Adjudication No. 57 (May 1979) [1979] APC 10

ADJUDICATION No. 57 (May 1979)

The Australian Press Council has received a complaint about material which purported to be a Letter to the Editor but was in fact part of the text of a radio broadcast.

The complaint was made against the St. George and Sutherland Shire Leader which, on March 28, published in its Letters to the Editor column what appeared to be a letter from the Anglican Bishop of Wollongong, the Rt. Rev. K. H. Short. The letter expressed the view that under God's standards homosexuality was expressly forbidden.

The complainant to the Press Council said his attempts to put a contrary view were rejected by the newspaper. The paper told the Council that it did not propose to allow itself to be used for propaganda supporting homosexual causes.

The Press Council upholds the complaint on two grounds. First, the Press Council believes that the reading public is entitled to an accurate presentation of the material in a newspaper. To present material as a Letter to the Editor, when it is not, is against the best interests of the reading public. The "letter" from Bishop Short was in fact a slightly edited text of a radio talk given by the Bishop which had been circulated to newspapers in the region.

Although the Bishop did not complain about the way his talk was treated, the material was printed as a letter without his knowledge or consent.

Such treatment of sensitive material may lead the public to assume that the editorial views of a newspaper are receiving unsolicited support from influential figures in the community when this may not be the case.

The Letters to the Editor of any newspaper are an important part of the activities of a newspaper which purports to serve the general public. The public should be able to accept that the integrity of such an item is beyond reproach.

The second reason for the Press Council upholding the complaint was that the newspaper refused a reasonable right of reply to views contrary to those expressed by Bishop Short. This action clearly is a rejection of the duty which newspapers have to respect the right of the general reader to be informed of the arguments on each side of a public debate.

The Letters to the Editor column is a valuable forum for such debate. To restrict that forum to one point of view (and that in a purported Letter to the Editor)is an act of suppression and intolerance which should not be excused.

Accordingly, The St. George and Sutherland Shire Leader censured.