did not breach General Principle 3 in relation to these two articles.   In relation to the articles published on 25 and 26 August 2022, the Council notes an absence of comments from individuals or organisations that offer a different perspective than those put forward by Katherine Deves in particular on gender affirming healthcare and the experience of the individual referred to in the court documents. Although the Council recognises the subsequent amendment to the articles to include a position statement from AusPath, this in itself is not sufficient to address the absence of balance. Accordingly, in relation to these two articles, the Council finds the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material was presented with reasonable fairness and balance in breach of General Principle 3.   The Council recognises that it has previously stated that reporting on a subject does not always require complete, or almost complete balance. In some instances, the requisite balance might be achieved through the previous or subsequent publication of articles that put forward alternative views on a subject. However, the Council considers that when reporting on matters of important social debate such as gender affirming healthcare, publications should be especially mindful of informing its readers that there are a range of perspectives on matters of strong public interest. In this instance, the Council notes that the four articles approached the issue of gender affirming healthcare from a particular perspective. The Council also notes that no additional articles were provided by the publication that offered an alternative perspective on the issue. Although the Council recognises that the subsequent amendment to two articles achieved some balance, it considers that some attempt should have been made at the time to publish a range of views on the issue either in the individual articles or through the prior or subsequent publication of additional articles.   In considering the series of articles, the Council finds the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure its reporting on the issue of gender affirming healthcare was presented with reasonable fairness and balance in breach of General Principle 3.  

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.

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published by the Courier Mail on 17 November 2021, headed “Only the parents can fix youth crime curse” in print and “Bill Leak’s controversial cartoon still sadly relevant today” online.   The article is an opinion piece in which the columnist stated that “It was revealed by Police Minister Mark Ryan in response to a parliamentary Question on Notice, figures provided by the Queensland Police Service showing that of the 3689 youths aged 10-17 years who spent between an hour to more than a week in the watch-house, 2635 or 71.42 per cent were Indigenous.”   The article went on to comment that the “inconvenient conclusion to be drawn is many Indigenous parents routinely abandon their responsibilities and do little to instil in their children respect for our laws and the property of others” and “People are quick to take to the streets and declare black lives matter while happily ignoring the cold, hard, irrefutable figures  show far too many Indigenous parents do not think the futures of their children matter.”   The columnist said: “They have a democratically guaranteed right to do these things, but while they march up and down the street waving flags, their children are stealing cars, robbing houses and being hauled off to the watch-house.” The online article republished a Bill Leak cartoon from 2016 which showed a police officer holding an Indigenous boy and saying to the boy’s father: “You’ll have to sit down and talk to your son about personal responsibility.” “Yeah. Righto,” replies the father. “What’s his name then?”.   In response to complaints 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 ensure factual material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1); to 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 (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).   The Council noted complaints had expressed concern that the article unfairly omits to refer to the well documented societal factors such as unemployment, poverty and poor education that are contributing factors in the incarceration rates of Indigenous youths and adults. The complaints also expressed concern that the inclusion of the cartoon is used to further perpetuate a racist stereotype that Indigenous parents, and in particular Indigenous fathers, are potentially drunkards and poor parents.   The publication said the columnist wrote the opinion piece following a statement by the Queensland Police Minister to the Queensland Legislative Assembly which noted that the incarceration rates of Indigenous youths were significantly higher than those of non-Indigenous youth. The publication said the columnist is entitled to draw conclusions and express opinions based on the data referred to by the Police Minister and on his own observations.   The publication said opinion pieces can be controversial and provocative and the columnist was attempting to reignite debate concerning a matter of significant public importance. The publication said that the column takes up the cause of Indigenous children in the hope that in highlighting the issues, some progress will be made towards resolving them. The publication said that while it recognises the cartoon is controversial, the columnist was making the point that nothing has changed since the cartoon was first published. The publication said that given the debate surrounding such issues, it is willing to publish alternative views.  

Conclusion

  The Council is satisfied that reasonable steps were taken to present factual material concerning the incarceration rates of Indigenous youth accurately. Accordingly, there was no breach of General Principle 1.   The Council notes that opinion articles by their nature make an argument and recognises the columnist’s comments concerning the role Indigenous parents may have on the incarceration rate of Indigenous youths were clearly presented as expressions of opinion and not statements of fact.   Nonetheless, even in an opinion piece, the publication was obliged to ensure expressions of opinion are not based on an omission of key facts. In the absence of presenting a more balanced range of reasons behind the high incarceration rates of Indigenous youths, such as poverty, poor education and intergenerational trauma, and instead attributing the incarceration solely on an absence of parental guidance, the Council considers the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure expressions of opinion were not based on an omission of key facts.  Accordingly, General Principle 3 was breached.   In attributing the high incarceration rates on Indigenous youths solely on an absence of parental guidance and extrapolating from the data that the parents of indigenous youths are not concerned with instilling in their children a respect for the law, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid substantial offence and prejudice. The Council also considers the level of offence and prejudice was compounded by the inclusion in the online article of the cartoon with no evidence of it representing the situation in any particular case let alone as a general portrayal of Indigenous fathers. Although the Council notes the very substantial public interest in reporting and commenting on the incarceration rates of Indigenous youths and the potential causes, the public interest did not justify the level of offence and prejudice, and General Principle 6 was breached in this respect.   The Council welcomes the publication’s offer to publish alternative views on the issues affecting the incarceration rates Indigenous youths.  

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. 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.
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.