APC Update | Issue 31
 |
| APC UPDATE | 20 June 2014 |
| Summary of latest adjudication |
| Complainant/The Age |
| A complaint about an article on The Age website on 10 October 2013 reporting the findings of the jury in the trial of Robert Meade for the murder of his former wife, Sally Brooks. After separating from Ms Brooks, Robert Meade had re-married and moved to another city with his new wife (the complainant) and her daughter. |
| The complainant said the report breached the privacy of her daughter, who was 17 at the time, by naming her when there was no need to do so. The publication replied that the girl’s name was read out in court and there was no suppression order preventing the publication of the name. |
| The Council considered that it was justifiable in the public interest to report on the findings. However, it decided that publishing the girl’s name was not sufficiently in the public interest to outweigh the need to respect her privacy, especially as she was a minor and still at school. The publication had withheld the names of three other children mentioned in court, and had only named the complainant’s daughter in the version of the article published on its website, not in the longer version published in the newspaper. |
| These aspects contributed to the suggestion that the names of the children involved in the matter were not required for a full, frank and accurate report of the crime. Accordingly, the Council decided that its Standards of Practice relating to privacy had been breached. Read the full adjudication |
| Remedies without adjudication |
| Recent examples of the Council helping complainants obtain a remedy without adjudication |
| Case 1 |
| A complaint by the organisation SANE Australia that an article in The Daily Telegraph reporting on L’Wren Scott’s death breached the publication’s own standards and the Press Council’s Standards of Practice on coverage of suicide. The article described in detail the unusual method by which L’Wren Scott had taken her own life, and it was alleged by SANE Australia to have sensationalised a serious issue. |
| The Council's staff convened a meeting with the publication and the complainant. The publication then agreed to prominently publish in its Saturday edition an acknowledgement that the reported details were inappropriately specific and an apology for any distress caused. The publication also committed itself to reiterating to all of its editorial staff the need to adhere to the Council’s Standards of Practice on coverage of suicide and re-issuing a copy of the Standards to all editorial staff. |
| Case 2 |
| A complaint that two letters to the editor in a regional newspaper perpetuated the erroneous notion that Daniel Morcombe was waiting at a bus stop when he was abducted in 2003, thereby inaccurately and unfairly attributing blame for the abduction to bus drivers. The complainant provided official correspondence and other documents that absolved bus drivers of any responsibility. |
| The Council’s staff contacted the publication, which then acknowledged the complainant’s concerns and prominently published a letter from the complainant making the case that bus drivers should not be blamed for the boy’s abduction. |
| Case 3 |
| A complaint that an article in a regional daily misrepresented a report of the National Health and Medical Research Council by stating that the report had concluded there were no credible health risks associated with wind turbines. |
| The Press Council’s staff contacted the publication, which pointed out that it had published two subsequent articles that included comments by opponents of wind farms on the health impact of turbines. It agreed, however, to publish a clarification in its Saturday edition acknowledging that the NHMRC report was not as unequivocal as the article and headline had suggested. |
| Australian Press Council Address: Level 6, 309 Kent St, Sydney, 2000 Phone: (02) 9261 1930 or 1800 025 712 Fax: (02) 9267 6826 Email: info@presscouncil.org.au Web: http://www.presscouncil.org.au |
Search
