News

Watchdog censures The Age for incorrectly stating that Essendon coach had been fired

The Australian Press Council has rapped The Age for a headline which incorrectly stated that Aussie rules club Essendon had sacked its coach, James Hird.

But the watchdog cleared the publication of failing to take remedial action when the error was discovered.

The headline, “James Hird removed as Essendon coach” appeared on The Age’s homepage on October 2 last year and linked to an article supporting the headline’s statement that the embattled Essendon Football Club coach had been removed from his position. However, Hird was not removed and remains as Essendon’s senior coach.

Following complaints, the Press Council questioned The Age, which said the original suggestion of Hird’s removal came from a “reliable source”.

The newspaper said the headline was changed after several hours to read “James Hird will be removed as Essendon coach in coming days”, once it became clear that Hird had not been removed.

The Age said the error was “one of timing” resulting from an extremely fast-moving story which it was “adjusting through the day”.

It also said the online error was addressed in its next print edition on October 3 in a front page article titled “Day of execution becomes stay of execution” and a rear page article “Hird axing delayed”.

The following day, October 4, another story appeared under the headline “Essendon still pointing fingers”, in which the author of the original article, football writer Caroline Wilson, wrote: “This columnist regrettably reported wrongly that Hird had already been removed. It was an error of timing but still an error.”

In its determination, the Council said the article concerned “a matter of widespread interest and considerable importance within the AFL community” and so it was necessary for The Age to “be especially rigorous before making the statement, or to make a more qualified and less emphatic statement”.

The Council concluded that its Standard of Practice relating to accuracy has been breached because “reasonable steps were not taken to justify a report that the removal had already occurred”.

The Council further concluded that steps taken by The Age in updating the online version of the story and making clear in subsequent articles that Hird’s removal had not occured meant The Age had not breached the requirement that adequate remedial action be taken.

The full ruling is being carried by The Age today.

Jack Fisher

ADVERTISEMENT

Get the latest media and marketing industry news (and views) direct to your inbox.

Sign up to the free Mumbrella newsletter now.

 

SUBSCRIBE

Sign up to our free daily update to get the latest in media and marketing.