Adjudication No. 237 (June 1985) [1985] APC 29

ADJUDICATION No. 237 (June 1985)

On January 29, 1985 the last car of a suburban passenger train was derailed on a bridge at Como as a result of the buckling of the track. The State Rail Authority has stated that buckling occurs in all systems and attributes the mishap to a unique set of circumstances.

On February 5 the Pictorial News, a paper circulating in the locality, carried a front page story under the banner headline "Como smash was sabotage". The story commenced "Rail lines just short of the Como bridge were sabotaged to cause last Tuesday's smash ...".

The fifth paragraph read:

The Pictorial has learned State Rail Authority investigators later found suspicious damage to the track just south of the bridge.

The story did not refer to the Authority's view of the cause of the accident.

The Authority complains that the report was lurid and alarming, untrue and made without any attempt to ascertain the facts from the Authority. It says that the paper should have checked the facts thoroughly before making such a serious allegation and, if there was a conflict, should have published both sides.

The paper says it knew the Authority's view from the metropolitan media, but based its story on information from a totally reliable source, which it insists on keeping confidential, that the Authority's investigators had found suspicious damage to the tracks.

A paper is of course not bound to accept an official version of events and has every right to challenge it if it has reason to believe it to be wrong. It is in the highest traditions of journalism to seek to expose an official cover-up. It is also the case that a newspaper is entitled to protect its sources of information by keeping them confidential where necessary.

At the same time a paper that publishes as fact a serious allegation, such as one that may arouse concern about the safety of the transport used daily by the public, knowing that it cannot produce evidence, has duties commensurate with the seriousness of the allegations. It should check its information very carefully, it should not overstate its case, and it should publish any conflicting version. It should not leave a serious allegation hanging in the air, but should follow it up to the best of its ability, with a view either to confirmation or retraction. For example it might call on the authorities to answer specific questions arising out of the information available to it. Otherwise it will attract suspicion of sensationalism and damage the standing of the Press.

The paper's insistence on keeping its sources secret makes it impossible for the Press Council to reach a final conclusion about the justification for its story. However there are a number of grounds for concern. It is a big leap from the claim that investigators had found suspicious damage to the dogmatic banner headline "Como smash was sabotage". Although months have gone by, we have been told nothing of any follow up such as one would expect from a paper which knew a cover-up was going on. The paper did not include in its story the State Rail Authority's view, an especially serious matter in view of the fact that the story was based on the alleged findings of the Authority's investigators. One would have expected that comment from the Authority would have been sought and published.

While the council is not in a position to make any findings about the truth of the allegation in the story, it considers that, at the very least, the paper has not shown a degree of responsibility commensurate with the seriousness of the allegation.