Adjudication No. 538 (January 1992) [1992] APC 8

Adjudication No. 538 (January 1992)

In complaining about what he sees as bias in the Courier-Mail, Mr W H Smith describes several journalists as "left wing" and alleges that a "left wing political bias" permeates the paper.

There is no evidence before the Press Council that such a sweeping allegation is justified and the complaint is dismissed. Mr Smith first complained about the Courier-Mail's 8 June 1991 coverage of a Queensland Labor Party Conference debate on abortion reform.

In particular, he objected to a reference to surveys purporting to show that 66 percent of Queenslanders supported legislation to reform the state's abortion laws.

He read the reference as being the by-lined journalist imposing his views on the reader and evidence of the paper's alleged bias in favour of reform.

It is quite clear that the reference is an indirect quotation from one of the conference delegates and therefore a legitimate report which could not reasonably be read as anything else.

In dismissing the complaint, however, the Press Council does draw attention to one aspect of the report.

Two photographs, one four and the other two columns wide, both depict banners arguing one side of the issue.

The sub-headline ("Protesters were just as divided") and story between the photos made it clear to most readers that the other side of the issue was represented.

Especially for readers who just glance at news pages and providing an appropriate picture was available, a better balance could have been achieved by one of the printed photographs being from the other side.

To support his claim of bias on the paper, Mr Smith referred to a page dedicated to a row over sex education in Queensland schools published on 16 October 1991.

He argued that the bulk of the page was devoted to stories, several by the Courier-Mail's own journalists, which were personal reactions to a video "Where Did I Come From?" being screened in school sex education classes.

Four of the five stories were "pro" the video. The fifth quoted criticisms from the Australia Family Association followed by support for the video from a teachers' union official.

A substantial degree of balance was achieved by the critical comments being in the main story on the page topped by the major headline, "kids may 'turn off for life'".

All the "pro" stories were clearly by-lined and obviously comment and the paper cannot be criticised for publishing them.

But, as in the earlier story, more balance could have been achieved on the day by more reactions from those opposed to screening the video in schools.

Mr Smith or others were free of course to offer their views to the paper by letter.

Mr Smith believes the paper would "shred" any letter he wrote.

There is no evidence of that and the Press Council notes an increasing willingness of editors to publish letters critical of published items.