Adjudication No. 186 (May 1984) [1984] APC 13

ADJUDICATION No. 186 (May 1984)

By letter of 15 August 1983, the Narrabeen High School Parents' and Citizens' Association complains about an article in the Manly Daily of 12 July 1983.

The article, in a column, revealed and commented on the problems of a handicapped boy attending a special class at a local high school.

Neither the boy nor the school was named in the column which alleged:

• Other children stuck drawing pins into his buttocks; tipped him out of his wheelchair, and smashed one of his crutches.

• The school headmaster showed lack of interest in the mother's complaint.

• Other teachers refused the mother permission to stay at the school so her son could identify the boy who broke one of his crutches.

Broadly, the association's complaint lists the following: the factual basis of the column was not checked and it was not fair or impartial; the newspaper failed to publish a fair balance of letters particularly in relation to complaints about the factual basis of the column; and that it did not apologise or end the controversy when a Department of Education investigation claimed factual errors nor did it publish the results of this investigation with sufficient prominence.

The newspaper replied that the article was by a columnist offering a personal viewpoint "of matters affecting many people and perhaps to cast a different light on those matters for the education, stimulation and, as may happen from time to time, provocation of others".

It said the columnist was not a reporter who must ignore comment and personal feelings in pursuit of an objective portrayal of the facts of the matter. But it added the columnist was aware of the necessity to base comments on facts and was satisfied this was done.

The Press Council believes the newspaper performed a public service in raising this issue. But, in some regards the informant's claims were not subjected to proper scrutiny. There is no evidence some of the claims alleging senior staff at the school were uninterested or uncaring were checked before the column appeared.

The Press Council cannot rule on the facts. It can, though, rule on the absence of any attempt to check the factual basis of the views before publication, thus rendering the column unfair and partial in this regard.

On the question of letters, the Press Council does not have sufficient evidence to demonstrate whether the newspaper published a fair balance or not.

The association is under a misapprehension if it believes a report of a departmental investigation should necessarily be regarded as conclusive. While the newspaper had an obligation to publish this finding, which it did, there was, and can be, no obligation to accept the finding.

The Press Council upholds the complaint only in relation to the failure to check some facts in the column and dismisses the other complaints.