Adjudication No. 361 (February 1988) [1988] APC 8

ADJUDICATION No. 361 (February 1988)

Mr Reid complains to the Australian Press Council concerning a report which appeared in the Canberra Chronicle on 8 July 1987 under the title "Election 1987" This was a two page report setting out the positions of various candidates in the following federal elections with allegedly undue prominence to the Liberal candidates. Three of the four Liberal candidates' photographs were published, and the report on the other one was printed in darker type.

All of the reports on Labor candidates were at the bottom of the page and none with photographs. 520 words were devoted to the ALP and 800 to the Liberals. Mr Reid also complains that there is no mention of the major focus of his interview, that is the Liberal Party's policy of destruction for the ACT. In summary he says that the Canberra Chronicle portrays an intolerable bias in the presentation, content and emphasis given to the Liberal party to the detriment of the Labor party.

In reply, the editor states that the Chronicle split the coverage of the election into two issues, the first on 1 July and the second on 8 July. In total 70 cm were devoted to the ALP and 77 cm to the Liberal Party. This the editor describes as a small discrepancy which in his view did not represent any level of bias.

Mr Reid stresses that the most important issue was that of 8 July. This was the last week of the campaign and in any event the discrepancy of 7 cm is substantial.

Mr Reid draws attention to the Council's principles , particularly principle 5 which stresses the obligation of a newspaper not to distort or unfairly colour news either in text or headlines and to the AJA code of ethics which include an obligation not to suppress essential fact, and not to distort the truth by omission or wrongful emphasis.

The question of balance in the issue immediately before the election raises delicate questions. It would be prudent for editors not only to intend to seek some reasonable balance, but to be seen by supporters of both major protagonists as having achieved that balance. A casual reader of the paper on 8 July, not recalling the fact that this was a continuation of a previous report, could conclude that the balance was against the ALP but not necessarily merely in favour of the Liberal Party but also in favour of the smaller parties and Independents.

Given the political realities of the situation, it would have been more satisfactory had that issue given greater prominence to ALP candidates. However the Council does not believe there was a significant discrepancy between the space given to the two major parties over the two issues, nor that there was a deliberate intention to disadvantage the Labor Party. The Council considers that the decision of the paper to publish over two issues and to mix the candidates' profiles in the manner it did were made in good faith and without deliberate bias. It does not believe that there was any breach of the Council's principles.

The complaint is dismissed.