Adjudication No. 486 (March 1991) [1991] APC 21

ADJUDICATION NO. 486 (March 1991)

The Australian Press Council has dismissed a complaint by Mr G McMillan against the Daily Liberal, Dubbo.

Mr McMillan complained that an article on page one of the Daily Liberal on August 31 contained errors of fact, was designed to embarrass and ridicule him and threatened his livelihood.

The newspaper refused to publish a requested apology over the article. Its offer to run a letter to the editor from Mr McMillan was rejected because, he said, it would not have the same force as an apology.

Under the heading "K-MART - IT'S ON YET AGAIN "the Daily Liberal article said the Dubbo City Council had taken the first step toward establishment of a K-Mart discount department store with the Planning Department "giving its approval to a rezoning application for land behind the Dubbo City Council".

The article named Chamber of Commerce executive members it said had voiced disapproval of the proposed development, including Mr McMillan. In fact, as the paper subsequently said, it accepted Mr McMillan was not an executive member.

Mr McMillan says he is not against K-Mart developing in Dubbo, but is against any commercial use of the proposed site, which is a floodplain.

He also says he believes K-Mart has no intention of occupying the development.

Both Dubbo's Mayor and Town Clerk have written letters to the Australian Press Council supporting the newspaper, the Town Clerk saying the article "does not distort the facts as far as the City Council is concerned".

The Mayor says he believes the paper has acted honourably and correctly in reporting all aspects of the rezoning debate, although he adds, "It is unfortunate that the correct terminology has not always been understood or used by those reporting."

The Mayor's qualification can be seen to refer to the article's statement about "the Planning Department giving its approval to a rezoning application ..." which might lead to a reader's belief that approval of rezoning had been given rather than approval of an application for rezoning. A subsequent paragraph says "The department's initial approval of the rezoning ..." and this worsens the impression. The writing on this aspect was careless.

However, the Council does not believe the article breached Council principles relating to fairness, truth and the paper's expression of its opinions, as Mr McMillan alleges.

There is no evidence that the article was designed to ridicule or embarrass or to threaten Mr McMillan's livelihood.

Clarification of his stand and views and correction of his role in the Chamber could have been given in the letter whose publication was offered. That offer was, in this case, a sufficient offer and should have been accepted.