Summary
Nina Funnell’s most recent articles about Bettina Arndt violate Australian Press Council Principle 8 - namely “Ensure that conflicts of interests are avoided or adequately disclosed, and that they do not influence published material.”
Similarly, they breach Principle 1, the accuracy requirement, and Principle 3 relating to fairness and balance of the published material.
Funnell’s recent articles about Arndt
Immediately after the announcement of Bettina Arndt’s award Nina Funnell published this article:
Rosie Batty speaks out against Australia Day award winner Bettina Arndt
Nina Funnell, news.com.au, Jan 26-27, 2020
The entire article consists of an attack on Ms Arndt, using cherry-picked quotes from her articles and videos, which are used out of context and clearly designed to discredit her.
As one example Funnell quotes a 1997 article written by Arndt about a Canberra doctor who was charged, but not convicted, of molesting patients. Funnell states Arndt said the doctor should not be charged, but deliberately omitted the key points of that 1997 article – most importantly that Arndt was one of his victims, and that a Judge and the full court determined the man should not be charged, as did a number of his other victims. Arndt has explained how Funnell misrepresented this article here.
Similarly, Funnell fails to acknowledge key issues in Arndt’s conversation with the convicted teacher in the Bester video, including his acknowledgement he deserved prison for his very serious crime.
Two days later, the following article was published, which was apparently the result of a two- year investigation by Funnell into Arndt’s qualifications:
Nina Funnell & Chris Graham, New Matilda, Jan 28, 2020
The article fails to point out that Arndt was fully qualified and worked as a clinical psychologist at a time when registration was not required in New South Wales. Arndt has given numerous interviews explaining she gave up clinical work within a year to work in the media as a social commentator.
As is commonplace for well-known people, Bettina’s professional background is often included in descriptions of her in the media.
Funnell also fails to explain that she used social media to solicit complaints to authorities about Arndt’s qualifications - none of which were substantiated. Arndt has explained she had extensive consultations with AHPRA regarding how she should handle this issue.
This article is neither fair, nor accurate, and fails to adequately disclose how the activist Funnell stands to gain from damaging Arndt’s reputation.
Funnell’s history of attacks on Arndt
The journalism ethics breaches in recent weeks are not the first time Funnell has behaved this way towards Bettina Arndt. Here is a list of similarly unfair, inaccurate, unbalanced articles written by Funnell about Arndt in recent years.
All of these articles fail to comply with Principle 3, requiring balance and fairness, and the requirement that “writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts.” Every example used to attack Arndt omits key facts and reflects Funnell’s animosity towards Arndt. To try and suggest this is, in any way, dispassionate, independent reporting by an impartial journalist, would be absurd.
Conflict of interest
Nina Funnell is a director of End Rape on Campus, an activist group seeking to promote the idea of a “rape crisis” at Australian universities. This organisation has been influential in persuading universities to investigate and adjudicate sexual assault.
Bettina Arndt has been speaking on university campuses for over 18 months, providing evidence that there is no “rape crisis” at our universities and exposing the dangers of universities usurping criminal law. Her successful campaign led to new university free-speech codes and recently a Qld Supreme Court ruled the campus kangaroo courts are illegal.
Hence Arndt’s work poses a real threat to Funnell’s activism on campuses. As outlined, this has not been adequately disclosed in Funnell’s articles provided, so that this fact is immediately and obviously clear to any reasonable reader. It has also clearly influenced the content, or material published, in the articles, which is an indisputable violation of Principle 8.