Adjudication No. 632 (March 1993) [1993] APC 24

ADJUDICATION No. 632 (March 1993)

The Press Council has dismissed a complaint by Mrs Sharon Mosler, the President of Aurora Heritage Action Inc, against a series of articles in the Adelaide Advertiser.

The complaint arose following articles on the Adelaide townscape proposal which aims to preserve the exterior of historic buildings in the city. Ms Mosler represents a lobby group which seeks to preserve Adelaide's built heritage.

Ms Mosler submitted five articles to illustrate her complaint. She claimed that news and comment were not presented honestly and fairly. She further complained that the stories in question did not distinguish between fact and opinion, misrepresented, suppressed and distorted facts.

Ms Mosler complained that the articles were misleading in reporting comments of only four members of council whilst ignoring the debate contributions of other councillors. She claimed that a particular point of view was given prominence and support. According to Ms Mosler, alternative points of view and significant council motions were suppressed.

In response the newspaper said that the complainant had been extremely selective in finding stories to complain about. The paper submitted that the reporter in question had, in fact, been accused by the so-called favoured councillor of not reporting his view. The paper submitted other examples of stories on the same issues which did give coverage to the views of other councillors and other perspectives in the debate.

The issue here is one of fairness relating to a matter of obvious public interest [Dhatch] the preservation of historic buildings. It is clear from both sets of articles that some considerable space was devoted by the paper to the issue. It is also clear that a lobby group such as the one Ms Mosler represents may often be dissatisfied with the amount of coverage given by a publication to the particular point of view of that group.

However, there is ievidence that the paper sought to cover both sides of the debate. Its article of 11 December 1991 presents arguments for and against the proposed system. Other articles report concerns expressed by the pro-heritage group.

Newspapers cannot report all issues as fully as some readers may desire. They must make decisions on the news value of individual stories. On this occasion a regular council reporter was assigned to cover council meetings. Ms Mosler may have been dissatisfied that views group supported were not given the desired prominence. However, alternative points of view in council debates were reported and there is no evidence to support the claim that one member was featured to the exclusion of others.

The complaint is dismissed.