AUSTRALIAN PRESS COUNCIL
Annual Report No. 30
Year ending 30 June 2006
Suite 10.02, 117 York Street SYDNEY NSW 2000 Australia
Telephone: (02) 9261 1930 or (1800) 025 712 Fax: (02) 9267 6826
E-mail: [email protected] Internet: http://www.presscouncil.org.au/
ISSN 0156-1308 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
Contents
Chairman’s Foreword ...... 3
Free Speech Issues Report on free speech issues ...... 5 Charter of a Free Press in Australia ...... 24
Adjudications and Complaints Adjudications Nos 1292 - 1321 ...... 25 Adjudication publication details ...... 45 Index to Adjudications ...... 46 Complaints/adjudications 1976-2006 ...... 46 Complaints/adjudication statistics 2005-2006 ...... 47 Complaints not adjudicated ...... 50 Changes in principles and procedures ...... 53 Statement of Principles ...... 56 Privacy Standards for the print media ...... 57 Complaints procedure ...... 59
Other Council activities Administration and activities ...... 60 General Press Releases Nos 267 - 271 ...... 65 Press Council Publications ...... 70
The Council Changes on the Council ...... 71 Council members as at 30 June 2006 ...... 73 Code of Ethics for Council members ...... 75 Council Meetings ...... 75 Statement of Financial Position ...... 76
Publishers’ Statistics ...... 77
Graphs ...... 98
2 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
Ken McKinnon Chairman’s Foreword Chairman
The Press Council has had a good year, the highlight being the passage in February 2006, in the last State/Territory of agreed national revisions to Defamation Laws. This completed a very satisfying six-year campaign for modernisation of those laws initiated by the Press Council. At the core were reforms addressing speedy making of amends that restore improperly traduced reputations, while defending the obligation of the press to report truthful matters in the public interest. While there are still cases being decided by the courts under the old laws, there is already evidence that the reformed laws will deter money-seeking litigation and have a positive effect on public discourse. Of course, as this annual report details, most of the Council’s attention throughout the year has necessarily been focused on the bread and butter issues of adjudication of complaints and freedom of speech issues. The Council has also, however, broken considerable new ground via its initial study of Australian news print media (published as State of the News Print Media in October 2006), including its initial content-analysis of Australian newspapers. Compared to the US, for instance, our papers present a higher proportion of short reports and rely very often on Australian single sources without balancing or corroborating comment. newspapers The study did not support the dire predictions made recently by American and UK media are meeting commentators of the demise of newspapers within relatively few years. Circulation declines the general have steadied. It is still the case that over half of Australians over fifteen read a newspaper challenges of daily, rising to sixty-five percent for Sunday editions. improving quality head- That is not to say that Australian newspapers will be different from the rest of the world in on, with having to re-plan their futures. It is fairly clear that unique quality will become one of the revised biggest issues determining whether readers continue to buy a particular newspaper. News layouts and aggregation Internet sites are already competing for readers’ loyalty. Also, on present changes of trends it would be folly to rely on old assumptions about what the readers regards as type, more quality news services. separate full- This kind of quality is an elusively hard attribute to pin down. Trenchant, highly specific colour quality judgments of the kind made in New Zealand recently are unlikely to be to be at the sections and core. Under the headline NZ writing quality slipping (PANPA Bulletin, June 2006), the magazines, report said that excellence in news writing was pretty rare last year, as were tight and other introductions. Grammar is no longer fashionable, writers of some features are more format interested in themselves than potential readers and much feature writing is formulaic and changes. predictable. Newsrooms Australian newspapers are meeting the general challenges of improving quality head-on, are with revised layouts and changes of type, more separate full-colour sections and magazines, reorganizing and other format changes. Newsrooms are reorganizing journalistic resources and acquiring journalistic audio and video suites. Newspaper websites are quickly becoming multi-platform by resources increasing the number of audio, video and blog possibilities. and acquiring audio and While editors claim that it is an expertly organized view of the world, including interesting, video suites. surprise information, that readers want and will continue to get from newspapers, the question is whether today’s view of that will be enough. The challenge is to do better than Internet news sites. Success will surely depend upon readers remaining confident that they are receiving better-edited, more reliable, more authoritative, and more consistently balanced information. The polls that report disturbingly high proportions of the public assessing newspapers as lacking in accuracy and indulging in unfair reporting, must be remain a cause for concern.
3 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
Chairman’s Too few papers readily admit, much less compensate for, errors of accuracy, fairness or Foreword balance, without prodding via the Council complaints process and adjudications. On another front, is news gathering really as vigorous it used to be? Three delivered newspapers and on-line reading of many others does not provide me with much variation in what and how Australian matters are reported. Press galleries seem to seize on the same topics, report too much spin unquestioningly and report it in the much the same way at about the same length. Independent minded, skeptical journalists, who do not hunt with the pack, are as rare as hens’ teeth. Nor is there a more comforting picture in opinion pages. Most of those pages now present a heavy diet of partisan political opinion; the same writers constantly pushing the same old, boring political lines. Civility, reasoned argument and elucidation are not found as a matter of course. It is as if editors believe that readers want partisan polemics as their sole diet. And, it is hard to escape the impression that there are more editorials, written at greater length and more pompously even than in the past. Who reads them? It might be salutary to poll how many people read, let alone are influenced by, editorials. The most frequent The most frequent editorial response to questions about the future of newspapers is still editorial that they know what the public wants because they have daily to win the readership that response to ensures their papers prosper. Something more than that answer may be required for a questions prosperous future. about the It must be emphasized that external forces are tough to overcome. For instance, the future of Commonwealth Government’s recent changes in media ownership law will not even newspapers maintain, much less foster, a diversity of voices in the print media. is still that That horse has already bolted. Ownership of over ninety-five per cent of Australian they know newspapers is in the hands of five companies, to one of whom independents invariably what the sell if they want to leave the industry. Within company-owned newspapers, profitability is public wants increasingly dependent upon reducing expenses, particularly the cost of generating content, because they inevitably leading to the employment of fewer journalists and more intra-company have daily to generation and dissemination of standardised content. win the readership The old saying about concentration being aided by the threat of execution on the morrow that ensures applies. Newspapers, whatever the current state of their circulation, are having to think their papers outside the old square. prosper. Finally, as the report notes, the whittling down, bit by bit, of the long tradition of press Something freedom in Australia, the erosion of the right and obligation of the press to inform the more than public without censorship or restrictions, continues in many different ways. Unfortunately that answer not in such chunks that the public has yet become alarmed. Will the Australian public ever may be arrive at a point where it marshals counter forces, or registers its disapproval of its right to required for a access to information indispensable to informed citizenship in a vibrant democracy? prosperous future. Professor Ken McKinnon October 2006
4 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
Report on free speech issues
A free press? Australia is among the most liberal societies in the world. It has maintained an open and democratic political structure for over a century. It achieved its independence, and has maintained it, without overt violence. As a nation composed largely of descendants of immigrants, it has developed a multicultural society with a variety of viewpoints that is reflected in its print media. It is against the background of a free and open society, tolerant of opposing opinions, with a tradition of a free press and a freedom of speech that was so obvious to them that the country’s founding fathers saw no need to enshrine its protection, Despite its that any discussions of press freedom and the availability of information need to be set. traditions, Despite its traditions, according to Freedom House, in its 2006 report, Australia is ranked according to 31st among the nations of the world in so far as press freedom is concerned (down one Freedom place). Reporters sans Frontieres (in its 2006 list) places it 35th (down from 31st in 2005). House, in its Those positions would shock most Australians. 2006 report, Australia is This report on the Council’s free speech activities in the 2005-2006 year aims to do two ranked 31st things; among the 1.review developments in 2005-2006 in Australia in each area where there is a real or possiblenations of threat to press freedom (that is, the freedom of the people to be informed); and the world in 2.report on the Council’s activities during the year. so far as press Policy Agenda freedom is concerned The Council has worked through a discussion paper, creating a list of the issues to be given (down one priority in its policy development and press freedom efforts. It agreed that the areas for place). action this year included privacy, especially the development of a public figure test for any Reporters putative action; suppression, following up the current proposals before the Chief Justices on sans developing a uniform suppression reporting system; and other court-related issues, especially Frontieres (in contempt and access to documents. With the High Court’s decision in McKinnon’s case its 2006 list) going against The Australian, reform of FoI law, as well as practice, has been added as a places it 35th leading priority. (down from 31st in 2005). Professional Privilege Developments in 2005-2006 In addition to the conflict between private rights and the public’s right to information, there are conflicts between ethical obligations and a legal requirement to divulge information. In the media this is particularly exemplified by the obligations on journalists not to divulge the identity of confidential sources. Generally, Australian law does not specifically protect the confidentiality of sources. Both governments and private interests have tried to use the courts to discover sources. Publishing and Broadcasting Limited, owners of Channel 9, sought to discover the names of alleged sources responsible for the leaking of an affidavit critical of the recently appointed CEO of the company. There were attempts by the Commonwealth DPP to have Michael Harvey and Gerard McManus reveal the source/s for an article based on leaked material. They were cited for contempt when they did not. The public servant was subsequently convicted, without their testimony being called at the trial. The journalists are still subject to a contempt charge for their earlier refusal, a decision that was appealed. (As this report was being finalised the appeal for judicial review of the decision to charge the journalists was dismissed.)
5 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
Free speech issues The Australian Law Reform Commission, in co-operation with its NSW and Victorian Sources analogues, reviewed a number of questions related to Evidence Acts, with a view to more uniformity. The issue raised in its Discussion Paper of most interest to the media was whether there should be a privilege to protect journalists’ confidential sources. The commission recommended adoption by Victoria and the Commonwealth of the NSW model. At its March meeting, the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (SCAG) agreed that all states would adopt the commission’s recommendations and move towards uniformity in their Evidence Acts. The Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) brought attention to changes in the Telecommunications (Interception) Act that give security agencies and the police extraordinary powers to tap the phones of third parties to suspected terrorist plots. The possibility exists that journalists who speak, albeit innocently, and on a completely unrelated subject, to those suspected of involvement in terrorist actions could themselves be subject to phone tapping on calls unrelated to the alleged terrorist activity. The Council of Civil Liberties notes that, compared to the US, Australia already has 26 times per capita more warrants for phone taps and, unlike the US, warrants here can be issued by officials other than judges.
Press Council Professional Privilege activity 2005-2006 Uniform evidence In August, the Council made a submission to the Australian Law Reform Commission The (ALRC) on its review of Evidence Acts. The Council’s submission concentrated on the submission question of professional privilege for journalists, arguing for a default situation that recognised concentrated a presumption in favour of granting a privilege to protect confidential sources. It cited a on the clause in a proposed New Zealand Evidence Bill as a model for Australian legislation. The question of submission has been posted to the Council’s website (http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/ professional fop/fop_subs/evidence05.html) and the gist of it was reiterated in the letter to state and territory privilege for Attorneys-General discussed below. journalists, The ALRC subsequently released its report, and recommendations, for uniform Acts. On arguing for a the question of professional privilege, it recommended the adoption of the NSW model as default noted above. The Council thought that the proposal did not go far enough in establishing situation that confidentiality as the default position and in June 2006 the Council Chairman wrote to the recognised a Attorneys-General prior to the July SCAG meeting: presumption I refer to the ALRC report on the Uniform Evidence Law that was jointly commissioned by the NSW, in favour of Victorian and Commonwealth Attorneys-General and which was published in December 2005. granting a As you will be aware, recommendation 15-1 of the report deals with the proposal to incorporate into privilege to the Uniform Evidence Acts a provision for a confidential professional relationship privilege. The protect report recommends that the privilege clause be modelled on Part 3.10, Division 1A of the NSW confidential Evidence Act 1995. sources The Australian Press Council enthusiastically supports the proposal to extend to jurisdictions other than NSW the benefits of professional confidential relationship privilege. However, the Council is of the view that, while s 126B of the NSW Act offers a certain amount of protection to the confidentiality of journalists’ sources, clause 64 of the New Zealand Evidence Bill 2005 is to be preferred (see below). While both provisions retain a significant degree of judicial discretion to allow evidence where appropriate, the wording of the New Zealand clause clearly indicates that there is a presumption in favour of the protection of the confidentiality of sources. We would be grateful if the Council’s views on the preferability of the New Zealand wording could taken into account by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General as part of its consideration of reforms to the Uniform Evidence Acts. Thank you for giving the Australian Press Council an opportunity to comment on the proposed reforms. Evidence Bill 2005 No. 256-1 (New Zealand) 64 Protection of journalists’ sources (1) If a journalist has promised an informant not to disclose the informant’s identity, neither the 6 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
journalist nor his or her employer is compellable in a civil or criminal proceeding to answer Free speech issues any question or produce any document that would disclose the identity of the informant or Sources enable that identity to be discovered. (2) A Judge of the High Court may order that subsection (1) is not to apply if satisfied by a party to a civil or criminal proceeding that, having regard to the issues to be determined in that proceeding, the public interest in the disclosure of evidence of the identity of the informant outweighs—- (a) any likely adverse effect of the disclosure on the informant or any other person; and (b) the public interest in the communication of facts and opinion to the public by the news media and, accordingly also, in the ability of the news media to access sources of facts. (3) The Judge may make the order subject to any terms and conditions that the Judge thinks appropriate. (4) This section does not affect the power or authority of the House of Representatives. (5) In this section—- informant means a person who gives information to a journalist in the normal course of the journalist’s work in the expectation that the information may be published in a news medium journalist means a person who in the normal course of that person’s work may be given information by an informant in the expectation that the information may be published in a news medium news medium means a medium for the dissemination to the public or a section of the public of news and observations on news public interest in the disclosure of evidence includes, in a criminal proceeding, the defendant’s right to present an effective defence.
McManus and Harvey ... the Council has well- The Council followed closely the dilemma facing two Herald Sun journalists charged with based contempt for refusing to reveal the names of their source/s at a preliminary stage of a concerns prosecution of a public official. In October, it issued General Press Release No. 268 (page about the 66) deploring the decision to charge the journalists with contempt. future In November, after receiving a letter from the federal Attorney-General critical of aspects of capacity of GPR 268, the Council’s Chairman responded to Philip Ruddock: the press to Thank you for your recent letter. More particularly, thank you for intervening in the Harvey-McManus inform the case, an action which was no doubt instrumental in the matter being adjourned sine die at last public without week’s hearings. serious I write again for two reasons. First, I need to respond to your concerns about my statements on ABC impediments radio. You will recall that I was pretty cautious, saying that having been head of a Commonwealth Statutory body myself, I could sympathise with government’s pursuit of leakers. My principal reference was to the serious dangers for free speech in pursuing the intermediaries to publication, the journalists. Your text-book explanation of the DPP role is no doubt right, but my experience as head of two agencies working to Commonwealth rules was one of continuing consultation between legal agencies on complex matters, especially on a matter such as this prosecution and possible withdrawal. You did not mention the informal and formal (eg, the Solicitor-General’s brief) consultative steps that occur prior to and during any prosecution. In my experience the Attorney-General’s views are more than a little influential at all stages. My second, and main reason for responding relates to the many untied ends of the ‘Harvey-McManus’ case. When Kelly’s trial proceeds, scheduled for early in the new year, those concerns will be even more acute. While those concerns remain, indeed increase, especially with the proposed anti- terrorism Act, the Council has well-based concerns about the future capacity of the press to inform the public without serious impediments. Last week’s hearing was informed by a clearly determined DPP that the journalists will be subject to questioning again at [the official’s] early 2006 trial. One way or the other the outcome of that questioning will establish an undesirable precedent from the point of view of free speech. If they capitulate, the precedent will result in more cases of journalists being forced into court to respond to counsel on fishing expeditions for sources of information. Alternatively, if they refuse to respond,
7 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
Free speech issues followed by new contempt orders, and ultimately, perhaps, jail, or at least a criminal conviction Contempt without further punishment (even a conviction restricts them in many personal ways), there will still be serious flow-on freedom-of-speech effects. You, yourself, have mentioned approvingly the reference on the possibilities for press shield clauses in Evidence Acts to the combined Law Reform Commissions. While acknowledging that the normal pattern is to wait for the formal report on the reference, the Council believes that the really serious freedom of speech difficulties, not just for [this] case, but also arising from it, justify the earliest possible remedial action. One option would be to amend the Evidence Acts immediately along the lines of the media organisations submission to the Law Reform enquiry, as follows; Briefly, it is submitted that a journalist should not be required to disclose the identity of a confidential source unless a court is satisfied that it is necessary to do so for one of the following reasons: • protection of the national or international security of Australia; • prevention of the commission of a serious crime; or • protection of the physical safety of any person, and it is in the public interest to do so. ... the Council It is submitted that the presumption should be that disclosure is not necessary. The onus of does not proving that disclosure is necessary should rest with the party requesting disclosure. believe that It is also submitted that journalists should not be required to disclose confidential sources if the the proposed information is able to be obtained in another way or if the disclosure is sought only to corroborate use of Clause information obtained in another way. 22 of the NSW In addition, it is submitted that in order to provide real protection, journalists should be protected Evidence Act from searches, seizures and other investigative and detection methods such as phone taps which goes may result in identification of confidential sources. An appropriate way to provide this protection anywhere would be to make evidence obtained from such methods inadmissible if it might lead to the disclosure of a confidential source”. near what is required to Another even more immediately available remedy would be to use Clause 64 of the New Zealand Evidence Bill, the text of which is at Attachment A. It has been legally drafted and tested. It could be protect free adopted verbatim. speech and Please note that the Council does not believe that the proposed use of Clause 22 of the NSW journalistic Evidence Act goes anywhere near what is required to protect free speech and journalistic sources sources (that clause is much too open to judicial interpretation). If the Commonwealth could both persuade Victoria and itself insert clauses very similar to New Zealand’s Section 64 in the relevant Acts, not only this problem but a significant number of other existing and potential free speech issues (especially the profound concerns arising from the anti- terrorism Act now before parliament) would be diminished. A prompt reform of this kind would be a significant and exemplary protection of free speech by your Government.
Contempt by Publication Developments in 2005-2006 Contempt of Court charges have been laid against a number of Australian journalists. In addition to the Herald Sun case noted above, publication in the Sunday Herald Sun and in other newspapers, and on television, of a report of a boy who divorced his parents resulted in over twenty journalists, producers and editors being charged. Convictions were recorded against the editors and producers (and the outlets) but not the journalists, in 2006. The Sunday Herald Sun was also subject to charges for publishing an editorial that advocated a tough sentence for a man charged with the murder of his pregnant wife. In that case, the judge said that the prosecution had not proved there was a real risk of interference with the administration of justice. The NSW and Western Australian Law Reform Commissions (NSW LRC Report 100, 2003; WA LRC Report 93, 2003) have put forward to their respective Attorneys-General proposals for tightening contempt by publication provisions but as yet no legislative action has been taken on these recommendations. 8 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
Press Council Contempt activity 2005-2006 Free speech issues Defamation The only activity this year were the actions noted above in relation to McManus and Harvey.
Defamation Developments in 2005-2006 Defamation law should be about finding the balance between competing demands of the private right to reputation and public right to information, with an emphasis on the restoration “The Press of reputation where it has been unfairly traduced. Until the beginning of 2006, Australian Council was the driving defamation law did not meet this criterion. After a series of discussions at SCAG, the states force and territories agreed in 2005 to enact harmonised and reformed defamation laws. These responsible came into force in the states on 1 January 2006. As noted by Queensland Attorney-General for getting Linda Lavarch at a seminar at QUT in May 2006, the Press Council was the driving force defamation responsible for getting defamation reform back on the SCAG agenda. reform back Among the significant changes in the new harmonised law is the removal of the right to sue on the SCAG by large corporations (although small businesses retain the right.) This means that suits agenda.” such as that initiated by the public company Gunns in Tasmania against a number of Qld AG community activists and organisations will be a thing of the past and there will be no further use of defamation law by corporations to stop criticism of their activities. Other changes that have been enacted include: • defamation actions must be initiated within 12 months of publication; • a greater emphasis is placed on pre-litigation settlement of actions using the Offer of Amends procedures; • truth alone is a defence, without the necessity of demonstrating public benefit; • the qualified privilege (“it was ‘reasonable’ in the circumstances”) and fair comment defences are clarified; and • the amount of damages that can be awarded is capped. Early indications are that the emphasis in the legislation on restoring reputation, rather than on damages, has led to a significant increase in the number of matters settled early in the process. In another development of significance, the unsuccessful result of the application for special leave to appeal to the High Court in the O’Shane case in NSW confirms the view that comments on the judiciary appear to be outside of the scope of the implied constitutional guarantee of freedom of political communication (the Lange defence).
Press Council defamation activity 2005-2006 Much of the Council’s activities involved keeping a watching brief over developments towards the uniform and reformed defamation laws. In Queensland the question was whether there was a requirement for ‘public benefit’ as an addition to the truth defence. In Tasmania, it was the question of defamation of the dead. By December 2005 the task was virtually complete. All six states had reformed their laws on the basis of the model provisions and the two territories were due to complete passage of their bills shortly. In the end, the Queensland act conformed with the national model, while the Tasmania retained a limited right to sue on behalf of the deceased. The Council prepared an easy-to-read guide to the changes in the law for editors to enable them to become familiar with the new legal environment. This guide was published in the News and has been posted to the Council’s website. (http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/ pcsite/apcnews/feb06/defamation.html) The Council expressed its pleasure at being able to see its initiative through to such a successful conclusion and congratulated its Chairman, Professor Ken McKinnon, for his
9 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
Free speech issues work behind the scenes and publicly, in getting uniform defamation on the agenda and Privilege enacted by the states. Ownership
Parliamentary Privilege Developments in 2005-2006 As reported last year, the Senate Privileges Committee had moved to strengthen contempt of Parliament sections but narrowed the range of instances to which they apply. Adoption of the committee’s recommendations in October 2005 lessens restrictions on press reporting of Parliament, but still focuses on the journalist and editor, rather than the source of the leak, in dealing with any alleged breaches. Similarly, despite a recommendation from a House Committee to review the rules, the House of Representatives has not eased existing strong restrictions on the taking of photographs in the chamber. Both houses of federal parliament have ‘right of reply’ rules for individuals who are neither Members nor Senators, but who have been unfairly singled out for criticism. The Senate has granted a number of opportunities to reply; the House of Representatives still has yet to The Council’s grant one. primary concerns with proposed Press Council parliamentary privilege activity 2005-2006 changes to There have been no recent citations for breach of parliamentary privilege nor disciplinary media- actions against photojournalists in the House. The Council has taken no action in these ownership areas, pending such developments. rules were that there be no loss of a Media Ownership diversity of Developments in 2005-2006 Australian The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts issued a discussion voices in the paper, Meeting the Digital Challenge, on media reform options. The section that potentially news media impacts on press freedom is that dealing with proposed reforms to the rules governing and the ownership across different media and with proposed changes to foreign ownership rules. possibility of Cross-media ownership is governed by provisions in the Broadcasting Services Act limiting any the stake in electronic media for owners of newspapers and vice versa. The proposed new involvement rules would allow for further concentration of media ownership, mandating a minimum of by ACMA, five owners across the media in metropolitan markets and four in regional markets. The which might principal concern for newspapers would be with any changes that gave any involvement to give it some the government’s electronic media regulator, the Australian Communications and Media de facto Authority (ACMA), in the determination of mergers and acquisitions. This might give the power of authority some de facto power of regulation over the print media. In July 2006, the Minister regulation indicated that she would be proceeding with legislation to introduce her proposed changes over the print to cross-media ownership laws. These were tabled as this report was going to press. media.
Press Council Media Ownership activity 2005-2006 The Council’s primary concerns with proposed changes to media-ownership rules were that there be no loss of a diversity of Australian voices in the news media and the possibility of any involvement by the ACMA in the determination of mergers and acquisitions, which might give it some de facto power of regulation over the print media. The Council raised these concerns with the Minister, arguing that cross-media ownership rules should be in line with those governing other industries, with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) being the supervising authority. In April 2006 the Council sent a
10 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
formal response to the proposals to the Minister, the Executive Summary of which read: Free speech issues Privacy The Australian Press Council is of the view that the limitations on cross-media ownership in the Broadcasting Services Act should be removed. However, the Press Council has a number of concerns about the specific proposals put forward in the government’s discussion paper, Meeting the Digital Challenge. The Press Council is of the view that the regulation of ownership of Australia’s media should be by the [ACCC] under the Trade Practices Act, subject to a media-specific public interest test. That test should place a high value on the need for media diversity and the significance of local content. The complete submission has been posted to the Council’s website. (http:// www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/fop/fop_subs/cross06.html) The Council awaits the tabling of the Bills being drawn up by the Minister and would seek to speak to her further if its concerns were not addressed in the legislation. The Council’s Policy Officer represented it at a round-table meeting on cross-media ownership with Australian Democrats Senators Andrew Murray and Lyn Allison. The meeting was held to identify possible strategies to promote media diversity in Australia in the absence of the cross media ownership rules. As this report was being written the Press Council was considering a revision of its policy on the issue of cross-media ownership, taking into account the MEAA’s position. There is a concern that the current policy might see a loss of diversity of voices in the media.
Privacy Developments in 2005-2006 “As I am Last year the Council noted the development of a new acronym, BOPA as agencies restrict unable to the availability of information “because of the Privacy Act”. There appears to be no end to ascertain this trend. Perhaps the most egregious example was the decision of the Victoria Police not from [the late] to release the criminal record of a deceased criminal, suspected of the murder of two sisters. Mr Watkins The policeman in charge had this to say: his views on As I am unable to ascertain from Mr Watkins his views on the release of such personal information, the release of or gain his consent for the disclosure of the information, I have therefore determined that the release such personal of any criminal history would be an unreasonable disclosure. information, In another case, the courts upheld an injunction on the publication of names of three AFL or gain his players who had tested positive for recreational drugs a second time. The ruling appears to consent for apply to the current case only. the disclosure State governments have enacted, or are discussing, legislation to govern the use of of the ‘surveillance devices’. The Victorian Parliament has been discussing amendments to information, I workplace surveillance legislation and both NSW and Victoria have foreshadowed laws have that would strengthen current surveillance devices legislation outside the workplace. therefore determined SCAG continues to look at the publication of exploitative and offensive images on the that the Internet. It has before it proposals that might result in repressive restrictions on taking photos release of any in public places. It invited submissions on the issue. As this report was being written, the criminal issue was still before SCAG and no legislation had been drafted. history would Following reviews of the Act by the federal Privacy Commissioner and a Senate Committee, be an in January 2006, the federal Attorney-General referred the question of the federal Privacy unreasonable Act to the ALRC for a further report. The report is due in mid-2008. disclosure.” The NSW government is reviewing that State’s Adoption Act. The NSW Act places greater Victorian Police restrictions on access to some information than its Victorian counterpart. Some liberalisation of the NSW law, to bring it in line with the Victorian one, would seem appropriate.
11 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
Free speech issues Press Council privacy activity 2005-2006 Privacy Privacy policy Following a debate on privacy matters in July 2005, industry member Chris McLeod prepared a position paper that gave a draft summary position and a series of definitions that informed those positions. There were further discussions before the Council adopted a new position on privacy: The Australian Press Council advocates self-regulation by the press as a vital facet of the freedom of communication that’s enjoyed in Australia. Public It calls on all legislators and the judiciary to recognise the importance of the freedom of communication, interest. including press freedom and the right of the public to be informed, as a basic human right on the Whether there same footing, no lesser, than other basic human rights such as privacy, freedom of association, is a level of reputation etc. public In determining the balance between privacy and the right of the public to be informed, the press - interest and the Press Council - will take account of the following: sufficient to 1.Consent and harm justify • Whether there is consent, implied or direct, on the part of individual/s concerned. • invasion of Whether the parties directly involved have complained. • Whether harm has been done. privacy. 2.Public interest. Whether there is a level of public interest sufficient to justify invasion of privacy. 3.The extent to which the individual is a public figure and to what level of privacy the individual is entitled as such. 4.Whether the individual is a child and thereby warrants a greater level of privacy protection than any of the rankings offer. 5.Whether the personal information being disclosed concerns sensitive matters as defined in the Privacy Act, such as health information, and whether disclosure can be justified. Definitions i Limited purpose public figures: A person who becomes a public figure for a limited range of issues surrounding a particular public controversy. This would include people who are drawn into legal conflicts as witnesses or who enter public debate temporarily on a specific issue. Such people would be entitled to the highest level of privacy protection (not absolute) to the extent that publication of personal information about them should be relevant only to establishing their qualification to be identified publicly or to make public statements. ii Occasional public figures: A person who conveys willingly and reasonably regularly to the public a certain impression or image of themselves either directly or through intermediaries, or those who make comments on matters of general interest to the public. This would include such people as performers, sportspeople, commentators, broadcasters, celebrities, journalists etc. Such people would be entitled to privacy protection for personal information not relevant to any public perception of the person or the person’s stated position on an issue. iii General public figures: A person who seeks to hold or does hold either by election or by appointment a public office. This would include members of parliament and public servants. Such a person should be entitled to privacy protection for personal information that is not relevant to the performance of their duties or office. People who cannot be ranked as above generally would expect - and be entitled to - complete privacy protection unless or until their circumstances changed. Privacy of sensitive information and matters affecting children are protected by a range of laws separately, but warrant consideration by the Press Council along these lines: (i) Children: Young people under the age of 18 years are entitled to the highest level of privacy. Their personal details should only be published where there is overwhelming public interest to do so. Identification of children should be treated with great care and with regard to the circumstances. (ii) Sensitive information is: a.information or an opinion about an individual’s: racial or ethnic origin; or political opinions; or membership of a political association; or religious beliefs or affiliations; or philosophical beliefs; or membership of a professional or trade association; or membership of a trade union; or sexual preferences or practices; or criminal record; that is also personal information; or b.health information about an individual. Sensitive information about an individual must be kept private unless:
12 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
1.There is consent from the person directly concerned to make it public;Free speechand/or issues 2.Public interest is established in having the information made public. Privacy The Australian Press Council in its privacy statement defines public interest as “involving a matter capable of affecting the people at large so they might be legitimately interested in, or concerned about, what is going on, or what may happen to them or to others.
AFL case The Council discussed matters arising from an injunction on the publication of names of three AFL players who had tested positive for drugs a second time. It was noted that the case had ramifications for journalistic practice. In addition to the concern with suppression of names already published on the Internet, the Council was concerned that the Australian Federal Police could be used to conduct searches of journalists and newspapers to ascertain the source of any leaks in the case. The Council discussed whether this would be a case where the Council might take AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty up on his offer to talk with him on matters of mutual concern. It decided to await the completion of the injunction If such proceedings before taking further action. legislation were enacted, Unauthorised images whether such [a media] In October 2005, the Council made a submission to SCAG in response to its discussion exemption paper, Unauthorised photographs on the Internet and ancillary privacy issues. The Executive was included Summary of the submission read: or not, the The Australian Press Council has been invited to make a submission in response to the Standing Council Committee of Attorneys-General’s discussion paper on issues related to the unauthorised publication argues that of photographs of people taken in public places. specific It is the Council’s submission that no additional restrictions on the taking of photographs in public defences, places should be enacted. wider than If, however, the Attorneys conclude that additional restrictions are required, the Council argues that any additional legislation should be minimal and address the specific concerns with the publication just ‘the of inappropriate images on the Internet. This may be best achieved by specific amendments to public existing pornography, sexual assault ands stalking legislation. interest’, An alternative approach, such as the enactment of specific legislation to address the concerns in should be the discussion paper, would be, in the Council’s view, an overly restrictive method of addressing a included in specific problem. Were the Attorneys to determine that, nonetheless, such an approach was required, the legislation the Council would argue that a media exemption, such as the one contained in the federal Privacy to enable the Act, should be included in any such legislation. recording of If such legislation were enacted, whether such an exemption was included or not, the Council important and argues that specific defences, wider than just ‘the public interest’, should be included in the legislation to enable the recording of important and historical events and people. historical events and The complete submission, together with examples of images that might be restricted has people. been posted to the Council’s website. (http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/fop/fop_subs/ photos.html)
Adoption In May 2006, the Council made a submission to the NSW government on its review of the Adoption Act 2000. The Executive Summary read: The government of NSW should aim toward the uniformity of adoption legislation throughout Australia. With regard to the publication of the names of parties involved in adoption proceedings, the Australian Press Council believes that section 180 of the Adoption Act 2000 should be brought into line with section 121 of the Victorian Adoption Act 1984. This would involve the insertion of a clause that would permit the publication of names of parties where those parties have given their consent. The complete submission has been posted to the Council’s website. (http:// www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/fop/fop_subs/adoption.html)
13 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
Free speech issues Identification of a court official Whistleblowing FoI The NSW Attorney-General wrote to the Council in September 2005 regarding the identification of judges’ home addresses in the media, seeking the Council’s action on the matter. The Council decided that the appropriate action was to forward the letter to newspaper editors in NSW for their information and to draw their attention to the dangers of such invasions of officials’ privacy.
Public-interest Whistle-blowing Developments in 2005-2006 Public-interest whistle-blowing is becoming more hazardous, as exemplified in the case of At the same the public official suspended without pay by the Commonwealth Department of Veterans time as they Affairs, after publication of an article in February 2004 in the Herald Sun. The official was are refusing charged with a criminal offence, and convicted in January 2006. He remained suspended to release without pay for nearly two years until his guilt or innocence was determined. information under There were further suggestions in mid-2006 that the Australian Federal Police might raid Freedom of newspaper offices seeking details on sources for stories, currently suppressed, that three Information AFL players had tested positive for a second time in random drug tests (see Privacy above). loopholes, At the same time as they are refusing to release information under Freedom of Information governments loopholes (see next section), governments are using the police and the courts to make it as are using the uncomfortable as possible for potential whistleblowers. police and the courts to make it as Press Council Whistle-blowing activity 2005-2006 uncomfortable Except as noted in other parts of this report (the McManus-Harvey case and the AFL case), as possible the Council has taken no action in this area this year. for potential whistleblowers. Freedom of Information Developments in 2005-2006 In all jurisdictions the ability of journalists to utilise Freedom of Information (FoI) legislation to obtain material that would shed light on government activity is being steadily eroded by the imposition of excessive fees, extensive delays, unreasonable refusal of access, and lengthy lists of exemptions, including privacy. And when all these hurdles have been overcome the applicant can still be confronted with “conclusive certificates” issued by the relevant Minister. Research indicates that, while requests for personal information are likely to be dealt with speedily, requests for non-personal information - the material generally sought by journalists - are far less likely to be dealt with immediately, are more expensive, and less likely to result in a positive outcome. In recent years The Australian’s FoI editor Michael McKinnon has been battling to obtain documents that provide the public with important information on the effect of bracket creep on income and on the possible abuse of the first-home-buyer’s scheme. The Treasurer issued ‘conclusive certificates’, saying that it was not in the public interest to release the documents. McKinnon’s case against the Treasurer’s issuing of the certificates has now gone to the High Court. As this report was being written, the Court, in delivering its findings, by a 3-2 decision, said that the power of a tribunal to question the appropriateness or legitimacy of a certificate is effectively confined to deciding whether or not the decision to issue the certificate was irrational or absurd. In other words, it will in practice be impossible successfully to challenge a Minister’s decision to refuse to disclose information, even where such information should rightfully be in the public domain. Ironically, while the case was proceeding, McKinnon discovered through a separate FoI
14 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
request that senior bureaucrats had been briefed on ways they can better ensure that conclusive Free speech issues certificates were issued and not challenged, in order to protect their Ministers from the FoI release of information. A report from the Commonwealth Ombudsman on FoI reinforced concerns, when it found that “there is an uneven culture of support for FoI among Australian Government agencies”. The frustrations with government attitudes to FoI requests are not confined to the federal sphere, but have an impact at state level as well. As pointed out by Press Council Chairman “[T]here is an Professor Ken McKinnon on World Press Freedom Day, May 2006, the Beattie government uneven in Queensland was notorious for wheeling potentially embarrassing documents into Cabinet culture of to protect them from scrutiny under FoI laws. A June 2006 review by the Victorian support for Ombudsman is highly critical of that state’s FoI regime, citing particularly delays in processing FoI among requests, a lack of quality in reasons for decisions, poor levels of assistance and some deficient Australian internal practices within departments. He has recommended legislative change as well as a Government review of the FoI culture within departments. agencies”. Nonetheless, newspapers continue to use freedom of information laws to obtain information Commonwealth from governments, and both The Sydney Morning Herald and The West Australian appointed Ombudsman FoI editors during the year.
Press Council Freedom of Information activity 2005-2006 McKinnon’s case In September, the Council noted that Michael McKinnon’s full Federal Court verdict had been 2-1 in favour of the status quo. It decided that, if the leave to appeal to the High Court were granted, the Council would seek to present an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in support of the company’s position. Vice Chairman Professor HP Lee was asked to co- ordinate a small group of experts to develop arguments for such a brief. The Council has only once previously lodged such a brief, in the Levy and Lange cases in 1995, but regarded McKinnon’s case as so important to the viability of FoI in Australia that it would seek to intervene. In April 2006, the Press Council lodged its amicus brief with the High Court. The appeal was heard by the High Court on 18 May in Canberra, with the Press Council as the only The party seeking to intervene. The counsel for the government opposed the acceptance of the Australian Council’s written brief. He argued that, on the basis of some principles enunciated by Sir Press Gerard Brennan in Levy v Victoria, the brief should not be received. The counsel for The Council’s Australian simply stated that the brief should be received and the Chief Justice agreed. The principal summary of the Council’s brief read: concern is the adverse 1.1 The Australian Press Council’s principal concern is the adverse impact on the flow of impact on the information which the public has the right to access, that would be the outcome of upholding of the majority decision of the Federal Court of Australia in McKinnon v Secretary, Department flow of of Treasury [2005] FCAFC 142 (2 August 2005). As Lord Simon of Glaisdale said, a free and information responsible press is a principal instrument in ensuring that people can adequately influence which the the decisions that affect their lives and be adequately informed on facts and arguments public has the relevant to the decisions. Accountability of government to the people through the public’s right to access to information must not be subject to government discretion so broad as to be contrary to the intentions of the Freedom of Information Act 1982. access. 1.2 The Australian Press Council seeks leave to file an amicus curiae brief and, if it is the wish of the Court, to attend as amicus in this matter. The complete amicus brief has been posted to the Council’s website. (http:// www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/fop/fop_subs/amicus_foi.html) The 3-2 decision against The Australian was delivered as this report was being finalised. The Council is considering what steps to take now to make FoI legislation and practice reflect the ideals expressed at the time of the introduction of the legislation.
15 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
Free speech issues Suppression Suppression Developments in 2005-2006 The impression that most observers have is that the courts are issuing suppression orders with increasing frequency in many jurisdictions. In mid-2006 the News Ltd database carried 971 notifications (a growth of about 300 over the previous year). The total number of orders is, in fact, higher, because the company’s offices are not always made aware of suppression orders, some orders are made without hearing counsel and some courts suppress the very fact that a suppression order has been made. News Ltd says that the higher figure equates to The total about four instances of suppression every court-sitting day somewhere in Australia. number of orders is, in Some jurisdictions have developed sophisticated systems for ensuring that participating fact, higher, media are made aware of suppression orders - although only those orders where the issuing because the office, usually the court media liaison officer, has been advised by the judge’s associate. In company’s other jurisdictions journalists have to be attendance or see a hand-written register of orders offices are available only during Registry hours, which is not much use when an article is being put not always together after hours. made aware The Press Council, in consultation with publishers and with electronic media outlets, has of taken an initiative, approaching the Chief Justices of the state, territory and federal Supreme suppression Courts, seeking to develop with them a uniform, and more effective, method of notifying orders, some suppression orders, and changes to, or removal of, such orders, in the various state and orders are territory jurisdictions. made without hearing counsel and Press Council suppression orders activity 2005-2006 some courts After agreement from the ABC, FreeTV Australia and Commercial Radio Australia to join suppress the the Council and the publishers in a submission to the Chief Justices of the Federal Court and very fact that the state and territory Supreme Courts, the Council wrote to the Justices, pressing them to a suppression develop a uniform system for recording active suppression orders and for making them order has available to the media. It noted that the current ad hoc system meant that the press been made. occasionally, usually inadvertently, breached such orders because of ignorance of its existence. This problem was exacerbated by the fact that most publications and broadcasters cross state boundaries in their publication, and were unaware that an order has been issued in another state. The Council noted that some good systems exist, particularly in Victoria, where advice on extant suppression orders were sent regularly to subscribing media. In the interests of reducing the risk of interference in the administration of justice, it proposed a model based in part on the Victorian system, but with greater use of secure sections of courts’ websites. This has merit, particularly if it offers out-of-hours access for any media person wanting to check a database of orders. The Press Council’s recommendations for all courts in all jurisdictions included: It noted that • establishing a Courts-Media liaison committee that can discuss issues arising for the the current ad media and the judiciary in relation to media coverage. hoc system • appoint a courts-media liaison officer. meant that • establishing a uniform method of reporting court orders. the press • establishing uniform methods of reporting court judgments. occasionally, In response to the Council’s proposals, several courts indicated a willingness to listen although usually none saw its own system as deficient. High Court Chief Justice Murray Gleeson, chair of inadvertently, the Council of Chief Justices indicated that the Press Council’s proposal on a uniform breached reporting system was to be discussed at the next council meeting, in April 2006. such orders because of Subsequent to the meeting of that council, a letter from Chief Justice Gleeson was received. ignorance of It said in part its existence It was pointed out in the course of discussion that, in many, perhaps most, Australian jurisdictions, suppression, when it occurs, is mandated by legislation, and is not the result of an exercise of
16 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
judicial discretion. Free speech issues It was also pointed out that circumstances, including legislative provisions, and available resources, Access vary between individual jurisdictions. The Chief Justices, while happy to examine the issue in the light of circumstances in their respective jurisdictions, did not consider a standardised, Australia- wide procedure, to be a feasible course. The Press Council has decided to collect and collate statistics on the issuing of suppression orders, and the basis for their issue, in the separate states. On the basis of that information, it will make further approaches to the Chief Justices on the question of how such suppressions should be notified and whether uniform registers should be maintained.
Access to courts and documents Developments in 2005-2006 The Chief Justice referred in his April 2006 letter (cited above) to suppressions mandated by legislation. There are an increasing number of laws that have the effect of closing courts, or making it more difficult for the media to get information on what has transpired. Some of these arise out of anti-terrorism legislation, referred to separately. Others relate to everyday cases with no national security implications. Changes in evidence laws in NSW allegedly designed to enhance access to the courts have had the opposite effect. They are regularly used by magistrates and prosecutors to withhold police charge sheets and other court documents. Material that once was routinely available throughout the court system (and through tribunals) is being withheld in NSW (and elsewhere). The resulting restriction on information flow is exacerbated by the increased use of hand-up documents in hearings. The only way of accessing this material is through application to the court registry. Registrars are limiting its availability. As this report is being written, there are reviews in both Victoria and NSW on access to court records. The Victorian County Court and the NSW Attorney-General’s Department have issued separate discussion papers on the question and sought submissions on their proposals. The NSW paper would appear to have the potential to make access easier and could form the basis for a uniform national system.
Press Council court access activity 2005-2006 The Council WA Court Transcript drafted a general paper Last year’s report referred to the decision by the acting Principal Registrar of the WA Supreme on the issue Court not to release a transcript of a case that was aborted by the then Chief Justice. It led of access that the Council to issue General Press Release No. 267 (page 65) in July 2005. emphasised that open Reviews of access to court documents access should be the The Council decided to make submissions to the reviews by the Victorian County Court and general by the NSW Attorney-General. principle. The Council drafted a general paper on the issue of access that emphasised that open access should be the general principle. The Council also sought to have the question of access placed on the SCAG agenda, in a move towards uniformity of approach across jurisdictions. At the end of the reporting period, the Council submitted material to both reviews. It included the general paper, as well as specific answers to the specific questions raised by each inquiry. The Executive Summary of the general paper read: Access to court documents is necessary to facilitate the media’s role of disseminating court information. The Australian Press Council believes that court documents should be classified as open access unless there are exceptional circumstances which warrant their restriction. Wherever documents are classified as open access they should be available online. No decision should be made to withhold a document from media access except according to clearly defined criteria.
17 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
Free speech issues The complete submissions have been posted to the Council’s website. Gov’t suppression
Government Suppression Developments in 2005-2006 a. Anti-terrorism and related legislation The government, in its 2005 anti-terrorism legislation, revived anachronistic sedition laws and ‘unlawful association’ provisions, which have the capacity to severely curtail commentary on government performance and to criminalise satire. The Senate Committee reviewing the legislation recommended against the inclusion of the sedition provisions, even though the committee had a majority of government members. Backbenchers from the House of Representatives also expressed concern with the provisions, but the Attorney-General maintained them, in a slightly amended form, with a promise of a review subsequent to their passage. The question was referred to the ALRC, which, in its preliminary report, supported proposals for the removal of the sedition sections from the Anti-Terrorism Act and changes to the Crimes Act provisions. While the ALRC review continues, the laws remain on the books. These provisions expose journalists, and other commentators, to prosecution for expressing views that might be seen as “seditious”, and has undoubtedly led to self-censorship. As this report was being finalised, the ALRC released its final report, again calling for The question changes in the sedition sections. The Attorney has apparently rejected those proposals and was referred is likely to retain the sedition offences in their current form. to the ALRC, There have been a small number of committals and trials held since the passage of the which, in its National Security Information (Criminal Proceedings) Act 2004 (which came into effect in preliminary August 2005), which effectively closes courts in cases where national security related report, evidence might be adduced. In the Lodhi case, the judge went to some lengths to keep the supported court open as far as possible (actions endorsed by the NSW Criminal Court of Appeal), proposals for indicating that the judiciary is using its discretion to maintain open justice as far as is practical. the removal However, in that case, and in others, court closures have already meant that some evidence of the cannot be reported. sedition In last year’s report there was discussion of the review of the Australian Security Intelligence sections from Organisation Act. In 2006, a parliamentary Joint Committee reviewing the Act recommended the Anti- Terrorism Act some minor changes that would better define the term “operational information” and would and changes make the penalty for revelation of “operational information” the same as the penalty for an to the Crimes ASIO officer who contravenes the safeguards. It also recommended that the Division be Act retained for a further five years before review. The government has accepted the latter provisions. recommendation but rejected the minor changes to the legislation proposed by the committee. In October 2005, the Attorney-General commissioned an independent committee, headed by retired judge Simon Sheller, to review the federal security and counter terrorism legislation. The report, tabled in June 2006, was referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which conducted a review of the Sheller Committee’s findings. At the time of writing this report, the joint committee was yet to report. The possible impact of the amended The Telecommunications (Interception) Act is dealt with above, in the section on Professional Privilege. Its likely curtailment of a free press is noted therein. In the middle of 2006, the federal Attorney-General sought the cooperation of his state and territory colleagues to extend the powers of classification bodies to restrict publication of books said to be promoting terrorism. The matter was discussed at SCAG and the proposals are being reviewed for further discussion later in the year.
18 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
b. Border protection Free speech issues Gov’t suppession In addition to matters related to terrorism, the federal government’s restrictions on media access to asylum seekers and detention centres, and the increased use of off-shore centres to process asylum seekers, has meant that the public cannot be properly informed on issues of genuine public interest. Such issues include the reasons refugees give for coming to Australia, whether they are genuine asylum seekers or not, and whether the application of immigration rules unfairly impacts on Australian citizens. c. Censorship Given that the media are generally free from government censorship, the recent closing down of a satirical website, johnhowardpm.org, apparently at the behest of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, provides a warning. According to the site’s creator, Richard Governments Neville (www.richardneville.com.au), its host Melbourne IT closed the site just 36 hours are after it went live. He says that a call to the host from an official from the Department of the increasingly Prime Minister and Cabinet led to the closure and not, as has been asserted elsewhere, ready to advice from the Australian Federal Police. restrict the release of information. d. Spin and leaks They make In all areas of their activities, governments are increasingly ready to restrict the release of more use of information. They make more use of unattributable comments (leaks) and one-sided spin to unattributable replace balanced information and the openness of press conferences. This trend continued comments in 2005-2006. (leaks) and one-sided spin to e. Restrictive legislation in the states replace Queensland and Victoria, among other jurisdictions, retain strong restrictions on media contact balanced with prisoners. The Queensland legislation is particularly concerning because it mandates information that journalists’ access to prisoners will not be allowed if the interview relates to issues of and the the offender’s guilt or innocence. This legislation has led to a further conviction in Queensland openness of in December 2005, despite the fact that the journalist and filmmaker, Anne Delaney, did not press conduct a formal interview with the prisoner, nor publish or broadcast a story as a result of conferences. the interview. There are reports of some state police using powers directly against reporters and photographers trying to cover news events. The MEAA reported two such episodes – one in NSW where police used the Summary Offences Act “move-on” provisions against journalists who had gathered in a public park to cover a politician’s resignation, and another where Queensland police media officers had emailed the Queensland Times newspaper threatening to use similar powers against reporters in that state under the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000. Queensland police went even further in October 2005 when they threw into a paddy wagon a Gold Coast Bulletin reporter after he took photos of an arrest. The ALRC’s Discussion Paper 71 Review of Sedition Laws, released in May 2006, reported the anachronistic and varying laws of sedition across states and territories. Queensland, Western Australian and Tasmanian laws still protect the Sovereign, government and constitution of the United Kingdom from seditious conduct. The commission has proposed removal of the term “sedition” from state and territory laws. Press Council Government Suppression activity 2005-2006 Anti-Terrorism Bill In November 2005 the Council made a submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee inquiry into the Anti-Terrorism Bill (No. 2) 2005. The Executive Summary read: 19 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
Free speech issues The Australian Press Council, which has as one of its Objects “keeping under review, and where Gov’t suppession appropriate, challenging political, legislative, commercial or other developments which may adversely affect the dissemination of information of public interest, and may consequently threaten the public’s right to know”, argues that any Bill that grants new powers to authorities that may impinge on the traditional freedoms of Australians must be drafted to ensure that the granted powers are sufficient to meet the envisaged threat, without going too far in inhibiting rights. The Council’s primary concern with the Anti-Terrorism Bill (No. 2) is that the proposed sedition laws appear to go further than is required and should be reconsidered. It also raises other concerns with the impact that the Bill might have on the ability of the press to report on matters of public concern, and calls on the Parliament to ensure that the newly granted powers are reviewed more frequently than the Bill proposes. The full submission has been posted to the website. (http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/ The fop/fop_subs/antiterror.html) Australian Press Council The Council also issued General Press Release No. 269 (page 66) on the Bill. ... argues that In April 2006, following reference of the matter to the ALRC, the Council made a submission any to the Commission’s review of Schedule 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (No. 2) 2005 and the legislation provisions of Part IIA of the Crimes Act 1914, the Executive Summary of which read: that grants The Australian Press Council ... argues that any legislation that grants powers to authorities powers to that may impinge on the traditional freedoms of Australians, including freedom of authorities communication, must be drafted to ensure that the granted powers are sufficient to meet that may the envisaged threat, without going too far in inhibiting rights. The Council’s primary concern impinge on with Schedule 7 the Anti-Terrorism Act (No. 2) 2005 is that it appears to go further than is the traditional required to meet the stated objectives of the legislation. As the conduct to be addressed freedoms of by the schedule is already adequately addressed by other legislation, the Council Australians, recommends that Schedule 7 be removed from the Act. including If the Commission does not feel such excision is justified, the Council makes a series of freedom of recommendations for amendment of the law to lessen, as far as is practicable, any adverse communication, impact it may have on the traditional freedoms enjoyed by Australians. must be The full submission has been posted to the website. (http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/ drafted to fop/fop_subs/sedition_alrc.html) ensure that the granted The ALRC released a Discussion paper, No. 71 Review of Sedition Laws, based on the powers are submissions received and invited further comment. The Council responded on 22 June 2006: sufficient to Thank you for providing the Australian Press Council with an opportunity to respond to the meet the ALRC’s discussion paper on sedition. The Press Council acknowledges that the ALRC envisaged has produced a sophisticated and insightful paper within a very short period of time. threat, As the Press Council indicated in our previous submission to the ALRC, the Council is of without going the view that sedition laws are unnecessary and have a significant potential to act as an too far in impediment to freedom of speech and of expression. The Press Council would prefer that sedition and related offences were removed entirely from the Anti-Terrorism Act, the Crimes inhibiting Act and the Criminal Code. However, if offences in the nature of sedition and treason are rights. to be retained, it is important that they be drafted narrowly so as to address any genuine threat of political violence without significantly interfering with freedom of expression. The Press Council is of the view that the proposals set out in the ALRC’s discussion paper, if implemented, would mitigate those aspects of the sedition laws which have the greatest potential to act as threat to free speech. In so doing, the proposals largely address the concerns that the Council holds regarding the laws. For this reason the Council supports the ALRC’s proposed amendments. The Press Council is grateful for being given the opportunity of participating in the process of reviewing the federal government’s sedition laws. The full submission has been posted to the website. (http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/ fop/fop_subs/sedition06.html)
20 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
Review of Australia’s Security and Counter Terrorism Legislation Free speech issues Const Law At the start of 2006, the Council forwarded to the Sheller Committee copies of its previous submissions on anti-terrorism legislation. It made no new submission to the committee. However, in June 2006, the Council made a submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security commenting on the recommendations of the Sheller Inquiry. This read in part: The legislation that is the subject of the Sheller committee’s inquiry affects the media only indirectly. However, legislation which aims to make Australia secure from the threat of terrorism may have consequences which were unintended or unanticipated by the drafters. To the extent that the legislation does affect the media, the Australian Press Council is concerned to ensure that freedom of expression is not threatened.
Certain aspects of the legislation may have some negative impacts upon press freedom. Two of the In the Sheller committee’s recommendations, if adopted, would help to minimise such negative effects. For that reason the Australian Press Council supports those two recommendations, as follows: Council’s view there are Recommendation 14: section 02.7 – providing support to a terrorist organisation already Recommendation 9: Abolition of s 102.1(1A)(c) enough The full submission, giving the Council’s reasons for supporting those recommendations restrictions has been posted to the Council’s website. (http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/fop/ on fop_subs/sheller.html) publications and the existing laws Classification of books are sufficient The Press Council expressed concern with the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s proposals to deal with to seek state support for extending restrictions on the publication and distribution of books material allegedly associated with terrorism. Prior to the most recent meeting of SCAG, the Council inciting sent email messages to the state and territory Attorneys-General objecting to the widening violence in of the classification restrictions. The email read: the The Australian Press Council is concerned with the proposals by the federal Attorney-General to community. change classification laws to further restrict publications. No reasonable case has been made for additional restrictions, nor would additional censorship prevent access to those who want such material. In the Council’s view there are already enough restrictions on publications and the existing laws are sufficient to deal with material inciting violence in the community. You must not, in the interest of retaining a free society, cut off our historic freedoms. Retention of an open society is essential. The Council urges the Attorneys to reject these proposals
Access to prisoners The Council followed the prosecution, and conviction, in Queensland of ABC journalist Ann Delaney under the Queensland Corrective Services Act for allegedly interviewing a prisoner. The Council had, as a result of previous prosecutions, expressed concerns with sections of this Act in 2000-2001. It was seeking to co-operate with Ms Delaney’s legal team in any efforts to assist her and to see changes made to the legislation.
Constitutional Law Developments in 2005-2006 Unlike in the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, and in many other democratic countries, there is no national Bill of Rights in Australia nor any constitutional guarantee of freedoms in the federal or state constitutions or in any over-riding law. The Australian Capital Territory enacted the nation’s first Bill of Rights in the form of the Human Rights Act 2004. The Act establishes at section 6 that “only individuals have human rights”. There is no general right to media freedom featured in the Act, though Section 16 (2) states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right includes the freedom to seek, 21 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
Free speech issues receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of borders, whether orally, Crime reporting in writing or in print, by way of art, or in another way chosen by him or her.” Balancing this Suicide right are competing individual rights such as the rights to privacy and reputation and the right to a fair trial. At the time of publication, there are moves for bills of rights in other jurisdictions. Victoria introduced the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Bill in May 2006, while Tasmania, NSW and WA were all contemplating legislation. In September 2005, a movement towards the enactment of a Bill of Rights was started by a citizens’ group, through the New Matilda website.
Press Council constitutional law activity 2005-2006 In December, the Council noted that New Matilda has arranged for the drafting of a Bill of Rights and that this draft Bill was available on the New Matilda website. It took no further action on the matter at that time.
Reporting of crime Developments in 2005-2006 Media monitoring and reporting of crime activity is being seriously curtailed by the switch by police in several states from analogue to digital radio transmission, and, sometimes, privacy concerns. In South Australia, for example, according to a list of SAPOL (South Australian Police) incident codes annotated by the Sunday Mail, journalists are given access to less than a quarter of police incident categories, and delayed access to some important ones, such as siege situations, where immediate advice to the public in the vicinity might seem to be of some importance. In Queensland, in 2004, police switched to digital encrypted communications without warning the media, prompting a Crime and Misconduct Commission inquiry into the matter. Despite submissions calling for privileged media access to live feeds, reporters were unhappy with the outcome – a new system of delayed alerts channelled [The Council] through the police communications centre. Journalists in Victoria still monitoring analogue was transmissions have been told this has to stop because of privacy laws. The media exemption concerned to federal privacy law would allow newspapers to publish this information but the police that the apparently believe there are restrictions on allowing the media to have it. (See also the Queensland “Privacy” section, above, for more examples of the denial of access to information.) As the Police were change from analogue to digital is completed, future access to the police radio network is failing to unlikely in NSW. advise on many issues and incidents, Press Council activity on crime reporting 2005-2006 in particular The Council kept a watching brief on developments in Queensland, where it is represented 24-hour on the panel reviewing the operations of the new arrangements. It was concerned that the blackouts on Queensland Police were failing to advise on many issues and incidents, in particular 24- reporting in hour blackouts on reporting in relation to two separate incidents (a car accident resulting in relation to decapitation and riot in indigenous community). two separate incidents. Press Council activity on other matters 2005-2006 Reporting of suicide A letter from Professor Warwick Blood and Dr Trish Payne (the University of Canberra) seeking support for a research project on the media handling of John Brogden’s resignation was discussed by the Council, which decided that the project’s remit extended further than the print media and declined to support it. It recommended that the academics might approach
22 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
media organisations seeking donations of material required for the research. Free speech issues Guidelines The Joint Standing Committee on Community Development of the Tasmanian Parliament Research has been conducting an inquiry into suicide prevention. One of its terms of reference is “the role of the media in suicide prevention”. The Council’s Executive Secretary gave oral evidence to the committee via a phone hook-up in late September 2005. He gave the Council’s view on reporting of suicide and of particular instances of suicide and the impact such reporting might have.
Reporting of drugs, children, schools, mental health, body imaging, unauthorised arrivals etc etc There are persistent calls for restrictive, prescriptive guidelines on press reporting of these, There are and many other issues. The Council has a number of non-prescriptive guideline statements persistent on its website. These are largely of an advisory nature and draw the attention of editors and calls for journalists to the need for caution in addressing some issues. Among the issues dealt with in restrictive, 2005-2006 were: prescriptive guidelines on • A complainant concerned with the behaviour of the owner of his local newspaper suggested the need for an annual declaration of major shareholders in publications. While it was agreed that press declarations of conflicts should be made at appropriate times and in relevant articles, some reporting of members were of the view that an annual declaration in the publication might be too onerous or, these, and on the other hand, inadequate. The Council decided not to issue any guideline on the matter. many other • The Council considered the draft ANZ Therapeutic Products Advertising Code and its Executive issues. The Secretary met with his counterpart at the Publishers’ Bureau. It was proposed that the Council would be asked to vet potential complaints and note which were editorial, and not advertising. Council has a The Council agreed to be involved in the scheme to this extent. number of • Correspondence from British People Against Racial Discrimination inviting the Council to change non- its principles and procedures to outlaw the use of the term ‘pom’ was discussed during the year. prescriptive The Council agreed to take no action on the matter. guideline • A letter from the ACT Nursing and Midwifery Board, seeking that the Council make rulings on the provenance of the term ‘nurse’, was before the Council, which agreed that it was for the profession statements to establish the usage of the term, not for the Council to issue any guideline statements. on its website. Research These are largely of an State of the Print Media advisory The Council convened a further meeting with academic researchers in journalism, ethics nature and and the law on 22 August 2005. The main proposal arising from the meeting was agreement draw the in principle that, instead of a research grant, the Council would develop a State of the Print attention of Media project similar to a research project undertaken by the Columbia School of Journalism editors and in the US. The Council decided that the project would remain in the Council’s hands and journalists to that, while some research would be allocated to universities, the final form of the report the need for would be the Council’s. Due for publication in September 2006, the first report of its type in caution in Australia will present a snapshot of the print media in mid-2006 and serve as a baseline for addressing future reports that will note developing trends and feature further original research. Other research Following the decision of the Council of Chief Justices not to proceed towards an uniform national reporting of suppression orders (see “Suppression” above), the Council has decided that further research should be conducted on suppression orders - including the number issued by different courts in different jurisdictions, the basis for the orders, the length of time for which orders are in force and so on. It will initially use the database of orders kept by News Ltd that has more than 900 orders listed, as well as some original research in the various jurisdictions. The Council will engage an academic expert in the field to analyse the data.
23 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
Free speech issues The question of alleged bias of newspapers during election campaigns is one that comes Charter before the Council perennially, although most such complaints have not supplied sufficient information to establish a convincing case for the allegations. The Council has now decided to take some initiative in this area and commission studies of newspaper coverage of the next three state elections, starting with the 2006 Queensland election. It will select one newspaper in each state and have the election coverage analysed by academic researchers both for the amount of coverage in news and in commentary for each of the political parties, and for independents, and for the general slant (pro, anti, neutral) of those pieces. It has already sought the cooperation of journalism departments in a number of universities and will look to publish the results towards the middle of 2007. The question of alleged bias of World Press Freedom Day 2006 newspapers On 3 May, the Council’s Chairman held a press conference in Townsville to mark World during Press Freedom Day. At that time he released General Press Release No. 271 (page 68). election campaigns is one that comes before the Council perennially, although most such Charter of a free press in Australia complaints have not Preamble supplied Freedom of opinion and expression is an inalienable right of a free people. sufficient Australia is committed to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 19 of the Declaration information to provides: establish a Everyone has the right of freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold convincing opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any case for the media and regardless of frontiers. allegations. In a truly democratic society open debate, discussion, criticism and dissent are central to the process of generating informed and considered choices. These processes are crucial to the formation of values and priorities and help in assessing and finding solutions to social, economic and political problems. A free press means a free people and the people of Australia have a right to freedom of information and access to differing views and opinions and declare that the following principles are basic to an unfettered flow of news and information both within Australia and across the nation’s borders.
The Principles 1.Freedom of the press means the right of the people to be informed by the press on matters of public interest so that they may exercise their rights and duties as citizens. 2.The press shall not be subject to government licence and government authorities should not interfere with the content of news nor restrict access to any news source. 3.The press has a responsibility to the public to commit itself to self-regulation which provides a mechanism for dealing with the concerns of members of the public and the maintenance of the ethical standards and journalistic professionalism of the press. 4.It is in the public interest for the press to make available to the people a wide diversity of views and opinions. 5.It is the responsibility of the press to protect the people’s right to know and to contest encroachments upon that right by governments, groups or individuals. 6.Laws, regulations and practices which in any way restrict or inhibit the right of the press freely to gather and distribute news, views and information are unacceptable unless it can be shown that the public interest is better served by such laws, regulations or practices than the public interest in the people’s right to know.
24 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
Adjudications Intro Adjudications 1292
There were 30 adjudications issued by the Council in the year ended 30 June 2006. The small number indicates a greater use of mediation and conciliation to settle matters and a greater willingness in publications to find amicable settlements of complaints. On page 46 is a table showing a year-by-year comparison of complaints received, matters mediated or withdrawn (i.e. complaints settled amicably) and complaints adjudicated. The table indicates that there has been an increasing trend away from referring matters for adjudication. One reason for this is the availability in recent years of an option of face-to-face mediation conducted by a Public Member of the Council or a member of the Secretariat. Whatever the cause, fewer than 20 per cent of formal complaints make it through the process to an adjudication. Below is a reprinting of all the adjudications issued during the year. Following a reprinting of all adjudications issued during the reporting year, this report carries a summary of the publication details of all adjudications, as well as an index of adjudications, sorted by the ethical issues involved.
Allegations retracted ADJUDICATION No. 1292 (July 2005) The Press Council has dismissed a complaint brought by Professor Freda Briggs regarding a comment column published in the 10 April 2005 edition of the Independent Weekly, Adelaide. Under the heading Pointless point-scoring inflames a sordid mess, the article dealt with the ‘mayhem of paedophilia allegations’ in South Australia. The article focussed on the ‘late entry of child abuse expert Dr Freda Briggs into the unedifying mix’. The columnist said that she was ‘gobsmacked’ to hear Professor Briggs on the steps of Parliament demanding that the serving Member of Parliament suspected to be at the centre of the allegations should stand down ‘even if that would identify him’. The column included the following: “It seemed such a cheap stunt and unbecoming of Briggs’ reputation. As an expert she well knows the power and effect of A preferred wrong accusations of this type. Is she willing to have a person’s life and career ruined when, approach from what the media has been able to uncover, there is not a scrap of evidence against this would have person?” been for the newspaper to On 13 April 2005, the complainant wrote a letter to the editor explaining that she was simply run the letter responding to a question from journalists when she said it was ‘a tradition in the Westminster with an system adopted by Australia’ for a politician to stand down while subject to investigation. editor’s note. Professor Briggs also pointed out that precedents indicated that careers would not be ruined by a person standing down until the matter was resolved. The letter was not published. The issue for the Council is whether the newspaper exercised its discretion to publish the letter or not in a reasonable manner. The newspaper pointed out that less than 48 hours after Professor Briggs had responded to the journalists’ question, the politician’s principal accuser had retracted his allegations and said that it was a case of mistaken identity. Thus the letter had been overtaken by the retraction and was, according to the newspaper, outdated and factually incorrect. The newspaper indicated to the complainant that it was prepared to run the letter provided Professor Briggs included a statement that the accuser had now said that the politician was not involved. She would not agree. A preferred approach would have been for the newspaper to run the letter with an editor’s note at the foot of the letter setting out the retraction. Nevertheless, given the public retraction, the condition imposed on the offer to publish the letter was not unreasonable.
25 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
Adjudications Letter was appropriate response 1293 ADJUDICATION No. 1293 (July 2005) 1294 1295 The Australian Press Council has dismissed a complaint from Samara McPhedran claiming the editor of The Sunday Age, Melbourne, failed to exercise proper journalistic and social discretion by publishing a letter to the editor that included a paragraph inviting readers to associate hunters with paedophiles. The letter, in the opinion pages of The Sunday Age on 27 March 2005, followed a feature article about blood sports. The letter-writer expressed a view that hunters romanticise violence when in reality hunting entails the flushing out and stalking of prey in an activity that thrills in the power to kill. The letter-writer went on to describe observing a man in a park covertly photographing children at play. Claiming the man quickly disappeared when he realised he was being watched the letter-writer remarked the man was no doubt another thrill seeker after unsuspecting prey. The letter concluded with a caution that we ignore at our peril the well- documented link between violence against animals and social violence such as rape, serial killing and domestic assault. Ms McPhedran wrote to the editor of The Sunday Age expressing her view that the editor had failed to exercise discretion by not removing the paragraph linking hunters with paedophiles. She asked why The Sunday Age had seen fit to publish material that cast sickening aspersions about one particular group of people. The newspaper responded by publishing an edited version of her letter on 10 April 2005. The editor also sent an email to Ms McPhedran stating the paper did not “unnecessarily censor letters, within the bounds of defamation and taste”, reiterating the policy of airing as wide a range of views as possible. The Council notes The Sunday Age published a range of opinions in favour of and against blood sports. The editor’s publication of Ms McPhedran’s letter and his personal explanation to her by email were an appropriate response to her complaint.
Headline a fair interpretation ADJUDICATION No. 1294 (July 2005) The Press Council has dismissed a complaint from Daud Batchelor that the Sunday Mail, Brisbane, published an unfair and distorting headline, We will kill Aussies, says militia leader, above a story referring to the arrival of Australian troops in Iraq. The complainant argued that the headline did not reflect quotes from the militia leader who said that he had no quarrel with the Australian people. The leader said however that his fighters would not distinguish between Australian soldiers and their Coalition counterparts if fighting broke out. He said, “We are a peaceful people - but if someone touches us we will strike back. We will kill them if we have to.” The Council is Mr Batchelor complained that the headline breached Australian Press Council principles that a strong readers are entitled to have news presented to them honestly and fairly, and that publications supporter of should not distort the facts in headlines. editorial Mr Batchelor wrote a letter to the editor of the Sunday Mail, which was not published, and says discretion to he rang the newspaper twice to complain but was not put through to the editor. determine The Sunday Mail’s managing editor told the Council that he had reviewed Mr Batchelor’s what is in fact complaint and did not agree with his claims. He had no record of Mr Batchelor having phoned. newsworthy. The Council is of the view that the heading was not unfair in the context of the militia leader’s statements.
Offered piece unusable ADJUDICATION No. 1295 (September 2005) The Australian Press Council has dismissed a complaint by Nigel Morris of Gunnedah, New South Wales, against The Sun Herald, Sydney, for the newspaper’s decision not to run an article he had submitted. 26 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
On 19 June The Sun Herald published an opinion page article by Senator Guy Barnett proposing Adjudications it was time to replace the Queen’s Birthday public holiday with an alternative day with more 1295 1296 relevance to Australia’s heritage and more significance for the Australian people. 1297 Mr Morris believed his proposed article, which visited the on-going Republic versus Monarchy debate, would balance Senator Barnett’s contribution. In its reply to the complaint The Sun Herald pointed out they had published a balancing letter to the editor on the matter and that Mr Morris’ offered piece was unusable.
The Council is a strong supporter of editorial discretion to determine what is in fact newsworthy. The Council Accordingly the complaint is dismissed. reminds newspapers If it’s newsworthy enough to print ... then balance is required always to be ADJUDICATION No. 1296 (September 2005) mindful of the need to take In upholding a complaint against the Canberra Times, the Australian Press Council reminds reasonable newspapers always to be mindful of the need to take reasonable steps to show balance in what steps to show they are reporting, in all cases, no matter how big or small a story. balance in The complaint was about the article, with accompanying photograph of a dog, that appeared in what they are the paper on 2 April 2004. It described an attack said to have occurred on 10 March 2004. reporting, in The complainant, whose name is not mentioned in the article, believes that the article identified all cases, no him as the alleged attacker and strongly disputes the facts in it. matter how The newspaper initially undertook to balance the material but court proceedings and delays big or small a from the paper itself meant that no balancing material was published. The complainant therefore story. came to the Council for redress, albeit well after the article was published. The newspaper, when it first became aware of the complainant’s concerns, should have handled the matter in a better and more timely manner, either through publishing a follow-up story or some genuine attempt at clarification. The editor referred to this story as a ‘not very important picture story’. Even so, the parties involved (and the local community) deserve a more balanced approach, if indeed the story was considered newsworthy enough to print.
Reprinted without attribution ADJUDICATION No. 1297 (September 2005) The Australian Press Council has upheld in part a complaint by Ken Partridge against The Launceston Examiner about a feature entitled Pulp Mill Project published on 25 February 2005. Mr Partridge complained that the feature breached a number of principles in that it contained four pages of text prepared by the State Government and the pulping industry that had appeared in the paper the month before under the heading “Advertisement”. In the February feature, a small sub-heading stated “Information on these four pages provided by the State Government” but made no reference to industry or to “Advertisement”. In the Council’s view, publications should ensure that material archived in their files, that is originally published as advertorial, is clearly labeled as such so that, on any reprint of it, its source is properly acknowledged. The newspaper admitted that it had inadvertently reproduced the advertising text without alteration and without accurate disclosure of its source. Mr Partridge requested that the paper publish a full explanation of what had occurred. The paper refused to grant his request. Mr Partridge also objected to the biased nature of the report, saying that it contained only a very small amount of comment critical of the project among several pages of positive reporting (including the four pages mentioned above). After much correspondence between Mr Partridge and the paper’s editor, who was especially co-operative and accommodating, a letter from Mr Partridge was published. The paper also ran subsequent letters and articles that voiced opinions against the Pulp Mill Project.
27 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
Adjudications It is important that a newspaper clearly distinguishes between reporting and advertising 1297 information. The material provided by the State Government and the industry supportive of the 1298 Pulp Mill Project contained information that may have been informative to readers. The authors of the information, however, should have been clearly identified by the newspaper so that readers could make up their own minds as to the veracity and balance of the information. To this extent, the complaint is upheld. While the coverage of the story on 25 February 2005 was overwhelmingly in favour of the project, it did contain some dissenting views and the paper went on to publish opposing opinion The authors in subsequent months, including Mr Partridge’s own letter. of the information, While the newspaper refused to accede to Mr Partridge’s request that it provide an “explanation” however, for its use of the industry and State Government material without acknowledgement, Mr should have Partridge’s letter, and other coverage in the media, was sufficient to draw attention to the been clearly newspaper’s use of the material. identified by the Adequate balance provided newspaper so ADJUDICATION No. 1298 (September 2005) that readers The Australian Press Council has dismissed a complaint from former Perth City Councillor could make Vincent Tan against The West Australian for articles published in the Inside Cover column on 4 up their own April and 10 May 2005. minds as to the veracity The 4 April article headed Loose end can be tied up carried a head shot of Mr Tan and referred and balance to evidence given before a Corruption and Crime Commission [CCC] hearing into the activities of the of Graham Burkett, a West Australian Government minister’s chief of staff. This was to the information. effect that a list of phone numbers found in Mr Burkett’s wallet contained the names of two men with criminal backgrounds and that Mr Burkett said he thought Vincent Tan was also on the list. Mr Tan complained that the use of his name in this context was no more than an attempt to discredit him based on nothing substantial. The publication of his photograph next to that of Mr Burkett showed further evidence of malice. Mr Tan said the article breached the Council’s principles relating to accuracy and distorting the facts in text, headlines and pictures. The newspaper responded saying the published article was based on the transcript of public hearings of the CCC. At the time Mr Tan was a prominent public figure, a Perth Councillor seeking re-election, and the mention of his name in the CCC hearing was a legitimate matter for coverage in the column. The photograph was published because Mr Tan and Mr Burkett were named in the column. Responses from Mr Tan to questions about why his name and number were on the list were extensively published in the column. The Council believes that these responses adequately balanced any adverse reference to Mr Tan and that the newspaper had a legitimate reason for using the photograph. The 10 May article, headed Poll has last word in Tan power game, referred to Mr Tan being defeated in the Perth City Council elections and his previous “battles with IC [Inside Cover] over his so-called Northbridge Business and Community Association.” The article referred to Mr Tan’s complaint to the Press Council concerning the NBCA and whether it had no members, kept no records and hadn’t held meetings in years. Mr Tan said this was inaccurate and that the NBCA was a ‘non-incorporated organisation’ set up as a lobby group and, while there were no paid up members, there were members who regularly contacted him. The Press Council adjudicated on this issue in September 2004 and that adjudication adequately covers the questions on the NBCA raised again. For the above reasons both complaints are dismissed.
28 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
Photo was offensive ... but complainants lost a good opportunity Adjudications ADJUDICATION No. 1299 (September 2005) 1299 The Australian Press Council has upheld the main thrust of a complaint from the Council of Official Visitors and the Western Australian Department of Health about two reports published in The West Australian on 16 March 2005. The Council commends the newspaper for its attempt to make amends through mediation and regrets that the opportunity for settlement offered by the newspaper was missed. A front-page report, headlined Naked walker is prime double murder suspect, concerned the deaths of a woman and her four-year-old daughter at Margaret River and suspicions that a family member with a history of mental illness had killed them. The report was accompanied by a large photograph of a naked man who had been wandering in the streets after the killings. Although the photograph did not show the man’s face, the caption and the story identified him by name and stated that he was related to the two deceased. The second report, which mainly concerned the background of the dead woman, also named the man in the photograph and said that he was suspected of the killings. On 18 March, the newspaper published seven letters from readers responding to the initial report, all of them critical of the newspaper’s action in publishing the photo. Along with these letters, the newspaper published a much smaller version of the photo. Other critical letters were published on other days. Dr Judyth Watson, for the Council of Official Visitors, a mental-illness advocacy group, and Dr Rowan Davidson, chief psychiatrist of the WA Department of Health, separately complained to the Australian Press Council. Both complainants had a range of objections to the reports, including the use of the man’s name and publication of his history of mental illness, but it was the use of the photograph which was of greatest concern. The complainants said the photograph’s publication demeaned and humiliated the man, violated his privacy and exploited his vulnerability. They said that by placing gratuitous emphasis on his Their mental illness, the newspaper reinforced the stigma of such illness. rejection of The West Australian said that its decision to publish the photograph had not been taken recklessly the but had been the subject of much discussion among senior editorial staff. It said that the newspaper’s photograph, taken in a public place of an incident witnessed by the public, was of compelling offer to have news value. The man’s mental health had been relevant to the report but had not been over- an opinion emphasised. The newspaper said that its staff received training in how to report mental health piece issues with sensitivity and that its publication of the critical letters demonstrated its willingness published and to give weight to contrary views. to influence The newspaper suggested the matter could be resolved through a mediation with the complainants. the training of In a mediation conducted by a public member of the Australian Press Council, the newspaper young offered Dr Davidson the opportunity to have published in The West Australian an opinion piece journalists is of up to 1000 words putting forward the case for careful handling by the media of mental health a missed patients and mental health issues. It also offered Dr Davidson the opportunity to address each opportunity to year’s new intake of journalism cadets and to work with The West Australian’s supervisor of further a cadets on other possible training. worthy aim. Regretably, Dr Davidson and Dr Watson rejected the newspaper’s offer. Their rejection of the newspaper’s offer to have an opinion piece published and to influence the training of young journalists is a missed opportunity to further a worthy aim. The West Australian’s suggestion of mediation was a sincere attempt to provide redress to the complainants. Its offer, taken with the publication of the critical letters, represented a reasonable and adequate response. Nonetheless, the publication of the photograph, and the second publication on the letters page two days later, breached the Council’s principle on respect for the privacy and sensibilities of individuals, and to this extent the Council upholds the complaint.
29 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
Adjudications Newspaper commended for coverage ... but articles remained unfair 1300 ADJUDICATION No. 1300 (September 2005) A. Adjudication Summary The Australian Press Council has considered a detailed complaint from the NSW Attorney- General, the Hon. Bob Debus, against The Australian regarding a series of articles dealing with the courts. The complaint raises both concerns of a general nature with the articles and particular issues with some aspects of them. The Council notes that judges and the courts are clearly uncomfortable with recent press scrutiny. Newspapers do, however, have an obligation to report on Australian public institutions and even While the robustly to campaign on issues of public interest concerning them. Equally publications must Council abide by the principles of the Australian Press Council, including accuracy, fairness and balance, emphasises in such reporting. the right of the press A major part of the Attorney’s original complaint was a general concern with what he described vigorously to as a campaign of denigration of the judiciary. Following the receipt of the newspaper’s response scrutinise to his complaint, the Attorney withdrew this aspect of the complaint. public That leaves the particular concerns. institutions, The Council upholds the Attorney’s complaint on three issues: the newspaper did not take the exercise sufficient steps to check the accuracy of claims by a quoted criminal lawyer; there was a lack of of this right fairness and balance in its treatment of material arising from a Productivity Commission report; does not give and an article misled readers on the basis on which comparative costs between NSW and any Queensland courts were assessed. publication It dismisses a number of other complaints where it finds no breach of the principles or finds that carte blanche the newspaper has provided the opportunity for balancing comment. The Council commends to report on the newspaper for critically evaluating the court system. This can only enhance the transparency the activities of the courts’ operations. of a court in any manner it While the Council emphasises the right of the press vigorously to scrutinise public institutions, likes. the exercise of this right does not give any publication carte blanche to report on the activities of a court in any manner it likes. Like any other entity in society, the courts are entitled to be reported in a fair and balanced manner, and in a manner that accords with the Statement of Principles of the Press Council. The full adjudication, which gives details on all aspects of the complaint, including those where the Council found no breach of its principles, follows.
B. Full adjudication The Press Council has considered a complaint brought by the Attorney-General of New South Wales, the Hon. Bob Debus, against The Australian regarding a series of articles published by the newspaper in late 2004 and early 2005. Judges and the courts are clearly uncomfortable with recent press scrutiny. Nonetheless, the Council endorses the freedom of the press to report, and comment on, matters of public interest, including the performance of major public institutions. There may even be an obligation to do so in the public interest. Such reporting and comment may lead to campaigning, even robust campaigning, on the issues arising. In this case, the newspaper has devoted several articles to highlighting what it saw as major issues of concern with the courts and the judiciary. It is to be commended for subjecting the judicial institution to vigorous scrutiny. But the freedom to report requires that reporting be responsible. Given the complexity and sensitivity involved in this particular matter, there was an over-riding responsibility to ensure that all reasonable steps were taken to make the reports fair, accurate and balanced, as required by the Press Council principles. Part of the Attorney-General’s original complaint was of a ‘general’ nature and comprised a claim that The Australian ‘had conducted a campaign of denigration of the judiciary’ involving an ‘emerging pattern of bias, misrepresentation and
30 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
suppression of relevant facts.’ Following the receipt of the newspaper’s comments on his Adjudications complaint, the Attorney withdrew this aspect of the complaint. 1300 Given that the general complaint was withdrawn, the remaining aspect of the complaint focuses on a number of specific concerns with aspects of the reporting in eight separate articles and claims that certain reported matters fail to comply with the Press Council’s principles. For ease of reference, theses articles are listed as follows: Article 1 (2.12.04) – No justice in judges’ seven-week break Article 2 (2.12.04) – Court’s long break “unfair” to prisoners Article 3 (3.12.04) – Chief Justice vows to act on judges’ holidays Article 4 (6.12.04) – Court defensive over backlog Article 5 (7.12.04) – On or off, judges don’t lose on holiday time Article 6 (7.12.04) – Legal nitpicking won’t answer judges’ critics Article 7 (8.12.04) – Tassie tops supreme court backlog Article 8 (12.1.05) – Long-winded and expensive justice Article 1 deals largely with a comparison between States in terms of relating a backlog of criminal cases to leave provisions. It adds: ‘critics say it is no coincidence that the NSW Supreme Court, which has the most generous leave provisions of any jurisdiction in Australia, also has the largest backlog of unheard criminal cases.’ The article goes on to say that South Australia which takes the least amount of leave, ‘has the lowest criminal case stockpile’. The complainant disputes the assertion that NSW stands alone with the most ‘generous leave provisions’. He states that a detailed table comparing leave provisions in each jurisdiction which was provided by the NSW Supreme Court to the reporter indicates that ‘almost all other jurisdictions have the same total leave entitlements as that of New South Wales’. The complainant also claims that no basis was provided for drawing a comparison between States in terms of relating a backlog of criminal cases to leave provisions. Whether there is a connection between backlog of criminal cases and generous leave provisions of judicial officers is a matter of public interest and apt for public debate. However, making a bald assertion about the connection without a proper evaluation of the evidence does not contribute to public debate. If this debate is to be taken further along, it is expected that those concerned should be provided a reasonable opportunity to comment. In this respect, the Council notes that Article 4 does contain comments from the NSW Attorney- General and the NSW Chief Justice that go to balancing some of the criticism in the early articles. Article 1 also reported the claims by Andrew O’Brien, a Sydney criminal lawyer, that, because of the six-week summer recess in NSW, two of his clients (a couple with a young child) would have to spend Christmas in prison. The article includes the following paragraph: Mr O’Brien believes a court might allow the mother, who is a first offender, to be given a non-custodial penalty instead to allow her to care for her child. But he cannot get a hearing date for a sentence appeal in the Supreme Court until mid-February. When an allegation of this nature is made, a professional journalist would indubitably seek a comment from the court concerned. It is clear that there was a failure to seek verification of the claims by Mr O’Brien. In fact, the claims by Mr O’Brien cannot be reconciled with the transcripts of the proceedings submitted by the complainant. To the extent that it failed to take a simple reasonable step to check the accuracy of the claim by Mr O’Brien, the complaint on this score is upheld. This finding of the Press Council applies equally to the repetition of the O’Brien matter in Article 2 and in Article 4. Another matter that arose from Article 4, among others, relates to the manner in which the newspaper has utilised a finding of the Productivity Commission in its 2004 Report on Government Services. The complaint refers to Article 3 that states, among other things, ‘In NSW, which the Productivity Commission declared to be judicially the most inefficient state …’ Article 4 repeats
31 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
Adjudications the claim that NSW is ‘the most inefficient in the country’ and adds: ‘With a backlog of criminal 1300 cases far greater than that in any other state’. This claim is repeated in Article 5. 1301 In making the ‘most inefficient state’ claim, the articles concerned fail to inform the readers of the caveat expressly set out in the Productivity Commission’s 2004 Report: ‘Care needs to be taken when comparing timeliness data across jurisdictions because both the complexity and distribution of cases may vary’. Even if the newspaper could be excused the first time when it published this claim, there is plainly no excuse for its repetition of the claim when its attention was drawn to the need for care in utilising the Report. The defence of the newspaper ‘that any subsequent reporting of this issue will take into account the qualifications that have been thrown up by the debate on the Productivity Commission figures’ simply highlights the lack of care in utilising the Report. The Press Council believes the lack of fairness and balance requires the complaint on this aspect to be upheld. The Press Council notes that the complaint pertaining to Article 6 has been withdrawn. Article 7 focuses on the performance of the Supreme Court of Tasmania in relation to its civil caseload. The complainant points out that the headline Tassie Tops Supreme Court Backlog ‘could be applied to any court which happens to be the lowest on one of the numerous tables Like any other published annually by the Productivity Commission’. The newspaper counters by saying that as entity in the article is concerned with the Tasmania jurisdiction ‘it remains difficult to see how it can be a society, the matter for complaint by the NSW Attorney General’. The complainant claims that the article is courts are a mirror image of the material in relation to the criminal caseload of New South Wales, and that entitled to be such ‘distorted’ reporting does have implications for future reporting on NSW courts. The issue reported in a of backlog of cases is a matter of legitimate public interest. The Press Council reiterates that the fair and newspaper should have adverted to the caveat of the Productivity Commission regarding the use balanced of the data. The Council also notes that the heading of the article does not make it clear that the manner, and backlog was a reference to civil cases. in a manner In relation to Article 8, the complaint focuses on the paragraph which asserts: ‘A CRIMINAL that accords case in the NSW Supreme Court costs more than $25,000, but the same matter costs just over with the $5,000 in Queensland.’ The complainant argues that this assertion is ‘plainly misleading’ and Statement of that the error could have been avoided had the court been given the opportunity to comment. Principles of The complainant points out that more than 85 per cent of the criminal workload in the NSW the Press Supreme Court consists of long and complex murder and manslaughter trials, compared with Council. only 10-50 per cent in the nation’s other supreme courts. He also states that the Queensland Supreme Court tries a high proportion of relatively minor drugs charges, which are dealt with by lower courts in NSW. The complaint on this issue is upheld. The Press Council emphasises that it is the right of any newspaper to subject any institution to vigorous scrutiny. It must also be pointed out that the complainant does not challenge this right. Given that the courts are central to the administration of justice, subjecting them to the glare of publicity will ensure transparency and accountability in relation to their operation. Equally, the Press Council draws the attention of newspapers to the need to maintain confidence in the courts and the rule of law in their presentation of court-related matters. The exercise of the newspaper’s right to scrutinise does not give it carte blanche to report on the activities of a court in any manner it likes. Like any other entity in society, the courts are entitled to be reported in a fair and balanced manner, and in a manner that accords with the Statement of Principles of the Press Council.
No evidence of misquotation ADJUDICATION No. 1301 (September 2005) The Australian Press Council has dismissed a complaint from Marian McDuie about an article, Land war surrender, published in the Sunday Mail, Adelaide, on 23 January 2005. The article was largely an update on the progress of the housing development at Aldinga on the Fleurieu Peninsula, south of Adelaide, giving details of the style, number and cost of houses likely to be completed by the end of the year.
32 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
Ms McDuie, a member of the Southern Eco Alliance, a community group that protested about Adjudications the development, complained she was misquoted in the story. However the newspaper believes 1301 1302 the quotation attributed to her was a fair and accurate reflection of what she said, and provided 1303 a copy of the reporter’s notes in support. The Australian Press Council is unable to determine that Ms McDuie was misquoted and therefore is unable to find that any of its principles have been breached.
Some failures of attribution ADJUDICATION No. 1302 (October 2005) The Australian Press Council has upheld in part complaints against the Fraser Coast Chronicle over reports involving long-standing differences between a local organisation known as the Access for All Alliance and the Hervey Bay City Council. The differences concern facilities for the disabled, apparently mainly wheelchair users, at bus stops, on beaches, and in toilets. In addition, the nature of various court actions is also in question. The details cover such things as the number of seats in a bus shelter compared with the spaces provided for wheelchairs; the percentage of tables in a park allowing wheelchair access; the paths to shelters and beaches. In a Page 1 report the paper claimed that $60,000 would be needed to modify the bus shelters, alone, to fit the set standards, and further reports on inside pages cited other costs incurred and foreseen. The paper quoted the Alliance as saying that it has warned the Hervey Bay Council of the standards and the need to meet them … “We’re just pointing out what is correct”. The Council The complainants, Bob and Glenise Staff, both members of the Alliance, also say that of two believes that letters sent to the paper only one was published, and then cut by more than 50 per cent. if the letters In reply the paper says it published information provided by Hervey Bay Council, it did not had been “deliberately print untrue, misleading or distorted information”. The Alliance, it says, “has a couched in confrontational rather than a conciliatory style”, and only one letter was received and published. more The Press Council upholds in part because there were inaccuracies and some failure of attribution moderate in the reports. With regard to the published letter, the Alliance’s concerns with the newspaper’s terms, one reporting were preserved in the letter even if it was cut in the editorial process. This part of the may well have complaint is dismissed. been published and the matter Not an unreasonable description resolved. ADJUDICATION No. 1303 (December 2005) The Press Council has dismissed a complaint brought by Dr James Saleam against The Australian for its description of the complainant as a ‘prominent neo-Nazi’ in two articles published by the paper. The complainant felt he had been unfairly labelled by the newspaper. The two articles, Top Academic Accused of Neo-Nazi Links and Racist Professor Cautioned But Launches New Attack, and published respectively in the 20 July and 21 July editions of the paper, dealt mainly with a Macquarie University law professor and his views on the IQ and crime rate of black Africans. The complainant was mentioned in the context of an association with ‘the extremist Patriotic Youth League’. The complainant wrote a letter to the editor in response to each of the articles but neither letter was published. The paper said that this was because the letters were “unnecessarily abusive”. The Council believes that if the letters had been couched in more moderate terms, one may well have been published and the matter resolved. In the context of the circumstances of the case and the background information furnished by the paper in response to the allegations, the Press Council finds the paper did not act unreasonably.
33 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
Adjudications A fair and comprehensive coverage ... over time 1304 ADJUDICATION No. 1304 (December 2005) The Australian Press Council has dismissed a complaint by Pam Hopf and Dina Burgess against The Age concerning four articles by the newspaper’s Jerusalem correspondent. The articles were published on 4 June, 6 June, 11 June and 29 June 2005 and carried the correspondent’s byline and photograph. The first article carried reports of “stunned” reaction by Israelis to a documentary made by a prominent television presenter. The article said the documentary dwelt on the machinery of occupation, the roadblocks, the fences, walls, settler roads and curfews set up to defend and support West Bank and Gaza settlements. The second article reported plans by Israel to evict 1000 Arabs from their homes in the village of Silwan in East Jerusalem, to clear the way for an “archaeological park.” The article said this highlighted the fundamental conflict between resident Palestinians and the Jews who claimed an older and superior right to the ground on which the Palestinians lived. The third article reported activities by a volunteer Israeli women’s organisation who monitored checkpoint operations to ensure Palestinians were not abused. The final article reported that the family of a British peace activist shot by an Israeli soldier believed the soldier, who has been convicted, could be used as a scapegoat by Israeli military officers. The complainants said that all four articles breached a number of Press Council principles including errors of fact, omission, a failure to distinguish between fact and opinion, a lack of balance and that each of the articles presented the conflict in the Middle East from the Palestinian position alone. They said that the inclusion of relevant background material such as the continuing incitement and terrorism against Israelis was required for balance. The articles The complainants claimed that there was a serious lack of objectivity and balance in the articles, need to be which contributed to public hostility to Israel and to anti-Semitism. considered in In response the newspaper said the articles complained of contained no errors of fact, were the context of balanced, and focussed on specific aspects of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. all material The newspaper said it was not possible to canvass the entire sweep of the conflict’s history in published on any single newspaper article. the Middle East conflict The articles sought to place the incidents and statements described within the context of a violent by the struggle in which “grave human rights abuses are committed by actors on both sides”. newspaper. The newspaper said that over 160 reports in 2005 had been published from their Jerusalem correspondent plus additional material from wire services and other newspapers. It had given a fair and a comprehensive coverage on the conflict in the Middle East over many years. The reporting of any conflict will inevitably evoke contending points of view in which the facts are strongly disputed. However reviewing the articles complained of, and hearing the supporting argument of the complainants and the newspaper, the Council believes the journalist concerned was reporting matters occurring in Israeli-Palestinian territories at that time and that the articles did not consist of comment. The articles need to be considered in the context of all material published on the Middle East conflict by the newspaper. The Council does not believe there has been any breach of its principles and accordingly the complaint is dismissed.
34 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
No need for infinite back-and-fro Adjudications ADJUDICATION No. 1305 (December 2005) 1305 1306 The Australian Press Council has dismissed a complaint from Mark K. Tomkinson against the Donnybrook-Bridgetown Mail over the editor’s refusal to publish a second letter on a local issue. On 5 July 2005 the editor published a letter from Mr Tomkinson critical of the Bridgetown Shire Council. Mr Tomkinson claimed the local council had been incapable of anticipating the problems It is arising from increased population. unreasonable On the 12 July, A Scobie responded to Mr Tomkinson through the letters column saying it was a to expect “bit rich” for him to claim that all crime, traffic, safety, parking, and water shortage problems newspapers were “courtesy of metropolitan interlopers”. to undertake Mr Tomkinson wrote again to the editor on 21 July saying that, while Mr Scobie was entitled to detailed his views, he should have disclosed that he was a professional journalist who proofread the local background council’s newsletter. When this letter was not published, Mr Tomkinson complained the newspaper checks on its failed to ensure fairness and balance when it did not publish his countering letter or check on Mr letter writers Scobie’s background. or give infinite Newspapers do need to ensure the authenticity of letters to the editor. It is unreasonable, however, opportunities to expect newspapers to undertake detailed background checks on its letter writers or give infinite to opportunities to correspondents to reply to comments on their letters. correspondents to reply to comments on Incumbent on papers quickly to correct errors their letters. ADJUDICATION No. 1306 (December 2005) The Press Council has upheld a complaint brought by Faten El-Dana, on behalf of the Muslim Women’s Welfare of Australia, against the Egypt News, a Coptic community newspaper, published in Arabic. Ms El-Dana complained about an article published in the newspaper on 18 January 2005 under the heading “Slaughtering of a Coptic family the Islamic way in New Jersey in the United States”. It is the The article claimed that a Coptic family had been murdered by Muslims and added “it is believed responsibility that there are dormant Islamic gangs in this city which is highly populated by Muslims”. of Ms El-Dana complained the article was unsourced and that its intention was to “slander the newspapers Muslims”. properly to On 6 March, Ms El-Dana forwarded to Egypt News a copy of an article from the Egyptian source news newspaper Al-Ahram which stated that there was no Muslim connection in the murders, and that stories and to the New Jersey police had arrested two American men Edward McDonald and Hamilton Sanshez take every for the crime. Ms El-Dana supplied the Council with a further two reports from American news effort to sources supporting the Al-Ahram story. ensure that Ms El-Dana asked the newspaper to correct its 18 January article but it did not comply and wrote what they her a response which she found deeply offensive. publish is The newspaper’s editor Samir Habashi informally advised the Council that he was awaiting accurate. In finalisation of the investigation before publishing any clarification, but made no other response. addition, it is The Council finds that the newspaper erred in not sourcing its original article and in not moving incumbent on quickly to correct the original material when the new facts emerged. Accordingly Ms El-Dana’s newspapers complaint is upheld. quickly to correct any Australia is a multicultural society with a thriving ethnic community language press. Debate in errors that those newspapers is often robust and controversial. have occurred The Council encourages that debate but would remind publications that they should be guided as soon as by the principles of the Council concerning the separation of fact from comment. It is the they become responsibility of newspapers properly to source news stories and to take every effort to ensure aware of the that what they publish is accurate. In addition, it is incumbent on newspapers quickly to correct problem. any errors that have occurred as soon as they become aware of the problem.
35 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
Adjudications Position needed to be put 1307 ADJUDICATION No. 1307 (February 2006) 1308 1309 The Press Council has upheld in part a complaint against The Canberra Times over a report on an incident on the Israeli-Gaza border. Three Palestinians were shot and killed by Israeli troops in the incident. The report quoted the Israeli military as saying that the Palestinians were spotted crawling towards the border fence with a bag, “apparently planning to plant a bomb”. Ali Kazak, head of the General Palestinian Delegation to Australia and New Zealand, complained that the report was “false” and “suppressed relevant facts”. He submitted for publication a letter that quoted the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights as saying that the three Palestinians, including two teenagers, were seeking to cross the border to find employment. They were, it said, left for two hours bleeding to death while Israeli troops prevented an ambulance from reaching them. The letter was not published. The Press Council cannot determine which version is correct; nor can it say whether the Palestinian version was available in any way at the time of the publication. The absence of a response from The Canberra Times to the Council leaves this question open. In these circumstances, the “false” and “suppression” aspects of the complaint fail. The short letter from Mr Kazak, dated the day after the report, could well have been published. In fairness, the Palestinian position should have been put.
No evidence for suppression ADJUDICATION No. 1308 (February 2006) The Australian Press Council has dismissed a complaint from Dr Barry Whittington that a Sunday Times article about motorcyclists who dangerously exceed speed limits in Western Australia with impunity. The complaint was that the report treated readers unfairly by suppressing and misrepresenting relevant facts. The newspaper exposed how speeding motorcyclists escaped fines in Western Australia because motorcycles there are required to carry only rear numberplates whereas police speed cameras photograph offenders from the front. The Council’s The article included comment from the RAC that the State Government was dragging its heels Statement of in introducing legislation requiring motorcycles to carry front numberplates. Principles recognises The complainant argued that the newspaper did not approach motorcycle associations for the right of a comment; did not discuss other methods of catching speeding motorcyclists; and did not mention newspaper the cost to riders of implementing front numberplates. strongly to Dr Whittington wrote to The Sunday Times outlining his objections and received a reply from advocate its the editor rejecting the complaint. The editor said in his letter that the newspaper would return to own views on the issue in the future. controversial In The Sunday Times report the RAC’s support for front numberplates was countered only by a topics, but brief quote from the WA Office of Road Safety questioning the safety of such metal numberplates. news reports The central thrust of the article was the dangerous behaviour of speeding motorcyclists, as should not illustrated by the published table of the five most dangerous speeding incidents recorded by present police. opinion as news. The Council is of the view that the lack of further exploration of the subject, as criticised by Dr Whittington, does not in itself constitute a suppression of other views.
Article fails test ADJUDICATION No. 1309 (February 2006) The Press Council has upheld in part a complaint brought by Dr Colin Long against the Chelsea Independent, a Melbourne suburban newspaper, over its reporting of a controversial development
36 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
called ‘Chicquita Park’ on a site that the complainant and others would prefer to be preserved as Adjudications public parkland. 1309 1310 The complainant initially complained against an article, Bill tops 1/4 m, published in the 26 July 2005 edition of the newspaper. The article contained statements relating to the legal and consultancy costs borne, and likely to be borne, by the ratepayers arising from the controversy over the development. It also mentioned a forthcoming special meeting of the local council to hear submissions from the Friends of Chicquita Park and the developer, Omni Developments. The article added that ‘[m]ore than 50 submissions’ had been received by the local council. It also mentioned that the developer’s proposal involved ‘giving just over 50 per cent of the site over to open space’. This was followed by the sentence, ‘Eleven per cent of this amount is taken up with roads and footpaths which leaves just over 40 per cent as public parkland’. The complainant said that the reference to 50/40 per cent was an “attempt to obfuscate”; that the newspaper was biased; that it failed to distinguish fact from opinion; and that his letter to the editor was not published. The Press Council notes that the Chicquita Park saga had gone on for more than four years, with the newspaper publishing a number of articles on the subject and many letters arguing all sides of the issue. The newspaper pointed out that it had published ‘in full’ several letters written by the complainant, and that ‘none of his letters have gone unpublished’. Although the newspaper had refused to publish the complainant’s letter of 8 August on the basis that it was ‘inflammatory and defamatory’, it was prepared to consider publication if the letter was resubmitted in a revised form. The Council’s Statement of Principles recognises the right of a newspaper strongly to advocate its own views on controversial topics, but news reports should not present opinion as news. Because it combines commentary as an integral part of a news report, this article does not meet this test.
No redress provided ADJUDICATION No. 1310 (March 2006) The Press Council has upheld in part a complaint brought by the King Khalid Islamic College of Victoria against the Sunday Herald Sun regarding a two-page table entitled How Your School Rates published in the 10 July 2005 edition of the paper. The Council notes the The thrust of the complaint was that the table produced an incorrect ranking of the performance importance of the students of the College. of including The College, through its solicitors, sought the publication of a correction which would have in placed the college on a higher ranking. The newspaper pointed out a confusion in the correction newspaper proposed by the College. “league” The heading to the table clearly stated the criteria selected by the newspaper for the ranking: tables The Tables represent students who applied for university courses and show the percentage of methodology those who received at least one university offer. The average is calculated from the results of information each year since 2002. that allows The proposed correction had included offers from other tertiary institutions, such as TAFE independent colleges, which fell outside the published criteria. validation of A slightly revised correction was then sent to the newspaper, which said that it stood by its table, the relying on data which are “publicly available from the Victorian Tertiary Admissions Centre rankings in [VTAC]” and do “not refer to information which is available only to schools by using a password the tables. to access the VTAC database”. The revised correction was not published. The College maintained that the newspaper had relied on ‘false data’ not obtained from VTAC to produce the “league” table and that the only source of data to effect such a ranking exercise should have been VTAC. The issue of contention is whether the newspaper got its data from VTAC. The newspaper relied on a consultant to effect the ranking.
37 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
Adjudications Both parties agreed to a mediation conducted by the Press Council and agreement was reached 1310 that the newspaper would send a letter to the College in terms agreed to at the mediation. The 1311 College was not satisfied with the first letter sent by the newspaper as it contained a material deviation from the agreed terms and also with a subsequently amended letter. The amended letter used the words ‘data which may not have been supplied by VTAC’ instead of ‘data were not supplied by VTAC’. It would not be unreasonable for the complainant to perceive a lack of good faith on the part of the newspaper in resolving the matter. To the extent that no redress to its concerns has been offered to the College, the complaint is upheld. On the general issue, the Council notes the importance of including in newspaper “league” tables methodology information that allows independent validation of the rankings in the tables.
Lack of qualification led to sensationalism ADJUDICATION No. 1311 (March 2006) The Australian Press Council has upheld a complaint by Mosman City Councillor Dom Lopez against the Mosman Daily over an article published on 13 October 2005. At the centre of the complaint are comments attributed to Cr Lopez about the future purchase of a Christian Science property being offered for sale. The article, headed Councillor’s worry over “bearded men in gowns”, said that Cr Lopez had said one thing was for certain, a place of worship for any group other than Christian or Jewish faiths “would not be welcome.” The article continued: Cr Lopez told the Daily that he was concerned with rumours that “men in flowing gowns and with flowing beards” were seen looking at the prime property. “This is a Judeo Christian area and it would not welcome people of another faith,” Cr Lopez said. The following day Cr Lopez wrote to the Mosman Daily saying he had been misquoted and demanded a retraction. No retraction was forthcoming and the Mosman Daily letters pages subsequently carried many letters critical of Cr Lopez’ alleged comments. Cr Lopez raised his concerns with the newspaper claiming his comments had been taken out of By not context and not used in full but received no satisfactory reply. qualifying Cr Cr Lopez issued a press release on 24 October saying that two weeks previously a reporter from Lopez’ the Mosman Daily had telephoned and asked “have you heard rumours about men in flowing original gowns and flowing beards inspecting the Christian Science property?” remarks Mr Lopez said he replied saying, “I have heard those rumours from residents nearby and I feel as promptly the Mosman is predominantly a Christian/Jewish area, another faith would not be welcome unless newspaper they integrate with the local community, in the same way that my mother and father did when allowed the they came from Italy over 70 years ago to make a better life for themselves and future generations.” debate to continue and The Mosman Daily published excerpts from this release but did not publish the additional left itself comment concerning his family’s origins which qualified his remark concerning the religious open to make up of the area. criticism of The newspaper did, after further complaint by Cr Lopez, run several letters supporting his remarks sensationalism in an endeavour to balance the debate which followed the original publication. This debate was and lack of also aired in the Mosman Council with calls for Cr Lopez to resign. fairness and By not qualifying Cr Lopez’ original remarks promptly the newspaper allowed the debate to balance. continue and left itself open to criticism of sensationalism and lack of fairness and balance. For that reason the complaint is upheld.
38 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
Balance not provided Adjudications ADJUDICATION No. 1312 (March 2006) 1312 1313 The Australian Press Council has upheld in part a complaint from police Superintendent Clint Pheeney over an article in The Lachlander, a NSW country newspaper, on 20 January 2006 concerning police staff numbers at the Condobolin police station. The article was published after an earlier article (13 January) on the same subject and before an editorial (27 January) that was highly critical of the complainant. The newspaper reported concerns that police staffing numbers in the area were below those allocated. In doing so, and in highlighting a recent incident in the town, the newspaper reported on a number of issues that were affecting police staffing numbers and operational efficiency. Those issues included extended leave absences and disciplinary action pertaining to two police officers. The complainant, while acknowledging that his views were properly reported in the article on 13 January, argues that the 20 January article contained significant inaccuracies and was The unbalanced in that his views were not further expressed. He asserts that some matters should not newspaper have been reported as they relate to personal and confidential issues relating to some police should have officers, particularly in the context of a small rural community. He also says the article blurred allowed the fact and opinion, especially in an accusation, as he saw it, that the complainant had been untruthful. complainant’s The newspaper stands by the content of the article. It believes it has “caught short” the complainant views to be and that it published information, particularly about the disciplinary matter, in the public interest. included in It asserts that, in a town the size of Condobolin, “most” of the information published was “fairly the article, common knowledge”. or failing that, the The complainant submitted a letter to the editor immediately after the publication of the article newspaper on 20 January. The newspaper did not publish that letter. On 27 January, the newspaper published should have an editorial which was highly critical of the complainant. The editorial called for the complainant given the to be replaced in his senior police role in the area. complainant The Council recognises that the issue of police numbers, and their deployment in communities, the is an issue of significant public interest and one which newspapers are entitled to pursue with opportunity vigour. to provide The Council is, however, of the view in this case that the newspaper should have allowed the balancing complainant’s views to be included in the article, or failing that, the newspaper should have comment by given the complainant the opportunity to provide balancing comment by publication of the publication letter submitted, especially when viewed against the fact that the newspaper subsequently called of the letter for his removal from his position. To the extent, that it did not provide such balance, the complaint submitted. is upheld.
No real attempt at an adequate clarification ADJUDICATION No. 1313 (March 2006) The Australian Press Council has upheld complaints against The Advertiser. Adelaide, from the Ceduna Area School and from Darcy O’Shea, the parent of a student and spouse of a teacher at the school. The complainants said that the articles, published in March 2005, covering community debate on dealing with violent incidents by students, breached six Press Council principles. They were that reasonable steps were not taken to check accuracy; that the newspaper failed to make amends; that it obtained photographs by dishonest or unfair means; that it did not treat readers fairly; that gratuitous emphasis was placed on colour; and that it failed to ensure balance and fairness when singling out a group for criticism. Two versions of a front page article on 24 March were published under the headline, School Kids Segregated, along with a second heading, White and black separated in detention. They also featured two photographs: one labelled as a “white” detention room containing two desks and three chairs; the other of a room described as spacious, labelled “black”, and said to have a TV, couch and table tennis table. 39 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
Adjudications Both versions of the article, the first written for the earlier state edition and the second for the 1313 later metropolitan edition, quoted a view that segregation of students at Ceduna Area School 1314 was “apartheid”. They reported opinions that the separation had contributed to increased violence at the school. The first version was written hours before a public meeting to discuss the violence. It quoted the State’s education minister, the opposition’s education spokesperson, the school’s principal and others. The later edition was amended to include comments made during and after the meeting, including by the principal. The school said the room labeled as “white” was in fact a focus room used by Year 6-12 students [Newspapers of any background. The so-called “black” room was used as a home room, not exclusively by have] a clear Aboriginal students and not for detentions. It said that students were not segregated at the school. obligation to It also said that the newspaper failed to correct its mistakes after the principal had provided ensure the information about the inaccuracies. accuracy of Mr O’Shea said that no attempt was made to check that the two rooms photographed were all aspects of segregated detention rooms. He said that the emphasis placed by the article on colour was their insensitive and inflammatory, as well as being inaccurate. coverage, The newspaper published a follow-up article the next day quoting Aboriginal community leaders including saying that the “black” room was available to non-Aboriginal children. It also ran a number of news reports, letters in subsequent days, some critical of its coverage. The Advertiser said that it rejected the the main thrust of both complaints and believed that its reports were accurate. It said that it tried to presentation contact the school principal before the first article was published, but its calls were not returned. of It also offered to participate in a mediated settlement. No such talks occurred. photographs and the It also offered to “set the record straight” by sending a reporter to Ceduna to report on school writing of initiatives addressing the local community’s grievances and aimed at improving racial harmony. headlines. A year later it has not done so. Newspapers are justified in reporting sensitive issues of colour and race in small, regional communities, particularly when it is done in the public interest and relates to serious matters such as violence. They have, however, a clear obligation to ensure the accuracy of all aspects of their coverage, including news reports, the presentation of photographs and the writing of headlines. It is important that the groups involved are given ample opportunity to comment on such matters so as to balance the impact of any such report. When concerns with the accuracy of reports are brought to their attention, newspapers have an obligation to correct or clarify matters promptly and prominently. In this case, The Advertiser failed to fulfil its obligations.
A light-hearted column ADJUDICATION No. 1314 (March 2006) The Australian Press Council has dismissed a complaint from James Page, against The Australian regarding an item in the “Strewth!” column on 10 August 2005. The item, under the heading Numbers up for Dems, is concerned with the re-election of Senator Paul Calvert to the position of Senate President, and made comment on how Democrat Andrew Murray voted on the position. Mr Page contacted The Australian with his concerns which centre on the headline, seeking publication of a letter. He believes that the item unfairly attacks the Democrats on the basis of Senator Murray’s vote. The item appears in a column which, in Mr Page’s own words, is ‘intended to be light-hearted’. The items and headlines are often meant to be tongue in cheek. In the Council’s view, there was no breach of its principles.
40 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
Wrong “tax” unfair to club Adjudications ADJUDICATION No. 1315 (May 2006) 1315 1316 The Australian Press Council has upheld a complaint from the Noble Park Football Social Club that the Springvale Dandenong Leader misrepresented the club’s position, in an article about a state government review of club expenditure from poker machine revenue. The report, under a headline Pokie venues face tax probe, suggested that some of the “taxation” claims made by clubs in the Greater Dandenong area could be questioned in view of the government’s expressed concern that there were “possible discrepancies” in the operation of the Victorian government’s community benefits scheme. The club complained that the article was inaccurate in implying that the club itself was facing a tax probe; that it unfairly questioned the legitimacy of the club’s claims that, the club said, were within government guidelines; and that, in any case, the club did not stand to gain benefits from such claims. The article went to some lengths, by judicious use of words, to establish that only those clubs In reports of which had been “overstepping the mark” with their claims need be worried by the review. However this nature it the article highlighted what it termed “unusual” claims by some clubs, such as those for plasma is unfortunate televisions and smoking rooms. By inviting Noble Park to be quoted defending exactly that that, amid expenditure, the newspaper largely undid its attempt to be non-specific as to which clubs, it controversies, thought, might be suspect in the government’s review. often those In reports of this nature it is unfortunate that, amid controversies, often those who dutifully who dutifully respond to media inquiries inadvertently attract suspicion to themselves. This certainly appears respond to to be the case with the Noble Park Football Social Club. media inquiries It is the Council’s view that the review of government policy was deserving of wide community inadvertently debate and the Leader’s canvassing of what constitutes a community benefit was reasonable. attract However the paper’s explanation of how revenue from poker machines is distributed is wrong. suspicion to It should not have been. And the use of the word “tax” is wrong in the headline and the body of themselves. the report.
Privacy not adequately protected ADJUDICATION No. 1316 (Adjudicated May 2006; re-issued June 2006) The Australian Press Council has upheld a complaint against The Sunday Mail, Brisbane, from the parents of two teenage girls, photographed in the evening walking in bikinis through a crowd during the annual “Schoolies” event on the Queensland Gold Coast. An article headlined Playing with fire and carrying a subheading How two teenage girls ran the gauntlet at Schoolies was published on 27 November 2005, accompanied by a large photograph of the two girls. The names of the girls were not published and the newspaper blacked out part of their faces in an attempt to protect their identity. The parents say that, despite the partial blacking out, the girls were identifiable. The Council originally adjudicated the complaint in May but both parties appealed: the newspaper was concerned with the decision to uphold the complaint and the parents with the wording of the finding. The Council re-affirms the original decision to uphold the complaint and re-issues the adjudication in this amended form. It notes that it does not have enough uncontested evidence to rule on questions related to the exact sequence of events, on who said what to whom and some other issues disputed by the parties. The thrust of the article was that the girls were placing themselves in a potentially dangerous situation. It quoted one volunteer as saying that the girls were putting themselves at risk, and an academic commenting on the pressure on young people to be noticed. The parents said their daughters were not doing anything illegal or immoral but perhaps they did 41 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
Adjudications get “caught up in the moment”. They also said that the article was highly offensive and had 1316 sensationalised what was essentially “a minor indiscretion”. 1317 The newspaper said the picture was taken in a public place on an issue of great public interest. It said the article, and picture, provided a warning for girls, and parents of those attending “Schoolies” in future, to use a commonsense approach to how they conduct themselves in such an environment. The Press Council appreciates the concerns of the girls’ parents particularly as they said that The their daughters, despite having sections of their face blacked out, were identified by those who newspaper, knew them. having In the light of the main thrust of the article, and the print media’s Privacy Standards, the newspaper, recognised having recognised that protection of the girls’ identities was warranted, should have taken greater that steps to ensure their privacy. protection of the girls’ identities was Insufficient detail and no balance in original article warranted, ADJUDICATION No. 1317 (June 2006) should have The Australian Press Council has upheld in part a complaint by the Queensland Department of taken greater Emergency Services against The Daily Mercury, Mackay, concerning an article published on 17 steps to February. ensure their The article headed Ambulance bungle costs life said at least one patient in the Mackay district privacy. had died as a result of the Mackay Ambulance Communication Centre closure in February 2004, and its relocation to Rockhampton. It then detailed a high resignation rate and claims of bullying and intimidation in the Mackay ambulance service and said there had been allegations of wrong directions being given by triple 0 dispatchers in Rockhampton. The Department complained that the headline contained serious accusations and sought details The claims of of the alleged death or publication of a retraction the following day. It said that the accusations the could have an impact on Mackay residents who had lost a family member since the centre involvement closed. of a public The Department was unable to test the accuracy of the claim because the newspaper did not service in an provide the name of the patient or other details. unnecessary death should It said the newspaper had breached the Council’s principle that says a publication should balance have been harmfully inaccurate information with a prompt and appropriately prominent follow-up. detailed In its response the newspaper said it had given assurances of confidentiality both to the original sufficiently, informant and subsequently to several more sources within the ranks of ambulance officers all and a of whom feared dismissal if their identities were revealed. It said that the claims were made by response from a responsible source about a public service that had attracted a great deal of local criticism and the comment. ambulance On the day following the original publication The Daily Mercury published a page three article service headed Ambulance service slams allegations, in which an assistant commissioner of the ambulance included, in service and the responsible minister denied the allegations in the newspaper. The Council believes the original that by publishing these denials prominently the next day the newspaper has met part of its article to obligations under Council principles. ensure However the claims of the involvement of a public service in an unnecessary death should have readers were been detailed sufficiently, and a response from the ambulance service included, in the original given a article to ensure readers were given a balanced article that would enable them better to assess the balanced claims. To the extent that the original article was not so balanced, the complaint is upheld. article that would enable them better to assess the claims.
42 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
Serious errors of fact in Cosgrove story Adjudications ADJUDICATION No. 1318 (June 2006) 1318 1319 The Press Council has upheld a complaint brought by General Peter Cosgrove, the former chief of the Australian Defence Force, against The Australian in relation to an article published on 23 December 2005. The page one article, headed Cosgrove’s AWOL son discharged from army, claimed that General Cosgrove’s son, David, would be “discharged from the army after going AWOL from his barracks and being thrown into military jail”. It accompanied a longer report discussing military recruitment. The article also said that Philip Cosgrove, David’s brother, was also leaving the army “of his own accord”. It stated that neither General Cosgrove nor David Cosgrove could be reached for The Council their comments. has in the Following General Cosgrove’s complaint to the Press Council, the newspaper the next day past ruled published in The Weekend Australian an article headed Cosgrove goes into battle for army son. that there are This article, drawing from General Cosgrove’s letter of complaint to the Press Council, reported instances the refutation by General Cosgrove of a number of statements made in the newspaper article of where the 23 December. The second article also mentioned that the newspaper had published a letter by public Army chief Peter Leahy that David Cosgrove “had applied for a discharge at his own request”, interest and he had not been “administratively warned that he was unsuitable for service”. justifies the An overarching issue is the assertion by General Cosgrove that journalists ‘have no licence to reporting of intrude willy-nilly into the life of people who are not public figures as they are caught up in family everyday events’. The Council has in the past ruled that there are instances where the public members of interest justifies the reporting of family members of public figures in news articles. It maintains public figures that position. in news In this case there are such errors in the original article that the Press Council upholds the complaints articles. It of unfairness and inaccuracy. Some of the errors were answered in the follow-up article, but maintains other unfair aspects of the first article remained uncorrected. In particular the juxtaposition of a that position. photograph of Philip Cosgrove with the headline was unfair to him as it gives the impression that he had gone AWOL. The headline also suggested that David Cosgrove was ‘thrown out’ of the army because he had gone AWOL, when, as General Cosgrove clarified, the son had himself requested the discharge.
No laughing matter ADJUDICATION No. 1319 (June 2006) The Australian Press Council has upheld a complaint by the Hunter Institute of Mental Health and others against FHM magazine over the publication of a feature article on suicide in its April 2006 edition. The feature article headlined Suicide: Is it all it’s cracked up to be? covered nine common methods of suicide and gave verdicts that they were more likely to fail than succeed and that side effects could be horrific. It included graphic illustrations of public suicides including hanging, jumping from structures, gunshot and self-immolation. The Hunter Institute was joined by SANE Australia, Lifeline Australia and Suicide Prevention Australia in its complaint that it was “clearly the worst suicide story that has appeared in the Australian media”. The Institute said the article did not have any regard for the sensibilities of its readership which fell within the group currently at highest risk of suicide and may cause not only offence but harm to vulnerable community members. It said that the magazine had also disregarded the Press Council’s guidelines on reporting of suicide. The magazine’s editor argued that it was a general interest and entertainment magazine with a core readership of young men aged 18 to 35 and that, from time to time, it addressed more
43 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
Adjudications serious issues. The intention was to discuss the nine more common ways of attempting suicide 1319 but the article did not go into any detail that was not commonly known. No-one, he said, could 1320 come away from this feature thinking that any of these methods would be a good idea. 1321 The editor said FHM’s article was never intended to offend or cause anyone any type of problem and he regretted any offence caused. It was aimed to be a serious article about a serious issue written in a tone and language that its target audience would understand. The feature article ended with a small advisory, headlined Feel Like Shit, telling readers to try calling Lifeline, giving a telephone number and web page address. The complainant said this The Council was done in such a mocking way that it was not likely to encourage readers to seek help. does not seek to discourage While upholding the complaint that there were unnecessary illustrations and reference to details magazines of method and places of suicide in this feature, the Council does not seek to discourage magazines like FHM like FHM discussing serious issues nor doing so in a way the magazines believe can get the discussing message through to their target audience. In discussing suicides, this aim could be helped by serious issues consultation with reputable associations and authorities. nor doing so The Australian Press Council guidelines on reporting of suicide can be found at: in a way the www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/activities/guides/gpr246_1.html magazines believe can get the Article based on newsworthy event message ADJUDICATION No. 1320 (June 2006) through to The Press Council has dismissed a complaint by David Vernon against The Mercury, Hobart, in their target respect of an article, headed Vernons Tilt at Greens (with a smaller heading $1500 paid for audience. advert above it) published on page 9 on 16 March 2006. The article drew on an advertisement published on page 11 of the same edition. The ad had been placed by Mr Vernon, who wanted to put forward his view on the sale of his family’s property at Recherche Bay. Mr Vernon objected to the publication of the article and in particular to its revelation that he had spent $1,500 on advertising. He argued that this payment was a private transaction between him and the owners of the newspaper and should not have been disclosed. The article and advertisement were published during the Tasmanian election campaign. Mr Vernon said it was unfair that his advertisement was singled out for commentary in the editorial section of the paper. The newspaper responded that an individual taking out space to put forward an opinion was unusual and therefore more newsworthy than other, party political, advertising. The Council sees nothing unusual in the publication of an article based on a newsworthy event, whatever its source. Newspapers often publish articles referring to the costs of advertising or a campaign. In any case, the advertising rates are freely available on the newspaper’s website.
The imputation does not arise ADJUDICATION No. 1321 (June 2006) The Australian Press Council has dismissed a complaint against The Daily Telegraph from Stephen Mayne concerning a December 2005 Piers Akerman column in which he was mentioned. The article discussed the federal government’s proposed sedition laws aimed at preventing the ‘urging’ of violence and argued that journalists would not be caught by them. Mr Akerman continued: “While some media figures have been arguing for a shield law specifically to exempt the media from the anti-terrorism laws, it can be argued that almost anyone can call themselves a journalist these days, as evidenced by the nonsense published by people claiming to be journalists on websites such as Eric Beecher and Stephen Mayne’s Crikey.” In a brief letter to the editor emailed four days later Mr Mayne wrote: “Piers Akerman blithely opines that ‘almost anyone can call themselves a journalist these days’ and then describes me as someone ‘claiming to be a journalist’”.
44 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
In two following sentences Mr Mayne outlined his journalistic credentials. Adjudications 1321 The newspaper replied that Mr Mayne’s complaint was ‘entirely without substance’ and that a Publication details careful reading of the article showed that Mr Akerman did not label Mr Mayne as someone ‘claiming to be a journalist’. The Council agrees with this interpretation. It does not see any implication in the column that impugns Mr Mayne’s journalistic credentials. Nonetheless, the Council believes that, had the newspaper printed a letter from the complainant (the Council frequently recommends that complainants write letters to the editor to achieve balance), this matter could have been resolved at the outset. Publication Details Of the 30 adjudications issued by the Council, all but one were printed by the publication concerned. The Council has no evidence that the Arabic-language Coptic community Egypt News ever published the Adjudciation 1306, although it is aware of its publication in, and broadcast on, other Arabic- language media. The following table lists the Council’s adjudications, together with the date of their printing by the publication. Some were printed in other publications as well and the Council notes those of which it is aware. Each meeting the Complaints Committee looks at the adjudications from the previous month and ensures that they have been published “with appropriate prominence” by the publication concerned. Where there are issues, the committee seeks futher or better publication from the newspaper or magazine.
ADJ NAME OF PUBLICATION DATE DATE PAGE ISSUED PUBLISHED 1292 Independent Weekly 22.7.05 31.7.05 2 1293 The Sunday Age 22.7.05 7.8.05 9 1294 The Sunday Mail 22.7.05 14.8.05 37 1295 The Sun Herald 12.9.05 13.11.05 44 1296 The Canberra Times 12.9.05 16.9.05 1297 The Launceston Examiner 12.9.05 16.9.05 15 1298 The West Australian 12.9.05 15.9.05 69 1299 The West Australian 12.9.05 10.10.05 31 1300 The Australian 12.9.05 23.9.05 4 1301 The (SA) Sunday Mail 12.9.05 2.10.05 2 1302 Fraser Coast Chronicle 21.10.05 26.10.05 1303 The Australian 9.12.05 15.12.05 2 1304 The Age 9.12.05 15.12.05 1305 Donnybrook-Bridgetown Mail 9.12.05 17.1.06 2 1306 Egypt News 9.12.05 1307 The Canberra Times 10.2.06 14.2.06 1308 The Sunday Times 10.2.06 26.2.06 25 1309 The Chelsea Independent 10.2.06 21.2.06 2 1310 The Sunday Herald Sun 24.3.06 16.4.06 83 1311 The Mosman Daily 24.3.06 6.4.06 8 1312 The Lachlander 24.3.06 28.4.06 8 1313 The (SA) Advertiser 24.3.06 4.4.06 24 1314 The Australian 24.3.06 5.4.06 8 1315 Springvale Dandenong Leader 8.5.06 5.6.06 6 1316 The (Qld) Sunday Mail 8.5.06 26.6.06 42 1317 The Daily Mercury 16.6.06 3.7.06 5 1318 The Australian 16.6.06 23.6.06 6 1319 FHM Magazine 16.6.06 ABC Online News 26.6.06 1320 The Hobart Mercury 16.6.06 24.6.06 16 1321 The Daily Telegraph 16.6.06 23.6.06 19
45 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
Adjudications Subject index Index to Complaints Adjudicated
Complaints Bias: 1297, 1298, 1309 Annual stats Censorship, suppression: 1308 Distortion: 1300 Ethical standards breached: 1297, 1301, 1316, 1320 Headline, false or misleading: 1294, 1314, 1317, 1318 Imbalance, inadequate coverage: 1292, 1295, 1296, 1299, 1300, 1302, 1304, 1306, 1307, 1310, 1311, 1312, 1313 Inaccuracy, misrepresentation: 1302, 1307, 1310, 1315, 1318, Invasion of privacy: 1299, 1312, 1316, 1318, Irresponsibility: 1319 Letters and statements, non-publication or editing: 1305, 1309, Offensive coverage: 1293, 1319, Racism, religious disparagement: 1304, 1306, 1313, Sensationalism: 1311, 1313 Unfair treatment: 1298, 1300, 1303, 1308, 1315, 1317, 1318, 1321
Complaints and adjudications 1976 - 2006 Year complaints complaints complaints adjudi- received mediated or adjudicated cations withdrawn issued 1976-7 78 32 23 19 1977-8 135 67 18 17 1978-9 164 67 28 25 1979-80 216 126 30 23 1980-1 233 114 25 19 1981-2 251 97 31 30 1982-3 307 108 40 28 1983-4 310 80 39 37 1984-5 323 47 60 41 1985-6 305 83 97 49 1986-7 298 85 73 49 1987-8 184 65 48 35 1988-9 205 54 45 34 1989-90 233 89 49 40 1990-91 345 134 59 57 1991-2 421 115 85 68 1992-3 429 122 126 79 1993-4 406 165 113 84 1994-5 416 167 86 65 1995-6 413 164 95 71 1996-7 399 164 82 61 1997-8 434 179 76 49 1998-9 410 166 77 58 1999-2000 403 176 66 47 2000-1 413 177 65 42 2001-2 390 184 70 44 2002-3 367 169 51 32 2003-4 417 189 75 40 2004-5 426 205 88 48 2005-6 420 218 61 30 Total 9751 3808 (38.5%) 1881 (19.5%) 1321
Of the 1321 adjudications issued to the end of the reporting year, 555 (42 per cent) have upheld the complaint in whole or part, 718 (54.4 per cent) have dismissed the complaints, and 48 (3.6 per cent) have neither upheld nor dismissed the complaint or were a statement of general principles
46 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
Complaints stats Complaints and adjudication numbers where from statistics 2005 - 2006 made by
Complaints received 2005/6 2004/5 Total 1988/2005 Carried forward from previous period 51 68 36 Complaints 420 425 6583 Letters 328 336 5684
From complainants in 2005/6 %age 2004/5 %age 1988/2005 %age 2005/6 2004/5 88/05
New South Wales 95 29 102 30.3 1999 35.2 Victoria 76 23.2 72 21.4 1341 23.5 Queensland 58 17.7 63 18.8 971 17.1 Western Australia 32 9.8 43 12.8 452 8 South Australia 28 8.4 31 9.2 394 6.9 Tasmania 19 5.8 12 3.6 205 3.6 ACT 11 3.4 8 2.4 181 3.2 Northern Territory 4 1.2 0 - 107 1.9 Overseas 5 1.5 5 1.5 34 0.6
Total 328 100 336 100 5684 100
Made by
2005/6 %age 2004/5 %age 1988/2005 %age 2005/6 2004/5 88/05
Individuals 216 65.9 215 64 3446 60.6 Associations/Organisations 21 6.4 19 5.6 487 8.6 Professionals 14 4.3 28 8.3 406 7.1 Local Councils/members 15 4.6 19 5.6 220 3.9 Election Candidates/Politicians 8 2.4 15 4.5 197 3.5 Companies/Businesses 9 2.8 9 2.7 182 3.2 Government Departments/Agencies 9 2.8 6 1.8 150 2.6 Solicitors (for clients)* 0 - 1 0.3 119 2.1 Religious groups 4 1.2 5 1.5 87 1.5 Ethnic Community Groups 7 2.1 6 1.8 86 1.5 Aboriginal support groups/legal services 8 2.4 4 1.2 74 1.3 Institutions/Public Bodies 5 1.5 4 1.2 73 1.3 Political parties 6 1.8 3 0.9 61 1.1 Unions 2 0.6 2 0.6 54 1 Publications 4 1.2 0 - 25 0.4 Anonymous 0 - 0 - 17 0.3
Total 328 100 336 100 5684 100
* Under new guidelines adopted by the Council in 1996, most complaints made by solicitors for clients are now dealt with as if they had been submitted by the client.
47 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
Complaints stats About subject matter publication type 2005/6 %age 2004/5 %age 1988/2005 %age 2005/6 2004/5 88/05
Abuse of press freedom 4 1 4 0.9 63 1 Advertising; advertorials 8 1.9 2 0.5 199 3 Bad Taste 4 1 3 0.7 92 1.4 Bias 21 5 26 6.1 353 5.4 Censorship; suppression of facts 14 3.3 12 2.8 228 3.5 Distortion 9 2.1 17 4 246 3.7 Ethical standards breached 25 6 20 4.7 410 6.2 False Reporting 15 3.6 18 4.2 355 5.4 Freedom of the press threatened 0 - 1 0.2 29 0.4 Headline, false or misleading 11 2.6 17 4 243 3.7 Imbalance; inadeq cover (inc no reply) 42 10 50 11.8 601 9.1 Inaccuracy; misrepresentation 69 16.4 91 21.4 905 13.7 Invasion of privacy 23 5.5 25 5.9 354 5.4 Irresponsibility 19 4.5 11 2.6 243 3.7 Letters: non publication or editing 18 4.3 16 3.8 313 4.8 Offensive cartoons 9 2.1 5 1.2 104 1.6 Offensive coverage 35 8.3 21 4.9 488 7.4 Racism; religious disparagement 36 8.6 22 5.2 376 5.7 Sensationalism 11 2.6 9 2.1 107 1.6 Sexism 2 0.5 3 0.7 114 1.7 Unfair Treatment 45 10.7 50 11.8 679 10.4 Other (unclassifiable) 0 - 2 0.5 81 1.2
Total 420 100 425 100 6583 100
Against (Type of publication)
2005/6 %age 2004/5 %age 1988/2005 %age 2005/6 2004/5 88/05
Metropolitan newspapers 171 40.7 210 49.4 3200 48.6 Regional daily newspapers 87 20.7 75 17.6 887 13.5 Country newspapers 51 12.2 25 5.9 658 10 Suburban newspapers 29 6.9 40 9.4 513 7.8 National newspapers 39 9.3 33 7.8 441 6.7 Magazines (general interest) 22 5.2 21 4.9 383 5.8 Ethnic community press 5 1.2 3 0.7) ) 223 3.4 Special interest publications 6 1.4 5 1.2) Rural publications 1 0.3 0 - 13 0.2 Non-specific; other 9 2.1 13 3.1 265 48/
Total 420 100 425 100 6583 100
* Until 1994/5, the ethnic press and special interest publications were considered as one group for statistical purposes. They are now considered separately.
48 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
Complaints were disposed of by Complaints stats 2005/6 %age 2004/5 %age 1988/2005 %age how disposed of 2005/6 2004/5 88/05 adjudications
Refused as inappropriate 62 14.7 64 14.5 920 14 Referred to other organisations 13 3.1 18 4.1 342 5.2 Withdrawn for legal action 29 6.9 19 4.3 298 4.5 Not followed up 35 8.3 48 10.8 1010 15.4 Withdrawn after correspondence 120 28.4 102 23.1 1342 20.4 Mediation 98 23.2 103 23.3 1280 19.5 By press release 0 - 0 - 9 0.1 By adjudication 611 14.5 882 19.9 13083 19.9 Other action 4 4 0 - 62 1
Total disposed of 422 100 442 100 6568 100
Carried forward to next period 49 51 51
NOTES FOR 2005-2006: 1. 23 upheld; 21 upheld in part; 17 dismissed; 0 other. NOTES FOR 2004-2005: 2. 19 upheld; 19 upheld in part; 47 dismissed; 3 other. NOTES FOR 1988-2005: 3. 378 upheld; 194 upheld in part; 710 dismissed; 26 other
Adjudications 2005/6 %age 2004/5 %age 1988/2005 %age 2005/6 2004/5 88/05
Complaints upheld 8 26.7 9 18.7 234 25.8 Complaints upheld in part 9 30 10 20.9 135 14.3 Upheld in whole or part 17 56.7 19 39.6 369 40.1 Complaints dismissed 13 43.3 26 54.2 528 57.4 Neither upheld nor dismissed 0 - 3 6.2 23 2.5
Number of adjudications 30 100 48 100 920 100
Note: The Council issued 30 adjudications which dealt with 61 separate complaints as noted immediately above. Some of these adjudications dealt with complaints from more than one party about the same material and, in some cases, one complainant made complaints about two or more newspapers and these were dealt with by the Council in the one adjudication. A third case is where an adjudication dealt with two separate complaints (say, invasion of privacy and offensive coverage) in the same determination.
49 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
Jack R Herman & Deborah Kirkman Complaints not adjudicated
On page 25, in discussing adjudications, this report noted a small percentage of complaints, only 14.5 per cent, progressed through the complaints procedures (published in the Council’s information booklet, Objects, Principles and Complaints Procedure, available from the office and posted on the Council’s website at: http://www.presscouncil.org,au/pcsite/complaints/ process.html) to the adjudication stage in 2005-2006. This figure can be compared with previous years, in the table on page 46 of this report. Of the remaining complaints, some were refused, some referred to another body and others withdrawn for legal action. Details of the number in each category can be found in the statistics on page 49. 8.3 per cent of complainants did not follow-up a request from the Secretariat for more detail on their complaints. And then there are those complainants who were happy to let their complaint rest after receiving the publication’s response to the complaint and those whose complaints were conciliated either by the Council Secretariat or by a Public Member of the Council. 51.6 per cent of all complaints ended in this way - to the satisfaction of all parties.
While still a relatively low Offensive material number, the One area where there was an increasing number of complaints in 2005-2006, many of which number of have been settled without the need for an adjudication, is the area of allegedly offensive or complaints disparaging material. While still a relatively low number, the number of complaints about about offensive cartoons doubled. There were large increases in complaints about images and offensive articles that offended readers and in allegations that material disparaged or vilified an ethnic, cartoons or religious group. Many of the latter were not accepted by the Council’s secretariat. doubled. There were A number of the complaints arose from material clearly labelled as opinion, commentary or large analysis, rather than as news reports. Whether it comes in the form of editorials, opinion increases in articles or cartoons, the Council applies a different standard to commentary than it does to complaints news reporting (and seeks that publications clearly distinguish between the two). In about images Adjudication No 1257, the Council held: and articles In the Council’s view material clearly labelled as opinion has a wider licence than, for example, that offended news reports. However, this is not an unfettered licence and columnists are still bound by the ethical requirement that they not publish what they could reasonably know is false, nor fail to readers and in take reasonable steps to check the accuracy of what they report. This is especially the case allegations where there are no news reports on the same material in the newspaper. that material disparaged or It has since also decided that apart from a requirement for accuracy, there is additionally vilified an requirements that commentary does not lapse into the downright offensive nor rely on ethnic, or gratuitously racist material. religious As noted in last year’s annual report, and reiterated for emphaisis here: group. The Council recognises that there can be genuine concerns with some areas of reporting, and commentary, on ethnicity, religion or gender, particularly when individuals and groups are singled out unfairly for criticism or, indeed, abuse. The problem emerging is that, with so many claims of unfairness, it is getting harder to discern those where there is a real concern that, for example, a negative stereotype has been reinforced. The Council recognises that, where it is relevant to the story, or in the public interest, publications can allude to questions of race or religion or gender or sexual orientation. Its principles frown on gratuitous emphasis on such characteristics. The Council has frequently said that the best response to inaccurate or unfair material can often be the submission of a contrary view for publication, either by letter or follow-up article and frequently advises putative complainants first to take up the matter with the publication direct. It is increasingly apparent that publications are happy to discuss the publication of balancing material, especially when it responds to an opinion piece or a commentary on the news. The op/ed and letters pages are frequently used for this purpose, and one of the more common ways in which complaints are settled amicably is by the
50 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
publication of a letter or article. Complaints not adjudicated There were no adjudications this year arising from cartoons; there were two about offensive material (No. 1293, on page 26, and No. 1319 on page 43). There were three adjudications on allegations of racial or religious disparagement: No. 1304 (page 34), No. 1306 (page 35) and No. 1313 (page 39). That leaves 75 complaints in these categories dealt with by other means. Here are some examples of complaints about offensive material that were dealt with by means other than adjudication.
Reviews Reviews or discussions of pieces of art can lead to heated exchanges. A discussion of the film Brokeback Mountain in a regional community newspaper was based, according to the complainant, on “misinformation that has the potential to influence reader’s attitudes and opinions. [It] re-iterated the myths and misconceptions regarding gay and lesbian issues whilst possibly instilling homophobia, intolerance and discrimination ...!” The Council sought a settlement of the complaint and, in its next issue, the newspaper published the complainant’s letter in full, together with an editor’s note apologising for the original article. These actions redressed the complainant’s concerns.
All were Photographs happy to let A “Photo of the Week” in a country newspaper was seen by the complainant as of a man “lying the matter in shallow water at the seaside. His hands are behind his head, his legs apart, he is grinning rest, noting and appears to be naked. The photograph is not sharp enough to discern if he is totally naked, the but there is clearly some kind of object in his genital area”. In response to the compliant, the newspaper’s paper published a letter from another reader, together with an editor’s note that read “the prompt reader saw more in the picture than was actually there”. The complainant let the matter rest at that point, happy with publication of the letter. reaction to its readership’s A magazine published a photograph of a woman holding a gagged woman at knifepoint. The complainant, as a parent, found this unacceptable. The magazine was “displayed at child eye concerns, in level which was an unnecessary exposure to violence”. The magazine printed the complainant’s line with letter. The editor also apologised for the image, noting that it would be more careful in future Principle 6 of as to what it printed on the front cover. the Council’s During a recent inquest, a number of newspapers published a particular image that had been Statement of presented in court as part of the evidence. In all but one newspaper, the image was cropped to Principles preserve the privacy and sensibilities of the individual concerned. The exception was a daily that says that newspaper that printed the image uncropped but with a pixilation that implied more than was in when the image. There was an outcry from the readership and a dozen written complaints to the publishing Council, which took the matter up immediately with the newspaper. It published the next day a prominent editor’s note that said, among other things, that the newspaper “accepts that material that publication of the photograph in such a way was too confronting and upset many readers. The may offend newspaper apologises for this”. It also published a large number of readers’ letters critical of readers, the decision to publish the image in the way it did. When the Council forwarded the newspaper’s publications response to their complaints to the complainants, together with copies of the editor’s note and should note the letters, all were happy to let the matter rest, noting the newspaper’s prompt reaction to its that the readership’s concerns, in line with Principle 6 of the Council’s Statement of Principles that public says that when publishing material that may offend readers, publications should note that the public interest should be the criterion and, on occasion, explained editorially. interest should be the criterion and, Headlines on occasion, The use of the term “pom” in a headline led a complainant to suggest that a metropolitan daily explained is “either incapable of understanding or just doesn’t give a ‘rats’ that its anti-British ploy could editorially. rebound and affect non-racist law abiding Australians who may travel overseas, who could be addressed or referred to in uncomplimentary terms by locals on the same mental level as the editor”. In dealing with the use of terms for racial or religious groups in headlines, the Council has issued a guideline that says, the Council considers that the use of wide, too-general terms for religious or ethnic groups in headlines
51 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
Complaints not could contribute to the promotion of a negative stereotype of that group. adjudicated The Council’s view is that what needs to be avoided are offensive descriptors and the reinforcement of racial stereotypes. In this case, the term “pom” was used in a heading on an article that described the large number of British migrants living in the city in which the paper was published. The term was neither derogatory nor used in a way that promoted a negative stereotype. The Council refused the complaint. In a separate and more disturbing case, a sub-heading to article in a metropolitan newspaper unfairly linked followers of a particular religion with acts of violence. The complainant believed the headline could incite religious and ethnic intolerance. He submitted a letter for publication. The Executive Secretary took the view that the paper had, prima facie, failed to abide by the guideline on the use of unmodified religious terms in headlines. The paper agreed, and published a ninety-word clarification. This satisfied the complainant.
Cartoons A national newspaper published a political cartoon intended as a response to an anti-Australian cartoon published in an Indonesian newspaper. The complainant was offended by the cartoon’s “graphically depicting homosexual bestiality and religious racism”. The secretariat sent the complainant past adjudications in which the Council outlines its attitude to cartoons. In them The Council the Council states that it believes cartoonists should have a wide licence to comment on the states that it day’s events, and that the use of exaggeration, caricature and humour to express those opinions believes are ethically legitimate. It was suggested to the complainant that he submit a letter to the cartoonists paper as a contrary view for publication. As the newspaper published a number of letters for should have a and against the cartoon and the issues were discussed in the newspaper’s news pages, the Council did not accept the matter for processing as a complaint. wide licence to comment on the day’s Illustrations events, and An illustration accompanying an article about federal politicians was based on religious that the use symbolism used by a particular religion. The complainant, a religious organization, believed of the illustrator “displayed his ignorance and at the same time insulted” the religion’s Deity. The exaggeration, paper responded that it had “no desire to cause offence, nor was there an intent to poke fun at caricature the religion or to desecrate or insult the image of the Deity”. It added that it recognised that freedom of speech and expression are not absolute and “must be tempered with a sense of and humour responsibility, but in this case it did not believe publication overstepped the mark”. The secretariat to express advised the complainant the best solution in this case was the submission of a letter to the those editor taking issue with the use of its religious symbol in this way. opinions are ethically legitimate. It Opinion columns was The complainant was a representative of the Islamic community and claimed that it had been suggested to vilified in a number of opinion columns published in a metropolitan newspaper in the weeks the after the disturbances at Cronulla and their aftermath. He cited a number of inaccuracies and distortions and pointed to a gratuitous emphasis on race and religion. The complainant submitted complainant a balancing article that he hoped could be published in the opinion pages of the paper. The that he paper declined to publish the complainant’s article. It did, however, publish a correction of one submit a piece of information it agreed was incorrect, together with letters critical of the opinion pieces. letter to the The parties also met at a formal mediation. The complainant asked if it was possible that the paper as a view of his community be published in a letter to the editor. The paper agreed to the request. contrary view The letter was subsequently published. for publication. Conciliated complaints A number of the complainants mediated successfully by the secretariat or by a Public Member of the Council, and the sorts of settlements arrived at, are outlined in each edition of the APC News, and these are published on the Council’s website.
52 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
Jack R Herman Changes in Principles and Procedures Executive Secretary There were a number of changes to the principles and the complaints procedures during the year, largely arising from discussions at the Planning Day in September 2005.
Principle 5 Arising from a Planning Day discussion, the Council has amended its Principle 5. The principle previously read: A publication is justified in strongly advocating its own views on controversial topics provided that it treats its readers fairly by • making fact and opinion clearly distinguishable; • not misrepresenting or suppressing relevant facts; • not distorting the facts in text, headlines, pictures, billboards or posters; • disclosing any commercial or other interest which might be construed influencing the publication’s presentation of news or opinion. The amended version, now adopted by the Council, which will be the principle to be applied in the future, reads: Publications are free to advocate their own views and publish the views of others on controversial topics, as long as readers are readily able to recognise what is fact and what is opinion. Relevant facts should not be misrepresented or suppressed, headlines and captions should fairly reflect the tenor of an article and readers should be advised of any manipulation of images and potential conflicts of interest. It will also press Procedures publications Among other decisions arising from Planning Day discussions, the Council agreed to alter for more the time limit on complaints to 60 days from first publication and to amend its complaints timely form. From its inception the Council has had a three-month limit (which it waives in responses to exceptional cases) within which complaints need to be lodged with the Council. Given its complaints, greater emphasis on the settlement of complaints, and taking the view that the sooner matters noting that its are amicably mediated, the better it is for complainants, the Council is of the view that this time limit on limit can, in normal circumstances, be reduced to 60 days. responses from either It will also press publications for more timely responses to complaints, noting that its time party is now limit on responses from either party is now two weeks, unless an extension is agreed to. two weeks, Other changes include limiting the length of submissions in complaints and of adjudications unless an Once the complaint has been lodged, the Executive Secretary has been instructed to ensure extension is a two-week turnaround of documents (from both the complainant and the publication) in agreed to. most circumstances. This means that he will be setting time limits for a response to a complaint, or to any other correspondence, and that, where an extension of time is needed in special cases, the Council must receive such advice within the time limit. The two-week limit also applies to letters asking the parties whether they want, or will agree to, mediation. Failure of a complainant to meet the timetable without good reason will mean that the complaint will be considered withdrawn; failure of a publication to respond in due time will mean that the complainant will have the option of referring the complaint direct to the Council, without the publication having the benefit of a response. Additionally, the Council is seeking that complainants lodge succinct complaints, centred on the main thrust of the complaint and that extraneous material is excluded. The Executive Secretary has been given a greater discretion to seek the re-lodging of complaints that do not meet these criteria. He has also been instructed not to allow the correspondence to continue past the point where both parties have had the opportunity to respond to the other.
53 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
Changes in The Council will review the pending complaints list regularly to ensure that ‘old’ complaints principles/process are cleared up quickly. While noting that publications have been meticulous in observing the Council’s requirement that all complaints dealing with them be publish promptly and will appropriate prominence, to facilitate publication of the complete finding, in the Council’s own words, it has also decided that adjudications should be more concise, with an outer limit of 350 words, and then only in the most complicated cases. Findings will concentrate more on the adjudication and the reasons for it and less on a reiteration of the complaint and the defence. A couple of major changes have been made in the complaint form. First, the introductory paragraphs have been extended to clarify what complaints can be received and to note the existence of a guide to completing the form. This guide will answer many frequently asked questions about how to lodge a complaint and what material to enclose with it. Secondly, the form has been re-ordered to put emphasis on the fact that the Council wants the complainant to outline the main thrust of the complaint in 400 words or fewer. The form is a formality that enables the Council (and the publications cited) better to understand the complaint and what redress the complainant is seeking. The Council’s objective is to get the complainant to more concisely summarise what it is that has led to the complaint. In particular, where a publication The Executive Secretary’s discretion has printed material that The Council and the Constituent Bodies have also agreed to changes in the way the Executive in his Secretary will handle complaints when first received. These changes will give a greater experience is discretion to the Executive Secretary to seek more actively the prompt redress of complaints very likely to and to advise publications on the placement of such material the better to achieve a settlement lead to a of a complaint. complaint The key decisions emphasised the need for prompt resolution of complaints, including a that will be more active role for the Executive Secretary. In particular, where a publication has printed upheld, the material that in his experience is very likely to lead to a complaint that will be upheld, the Executive Executive Secretary has been requested to take the initiative to advise the publication on Secretary has prompt redress initiatives that it should consider, ahead of a formal handling of the complaint. been Of course, the Council believes that the commitment to accuracy, to authoritative reporting, requested to which ought to be a hallmark of all publications, should often lead to the paper itself taking take the the initiative. But where there remains a possibility of an early and amicable settlement of initiative to the matter by the publication of additional material, or by other means, the Executive Secretary advise the will contact the editor (or the publication’s designated representative) to discuss the publication on possibilities of such a settlement. prompt Publications are aware that the possibilities for resolving problems are not limited to the redress offer to publish a letter, but might include measures such as a balancing article, a correction initiatives notice, a published explanation, or formal mediation. As part of his interaction the Executive that it should Secretary has been requested to suggest appropriate placement and the prominence of any consider, ahead of a published responses and to negotiate with editors about them. formal handling of the New booklet complaint. The revised complaints procedures, complaint form and guide to the completion of the form have been posted to the Council’s website and a newly reprinted information booklet, available on request from the Council’s office, printed.
54 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
Guidelines Changes in principles/process The Council issues guidelines from time to time. These are, in essence, amplifications on particular issues arising from the Council’s Statement of Principles. The guidelines apply the Principles to the practice of reporting and are intended to guide the press on how it should report certain matters. These guidelines are not intended to be prescriptive instructions to the press but act as a series of advisories on the application of the Principles that the Council seeks the co-operation of editors in maintaining. A list of the extant guidelines (and links to them) can be found on the Council’s website at http://www.presscouncil.org.au/ pcsite/activities/gprguide.html. No alterations to current guidelines were made in 20005-2006, nor any new guidelines issued.
The current Statement of Principles follows, together with the Privacy Standards for the Print Media and a summary of the Council’s Complaints Procedures. The principles are posted on the Council’s website at: http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/complaints/sop.html the Standards are at: http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/complaints/priv_stand.html and the Complaints Procedures are at: http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/complaints/process.html
55 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
Statement of Principles
To help the public and the press, the Australian Press Council has laid down the broad principles to which it is committed. First, the freedom of the press to publish is the freedom of the people to be informed. This is the justification for upholding press freedom as an essential feature of a democratic society. This freedom, won in centuries of struggle against political and commercial interests, includes the right of a newspaper to publish what it reasonably considers to be news, without fear or favour, and the right to comment fairly upon it. Second, the freedom of the press is important more because of the obligation it entails towards the people than because of the rights it gives to the press. Freedom of the press carries with it an equivalent responsibility to the public. Liberty does not mean licence. Thus, in dealing with complaints, the Council will give first and dominant consideration to what it perceives to be in the public interest. The Council does not lay down rules by which publications should govern themselves. However, in considering complaints, the Council will have regard to these general principles. 1. Newspapers and magazines (“publications”) should not publish what they know or could reasonably be expected to know is false, or fail to take reasonable steps to check the accuracy of what they report. 2. A publication should make amends for publishing information that is found to be harmfully inaccurate by printing, promptly and with appropriate prominence, such retraction, correction, explanation or apology as will neutralise the damage so far as possible. 3. Readers of publications are entitled to have news and comment presented to them honestly and fairly, and with respect for the privacy and sensibilities of individuals. However, the right to privacy should not prevent publication of matters of public record or obvious or significant public interest. Rumour and unconfirmed reports, if published at all, should be identified as such. 4. News obtained by dishonest or unfair means, or the publication of which would involve a breach of confidence, should not be published unless there is an over-riding public interest. 5. Publications are free to advocate their own views and publish the views of others on controversial topics, as long as readers are readily able to recognise what is fact and what is opinion. Relevant facts should not be misrepresented or suppressed, headlines and captions should fairly reflect the tenor of an article and readers should be advised of any manipulation of images and potential conflicts of interest. 6. Publications have a wide discretion in publishing material, but they should have regard for the sensibilities of their readers, particularly when the material, such as photographs, could reasonably be expected to cause offence. Public interest should be the criterion and, on occasion, explained editorially. 7. 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. Nevertheless, where it is relevant and in the public interest, publications may report and express opinions in these areas. 8. Where individuals or groups are singled out for criticism, the publication should ensure fairness and balance in the original article. Failing that, it should provide a reasonable and swift opportunity for a balancing response in the appropriate section of the publication. 9. Where the Council issues an adjudication, the publication concerned should prominently print the adjudication. The Council strives to ensure that its adjudications on complaints reflect both the conscience of the press and the legitimate expectations of the public. Note: For the purposes of these principles, ‘public interest’ is defined as involving a matter capable of affecting the people at large so they might be legitimately interested in, or concerned about, what is going on, or what may happen to them or to others.
56 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
Print Media Privacy Standards
Underlying Principles Principle 3 of the Press Council’s Statement of Principles states, with respect to privacy: Readers of publications are entitled to have news and comment presented to them honestly and fairly, and with respect for the privacy and sensibilities of individuals. However, the right to privacy should not prevent publication of matters of public record or obvious or significant public interest. The need to balance respect for privacy with standards that recognise freedom of speech and of the press is recognised by the Privacy Act 1988. The Privacy Act provides an exemption for acts done or practices engaged in by a media organisation in the course of journalism, if the media organisation is publicly committed to observing standards that deal with privacy in the context of the activities of a media organisation, and those standards have been published in writing either by the organisation or a body representing a class of media organisations. These Standards deal with privacy in the context of the activities of media organisations. They elaborate on the Press Council’s Statement of Principles, and are published by the Press Council for the purposes of the Privacy Act exemption.
Application of these Standards These Standards apply to ‘personal information’, which is information or an opinion (including forming part of a database) whether true or not, and whether recorded in a material form or not, about an individual whose identity is apparent or can reasonably be ascertained from the information. These Standards also recognise, as does the Privacy Act, that the media have a duty to inform the public on matters of significant public interest. For the purposes of these Standards, ‘public interest’ is defined as involving a matter capable of affecting the people at large so they might be legitimately interested in, or concerned about, what is going on, or what may happen to them or to others. The media organisations, and the relevant publications, which are committed to these Standards are listed in the Schedule found on the Council’s website.
1. Collection of personal information In gathering news, journalists should seek personal information only in the public interest. In doing so, journalists should not unduly intrude on the privacy of individuals and should show respect for the dignity and sensitivity of people encountered in the course of gathering news. In accordance with Principle 4 of the Council’s Statement of Principles, news obtained by unfair or dishonest means should not be published unless there is an overriding public interest. Generally, journalists should identify themselves as such. However, journalists and photographers may at times need to operate surreptitiously to expose crime, significantly anti-social conduct, public deception or some other matter in the public interest. Public figures necessarily sacrifice their right to privacy, where public scrutiny is in the public interest. However, public figures do not forfeit their right to privacy altogether. Intrusion into their right to privacy must be related to their public duties or activities.
2. Use and disclosure of personal information Personal information gathered by journalists and photographers should only be used for the purpose for which it was intended. A person who supplies personal information should have a reasonable expectation that it will be used for the purpose for which it was collected. Some personal information, such as addresses or other identifying details, may enable others to intrude on the privacy and safety of individuals who are the subject of news coverage, and their families. To the extent lawful and practicable, a media organisation should only disclose sufficient personal information to identify the persons being reported in the news, so that these risks can be reasonably avoided. 57 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
Privacy standards 3. Quality of personal information A media organisation should take reasonable steps to ensure that the personal information it collects is accurate, complete and up-to-date.
4. Security of personal information A media organisation should take reasonable steps to ensure that the personal information it holds is protected from misuse, loss, or unauthorised access.
5. Anonymity of sources All persons who provide information to media organisations are entitled to seek anonymity. The identity of confidential sources should not be revealed, and where it is lawful and practicable, a media organisation should ensure that any personal information which it maintains derived from such sources does not identify the source.
6. Correction, fairness and balance In accordance with Principle 8 of the Council’s Statement of Principles, where individuals are singled out for criticism, the publication should ensure fairness and balance in the original article. Failing that, the media organisation should provide a reasonable and swift opportunity for a balancing response in the appropriate section of the publication. A media organisation should make amends for publishing any personal information that is found to be harmfully inaccurate, in accordance with Principle 2 of the Council’s Statement of Principles. The media organisation should also take steps to correct any of its records containing that personal information, so as to avoid a harmful inaccuracy being repeated.
7. Sensitive personal information In accordance with Principle 7 of the Council’s Statement of Principles, media organisations should not place any gratuitous emphasis on the categories of sensitive personal information listed in Principle 7, except where it is relevant and in the public interest to report and express opinions in these areas. Members of the public caught up in newsworthy events should not be exploited. A victim or bereaved person has the right to refuse or terminate an interview or photographic session at any time. Unless otherwise restricted by law or court order, open court hearings are matters of public record and can be reported by the press. Such reports need to be fair and balanced. They should not identify relatives or friends of people accused or convicted of crime unless the reference to them is necessary for the full, fair and accurate reporting of the crime or subsequent legal proceedings.
8. Complaints The Council will receive and deal with complaints from person or persons affected about possible breaches of these Standards in the same way as it receives and deals with complaints about possible breaches of its Statement of Principles. Where the Council issues an adjudication in relation to these Standards, the publication concerned must prominently print the adjudication.
These procedures apply to those media organisations listed in the Schedule on the Council’s website.
58 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
Complaints Procedure
If you have a complaint against a newspaper or periodical or the news reporting on a website of a Council member, which appears to have breached the Council's Statement of Principles or the code of privacy standards, you should first take it up with the editor or other senior representative of the publication concerned. If the complaint is not resolved to your satisfaction, and it involves the editorial or article sections of a periodical or website (and does not deal with advertising or the commercial operations of the publication), you may refer it to the Australian Press Council. A complaint must be specific, in writing, and accompanied by a cutting, hardcopy print, clear photostat or html attachment of the matter complained of, with supporting documents or evidence, if any. Complaints must be lodged within 60 days of publication. The Council provides a complaint form for complainants to use. The Council asks that complainants summarise the main thrust of their complaints in about 300 words, and then supply other supporting material that will assist the Council in understanding all their concerns. The Council will not hear a complaint subject to legal action or possible legal action, unless the complainant is willing to sign a waiver of the right to such action. On receipt of the complaint, the Council secretariat will first try to arrange an amicable settlement of the matter. Over 40 per cent of complaints are settled in this way at an early stage of the process. If such a settlement is not possible, and the complaint is accepted, a formal response from the publication will be sought and sent to the complainant. If not satisfied by the response, the complainant can, with the agreement of the newspaper, seek a conciliation hearing conducted by a Public Member of the Council or can immediately refer the matter to the Press Council for adjudication. If a matter is sent to the Council, the complainant and publication have the option of attending a hearing of the Complaints Committee which makes a recommendation to the Council on the matter. The Complaints Committee consists of seven members of the Council, with a majority of public members (including the Chairman). The recently revised and reprinted guidelines on the complaints procedures are available in the form of a booklet and on the Council’s website. They include information on the Council’s preference that lawyers not be involved and on the very limited situations in which the Council will consider appeals. The procedures were rewritten in July 2002 to enforce shorter response times and a few other matters, such as the Council's oversight of its members' news reporting websites. They are currently being reviewed again, followig the Council’s 2005 Planning Day.
Address complaints or inquiries to: The Executive Secretary The Australian Press Council Suite 10.02, 117 York Street SYDNEY NSW 2000 For information or advice telephone (02) 9261 1930; callers from outside Sydney can ring on Free Call (1800) 025 712.
Information and advice is also available via the Internet. The Council’s website is at http://www.presscouncil.org.au
The Council’s email addresses are: [email protected] or [email protected]
The booklet, Objects, Principles and Complaints Procedures, which also sets out the Privacy Standards for the Print Media, is available free from the office or through the website, where it is posted as a pdf.
59 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
Jack R Herman Executive Secretary Other Council activities Administration and activities
Administration The day-to-day affairs of the Council are handled by the Secretariat. This is headed by the Executive Secretary who is responsible to the Council and, between meetings, to the Chairman. The current Executive Secretary is Jack Herman who has been in the position since April 1994. He is assisted by Deborah Kirkman, the Office Manager, who handles many aspects of the complaints process, including some conciliation work. This year Deb again co-ordinated the Council’s Case Studies Seminars, both at universities and with newspaper companies, and is the office’s representative on the Council’s Promotions Committee. A third member of the current full-time team is Helen Tyreman. She is the Council’s receptionist as well as Assistant to the Executive Secretary and is likely to be the first point of contact in the office for most inquiries. This year, Helen has taken greater This year the responsibility for a range of the Council’s public activities. The Council employs a part-time Council Policy Officer, Inez Ryan, who works four days a week. Inez is primarily a researcher in celebrates its areas of media law and freedom of speech issues, as well as ethical issues pertaining to the thirtieth news media. Inez also acts as the administrative aide to the Council’s Policy Development anniversary. Committee. The Executive Secretary again acknowledges the contribution made by the Formed in Council’s staff to the success of the Council’s operations. July 1976, by The Council office tries speedily to deal with inquiries from students. It receives many of an agreement these a week and makes its Library available to those who can get into the Sydney office. between the The Council’s Internet site has facilitated easier access to information for many students and publishers it is to this site that most are now directed in the first place. and the then Australian This year the Council celebrates its thirtieth anniversary. Formed in July 1976, by an agreement Journalists between the publishers and the then Australian Journalists Association, the Council has always Association, had a mixture of industry representatives, journalists (originally elected by the AJA) and the Council members of the public. When the AJA left the Council in 1986, it reconstituted, with journalists has always represented by independent and freelance journalists and retired editors. The MEAA (the had a mixture union that includes the old AJA) re-affiliated in 2005 and again nominates members to the of industry Council. At the time of writing, as it ends its thirtieth year, the Council has formally dealt representatives, with 9,751 formal complaints, of which 3,808 have been mediated or otherwise settled to journalists the satisfaction of the complainant. It has adjudicated 1,881 of the complaints, issuing 1,321 (originally adjudications, of which over 42 per cent have upheld the complaint in whole or part. elected by the Additionally it has sent out 271 press releases or reporting guidelines, published 30 annual AJA) and reports and 74 issues of the APC News. Its website has close to 1,200 separate files, searchable members of by keyword. It does all this from one office with 3 full-time and one permanent part-time the public. employees. Not bad for an organisation that was never going to last.
Complaints against the Press Council In its thirty years, the Council has not had any of its decisions challenged in the courts. In the 1990s, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission rejected a complaint of racism brought against the Press Council by a complainant who alleged that his complaint was rejected unfairly. The commission rejected the matter without seeking a response from the Council. In May 2005, the HREOC received another such complaint from a complainant who alleged that the Council had discriminated against her on the basis of her ethnicity. In this case it 60 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
sought the Council’s response to the allegation, which was promptly provided. In February Admin and 2006 the commission advised that the complaint was not to be proceeded with and in May activities 2006 that the matter had been finalised by the commission, which was taking no further action on the complaint. At the time of the writing of this report, the Unity Party of Western Australia had written to the HREOC registering a complaint about the rejection of a concern it had raised with the Council. It also alleges that the rejection was unfair and based on racist motives. The Council has defended itself against such accusations when they have been lodged. It does reject complaints (see Complaints Not Adjudicated on page 50) but does so, not on the basis of who the complainant is, but on the basis of whether an a priori breach of the Council’s principles has been established.
The Internet Site The Council maintains a website (http://www.presscouncil.org.au) primarily as an information site, although it also allows for the submission of on-line complaints direct to the Council. The recently added search facility and improved navigation have made the site much more accessible and informative. A members-only area of the site has been developed for internal debates and discussions. The site is now searchable by keyword.
Council Meetings The Council held seven Council meetings in Sydney in 2005-2006 and one meeting in Townsville. The Press Council held its meetings in Townsville on 4 and 5 May 2006. While in the city, the Council conducted a case studies seminar with students at James Cook University and hosted with the Townsville City Council a civic reception for local community leaders, including representatives of the local print media. The reception enabled the Council to promote its services and enabled the locals to know better how the Council can assist them if they have a complaint about the print media. Additionally, while there, the Chairman of the Australian Press Council, Professor Ken McKinnon, convened a Media Conference on 3 May, World Press Freedom Day. Professor McKinnon marked the occasion by offering some remarks on the current state of press freedom in Australia, in particular how well the state of Queensland is meeting its obligations in making available information on matters of public interest and concern and responded to questions on a wide range of issues. Professor McKinnon’s remarks were contained in General Press release No. 271 (on page 68). At its September meetings, the Council held its triennial Planning Day. This is a chance for the entire Council, including alternates to get together to review polices and procedures and to consider longer-term strategies for its complaints review and free speech activities. As was the case in previous Planning Days, the sessions resulted in a large number of suggestions that were dealt with by the Council. A number of these outcomes are discussed in Changes to Principles and Procedures on page 53.
Sponsored meetings i. DART The Council agreed to sponsor a DART Centre for Journalism and Trauma project to coincide with the tenth anniversary of the Port Arthur shootings. The Centre was seeking subsidy for the costs of bringing Joe Hight, editor of The Oklahoman, to Australia, for his accommodation here, and for other expenses. Mr Hight was closely involved in the initial award-winning coverage of the Oklahoma bombing as well as its recent tenth anniversary. He is president of the US chapter of DART. The Council’s Public member from Tasmania, Cheryl Attenborough, assisted the Centre with the Hobart end of the project, a seminar to discuss how the media should report the anniversary. 61 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
Admin and The Hobart seminar was held in March 2006. In addition to Mr Hight, local journalists and activities academics addressed the seminar. The Council was represented by its Vice Chairman, Professor HP Lee, who provided a summary of the issues at the end of the seminar, Ms Attenborough, Sharon Hill, an industry representative, and Office Manager Deborah Kirkman. In addition to the Hobart seminar, the Council organised events for Mr Hight in Sydney and Brisbane, where he visited newsrooms and addressed seminars at universities. In Brisbane he met with senior staff at Queensland Newspapers and attended a seminar organised by QUT. In Sydney, he discussed the relevant issues with editors at News Limited and at John Fairfax Publications. A seminar at UTS was organised by journalist member of the Council Sandra Symons, and was attended by students from UWS and the University of Sydney as well as those from UTS. Mr Hight also attended the Council’s March meeting. Mr Hight outlined some of the issues that arose from the reporting of the Oklahoma City bombing and then from the reporting of events to mark the tenth anniversary of that event. He drew comparisons with the Port Arthur incident, the tenth anniversary of which was in April 2006, and noted that his visit was in part to alert Australian media to the traps and pitfalls he’d discovered in the coverage of his local activities. There was a fruitful discussion between Mr Hight and the Council on the issues of trauma and journalism and the ways in which the anniversaries of tragic events should be covered. The visit was regarded as a success and the seminars worthwhile, although there was a small attendance in Hobart due to the state election being held the same day. ii. Lexis-Nexis Defamation conferences The Press Council was a sponsor of the LexisNexis Defamation Conferences that discussed changes to defamation law resulting from the commencement of the new uniform legislation. Other issues to be discussed at the conference included recent cases, the relationship between defamation and the Internet, and the developing tort of privacy. The conferences were held in Sydney on 5 April, in Melbourne on 11 April and in Brisbane on 12 July.
Other meetings The Chairman and Executive Secretary met with a delegation representing the General Administration of Press and Publication of the People’s Republic of China. The delegation leader is the Director General of Human Resources for the GAPP. They discussed the Council’s role and the differences between the press law and practices in China and Australia. In addition to the DART seminar above, the Council’s Vice Chairman Professor HP Lee attended Media and Communications Law Conference in Melbourne held on 1 and 2 December. The Executive Secretary: • spoke with the Joint Standing Committee on Community Development of the Tasmanian parliament on its inquiry into suicide prevention, particularly in relation to its reference on “the role of the media in suicide prevention”. • addressed a delegation from the China Press and Publishing Disciplinary Directorate at UTS on 1 September 2005. The Directorate is a national body, with regional offices, that manages complaints and corruption issues in the government-owned press industry in the PRC. He talked about “Discipline and regulation of the press in Australia: the role of the Press Council”. • spoke at a forum between medicos and the press on reporting of medical breakthroughs at Newcastle Uni on 28 October, organised largely by staff at the website, mediadoctor.org.au, where discussion centred on the issuing of prescriptive guidelines on reporting such matters, and a decision was made that such guidelines were not required at this time. • participated in two ‘industry forums’ on the last day of the Journalism Education Association’s 2005 conference on the Gold Coast. The forums dealt with, respectively, reporting difficult issues and industry futures. • took part in a public meeting on anti-terrorism legislation organised by the NSW Writers’
62 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
Centre, as well as conducting interviews with the Glebe and Inner Western Weekly and Admin and 2SER on the issues arising from the meeting; activities • attended the launch of the NSW Law Journal forum edition on freedom of speech, in which he has written an article on the main impediments to freedom of the press in Australia; • met with eighteen students from Pacific Lutheran University of Tacoma, Washington, who visited the Council on 19 January. The students were in Australia as a part of the international component of their tertiary journalism studies. He also met with • David Solomon, contributing editor of The Courier-Mail, as a part of his feature on the Media, one of a number of articles in his series on Australian institutions; • Joseph Fernandez on his Ph.D. thesis on defamation dealing with the truth defence and its utility; • Gino Vumbaca, the Executive Officer of the Australian National Council on Drugs, which has been conducting a consultation, centred in the University of Canberra, on whether prescriptive guidelines on the reporting of drug and alcohol issues are required; • Zafar Sobhan, assistant editor of the Daily Star, Dhaka, who visited the Council on 30 May. His particular interest is opinion columns and how they are treated ethically in Australia, as opposed to his native Bangladesh.
Articles Professor Ken McKinnon wrote an op/ed article on the sedition laws for the Herald Sun, Melbourne, and it was published on 16 November. Other articles published on behalf of the Council included: • an FoI paper published in Australian Journalism Review, Volume 27 (1), July 2005 (written by Jack Herman) • a commentary on the media doctor website in The Medical Journal of Australia, Volume 183 Number 4, 15 August 2005 (John Morgan and Jack Herman) • an article on the main impediments to freedom of the press in Australia published in the University of NSW Law Journal Volume 28 (3), 2005, and in the Forum Volume 11(2) 2005 (Jack Herman)
Promotions Committee In another decision arising out of a Planning Day discussion, the Council agreed to re- constitute the Promotions Committee with these terms of reference: • To create a greater awareness of the existence of the Australian Press Council among the print media industry, senior Government officials and the government and corporate sectors, as well as the general public within Australia. • To promote the existence of the Australian Press Council without overlap on the role/s of the Policy Development Committee. • To promote the discussion of press freedom (and all related) issues. It agreed to a committee of at least 3 with representation across the various categories of Council membership and power to co-opt other members from time to time. It then appointed an initial committee: Lisa Scaffidi (convenor), Gene Swinstead, Adrian McGregor and Francesca Beddie, with Deb Kirkman co-opted to act as the in-office liaison. The committee has been working on a number of ideas: • An education section on the Council’s website aimed at senior high school teachers and students, with an emphasis on material suitable for media studies classes. • Members volunteering to speak about the Council and its activities at service club meetings in their local area, with Rotary to be used as a test case. If successful, the program will be expanded to include other organisations. • The March 2007 meeting to be held in Perth with a public address and drinks after. Negotiations to be started with the City of Perth and possible guest speakers. 63 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
Admin and • The 2007 Annual Address, on the question of Convergence, to be held in Sydney in May with activities a prominent media manager as guest speaker.
Annual Address 2006 The Council’s 2006 Annual Address was held in Sydney on 23 March 2006. Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty delivered the address at a lunch at the Swissotel. Commissioner Keelty’s speech, Between the lines: New powers and accountability for police and the media, addressed some of the contemporary issues for the police and for the press arising from recent anti-terrorism laws and other recent developments. General Press Release No. 270 (see page 67) was released the day before the speech, which attracted wide media interest. A report on the speech and of some remarks in response offered by Council Chairman, Professor Ken McKinnon, was published in the May 2006 issue of the News. The full speech, together with the complete response, is available on the Council’s website.
Press Council Research Grant The Council again met with researchers from tertiary institutions in 2005, on 22 August. At this meeting it was decided that, instead of a one-off research grant, the money allocated for this would be spent on original research as a part of the State of the Print Media Report project.
Editors’ forums In late 2005, the Chairman met with editors in Perth and Adelaide. The Executive Secretary accompanied the Chairman on the Adelaide visit. In addition to the editors, the Chairman also met with the Attorneys-General and shadow Attorneys-General in both Adelaide and Perth. Both Attorneys discussed progress towards the passage of uniform defamation laws. South Australia’s Attorney indicated little sympathy for the need for increased protection of journalists’ confidential sources, while the shadow Attorney-General indicated that suppression may be an issue in the forthcoming state election. Among the issues raised with both editors and the politicians were access to police radio and heavy media management of news items by police. Of special interest were allegations of police intimidation of editors and journalists, in particular instances where police have made threats if publication of certain articles proceeded. The Chairman also met with the acting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of WA to discuss access to court transcripts. South Australia’s Chief Justice was on leave and therefore unavailable to meet with the Council. The Council, following Planning Day, has again taken up the question of the utility of such meetings and whether the liaison could be effected by a regular report on Council activities and free press issues, aimed specifically at editors. The Policy Development Committee is looking at these and other proposals on the Chairman’s visits.
Case Studies The Council once again organised case studies seminars at a number of Australian universities and in a number of newsrooms. Most of the latter were aimed particularly at younger journalists and those undergoing training within the organisation. With regard to the universities, the Council again gave preference to those classes that dealt specifically with journalism ethics or with students specialising in print journalism. Most seminars were presented by Council members from the local area. Examples of some case studies are available on the Press Council website (http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/studies.html). Prize
64 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
The Council discontinued the essay competition in 2005 and, instead, liaised with university Admin and journalism faculties and departments to provide a series of prizes for outstanding course- activities ... work within those faculties. Fourteen universities took up the Council’s offer for such prizes, GPRs to be presented either for specifically set essays or for performance in coursework in subjects 267 related to the ethics of journalism. In 2005-2006, prizes to the value of $350 have been offered to, or awarded at: The University of Queensland, Sunshine Coast University, University of Southern Queensland, The J-School, Bond University, the Queensland University of Technology, University of Sydney, University of Western Sydney, University of Technology Sydney, Charles Sturt University, Newcastle University, Edith Cowan University, Curtin University and the University of Canberra
Publications The Australian Press Council continued to publish and distribute: • a quarterly Australian Press Council News, with articles of interest to the press and reports on the Council’s activities; and • an Annual Report A full list of the available publications follows on page 70. Press Council publications are now sent by email to those who ask for delivery in that form. If you want the News and Annual Report sent direct to you (in pdf format), please send an email to [email protected] with subject line News by email and you will be placed on the direct email list. The News is also provided to the Informit on-line publication site at RMIT for posting, as a part of its service. Informit has also made available back issues of the News.
General Press Releases The Press Council issues press releases from time to time. Some are guideline statements on reporting. There were five releases issued in 2005-2006; they cover a range of matters of relevance to the Council. Over the years the Council has used press releases to issue guidelines on reporting. There were no new guidelines this year. All extant reporting guidelines are posted on the Council’s website. Courts are accountable General Press Releases 2005-2006 and transparent through the Access to court transcripts conduct of General Press Release No. 267 (July 2005) proceedings The Australian Press Council is deeply concerned by the decision of the Acting Principal in public. It is Registrar of the Western Australia Supreme Court to refuse access to the transcripts of a trial inconsistent sought by The Australian newspaper. with these Courts are accountable and transparent through the conduct of proceedings in public. It is principles for inconsistent with these principles for the transcripts to be withheld. The trial’s proceedings the transcripts to in this case were not conducted in camera and it is hard to understand the justification for be withheld. claiming confidentiality regarding the transcripts. A recent complaint to the Press Council from an officer of the WA Supreme Court has demonstrated how the courts expect newspapers to report court proceedings accurately and fairly. It is imperative that the courts play their part and assist by providing newspapers with access to transcripts of open proceedings.
65 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
GPRs Journalistic jeopardy unwarranted 268/269 General Press Release No. 268 (October 2005) The Chairman of the Australian Press Council, Professor Ken McKinnon, said today that the decision to proceed with charging two journalists, Michael Harvey and Gerard McManus, with contempt was very regrettable. Even though, technically, a Victorian judge has laid the charges, they are a direct result of the Commonwealth government’s pursuit of the journalists. “The federal Attorney-General appears now to have backed away from the government’s pursuit of the journalists over their sources for a published story that severely embarrassed The charging his government, but the court tactics of his legal representatives left the judge with no of these alternative when the journalists refused to reveal the sources after being directed by him to journalists is do so. just another “It is the protection of the identity of confidential sources that leads journalists to risk jail example of rather than betray their trust,” said Professor McKinnon. “If unable to guarantee steps being confidentiality, journalists are less likely to the access the information that enables them to taken by the expose corruption, or even ineptness, in government. The ability of journalists to protect the governments confidentiality of their sources should be recognised in law.” to restrict the The Attorney-General’s action was no doubt designed to allow him to appear sympathetic ability of the to the journalists, but left the judge in an untenable position. It is the federal Attorney- press to General who ought to act now to clear up the situation. report on The charging of these journalists is just another example of steps being taken by the matters of public governments to restrict the ability of the press to report on matters of public interest and interest and concern. The Commonwealth government, by targeting the journalists who wrote the story, concern. The is making them the meat in the sandwich of attempts to intimidate public officials. Commonwealth The importance of information from confidential sources was demonstrated in Queensland government, in the late 1980s when officials cooperated with Four Corners and The Courier Mail in by targeting exposing corruption in that state. “Journalists should not be exposed to jail when performing the their key role of finding and reporting the full story of issues that will enable citizens to journalists assess the performance of elected representatives,” said Professor McKinnon. who wrote “Government spin is pervasive. Governments exploit a variety of mechanisms to shape the story, is public opinion, not all of them reasonable. Pernicious, unattributable background briefings making them and selective information ‘management’ are the tools of trade. But governments do not the meat in want journalists to go beyond the partial, official story. They often prevent media access to the sandwich information that ought rightfully to be in the public domain, as was the situation with the of attempts to story that put these journalists in jeopardy,” he added. intimidate “Freedom of Information laws, supposedly designed to enable access to material of public public concern, rarely help. Their intention is being frustrated by deliberate time delays, increased officials. costs and the use of conclusive certificates to bar access to material. Even anti-terrorism laws are being utilised these days as a means of censoring political commentary.” Professor McKinnon concluded, “The Harvey and McManus case doesn’t relate to a serious crime or a threat to national security. Their only real ‘crime’ is holding the government accountable to those who elected it, and pay for it.”
Sedition section must be removed General Press Release No. 269 (November 2005) The Chairman of the Australian Press Council, Professor Ken McKinnon, today called on the Attorney-General to remove the sedition clauses from the revised Anti-Terrorism Bill currently before Parliament. “Philip Ruddock has already agreed that the sedition section needs review. It is in fact completely anachronistic. If legislation is required to punish incitement to terrorism, they must be in a restricted form that does not adversely affect other areas of freedom of speech 66 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
or revive eighteenth century authoritarianism, as the current proposal does.” GPRs 269/270 Professor McKinnon said, “Mr Ruddock has said that he will introduce revisions next February. If he is going to change the sedition section then, why introduce such sweeping new offences now?” He acknowledged the positive changes the government had made to the original draft Bill saying that the revised Anti-Terrorism Bill had been substantially improved, but said, “There are still clauses that constitute a serious threat to free speech”. Professor McKinnon said that, in addition to the thoroughly objectionable sedition clauses, The revised there were other provisions in the Bill that would limit the ability of the press to report Anti- matters of public interest and concern. “Independent reporting is prevented by provisions Terrorism Bill that make it a crime with a penalty of five years jail to report that a person has been detained had been or, indeed, any information about the event. substantially improved, but “The powers proposed to be conferred will allow the detention of persons, including “There are journalists, to ‘preserve’ (read ‘prevent public knowledge of’) evidence relating to a terrorist still clauses act. There will be no right for journalists to protect confidential sources. that “Another section, apparently unrelated to terrorism, allows the Federal Police to obtain any constitute a documents that they believe relate to the investigation of a ‘serious offence’. serious threat “Even without the threat of such a power Australian editors have already experienced heavy- to free handed police intrusion into newsrooms seeking non-publication, and the surrender, of speech”. documents, unrelated to terrorism, that they think might be embarrassing if published. Open- ended legal authority of that kind is wholly undesirable,” he said. “Indeed all of what is supposed to be an emergency Act should be subject a quite short sunset clause so that its continuing necessity can be assessed”. The Press Council says that the three most essential changes now needed in the Bill are: 1) The sedition offences should be removed from the Bill and brought back separately if, after a review, they are thought necessary. 2) There should be media-specific exemptions clauses protecting journalists and publishers from arbitrary detention as they go about their essential task of telling us all what is going on (precedents exist for such clauses in the Privacy Act and in corporations law) 3) The final Act should have a three-year sunset clause, renewable if and only if exceptional circumstances can be established.
Annual Address 2006: The police and the media General Press Release No. 270 March 2006 Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty will deliver the fourth Press Council Address at a media lunch on Thursday 23 March 2006. Titled Between the lines: New powers and accountability for police and the media, the Address will look at some of the contemporary issues for the police and for the press The Press Council is the self-regulatory body of the print media, concerned with both the freedom and the responsibility of the press. It considers and rules on complaints from the public; and it keeps a watching brief on developments that may adversely impact on the freedom of the press to report on matters of public interest and concern. Mick Keelty is a career police officer with more than thirty years experience at local, national and international levels. He is the first Commissioner appointed from within the ranks of the Australian Federal Police (AFP). The AFP is Australia’s national policing agency, enforcing Commonwealth criminal law and protecting Commonwealth interests from crime, both within Australia and abroad. The AFP is also Australia’s international law enforcement and policing representative - with 62 officers, based at 30 posts in 25 countries - and it is the chief source of advice to the
67 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
GPRs Australian Government on policing issues. 270/271 Since his appointment as AFP Commissioner in April 2001, Commissioner Keelty has led the expansion and transformation of the organisation, with major new responsibilities for counter-terrorism, aviation security and transnational crime. He has also overseen the creation of the International Deployment Group - a regional assistance and capacity-building initiative - which has already undertaken missions in the Solomon Islands, East Timor, Papua New Guinea and the Middle East.
Press freedom in Australia in 2006 General Press Release No. 271 (May 2006) The Chairman of the Australian Press Council, Professor Ken McKinnon, will convene a Media Conference in Townsville on 3 May 2006, World Press Freedom Day, in the Savoy On World Room of the Southbank Hotel, Palmer Street, South Townsville, at 10 am. The Press Council Press is visiting Townsville this week for its regular meetings and Professor McKinnon will mark Freedom Day, the occasion by offering some remarks on the current state of press freedom in Australia, in 2006, the particular how well the state of Queensland is meeting its obligations in making available report card on information on matters of public interest and concern. Following is the embargoed text of press freedom Professor McKinnon’s remarks. During the media conference, he will also be available for in Australia comment on other issues including the current proposals for changes in cross media ownership must be rules; the review of the sedition laws in the anti-terrorism legislation; and the media’s coverage characterised of the recent storms in northern Australia as chilling. It is not an iron On World Press Freedom Day, 2006, the report card on press freedom in Australia must be characterised as chilling. It is not an iron curtain over access to information, but for some curtain over forms of information of public interest it might as well be. Public discourse is increasingly access to hindered by restricted information, cover-ups, deliberate misleading spin and suppression. It information, is not just the effects of recent draconian security laws. More serious is the cynical, even but for some ruthless inhibition of the previous reporting of normal government and other public activity. forms of During Prime Minister Howard’s regime, the Commonwealth has centralised power to an information of unprecedented degree and used the buzzword ‘security’ to erect a seamless protective wall public around information flows. Every instance of uncensored flows of information and leaks has interest it been chased down and ‘the chocks put in’. It is as evident in Queensland as elsewhere. might as well The Freedom of Information case, challenging the Commonwealth Treasurer’s prevention of be. public access to documents about such mundane issues as the grants made under the home owner scheme and about tax bracket creep, is going to the High Court next week with the support of a Press Council amicus curiae brief. Let’s hope that that case is influenced by the very recent decision of the NSW Court of Appeal that imposed tough new tests before there can be refusal to release documents. Here in Queensland Premier Beattie a few months ago boasted about Freedom of Information releases being 82 per cent of requests; no reference to the fact that the 18 per cent not released were undoubtedly public interest documents. Queensland is notorious for wheeling potentially embarrassing documents through Cabinet to give them ‘Cabinet-in-Confidence’ status, protecting them from public access through FOI requests. The latest and most obvious ‘closing down’ instance, of course, has been the revival by the Commonwealth of sedition laws, obsolete for over fifty years. Already theatre people and academics report that they have served, as no doubt intended, to deter free speech on the stage, in literature and in universities. And security laws that prevent us from knowing about even an arrest, much less the evidence that is relevant, helps create the atmosphere that compromises free speech. Sadly our courts also exemplify the same trends. The traditional principle of open courts and freedom to report court proceedings is being seriously eroded by a significant increase in suppression orders. There has even been an instance of an order suppressing the fact that there has been a suppression order. The Council has taken up this issue with the Council of Chief Justices, to no avail. The broader culture of suppression is coming to the fore even in thee courts. Queensland Premier Peter Beattie, in the A N Smith Lecture at Melbourne University in
68 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
December 2005, challenged the media by expressing serious dissatisfaction with its standards GPRs and regulation, calling for a press ombudsman in every newspaper. You have to wonder about 271 his motives considering the fact that he personally has unfettered access to the media, several times a day if desired. He has a ‘bully pulpit’ to comment about anything that interests him, to rebut criticism in any media, or to attack anything and anyone he finds offensive. Maybe, like the late Indonesian President Sukarno who wanted ‘guided democracy’, Mr Beattie wants ‘controlled press freedom’. His claim of unfair reporting by newspapers does not have credence because he has never tested the fairness of his complaints against any newspaper articles through complaints to the Press Council, let alone the three Courier-Mail stories he instanced. He can’t expect to judge his own claims and be taken seriously. He seems not to know that the Council’s brief is to maintain a free and responsible press. You might think his claims of the slanting of articles, instancing the use of words like ‘claimed, divulged, reported, or stated’, resonate. Undoubtedly, colourful words, often some that carry baggage, are used in particular articles. Cutting out descriptors would also presumably apply to positive words like ‘clever, thoughtful, intelligent, strategic and farsighted’. An impartial observer, probably even Mr Beattie himself, would have to admit that he has very much been a net beneficiary of the way newspapers report. Newspapers that do not have local competitors, such as the Courier Mail, do have a special responsibility for ensuring balanced, responsible reporting, and diversity of opinion. I agree All that said, that even though in recent times there are more examples of published corrections, the Mr Beattie’s reluctance of editors Australia-wide to take the initiative, that is, to express regret, apologise, own report or correct inaccuracies does need more attention. would The Press Council acts on complaints received. After a complaint has been received it takes certainly be time to ensure natural justice, that is, for the complaint to be received, referred to the newspaper, the and its reply to be reviewed and answered by the complainant, iteratively until the stances of assessment both parties are clear and an adjudication hearing concluded. So it is also fair comment that a ‘can do speeding-up of that process, a more stream-lined process, is desirable. better’. He is All that said, Mr Beattie’s own report would certainly be the assessment ‘can do better’. He is as much as much responsible for information access problems as anyone else. His FOI record is responsible woeful. He should do better. Where once Queensland reporters could tune in to police radio for enabling them to report crime, breaches of security and accidents on the spot, the changeover to digital radio has resulted in police being selective with what newspapers are allowed to information know (and tell the public about). Police do not like sensitive issues being aired in the papers. access He should do better there, too. Another instance is the law preventing access to and reporting problems as of prisoner information. anyone else. It is a never-ending struggle for reporters to ‘get-the-story’ at the best of times, in all democracies. His FOI News is after all often defined as what someone does not want the public to know. Fortunately record is Australia has some of the most tenacious and resourceful journalists in the world. Even through woeful. He the blizzard of ‘spin’ they often get to the bottom of things. To the chagrin of would-be ‘controllers’ should do of news. North Queensland newspapers during Cyclone Larry, particularly the Innisfail Advocate, better. certainly exemplified that energy. Not even losing the newsroom roof, flooded roads and loss of electricity and other physical impediments prevented them from getting the next day’s edition out. On World Press Freedom Day 2006, regrettably the report card has to underline that while the Australians show in various ways how much they want to be kept informed, never before has accessing that information been more difficult, never has there been so much organised action to prevent the truth emerging, never have so many politicians at all levels fibbed so much, so often.
69 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
Australian Press Council Publications
The Council produces a number of publications. Publications available for a Some more recent publications are available as small fee pdf documents on the Council’s website (http:// www.presscouncil.org.au) . News Print Media report 2006 State of the News Print Media in Australia report. Online or $6 (GST inclusive). Publications available free on request Proceedings of Press Council Seminars a. Annual Reports [All prices include GST and postage within Back issues of most are available from the Press Australia; or sea-mail overseas.] Council office. a. Freedom of the Press; Role of the Press Council (Sydney 1986) - $3 b. APC News b. Australian Media In the 1990s (Melbourne 1989) - The News has been published quarterly since out of print February 1989. The News from 1994 through c. Media Ownership; Defamation Laws (Gold Coast 2003 is available on the Council’s website. 1989) - $10 c. Booklets d. Race, Press, Freedom of Speech (Perth 1990) - $5 e. Defamation Law Reform - the Attorneys’-General There is currently one booklet in print: No. 9 Proposal (Sydney 1990) - $3.50 Aims, Principles and Complaints Procedure f. Press Ethics: Are There Any? (Wollongong 1990) - d. The Twentieth Anniversary Papers $3.50 Five booklets published from October-December g. Investigative Journalism: How Probing? (Adelaide 1996 to mark the twentieth anniversary of the 1991) - $5 Council: h. The Press and Cultural Sensitivities (Darwin 1992) - $5 1. The reporting of suicide, particularly youth i. Privacy and the Press (Melbourne 1993) - $3.50 suicide. The transcript of an invitation only j. The Constitution and Freedom of Speech (Corowa roundtable discussion involving mental health 1993) - $3.50 professionals, carer groups and the media. k. Public Figures and the Press (Toowoomba 1994) - 2. Whither the Australian Press Council? The $6. formation, function and future of the Council. l. The Role and Responsibility of Country Newspapers Deborah Kirkman’s MA History thesis on the (Mount Gambier 1994) - $4 Council. m. Newspapers: A Voice For All? (Hobart 1995) - $4 3. The Australian Press Council Fellow 1995: n. The Back Page: the Press’ Coverage of Sport (Ballarat Professor John Soloski. The speeches given by 1995) - $4 the US defamation law reform expert during his o. Government Business and the Media (Fremantle trip to Australia in 1995. 1996) - $4 4. The Australian Press Council survey of p. The Role of the Press in the Reconciliation Process complainants. The complete report, with tables, (Cairns 1997) - $4 of the Council’s survey of complainants of 1988- q. The Regional Press, Privacy and the Press Council 9 to 1992-3. (Bathurst 1997) - $4 5. The Australian Press Council Fellow 1996: r. The Reporting of Gambling Issues - 253 kB in pdf - Professor Claude-Jean Bertrand. The speeches (Melbourne 1998) - $4 given by the French expert on media ethics during s. The Reporting of National Politics - 380 kB in pdf - his trip to Australia in 1996. (Canberra 1998) - $4 t. WAPC Oceania Conference - 1.9 mB in pdf - e. Occasional papers (Brisbane 1999) - $10 1. To Name or Not to Name u. What is News? - 488 kB in pdf - (Launceston, 1999) - $5 2. Ten Year Report 1987-1997. Prof Flint’s report of his 10 year’s at the helm of the Council. Published with a speech on the media. Proceedings of a Seminar held jointly with the ACIJ 3. 1999 Australian Press Council Fellow. David a. Commercial Confidentiality v. the Public Right Robie’s trip report and speeches. to Know is available from the ACIJ (PO Box 123, BROADWAY NSW 2007) at $15 each. 70 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
Jack R Herman Executive The Council Secretary
There was only a little movement in Council membership in the reporting year. The details are noted within each category of membership.
Public members In December, the Council accepted the resignation of Leo White the recently appointed public member from Brisbane. The Council has not made a replacement appointment to the panel of public members, which remains at nine for the time being. Seven public members attend each meeting as voting members (on a rotational basis) and the other two are invited as observers. During the year, the Council appointed to their second three-year terms Francesca Beddie, Helen Edwards, Brenton Holmes, Kathie Sampson and Lisa Scaffidi. Wendy Mead was re- appointed to her third (and final) three-year term.
Journalist members In October, Helen Elliott indicated that she would prefer to step down as a full-time member of the Council. As a result Adrian McGregor was appointed from the panel of Journalist Member Alternates to a three-year term as a Journalist Member of the Council and Ms Elliott to a three-year term as a Journalist Alternate Member. Adrian is an award-winning writer with long experience on Australian newspapers. He is currently a freelance writer and a regular commentator on news and politics with ABC radio in Brisbane. He is also the author of best-selling sports biographies including those of Wally Lewis, Greg Chappell, and Cathy Freeman. Helen Elliott is a freelance journalist who make regular contributions as a book reviewer and critic. In February, arising out of a Planning Day decision, the Council determined to change the way in which independent journalist members were treated in the Constitution. Instead of having two members, with two alternates, the Council decided to have a panel of up to four journalist members, two of whom will attend each meeting, in rotation. This means that the independent journalist members will be treated in the same way as editor members and public members. The Council also decided to appoint the current members and alternates, Bruce Baskett, Helen Elliott, Adrian McGregor and Sandy Symons, as the panel of journalist members. A month or so later, Helen Elliott decided that the same pressures that had dictated that she step sown as a full-time member of the Council were still apparent and she resigned from the panel. The Council decided not to replace her on the panel and the extant three-person panel will remain, with two of the panel to attend each meeting of the Council. John Morgan retired from the Council at the end of May. He joined the Council as a representative of the Australian Newspaper Council in August 1980 and subsequently represented the Herald and Weekly Times until his retirement when he was appointed one of the inaugural editor members of the Council. He has been a member of the Council continuously since his first appointment and his twenty-six years of service mark the longest term enjoyed by any member of the Council. In noting John’s retirement, Professor Ken McKinnon said that, in addition to his longevity, Mr. Morgan had performed a number of useful functions for the Council, not the least of which was his ability to edit on the run and to correct the grammatical solecisms of complainants, publications and other members of the Council. Professor McKinnon suggested that Mr. Morgan would be greatly missed by the Council. 71 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
The Council John Morgan’s replacement on the panel of editors is Lloyd Whish-Wilson, a former industry member of the Council, who retired as General Manager of The Canberra Times in July. He re-joined the Council following his retirement. Also, during the year, the Council re-appointed Gary Evans to a further term as an editor member and independent journalist member Bruce Baskett to a further three-year term on the panel of independent journalist members.
Industry members In December, David Elias, who had represented The Age on the Council, agreed to accept a redundancy from the newspaper. As a result he retired from the Council. Mark Baker, the then Opinion Editor of The Age, was appointed as his successor. In May, Mark Baker accepted appointment as the new editor of The Canberra Times. As a result he left The Age and resigned from the Council. Roslyn Guy, a senior writer at The Age, was then appointed to represent the newspaper on the Council. In February, Community Newspapers of Australia nominated Bob Osburn, the editor in chief of Cumberland Newspapers, publishers of suburban newspapers in Sydney, as its representative for the next three years. Gene Swinstead, formerly manager of the Leader Newspapers in Melbourne, who had represented the association for the past three years, will act as Bob’s alternate. Earlier, West Australian Newspapers had nominated Zoltan Kovacs to replace Mike Polkinghorne as Peter Jeanes’ alternate on the Council. The Council also endorsed the renomination to further terms of Chris McLeod, representing the Herald and Weekly Times, Phil Dickson, representing AAP, David Sommerlad, representing Country Newspapers of Australia and Alan Deans, ACP Magazines’ representative. With the exception of Col Burgess, their existing alternates were all re- appointed as well. Col Burgess retired from AAP at the end of the year and the agency indicated it would nominate Selina Day, the recently appointed Editorial Logistics Manager, as his replacement.
In memoriam During the year the Council has noted with regret the passing of two of its distinguished former members, Dan O’Sullivan and Margaret Jones. Dan started in newspapers as a copy boy in 1943 and worked his way to be editor-in-chief of The West Australian from 1975 to 1987. He served on the Press Council first as a representative of the Australian Newspaper Council from January 1982 to his retirement from The West in January 1987. Subsequently he was appointed as one of the inaugural editor members of the Council in 1988 and served in that role until November 2002. He was a strong advocate of responsible journalism and also active in defending the traditional freedoms of the press, consistently lobbying in WA for legislative reform to ensure the continued flow of information on matters of public interest. A particular interest was the establishment of a closer relationship with Indonesia, and he helped foster the development of a free and responsible Indonesian press. He died in early May after a long battle with throat cancer. A former foreign editor and literary editor of The Sydney Morning Herald, Margaret Jones was appointed an alternate member of the Council in 1988 and became a full member in 1989. She served three terms as an independent journalist member of the Council before retiring in 1998. During her time on the Council, during which she also served on the ABC’s Independent Complaints Review Panel, Margaret Jones strongly voiced her views on the need for strict standards of journalistic responsibility. Ms Jones passed away at age 83 in July this year. 72 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
Members of the Australian Press Council as at 30 June 2006
Chairman Mr Phillip Dickson (AAP) Editorial Manager, Professor Ken McKinnon, AO AAP, former Vice Chancellor, University of Sydney. Wollongong Sydney Ms Roslyn Guy (The Age) Senior Writer, The Age, Public Members (7 at each meeting) Melbourne Professor HP Lee (Vice Chairman) Mr Peter Jeanes (WA Newspapers Ltd) Sir John Latham Professor of Law Editorial Manager Monash University, The West Australian, Melbourne. Perth Ms Cheryl Attenborough Mr Chris McLeod (HWT Ltd) Public servant Editorial Development Manager, Hobart Herald and Weekly Times Ltd, Ms Francesca Beddie Melbourne. Historian and Consultant in Public Policy and Mr Sam North (Fairfax Media) Communication, Managing Editor, Queanbeyan, NSW. Herald Publications, Ms Helen Edwards Sydney. Executive, Lane Wines, Mr Bob Osburn (Community Adelaide. Newspapers) Mr John Fleetwood Editor in chief Human Relations Manager Cumberland Newspapers Adelaide Sydney. Mr Brenton Holmes Mr Barry Potter (Regional Dailies) Public servant Publishing Services Manager Canberra. Rural Press Limited Richmond Ms Wendy Mead Professional Counsellor Mr David Sommerlad, AM (Country Brisbane. Press) Associate Director, Ms Katherine Sampson Country Press Australia, Managaing Director, Mahlab Recruitment Sydney. Melbourne. Ms Lisa Scaffidi Company Director Journalist member - MEAA Perth, WA. Mr Alan Kennedy Federal President, Journalists’ section, Publishers’ Representatives MEAA Sydney. Mr Warren Beeby (News Limited) Group Editorial Manager, News Limited, Sydney. Mr Alan Deans (ACP Magazines) Business Editor The Bulletin, Sydney.
73 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
Council Members Independent Journalist Mr Russell Skelton (alternate to Ms Guy) Members (2 at each meeting) National Correspondent The Sunday Age Mr Bruce Baskett Melbourne. Freelance journalist/consultant Melbourne. Mr Gene Swinstead (alternate to Mr Osburn) Melbourne Mr Adrian McGregor Freelance journalist, Ms Pam Walkley (alternate to Mr Deans) Brisbane. Editor, Money Magazine Sydney. Ms Sandra Symons Freelance journalist/journalism educator Sydney Council Committees Note: The Chairman and Vice Chairman are ex Panel of Editor Members (1 at officio members of all committees. each meeting): Mr Gary Evans Complaints Former Editorial Manager The committee is appointed each month by the Queensland Newspapers Chairman, after consultation with the Executive Brisbane. Secretary, from those members who have indicated Mr Lloyd Whish-Wilson (from 1 August 2006) a willingness to serve on the committee. Former General Manager, Constitutionally, it must have a majority of public The Canberra Times, and ex-officio members. The current composition Launceston, Tas. is the Chairman, three public members, one representative of the publishers, one journalist member and one editor member. Alternate Publisher Members Ms Selina Day (alternate to Mr Dickson) Policy Development Editorial Logistics Manager, K McKinnon (Chairman) AAP, Sydney H P Lee (Deputy Chairman) Mr John Dunnet (alternate to Mr Sommerlad) W Beeby Manager, A Kennedy The Courier, C McLeod Narrabri, NSW. S North/R Guy* F Bedddie/L Scaffidi* Ms Sharon Hill (alternate to Mr Beeby) B Holmes/W Mead* Editorial Staff Manger G Evans/L Whish-Wilson* Nationwide News Sydney *one attends each meeting Mr Rex Jory (alternate to Mr McLeod) Deputy Editor, Promotions Committee The Advertiser, L Scaffidi (Convenor) Adelaide. F Beddie Mr Zoltan Kovacs (alternate to Mr Jeanes) A McGregor Opinion Editor, G Swinstead The West Australian, W Mead Perth. D Kirkman Mr Gerard Noonan (alternate to Mr North) Senior Writer, The Secretariat The Sydney Morning Herald, Jack R Herman (Executive Secretary) Sydney. Deborah Kirkman (Office Manager) Mr Ian Pech (alternate to Mr Potter) Inez Ryan (Policy Officer) General Manager, Helen Tyreman (Assistant to the The Standard, Executive Secretary) Warrnambool, Vic.
74 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
Code of Ethics Members of the Australian Press Council
1. Members commit to upholding and promoting the Principles of the Council professionally and personally. 2. While appointed to ensure that the views of the Australian press and a wide cross-section of the community are heard, members shall at all times act in the interests of a free press that serves the Australian public responsibly in accordance with the Council’s principles. 3. Members will declare any business, professional or personal conflict of interest in a matter before Council, and will absent themselves from discussion. 4. Members will not use their membership of the Council for personal or professional advantage. 5. Members accept the personal commitment necessary to ensure the responsibilities of their position are fully met.
Council meetings 2005-2006
There were 8 Council meetings during the year, seven in Sydney. The Complaints Committee also met eight times, each meeting held the day before a Council meeting. Below are dates and venues of Council meetings. July 20 and 21 July 2005 Sydney September 7, 8 and 9 September 2005 Sydney [including 2005 Planning Day] October 19 and 20 October 2005 Sydney December 7 and 8 December 2005 Sydney February 8 and 9 February 2006 Sydney March 22 and 23 March 2006 Sydney [including 2006 Annual Address] May 4 and 5 May 2006 Townsville [including civic reception] June 14 and 15 June 2006 Sydney
75 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
Statement of Financial Position as at 30 June 2006
2006 2005 $$
Assets
Current assets Cash and cash equivalents 244,859 270,406 Other current assets 4,360 4,567 Total current assets 249,219 274,973
Non-current assets Property, plant and equipment 64,920 68,084 Total non-current assets 64,920 68,084
Total assets 314,139 343,057
Liabilities
Current liabilities Trade and other payables 14,844 13,445 Short-term provisions 35,973 28,300 Total current liabilities 50,817 41,745
Non-current liabilities Other long-term provisions 54,516 49,575 Total non-current liabilities 54,516 49,575
Total liabilities 105,333 91,320
Net assets 208,806 251,737
Equity Retained earnings 208,806 251,738
Total equity 208,806 251,738
76 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
Publishers’ Statistics as at 30 June 2006
The following statistics and information on them have been provided by the publishers of metropolitan newspapers and of other major groups.
Advertiser Newspapers Limited
Newspapers Frequency Ownership if Circulation not 100%
The Advertiser Mon-Fri 195,903 Sat 269,695 Sunday Mail Weekly *50% 324,973 City Messenger Weekly 30,098 East Torrens Messenger Weekly 32,673 Eastern Courier Messenger Weekly 62,097 Guardian Messenger Weekly 68,653 Hills Messenger Weekly 19,020 Leader Messenger Weekly 43,013 News Review Messenger Weekly 86,189 Portside Messenger Weekly 32,229 Southern Times Messenger Weekly 56,029 Standard Messenger Weekly 34,113 Weekly Times Messenger Weekly 61,285 Homebuyers Guide Weekly 9,990 Adelaide Matters Monthly 102,450
*Remaining 50% held by News Limited
Acquisitions Nil
Divestitures Nil
Mergers Nil
Major Owner News Corporation
Company Directors Mr. R.A. Cordina – Chairman Mr. M.B. Miller – Managing Director Mr. J.K. Hartigan Mrs. P. MacLeod Mr. P.J. Macourt
77 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
ACP Magazines Ltd
Magazines Frequency Ownership Circulation if not 100% Australian Auto Action weekly 13,608 Australian Gourmet Traveller monthly 77,483 Australian Gourmet Traveller Wine Magazine quarterly 23,128 Australian House & Garden monthly 98,051 Australian Motorcycle News fortnightly 20,829 Australian Motorcycle Trader fortnightly 30,029 Australian Net Guide monthly 38,311 APC (Australian Personal Computer) monthly 33,219 Australian Table monthly 69,158 Australian Women’s Weekly monthly 610,418 Belle bi-monthly 29,952 Bulletin weekly 60,760 Burke’s Backyard monthly 82,539 Campervan and Motorhome Trader monthly 15,817 Caravan World monthly 13,925 Cleo monthly 190,092 Cosmopolitan monthlyh 215,875 Deals On Wheels monthly 24,216 Disney Adventures monthly 38,251 Disney Girl monthly 28,241 Disney Princess monthly Dolly monthly 155,167 Earthmovers & Excavators monthly 10,874 Farms & Farm Machinery monthly 12,994 Fernwood, Your Healthy Living Magazine 4 X 4 Australia monthly 20,051 4 X 4 Trader monthly 13,535 Good Medicine monthly 66,305 Harper’s Bazaar 10/year 53,637 Inside Cricket 9/year (season) 50% Madison monthly 95,514 Money Magazine monthly 48,645 Motor monthly 49,604 NW weekly 202,000 PC User monthly 54,040 People weekly 59,083 Picture weekly 79,241 Plant & Equipment monthly 8,185 Ralph monthly 104,169 Real Living monthly 60,609 Rugby League Week weekly 22,736 Shop Til You Drop 10/year 74,104 Speed 10/year 21,003 Street Machine monthly 62,227 Take 5 weekly 260,085 Trade-A-Boat monthly 22,616 Trailer Boat monthly 19,194 TV Week weekly 281,081 Unique Cars monthly 60,702 Wheels monthly 61,569 Woman’s Day weekly 526,483
Major Owners The publisher is ACP Magazines Ltd which is 100% owned by Publishing and Broadcasting Limited (“PBL”) a publicly listed company.
ACP Board of Directors James Packer (Executive Chairman) Rowena Danziger Chris Anderson (Deputy Executive Chairman) Geoffrey Dixon John Alexander (CEO) Ashok Jacob Sam Chisholm David Lowy Chris Corrigan Christopher Mackay Rowen Craigie Richard Turner 78 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
APN News and Media
APN News and Media have not provided the Council with current year statistics prior to the publication of this report. The following are the company’s known print media assets in Australia.
NSW Regional Daily and community South Burnett Times, Kingaroy newspapers Central and North Burnett Times Western Times Daily News, Tweed Heads Balonne Beacon, St George Gold Coast Mail, Tweed Heads Sunshine Coast Daily Border Mail/Tweed Mail Sunshine Coast Sunday Northern Star, Lismore Nambour Weekly Byron Shire News Buderim Weekly North Coast Advocate, Ballina Caloundra Weekly Rivertown Times, Ballina The Weekly Northern Farmer Bulletin, Lismore Noosa News Richmond River Express Examiner, Casino Caboolture News The Daily Examiner, Grafton Bribie Weekly Coastal Views, Yamba The Queensland Times, Ipswich The Advocate, Coffs Harbour The Ipswich Advertiser Satellite, Ipswich Queensland Regional Daily and Big Rigs, Ipswich community newspapers The Chronicle, Toowoomba Toowoomba’s Mail The Daily Mercury, Mackay Rural Weekly Whitsunday Times, Airlie Beach Cotton Insight Mackay Midweek Dalby Herald Miners Midweek Northern Down News, Dalby Sarina Midweek Gatton Star The Central Queensland News, Emerald The Western Star, Roma The Blackwater Herald, Blackwater The Stanthorpe Border Post The Morning Bulletin, Rockhampton Chinchilla News Capricorn Coast Mirror Western Times Capricorn Local News Daily News, Warwick The Central Telegraph, Biloela Bush Telegraph, Warwick The Observer, Gladstone The Weekly Trader, Warwick Port Curtis Post APN Business Information Group The NewsMail, Bundaberg Guardian Bundaberg ANZIDECC Directory - Australian & New The Fraser Coast Chronicle, Maryborough Zealand Industry Defence Equipment Hervey Bay Observer and Capability The Maryborough Herald Australian Exporters CD Let’s Go Fishing Hospital Buyers Guide Directory Western Times, Charleville Hospital Yearbook Directory The Gympie Times Kompass Australia Directory Cooloola Advertiser, Gympie
79 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
Cumberland Newspaper Group
Publication Publication Audited Overall % Day Circulation Readership Reach
Blacktown Advocate Wednesday 52,700* 90,000 58.8 Canterbury-Bankstown Express Tuesday 84,942 83,000 27.8 Central Coast Express Advocate Wednesday 127,299 207,000 76.2 Central Coast Express Advocate Friday 127,104 221,000 79.8 Fairfield Advance Wednesday 56,508 108,000 64.9 The Glebe Thursday 49,100 70,000 36.4 Hills Shire Times Tuesday 66,018* 103,000 56.8 Hornsby & Upper-North Shore Advocate Thursday 52,871 111,000 68.6 Inner-West Weekly Thursday 51,122 69,000 27.3 Lake Macquarie News Thursday 52,576 49,000 36.9 Liverpool Leader Wednesday 54,532 111,000 65.3 Macarthur Chronicle Tuesday 77,665* 108,000 61.2 Manly Daily Tues-Friday 90,054 156,000 78.1 Manly Daily Saturday 90,054 164,000 81.3 Mosman Daily Thursday 36,815 58,000 62.4 Mt Druitt-St Marys Standard Wednesday 44,163 60,000 50.1 North Shore Times Wednesday 75,729 114,000 49.9 North Shore Times Friday 73,433 111,000 50.7 Northern District Times Wednesday 58,080 118,000 73.5 Parramatta Advertiser Wednesday 83.038 140,000 55.0 CBD Magazine^ Monday 24,800* n/a Penrith Press Tuesday 61,154 105,000 53.3 Penrith Press Friday 58,745 107,000 52.4 Rouse Hill Times Wednesday 17,000 —
* Publisher’s Claim ^ Third Monday of every month Source: Roy Morgan Readership Survey, April 2004- March 2006 Circulations Audit Board, September 2005- March 2006 Day Circulation Readership Reach Acquisitions Nil
Divestitures Nil
Major Owner Cumberland Newspapers is a division of Nationwide News Pty Ltd, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of News Limited.
Company Directors Warren Beeby Lawrence Brindle Keith Brodie Islwyn Davies Mark Elgood Jeremy Harris Peter Jourdain Donald Kennedy Peter Macourt Stephen Rue Mark Webster Peter Wylie 80 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
Davies Brothers Pty Limited
Newspapers Frequency Circulation
Mercury, Hobart Mon-Fri 48,886 Saturday Mercury Saturday 63,554 Sunday Tasmanian Sunday 61,391 Tasmanian Country Weekly Rural 16,573 Treasure Island Monthly Tourist The Gazette Regional Weekly 2,557
Magazines
Various magazines and periodicals published as Agents for The Herald & Weekly Times Pty Ltd, John Fairfax Group, David Syme & Co (The Age), Mirror-Australian-Telegraph Publications.
Major Shareholder The Herald & Weekly Times Pty Limited
Ultimate Beneficial Owner News Limited
Company Directors R F Gardner - Managing Director P J Gibson
81 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
Emap Australia Pty Limited
Magazines Frequency Circulation
Audited titles Australian Dirt Bike Monthly 30,611 FHM Monthly 120,033 New Woman Monthly 115,093 Smash Hits Monthly 33,132 Slimming Monthly 37,333 Empire Monthly 30,095 Mother and Baby Bi-Monthly 93,740 Babycare Book Annual 225,385 Pregnancy Book Annual 201,019 ZOO Weekly Weekly 85,262
Non-audited titles Tracks Pregnancy and Birth Waves Shopping For Baby Australian Skateboarding Australian Mountain Bike Outdoor Australia Skiing Australian & NZ Snowboarding
Acquisitions Nil
Divestitures Nil
Major owner Emap Australia (a division of EMAP plc) is the ultimate owner of the business
Emap Australia Directors Philip Mason (Chairman) Chris Llewellyn (Managing Director, Emap International Rob Munro-Hall (Managing Director) Eric Lawrence (Finance Director) Geoff Campbell (Executive Publishing Director, men’s) David Kettle (Publishing Director, Action Sports and Entertainment) Marina Go, (Publishing Director Women’s) Anne-Marie Lavan, (Group Marketing and Circulation Director) Cameron Hoy, Group Advertising Director Ben Heuston (Digital Director)
82 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
John Fairfax Media
Publication Frequency Ownership Circulation if not 100% Metropolitan Newspapers The Sydney Morning Herald M-F212,600; Sat363,950 The Sun-Herald 516,400 The Age M-F201,000; Sat301,000 The Sunday Age 210,000
Fairfax Regional Newspapers — New South Wales The Newcastle Herald M-Sat53,082 Illawarra Mercury M-F29,865; Sat42,286 Hunter Post 112,205 Newcastle/Lake Macquarie Post 21,798 Central Coast Sun Weekly 110,000 Port Stephens Examiner 26,518 Port Stephens Pink Pages Maitland Pink Pages Wollongong Advertiser 98,504 Shellharbour Advertiser 5,237
Fairfax Regional Newspapers — Victoria The Border Mail 26,529 The Warrnambool Standard 12,989
Fairfax Community Newspapers – NSW The St George & Sutherland Shire Leader 149,473 Cooks River Valley Times 23,804 Campbelltown-Macarthur Advertiser 69,910 Camden Advertser 16,726 Wollondilly Advertiser 10,694 Fairfield City Champion 56,508 Liverpool City Champion 55,049 Bankstown-Canterbury Torch 90,274 Blacktown City Sun 51,855 Parramatta Sun 59,246 Penrith City Star 53,484 St Mary’s Mt Druitt Star 38,618 Hills News 55,683 Northern News Northern Beaches Weekender 60,221 South Western Rural Advertiser Auburn Review Pictorial 28,986 Western Rural Weekly Bringelly Homes Pictorial Property Focus Property Showcase Central Coast Homes Pictorial
Fairfax Community Newspapers – Victoria Melbourne Weekly Magazine 112,101 Melbourne Weekly Bayside 72,000 Emerald Hill Weekly 45,000 City Weekly
83 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
Fairfax stats The Melbourne Times 90,000 Melbourne Times Northern Edition Heidelberg Weekly Knox Journal 56,108 Maroondah Journal 40,272 Yarra Ranges Journal 29,424 The Journal 78,884 Berwick & District Journal 37,124 Pakenham Journal 6,386 Monash Journal 51,112 Whitehorse Weekly 54,288 Macedon RangesTelegraph 14,842 Sunbury Telegraph 13,064 Werribee Banner 41,005 Moreland Community News 35,953 Moonee Valley Community News 54,742 The Altona Laverton Mail 21,977 The Mail 27,195 Williamstown Advertiser 13,171 North-West Advocate 22,618 The Advocate 50,144 Melton Express Telegraph 15,828 Bacchus Marsh Express Telegraph 8,190 Whittlesea Weekly 43,295 Valley Weekly 42,750 Manningham Weekly 43,938 Peninsular Journal Weekender 36,534 Hume Weekly Inc. Broadmeadows/Tullamarine edition 49,018 Colac & Corangamite Extra 10,102 Frankston/Hastings Independent 58,961 Mornington and Southern Peninsula Mail 32,161 Cranbourne Independent 21,957 Dandenong Independent 37,377 Chelsea, Mordialloc, Mentone Independent 32,902
Fairfax General Magazines Good Weekend 664,950 Television 504,186 Sunday Life 714,186 thesydneymagazine 188,605 theagemelbournemagazine 174,000 Travel + Leisure Uncorked Drive
Fairfax Digital - Unique Browsers per month smh.com.au 2,096,415 theage.com.au 1,521,378 rugbyheaven.com realfooty.com.au monyemanager.com.au tradingroom.com.au mycareer.com.au 956,372 domain.com.au 1,421,416 drive.com.au 859,020 tradingroom.com.au cracker.com.au
84 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
Fairfax Business Media Fairfax stats The Australian Financial Review - M-F 86,493 The Australian Financial Review – Weekend Edition 91,305 AFR Access AFR Magazine 99,051
AFR Smart Investor 78,000 AFR Sophisticated Traveller Asset 17,004 AFR Boss 128,903 BRW 48,032 CFO Australia 7,851 MIS Australia 12,046 MIS NZ MIS Asia Computerworld 10,649 CIO 12,107 PC World NZ Reseller
Fairfax’s main New Zealand publications
Metropolitan newspapers The Dominion Post 98,251 The Christchurch Press 92,465 Waikato Times 41,083
Provincial newspapers The Manawatu Standard 20,578 The Marlborough Express 10,371 The Nelson Mail 18,445 The Rodney Times 35,980 The Southland Times 29,571 Taranaki Daily News 26,506 Timaru Herald 14,114
National newspapers Sunday Star-Times 200,991 Independent Financial Review 8,640 Sunday News 95,546 Friday Flash, Turf Digest, Best Bets New Zealand Truth
Fairfax also publishes in New Zealand a large number of community newspapers, online sites, and magazines
Directors Dean Wills AO, Chairman Frederick G. Hilmer AO, CEO Mark Burrows Roger Corbett AM Julia King Ronald Walker, AC CBE David Evans
85 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
FPC Courier Newspapers A division of Eastern Suburbs Newspapers
Newspapers Frequency Circulation
Nine to Five Weekly - Monday 41,250 Inner Western Suburbs Courier Weekly - Tuesday 75,768 Southern Courier Weekly - Tuesday 46,667 Wentworth Courier Weekly - Wednesday 47,550 Sydneyweekly Courier Weekly - Wednesday 89,396 SydneyCentral Courier Weekly - Wednesday 39,939 City Weekly Weekly - Thursday 41,295 Weekender (QLD) Weekly - Thursday 46,208 Weekender Noosa (QLD) Weekly - Friday 20,754 Village Voice Balmain Monthly 30,000* Village Voice Drummoyne Monthly 25,000* Northern Leader Weekly - Thursday 26,905 Lake Times Weekly – Wednesday 50,577 Kiama Independent Weekly – Wednesday (going to Thursday) 3,183^ Best of the Gold Coast Quarterly 142,500
Source CAB March 2006 * Publisher’s Claim ^ ABC Sept 2005
Recent Acquisitions Northern Leader Lake Times Kiama Independent
Major Owners Eastern Suburbs Newspapers is a partnership of Double Newspapers Pty Ltd, General Newspapers Pty Ltd and Suburban Publications Pty Ltd.
86 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
Leader Newspaper Group
Newspapers Frequency Circulation
Bayside Leader Weekly 39,977 Berwick/Pakenham Cardinia Leader Weekly 58,849 Brimbank Leader Weekly 65,021 Caulfield Glen Eira/Port Phillip Leader Weekly 84,341 Cranbourne Leader Weekly 26,686 Diamond Valley Leader Weekly 45,292 Frankston Standard/Hastings Leader Weekly 63,026 Free Press Leader Weekly 17,786 Heidelberg Leader Weekly 29,728 Hume Leader Weekly 54,904 Knox Leader Weekly 60,734 Lilydale & Yarra Valley Leader Weekly 38,475 Manningham Leader Weekly 44,750 Maroondah Leader Weekly 44,071 Melbourne Leader Weekly 49,914 Moonee Valley Leader Weekly 57,369 Moorabbin Glen Eira/ Moorabbin Kingston Leader Weekly 44,335 Melton/Moorabool Leader Weekly 31,783 Mordialloc Chelsea Leader Weekly 34,791 Moreland Leader Weekly 51,652 Mornington Peninsula Leader Weekly 49,793 Northcote Leader Weekly 24,885 Oakleigh Monash/ Springvale Dandenong Leader Weekly 67,093 Preston Leader Weekly 37,695 Progress Leader Weekly 69,501 Stonnington Leader Weekly 52,603 Sunbury/Macedon Ranges Leader Weekly 26,567 Waverley Leader Weekly 49,274 Whitehorse Leader Weekly 65,684 Whittlesea Leader Weekly 46,712
Source CAB for six months ending March 2006
Major Owner The News Corporation Limited
Company Directors Ms S Bradshaw R C Snelling PJ Macourt C A Macleod
Leader has advertising alliance with Times Publications Ltd.
Times Publications Hobsons Bay Times Weekly 35,182 Werribee Times Weekly 37,221 Western Times Weekly 24,470
Source CAB for six months ending March 2006
87 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
News Corporation
Media Interests Circulation at 30.6.05
Australian National and Metropolitan Dailies The Australian Mon-Fri 131,598 The Weekend Australian Sat 294,068 The Daily Telegraph, Sydney Mon-Fri 396,506 Sat 342,739 Herald Sun, Melbourne Mon-Fri 544,700 Sat 522,400 The Courier-Mail, Brisbane Mon-Fri 216,075 Sat 326,825 The Advertiser, Adelaide Mon-Fri 195,903 Sat 269,695 The Mercury, Hobart Mon-Fri 48,886 Sat 63,554 The NT News, Darwin Mon-Fri 21,173 Sat 31,512
Australian Weekly Newspapers The Sunday Telegraph, Sydney 702,133 Sunday Herald Sun, Melbourne 623,000 The Sunday Times Perth 347,500 Sunday Mail, Adelaide 324,973 The Sunday Mail, Brisbane 607,975 Sunday Tasmanian, Hobart 61,391 Sunday Territorian, Darwin 23,387 The Weekly Times, Melbourne 75,594 Sportsman, Sydney 20,000
Regional newspapers The Gold Coast Bulletin Mon-Fri 42,250 Sat 76,347 The Cairns Post Mon-Fri 28,316 Sat 45,685 Townsville Bulletin Mon-Fri 27,187 Sat 41,814 Geelong Advertiser Mon-Fri 27,156 Sat 46,681 Centralian Advocate, Alice Springs twice weekly 7,300
Australian Magazines Alpha Monthly 183,987 donna hay Bi-monthly 79,300 INSIDEout Bi-monthly 60,868
Overseas Publications United Kingdom The Sun, London 3,207,430 The Times, London 667,496 Sunday Times, London 1,308,604 News of the World, London 3,482,856
United States New York Post Mon-Fri 678,105 Saturday 468,084 88 Sunday 427,039 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
Pacific Publications News stats Fiji Times* Mon-Fri 23,760 Sat 42,655 Fiji Sunday Times* 21,967 Post Courier, PNG* 26,824
* not wholly owned
Acquisitions Nil.
Divestitures Nil
News Corporation is incorporated in Delaware, United States, with a primary listing on the New York Stock Exchange.
Company Directors K. Rupert Murdoch AC Jose Maria Aznar Peter L. Barnes Chase Carey Peter Chernin Kenneth E. Cowley AO David F. DeVoe Viet Dingh Roderick I. Eddington Andrew S.B. Knight Lachlan K. Murdoch Thomas J. Perkins Stanley S. Shuman Arthur M Siskind John L. Thornton John L. Thornton
89 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
North Queensland Newspaper Company Pty Limited
Newspapers Frequency Ownership Circulation if not 100% The Townsville Bulletin Mon-Sat 29,699 Mon-Fri 27,318 Sat.42,003
The Sun Weekly, Wed 52,691
Bowen independent Wed, Fri 3,154 The Observer Thursday 1,503 The Advocate Wed, Fri 4,087 The Northern Miner Tues, Fri 2,870 The Herbert River Express Tues, Thurs, Sat 2,787 Innisfail Advocate Tues, Thurs, Sat 3,329 The Tablelander* Tues 16,445
* free weekly
Acquisitions Nil
Ceased Publication Nil
Divestitures Nil
Owner Nationwide News Pty Limited (100%) - ultimate holding company The News Corporation Limited.
90 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
Pacific Magazines
Title Frequency Circulation Readership
New Idea Weekly 432,118 2,304,000 That’s Life! Weekly 346,148 1,155,000 Family Circle Monthly 82,012 295,000 Famous Weekly n/a n/a Girlfriend Monthly 142,892 459,000 K-Zone Monthly 90,024 333,000* Total Girl Monthly 85,431 275,000* TV Hits Quarterly n/a 138,000* Better Homes & Gardens Monthly 325,315 1,396,000 Diabetic Living Quarterly n/a n/a Home Beautiful Monthly 70,085 441,000 Your Garden Quarterly 46,825 208,000 marie claire Monthly 110,363 604,000 Men’s Health Monthly 60,682 308,000 Monument Quarterly n/a n/a
Sources Roy Morgan, March 2006 Audit Bureau of Circulations, December 2005 *Roy Morgan Youth Survey, December 2005 (Kids aged 6-13)
Readership figures, except where noted, are for readers 14 years of age and older.
Major Owner Pacific Magazines is a wholly owned subsidiary of Seven Network Limited
Company Directors P J Lewis P J T Gammell
91 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
Queensland Press Limited
Newspapers Frequency Ownership Circulation if not 100%
The Courier-Mail Mon-Sat 234,533 The Sunday Mail Sunday 607,975 Gold Coast Bulletin Mon-Sat 48,160 The Cairns Post Mon-Sat 31,270 Brisbane News Weekly 118,00 Cairns Sun Weekly 49,653 Port Douglas & Mossman Gazette Weekly 70% 4,432 Tablelands Advertiser Weekly 18,109
Acquisitions Nil
Ceased Publication Nil
Divestitures Nil
Major Owners News Corporation 100%
Company Directors L G Brindle J Harris J K Hartigan K H McDonald OBE
92 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
Quest Community Newspapers
Newspapers Frequency Circulation Circulation 2005 2006
Albert & Logan News Bi-weekly (Wed & Fri) 79,600 78,382 Caboolture Shire Herald Weekly (Tuesday) 43,693 44,661 City News Weekly (Thursday) 50,000 48,442 Ipswich News Weekly (Thursday) 40,000 Logan West Leader Weekly (Wednesday) 23,800 30,117 Northside Chronicle Weekly (Wednesday) 60,775 60,093 City North News Weekly (Thursday) 33,704 31,695 Northern Times Weekly (Friday) 82,318 83,978 North-West News Weekly (Wednesday) 45,225 44,314 Redcliffe & Bayside Herald Weekly (Wednesday) 32,629 33,229 Pine Rivers Press Weekly (Wednesday) 30,954 33,598 South-East Advertiser Weekly (Wednesday) 54,483 54,601 Southern News City South News* Weekly (Thursday) 28,235 34,600* Southern Star Weekly (Wednesday) 57,891 57,516 South-West News Weekly (Wednesday) 46,400 46,264 Westside News Weekly (Wednesday) 64,210 63,454 Wynnum Herald Weekly (Wednesday) 32,612 33,501
New Publications City South News* (renamed), Ipswich News
Ceased Publication Northern News, Southern News
Divestitures Nil.
Major Owner Quest Community Newspapers is a division of Nationwide News Pty Ltd, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of News Limited.
93 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
Rural Press Limited
Rural Press has not provided the Council with current year statistics prior to the publication of this report. The following are the company’s known print media assets in Australia.
Agricultural publications Merino Annual - annually Newspapers - State weekly Sires of the Season - annually Queensland Country Life (Brisbane) Mail Order Catalogue - annually North Queensland Register (Townsville) Mudgee Small Farm Field Days - annually The Land (Sydney) Farm Costs Guide - annually Stock & Land (Melbourne) Tocal Field Day - annually Stock Journal (Adelaide) Casino Beef Week - annually Farm Weekly (Perth) AgQuip Guide Book (Tamworth) - annually Official Guide to Tamworth - annually Magazines/specialist publications Broken Hill Ag-Fair (Adelaide) - biennially National - monthly Friday Magazine (Sydney) Victoria Australian Farm Journal (Melbourne) Beef Week (publisher) - annually Australian Horticulture (Melbourne) Good Fruit and Vegetables (Melbourne) South Australia National Grapegrowers (Adelaide) The Grower - monthly National - Two-monthly Pig Industry News - quarterly Australian Dairyfarmer (Melbourne) Livestock Annual - annually Turfcraft International (Melbourne) Beef Field Days - annually Australian Vignerons (Adelaide) Mail Order Catalogue - annually National - Quarterly Lucindale Field Day - annually Australasian Flowers (Melbourne) Biennially:Paskerville Field Day - annually Australian Landcare (Melbourne) Cleve Field Day - annually Alfa Lotfeeding (Melbourne) National - Annually Western Australia Australian Sugar Yearbook (Brisbane) Farm Weekly Magazine - weekly Hortguide (Melbourne) Beef Extra - bi-annually Flower Register – Australia (Melbourne) Farm Machinery Trader - bi-annually Nursery Trade Register (Melbourne) Farm Machinery Annual - annually Nursery Industry Phone Book (Melbourne) WA Merino Week - annually Merino Annual - annually Queensland Stud Stock Calendar - annually Australian Cotton Outlook (Brisbane) - monthly Mail Order Catalogue - annually Town and Country – South - weekly Farm Budget Guide - annually Town and Country –Central/Northern - weekly Products and Services Directory - annually Queensland Farmer - monthly Dowerin Field Days - annually Queensland Grains Outlook - monthly Mingenew Expo - annually Mail Order Catalogue - bi-annually Wagin Woolorama - annually Queensland Merinos - annually Internet In-the-Bush - annually Ag Show – Toowoomba - annually Internet Guide - annually Regional Publications Farm Fest - annually Daily Newspapers Northern Agriculture and Mining Expo – Australian Capital Territory Cloncurry - biennially The Canberra Times The Sunday Times New South Wales The Land Magazine - weekly New South Wales NSW Agriculture Today - monthly The Northern Daily Leader, Tamworth Farm Equipment Trader - monthly The Maitland Mercury Country Music Capital News Daily Liberal, Dubbo (Tamworth) - monthly Central Western Daily, Orange Farming Small Areas - bi-monthy Western Advocate, Bathurst Muster Magazine - bi-monthy Education Guide - annually 94 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
Victoria Western Times, Bathurst Rural Press stats Ballarat Courier Weekend Advocate, Bathurst Bendigo Advertiser Lithgow Mercury The Canowindra News Tasmania Blayney Chronicle The Examiner, Launceston (94.1%) Cowra Guardian Sunday Examiner, Launceston (94.1%) Young Witness The Advocate, Burnie (85.3%) Grenfell Record Forbes Advocate Community Newspapers Champion Post, Parkes Country Highlands Post, Bowral Queensland Southern Highland News, Bowral Goondiwindi Argus Goulburn Post Post Weekly, Goulburn New South Wales Crookwell Gazette The Tenterfield Star Yass Tribune Glen Innes Examiner Boorowa News The Inverell Times Harden-Murrumburrah Express, Harden Guyra Argus Cootamundra Herald The Armidale Express Eastern Riverina Chronicle, Henty Armidale Express Extra Queanbeyan Age Walcha News Tallaganda Times, Braidwood Moree Champion Cooma-Monaro Express, Cooma The Tamworth City Times Summit Sun, Jindabyne Scone Advocate Bombala Times Muswellbrook Chronicle Shoalhaven and Nowra News, Nowra Hunter Valley News, Muswellbrook South Coast Register, Nowra Singleton Argus Bay Post, Batemans Bay Lower Hunter Star, Maitland Eurobodalla Shire Independent, Batemans Bay Cessnock Advertiser Moruya Examiner The Star, Newcastle and Lake Macquarie Narooma News The Gloucester Advocate Bega District News Dungog Chronicle News Weekly, Merimbula Myall Coast Nota, Hawkes Nest The Magnet, Eden Nambucca Guardian News, Macksville Milton-Ulladulla Times, Ulladulla (60%) Macleay Argus, Kempsey Bay and Basin Times, Sussex Inlet (60%) Mid-Coast Observer, Kempsey Port Macquarie News Victoria Port Macquarie Express Ballarat News Hastings Gazette, Wauchope Ararat Advertiser Camden Haven Courier, Laurieton Stawell Times-News Wingham Chronicle Gippsland Times & Maffra Spectator (Tu), The Manning River Times, Taree Sale (40%) Manning-Great Lakes Extra, Taree Gippsland Times & Maffra Spectator (F), Great Lakes Advocate, Forster Sale (40%) Hawkesbury Gazette, Richmond Hepburn Shire Advocate, Daylesford Hawkesbury Courier, Richmond Traralgon Journal (40%) Blue Mountains Gazette, Springwood (88%) Latrobe Valley Express, Morwell (40%) The Ridge News, Lightning Ridge Moe & Narracan News, Moe (40%) Cobar Age Wimmera Mail Times, Horsham Nyngan Observer Warren Advocate Tasmania Narromine News and Trangie Advocate Tamar Times, George Town (94.1%) Gilgandra Weekly (50%) Launceston Advertiser (94.1%) Mailbox Shopper, Dubbo East Coast News, St Helens (94.1%) Weekend Liberal, Dubbo Northern Midland News, Longford (94.1%) Wellington Times Meander Valley News, Deloraine (94.1%) Mudgee Guardian and Gulgong Advertiser, Western Herald, Queenstown (85.3%) Mudgee The Weekly, Mudgee Mid State Observer, Orange
95 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
Rural Press stats South Australia Southern Weekly Magazine, Wagga Wagga The Islander, Kingscote (50%) The Times, Victor Harbor Sapphire Coaster, Bega The Murray Valley Standard, Murray Bridge Snowy Times, Jindabyne Barossa and Light Herald, Tanunda Country Music Festival Guide, Tamworth The Northern Argus, Clare Sunday Souvenir, Tamworth The Recorder, Port Pirie Country Music Directory, Tamworth Flinders News, Port Pirie Mid Coast Happenings, Forster The Transcontinental, Port Augusta Hastings Happynings, Port Macquarie Northern Sun, Roxby Downs Travel Times, Goulburn Whyalla News Newcastle Times Eyre Peninsula Tribune, Cleve Hibiscus Happynings, Nambucca Heads Port Lincoln Times Property Press, Bowral West Coast Sentinel, Ceduna Macleay Valley Happynings, Kempsey Eurobodalla Television Guide, Batemans Bay Western Australia Collie Mail Victoria Bunbury Mail Gippsland Farmer, Sale (40%) Donnybrook-Bridgetown Mail, Bridgetown Mandurah Mail Tasmania Augusta-Margaret River Mail, Margaret River Tasmania Travelways, Launceston (94.1%) Esperence Express (bi-monthly) Wagin Argus Entrée Tasmania, Launceston (94.1%) Merredin-Wheatbelt Mercury (monthly) Avon Valley Advocate, Northam Entrée - Victoria, Launceston (94.1%) Central Midlands and Coastal Advocate, (quarterly) Moora Tasmanian Farmer, Launceston (94.1%) Busselton-Dunsborough Mail, Busselton (quarterly) Golden Mail, Kalgoorlie (60%) Tasmanian Senior, Launceston (94.1%) Harvey Mail (quarterly) Tasmanian Parent, Launceston (94.1%) Suburban (quarterly) Australian Capital Territory In Business Tasmania, Launceston (94.1%) Northside Chronicle, Gungahlin/Belconnen (quarterly) Southside Chronicle, Woden/Tuggeranong The Devonport Times, Burnie (monthly) City Chronicle, Inner Canberra South Australia Queensland On the Coast, Victor Harbor (monthly) The Redland Times, Cleveland Bayside Bulletin, Cleveland Western Australia Senior Post, Mandurah (monthly) New South Wales X-Press Magazine, Perth (50%) (weekly) Queanbeyan Chronicle Zebra, Perth (50%) (monthly)
Regional Magazines /Specialist Publications
Australian Capital Territory Public Sector Informant, Canberra (monthly)
New South Wales The Border News, Moree Country Leader, Tamworth Town and Country Magazine – Hunter Valley, Maitland Town and Country Magazine – North Coast, Taree Town and Country Magazine – Goulburn/ Bega, Goulburn Western Magazine, Dubbo (79%) The Sapphire Sun, Merimbula
96 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
West Australian Newspapers Limited
Newspapers Frequency Ownership Circulation
The West Australian Mon-Sat 229,682 Kalgoorlie Miner Mon-Sat 5,688 TABform Mon, Wed, Fri 25,339 Geraldton Guardian Mon, Wed, Fri 6,823 Albany Advertiser Tues, Thurs 6,152 Bunbury Herald Weekly, Tues 25,581 Harvey Reporter Weekly, Tues 7,163 Capes Herald Weekly, Tues 13,414 Great Southern Herald Weekly, Wed 1,616 Manjimup Bridgetown Times Weekly, Wed 3,205 Narrogin Observer Weekly, Wed 2,426 Northern Guardian Weekly, Wed 4,635 North-West Telegraph Weekly, Wed 6,813 Pilbara News Weekly, Wed 6,806 Sound Telegraph Weekly, Wed 43,332 Quokka Weekly, Thurs 50,983 Countryman Weekly, Thurs 9,790 Broome Advertiser Weekly, Thurs 6,248 Broome Happenings Bi-weekly, alt Thurs 7,274 Busselton Margaret Times Weekly, Thurs 5,179 South Western Times Weekly, Thurs 14,009 Albany Weekend Extra Weekly, Fri 18,124 Mid-West Times Weekly, Thurs 20,650
Community Newspapers Canning Times Weekly, Tues 49.9% 30,058 Comment News Weekly, Tues 49.9% 54,469 Eastern Suburbs Reporter Weekly, Tues 49.9% 69,735 Guardian Express Weekly, Tues 49.9% 34,006 Melville Times Weekly, Tues 49.9% 40,138 Midland-Kalamunda Reporter Weekly, Tues 49.9% 38,354 Southern Gazette Weekly, Tues 49.9% 50,592 Fremantle-Cockburn Gazette Weekly, Tues 49.9% 43,479 Stirling Times Weekly, Tues 49.9% 49,573 Wanneroo Times Weekly, Tues 49.9% 71,694 North Coast Times Weekly, Tues 49.9% 15,919 Western Suburbs Weekly Weekly, Tues 49.9% 47,294 Joondalup-Wanneroo Times Weekly, Thurs 49.9% 81,010 Weekend Courier Weekly, Fri 49.9% 43,556 Hills Gazette Weekly, Sun 49.9% 37,921 Mandurah Coastal Times Weekly, Wed 49.9% 35,163 uestion 6 Major Owner Owned by West Australian Newspapers Holdings Ltd, a public company with about 30,000 shareholders with no dominant holder. Question 7 Company Directors W G Kent AO (Chairman) E Fraunschiel K.Steinke (Managing Director) P J Mansell M K Ward AO
97 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
Graphs Complaints received 1988-2006 by yearly totals
98 Annual Report 2005-2006 Australian Press Council
Complaints disposed of 1988-2006 Graphs by yearly totals
99 Australian Press Council Annual Report 2005-2006
Graphs Adjudications 1988-2006
year by year comparison
r
eithe
N
d
isse
ism
D
t
r par r
ole o ole
h
w
in
held
p U
1988-9 1989-90 1990-1 1991-2 1992-3 1993-4 1994-5 1995-6 1996-7 1997-8 1998-99 1999-00 2000-1 2001-2 2002-3 2003-4 2004-5 2005-6
100