Letter to the Editor

Following its issuing of Adjudication No. 799, the Council has received the following letter from the complainant in the matter, Geoffrey Reading, a former Press Secretary to Sir Robert Askin. The Council has agreed to print Mr Reading's letter, but asked that some explanatory editor's notes be added to clarify some points raised.

I have read Adjudication No. 799 with care and considerable disappointment.

The Council has not addressed the issues in any detail nor explained its reasons for rejecting unchallenged and documented charges by me that in relation to The Sun-Herald's Commission of Inquiry into Sir Robert Askin in 1993 the paper had seriously breached Press Council principles.

The question of the integrity of the Commission of Inquiry was made an issue on March 22 when the paper sought and was granted leave, in breach of the Council's procedural rules, to seek to prove that Askin had been corrupt.

It was explained later that if it comes to the point the Council has no binding procedural rules at all. (Note 1)

Now, nine months after the complaint was first lodged, by simple assertion, the Council has endorsed the rejection of Commissioner Waller's "not guilty" finding in favour of the paper's preferred finding of guilty.

Instead of supplying reasons for its decision the Council has substituted platitudes and taken the opportunity to establish a blueprint for the conduct of future newspaper inquiries involving defamation of the dead.

"A newspaper is entitled to publish the results of a responsibly conducted investigation into a matter of public interest." "It is in 'the market place of ideas' that the findings will be debated ... The newspaper acts irresponsibly if it publishes its finding knowing the findings to be false."

(It will be a matter for logicians to work out whether this means The Sun-Herald had acted irresponsibly in publishing the Waller decision which it now denounces.)

The centrepiece of the Council's blueprint is the following:

"The Council cannot accede to the proposition that the findings of a newspaper investigation must be beyond reasonable doubt as required in a criminal trial."

Of course, where newspaper investigations involve possible defamation of the living, papers will not be able to accede to the proposition quickly enough in order to avoid costly libel actions. But I appreciate, as I have said, that the Council here is only laying down rules for inquiries involving defamation of the dead and those otherwise unable to defend themselves. (Note 2)

I had hoped that with the determination of this complaint the Council would have taken the opportunity to retreat from the extraordinary position it adopted in Adjudication No. 764 - that papers are justified in printing whatever they believe, irrespective of proof in a legal sense - as though legal proof was not something honourable men and women would insist on where the destruction of the reputations of people or institutions was involved.

The Council's 764 position has been interpreted elsewhere as an abandonment of its Statement of Principles, in particular clauses 1, 2, 3, 5 and 11, all of which are concerned with fair and honest reporting.

It is unfortunate that this latest finding will confirm many in the view that the Council's status is that of print media apologist rather than people's watchdog.

In order to arrive at its finding that The Sun-Herald had proved Askin corrupt, in the teeth of Commissioner Waller's finding that it had not, it was necessary for the Council to ignore my undisputed charges that the paper had deceived its readers, concealed relevant information, denied readers space for legitimate complaints, displayed blatant bias, published false headlines, repudiated its own Commissioner and questioned his integrity, and will blackguard anyone who does not share its views. (Note 3)

Regrettably, ignoring these charges does not seem to have presented the Council with a problem. By turning a blind eye it has been able to conclude that the paper's investigatory process had been carried out responsibly in conformity with the requirement that such investigations should be "conducted meticulously and that all reasonable steps had been taken to ensure the truth of its findings".

The fact is there was not a shred of evidence put before the Complaints Committee that would have justified such a flattering finding. All that was revealed of the methodology employed by the paper, outside my exposure of the discreditable manner in which material had been presented to or withheld from readers, was contained in nine words: "Noela Whitton ... took most of the calls from informants." That was it!

As for the "considerable amount of direct, hearsay and circumstantial evidence" that the Council found justified the paper's renunciation of Mr. Waller and condemnation of Askin, I feel the Council would have been on stronger ground if it had specified the items that had impressed it and provided reasons why it had been so impressed. Weighty and controversial judgments ought not be delivered by simple ukase if they are to command respect. (Note 4)

In this context I believe it should be stressed that the sort of circumstantial evidence and hearsay presented to Royal Commissions and the like, and so admired and misunderstood by Mr. Whitton, is far more substantial than the hearsay and gossip presented by the paper to its readers as credible evidence. Hearsay does not get placed before a commissioner or coroner unless it had been vetted first by competent staff trained in such matters, and it does not reach the evidence stage before it has been subjected to cross-examination and corroboration from other sources. Where newspaper trials or kangaroo courts are concerned no such essential scrutiny is available.

Finally, I am intrigued to know why the name of Evan Whitton, an alternate journalist member of the Council and author of the passage found to be false, has been excluded from the adjudication. On previous occasions authors have been identified. (Note 5) Also why was the Council prepared to wait so long for answers that should have taken about ten minutes to provide nine months ago?

I hope the above may be of assistance or at least provide some food for thought.

In fairness, and as a step into the market place of ideas, I would be grateful if you would republish this letter in the Australian Press Council News.

Geoffrey Reading
4 Carcoola Street
Castle Hill NSW 2154

Editor's Notes

1. At no time was the newspaper in breach of the Council's "procedural rules". The Council is not a court of law; it conducts an informal process, governed by guidelines aimed at ensuring that both parties have a fair hearing. To ensure that fairness, the matter was adjourned to allow the newspaper and Mr Reading to provide further information and to see the information provided by the other.
    
2. Mr Reading implies that Council's ruling in Adjudication No. 799 in some ways makes it "easier" to defame the dead. In adopting its ruling, the Council noted the High Court's recent judgments in Theophanous and Stephens which now provide a defence of reasonable comment in matters dealing with the alleged defamation of those involved in political affairs. The Council quite consciously sought to place the ethical requirements for newspapers in the context of those decisions.
    
3. The complaint with which the Council dealt concerned a paragraph in the report of John Newman's funeral. The conduct and outcome of The Sun-Herald "Commission of Inquiry" was not a matter on which the Council had to rule.
    
4. The Council's role is to adjudicate matters of newspaper ethics. It is not a body that will determine whether Sir Robert Askin was "corrupt" or a "scoundrel". It did not judge the weight of The Sun-Herald's "considerable amount of direct, hearsay and circumstantial evidence"; it noted the existence of it and that its existence could lead the newspaper reasonably to believe it was justified in printing what it did.
    
5. a. Evan Whitton was the co-author of the article complained of.
   
   b. The Council generally does not name bylined journalists. It tends to name bylined columnists when the column bears the name of the writer. In its adjudication of Mr Reading's four recent matters, the Council named only one of the journalists concerned and he writes an eponymous column.

Jack R Herman

[ return to top ]

Return to APC News 1995 Index

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