PolicySubmissions02-Oct-2011Submission: Letter to the Chair of the Independent Media InquiryLetter from the Press Council Chair, Professor Julian Disney, responding to questions from the Chair of the Independent Media Inquiry, Mr Ray Finkelstein QC. Letter from Mr Finkelstein to Prof Disney View PDF Response from Prof Disney View PDF More
PolicySubmissions02-Nov-2011Submission to the Convergence Review Discussion PapersThe Convergence Review released its detailed discussion papers in September 2011. The Council's submission principally relates to the issues raised in the Community Standards paper.View Online
PolicySubmissions20-Apr-2018Press Council submission to the ACCC's Digital Platforms InquiryView Online
Adjudications180401-Sep-2021Complainant/NT NewsThe Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published by NT News in print on 14 September 2019 headed “Man granted hospital leave killed himself”. The article reported on a coronial inquest of a young man who committed suicide “after being granted leave from the mental health ward at the Alice Springs Hospital despite showing symptoms of psychosis.” The article included information heard at the inquest, including details of the man’s history with mental health services, his discharge from a hospital’s mental health ward while apparently delusional, a prior suicide attempt and his subsequent suicide. Amongst the information included in the article was the location of the suicide and the method used in a suicide attempt, expressed in thoughts about suicide and in the subsequent article. In response to a complaint it received, the Press Council asked the publication to comment on whether the article complied with the Council’s Standards of Practice, and specifically whether the details of the suicide methods and locations included in the article were justified in the public interest (Suicide Standard 5); and whether the article gave undue prominence to the reported suicide and/or caused unnecessary harm or hurt to people who have attempted suicide or to relatives and other people who have been affected by a suicide or attempted suicide (Suicide Standard 7). In response, the publication said the article was of substantial public interest as it went to the heart of the quality of medical service and treatment being provided in the Northern Territory. The publication said the inquest was investigating how a man showing signs of psychosis could be released from the mental health ward of a hospital. It noted the decision to release someone said to be visibly and obviously at risk is a serious issue, particularly as in this instance the man later died. The publication said more so than in major capital cities, the issue of health care in the Northern Territory is of greater public interest and debate especially for the vulnerable and whether they are receiving adequate care. The publication said the inquest was canvassing whether the care and assessment received by this man was part of the circumstances that led to his death, and that few other issues are more deserving of reporting. The publication said it was important and in the public interest to provide some detail of the background and relevant facts in the court proceedings noting the importance of open justice. In relation to Specific Standard 5, the publication said the article only stated that the location was a store room, with no other details given. It said this was very different to publicising a location known for suicide attempts. In relation to Specific Standard 7, the publication said the matter was of significant public interest to report and was not given undue prominence. In this regard, it noted that the article appeared on page 16 without any images; the headline explained clearly why the inquest was investigating the hospital's actions; and the contact details for Lifeline were provided at the bottom of the article. Conclusion The Council’s Standards of Practice relevant to this complaint provide that the method and location of a suicide should not be described in detail unless the public interest in doing so clearly outweighs the risk, if any, of causing further suicides. This applies especially to methods or locations which may not be well known by people contemplating suicide (Specific Standard 5). They also provide that reports of suicide should not be given undue prominence, especially by unnecessarily explicit headlines or images. Great care should be taken to avoid causing unnecessary harm or hurt to people who have attempted suicide or to relatives and other people who have been affected by a suicide or attempted suicide. This requires special sensitivity and moderation in both gathering and reporting news (Specific Standard 7). The Council acknowledges the strong public interest in reporting on the coronial inquest and on the medical care received by the Deceased. It also notes that the description of the location was not specific. However, the Council does not consider it was necessary for the publication to report the method of the Deceased’s attempted suicide and subsequent suicide to the extent it did in order to legitimately scrutinise the health care provided to the Deceased. Accordingly, the Council concludes that Specific Standards 5 was breached. As to Specific Standard 7 in relation to sensitivity and moderation, the Council recognises that although the family of the Deceased would likely find the article distressing, given the death was the subject of an inquest it does not consider the article was unduly prominent or unnecessarily explicit. The Council also recognises there is public interest in reporting on the quality of medical services and treatment being provided in the Northern Territory. Accordingly, the Council finds Specific Standard 7 was not breached. Note: If you or someone close to you requires personal assistance, please contact Lifeline Australia on 13 11 14. Relevant Council Standards This Adjudication applies the following Specific Standards on the Coverage of Suicide of the Council: 5. The method and location of a suicide should not be described in detail (e.g., a particular drug or cliff) unless the public interest in doing so clearly outweighs the risk, if any, of causing further suicides. This applies especially to methods or locations which may not be well known by people contemplating suicide. 7. Reports of suicide should not be given undue prominence, especially by unnecessarily explicit headlines or images. Great care should be taken to avoid causing unnecessary harm or hurt to people who have attempted suicide or to relatives and other people who have been affected by a suicide or attempted suicide. This requires special sensitivity and moderation in both gathering and reporting news.More
Adjudications180305-Sep-2021Complainant/The Sunday TelegraphThe Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published in print by The Sunday Telegraph on 14 June 2020 headed “Where’s the real justice?”. The article commented on the ‘Black Lives Matter’ protests in Australia in June 2020 concerning police behaviour and black deaths in custody. The article said: “The reality in this country – and the US – is that the greatest danger to aboriginals and negroes – is themselves” and that until “we address this issue, protests damning white police officers are nebulous”. In support of this view, the article said that the “protests are facile and irrelevant because police and indigenous deaths in custody are a small part of the complex jigsaw that goes into making black lives matter.” The article referred to the death of four Aboriginal teenagers in a stolen car and asked “Where was the protection for four innocent children? Police say they knew the car was stolen and decided not to pursue”. The article also referred to a university study which said that “indigenous females and males are 35 times and 22 times as likely to be hospitalised due to family violence related assaults as other Australians”, and to the death of a four-month-old Aboriginal girl while her mother was in police custody and said “Blaming police and the Corrective Services system for their ills is, frankly, a cop out”. The article also referred to the killing by a policeman of an Australian woman (presumably non-Indigenous) in the US and asked “where were the marches through the streets of Australia after Ms Damond died?”. Following a complaint, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether the article complied with its Standards of Practice. In particular, the Council sought comment on the statement that “The reality in this country – and the US – is that the greatest danger to aboriginals and negroes – is themselves”. The Council referred the publication to concerns raised that the term ‘negroes’ is an outdated racial slur and the article unfairly characterises Indigenous Australians and African Americans as the key perpetrators of racial violence, and implies that they are responsible for, or deserving of, such violence. Concerns were also raised that the article is based on unfounded, racist generalisations and is likely to contribute to substantial prejudice against those minority groups. In response, the publication noted that the article is an opinion piece and said the columnist is entitled to express his personal views on issues which are clearly in the public interest for community discussion and debate. As with many opinion columns, there will be alternative views within the community which disagree with those of the author. However, this fact should not deny the author the right to express his opinion which is a fundamental right of a free press and, importantly, a democratic society. This aspect is part of the normal discourse of public debate. The publication also noted that at the time of publication, the columnist believed his opinion column to be fair and balanced and was assessed as such by the publication before it decided to publish the column. In relation to the use of the word “negroes”, the publication said the columnist removed the word before publication from the versions of his column which appeared in other newspapers and online. It was his intention also that the version published in The Sunday Telegraph did not contain the word negroes. Regretfully, this did not happen because there was a communications breakdown during the production process which resulted in the original, not amended, version of the column being published in The Sunday Telegraph’s print edition. It said both The Sunday Telegraph and the writer published apologies in the next print edition of The Sunday Telegraph. The publication said the columnist, in particular, regrets that the column was published with the word negroes. It said he is a passionate advocate of all Australians as a society working together to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians. His column never intended to vilify any person or group but rather to engage in public discussion on issues of public importance and to express his own opinion on the issues. Conclusion The Council’s Standards of Practice applicable in this matter require that publications take reasonable steps 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 to a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 6). The Council recognises that opinion articles by their nature make an argument. However, even in an opinion article, the publication is obliged to ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance and expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts. The Council notes that, in criticising the protests, the article drew on factual material about deaths and family violence amongst Indigenous people not related to police behaviour or deaths in custody. In doing so, however, the article omitted any reference to well-documented societal factors contributing to Indigenous community and family dysfunction including unemployment and poverty, poor housing and overcrowding, and poor education and health, and that the attitudes of non-Indigenous Australians can also contribute. In referring to an Australian woman killed in the US, the article in the Council’s view includes factual material that bears no relevance to the protesters’ concerns or actions or to Indigenous welfare. The Council believes the columnist’s criticisms of the protesters could have been made based on a fair and balanced presentation of factual material, highlighting the deeper problems in many Indigenous communities than caused by alleged police brutality and deaths in custody. However, the article published did not do so. Accordingly, the Council considers the publication did not take reasonable steps to ensure the factual material was presented with reasonable fairness and balance and to ensure the writer’s expression of opinion was not based on significantly inaccurate material or omission of key facts in breach of General Principle 3. The Council also considers the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid substantial offence and prejudice. Although the Council notes the very substantial public interest in allowing freedom of expression, the public interest did not justify the level of offence and prejudice in its assertion that the greatest danger to Indigenous Australians and African Americans is themselves. The lack of fairness and balance in the presentation of factual material was also likely to have caused substantial offence and prejudice beyond that which might have been justified in the public interest. In relation to the use of the term “negroes”, the Council welcomed the apologies from the publication and the columnist. The measures taken by the publication do not, however, remove the effects of the breach. Accordingly, the Council considers that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing substantial offence, distress or prejudice, without sufficient justification in the public interest. In doing so it 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.”More
22-Oct-2021APC Opening Statement Senate Environment and Communications References Committee – Media Diversity in Australia InquiryView Online
Adjudications179830-Sep-2021Complainant/Herald SunThe Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published in The Herald Sun on 12 November 2020 headed “Islam butchers slaughter women and kids” in print on page 19. The article reported that “Heavily armed Islamic militants have killed dozens of unarmed villagers in a campaign to establish a caliphate in southern Africa… Up to 50 people, including women and children, were murdered, with some beheaded and dismembered in a three-day rampage in north Mozambique.” In response to a complaint received, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether its use of the words “Islam” in the headline and “Islamic” in the article complied with the Council’s Standards of Practice. These require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is presented with fairness and balance (General Principle 3) and to take reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 6). The Council noted that the complaint raised concerns that the headline and article attributed the act of violence to the Islamic religion. The publication said the references to Islam in the headline and Islamic in the article are entirely relevant to the reported events. The publication said the reference to Islam is specifically attributed to the Islamic militants who want to set up an Islamic caliphate in southern Africa and that it made this very clear by publishing the article on its World News pages. The publication said that no reasonable reader could draw the conclusion that the terror could be attributed to all Muslims around the world, let alone those in Australia. The publication said the terrorists who slaughtered innocent and unarmed villagers have pledged allegiance to the Islamic State and wish to establish an Islamic caliphate in northern Mozambique. It said it is not possible to report the story without referring to Islam. The publication also said there is public interest in reporting mass killings and a push to establish an Islamic caliphate in traditionally non-Islamic countries such as Mozambique and Tanzania. Conclusion The Council notes that prominent references to religious or ethnic groups in headlines can imply that a group, as a whole, is responsible for the actions of a minority among that group. Accordingly, in reporting on instances of violence purportedly conducted in the name of religion, publications must take reasonable steps to identify the particular sources of violence as clearly as possible. In this instance, the Council considers the headline could have been clearer by referring specifically to ‘Islamic State militants’ for example, rather than ‘Islam’ which could be read more generally. However, the Council is satisfied that the attribution of the violence to ‘Islamic militants’ in the first paragraph of the article was sufficient to avoid the suggestion that their conduct was associated with all of those who adhere to the religion of Islam. The Council also accepts that the references to Islam were relevant in the context of reporting on attempts by Islamic militants to establish a caliphate in southern Africa. The Council considers that, in making it sufficiently clear that the violence was perpetrated by Islamic militants, the publication took reasonable steps comply with its Standards of Practice. Accordingly, there was no breach of General Principles 3 and 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.”More