Adjudication No. 214 (February 1985) [1985] APC 6

ADJUDICATION No. 214 (February 1985)

A joint complaint was made on behalf of the Women's Electoral Lobby, NT, the National Council of Women, NT, and the Women's Advisory Council, NT, concerning the editorial and cartoon published in The News (a NT newspaper) on international Women's Day, 8 March 1984, and a cartoon published by the paper on the previous day.

The editorial, entitled "Equality and Responsibility" asserted a causal relationship between the increased employment of women and a deterioration in the quality of life, an increasing crime rate, and children with no idea of right and wrong, lacking manners and courtesy, and given to mindless recreations, crime and gambling. The complainants alleged that neither honesty nor fairness was displayed in the editorial, that fact and opinion were not clearly distinguished, and that the editorial disparaged working parents by reason of their sex.

In a detailed and well-argued analysis of the article the complainants pointed out that the editorial rested on assertions which were arguably false, that no evidence was offered in support of them, that the argument from contemporaneity to a causal relationship was a non sequitur, that all other of the many contemporaneous social changes and events were ignored, that no responsibility was assigned to fathers or to other agencies or institutions, that historical differences between classes in the methods of child care were ignored, and that in other ways the editorial treatment of issues was superficial and biased.

The editorial touched on important and complex social issues which were worthy of careful in-depth analysis, but it trivialised them by superficial assertions likely to appeal to unthinking prejudices. We can sympathise with the frustration of the complainants who are working for a more liberal attitude to women's participation in the community. However, the material was not merely in an editorial, but carried the title "OPINION" in bold letters. Although it was full of assertions, these were of a generalised nature which are obviously open to argument, and would be understood by most readers to be assertions of opinion. It would be a different matter if there had been allegations of specific facts on which readers might rely.

The editorial of a newspaper is recognised as the place where those controlling it express their opinions. Those opinions may in some cases be ill-informed, they may be illogical, they may be prejudiced. Many will think it a matter for regret that not all papers live up to the standards of the quality press, but the fact is that different papers cater for different readerships. A free society depends on a free press reflecting a variety of opinions, and inevitably the quality of those opinions will differ. The Press Council has to walk a very narrow line in seeking on the one hand to maintain the standards of the press, and on the other to respect the freedom of the press. On balance it does not think that it should seek to restrict by its pronouncements editorial assertions of opinion such as those in this case. Although it may be less satisfactory to complainants, a better response is to insist on the paper's duty to hold its columns reasonably open to reply by those who wish to contest its views.

The complaint also put that the paper failed to publish material to balance its editorial and that it did not correct inaccurate statements. However it was conceded that it did publish some letters disputing the material in the editorial, and it has not been shown that there was an improper refusal to publish any particular material submitted to it. It is not unreasonable to expect those who maintain that a reply should be published to provide the necessary material.

The cartoon published the same day depicts a women's march in an unflattering way, observed by two beer-drinking men, one of whom is saying "Sometimes I'm glad I'm a male chauvinist pig whatever that means". The complaint was that the view expressed in the cartoon was frivolous and denigratory considering the actual activities held in Darwin on the day, which were of a serious nature and did not include a march. However the cartoon can be understood as a general comment on international Women's Day rather than as a comment on the activities in Darwin.

It is common for cartoons to caricature people or events to make a point or to get a laugh. One or more features are exaggerated in a way that distorts reality and readers realise this. Those who are caricatured, or whose cherished causes are ridiculed, often find the cartoon unpalatable, but unless there is a very gross breach of taste the Press Council does not intervene. This remark is applicable also to the cartoon of the previous day, which was apparently designed to poke fun at the provision of amenities to enable the employment of a female apprentice in a traditionally male trade. The complainants fairly point out that a toilet is not a luxury item. But again criticism of views expressed in cartoons is more appropriately a matter for reply by those who disagree than for action by this council.

The concentration around international Women's Day of material reflecting what they saw as male or conservative prejudices against women's employment was no doubt particularly galling to the complainants, but in fairness it should be noted that the paper also carried a front page factual report concerning the Day.

The Press Council will take no action on the complaint.