Remedies without adjudication

The Council receives around 700 complaints each year. Many complaints result in a correction, apology or some other form of action being taken due to the involvement of Council staff. The following are some examples of the Council helping complainants obtain a remedy without adjudication.

July to September 2014

July 2014
Case 1
A complaint about a report in a metropolitan newspaper that the head of a disability support organisation was in favour of “welfare reforms” proposed by the federal government in relation to disability pensioners.
The person said to the Council that he does not support a hard line approach as described in the article. Instead, he supports appropriate government measures to create employment opportunities for disability pensioners, and he opposes budget measures and welfare reforms that will adversely affect vulnerable people.
After discussions with Press Council staff, the publication agreed to post a clarification, expressed regret for any misinterpretation, and removed the article from its website and indexes so that it is no longer searchable.

Case 2
A complaint about a headline in a regional newspaper about the possible health effects of wind farms.
The complainant said the headline “No harm to health” was inaccurate because the study cited did not unequivocally report that no harm was caused by wind farms. The study noted that there is limited evidence that proximity to wind farms is associated with health problems, annoyance, sleep disturbance and poorer quality of life.After discussions with Press Council staff, the newspaper agreed to publish a letter from a spokesperson for a local group opposed to wind farms in which the group’s concerns were expressed in detail.

Case 3
A complaint by the supervisor of a supported accommodation facility that a front page article in a regional newspaper inaccurately and unfairly portrayed staff as negligent in delaying to inform the family of a critically ill resident about his condition. The complainant said staff members had insisted that paramedics admit the man to hospital, informed his brother, and called the brother again when the patient’s condition became critical.
There was some disagreement as to the degree of diligence involved in the research and writing of the news report, but following discussions with Press Council staff the publication issued a correction and published a positive story about the complainant’s organisation.

Case 4
A complaint that a letter published in a regional daily newspaper made false and derogatory comments about the history and adherents of a certain religious faith, and that the publication failed to publish or respond to the complainant’s subsequent letter to the editor, which sought to correct the earlier comments and educate readers about the faith.
After Council staff informed the publication of the complainant’s concerns, the publication said it had not received the letter but agreed to publish prominently another one from the complainant.

August 2014
Case 1
A complaint by a family about the publication of a photograph taken of them in an airport arrivals hall and during a moment of intense personal grief, in which the caption inaccurately described who they were and attributed their grieving to a major but entirely unrelated incident which was the subject of the accompanying article. The complainant said the picture was intrusive and misleading. It had been published despite their making the journalist and photographer aware at the time that they were not in any way connected to the tragedy that was the subject of the article.
The Press Council was approached after the complainant had received no response to their complaint to the publication. The Council’s staff then raised the matter with the publication, which removed the photo from the online article, sent the complainant a letter of apology with a commitment to remove the item from the publication’s photo library, and also published an apology in print and appended an apology to the online article.

April to June 2014

April 2014
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.

May 2014
Case 1
A complaint about an article in a metropolitan daily newspaper on retail outlets allegedly selling steroids and similar substances. The proprietor of some large nutritional supplement outlets complained that the name of his business had been used in the article as a generic term for supplement sellers, which might lead readers to conclude his businesses were being referred to. The Council contacted the publication to explain the complainant’s concerns. Editors then changed the generic references in the article to “supplement stores” and also published a clarification stating that the complainant’s business was not under suspicion.

Case 2
A complaint about online comments related to an article in a regional newspaper about illegal dumping of rubbish. Some of the comments accused migrants of being responsible and others suggested the migrants should go back to their countries of origin. The complainant said he found the comments offensive and irrelevant to the subject of the article. He also said his online comments about these concerns had been removed. The Council contacted the newspaper, which deleted all comments about the article.

June 2014
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.

Jan to March 2014

February 2014
Case 1
A complaint that a regional newspaper reported a food outlet as being on the State Food Authority’s register of food safety breaches. In fact, the outlet had been removed from the register after a review by the Authority.
The Council contacted the newspaper, which agreed to publish a clarification as well as an explanatory letter from the head office of the outlet.

Case 2
Complaints that a photograph and accompanying material on an online news site appeared to mock the fashion sense of a person who was obese and wearing very unusual clothing while walking on a footpath. The complainants lived in the same area and recognised the person as someone whom they knew had an intellectual disability.
The Council contacted the newspaper, which said it had been unaware of the disability. It agreed to remove the material from its website.

Case 3
A complaint that a newspaper erroneously named a person as having been killed in a shark attack. In fact, the person was only at the scene of another surfer’s death.
The Council contacted the newspaper, informing them of the error, after which the editors removed the online version of the article and published a correction, expressing regret.

March 2014
Case 1
A complaint that a metropolitan newspaper published photographs of a dead woman's house on the day of her death, leading to some family members finding out about the death for the first time in this way. The Council contacted the newspaper, which promptly removed the photos and expressed regret that some relatives had learned about the death via a news report. The newspaper also offered a mediation discussion, but this was declined by the family.

Case 2
Complaints against two regional newspapers about articles referring to kangaroo populations as being in plague-like proportions and containing unbalanced reporting on the culling industry. No comments were sought by the newspapers from people opposed to a kangaroo cull. The Council told the newspaper of the complainant’s concern, and publication of letters to the editors was arranged.

Case 3
A complaint against a major metropolitan newspaper about the online version of an article which contained photographs depicting part of the body of a young girl at the scene of a major accident. The complainant argued that publication of the graphic photos of the girl, who later died in hospital, was offensive and insensitive. Upon being notified by the Council of these concerns, the newspaper removed the two photos from the article.

Case 4
A complaint about publication of readers’ comments below a regional newspaper's online report of a memorial event for two murder victims. The complainant said that a comment by a reader claiming he had spat on the grave of someone who had been a person of interest in connection with the murder was unfair and should not have been published. She also complained that after she posted a comment to express her concerns, an abusive comment about her from the same reader was published and her subsequent response to that comment was not included. The Council contacted the newspaper, which then agreed to remove the two contentious posts and add an extended comment from the complainant.

Case 5
A complaint about use by a regional newspaper of a photo of a man in handcuffs to illustrate an article about court proceedings relating to the man’s alleged offences. The man who appeared in court said the photo was not of him and that he had not been in handcuffs. He said the photo had caused undue hardship and stress to him and his family. After the Council contacted the newspaper, the editors agreed to remove the image, publish a clarification and arrange staff training on the appropriate use of stock photos.