Adjudication No. 156 (March 1983) [1983] APC 7

ADJUDICATION No. 156 (March 1983)

Does a newspaper in reporting allegations of a serious crime against a group have a duty to include in the same issue the group's reply to the allegations?

Does the journalistic ethic that reporters identify themselves before obtaining personal interviews for publication apply if a newspaper believes subterfuge is the only method by which it can gather information it believes is in the public interest?

These important issues are raised in complaints made to the Australian Press Council by members of the Rajneesh organisation and Rajneesh member, Mrs J. Cornish, against articles published in the Weekend News, Perth, on 26, 27 June and 3, 4 July 1982. The complaints were made in letters of 26 August 1982.

The first complaint by members of the Rajneesh organisation, known as "Orange People", relates to an article headlined "Mother Tells of Pack Rape".

The article deals with a young mother's claim that she was raped after being held down by two men and later she was held down by a group of men and women "while eight men raped her in turn". The alleged rapes occurred at a Rajneesh centre during a weekend in March 1982.

The article says the woman told police of the alleged rapes but declined to press charges after considering the effects on her family if she had to appear in open court to give evidence. It claims she believed there was a "direct threat" to her children if she told anybody about the alleged events.

Members of the Rajneesh organisation deny any such event took place and complain that the newspaper treated allegations of the crime of rape as a fact. They say the 500 members of the organisation in Western Australia suffered because of the article.

The Press Council cannot rule on the disputed facts of the case. It notes simply that there have been no charges laid as a result of the alleged rapes in March 1982.

The newspaper asserts the publication of the allegation was in the public interest.

The Press Council supports unreservedly the newspaper's right to investigate, and report on a religious organisation which has been the subject of public interest and controversy. That right is not at issue.

What is at issue is point one in the Press Council's Statement of Principles which says that readers of a newspaper are entitled to have both news and comment presented to them with complete good faith.

In this particular case, the Press Council believes the newspaper's fears of possible litigation and/or injunctions against publication could not over-ride its obligation to readers to present, or try to present, the views of the Rajneesh organisation on the serious allegations made against members.

The Press Council stresses that it is not making any judgement on the truth or otherwise of the allegations and is not censuring the newspaper for investigating and reporting on the organisation, but it believes the Rajneesh members should have been given the opportunity to comment at the time. But the council does note the newspaper did feature prominently the following week letters from Rajneesh members denying the original allegations.

The Press Council believes that the paper concerned acted in the public interest.

The second complaint relates to an article headlined "Young Jobless Led Towards Sect". A cadet reporter posed as an unemployed person to determine if youth worker Mrs J. Cornish, a member of the Rajneesh group, was directing young people "to a sect that preaches free love and the destruction of the family unit". After interviewing Mrs Cornish, the cadet was interviewed by a more senior reporter. As a result of the article Mrs Cornish was suspended. She was later reinstated.

Once again, the Press Council will not canvass the conflicting claims about what occurred at this interview. It is concerned with the issue of subterfuge to gain information.

In considering this issue, the Press Council repeats that it approves the Code of Ethics of The Australian Journalists' Association. Clause 7 of this code enjoins members "to reveal his identity as a representative of the Press before obtaining any personal interview for the purpose of using it for publication".

While accepting that the AJA is most suited to handle cases involving interpretations of its Code of Ethics, the Press Council is obliged to express a view on the ethical issue mentioned specifically in the complaints on this article.

It notes that the British Press Council in a 1975-76 adjudication said it "would in general deplore the use of subterfuge or deception by journalists. It recognises however that in the investigation of criminal and other misconduct little information would be obtained from the individuals concerned by police, journalists or others if they disclosed their true identity and purpose. Investigative journalism is a legitimate activity which in the past has more than once served a useful public purpose. It may necessarily involve a certain degree of subterfuge on the part of those conducting it".

The Australian Press Council accepts the general principles in that statement. However, the council stresses its belief that subterfuge must be a last resort and should be avoided "in any personal interview for the purpose of using it for publication".

In the matter of this specific complaint, the Press Council can understand the motives of the newspaper in adopting the course followed.

However, it is not altogether possible for the Press Council to determine that other means, possibly interviewing some young people who would have seen the youth worker in her official capacity, were not reasonable alternatives to the subterfuge practised.

Yet, a literal interpretation of Clause 7 of the Code of Ethics, relating as it does to a "personal interview", does afford the newspaper some relief. There were no comments of Mrs Cornish published as a result of the interview; only allegations about the topic of conversation. The complaint on this ground is dismissed.