Adjudication No. 393 (February 1989) [1989] APC 6

ADJUDICATION No. 393 (February 1989)

Mr K G Partridge complains to the Australian Press Council concerning The Examiner's reporting of the policy adopted by Federal and State Governments in relation to logging in the Lemonthyme and Southern forests of Tasmania.

In particular, he refers to an editorial of 6 August 1988 and to the way in which the Federal Government decision on logging was reported in the news columns. Mr Partridge refers to the fact that The Examiner Newspaper Pty Ltd is part of the ENT Limited group which (through Holyman Monds Affleck) has a controlling interest in Gunns Kilndried, a timber company.

He charges that The Examiner's editorial independence has been compromised because it is part of the ENT Limited group. This the editor sees as a gross accusation which is incorrect and baseless. He answers Mr Partridge's charge by informing the Council that "whenever The Examiner reports ENT Limited news which needs sate explanation of the Company in the broad it has no hesitation in listing all the components", but he acknowledges that many readers would not be aware of all the details of the total company structure. The Press Council notes that in this instance The .Examiner did not declare its affiliation with the interested companies.

The Press Council cannot assume that an editor lacks integrity whenever an editorial is published on a subject which may be of relevance to the commercial interests of the owner. In this case the complainant has not offered evidence to substantiate his claim. This ground of complaint is dismissed.

Mr Partridge complains of the series of headlines reporting Federal Government decision: "NW chip mill plan now in jeopardy", "Jobs will go in the North", "FOREST FURY", "Major disaster, says Risby". He also criticises the way in which the story concerning the position adopted by a significant conservationist group is headlined: "Wilderness Society 'support'".

Editors must be careful in designing headlines so as not to mislead the public. However, the Council does not believe there was any evidence of unethical behaviour by The Examiner when reporting significant reactions to the Federal Government decision and in particular the way these were highlighted in the headlines. Obviously opinions will be divided as to whether these reactions were appropriate, the fact is they were reactions relevant to the Federal Government decision.

Mr Partridge's other objections to the editorial include this reference: "What are Tasmania's long-suffering customers - the Japanese - to make of this new round of instability? They have been patient for five years as investigations and inquiries bubbled and simmered, bewildered at the sight of a State and Federal Government wrangling over what, to them, is a straight-forward issue. Canberra seems to forget that Japan buys big from Tasmania because it offers a stable, long-term supply of a valuable resource. How long will Japan remain loyal when the future is so uncertain?"

Mr Partridge says the reference is irrelevant because the Japanese are not concerned with saw logging, but with wood chipping and pulp logging. Whether it is relevant is a matter of opinion.

The decisions taken by the Federal Government in relation to Lemonthyme and Southern forests are of great significance not only to the State of Tasmania but to all Australians. The question of logging in these forests has been debated widely throughout the Commonwealth and there is a significant division of opinion as to the appropriate course of action which should be taken.

Newspapers are justified in taking an editorial position on this as with other major issues; however in their reports they must not show bias or so present their story as to advance the position held by the newspaper.

Over recent years, the Press Council has become aware of growing public concern that the. balanced presentation of news and comment in the press may suffer from the diversification of newspaper proprietors' interests into other commercial fields. Mr Partridge's complaint reflects these concerns, and the Council recognises their importance in the continuing debate about media ownership in Australia. However in this instance, there is no evidence that The Examiner demonstrated any bias in its news reporting of this issue, which would put it in breach of the Council's principles.