Adjudication No. 308 (November 1986) [1986] APC 44

ADJUDICATION No. 308 (November 1986)

In the March 1986 issue of The Journalist there was published as a letter a submission by Mr R J McGuire to the Federal Council of the Australian Journalists' Association arguing that there was a double standard in the Australian Press, which was highly critical of the South African government's treatment of blacks but ignored many similarities which existed, he argued, in the Israeli government's treatment of Palestinians.

On April 4 there appeared on the front page of The Australian Jewish News an article headed "Protest to AJA", which said that the Zionist Federation of Australia would informally take up with the Australian Journalists' Association the contents of Mr McGuire's letter. It went on to report highly critical statements by the President of the Federation, in which he said that he believed certain remarks in the letter almost verged on anti-Semitism. He said:

McGuire has a history of personal obsession in regard to Israel and this is not the first foray into writing blatantly anti-Semitic articles.

When this article came to Mr McGuire's notice two months later, he demanded an apology and, when this was not forthcoming, complained to the Press Council.

Mr Leibler's reported remarks, particularly in the passage quoted, were couched in strong and hurtful terms, and it is hard to see any justification for describing Mr McGuire's article as "blatantly anti-Semitic". Whether they were sound or not, Mr McGuire's criticisms were aimed at policies of the Israeli government and were not a denigration of Jews as a group. To label a person, particularly a journalist, as anti-Semitic can be very damaging and it is important that it should not be allowed to become a tactic to deter critical discussion of Israeli policies.

Nevertheless Mr Leibler's views, whether reasonable or not, were those of the leader of an important Jewish organisation and as such of interest to the readers of Jewish News. The Press Council therefore does not agree that it was wrong for the paper to publish them, or that it incurred a duty to apologise for having done so. What the paper should have done, given the very damaging nature of the criticism of Mr McGuire, was to seek to convey the criticism to him and give him the opportunity of contemporaneous or at least early reply. This it failed to do and Mr McGuire did not become aware of the article till two months later.

Subsequent events were complicated by the fact that Mr McGuire demanded publication not of a reply but of an apology. At the hearing of the complaint the paper made a standing offer to publish an appropriate letter of reply by Mr McGuire. In the view of the Council this was a proper, although regrettably belated, response from the paper. It is now for Mr McGuire to decide whether he wishes to avail himself of the offer.