Adjudication No. 413 (August 1989) [1989] APC 27

ADJUDICATION No. 413 (August 1989)

Mr Ross Mathewson made four complaints to the Australian Press Council concerning an article which appeared on 23 June 1989 in the Daily News, Perth. He stated he was the victim of an editorial campaign relating to the Burswood Island Resort and Casino for which he was a consultant.

1. Opportunity to comment denied.

The complainant says that at no stage was he given the opportunity to confirm or deny the allegations contained in the story. The Daily News replies that the report appeared in Brief Case, a relatively new section in the Daily News, a financial column, about which it says:

... many of the items are unsourced and run without the normal reference (i.e. right of reply) to the people mentioned. The items are meant to be wry, amusing, unusual, intriguing, give some behind-the-scenes insight or provide a different slant on something. In short just a bit of gossip, most of which would not get a run in a normal news story.

The Press Council cannot agree that a person specifically named in an article, in a manner considered damaging, has no right to express his or her point of view in reply. Whether this should be done prior to or by subsequent publication depends upon the circumstances in each case.

In this case the newspaper says that the complainant rang the Finance Editor to find out who wrote the Brief Case item. In the course of that brief conversation he indicated that the article was incorrect, but to date has not made any written complaint to the Daily News or sought any redress before approaching the Press Council.

2. Third party source.

Mr Mathewson says that "the story was based on information supplied by a third party, rather than that gleaned by the journalist himself."

The Press Council has no difficulty in accepting the proposition that information may be supplied to a journalist from a third party provided that a reasonable investigation is undertaken, and the publication is bona fide.

3. Inaccurate statements.

Mr Mathewson alleges there are a number of inaccuracies in the article. These involved interpretations of the facts and conclusions and as such did not require prior discussion with the writer. However, this complaint would most appropriately have been resolved by a letter to the editor.

4. The story contained excerpts from previous reports towhich the complainant had objected.

In reply the Daily News states that "journalists, even PR people, regularly regurgitate old facts."

In this case the paper had rejected the complainant's earlier objection and neither he nor his employer had taken any further action.

Accordingly, the complaints are dismissed but the Press Council draws attention to its Statement of Principles which provides, inter alia, "Rumour and unconfirmed reports, if published at all, should be identified as such, and they should not be published if it is unfair to do so".