The Age lost considerably fewer Press Council rulings, in whole or part, in the 2014-15 financial year than in the previous financial year, with it forced to publish just two Press Council statements in its pages for the year. In 2013-14 The Age lost the most adjudications of any print publication apart from the Daily Telegraph, with six complainants upheld by the self-regulatory print media body.
The Press Council earlier this month released its latest financial report, which gives a complete look at how many adjudications it issued against newspapers and online media outlets. Its figures are more than a year old, as the body’s report only relates to the 2013-14 financial year. But Crikey has compared those figures to the published adjudications on its website. Our analysis considered weekend papers as part of the same publication as the weekday ones, and where a complaint was against several papers (as is often the case with these things in the Fairfax metros), we considered a complaint to have gone against every paper to which the adjudication was issued.
Comparing the two years showed all major publishers had fewer complaints upheld in the financial year just passed.
The Sydney Morning Herald and The Daily Telegraph in both years were among the leading papers rapped by the Press Council — though perhaps their high profile and wide readership meant they were more likely to receive complaints than many of the other papers.
In 2013-14, the leading publishers forced to print Press Council adjudications were:
- The Age, with six adjudications in whole or part against it;
- The Daily Telegraph, with six;
- The Sydney Morning Herald, with five; and
- News.com.au, with two
In 2014-15 financial year, the figures (complied by Crikey from published adjudications) were:
- The Sydney Morning Herald, on five adjudications against it
- The Daily Telegraph, with three
- The Australian, with three; and
- The Age, with two
News.com.au, which in 2013-14 had 2 adjudications against it, didn’t receive a single one in 2014-15.
The annual report shows the Press Council had a total of 467 complaints submitted over the 2013-14 financial year, made by 849 people. Of these, nearly half related to coverage in New South Wales, and the majority related to publication both online and in print.
Of the total complaints, 159 were declined with no further investigation, 160 were withdrawn or discontinued, while 108 were remedied without a full adjudication. Another 28 went to full adjudication, of which 20 were upheld in whole or part.
The figures are far from comprehensive accounts of the number of things publishers retract, apologise for, change or clarify — they merely show the volume of contested issues decided on by the Press Council. It’s interesting that while News Corp has been vehemently opposed to the Press Council’s conduct in recent years, particularly under previous chair Julian Disney (who stepped down early this year), Fairfax just as frequently butts heads with the Press Council.
I’m attaching a recent string of correspondence with the ACP which may explain why there are fewer reprimands
Sent to APC Friday 17th July
This piece from the Climate Council (https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/setting-the-australian-straight-again) begins by stating ‘The Australian newspaper continues to publish stories and editorial pieces on the so-called “pause” in warming. The Australian Press Council has previously expressed “considerable concern” about inaccurate climate change coverage in the Australian.’
It’s not just The Australian. The Daily Telegraph this week published a column by Andrew Bolt under the headline ‘Labor leaker has brains to expose insanity of Bill Shorten’s new carbon tax plan.’ This included the following ‘facts.:
Fact: Global warming has paused or stopped, with no real rise in atmospheric temperature for some 18 years, according to authoritative satellite data from both the Remote Sensing Systems and the University of Alabama at Huntsville.
Fact: Catastrophes predicted by global warming scientists have not occurred. Even the IPCC confirms we have not had worse or more cyclones, nor a worldwide increase in droughts. The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation reports rising crop harvests over the past two decades. An Auckland University study found 80 per cent of low-lying islands such as Tuvalu and Kiribati are not drowning, but “have either remained about the same or, in fact, gotten larger”.
Fact: A warmer planet could be healthier. As The Lancet recently reported, 6.5 per cent of deaths in Australia are caused by cold weather, but only 0.5 per cent from hot.
Further, on page 1 of the Telegraph on Wednesday July 15, was a headline ‘Shorten to bring failed Green tax back from the dead.’
This was not a failed green tax. On July 17, 2014 The Sydney Morning Herald reported that:
‘Australia cut carbon dioxide emissions from its electricity sector by as much as 17 million tonnes because of the carbon price and would have curbed more had industry expected the price to be permanent, according to an Australian National University study.
The report, due to be submitted for peer-reviewed publication, found the two years of the carbon price had a discernible impact on emissions even assuming conservative responses by consumers and businesses.’
Now I know you’re going to write back to me and ask me to make a complaint. As you know I have done so in the past, and was successful in bringing Piers Akerman before the APC. My complaint failed because Mr Akerman’s column appeared under the heading of ‘opinion’ even though contained serious errors of fact. I understand that you have changed your guidelines so that even opinion pieces need to check their ‘facts.’ Quite obviously Mr Bolt either has not read this or has decided to ignore it.
As for my making a complaint in the way that you ask, I really do not have the time. My job is to write and consult. Your job is to be the watchdog of the Australian press.
Surely, having expressed ‘considerable concern’ you have the power to censure these misleading pieces of journalism.
Why must members of the public, having drawn your attention to these breaches of APC standards have to spend their time doing what is essentially your job?
I await your reply
Kind regards
Monday, 20 July 2015 4:39 PM
Dear John,
I write to acknowledge the receipt of your email to the Press Council dated Friday 17 July 2015.
Please note as predicted in your email, as provided in previous emails to you, the complaints handling process operates via the submission of a Complaints Form at the following address: http://www.presscouncil.org.au/complaints-form/.
If you would like us to review any article of concern, we ask that you submit a Complaint Form accordingly.
Also note our general time limits on making complaints, which is thirty days from the date of first publication.
For this and more information about how to submit a complaint, please visit: http://www.presscouncil.org.au/making-a-complaint/.
Yours Sincerely,
Justin
Justin Levy | Complaints and Compliance Officer
Tuesday 21st July
Thank you for your prompt and courteous reply Justin.
My last email began with a quotation from the Climate Council: ‘The Australian newspaper continues to publish stories and editorial pieces on the so-called “pause” in warming. The Australian Press Council has previously expressed “considerable concern” about inaccurate climate change coverage in the Australian.’
I guess that there are paid officers in the Press Council. And if you/they can ‘express concern’ then why can’t they take the next step and admonish the publication?
The way it works now, the general public is asked to spend time compiling complaints. The last complaint I issued would have taken me some four to five hours in total to assemble and send, and then another half day for me to appear at the press council only to have Mr Akerman exonerated because th admitted inaccuracies (lies?) he published appeared under the heading Opinion.
Here’s an idea. I will compile a complaint if you pay me. Say a bargain basement price of $25 an hour.
I really don’t see why we, the complainants, should be doing the work of the Press Council. The breaches are there for you to see – I certainly don’t mind pointing them out to you – but as for the time consuming gathering of evidence, I really think that is your job
Meanwhile, Bolt gets away with telling lies and conning the gullible every week.
Kind regards
Needless to say I’ve had no reply to my generous offer