Adjudication No. 287 (June 1986) [1986] APC 23

ADJUDICATION No. 287 (June 1986)

Mr Jeremy Long, the Commissioner for Community Relations, has complained to the Press Council about two letters to the editor published in The Australian. The first, published on April 4, 1986, commenced "Figures clearly indicate that Asians in general lack the social organisation, technical ability and the apparent will to control their own fertility". The second, published on April 14, 1986, commented on the earlier letter and referred to "the world's fastest breeders, the Africans" Mr Long says that both letters disparage and belittle groups of people by reference to their race.

Newspapers publish letters to the editor for a variety of reasons Some are published to provide an opportunity to reply to material already published, some to provide information of use or interest to readers, some simply to reflect the variety of public opinion on issues and to provide an opportunity for its expression. The letters complained of fall within the latter category. Any attempt to reflect the variety of public opinion may involve the publishing of silly as well as sensible, of prejudiced as well as enlightened opinions. Obviously publication implies no approval or endorsement of the contents of the letter on the part of the paper. It merely gives readers the opportunity to read a variety of views and form their own views about them.

The Press Council's Statement of Principles lays down that the publication in a newspaper of matter disparaging or belittling persons or groups in the community by reference to their race or country of origin is a serious breach of ethical standards. This is based on the sound consideration that the influence of the Press should not be used to engender or inflame racial prejudice. But it is not intended to prevent the Press carrying out its primary duty of informing the public on matters of public interest, including amongst other things the existence of racially prejudiced views. It is important that the existence of such views be known; indeed it may on occasion"' be important to publish them so that they can be answered. In the present case there is no suggestion that the paper gave undue prominence to prejudiced letters, or published an undue proportion of them, or published particularly inflammatory or hurtful letters. In the view of the Press Council The Australian was entitled to publish the letters.

In any event it is by no means clear that the first letter does denigrate people by reference to race. It is of course a very uninformed letter, assuming as it does that meaningful statements can be made about people as culturally and economically diverse as "Asians", and ignoring the remarkable achievements in fertility control in such great populations as those of China, Indonesia and Japan. But it attributes the alleged failure of Asians to control their fertility not to race, but to lack of social organisation, technical ability and will, all matters that are capable of changing with circumstances. The second letter, on the other hand, which also seeks to generalise about many diverse societies because they share a continent, is clearly racist in tone. However, the Council does not consider that The Australian was wrong to publish it as an example of opinions held in the community.

The complaint is dismissed.