Adjudication No. 608 (November 1992) [1992] APC 78

ADJUDICATION No. 608 (November 1992)

The Press Council has dismissed tow complaints made by Professor Stuart Macintyre and upheld a third in part. The complaints were over two reports: the first, "AMBULANCE 'HIJACK' FURY", was published by the Herald-Sun on 8 July 1992; the second, "Youth wages plan gets the nod", was published by the Sunday Herald-Sun on 12 July 1992.

In the case of the first report, Prof Macintyre claimed that it had misrepresented the union rally it covered, dealing in "perfunctory fashion" with the purpose of the rally and the large numbers it attracted.

Further, he said, the emphasis was on the "hijacking" of four ambulances by their drivers to join the rally and the quoted word "hijack" in the headline was unattributed in the report.

In its reply, the paper said that the ambulances were clearly not being used in an authorised manner, and the use of the term "hijack" was justified. As to the news emphasis of the report, that was a matter for the editor.

The Press Council agrees with that position.

In the case of the second report, Prof Macintyre claimed that the headline "Youth wages plan gets the nod" implied that the youth wage plan proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, John Hewson, was accepted to the community.

The statistical table attached to the article, the complainant said, made it clear that in fact "a clear majority of those consulted opposed that Opposition proposal". Accordingly, the headline had misrepresented the central fact of the public opinion poll.

The complainant also pointed to the second paragraph of the article which referred to "a high 66 per cent of the people surveyed" who wanted a youth wage lower than current award wages.

The complainant noted the published table where it was stated that 52% of those asked their opinion of a "special young people's minimum wage that is below current award wages" declared themselves in favour of the proposition. The reference to 66% in favour was, it was alleged, a clear misrepresentation.

The paper rejected the allegation of misrepresentation or suppression. It did concede that it was "a case of confusion". It said that the headline clearly showed there was support for the proposition, and, even on the published poll figures, a majority of those polled approved of a plan for a special youth wage.

The paper pointed out the reference to 66% was related to support for the adoption of a lower youth wage "in an effort to reduce unemployment".

This figure of 66% was based on a table contained in the Quadrant survey report but which was not reproduced in the article. The paper conceded that it should have been clearer in identifying the source of the figure of 66%.

The more contentious issue was whether the reference to a "youth wages plan" amounted to misrepresentation. Based in isolation the headline would tend to suggest support for the Federal Opposition Leader's plan for a wage of $3.00 per hour.

However, the opening sentence of the article referred to support for "the thrust" of the plan for a youth wage to combat unemployment. The third paragraph of the article pointed out that in fact 61% were opposed to the rate proposed by the Leader of the Opposition.

In the context of the publicity prevailing at that time over the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition, the Council believes the headline was the source of ambiguity, and to this extent the complaint is upheld.

Upon receipt of Prof Macintyre's letter of complaint, the paper responded by saying, "If you wish to submit something suitable for publication in the Herald-Sun, it will certainly be considered".

The complainant had translated this to mean the submission of an article representing his concerns and those of the Bias is Bad News Committee. The newspaper declined to publish it, saying it did not cover the matters raised in his original complaint. The newspaper also pointed out it had published a letter by a union official expressing similar views.

The article was written by the complainant in his capacity as the convenor of the Bias is Bad News Committee. The article focussed on the reason for the formation of the committee. It attacked the Herald-Sun for not giving an account of its establishment.

The paper claims that the Bias is Bad News Committee is clearly an ALP-oriented group, concerned only with attacking the Herald-Sun and Sunday Herald-Sun.

The Press Council believes there was no obligation on the paper to publish the article as supplied by Prof Macintyre.