Adjudication No. 240 (July 1985) [1985] APC 32

ADJUDICATION No. 240 (July 1985)

Mr G. J. May complains of a report in the Daily News Gold Coaster of 9 February 1985 under the heading "Rail Link Safe". It appears that rumours had been circulating that a rail link between Murwillumbah and Casino would be closed, giving rise to some concern in the area. The Minister for Transport in the State Labor Government, Mr Unsworth, visited the area, and at a press conference at Murwillumbah Railway Station denied that there were any such plans, attacked National Party members for spreading the rumour, and displayed plans for upgrading the line and extending the Murwillumbah Station.

The paper did not report the Minister's conference, but instead published a statement issued by the National Party member, Mr Don Beck, which made it appear that the assurances of non-closure of the line had emerged from Mr Beck's discussions with the Minister. This was clearly unfair and incensed Mr May.

The editor of the paper concedes the inadequacy of the report but says that he was not aware of it until he received a critical letter from Mr May. On investigation he found that the Chief of Staff, who worked from a Tweed Heads Office, had instructed a reporter, who worked from a Murwillumbah office, to cover the Minister's press conference. The reporter arrived late at the conference and later rang the Chief of Staff and told him that he would meet the Minister at Tweed Heads. However he missed the Minister and signed off without writing any story. For this he was subsequently reprimanded.

Meanwhile Mr Beck issued his press statement, which was processed and became the paper's only report of the events.

On discovering these facts the editor published a story on 16 February, headed "Minister on the right track" which reported some of the Minister's statements. On 22 February it published Mr May's highly critical letter under the heading "Story misleads readers"

The paper is to be commended for publishing its second story and Mr May's letter, although the delay in publishing the letter is to be regretted. However the fact remains that it initially published an unfair report. The complaint is upheld.