|
Ian Seddon/The Courier Mail
The Press Council has partly upheld a complaint about an article published on the front page of The Courier Mail on 2 August 2013 with the heading "Kev’s $733m bank heist", continuing on page 6 as "Rudd’s raid on our savings". Above the main heading on page 1 was a smaller heading which read, "Tax on beer, cigs … and now your savings". The first sentence of the article began “Bank customers will be forced to help prop up the Rudd government’s budget…” The article was accompanied by a digitally-altered image depicting the Prime Minister as a bank robber.
The article concerned a decision of the Rudd Government to establish a Financial Stability Fund and impose a 0.05 per cent levy on the first $250,000 in any bank deposits. It was complained that the article and image did not accurately or fairly represent the Government’s policy, which was to establish a levy on banks to protect depositors against collapse, not to impose a charge on customers. It was said to be inaccurate to report that customers “will be forced” to contribute to the budget measure. It was also said that such a fund, which existed in other countries, had been recommended by the Council of Financial Regulators.
The publication said the policy would in effect be a levy on savings as in all likelihood it would be passed on by banks to depositors. It said Government sources had explicitly acknowledged that if the levy was passed on by banks, it would reduce the interest earned on deposits. The Australian Bankers’ Association had stated it was ultimately likely to be passed on to customers. The publication also said the longer online version of the article included a reference to Australia being one of only a few countries not to have a “deposit insurance scheme”. The article was accompanied by a pointer to two other articles on the same day which provided information on these schemes.
The Council decided that while some or all of the levy might be passed on to customers, this possibility did not justify the certainty which was expressed by the headlines and article. Accordingly that aspect of the complaint was upheld. The other aspects of the complaint, however, were not upheld. Read the full adjudication.
|
|
Case 1
A complaint about an online article portraying a man as the alleged villain in a neighbourhood dispute. The article included a photograph of the complainant's home. The complainant said this was an invasion of his privacy and a safety concern, in light of his reported former military activities in the Middle East. The Council contacted the publication, which removed the photograph of the complainant’s residence.
Case 2
A complaint about an online article that included a man's name when reporting about his father's business affairs. The complainant noted he was only 20 years of age at the time of the matters being described, and that the article was affecting his business reputation as it came up when his name is entered in an Internet search engine. The Council contacted the publication, which removed the complainant’s name from the article.
Case 3
A complaint about an article in the online edition of a major metropolitan newspaper about a man being charged for disorderly conduct. The complainant said the article incorrectly referred to him as a “graffiti artist”. The Council contacted the newspaper, which agreed to remove the incorrect reference to the man's occupation.
|
