Adjudication No. 543 (February 1992) [1992] APC 13

Adjudication No. 543 (February 1992)

The Press Council has upheld a complaint by the Tasmanian Green Independent MPs against the Launceston Examiner over a leaked poll on election chances published before the recent Tasmanian vote.

The core of the complaints was that the paper said in a front page report that the Greens had commissioned a poll, and that poll had predicted four of the five Green members of the House of Assembly would retain their seats in an election. On the basis of that poll, said the paper, the Greens had decided on action which was likely to, and indeed did, lead to the Government going to the polls. The paper did not contact the Green Independents before publication of the poll results.

After publication, the Green Independents promptly and strenuously denied that they had commissioned a poll and denied any prior knowledge of the results reported by the Examiner.

In subsequent reports and editorial comment, the Examiner gave prominence, but not equal prominence, to the Green Independents' denials. However, the paper insisted that the poll had been commissioned by "a section of the conservation movement" or "the Green side of politics". It refused to identify its source for the poll result, but said that the editor, the deputy editor and the owning company's chief executive knew it. That source was credible, said the paper, and the published report was an accurate account of the poll result.

The paper also said that it accepted the statement by the Green Independents that they had not commissioned the poll and had no knowledge of its results.

The Press Council upholds the complaint because -

• The paper did not reveal how the poll was conducted, the scope of the poll, or how the questions were framed. Even if the source of the leak could not be revealed, the methodology of the poll should have been.

• The paper began by attributing the poll to the Greens - by clear implication the Greens in Parliament - and claiming that its results had guided their actions. The Green Independents' denials were accepted later by the paper, which then accused the Greens of "near hysteria" because they had vehemently pointed out the error.

• The paper did not treat a sensitive political issue with the care necessary. Having made the original mistake, even greater care than normal should have been taken to correct the impressions gained by the public.