By Margo Kingston Ā @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 judgementĀ dismissing James Ashby’s sexual harassment action against Peter Slipper as an abuse of Court process. The paper screamed headlines when it broke the lodgementĀ of Ashby’s claim and pursued the case very,Ā 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 CouncilĀ 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 thatĀ the adjudication panel had referred Ā the matter toĀ the fullĀ CouncilĀ meeting on August 29 for decision, rather than decide the matter Ā 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 theĀ CouncilĀ 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 wasĀ 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 13Ā December 2012, headed ā€œCourt rejects Slipper caseā€. The article reported a Federal Court decision on the previous day to dismiss as an abuse of process a legal action for sexual harassment broughtĀ against Peter Slipper MP by James Ashby. It appeared on page 17 of the newspaper and on the publicationā€™s website.

Margo Kingston complained that the report of the dismissal on page 17 did not give it sufficientĀ prominence in light of the newspaperā€™s very prominent and detailed coverage earlier in the year of Mr Ashbyā€™s commencement of the legal proceedings and his allegations against Mr Slipper. TheĀ ā€œexclusiveā€ report on 21 April 2012 about commencement of the proceedings and Mr Ashbyā€™s allegations had occupied all news space on pages 1 and 2 and most of page 3. On the next day, MrĀ Slipper had stood aside as Speaker.

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

The newspaper said placement on page 17 was partly because of an unusually high number of otherĀ important articles on that day. The greater length and prominence of the coverage in April was due toĀ the topic having much greater political significance as Mr Slipper was then the Speaker and hisĀ 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 ā€œexclusiveā€.

The Council agrees that the political significance and ā€œnewsworthinessā€ of an event are obviouslyĀ 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 hadĀ 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 13Ā December.

The Councilā€™s relevant Principle states: ā€œPublications should take reasonable steps to ensure reportsĀ are accurate, fair and balancedā€. The Principle does not necessarily require complete, or almost complete, fairness or balance. But a combination of factors meant that avoiding serious unfairness orĀ imbalance was of special importance in this particular case.

First, the commencement of legal proceedings was a story the newspaper had ā€œbrokenā€ in April,Ā describing the allegations as ā€œamongst the most serious ever raisedā€ in Australian political history and ā€œpotentially deadlyā€.

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

Third, dismissal of the proceedings raised important questions about Mr Slipperā€™s decision to standĀ aside as Speaker, which in the words of the newspaper happened ā€œafter The Daily Telegraph revealed allegations of sexual harassment and Cabcharge misuse – [which] means the governmentĀ loses a precious vote in parliamentā€.

Fourth, readers of a daily newspaper of this kind can reasonably expect to be informed by it of such aĀ key development as the dismissal of these proceedings as an abuse of process for political reasons,Ā 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 veryĀ 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 itsĀ website. It also is not reasonable to regard the newspaperā€™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 andĀ prominence of the newspaperā€™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, forĀ example, being of similar length and on the same pages. But in the circumstances of this case theĀ degree of difference was so great as to constitute a clear breach of the Councilā€™s Principle concerningĀ fairness and balance.

It is not the Councilā€™s role to say precisely how this unfairness or imbalance should have beenĀ 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 issueĀ more extensive treatment. The Council notes, however, that it is common and accepted practice to report courtĀ decisions, sometimes in great detail, even though they may be subject to an appeal.Ā The newspaper also quoted from an Advisory Guideline of the Council on bias. The words which it quoted relateĀ to bias and fairness in publishing different political opinions, but this adjudication relates to fairness and balanceĀ in the reporting of facts.

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

 

1. Margo’s complaint toĀ PressĀ Council


2.Ā PressĀ CouncilĀ Statement of Issues, with Daily Telegraph response, my reply and their rejoinder


3.Ā PressĀ CouncilĀ 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.Ā 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?