Adjudication No. 459 (October 1990) [1990] APC 31

ADJUDICATION NO. 459 (October 1990)

The Australian Press Council has upheld a complaint against the Brisbane Sunday Mail by Mr Lawrence Apps, Reader in Journalism at the University of Queensland.

Mr Apps complained on two grounds about a story published in the Sunday Mail on 20 May and an editorial and a follow-up article a week later.

The article on 20 May, the main cause of the complaint, was headed HARD PORN SLIDES IN MEDIA COURSE. The article claimed that, as part of a course called "The New Journalism", audio-visual slides showing women undergoing degrading forms of sexual abuse, including mutilation, were shown to journalism students. The paper said the overwhelming majority of these students were young women.

The Sunday Mail said the slides showed "horrific pornographic" images including women with mutilated breasts or genitals, a woman being assaulted with a jackhammer, another being fed through a meat mincer, and a stillborn baby being exhibited while onlookers performed "depraved acts".

Mr Apps's grounds for complaint were:

1. That the story was obtained by deceit. The journalist who approached him said she wished to write a story on female students in the journalism course similar to one she had done previously on girl students and mathematics.

That this was to be the basis of the article is not disputed by the newspaper, which says it suspected the university would be sensitive to any publicity about the slides. In fact, Mr Apps says the interview proceeded for three hours before the reporter raised "almost as an aside" the matter of the audio-visual material. This, which then became the sole subject of her published story, was hurriedly viewed by her without full benefit of the audio explanation of its relevance.

In its Statement of Principles, the Press Council says "News obtained by dishonest or unfair means, or the publication of which would involve a breach of confidence, should not be published unless there is an over-riding public interest."

2. The second ground raised by Mr Apps was that the story as published was inaccurate, in that it failed to explain the context in which the slides were shown and the reason for the inclusion of the audio-visual material in the "New Journalism" course.

Mr Apps said the audio-visual material was titled "Abusive Images of Women in Mass Media and Pornography". It was created by WOMEN AGAINST VIOLENCE IN PORNOGRAPHY AND MEDIA, a San Francisco organisation whose aim was to eliminate pornographic media images of women. It was a standard teaching resource, accessible from the open library collection, and used widely in a number of countries. It had been used at the University of Queensland for the last three years.

Contrary to a claim in an editorial in the Sunday Mail, the material did not come from the underground pornographic industry. A number of the images of women being degraded or violently treated came from mainstream sources. This was the particular reason for their inclusion in the journalism course.

Mr Apps agreed that whether the material was "horrific and pornographic" was a matter of opinion. However, he said, though a number of statements in the article were accurate, the story overall was inaccurate because of omission of balancing material.

The Press Council upholds Mr Apps's complaint on both grounds. The Council points out that deliberate omission of relevant facts is as unacceptable as the deliberate publication of false statements.