An Australian newspaper reported last year on an unnamed man’s apparent attempted suicide. But the man’s daughter complained over the article to the Australian press council, explaining that when the newspaper, the Southern Free Times, contacted the family before publication, the family told the paper they didn’t want the article or any information about their father published.
In addition, the online-only article invaded their family’s privacy, the daughter complained, because the story provided information that made it possible for readers to identify their father and linked him to a suicide attempt. Further, the daughter claimed the article contained errors. The press council didn’t name the daughter in its report on her complaint, the council confirmed to iMediaEthics.
In response, the Southern Free Times argued its article was in the public interest and part of a series on workplace pressures. Also in its defense, the paper said it intentionally didn’t name the man, publish all the information it had, or publish the story on its front page or online to attempt to protect the family’s privacy.
The Southern Free Times’ editor Jeremy Sollars told iMediaEthics by e-mail, “The Southern Free Times cooperated with the Press Council investigation and we accept its ruling, noting that the complaint was only partially upheld and that the Press Council clearly accepted the issue was in the public interest.”
The paper is “a free weekly publication (publishing on a Thursday), with 13,200 copies distributed across the Southern Downs and Granite Belt regions of southern Queensland, Australia, along with a growing online presence,” Sollars explained.
The press council reviewed both sides of the dispute, and ultimately came down somewhat in the middle. The press council found the newspaper did publish against the family’s wishes, which is a violation of the council’s suicide guidelines. But, the article didn’t sensationalize suicide and didn’t give the story “undue prominence,” so the council rejected other parts of the daughter’s complaint.
The council didn’t rule on other issues, like accuracy, or invasion of privacy, though.
“The Council recognises there can be substantial public benefit in reporting on suicide, and in this instance accepts that the publication was well-intentioned,” the council added.
The Australian Press Council not only has guidelines for general reporting, but also has specific guidance for reporting on suicide. Those suicide reporting standards were released in 2011, and advise journalists consider whether they have “clear and informed consent” from the family, if reporting is in the public interest, and if the level of detail in stories is excessive.