Adjudication No. 1309  (adjudicated February 2006)

The Press Council has upheld in part a complaint brought by Dr Colin Long against the Chelsea Independent, a Melbourne suburban newspaper, over its reporting of a controversial development called 'Chicquita Park' on a site that the complainant and others would prefer to be preserved as public parkland.

The complainant initially complained against an article, Bill tops 1/4 m, published in the 26 July 2005 edition of the newspaper. The article contained statements relating to the legal and consultancy costs borne, and likely to be borne, by the ratepayers arising from the controversy over the development. It also mentioned a forthcoming special meeting of the local council to hear submissions from the Friends of Chicquita Park and the developer, Omni Developments. The article added that '[m]ore than 50 submissions' had been received by the local council. It also mentioned that the developer's proposal involved 'giving just over 50 per cent of the site over to open space'. This was followed by the sentence, 'Eleven per cent of this amount is taken up with roads and footpaths which leaves just over 40 per cent as public parkland'.

The complainant said that the reference to 50/40 per cent was an "attempt to obfuscate"; that the newspaper was biased; that it failed to distinguish fact from opinion; and that his letter to the editor was not published.

The Press Council notes that the Chicquita Park saga had gone on for more than four years, with the newspaper publishing a number of articles on the subject and many letters arguing all sides of the issue. The newspaper pointed out that it had published 'in full' several letters written by the complainant, and that 'none of his letters have gone unpublished'.

Although the newspaper had refused to publish the complainant's letter of 8 August on the basis that it was 'inflammatory and defamatory', it was prepared to consider publication if the letter was resubmitted in a revised form.

The Council's Statement of Principles recognises the right of a newspaper strongly to advocate its own views on controversial topics, but news reports should not present opinion as news. Because it combines commentary as an integral part of a news report, this article does not meet this test.

return to
Adjudication index

[ return to top ]

Documents with the icon require the Acrobat Reader, a Free Utility from Adobe. Click here for more information.