Adjudication No. 434 (March 1990) [1990] APC 6

ADJUDICATION No. 434 (March 1990)

The Press Council today dismissed a complaint from A R Bagnall that The Australian had censored his letter published under the heading "Thanks for the '64 memories".

The letter referred to a Mt Franklin rescue of some missing students 25 years ago. Several helicopters from the naval base at Nowra were involved. Mr Bagnall also was part of the rescue team.

Mr Bagnall complains that the deletion of two paragraphs in his letter constituted censorship. These read:

At no time should there have been any cause for serious concern and the event would not have been so newsworthy at the time (or for that matter 25 years later) but for the fact that a new national newspaper was being launched the day following the 'rescue'.

For those of us who were involved, and one family in particular, that week will always be remembered as the week that one of the club members who had skied into the Chalet that Tuesday collapsed and died 4 days later.

In reply, The Australian says that, given the reaction of the rescue authorities, The Australian was justified in reporting the story. The letters editor saw the reference to The Australian's

launch "as a snide, irrelevant remark. As such it was the first sentence to go when a cut was needed."

The Australian says that, while the death four days later of one of the rescuers obviously left its mark on Mr Bagnall and the rescuer's family, the second deleted paragraph was not relevant to the account, unless the death was due to the exertions of the rescue. Mr Bagnall did not claim this to be so.

Newspapers normally reserve the right to edit letters, though editing, of course, should not do violence to the meaning of a letter. The first paragraph deleted expresses two opinions: one, that the article was over-reported, and secondly that the reason for the over-reporting was the fact that The Australian was being launched.

If one accepts the first conclusion, the second does not necessarily follow. The second opinion is not substantiated-

There was no obligation on The Australian to print Mr Bagnall's view of the newsworthiness of the original story. He is entitled to his view, but there is no compulsion on The Australian to publish it.