Adjudication No. 87 (September 1980) [1980] APC 13

ADJUDICATION No 87 (September 1980)

Ms Jenny Brockie, Mr Don Cumming, Mr Gary Scully and Mr Robert Wurth have complained to the Australian Press Council about a series of articles on the Australian Broadcasting Commission published by the Daily Telegraph, Sydney, between April 17 and April 30, 1980. They have also complained about the editing of a letter from them to the newspaper's editor, published on May 1, criticising the first two articles.

The complainants claimed that the first article, published with the headlines "The ABC cash spree" and "Tea ladies, taxis, chauffeur-driven cars" and with the line "Inquiry at the top" superimposed over the ABC logo, contained mainly "unsubstantiated tea-trolley gossip and very little in the way of factual reporting or any hint of an 'inquiry at the top"' They said statements in the article reflected on the professional integrity of journalists. These included a remark by an unnamed ABC reporter that he did not want his name mentioned because "he didn't want to be sacked and replaced by four new reporters." The complainants claimed that this was an unfair remark directed at ABC staff who had had their numbers slashed in recent years. They also complained about "incorrect and unfair" remarks that ABC publicity departments were "mammoth" and "heavily staffed" They said the articles presented "no real evidence" to support the "so-called expose"

In reply, Mr Brian Hogben, group general manager (editorial) of News Corporation, which publishes the Telegraph, said the newspaper stood by any criticism of the ABC in the articles.

Despite the fact that the original article purports to be a serious investigation of "woeful waste" in the ABC, its examination of some aspects is trivial. Such superficiality is evident at the outset in the suggestion that the ABC is overrun with tea ladies. No figures are given to support this assertion. Equally, the claim that the ABC employs a mammoth and heavily staffed publicity team is not borne out in the article. The article also fails to cost some other examples of alleged waste, such as that said to be involved in ABC departments being spread over many locations. At the same time, the article handles some other areas of alleged waste more seriously, with details of costs involved. Aspects of the article are satirical and satire is an accepted form of criticism. The ABC, especially as it is a public body, cannot expect to be immune from such criticism.

While the Telegraph's readers might have been entitled to expect more details to support some of the article's claims of waste, a newspaper must have freedom to express such opinions and criticism, so long as it does not mislead on matters of fact. In the main, the matters complained of are matters of comment and relate to differences of opinion between the complainants and the views expressed in the article.

However, there can be no doubt that the articles strongly criticised the ABC and some of its staff, and consequently they were entitled to a reply.

On April 23, the complainants wrote to the Telegraph's editor, replying to the charges in the first two articles. An edited version of this letter was published on May 1 -- but this was after the Telegraph had published comments on the letter in the following terms on April 30:

And ABC newsmen Don Cummings (sic) and Bob Wurth and Nationwide's Jenny Brockie took time off from flicking paper clips to compose a loquacious letter of abuse. The fact that it took three people to write a two-page letter is yet another example of the woeful waste within the ABC. This tetchy trio claimed many employees were astounded by my 'inaccurate, petty and superficial treatment of the ABC' The truth is I could fill this page and possibly the next three with examples of superficial stagnation, short sightedness, and worst of all, waste in the ABC.

The council considers that publication of the comments on the letter before the letter was published, particularly as the comments were so caustic, was an inexcusable breach of the ethical standards expected of a daily newspaper. To this extent, the council upholds the complaint and admonishes the newspaper.

On the complaint against the letter's editing, the council considers such editing did not rob the letter of its significance and was within the editor's discretion. That complaint is dismissed.