Adjudication Summary

Each month, when it issues its adjudications, the Council also issues, for the benefit of newspapers, a summary of the salient points from those adjudications. For example in January 1996, the summary read:

Opinion columns

In four separate adjudications from January, the Australian Press Council clarified some aspects of its principles relating to by-lined opinion columns. One adjudication arose from the printing of a speech by a protagonist in the on-going public debate over claims of sexual harrassment at Melbourne University's Ormond College. A part of that speech reflected badly on the former Master of the College and would have appeared to the average reader to be a statement of fact. The Council noted that, recognising that such a statement was likely to be damaging, the newspaper should have checked it and, if necessary, published material giving an alternate position. In this case, the Council did not see that the offer to publish a letter after the fact would have balanced the damage done by the article. Two other adjudications confirmed the Council's view that fair comment on matters of public concern, in the political sphere, is not a breach of its ethical principles. It also noted that in one of the cases, involving Ken Aldred MP and his research assistant, the complainants did not seek redress from the newspapers concerned through a letter or an article and, in the other, following comment on the Australian Liberal Student's Federation, the newspaper was within its rights to refuse to publish the letter submitted, which it regarded as misleading. A fourth adjudication on similar matters has been withheld as an appeal against it has been lodged.

Apology needed

In a separate adjudication, the Council noted that when a newspaper is publishing misleading material, the cessation of publication is not always sufficient. In the case considered, arising from the WA Easton Royal Commission, the Council ruled that a clear and suitably prominent correction should have been published.

Letters to the editor

Two further adjudications dealt with the question of letters to the editor. In one case, the Council again stressed that newspapers should consider more carefully for publication letter from individuals or organisations which have been singled out for editorial comment. A metropolitan newspaper had attacked a particular organisation in an editorial and, although it published six letters critical of the editorial, it did not publish one submitted by the organisation, due to its length. The Council ruled that the newspaper should have negotiated for a suitable letter to allow for the organisation to have its opportunity to respond. In a second case, the Council ruled that where newspapers negotiate towards a suitable letter, they do not breach ethics if the letter writer refuses to agree to a reasonably edited letter. In the same matter, the Council also noted that acrimonious exchanges between complainants and newspapers in disputes like this make swift settlement by publication of a letter difficult.

Political parties

The Australian Press Council has clarified some aspects of its principles in relation to comments pieces about political parties, in dealing with two separate complaints from the Australians Against Further Immigration Party. In one case, the party had been desrcibed as "extremist" and in the other case as "racist". The Council ruled that any organisation, including the AAFI, which engages in public discourse should expect opinions to be formed of it. The Council found that neither publication had acted in such an unreasonable manner as to amount to an abuse of freedom of the press. The Council also noted that one of the publications had printed a letter from AAFI correcting a factual inaccuracy in the article.

Therapeutic goods

In a separate adjudication, the Council dealt with articles in a Sunday newspaper on an "anti-ageing" cream. The Council noted that news reports and feature stories dealing with medical matters should be handled with extreme care, scepticism and with due consideration of the likely effects on the public. Thorough checking is essential by whatever means possible. In this case, the newspaper was obliged to balance its reports with some form of clarification from the government's Therapeutic Goods Administration noting the body's reservations about the way in which the product was presented.

Other matters

In other matters dealt with:

• the Council ruled that newspapers were not obliged to provide every reader with the opportunity for a lengthy reply when s/he has a different opinion. In this case, the newspaper offered to publish a succinct letter but the complainant refused to edit his draft;
  
  
• the Council found that a country newspaper had acted fairly in its dealings with a local Chamber of Commerce over the reporting of a confusing Land and Environment Court ruling; the newspaper had provided what, in the Council's opinion, was a reasonable redress by way of published letter and an editorial apology; and
  
  
• the Council ruled that another country newspaper acted unethically in linking the part-owner of a business enterprise with the legal problems of her business partner which were unconnected with the business.

The full text of these decisions are reprinted in this issue of the News. The summary is available each month, on request from the Council.

Return to APC News 1996 Index

[ return to top ]

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