Adjudication No. 648 (June 1993) [1993] APC 40

ADJUDICATION No. 648 (June 1993)

The Press Council has upheld a complaint by the Mornington Peninsula Hospital against the Frankston Standard, alleging imbalance in relation to a front-page article about an industrial dispute between medical specialists and the hospital's Board.

The dispute was already nearly 12 months old when the article appeared. It can reasonably be expected that previous articles would have made regular Standard readers aware of the issues at stake, and the Board appears to have been generally satisfied with this earlier coverage.

The article in question ("Hospital row"), however, dealt with a new phase in the dispute, triggered by the specialists' rejection of an independent review of the system under which they were paid. They passed a vote of no confidence in the Board, accusing it of acting illegally in the matter.

The lengthy article included extracts from a letter sent to the specialists by the hospital's CID, Mr Stan Capp, but no comment from him or any other Board representative on the no confidence vote or claims of illegal action.

The Standard's editor says she tried unsuccessfully to reach Mr Capp for comment late on the paper's layout and copy-tasting day. He spoke finally with the Standard's chief reporter the following day, but declined to comment on the specialists' views as it was clear his remarks could not appear in the same edition of the paper.

An article the following week reported briefly some of Mr Capp's reaction to the specialists but, in his view, it was too short to cover the relevant issues. The paper's editor, in retrospect, endorsed this view, confirming that the final version of the article was cut to around half its original length.

The "Hospital row" report set out the specialists' position in great detail, and contained some serious allegations against the hospital Board. The Press Council believes, therefore, that it should have been appropriately balanced by a response from the Board.

The Standard has offered no satisfactory explanation of why Mr Capp's response could not have been reported in greater detail in the following edition. This would have given balance over a reasonable period on a matter which both sides agree was of considerable interest in the area.