Adjudication No. 224 (April 1985) [1985] APC 16

ADJUDICATION No. 224 (April 1985)

Mr M. Bray and the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board separately complained to the Press Council concerning three editorials about homosexuals and AIDS published in the Northern Star of Lismore in November and December 1984 and an article and a further editorial published on the same subject in January 1985.

The editorials raised many questions about possible modes of spreading AIDS in the community and repeated fears that had been expressed by various occupational groups as to risks which they might suffer. They argued for the placing of various restrictions on homosexuals to protect the community. Overall they projected an atmosphere of concern about the possible adverse effects of homosexuals on the community which would be likely to fan prejudices against homosexuals. It is not hard to imagine that they may have contributed to increased hostility which Mr Bray and other homosexuals claim to have suffered in Lismore. The complainants sought to show that the fears expressed in the editorials either lacked scientific proof or had been rejected by informed medical opinion. On the other hand, the editor, Mr J. F. Brigginshaw, who had personally written the editorials, quoted materials in support of his claims.

It is apparent that the state of medical knowledge and understanding about AIDS has changed greatly in recent years and is continuing to change. Some of the certitudes of a few years ago are now doubted or rejected and it would be a bold person who would say that the same could not happen to the certitudes and theories of today. Certainly the Press Council cannot do so. However much the council may deplore the effect on the attitudes of some sections of the public, it would be wrong for it to seek to inhibit any section of the Press from articulating genuinely felt concerns, even when that involves doubting current medical orthodoxy.

In areas where there are genuine differences of opinion, or facts are not known with certainty or are difficult to establish, the council upholds the right of newspapers to express opinions in good faith, provided that they distinguish matters of fact and opinion and allow reasonable opportunities for the expression of other points of view in their columns.

The Northern Star has been willing to publish the views of homosexuals and to demonstrate his good faith in dealing with homosexual issues the editor submitted copies of all material relating to homosexuals published over the last 18 months. These were examined by an officer of the Anti-Discrimination Board on behalf of both complainants, and he was satisfied that in the paper's news coverage there was no bias against homosexuals. He noted an obvious hostility in editorials, but conceded that this was the right of the editor.

There remain some specific matters of complaint. The editorials referred to AIDS as "the disease of the homosexual" or by other phrases to similar effect. The complainants said that this was inaccurate, pointing out that heterosexuals may suffer from the disease and that at some times and places they have been the predominant sufferers. However we do not think it reasonable to construe the description as implying that only homosexuals, or all homosexuals, suffer from AIDS. It is rather a dramatic way of emphasising a current connection between homosexuality and AIDS which is supported, for example, by the statement of the National Advisory Committee on AIDS submitted to us by Mr Bray: "The principal transmission of AIDS by sexual contact has been between homosexual males".

Another complaint related to the presentation of an article on 15 January 1985. It bore a heading "Children suffer in AIDS spread" and the page of close print was broken only by the insertion in the middle of the page in large underlined letters of the words "The homosexual in the classroom". The complainants argued that these two headings together suggested that children were getting AIDS in the classroom, a proposition not supported by anything in the article. The editor on the other hand argued that the two headings should not be read together, as the second was not a "sub-head" or "strapper" but a "cut-off", a journalistic device to break up a sea of type, remote from the main headline and unrelated to it. Taken separately the two headings were each justified by different parts of the article and did not carry the implication suggested by the complainants.

We accept that the paper inserted the two headings separately and for different reasons and did not intend that they should be read together. However while a careful reader of the article would appreciate this, there might be many readers who would derive their main impression from the juxtaposition of the two headings that stood out. Particularly in dealing with such a sensitive subject, about which many prejudices and misconceptions exist in the community, a paper should exercise care to ensure that it does not inadvertently create a wrong impression.