The editor-in-chief of the Australian, Chris Mitchell, has urged fellow publishers to resist the Australian Press Council’s “activism” and publish graphic photographs where they see fit after the council reprimanded him for breaching confidentiality.
“I absolutely promise to do everything I can to remove my paper from the activism of the council, which has no business telling people what pictures to run,” Mitchell said on Thursday. “I am interested in publishing truth.”
The latest press council issue to spark Mitchell’s ire is the placement of graphic photographs on the front page of a newspaper.
“In some instances, a shocking photograph conveys the truth about important events in a far more accurate way than thousands of words,” the Australian said in an editorial on Tuesday. “The truth can sometimes be confronting and even shocking. But the role of the news media is not to suppress or play down the truth.”
In the editorial the Australian questioned a recent adjudication by the press council about the Daily Telegraph publishing a photograph on its front page of the US journalist James Foley about to be beheaded by a man brandishing a large knife.
“[The council] told the Telegraph that ‘on balance’ there was no breach of press council standards, but it considered the photograph ‘could well have been published on an inside page without losing its effectiveness’,” the editorial said.
“With the utmost respect, the non-journalists who dominate press council adjudication panels don’t know what they are talking about. Unlike the editors at the Telegraph, they have no training or experience that could provide a rational basis for this unjustified intrusion.”
The Australian also “decided to disregard the requirement that a forthcoming ruling should remain secret until it is finalised” and criticised in the same editorial an ongoing adjudication about the publication of a photograph of bodies in the crash site in Ukraine of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17.
The council issued a strongly worded statement on Thursday in response to this confidentiality breach, saying the council expressed “deep concern” at the conduct of the Australian.
“The council has also denied assertions made by the Australian about the scope of the council’s authority, about recent adjudications by the council, and about recent statements by its chair [Julian Disney],” the statement said.
Mitchell has stopped short of threatening to withdraw the paper from the press council – which investigates complaints about members – but has vowed to fight what he calls the “activism” of the council under Disney.
“I believe the publishers need to resist some of Julian Disney’s activism and defend their right to publish,” Mitchell told Guardian Australia. “The image on my front page after MH17 was very carefully cropped and placed.
“My readers were not offended. I get thousands of letters a day. I know when they are offended.
“And [Paul Whittaker’s] front page [in the Daily Telegraph] was very mild in an age in which Isis crimes can be widely viewed on the internet.”
When asked if the Australian could withdraw from the council while News Corp remains a member, a spokesman said: “The member of the council is News Corp. It is bound to ensure that all its publications, including the Australian, comply with News Corp’s obligations as a member.
“Under the constitution, four years’ notice needs to be given of any withdrawal from the council.”
The council has also warned that anyone who lodges a complaint about the Australian can no longer be guaranteed confidentiality.
The executive director, John Pender, accused the Australian of misrepresenting the facts.
“The Australian’s assertions about the legal and traditional scope of the council’s work are incorrect,” Pender said.
“It has also misrepresented the particular adjudication to which it referred, the provisional adjudication in relation to which it breached confidentiality, and the council’s general approach to photographs which depict the horrors of accidents, war or other disasters.
“The requirement of confidentiality of provisional adjudications is designed to enable complainants and publications to have an opportunity to comment and seek changes before an adjudication is finalised. This opportunity will continue to be generally available but will need to be reconsidered where a publication repeatedly breaches the terms on which it is provided.”