Adjudication No. 1407  (adjudicated September 2008)

The Press Council has dismissed complaints by Andrew Wannet against the Camden Advertiser over the paper's coverage of a proposal to build a Muslim school in Camden and the decision by the Camden Council to refuse a planning application.

Mr Wannet is a member of the Camden/Macarthur Residents Group that protested against the proposed school. He complained the paper had not displayed balance and fairness in its reporting on the issue leading up to the council decision and that the coverage of the council's decision had misrepresented the statistics about the nature of the submissions to council.

The application by the Quranic Society for the proposed school in October, 2007, became a major issue and led to community meetings; more than 3000 submissions to the council; several petitions; and comments by Federal and State politicians. It was extensively covered by the local media including the Camden Advertiser, the Advertiser's own internet blog section and other internet sites.

Mr Wannet's complaint about the coverage leading up to the Council decision followed a page 1 report on February 6, 2008, headed Muslims Respond, giving the views of the Quranic Society following public concern about the proposal. Mr Wannet complained that the paper did not seek comment from his group on the report and did not print its media release in response.

The Advertiser said it had run many stories and letters about the issue including some from Mr Wannet and other members of the residents group and that Mr Wannet had posted many blog comments under various names on its website and submitted letters to the editor under false names.

A further decision on what is newsworthy is the editorial judgment of the paper and it is under no obligation to print every letter or opinion it receives on an issue.

A further complaint concerned reports on May 28 and June 4, after the council's decision. In particular, Mr Wannet singled out one section of the May 28 article, headed The Fury, that said the vast majority of the original submissions objected to the school on religious grounds and gave excerpts from some of them. The June 4 report headed World thinks we are racist said the decision had been covered in many countries and its website had been swamped with comment calling Camden residents "racist" for not welcoming Muslims into the area.

In a comment attached to a letter also published on June 4 complaining about the paper's coverage, an acting editor's note said the excerpts represented about 99 per cent of the submissions that were received. She said some objected on planning grounds but the clear majority opposed the school on religious grounds as was pointed out in the article.

Mr Wannet said it was clear to him that the majority of concerns in the submissions were of a planning nature as detailed in a summary by local council officers.

The Press Council believes the interpretation of what is an objection on religious grounds is blurred as Camden council officers found many of the submissions were based on a number of factors such as religion, planning, traffic, environment or other issues and would overlap into several categories. By selectively choosing some of the most outspoken excerpts based on religious grounds for publication after the council's decision, the Advertiser could be accused of singling out one divisive theme from multiple concerns. In any case, the "99 per cent" comment is clearly an exaggeration. However in the Council's view this one piece of hyperbole is not sufficient to suggest the overall coverage of the debate was unfair.

The Press Council finds the paper gave fair and balanced coverage to all views on a very controversial and divisive subject.

[ return to top ]

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