Editor's comment:

More matters of opinion

In the May 2002 APC News, there was an article detailing the Council's view on opinion pieces. It noted that, by and large, the Council supported a publication's right to publish opinions, even strong opinions. The article noted that the Council gave a wider licence to opinion writers (whether in columns, editorials, cartoons, letters or articles) but not a free pass. It also noted that the Statement of Principles applied equally to expressions of opinion, particularly in areas like offensiveness and accuracy and in the need for publications to afford those singled out for criticism with an adequate opportunity to respond.

In Adjudication No. 1257, the Council reinforced a number of these issues and, in effect, fired a warning shot across the bows of commentators. The Council says in the finding:

However, the ... commentary went further and singled out [the complainant] for criticism. In the Council's view material clearly labelled as opinion has a wider licence than, for example, news reports. However, this is not an unfettered licence and columnists are still bound by the ethical requirement that they not publish what they could reasonably know is false, nor fail to take reasonable steps to check the accuracy of what they report. This is especially the case where there are no news reports on the same material in the newspaper. The published opinion was based on an assumption of the facts, without seeking any input from the [complainant]. As a result, the article was unbalanced and unfairly derogatory of [him], characterising him in a manner not justified by the matters raised in the column.

In the same issue that the newspaper published the finding, the columnist commented on it under the heading Assaulting freedom of speech, suggesting that the adjudication shows "how little value [the Council] places on free speech ..." The columnist, himself a former member of the Council, appears unable to distinguish the Council's work on press freedom and its work in dealing with complaints from readers, where the emphasis is on press responsibility. The Council is a strong supporter of press freedom, as demonstrated by its activities in areas like privacy, defamation, contempt, freedom of information and, as noted elsewhere in this issue, national security legislation. But the Council recognises that a free press needs to be a responsible press, and so it deals with complaints about allegations of unethical conduct in the press. In saying that a newspaper breached its principles in one instance, the Press Council is in no way placing a restriction on press freedom or the freedom of any columnist to publish opinions, even strong opinions. It is an expression of the opinion, by a body of the columnist's peer, representing the publishers, journalists and members of the public, that in this instance the newspaper crossed the ethical line on questions of accuracy and whether an opportunity to respond to criticism should have been afforded.

The Council has reinforced its view that the fact that a piece of writing is an expression of opinion is not an absolute defence.

Jack R Herman

see also
article on the Council's rulings on opinion pieces
Adjudication No. 1257

Return to APC News 2005 Index

[ return to top ]

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