Standards of PracticeAdvisory Guidelines01-Sep-2001Guideline: Reporting of 'race'The Australian Press Council often receives complaints about the reporting of the race, colour, ethnicity and nationality of individuals or groups, and these raise important questions about the responsibility of the press in our multicultural society. In the broadest terms, the Council has found that the tone and context of such reporting are usually the crucial elements in deciding whether its principles have been breached. The Council’s principles state: “Publications should not place 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 or express opinions in these areas". An obvious case where reference to a person’s physical characteristics or ethnic background is relevant, or in the public interest, is when they are part of police descriptions of wanted suspects. This is particularly so when the suspects are regarded as violent and dangerous. When a person’s physical characteristics or ethnic background are tendered as relevant evidence in court, they are then matters of public record. The question of race and ethnicity is a difficult one. In the strict biological sense, "race" is the subject of complex scientific debate and particular care should be taken when describing somebody as being of “mixed race”, unless it is reporting direct quotes or self-description. However, there is no doubt that people are often perceived, and perceive themselves to be, members of a race in a broadly cultural sense. Ethnic identity, too, is sometimes difficult to define. There is also the danger of using the term "race" where no such race exists; there is no 'Jewish race', equally there is no 'British race' nor 'French race'. Another danger is to accept too readily the race labels used by racist groups in hate campaigns; such labels should be examined carefully and critically. The Council is principally concerned about references to race, colour, ethnicity or nationality which promote negative stereotypes in the community. It acknowledges that the question of stereotypes is not cut and dried, and much depends on the context. The Council in principle condemns gratuitous use of offensive slang terms for minority groups. However, if someone controversially used such expressions, a publication may well be justified in reporting them in direct quotes. The Council also generally believes that the use of such terms is permissible in opinion articles, when it is to make a serious point, and sometimes in humorous articles and satire. But here again the boundaries are usually determined by tone and context. The Council also accepts that some international situations are extremely difficult to report or comment on without causing offence to different groups in the community. The Israeli-Palestinian and Northern Ireland conflicts are obvious examples where deep-rooted passions among readers from various backgrounds are easily inflamed, even by impartial reporting. In the Council's view, in general, the press needs to show more sensitivity in reporting issues when minority groups are perceived in the community to be more "different" or when they are the subject of particular public debate. More
Standards of PracticeAdvisory Guidelines01-Apr-2004Guideline: Religious terms in headlinesThe Press Council advises newspapers and magazines to be careful about using in their headlines terms for religious or ethnic groups that could imply that the group as a whole was responsible for the actions of a minority among that group. The use of the words "Islam", "Islamic" and "Muslim" in headlines on reports of terrorist attacks has caused problems both for the Muslim community in Australia and the Australian media. It is important for newspapers to identify as clearly as possible the sources of terror; casting the net of suspicion and accusation too widely can be harmful. The Council is also aware of instances beyond the Australian Muslim community, and the concern with terrorism, where the use of overly general terms has caused concern for Indigenous people and the Australian Jewish community, among many others. The Council acknowledges that, in some cases, the linking of words with religious connotations to terrorist groups may be, in the strictest sense, accurate - but it is often unfair. For example, terrorists may be Muslims, but Muslims are not necessarily terrorists, as some headlines have implied. The Council urges publications to be aware of the sensitivities of groups about whom they are reporting. Headlines are a particular problem, given the need to capture the essence of a story within a limited compass, and require particular care. In a September 2001 press release, the Council expressed its concern "about references to race, colour, ethnicity or nationality which promote negative stereotypes in the community". Similarly, the Council considers that the use of wide, too-general terms for religious or ethnic groups in headlines could contribute to the promotion of a negative stereotype of that group. Even the use of headlines of the style "Muslim terror" and "Islamic bomb attack" would be best avoided as they can be seen to link religious belief and its adherents to deliberate acts of terror. The Muslim community has told the Press Council that it has already experienced the cumulative effect of the frequent use of the religious terms, which has led to increased divisions in Australian society and ostracising of citizens simply because they belong to a recognisable minority. The Council appreciates that the problem extends to other religions, and to other groups whose standing may be tarnished by actions emanating from a minority of members, and therefore urges publications to be as narrow and focused as possible in their description of those responsible. The Council also notes that full reports do not constitute as great a problem as headlines, since more accuracy can be achieved outside the limitations of headline space. However, both aspects of presentation need care. More
Standards of PracticeAdvisory Guidelines01-Jun-2010Guideline: Nazi concentration campsThe Australian Press Council has from time to time received complaints about the terminology used to describe World War Two Nazi death camps that were situated in occupied Poland. In May 1999, in Adjudication No. 1025, the Council upheld a complaint about the use of the term "Polish concentration camp" to describe them. The Council noted in that finding that such usage "would have been harmfully misleading to younger readers and others whose knowledge of the Second World War is hazy or non-existent". The Council has now received a joint request from the Ambassadors to Australia of the Republic of Poland and the State of Israel that the media generally cease using the misleading term "Polish concentration camp", which they say is harmful to both communities in Australia and adversely impacts on Polish-Jewish relations in general. In response to their request, the Press Council reiterates its conclusion from 1999 and seeks the cooperation of the print media in avoiding the potentially offensive terminology. A more accurate and appropriate description for the camps would be "Nazi concentration camps", adding their location as being "in occupied Poland" where necessary. More
Standards of PracticeAdvisory Guidelines01-Apr-2001Guideline: Health and medical mattersThe Press Council views with concern inadequately researched reports on health and medical matters appearing in the press and in the media as whole. The dangers of exciting unreasonable fears or hopes are far too great for anything but the most careful treatment. The reporter/writer concerned may not be equipped to judge the value or otherwise of the reported treatments. Statements on efficacy should be treated with extreme care. They should always be sourced, even if made by the most eminent authority; on any lesser authority, they should be cross-checked with some other source. Claims of cures, wonder cures, near-miracles and the like should be clearly identified as just that, claims. The standing and the disinterest, or lack of it, of those making the claims should be made clear, be they researchers, pharmaceutical companies or other salespeople. In cases where the writer is qualified to make judgment on the subject being reported, the qualification should be identified for the reader. Personal experience or anecdotal evidence, too, should be clearly identified as such. The reader clearly has the right to ask: "Who says so?" The reports should provide the answer. The Council recognises the undoubted public interest in health and medical matters, and the difficulties faced by the media in these areas. A conservative, careful approach to health and medical reports is essential. More
Standards of PracticeAdvisory Guidelines01-Jul-2001Guideline: Drugs and drug addictionThe Press Council offers the following broad guidelines for newspapers’ consideration when reporting drug-related issues: Responsibly report public debate about drug use and addiction; The harmful effects of any particular drug should not be exaggerated or minimised; Avoid detailed accounts of consumption methods, even though many young people are generally familiar with them; Outlining the chemical composition of a drug may be justified in some reports, but avoid providing any details which could assist its manufacture; Do not quote the lethal dose of any particular drug; Guard against any reporting which might encourage readers’ experimentation with a drug, for example highlighting the ‘glamour’ of the dangers involved; Highlight elements of a story which convey the message that preventive measures against drug abuse do exist, and that people can be protected from the harmful consequences of their addictive behaviours; Bear in mind the arguments of those who point out that tobacco and alcohol use and addiction are another major aspect of the drug story. More
Standards of PracticeAdvisory Guidelines01-Jun-2005Guideline: AdvertorialsAdvertorial' is the term for newspaper and magazine content that looks like editorial content but is published under a commercial arrangement between an advertiser, promoter or sponsor of goods and/or services and the publisher. Such commercial arrangements may include payment for articles to be published and undertakings that editorial content will be published in exchange for, or as part of, an agreement to place an advertisement or provide a sponsorship. ‘Advertorials’ should be identified by such terms as "advertisement", "advertising feature", "special feature", "sponsored feature" and the like so that readers are not led to believe that their content is based on editorial news values free of commercial influences. Advertorials’ are regarded as advertisements and will be covered by regulations and guidelines that apply to advertisements. Complaints to the Australian Press Council about ‘advertorials’ usually will be redirected to a relevant advertising or trade practices authority. Where publication of material is not part of a commercial arrangement or not deemed to be ‘advertorial’, or is said to mislead readers as to its provenance, and is the subject of a complaint lodged with the Council, it will be dealt with under the Council's Standards of Practice.More
Standards of PracticeAdvisory Guidelines23-Oct-2021Advisory Guideline Opinion polls Opinion polls are an important source and subject of news stories. Newspapers and broadcasters often commission their own polls to provide information about readers’ views or voters' intentions. Opinion polls can be an effective tool in measuring what people think about issues, political parties and candidates. However, the public needs to be able to judge properly the value of polls. This requires that publications provide sufficient background information to prevent results from being misconstrued. Publications should take special care to do so in election periods. Reports should not use language that overstates the possible interpretations or meaning of polls. Writers of opinion pieces and editorials should take care when referencing or interpreting polls to provide, where possible, context or information to enable readers to locate the poll results.1 Space considerations may restrict the amount of background information that can be provided about a poll, but background information on at least a number of important details is desirable This can be placed in the main body of an article, a footnote, another section that may be read separately or, if online, via a hyperlink. Editors should take reasonable steps to ensure that reports about previously unpublished opinion poll results include, or have been written taking into account, at least the following matters: the name of the organisation that carried out the poll the identity of any sponsor or funder2 the exact wording of the questions asked; a definition of the population from which the sample was drawn; the sample size and method of sampling3 the dates when the interviews were carried out. Publications are also encouraged to consider including the following matters where possible: how the interviews were carried out (in person, by telephone, by mail, online, etc); and the margin of error. Editors and reporters should carefully evaluate whether to report online surveys, having regard to their scope and methodology.4 They should be cautious of open-access online polls where the sample size and the exact questions asked are unknown and the results have been generated by self-selecting respondents.5 Reports should not imply that the views of panels or focus groups or vox pops and straw polls represent the views of an entire population or the electorate at large. References Adjudication No. 1636 (April 2015). Adjudication No. 1383 (January 2008) Adjudication No. 1636 (April 2015); Adjudication No. 1383 (January 2008). Adjudication No. 1383 (January 2008). Relevant Adjudications Adjudication No. 1636: Complainant/The Sunday Mail (April 2015) Issue: poll referenced in an opinion piece – question of whether it would be interpreted by readers as fact “The text of the print and online material included the statement that ‘[o]ur Galaxy Poll today clearly shows that Queenslanders are embracing asset sales rather than reduce government services or increase taxes’” “The material did not provide any statistical results, methodology or other details of the poll. There was no reference to any place where such details might be found. An article on page 8 of the print version did not provide these details. A separate online article on the same day said the survey involved 800 Queenslanders and found ‘38 percent of peopled believed asset sales were the best option to reduce debt, compared to 21 per cent for increased taxes and 24 per cent for reduced services’.” “In this case, the unexplained and unqualified reference to the poll results relating to asset sales, government services and taxes was not distinguishable as the publication’s opinion about the meaning of the poll. The material was likely to be read as a statement of fact.” “The failure to indicate where detail of the poll findings and methodology could be found and the fact that the detail which was provided elsewhere did not enable readers to ascertain whether the statement in the material was opinion or fact, meant that relevant facts were not disclosed.” “Accordingly, the Council considers that the print material on page 54 and the online editorial were in breach of General Principle 6. It recommends that publications consider the Council’s Advisory Guideline on opinion polls which it issued in 2001.” General Principle 6 at the time was as follows: “Publications are free to advocate their own views and publish the by-lined opinions of others, as long as readers can recognise what is fact and what is opinion. Relevant facts should not be misrepresented or suppressed…” More