Smallville Gazette - Monday 1 March 1991
Gay TV man's heartbreak
BROKEN AFFAIR
KILLED SMITH
Local television weatherman John Smith may have killed himself after his lover ended their homosexual relationship.
Jilted and deeply depressed when his lover dropped him for another person, Mr Smith most likely jumped into a raging sea off rocks at Sandy Beach.
Some police now believe that the love affair which went wrong may have been the motive for Mr Smith's decision to end his life.
Mr Smith was a member of the gay community, spending time in the gay bars of Metropolis' Main Street. Many of the TV personality's Smallville friends were aware of his homosexuality.
Police investigating his disappearance have kept the lid on Mr Smith's private lifestyle. But sources reveal his homosexual links may be relevant to investigations.
Mr Smith, 27, disappeared in the early hours of February 12 after a regular weekend visit to stay with a friend in Metropolis.
The television presenter had a meal, telephoned a number of people, then left the Jones St flat about 11 pm to go to a bar in the Railway Hotel, Tinker Square.
continued on page 2
spill on page 2
Broken heart may have killed Smith
Mr Smith apparently met up with a friend, had a number of drinks and visited other bars before parting company about 2 am outside the Railway Hotel. He was last seen driving east in Main Street.
Mr Smith was reported missing after failing to appear for work on February 14.
Two friends, knowing Mr Smith's habits, went to Sandy Beach and found his Holden sedan.
On Monday morning those friends spoke to the local police telling them of their find and a description was circulated, saying fears were held for Mr Smith's safety.
The same friends later searched rocks near the sea path from Sandy Beach to Seal Rocks and found Mr Smith's car keys on a rock ledge.
A sea, air and ground search failed to find any trace of Mr Smith.
The police air wing is currently carrying out regular patrols of the east coast looking for Mr Smith.
[ return to top ]
Background to the Complaint
On Wednesday, 24 February 1991, the Smallville Gazette carried a front page bylined story (with spill on page 3) reporting the disappearance of John Smith, a local television weatherman. He had last been seen in Metropolis the previous Saturday and his abandoned car had been found at the cliff tops near a coastal beach.
An even larger front page bylined story (taking up the whole front page and with a spill on page 3) the next day followed-up the story, including the speculation that the disappearance might be a hoax.
On 26 February, there was an unbylined story on page 5 centred mostly on the official police answers to a number of questions raised by the newspaper.
The attached story appeared on the front page of the following Monday's Gazette. It occupied the right half of the front page and spilled to page 2.
A month later, a full page 5 bylined article reviewed the case, giving further details of the missing man's background, noting the unsolved nature of the case.
[ return to top ]
The Complaint
We wish to protest in the strongest possible terms at an article which appeared on the front page of the Smallville Gazette on Monday 1 March 1991.
The item referred to the disappearance of SMV TV News Presenter John Smith ... citing a broken homosexual affair as the reason he supposedly "jumped into a raging sea off rocks at Sandy Beach".
We believe the statements in this article were a total fabrication by the writer...in an attempt to "beat up" a new angle on the John Smith story.
To date, there is no proof that John is dead, he is only listed as missing. Further, police have no evidence to suggest he either committed suicide or met with an accident.
But even worse than the lack of facts is the blatant use of a person's sexual preference as the basis for a story. This article contains no new information on John's disappearance. It's merely a cheap excuse to make certain claims about him for all to see.
As John's colleagues, we take extreme offence at this tasteless display of writing, and can only hope it has not caused more distress for his family.
We note also that the writer chose to remain anonymous. There is no sign of the by-line usually displayed on front-page Gazette stories. Clearly the Editor knew the reaction he would get.
To add insult to injury, in the "Whispers" column of Tuesday's Gazette, mention was made, light-heartedly, of SMV TV's current lack of weekend News Presenters. Not a tactful item, given the reasons behind that shortage.
We ask the Press Council to act on what we see as the Gazette's contempt for its fellow workers in the media, and the absence of ethics displayed in these two articles.
[ return to top ]
The newspaper's request for detail
It would be helpful to me if the complainants could furnish more information to back up their complaint.
I refer immediately to the third paragraph of the letter of complaint which says "We believe the statements in this article were a total fabrication by the writer ... in an attempt to 'beat up' a new angle on the John Smith story."
I would like to know whether SMV can supply a basis for that contention. If SMV can provide some evidence that the story was a fabrication, then I would be in a position to investigate more fully.
As matters stand, the paragraph is very vague and only refers to a "belief".
I plan to provide the Press Council with a full response in several weeks but that extra information from SMV would help considerably in the preparation of the Smallville Gazette case.
[ return to top ]
Response from the Complainants
We believe our original letter adequately set out our grounds for complaint, but if the editor wishes it, we will provide further details of our concerns.
In reference to the editor's letter of August 23, one would imagine most complaints to the Press Council emanate from an individual's or group's "belief" that a story should never have been published. And in this case, we still believe the front page story and its headline were a total fabrication by the writer, who chose to remain anonymous.
The headline "Broken Affair Killed Smith" gives the mistaken impression the Gazette has much more than speculation as the basis for its story. However, the five paragraphs which follow have few, if any, hard facts.
Use of phrases such as "may have killed himself", "Mr Smith most likely jumped into a raging sea", "some police now believe that the love affair which went wrong may have been the motive" would not have been necessary if the writer had concrete information on his or her subject. At the time of printing, police had not confirmed Mr Smith was dead. It is therefore no surprise that the story quotes no source, and provides no evidence that John Smith was "Jilted and deeply depressed."
We maintain our complaint that, far from providing new information, it would appear the Gazette wrote this article purely to announce to the world that a well-known personality was gay. If so, the story was exploiting a person on the basis of sexual preference.
We would be happy to provide any more information required to the Press Council, however we fail to see why we need to provide evidence to the editor that the story was a fabrication. Surely it is now up to him to reply.
[ return to top ]
Editor's reply
I must say at the outset this is one of the most absurd complaints I have ever received.
In fact, I am not sure at all what I am supposed to be responding to or what the nature of the complaint embraces.
Earlier, I wrote to the Press Council seeking some form of elaboration from the complainants but their reply was as nebulous as the original letter of complaint.
Despite these difficulties, I shall attempt to address the matter.
SMV Television complains about a front page story in The Smallville Gazette on 1 March 1991.
In the letter of complaint on August 4, the SMV Television complainants said: "We believe the statements in this article were a total fabrication by the writer ... in an attempt to beat up a new angle on the John Smith story."
It baffles me how one news organisation can accuse another of fabricating without producing an iota of evidence to substantiate that claim.
Nonetheless, The Gazette stands by its story. It is not a fabrication and the theory that Smith committed suicide by jumping into the sea because of a broken love affair remains a strong one.
I have no intentions of revealing The Gazette's sources of information on this matter. Newspaper reporters working on the case for The Gazette have spoken to a number of police, both locally and in Metropolis.
The newspaper has received dozens and dozens of phone calls from people volunteering information. Reporters have checked a number of leads. Many have been discounted.
The Gazette also investigated Smith's past and found he had a criminal record: he was convicted for homosexual activity in a public toilet.
John Smith was a workmate of those who have complained to the Press Council. Might I say at this point that SMV's own handling of the story was laughable. It was almost ignored. So much for their ethics.
There has been in this city overwhelming public interest in the John Smith case. The Gazette has been the only medium to give the public regular updates on the story. SMV complains that to date "there is no proof John Smith was dead, he is only reported as missing." I suppose that in reality there is no proof either that Juanita Neilson or Azaria Chamberlain or Samantha Knight or even Harold Holt is dead.
But there is enough circumstantial evidence to show the possibilities are strong. The same applies to Smith.
His car was found abandoned near Sandy Beach. The car was locked. Scattered on the front seat were a few lewd pictures. His car keys were found on rocks near the waterline.
The area was a well known meeting place for homosexuals. A detective who walked over the rocks slipped twice. This convinced one senior investigator that Smith had fallen into the sea. Another believed he suicided.
Certainly there is no proof that he is dead. There seldom does exist total proof with missing persons. But a newspaper cannot be condemned because it publishes police theories when the missing person is a well known public figure who commands enormous public interest.
To suggest, as SMV says, that The Gazette's writer should have concrete information on "his or her subject," when the matter involves a missing person, defies belief.
In the annals of crime and misadventure, theory and speculation based on known facts are commonplace.
In the case of John Smith it was known his car was parked, locked and abandoned in a Sandy Beach street near a beach. It was a known fact Smith was having an affair with a man living in a Metropolis suburb. (The Gazette interviewed that man).
It was known that police had information from somebody very close to Smith that a Metropolis man had spurned Smith's advances. (The Gazette knows the source and the name of the policeman to whom this information was given.)
When Smith's Smallville flat was inspected, a number of pornographic pictures were located. Some days later police found some of Smith's clothing and pornographic pictures on a dump near Smallville.
The Gazette did not report this incident. SMV alleges the story was written to "announce to the world that a well known personality was gay".
The Gazette says that Smith's sexuality was extremely relevant. I might add that it has also been strongly suggested in some areas that Smith fled because he had AIDS.
Given his background of visiting toilet blocks for sex, I suppose this story could be true. The Gazette has never bothered to pursue it.
I must also inform the Press Council that our journalists have experienced some difficulty covering this case because of a lack of co-operation from investigating police.
When Smith first disappeared, a policeman appeared on TV and spoke freely about the case and put forward some of his own theories about what might have happened.
The following night on TV, another policeman appeared and proceeded to repudiate what the other policeman had said the previous night.
Gazette journalists cultivated their own contacts. I must also say that SMV's own coverage of the case has been appalling. If any breach of ethics has been involved, then SMV is clearly guilty because it allowed a personal involvement to interfere with their duty to inform the public on developments.
SMV never at any stage attempted to take the story any further. The fact that John Smith was one of their own, sat very uncomfortably with them because of the homosexual component.
I repeat that The Smallville Gazette stands by its reports. It stands by the journalists who wrote them. Finally, we would be intrigued to know how SMV can be so sure that The Gazette story was a fabrication.
I have invited SMV to supply that information. They have failed to do so. Consequently, I believe their complaint should be dismissed.
[ return to top ]
The complainants wrote further
We stand by a complaint lodged against the Smallville Gazette over an article which appeared on the front page on Monday 1 March 1991.
In his responding letter, the editor claims to be unsure of the exact nature of the complaint, even though it is set out clearly in our original letter:
"We believe the statements in this article were a total fabrication by the writer, in an attempt to beat up a new angle on the John Smith story... But even worse than the lack of facts is the blatant use of a person's sexual preference as the basis for a story. This article contains no new information on John's disappearance. It is merely a cheap excuse to make certain claims about him for all to see."
In his letter, the editor refers to the "theory that Smith committed suicide by jumping into the sea because of a broken love affair."
That sums it up: a theory. The story on 1 March was based on one of the many theories circulating about the disappearance, but in this case, it was wrongly presented as fact. The headlines "Broken Affair Killed Smith"..."Gay Man's Heartbreak" were deliberately misleading. The story was written in such a way that speculation could easily be misinterpreted as truth.
In an attempt to defend himself, the editor runs over the "known facts" to supposedly justify telling the public that John Smith killed himself because of a broken homosexual affair. For some reason, he includes the discovery of "lewd pictures" in John's car, and pornographic pictures in his flat. He also introduces into this letter reference to a criminal record ... information the Gazette only produced after being forced to "dig around", because of the outcry over the 1 March story. He also makes the suggestion that John fled because he had AIDS, acquired from visiting toilet blocks for sex. We find these inferences extremely disturbing, as they reveal a certain bias and lack of objectivity on the part of the writer.
We maintain that the sole purpose of the story was to announce to the reading public that a well-known figure was a homosexual. Contrary to what the editor suggests, that was not a well-known fact prior to John's disappearance, even among his colleagues at SMV-TV.
The editor uses the well-worn phrase of refusing to reveal the Gazette's sources of information. Presumably that extends to the anonymous writer of the article. It has been suggested that the journalist involved wrote the story under coercion. We would ask the Press Council to investigate this matter.
Lastly, the editor turns his lack of defence to an attack on SMV-TV's coverage of the John Smith disappearance. If he chooses to make a formal complaint, we would certainly defend it. Until then, it remains a deliberate diversion from the real issue.
We would ask the Press Council to proceed with our complaint as swiftly as possible.
[ return to top ]
The editor concluded
I have no further interest in the SMV TV complaint regarding John Smith or the Press Council's deliberation.
Let the Press Council find what it may. I have no doubt what the result of this will be and I have nothing further to say.
[ return to top ]
Questions to consider
- Was the article, and the coverage of the event, an intrusion on privacy? Was it an intrusion on the family's right to privacy?
- If so, was the newspaper justified by the public interest in the matter or by John Smith's standing as a public figure?
- Even if so justified, did the newspaper overstep the bounds of good taste in its reporting and, if it did, was that so repugnant as to be extremely offensive to its readership?
- Were the questions relating to John Smith's sexuality germane to the story or a gratuitous emphasis on a matter of sexuality?
- To what extent was the newspaper entitled to speculate on the matter of John Smith's sexuality?
- Was the article a "beat up" for which the newspaper had insufficient information? Were the headline and the speculation in the opening paragraphs justified by the information held by the newspaper?
- Do the other stories written on the same matter add support to the contention that the newspaper was overplaying the story or demonstrate that the story was an on-going matter of public interest to the newspaper's readership?
If you would like to, you can send to the Council your adjudication of the above complaint and the reasons for that adjudication. Subsequently the Council will post a precis of its adjudication of the complaint based on similar material and a summary of the "adjudications" received from Web users.
Other Case Studies
Case study 1 - a posthumous outing
Case study 2 - suburban terror
Case study 3 - the mutilated body
Case study 4 - Dad Slain
Case study 5 - A matter of opinion
Case study 6 - Opinion pieces - not fictionalised
Case study 7 - Blood in the Streets - not fictionalised
[ return to top ]
