Adjudication No. 616 (January 1993) [1993] APC 8

ADJUDICATION No. 616 (January 1993)

The Australian Press Council has upheld in part a complaint lodged by Mr Mark Braham against The

Australian.

The Australian in the 3 July 1992 edition published a letter purported to be written by a "Sir James Dunhill" under the headline "More to gay army life than sexual adventure". The letter was one of a series of letters to the editor on the subject of homosexuality in the armed forces. The writer of the letter claimed to have spent "33 years of service in the armed forces of Canada and Great Britain" and therefore felt "qualified to comment on this gubernatorial garbage being dished out by the defence forces boffins". The writer had also referred to the "drivel" contained in an earlier letter written by the complainant and published in the Weekend Australian in the 27-28 June 1992 edition under the headline "Separate gay troops". The complainant wrote a letter challenging some of the claims made in the letter by "Sir James Dunhill" but the letter was not published by the newspaper.

The complainant wrote another letter which was published in edited form in the 23 July 1992 edition. However, the complainant claimed that his letter was "emasculated". One of the statements by the complainant in his letter was to the effect that enquiries made by him had revealed that no such person as "Sir James Dunhill" with "33 years of service" existed. It was the view of the complainant that "the reader would assume he is a retired senior officer, hence with much experience and great expertise". The complainant added: "Once the identity was proved false, albeit an error in publication was innocently made, The Australian should have informed its readers".

The newspaper said that it had followed its standard procedure to establish the credentials of correspondents, but that it "cannot always be proof against elaborate efforts at deception". It was further argued that the "prominence given to the 'Dunhill' letter was accorded for its contribution to the long and continuing debate on the issue of homosexuality"; that the views asserted in the "Dunhill" letter were not dependent on the title he adopted; and that the claim of 33 years in the forces need not be disproved by the adoption of a title.

The Council affirms that, as a general rule, the publication of letters to the editor rests in the discretion of the newspaper. The Council does not accept the complainant's view that the selection of published letters in the controversy "was neither honest nor fair".

On the identity of the writer of the "Dunhill" letter the Council considers the newspaper was casual in its effort to establish the writer's credentials and it believes that the title adopted by the writer and his claim to "33 years of service" could have influenced the prominence accorded the letter. Once the newspaper discovered that his credentials could not be established it should have informed its readers accordingly. To this extent the complaint is upheld.