The Independent Media Council was formed in 2012 to handle complaints by readers against funding bodies.
DATE 15TH JANUARY 2018
Determination: ‘’An Anonymous Mother” v. The West Australian
On 23 November 2016 ‘The West Australian’ (WAN) published a frontpage headline “15-year-old alleged ‘Mr Big’ of Perth’s meth trade” with the spill over story on page 7. The story concerned a 15 year old boy arrested by police for allegedly selling 100gms of methamphetamine. Colour photographs of the boy appeared on both pages of the report and these were pixelated to obliterate his face.
The WAN denies any responsibility for this situation and queries whether the boy’s identity was revealed on the internet in the manner claimed. However it acknowledges that the photos it published came from his facebook page.
Although the published photos obliterated the boy’s facial features, his lengthy hair and the background details remained untouched. His hair was fairly distinctive, and in our opinion could well have been recognized by people familiar with his facebook photos. In the event of this happening a simple comparison of the published photos with the facebook photos would have confirmed his identity.
Although we are unable to verify that the boy’s identity was in fact revealed in this way, the risk that this might happen was forseeable at the time of publication. For this reason we find that the WAN failed to take ‘special care’ to ensure that publication of the edited facebook photos would not result in revelation of his identity.
For these reasons the complaint is upheld.
DATE 8TH JANUARY 2018
Determination: Glenn Scott v. The West Australian
On 27 November 2017 The West Australian published a 3 page feature on Azerbaijan under the headline “Baku to the future”.
Glen Scott complains that the article, in relation to corruption in Azerbaijan, breached Media Council guidelines in that it was not honest, accurate and balanced, did not disclose all relevant facts and therefore gave a distorting emphasis.
The article arose out of a trade mission by 28 business people to Azerbaijan,including a journalist, who conducted interviews with participants.
The journalist’s trip was paid for by the Azerbaijan Consulate. This was declared, in the usual way, at the end of the article.
As a result of credible reports in reputable international journals, Azerbaijan has an unenviable reputation as a corrupt dictatorship.
In 2013, the government reportedly declared the election result before voting had started.
Azerbaijan ranks 162 out of 180 countries in the World Press Freedom Index, no doubt because of it’s jailing of journalists, activists and civil rights lawyers.
Azerbaijan ranked 119 out of 168 countries in the 2015 World Bank Corruption Perception Index. Since then a scandal involving $2.9 billion money laundering into offshore accounts of Azerbaijan’s leaders, to be used to buy political influence, has been exposed.”
Some of this was reported in the article, but in a manner favourable to the Azerbaijan government. Generally, the tenor of the article is one of glowing praise for Azerbaijan.
One businessman was quoted as saying that he believes the government has made a concerted effort to address perceptions of corruption.
The article opined “current allegations appear to be political rather than corporate”.
In our opinion, the article was an opinion piece and therefore not subject to the more rigorous requirements of news reporting.
Regardless of whether there was any credible basis for some of the opinions expressed, opinion pieces are about what people think.
The dangers inherent in journalists accepting “freebies” are well illustrated by this article. However, no breach of the Code of Conduct has occurred.
© Independent Media Council 2012