Adjudication No. 599 (October 1992) [1992] APC 69

ADJUDICATION No. 599 (October 1992)

The Press Council has considered a complaint against the Sydney Morning Herald from the Tobacco Institute of Australia.

It had difficulty with the complaint because of the necessary distinction between the commonsense meanings of words and the legal/scientific meaning of the same words used in legislation; the issue was further complicated by the imprecise use of language in a letter quoted by the Tobacco Institute.

The complaint concerned a report which largely quoted and summarised the views of the NSW WorkCover Authority's scientific services manager, Peter Harley, on whether or not an employer was breaking the law by allowing smoking in the workplace.

It centred on the final sentence of the report, which gave Mr Harley's words in reported speech as follows:

But, said Mr Harley, the bottom line was that the law required all enclosed work spaces to be cigarette-smoke-free.

The Tobacco Institute, quoting the then responsible Minister, John Fahey, but nit Mr Harley himself, said they had been told that the sentence should have continued "if the employees are being exposed to tobacco smoke in an environment which is inadequately ventilated".

The article's failure to include this qualification was regarded by the complainant as misleading and the Herald's refusal to publish a letter pointing this out was considered unfair.

The exact meanings of "enclosed work space", "cigarette-smoke-free" and "inadequately ventilated" are not clear in the context of this report of the legislation.

The newspaper argues that the additional words are tautological. The Press Council does not agree, taking the commonsense meaning of the words.

The paper further argues that Mr Harley did not use the words. The Press Council notes that it is not clear from a letter from Mr Fahey to the Tobacco Institute whether Mr Harley failed to use the words or whether the paper failed to report his use of the words.

To say Mr Harley "should have been quoted as saying" something is not the same as saying Mr Harley said something and should have been quoted as saying it.

Thus the Press Council does not uphold that part of the complaint alleging misleading journalism.

As to the paper's refusal to publish a letter from the institute that quoted the Minister and the additional words of the final sentence, the paper regarded the letter as inappropriate since it believes Mr Harley did not use the words, and, in any case, the amplification would have been a tautology.

However, the Press Council believes the paper could have published the letter and used the formula of an editor's footnote saying that it stood by its report; alternatively the paper could have tried to reach agreement on a form of words which would have allowed the public to read the "if" qualification which was apparently intended.

To this extent the complaint is upheld.