Adjudication No. 797 (June 1995) [1995] APC 27

ADJUDICATION No. 797 (June 1995)

The Press Council has dismissed a complaint by Max Spence against The Age in respect of a by[Dhatch]lined article published in its 9 February 1995 edition under the heading "Dresden put to fire and the sword". The sub[Dhatch]heading mentioned the writer of the article as describing the bombing of the German city as "a crime against humanity". There are two main aspects to Mr Spence's complaint: (1) that the sub[Dhatch]heading led to an inference that the complainant and other RAAF personnel who had taken part in the Dresden bombing "were criminals against humanity"; (2) that there were a number of "errors and false assumptions" in the article.

The Press Council has consistently maintained that by[Dhatch]lined writers should be free to express strong views provided the newspaper makes available reasonable opportunities for differing views to be published. In general, the publication of a letter of complaint can be regarded as exculpating the newspaper from allegations of unfairness in such cases.

The newspaper published two letters which rejected any need for remorse to be expressed over the Dresden bombing. In publishing these letters, the newspaper has adequately complied with the rulings of the Council. Accordingly the Council dismisses the first aspect of the complaint.

However, the published letters did not deal with the second aspect of the complaint. Mr Spence alleged a number of fallacies in the article. Some of these claimed fallacies are based upon a misreading of the article by the complainant. For instance, Mr Spence said that "Churchill, not Harris, ordered the raid"; this is puzzling, as this was what the article had claimed. Then, Mr Spence pointed out that the erection of a statue to Sir Arthur Harris (the head of the Bomber Command) was a fact and not a proposal, implying that the writer had got his facts wrong. This implication arose from a misreading of the article. It is clear from a reasonable interpretation of the relevant passage in the article that the writer was trying to say that a controversy arose after it was proposed to erect a statue to Sir Arthur Harris.

However the complainant has made other assertions which contradicted points made in the article, and which were not dealt with by the two published letters. It should be acknowledged that it would be placing too onerous a burden on a newspaper to provide opportunities for every contention to be published. Although it also dismisses the second part of the complaint, the Council believes that, given the nature of the subject[Dhatch]matter and the intense passion of those who were participants in a highly tragic event, it would have been desirable for the newspaper to negotiate a suitable letter from Mr Spence, addressing the claims of factual errors, for publication.

FOOTNOTE: The Council notes that it was closely divided on arriving at its final decision on this complaint.