Adjudication Case Studies
for Journalism Schools
2
Contents
Suggestions for use
Introduction
The Press Council’s Standards of Practice
The Press Council’s complaints-handling process
Case Studies
Introductory Item—Complainant/WA Today (December 2015)
General Principle 1—Paul Lynch/AAP (October 2015)
General Principle 2—Timbery-Curtin/Southern Courier (October 2016)
General Principle 3
A. Complainant/news.com.au (October 2016)
B. NECA/The Australian (June 2015)
General Principle 4—Complainant/news.com.au (September 2016)
General Principle 5—Complainant/The Queensland Times (March 2016)
General Principle 6
A. Complainant/The Courier-Mail (September 2016)
B. Complainant/Hamilton Spectator (September 2015)
General Principle 7—Complainant/The Australian (June 2016)
General Principle 8—Peter Burke/WA Today (November 2015)
Press Council Complaints Form
Press Council Information Brochure
Members of the Press Council
Press Council Strategic Plan 2016-2020
3
The purpose of these case studies is to give participants an opportunity in a classroom or seminar
setting to examine a series of articles that have been the subject of complaints to the Australian Press
Council and then to consider these in light of the Press Council’s Standards of Practice.
Background is provided for each article selected, as well as a summary of the complaint made about
it and of the responses of the publication in question. The conclusions of the Press Council’s
Adjudication Panel are also provided.
Lecturers or seminar leaders should ask participants to decide whether in their view the publications
acted in accordance with the Press Council’s Standards of Practice in publishing the articles in
question.
The materials in this package are set up so that elements can be printed out or projected onto a
screen and used in any order a lecturer or seminar leader thinks appropriate.
For each case study, a lecturer or seminar leader could, for example, introduce the article and outline
its background and the complaints made. Photocopies of the article or articles in question can be
distributed or the material can be viewed on a screen.
The seminar leader could then pose a series of questions regarding the issues raised by the material.
Details of the complaints can be distributed or summarised, as can a publication’s responses. Smaller
groups could perhaps then consider and discuss the articles and issues in more detail.
The objective, in such a scenario, would be for participants to come back to the main session with
their thoughts and, possibly, a draft adjudication to present to the full group. All participants could be
asked to discuss/debate the issues further and then, under one possible scenario, vote on whether
the complaints, or aspects of them, should be upheld or dismissed and why.
Copies of the Press Council’s conclusions could then be distributed or this can be projected onto a
screen. A final discussion could follow consideration of the actual adjudication and participants’
positions can be contrasted with the Press Council's findings on the material.
However, again, the materials may be used in any order or in any way that a lecturer or seminar
leader thinks appropriate.
Teaching notes are available for this training materials package, to assist lecturers and seminar
leaders in generating discussion. These were not in the first instance intended for distribution to
participants/students, but lecturers or seminar leaders may of course use them in any way they see
fit. They are available by emailing a request to [email protected].
.
4
The Australian Press Council was established in 1976 and is responsible for promoting good
standards of media practice, handling complaints about Australian newspapers and magazines
(whether in print or online) and advocating for freedom of speech and freedom of the media.
It is now the case that:
publishers form only a minority of the Council;
the Council’s funding is on a rolling three-year cycle, and those levies are payable by
publishers even if they withdraw from the Council during that period;
publishers are no longer involved in considering and determining complaints, with the
task now assigned to panels made up only of public members and independent
journalist members; and
publishers remain bound by the Council’s Constitution to cooperate in good faith with
the complaints-handling process, including publication of the outcomes of all
adjudications to which they were the respondent.
The Australian Press Council currently has 26 members, comprising:
the independent Chair and 10 public members, who have no affiliations with a media
organisation;
eleven nominees of media organisations that are constituent bodies of the Council; and
four independent journalist members, who are not employed by a media organisation.
The independent Chair is chosen by the Council and has always been a judge or university professor.
The public members and independent journalist members are appointed by the Council on the
nomination of the Chair. The nominees of publishers are chosen by media organisations but are
expected to act in the public interest as individuals and not as representatives of the nominating
organisation.
5
The Council’s Standards of Practice are developed after consultation with the media industry and
members of the broader community. They comprise the Statement of General Principles, the
Statement of Privacy Principles, and some Specific Standards.
These, along with the Council’s various Advisory Guidelines, are all subject to ongoing review in the
light of experience, research and consultation. They are also subject to ongoing assessment against
current media practices to ensure they are promoting good practice, as well as freedom of
expression, access to reliable information and an independent and vigorous media.
For more details on the Standards of Practice and the Advisory Guidelines, visit:
ww.presscouncil.org.au
The Council revised its Statement of General Principles in 2013-14. The eight revised Principles,
which set out the basic standards applied by the Council when handling complaints and making
adjudications, came into effect on 1 August 2014.
The revised General Principles have now been applied in many adjudications and are working
effectively.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
The Press Council is now receiving an average of more than 500 complaints a year. Complaints to
the Council may lead to one of three outcomes:
Adjudication - the Council issues a formal adjudication upholding or not upholding the complaint; or
Remedy without adjudication - the publisher takes action facilitated by Council staff, eg provides a right of reply, correction or apology, as a result of which the complaint does not proceed to an adjudication by the Council; or
Other - the complaint does not proceed to resolution or adjudication because, for example, the Executive Director decides that the matter is unlikely to be a breach of the Council’s Standards of Practice or the complainant does not pursue the matter.
Upon receipt, all complaints are reviewed by Council complaints staff, and then carefully ‘triaged’, with
the more complex or difficult matters reviewed more extensively at a senior level. Generally, just over
one third are dismissed, another third are withdrawn or discontinued, and about one quarter yield a
remedy negotiated by Council staff with the cooperation of the publication in question. Approximately
5-10 per cent of complaints result in referral to the Council’s Adjudication Panel for determination, with
around three-quarters of those complaints eventually upheld.
In a Direct Adjudication, a panel of around three people will usually, though not always, make its
decision solely ‘on the papers’, without the participation of the complainant or the publication. In a Full
Adjudication, 5-7 members of an Adjudication Panel meet in a formal session and the complainant
and the publication’s representative are able to make statements and answer questions from panel
members.
In order to decide whether a matter should go to an Adjudication Panel, the Executive Director will
prepare a Provisional Summary of Issues (PSOI) taking into account information and comments
provided by the complainant and the publication. The PSOI will include the:
relevant wording or other aspects of the published material in question;
relevant parts of the Council’s Standards of Practice; and
facts and issues relating to the complaint.
The PSOI will be sent to the complainant for comment and then, after consideration of any such
comment, will be sent to the publication for a response. The complainant and the publication will be
given an opportunity at that time to suggest supplementary material which they consider should be
taken into account. These responses will be considered by the Executive Director, who will then
decide whether to refer the complaint to either a Direct Adjudication process or a Full Adjudication.
When the complainant’s comment is sought, the complainant will be advised that his or her name and
some details of their complaint are likely to be disclosed publicly if an adjudication is made. Any
request for confidentiality must be made at this stage, before any decision about whether to refer the
matter to the Council’s adjudication process. A later request will be considered only in exceptional
circumstances.
In ‘secondary complaints’, ie complaints by someone who is not personally named or directly affected
by an article, consideration of possible referral to the Council’s adjudication process may not involve
the complainant unless the Executive Director decides that it is desirable to do so in order to clarify
relevant issues. However, where practicable, the complainant is kept informed of the stage which the
Council’s consideration has reached and of the final outcome.
15
Once a Final Summary of Issues has been completed, the Executive Director makes a decision as to
whether to refer the complaint to adjudication. It is an Adjudication Panel that has the power to
determine whether a breach of the Council’s Standards of Practice has occurred, on behalf of the
Press Council. Panels comprise a Chair (either the Council’s Chair or one of the two Vice-Chairs) plus
an equal number of public panel members and industry panel members (journalists without a current
connection to a publisher).
In selecting whether to refer a matter to the Full Adjudication or Direct Adjudication process, the
Executive Director will consider:
the seriousness, novelty and complexity of the issues; and
the facts, issues and evidence involved.
Where a complaint is referred to the Full Adjudication Panel, the normal procedure involves:
consideration of the Final Summary of Issues and any relevant supplementary materials
provided by the Press Council Secretariat;
participation of the complainant (in primary matters but not secondary matters) and the
publication by telephone conference, each of whom makes an opening statement of up to five
minutes, answers questions from the Panel, and makes a two minute closing statement;
members of the Panel deliberating privately and reaching a conclusion on the issues; and
a draft Adjudication being finalised and issued for publication.
In most instances where matters are referred for Direct Adjudication, the panel members will make a
decision without the participation of the complainant or the publication. However, where the Executive
Director believes, in consultation with the Panel Chair, that there are special circumstances that
warrant participation by telephone conference, he or she may authorise this.
Adjudications are generally around 850 words in length, as the Press Council is aware that space is at
a premium in newspapers and magazines. This presents challenges when writing adjudications
involving highly complex issues.
The Panel’s provisional adjudication is sent to the complainant (in primary matters) and the
publication on a strictly and permanently confidential basis. Each party may request revision or review
of a provisional adjudication within seven days.
A request for revision relates to a possible change to the wording of an adjudication but does not
involve a change in whether aspects of the complaint are upheld or dismissed. The grounds may
include, for example, lack of accuracy, clarity or due protection of privacy.
A request for review relates to a possible change in a Panel’s decision to uphold or dismiss any
aspect of the complaint. The only permissible grounds for seeking a review are that:
a serious error of fact or procedure occurred, or significant new evidence has become
available which it was not reasonably possible to provide earlier; and
correction of the error, or consideration of the new evidence, is reasonably likely to justify a
change in the decision to uphold or dismiss.
The final adjudication and requirements for publication are sent to the complainant and the publication
on the basis that these documents are strictly confidential until the date on which the adjudication is to
be published.
16
The final adjudication must be published by the publication in accordance with requirements approved
by the Executive Director concerning date, page and positioning, and accompanying material such as
headlines. Failure to comply with the approved detail may lead to a request for re-publication.
Direct Adjudications will be published in the form of a summary (in the order of 200 words)
highlighting the nature of the complaint and the resulting outcome (upheld/dismissed), with a link to
the full text of the adjudication on the publication’s website.
All adjudications will be posted in full on the Press Council’s website and publicised via a media
release and social media channels. Complainants may also publicise the outcome through their own
communication channels.
Even if a complaint is not referred to an Adjudication Panel, the Executive Director may still decide to
send a formal Letter of Advice to the publication about any substantial risks of breach of the Council’s
Standards of Practice that are relevant to publishing material of the kind in question.
The Letter of Advice may identify factors that increased or reduced the risk of breach in the particular
case, and provide advice about action that may reduce the risk in future. In order to provide general
guidance for other publications and for members of the public, any such advice may subsequently be
made public without identifying the publication or complainant in question.
17
18
The following adjudications correspond primarily to one of the eight General Principles. However,
some may involve more than one General Principle. The Introductory Item was chosen because it
involves an unusually large number of Principles.
Introductory Item—Complainant/WA Today (December 2015)
Facts: An article implied that the complainant, a teacher, had lost her job due to photographs on
social media showing her holding a bong at a music festival and showing her topless.
Decision: Complaint upheld. The claims published were unsubstantiated and the publication
failed to take reasonable steps to ensure they were accurate, fair and balanced and to provide
adequate remedial action, The publication also failed to take reasonable steps to avoid intruding
on the complainant’s reasonable expectations of privacy or contributing to substantial distress on
her part and these effects were not justified by the public interest.
General Principle 1—Paul Lynch/AAP (October 2015)
Facts: An article claimed that Labor MP Paul Lynch had attended “a meeting organised in
support of pro-Russian separatists” and implied that he was party to the separatist sentiment. In
fact the event attended by Mr Lynch, and a number of other public officials, was the St Sava
Youth Festival, which was a cultural event and not a meeting.
Decision: Complaint upheld. The publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure its
description of the event was accurate, fair and balanced by not seeking more accurate
information from other sources or allowing sufficient time for the complainant to respond to its
enquiry.
General Principle 2—Timbery-Curtin/Southern Courier (October 2016)
Facts: Two articles, one front-page, inaccurately stated that the complainant’s great-
grandmother, La Perouse Aboriginal figure Emma Timbery, remained in an unmarked grave,
which implied the family did not care. The publication later removed the online material,
apologised to the complainant, and placed an Editor’s Note in the following print edition which
contained an expression of regret but no apology.
Decision: Complaint upheld. The Editors note was not clearly enough identified as a correction
and was not published prominently enough given the original article was front page. Given the
distress caused, it ought also to have included an apology. As such, the publication failed to take
reasonable steps to provide adequate remedial action.
19
General Principle 3
A. Complainant/news.com.au (October 2016)
Facts: The headline and first paragraph of an article reporting the failure to prosecute two men
associated with a woman’s death made references to the trio’s “wild sex” on the night of her death.
Decision: Complaint upheld. The headline and first paragraph of the article unfairly (and also
misleadingly, in breach of GP 1) suggested the woman had consented to sexual acts contributing
to her death and the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure otherwise that this was
not implied.
B. NECA/The Australian (June 2015)
Facts: Two opinion pieces claimed that NECA, a trade association, “forced” members into pattern
enterprise bargaining agreement and “received secret commissions”.
Decision: Complaint upheld. The description “forced” was not an accurate reflection of NECA’s
practices and the pieces omitted to say that the fees and disbursements NECA earned are
published in its accounts. Opinion was based on inaccurate factual material and key facts were
omitted.
General Principle 4—Complainant/news.com.au (September 2016)
Facts: An article may have led readers to believe they could enter an American lottery, when in
fact they could only lodge a bet on the outcome. Although an article published a week later
explained the distinction, an Editor’s note was only placed on the original article a month later.
Decision: Complaint upheld. The ‘explainer’ article should have been linked to the original article,
and corrections should have been made sooner and more prominently.
General Principle 5—Complainant/The Queensland Times (March 2016)
Facts: An image published online of an accused man accompanying an article dealing with crimes
the man was accused included what appeared to be his two children standing near him. The
children were not involved in the story and no consent had been obtained from any person to
publish the image of the children.
Decision: Complaint upheld. Although the image was published due to a technical error and the
material was removed within a short time, the publication had failed to take reasonable steps to
avoid intrusion on the children’s expectation of privacy and this was not justified in the public
interest.
20
General Principle 6
A. Complainant/The Courier-Mail (September 2016)
Facts: An article identified an eight-year-old boy as a potential witness against his father in his
father’s murder trial by publishing the boy’s name and identifying the location where his father
lived.
Decision: Complaint upheld. In identifying the boy and providing the location, the publication
failed to take reasonable steps to avoid intruding on the boy’s reasonable expectations of privacy
and causing him substantial distress or worse, which was not justified in the public interest.
B. Complainant/Hamilton Spectator (September 2015)
Facts: An editorial referred to child sexual assault by a former teacher as “merely touching” an
under 16 year old girl’s breast and genitals and as “misguided curiosity” and “closer to…appalling
manners”. The article criticised the severity of the offender’s punishment.
Decision: Complaint upheld. The publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing
significant offence to victims, their families and members of the wider community. The effect of the
breach was not lessened by publishing critical responses and a rather grudging apology from the
author.
General Principle 7—Complainant/The Australian (June 2016)
Facts: Two articles reported on an interview with a refugee detained in Nauru as part of Australia’s
offshore detention policy who claimed she had been raped.
Decision: Complaint not upheld. The material put to the Council suggested the woman’s interview
with the reporter and a photo session were agreed to and the publication took reasonable steps to
ensure it did not publish material obtained by deceptive or unfair means.
General Principle 8—Peter Burke/WA Today (November 2015)
Facts: An article criticising urban development processes was heavily focussed on a particular
development. The reporter had a close family member who had actively opposed the particular
development. No response was sought from the developer before publication and no follow-up
stories were published to provide further balance. .
Decision: Complaint upheld. Due to the article’s heavy focus on one development, failure to seek
the developer’s comment, and a lack of follow-up stories, the article required a disclaimer clarifying
the reporter’s interest and family connections.
Top Related