Search

The Australian Press Council assists university journalism lecturers and others with materials and instructions for case studies based on recent Press Council adjudications. These provide an opportunity to learn about the Council's standards by simulating its processes for adjudicating on complaints. Please contact us for more information at info@presscouncil.org.au

The Australian Press Council supports the annual “Ossie Awards” run by the Journalism Education and Research Association of Australia (JERAA). Each year, The Australian Press Council funds three prizes for outstanding work by journalism students: The Australian Press Council Prize for Journalism Student of the Year ($750). This is for a student who has performed well in all academic subjects and who has also produced outstanding journalism as part of their coursework. The Australian Press Council Undergraduate Prize for an essay on the topic of press freedom or media ethics ($200) The Australian Press Council Postgraduate Prize for an essay on the topic of press freedom or media ethics ($200) 

2020 winners

 The Australian Press Council Prize for Journalism Student of the Year ($750 prize)Winner: Jess Malcolm, University of Melbourne “Writing with flair, accuracy and mastering today’s digital media complexities are today’s basics that stand a journalist apart. This year, our winner, Jess Malcolm, dug deep and exposed hidden gems by going country - reporting on bees, seaweed and pig poo, to name a few. Jess’s solid academic record shone, delivering information packed articles with passion, accuracy and clarity.” Judges from The Australian Press Council The Australian Press Council Undergraduate Prize for an essay on the topic of media ethics ($200 prize)Winner: Imogen Slater, Monash University: Untitled essay on the ethics of source protection. “Imogen’s essay discusses the challenges that all journalists face with their ethical obligation, when they have agreed to protect source anonymity under the current constraints and ambiguity of the Australian legal system. For her research and compelling argument for legal reform, Imogen is the recipient of this year’s award. Judges from The Australian Press Council. The Australian Press Council Postgraduate Prize for an essay on the topic of media ethics ($200 prize)Winner: Merve O’Keefe, Monash University: The Me Too Movement’s Impact on Journalistic Practice “Merve wrote a well-structured essay on the ethical and legal impacts of the MeToo Movement on journalistic practice. It was a thoughtful connection to a topical subject highlighting the need for journalists to maintain their ethical standards in contrast to the unrestrained environment social media.” Judges from The Australian Press Council Journalism departments in tertiary institutions interested in participating in this program are invited to contact the Council or JERAA. Details about past winners can be found on the JERAA website at https://jeraa.org.au/past-winners/. The “Ossies” are named after journalist Osmar S. White.

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

Relevant Council Standards

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

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

Note

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

Relevant Council Standards

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

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

Note

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

Relevant Council Standards

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

The Australian Press Council has considered a complaint about an article in The Daily Telegraph on 13 June 2013 headed "Extreme danger – How elite police stopped heavily armed Muslims from hit on armoured van". It concerned an attempted armed robbery of a security van by three men described by a police officer as “heavily armed and prepared to use the weapons in a public place”. Two of the men were said to have links to a fourth man, described as a “radical young Muslim” involved in a previous raid on an ATM in relation to which the two men had been charged with withholding information from police. The article said all four men were “devout Muslims who prayed together in various Sydney mosques” and the fourth man had been arrested for threatening the life of an intelligence officer. It also said that the fourth man had been under surveillance by counter-terrorism agencies for four years and “intended to give some of the money [from the ATM raid] to known extremists”. Matthew Press, who had no connections with the men, complained that the headline and article placed gratuitous emphasis on the religion of the men who attempted to rob the security van. He said their actions were not due to their Muslim faith and therefore the headline reference to “heavily armed Muslims” was unjustified. The publication said the report did not seek to denigrate Muslims, and that word had only been used once in the secondary part of the headline and twice in the article. It had been included after extensive interviews with police and revelations in court that phone calls had been intercepted between some of the men. Under the Council’s Standards of Practice, publications should not place gratuitous emphasis on the religion of an individual or group, although they may report and express relevant opinions where it is in the public interest. The complaint focused on the very prominent and unequivocal description of the three men as “heavily armed Muslims” in the secondary part of the headline. The Council considers that this reference was unjustifiably gratuitous because there was no evidence that their actions were due simply to being Muslim, rather than, for example, possibly being extremist or jihadist Muslims. A similar need to limit the scope of a reference to their faith would have arisen if, for example, they had been Christians or Jews. Accordingly, the complaint about the headline is upheld on that ground. By contrast, the references in the body of the article were not gratuitous and, in any event, were sufficiently in the public interest to comply with the Council’s Standards.  

Relevant Council Standards

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

The Australian Press Council has considered a complaint about a series of articles in The Australian in February 2013. They were headed "Environmental ‘failings’ spark port probe as dolphins depart" and "Marine life pays for a waterway under stress" (both on 16 February), "Harbour environment monitoring queried" (18 February) and "Heritage area harbour firms self-assessed" (25 February). The articles reported concerns about dredging in Gladstone Harbour and impacts on marine life in the area, as well as the effectiveness of environmental monitoring by Gladstone Ports Corporation (GPC). The first article reported a claim by an animal welfare organisation that GPC had breached legal requirements to arrange independent audits of its monitoring, and that the Federal Environment Minister had ordered his Department to investigate. The final article reported the Minister’s later announcement that there was no breach as GPC was allowed to self-assess compliance. GPC complained about the words “environmental ‘failings’” in a headline and the references to alleged breaches of the audit requirements. It said the audit issue was mentioned only briefly in the journalist’s lengthy interview with GPC’s chief executive before publication, and that its media adviser received no response when he emailed the journalist seeking detail of any concerns about the matter. It said the publication should have promptly and prominently corrected its references to audit breaches after being told they were wrong. GPC also complained that the articles inaccurately and unfairly blamed harbour dredging for the sickness and death of marine life, given that a government report had said recent flooding was the probable cause. It also complained about suggestions it had “covered up” evidence when responding to government inquiries. The publication said it had accurately and fairly reported claims about the audit requirements, GPC’s rejection of the claims, and the Minister’s eventual endorsement of that rejection. It acknowledged the journalist should preferably have responded to the media adviser’s email but said that, having spent considerable time researching the story and speaking to GPC, he felt he had all the information he required. It said GPC knew at the time its chief executive was interviewed that the journalist was looking into the claims by the animal welfare organisation, and GPC had directed the journalist to material on its website without warning it included an erroneous statement that the audits must be independent. It said if GPC had serious concerns about the issue, there had been ample opportunity in the two days before publication of the first articles for the media adviser to follow up his email to the journalist. The publication said all four articles reported flooding as a possible cause of the harm to marine life, and it had reported comments from a range of sources on the issue. It said the word ‘failings’ had been placed in inverted commas to indicate it was merely a source’s allegation, not a claim by the publication itself. The claim of a “cover up” had clearly been made by two local people whom GPC said were exaggerating the impact of dredging to boost their compensation claims. The Council’s Standards require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure accuracy, fairness and balance. This was met in relation to the reports of allegations about audit breaches and the responses by GPC. It was reasonable to wait for the outcome of the Environment Department’s investigation into whether there had been a breach, at which point the publication reported the Minister’s explanation. The journalist should have responded to GPC’s email seeking further details about the audit concerns, but the email did not convey substantial concern on the matter. Also, it was reasonable to expect GPC to pursue a response, especially as it had information which helped to explain why the incorrect claims had been made. The Council considers the journalist took reasonable steps to ensure accuracy and fairness when reporting the various claims about effects of dredging on marine life, and did not unfairly report the claims of a “cover up”.Accordingly, the complaint is not upheld.  

Relevant Council Standards

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