Adjudication No. 325 (March 1987) [1987] APC 12

ADJUDICATION No. 325 (March 1987)

Dr Paul Maher complains to the Press Council that the editor of the Maryborough Advertiser has shown prejudice against him in not printing letters on health issues. He states that the owners of the paper are the conservative liberal elite among whom are a number of Masons and Rotarians. Dr Maher sees himself as a Labor rebel who sought successfully to change the composition of the local hospital board and to make other changes, and for this was pilloried by the town's establishment- He says that all items which the hospital board wants published have been printed word for word but only one letter of his had been published. As no other newspaper circulates in the town, he was denied any chance to reach the people of Maryborough. In reply, the editor denies that the Liberal Party, the hospital board or the Rotary club play the roles attributed by Dr Maher. His letters bad been rejected for publication on good grounds, usually that they contain gross errors of fact or statements that might be held to be defamatory- The newspaper states that when Dr Maher questioned the paper's refusal to publish letters, they had been referred to this newspaper's solicitors who supported the views of the paper. One letter was rejected because the newspaper states that it contained matter which Dr Maher knew to be false; Dr Maher replied that the letter was intended to be amusing and this was obvious.

In such a community, it would seem reasonable that views other than those of the hospital board on health matters should reach the general readers. Having regard to his position in that community, it would follow that Dr Maher's views could be of interest to the public. It would be appropriate to publish those views by reporting them in the news columns or by publishing his letters. Understandably, there have to be restraints on the letters column - legal considerations, space - and therefore reasonable editing may be necessary.

A frequent letter writer, particularly one whose letters may have transgressed the editor's interpretation of what may be defamatory, or untrue etc. may well find that editor adopt a harsher line as regards subsequent letters than would be the case in relation to ordinary letter writers. This may well have occurred in relation to Dr Maher. Rather than issue a formal ruling as to whether access has been denied, the Council feels it appropriate to point out that the public interest is best served when correspondents' views are couched in a reasonable form and style, and editors allow presentation of a variety of opinions to the community.