Press Council upholds @margokingston1 complaint against @dailytelegraph on #Ashby

By Margo Kingston  @margokingston1

27 February 2014

Soon after I took to Twitter in late 2012 I was horrified by the decision of the Daily Telegraph to bury its report of the December 12 Rares judgement dismissing James Ashby’s sexual harassment action against Peter Slipper as an abuse of Court process. The paper screamed headlines when it broke the lodgement of Ashby’s claim and pursued the case very, very hard (see The Daily Telegraph coverage of the Slipper scandal). I therefore made a complaint to the Press Council against that newspaper on December 22 and began a fascinating journey.

On June 12 last year I flew to Sydney at my own expense for the hearing of my complaint with a representative of the Daily Telegraph. The Press Council chief Julian Disney chaired a panel of community representatives. The meeting was permanently confidential, as was all documentation, until the final adjudication.

I was then advised that the adjudication panel had referred  the matter to the full Council meeting on August 29 for decision, rather than decide the matter  itself. This happens at the request of the chair or other panel members, usually because it is particularly important or might provide guidance on how the Council applied its principles. The media representative concerned, in this case Campbell Reid of News Corp, would not get the papers or be present when the matter was discussed.

The newspaper sought a review of the ensuing draft adjudication (also permanently confidential) and more documents were exchanged. I received the final adjudication on Monday this week, on a confidential basis until 6am today, when it was due for mandatory publication in the Daily Telegraph.

Here is the adjudication, followed by the documentation I am allowed to publish, since I thought readers and media practitioners, academics and journalism students may be interested in the process. The No Fibs archive of our pursuit of accountability in the Ashby saga is here.

[dropshadowbox align="none" effect="lifted-both" width="650px" height="" background_color="#ffffff" border_width="1" border_color="#dddddd" ] Press Council Adjudication 1573

Margo Kingston/The Daily Telegraph

The following adjudication has been issued by the Australian Press Council.

The Press Council has considered a complaint about an article in The Daily Telegraph on 13 December 2012, headed “Court rejects Slipper case”. The article reported a Federal Court decision on the previous day to dismiss as an abuse of process a legal action for sexual harassment brought against Peter Slipper MP by James Ashby. It appeared on page 17 of the newspaper and on the publication’s website.

Margo Kingston complained that the report of the dismissal on page 17 did not give it sufficient prominence in light of the newspaper’s very prominent and detailed coverage earlier in the year of Mr Ashby’s commencement of the legal proceedings and his allegations against Mr Slipper. The “exclusive” report on 21 April 2012 about commencement of the proceedings and Mr Ashby’s allegations had occupied all news space on pages 1 and 2 and most of page 3. On the next day, Mr Slipper had stood aside as Speaker.

The Daily Telegraph said page 17 was a prominent page and the top half had comprised the report on the dismissal, a photograph of Mr Ashby and an article on another aspect of the proceedings. It had also published reports about the matter on its website on the previous afternoon and in the next few days had published related reports online and opinion pieces in print. The story also was covered widely in other media outlets.

The newspaper said placement on page 17 was partly because of an unusually high number of other important articles on that day. The greater length and prominence of the coverage in April was due to the topic having much greater political significance as Mr Slipper was then the Speaker and his acceptance of that position had crucially influenced the balance of votes in the House of Representatives. It was also partly because the April story was an “exclusive”.

The Council agrees that the political significance and “newsworthiness” of an event are obviously relevant to the length and prominence with which it is reported. By the time of the dismissal of the proceedings, the political situation had changed considerably, especially because Mr Slipper had stood aside and then, in October, resigned as Speaker. Also, several unrelated news stories (especially the funeral of a police officer) clearly merited prominent coverage in the issue of 13 December.

The Council’s relevant Principle states: “Publications should take reasonable steps to ensure reports are accurate, fair and balanced”. The Principle does not necessarily require complete, or almost complete, fairness or balance. But a combination of factors meant that avoiding serious unfairness or imbalance was of special importance in this particular case.

First, the commencement of legal proceedings was a story the newspaper had “broken” in April, describing the allegations as “amongst the most serious ever raised” in Australian political history and “potentially deadly”.

Second, the allegations, and progress of the proceedings, were reported prominently on many occasions in ensuing months, often in the first few pages of The Daily Telegraph.

Third, dismissal of the proceedings raised important questions about Mr Slipper’s decision to stand aside as Speaker, which in the words of the newspaper happened “after The Daily Telegraph revealed allegations of sexual harassment and Cabcharge misuse – [which] means the government loses a precious vote in parliament”.

Fourth, readers of a daily newspaper of this kind can reasonably expect to be informed by it of such a key development as the dismissal of these proceedings as an abuse of process for political reasons, especially when it had previously given the matter great prominence. In the circumstances of this case, it is not reasonable to assume that readers who saw the very prominent coverage across pages 1-3 of the 21 April edition were likely to see the very much less prominent report of the dismissal on page 17 of an edition eight months later or see the report on its website. It also is not reasonable to regard the newspaper’s obligations of fairness and balance as having been met by the story being widely covered in other media outlets.

The Council upholds the complaint due to the very stark difference between the detail, tone and prominence of the newspaper’s initial coverage on 21 April and of its report on 13 December of the dismissal. The later report did not need to match the prominence and detail of the earlier report by, for example, being of similar length and on the same pages. But in the circumstances of this case the degree of difference was so great as to constitute a clear breach of the Council’s Principle concerning fairness and balance.

It is not the Council’s role to say precisely how this unfairness or imbalance should have been avoided. There were clearly a number of possibilities between which the publication could choose.

Additional note (not required for publication by the newspaper):
The newspaper said that the prospect of an appeal by Mr Ashby influenced its decision not to give the issue more extensive treatment. The Council notes, however, that it is common and accepted practice to report court decisions, sometimes in great detail, even though they may be subject to an appeal. The newspaper also quoted from an Advisory Guideline of the Council on bias. The words which it quoted relate to bias and fairness in publishing different political opinions, but this adjudication relates to fairness and balance in the reporting of facts.

Relevant Council Principles (not required for publication by the newspaper):
This adjudication applies part of General Principle 1: “Publications should take reasonable steps to ensure reports are accurate, fair and balanced.” [/dropshadowbox]

 

1. Margo’s complaint to Press Council


2. Press Council Statement of Issues, with Daily Telegraph response, my reply and their rejoinder


3. Press Council adjudication panel fact sheet


4. The Daily Telegraph request for review of provisional adjudication


5. Margo’s response to Daily Telegraph request for review


6. The final Press Council adjudication


Daily Telegraph reaction:

ABC Mediawatch

The Tele slips on Slipper

The Conversation

Is press freedom a licence for unfair and unbalanced coverage?

Comments

  1. Eva Makowiecki says:

    Well done Margo Kingston. Even if it did take a while for such a blatantly obvious case of political bias to be ‘outed’.

    The Daily Telegraph is so unfair, the sooner it goes bankrupt the better. Hopefully the ‘Australian’ can go down as well.

    it’s laughable that the DT even defended itself!. But that’s the way it’s played – just stand there with a straight face and go “what do you mean that wasn’t fair?” Even the Press Council couldn’t buy that. What is tragic is that the Press Council needed to explain this to the DT.

    Similarly, Fox News people don’t have to report news, they just say what ring wing stuff they are told to say for that day. As long as it’s very right wing, they don’t have to tell the truth, or in any way cover an issue so viewers can have some understanding. And their job is to make you think that this type of reporting is normal – anything else is ‘socialist’ and dangerous.

    The DT was clearly undermining the Labor government, and seeking the installation of a conservative government – bugger the voters, they are there to be manipulated.

    Is this level of deliberately misleading, self-serving right wing political commentary one of the biggest dangers to democracy we face? After all, this right wing political shift (since the 80s) has seen the growth of the biggest gap between rich and poor any of us have ever seen, and the removal of much of the middle class.

    Is the future becoming a scary place?


  2. Thank you Margo! I have been trying to find some way to contact you ever since reading Not Happy John recently – could not read it earlier – too angry already! However, the Slipper case was so obviously a concocted (!) one that I kept writing to Sydney orning Herald asking if it was the same hit squad that had finished off Pauline Hanson – e.g. Tony Abbott etc. Now we have that man in Government – cortesy of the Telegraph and Rupert Murdoch – and they have the Army doing their dirty work with refugees “protecting our sovereign borders” – I can’t stand it. I have been trying to get some interest from media about a report I recently read that “there is unease in defence circles about having a military commander reporting directly to the Immigration Minister for what remains a civil law enforcement function.” There certainly should be ‘unease’ because refugees are a civil matter – not to mention all the UN declarations Australia has signed re refugees. A lot of lawyers in the Coalition will know that refugees are a civil law matter. But when will these military personnel who are uneasy come out from under the desk, I wonder? Could you give them a prod please, Margo?

  3. Dean Hepburn says:

    Awesome work Margo!


  4. Bolt wants Abbott to tell newspapers to sack their self-regulation body the Press Council!!!! That after raging against any Govt interference during last year’s media reform debate and proclaiming the value of self regulation. It’s somehow muzzling the Murdoch Megaphone for Murdoch papers to run Press Council rulings when it finds against them – even when they run lengthy editorials blasting those findings. Murdoch Media are the enemies of anyone’s free speech but their own. http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/sack_the_press_council_it_is_a_meance_to_free_speech/

Speak Your Mind

*