Opinion Pieces - a Case Study

Below are some details from a case from 1994 dealing with an expression of opinion. If you'd been on the Press Council, how would you have voted?

The complaint and finding

In May 1994, the Press Council dismissed a complaint against the Country Leader over a by-lined opinion column written by Richard Wright of the NSW Farmers Association, and dealing with what Mr Wright saw as the neglect by the media of important rural issues, in favour of such eye-catching events as the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras.

Mr Wright said that because of the media, Sydney was now known as the "poof" capital of the world. He claimed that AIDS was "God's myxo", and hoped it would work "without hurting too many innocent victims", and would "correct people's mind-set and morals so we can get on with returning this country to its former glory".

The complainant said the article was inaccurate and unnecessarily emotive, as AIDS was not an exclusively homosexual disease. Furthermore, Mr Wright's hope that the disease "would work" was offensive, inflammatory and divisive as it suggested killing off the homosexual community was a prerequisite for "returning this country to its former glory".

In its finding, the Council said that the column would be deeply offensive to many people, especially in its reference to "God's myxo". It also saw little relevance in the columnist's attempt to link the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras with alleged neglect of rural issues. However, it ruled that the views expressed were clearly those of a by-lined columnist with the approval of a major interest group, and the paper claimed it would not be justified in censoring them. Additionally it noted that the complainant should have taken up the offer of the 'right of reply', offered by the newspaper, even though he felt (as he explained in his letter to the Council) that little would be gained by this.

An exchange of correspondence

Subsequently there was an exchange of opinions between the then Council Chairman, Prof David Flint, and David Salter, the Executive Producer of ABC-TV's Media Watch, after that program criticised the finding.

Prof Flint wrote:

"Stuart Littlemore's Media Watch did not care for the adjudication on a complaint against a column in The Country Leader. [Editor's note: Littlemore is not the only one. Dorothy Ross described it as one of the Council's worst decisions. "It was so clearly in bad taste and offensive to the public," she said.] Many readers would have found the column offensive. It was certainly homophobic. But it was an opinion column, not a news report.

"There was another point: the newspaper offered the complainant the opportunity to reply. As long ago as May 1978, in Adjudiation No. 30, the Council ruled that an opportunity to reply should be given. At that time, Geoffrey Robertson QC, in People Against The Press, favourably compared this Australian Press Council ruling with those of the British Press Council.

"The Australian Press Council begs to differ [with Media Watch]: it is in the tradition of Voltaire - 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it'. Media Watch would reject this, as it is very sure of its own opinions and believes that others' opinions should, if racist, sexist, homophobic, ageist etc, be regulated.

"... malevolent speech isn't [always] immediately destroyed in the market - it sometimes takes time. It is dangerous, however, to suppress bigoted speech. This often drives extremists underground.

"Australia has achieved much without the dubious benefit of either social engineering or speech regulation. Speech regulation has an authoritarian lineage. Unless speech incites immediate violence, it should be free. Controlling opinions, even foolish or extreme opinions, has no place in a democratic society."

David Salter responded:

"Professor Flint repeats the explanation as given in the Council's adjudication that a contributing reason why the complaint had not been upheld was that the complainant had declined the newspaper's offer of a 'right of reply'. This concept defies any test of rationality. In what way would such a reply, voiced by an individual, have diminished or neutralised the general offence of the original article? How does the complainant's decision not to submit a response lessen the offence to the point where the Council is absolved of any obligation to uphold the complaint? And what, pray, would be an appropriate 'reply' to the outrageous claim that AIDS was 'God's myxo'? A denial?

"Further, the complainant may have declined the offer on grounds which bear no direct relation to the content of the article. For example, he may have been fearful of vilification, discrimination or reprisal on the basis of his identity being associated with a defence of homosexual concerns.

"We do not propose suppression of speech, but to equate freedom of speech with freedom of the press is a foolish and misleading notion. Freedom of speech is an individual democratic liberty; freedom of the press is a virtually meaningless phrase. The Chairman ... 'begs to differ' from our view that the press plays an active role in peddling prejudice. He differs but does not contradict. Instead, the Professor trundles out a familiar line often attributed to Voltaire but for which there is no conclusive evidence that it ever passed his lips.

"Media Watch has never ... advocated 'controlling opinions' as Prof Flint suggests. It is concerned with what is published. The manner is, in many ways, as important as the content. Our contention in the 'God's myxo' matter was that publication of an unreasonable opinion expressed in a deliberately offensive manner deserved condemnation from the Council.

"The thrust of the Media Watch item was quite simple. If the Press Council did not feel that the 'God's myxo' article was sufficiently offensive to uphold a complaint against its publisher, then we wondered what useful role the Council sees for itself in these matters."

Questions for consideration

1. Is the fact that the article is 'opinion' enough to exculpate it?
    
2. Should different standards be applied to someone's opinion that to a report? Even so, does this article still fall below the minimum expected standards for newspapers?
    
3. Does the fact that the columnist represents a major interest group offer any 'defence' for the newspaper?
    
4. Is an editor in cutting an article or asking for a re-write of an opinion piece engaging in 'censorship'? If so, where does 'editing' end and 'censorship' begin?
    
5. Is the offer of a letter to the editor sufficient in most cases where an offensive opinion has been published? Would it be sufficient in this case?
    
6. It is said that the test of free speech is defending not the easy cases but the difficult ones. Is this one of those 'difficult cases' where free speech needs to be defended?

see also
A Difference of Opinion - an article on opinion articles
Other Case Studies on this website.

[ return to top ]

Return to APC News 2002 Index

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