Adjudication No. 261 (October 1985) [1985] APC 53

ADJUDICATION No. 261 (October 1985)

Mr D C McLeod complains of an article in the Fremantle Gazette of July 18, 1984. It appeared in a regular feature called "Something to think about..." and was headed "The U.S. Military Network in Asia". The article was attributed to Martin Milligan, whose position or qualifications to write the article were not stated. At the end of the article appeared a note "Edited from 'Direct Action"'.

The article commenced:

U.S. State department propaganda, faithfully parroted by government officials in Australia, would have us believe that a Soviet military build-up in the Asian region is altering the so-called balance of power.

However, apart from bases in Soviet territory in east Asia, the cold war propagandists can only back their claims by pointing to the presence of a few Soviet attack aircraft at Vietnam's Cam Ranh Bay.

The article referred to a Pentagon study noting "the deployment late last year for the first time and on a permanent basis of nine Soviet TU-16 intermediate range attack aircraft "at Cam Ranh Bay". The article then reviews a long list of U.S. bases and facilities in Japan, Okinawa, Guam, the Philippines, Thailand, Diego Garcia and Australia, and concludes: "This system is somewhat more daunting than nine attack aircraft at Cam Ranh Bay".

Mr McLeod complains on two grounds, the first that the material was not true, the second that the paper did not make clear whose opinions were being expressed.

The editor at the relevant time says that "Something to think about ..." was a feature in the paper and had been used as a forum for many groups and individuals over the years, and was designed to create discussion on a wide range of social and political issues, and as such was very successful and popular. He says that he regards the content of the particular article as pure speculation.

To quote a previous adjudication of this Council:

A newspaper is well within its rights in adopting or allowing its columnists to adopt any attitude they wish to express on a matter of public controversy so long as the fact clearly appears that what is being expressed is opinion and news is not distorted or suppressed in order to favour the opinion that is adopted.

Although it is clear that the feature in this case is one which provides an opportunity for the expression of opinion, the article complained of purports to provide a factual statement, in the form of a balance sheet of Soviet and U.S. bases and facilities in the Indian and Pacific Oceans, to support the opinion it is asking the reader to accept. While this Council is in no position to make definitive findings about relative strengths of the competing military networks, it can safely conclude, on the basis of authority referred to by Mr McLeod, that the article was very one-sided and distorted and suppressed facts to favour the opinion presented. For example, it appears that the nine Badger aircraft at Cam Ranh Bay were an addition to an existing squadron of ships and group of reconnaissance and anti-submarine aircraft at Cam Ranh Bay. No mention was made of Soviet facilities in Ethiopia and South Yemen, and the phrase "apart from Soviet bases in east Asia" was scarcely adequate acknowledgment of the Soviet Pacific fleet.

In relation to the first ground of complaint the Council therefore finds that the article suppressed and distorted facts to support the opinion advanced. However, it must be noted in the paper's favour that it published letters challenging the accuracy of the article.

Mr McLeod's second ground of complaint is based on the fact that neither Martin Milligan nor the publication "Direct Action" would be known to many readers of the Fremantle Gazette, and that they would therefore have no way of knowing whose expert knowledge and opinion they were being offered unless some information about the author or the source was given. Without seeking to formulate any general rule, the Press Council thinks that, given the nature, contents and presentation of the article, some further information about the author or the source should have been given.

The complaint is upheld.