Adjudication No. 55 (May 1979) [1979] APC 8

ADJUDICATION No. 55 (May 1979)

The National Front of Australia complained to the Australian Press Council about the accuracy of a headline and report in The Sunday Observer, Melbourne, of April 8. The headline said "Terrorists trained by Army Reserve" and the report asserted that the National Front, among other groups, had members being trained in the Army Reserve.

The National Front questioned the propriety of a newspaper quoting an unnamed National Front source about National Front activities. The quoting of anonymous sources is common and justifiable practice in political reporting. The Press Council, therefore, dismisses this section of the National Front's complaint.

The National Front asserted that the heading was misleading because the paper published nothing to "substantiate the allegation that any of the people or organisations referred to in it have been convicted of terrorism". The paper's defence on this issue was that National Front members in the United Kingdom had been convicted of acts of terrorism and planned terrorism and the Australian National Front had been formed along similar lines to the United Kingdom body.

No evidence was produced by the paper to suggest that the Australian National Front was in fact a terrorist organisation. In other words the use of the word "terrorists" in the headline was unsubstantiated in the text in so far as it related to the complainant. To this extent the complaint is upheld.

The major substance of the National Front complaint was that its Chairman, Rosemary Sisson, had been misquoted. The paper said Ms. Sisson had said, "We have been well trained in the use of guns and explosives if we have to defend ourselves against political opponents."

Ms. Sisson denied making this statement and the Press Council established during its hearing that the quoted remarks were in fact a composite of remarks allegedly made by Ms. Sisson at various times and at various places.

Even though the original report had been reduced by two thirds to fit the space requirements of the newspaper, the paper clearly was at fault in presenting remarks as a direct quotation when this was not the case. Readers are entitled to believe that direct quotes are what they purport to be and those misquoted in such circumstances are entitled to the protection of the Press Council. Accordingly, this part of the complaint is upheld and The Sunday Observer censured.