The ABC is standing by the veracity of a rural news report which claimed animal rights activists had complained about sheep being verbally abused by shearers, despite claims it is highly misleading.

ABC Rural reporter Cherie von Hörchner broadcast a story last week headlined: “Complaint lodged over alleged verbal abuse against sheep”.

Her report, also available on the ABC website, referred to a Peta US complaint about the treatment of sheep on Boorungie Station last year.

Though the ABC was aware of the full range of complaints lodged by Peta, which included punching a lamb in the torso and standing on a sheep’s head and neck, they received no specific mention in the story.

Instead the ABC journalist quoted Boorungie Station owner and subject of the complaint Ken Turner talking about how Peta suggested the sheep “could at least understand English”.

“The basis for the concerns was the rights of the animals, that they might have been harassed by viewing things they shouldn’t have seen or verbal abuse by people using bad language,” Turner told the ABC. “To my knowledge, there was no actual cruelty on the job.

“The allegation was that bad language was used by an employee on the property in front of the sheep, and that they could have been offended by the use of bad language.”

Hörchner’s story had all the elements of a quirky Australian yarn and was duly widely followed up in Australia and overseas, in stories that poked fun at animal activists who complained about swearing at sheep.

Headlines included: “Australians Are Trying to Decide if It’s OK to Swear at Sheep” (Time): “Aussie Sheep Station Under Fire For Cursing At Animals” (Huffington Post); “How dare ewe: shear rudeness against sheep” (Nine News); “Shearer under fire for verbally abusing sheep” (The Times UK) and “Inequality on the rise as sheep abuse rears its ugly head” (The Australian).

Bernard Lagan, Australian correspondent for The Times of London, wrote: “Sheep on an outback farm were shorn of their dignity as well as their wool when a shearer swore at them, an animal rights group has claimed.”

The follow-up stories all relied on the ABC’s take on the story.

However, the activist group Peta told Guardian Australia the original complaint was not about verbal abuse but about serious physical violence.

“Peta’s complaint detailed instances in which shearers working at Boorungie Station punched sheep in the face, punched a lamb in the torso, stomped and stood on sheep’s heads and necks, struck them with a pipe and electric clippers until they bled, picked up one sheep by the hind legs and threw her head first through a gate, and crudely stitched up gaping wounds without any pain relief,” Peta Australia’s director of campaigns Jason Baker said.

“If foul language were the worst that sheep in Australian shearing sheds had to endure, then no complaint would have been filed. This is simply another example of the industry trying to distract from the very real issue of sheep being abused by shearers.”

After the story travelled widely Peta released the redacted complaint made to RSPCA NSW, which detailed instances in which shearers working at the station punched sheep in the face, stamped on their heads and more.

“[W]itness 2 saw this [X] worker … punch a sheep in the head, bouncing his or her skull off the hard wooden floor at the [X] shearing shed. Witness 2 then saw [X] hold the sheep’s head in his left hand as he punched the animal in the head, three more times, bloodying his knuckles and the sheep’s head. Witness 2 heard [X] repeatedly yell, “Fuck” and then saw [X] stomp on the sheep’s head, twice, audibly bouncing the animal’s head off the hard wooden floor. After again yelling, “Fuckk,” [X] punched the sheep in the head a fifth time – again bouncing the animal’s head off the floor – and kicked the sheep in the torso. Witness 2 saw that the sheep bled from the head following the sustained beating and that the blood pooled on the floor.”

An ABC spokeswoman said management stood by the report.

“ABC Rural management has reviewed the story and does not agree that the approach taken was ‘sensationalist’,” an ABC spokeswoman said. “The story references other forms of abuse to offer context to the suggestion of verbal abuse. It is this angle that other media sources have chosen to focus on.

“The program-makers made the decision not to include details of further abuse since the case had not proceeded and evidence had been regarded as inadmissible.

“Also, it wasn’t the key aspect of the story being investigated – whether bad language could be considered abuse in the case of animals, which is an element of an animal abuse case that we hadn’t heard before.”