Adjudication No. 1371  (adjudicated October 2007)

The Australian Press Council has upheld in part a complaint brought by The West Australian against The Australian over two alleged breaches of the Council's principles in relation to a column in the Media section of The Australian on 24 May 2007.

The column was written by media commentator Mark Day and it referred to a long-running "toxic row" which he says exists between The West Australian and the W.A. Government. In the commentary piece Day considers the stance and attitudes of both the newspaper and the Government. On the one hand Day defends the right of a newspaper to investigate, assess and comment on matters of public interest but notes the "extreme political pressures" that the Government has applied in its feud with the newspaper; on the other side, Day includes a comment on the combative attitudes of The West Australian under its editor Paul Armstrong. He observes that there exists an "unhealthy stalemate between The West [Australian] and the government". He concludes by offering suggestions to both parties as to how the situation could be cooled.

The West Australian, however, took issue with references in Day's column and sought redress from The Australian through an appropriate correction at the end of a subsequent Day column.

The reference related to an incident in a Perth Hospital that was reported by The West Australian on 24 January 2007, in which it was initially alleged that a frail, elderly woman was forced to sleep across three chairs because no beds or trolleys were available. The West Australian subsequently realised aspects were incorrect and dealt with them in a follow-up article and in a later editorial, although the paper continued its vigorous campaign against the alleged inadequacies of the W.A. hospital system.

One point of the complaint revolved around Day's statement, "Armstrong refused to admit error". In fact, in its 26 January editorial, The West Australian admitted there were errors, even if it did not make proper amends for publishing inaccurate information. To the extent that The Australian has not corrected the inaccuracy in the column, the complaint is upheld.

A second complaint concerned this sentence in Day's column: "The problem is that the woman was not aged, did not have a neurological condition, was offered a bed but chose to sit in the waiting room, and had praise, not complaint, about the treatment she was getting".

The West Australian took issue with "was offered a bed but chose to sit in the waiting room", complaining that the woman, who was on a trolley, was asked to sit on a chair. The West Australian subsequently asked for an appropriate correction to be placed in The Australian.

An exchange of views between both newspapers took place. The Australian initially offered The West Australian space for a letter to the editor in the media section. The West Australian thought the offer was inadequate and sought a correction to be published at the end of a subsequent Day column.

The Press Council finds that Day's column presents a legitimate opinion of a topical issue. The sentence that offended The West Australian formed a small part of the total opinion piece. The overall premise of the piece does not rest on the sentence or any error in it.

Letters to the editor offer a proven means for complainants to answer criticism, correct misconceptions and put alternative viewpoints.

he Australian offered fair and reasonable redress to The West Australian through a letter to the editor.

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.