Adjudication No. 394 (March 1989) [1989] APC 7

ADJUDICATION No. 394 (March 1989)

Mr Ward McNally has been involved in boxing for many years. When the Adelaide Casino announced it would promote a boxing contest for the light middleweight championship of the Commonwealth between Troy Waters and the challenger Gilbert Josamu of Zimbabwe, in October of 1988, Mr McNally researched the boxer's ratings and concluded that Troy Waters rated 13 in the world by the World Boxing Council and the World Boxing Association and that the challenger was not listed among the first 30.

Mr McNally wrote on a personal level to Rod Powell who writes in The Advertiser on boxing. He suggested Mr Powell was doing professional boxing in the State a disservice by what Mr McNally described as pushing Josamu so hard as a worthy challenger. After a phone conversation Mr McNally wrote two letters for publication to warn boxing supporters that what was being written about as potentially a great fight might turn out to be a damp squib. These were not published. In the Council's view, The Advertiser is open to criticism for this omission. After the fight, Mr McNally wrote a further letter to the editorial manager and Mr Powell phoned him to seek the complainant's permission for the use of his name in an article. Mr McNally says that as the writer knew he had been deeply involved in professional boxing and written extensively about it he gave his permission willingly.

Mr McNally however was not satisfied with the article which appeared in The Advertiser on 7 November. The article stated;

Ward McNally of Adelaide, who said he had been involved with boxing for about 50 years and had written about the sport for many years, was unhappy with the show and the way it had been publicised.

Mr McNally wrote a letter for publication the same day. He objected to a number of aspects concerning the article and in particular to the use of the words "who said he had been involved". He also felt that the article did not disclose that he had complained before the fight and seems to suggest that he was disgruntled only after the result of the fight was known. He also felt the article should have commented on the interest of the promoter.

The Advertiser says it respects Mr McNally's point of view and had endeavoured to ensure that his complaints had been met. Mr Powell had on 7 November attempted to put Mr McNally's point of view within the bounds of his column.

The Press Council does not intend to attempt to rule on the status of the challenger or on the interest of the promoter. It is true that the article of 7 November does not make it clear that Mr McNally was critical before the event and had researched the status of the contenders.

The Council understands Mr McNally's displeasure in being described in the way he was in the article. The formula used suggests that Mr McNally's claim to be involved in boxing is open to doubt or has yet to be proved. The Council believes on this point that Mr McNally was entitled to at least present his point of view, or to have any misunderstanding corrected.

The complaint is upheld.