Adjudication No. 828 (January 1996) [1996] APC 1

ADJUDICATION No. 828 (January 1996)

In a continuing debate on a matter of great public interest, a newspaper is justified in publishing a highly partisan speech made by a prominent participant, provided that wherever fairness requires, it draws readers attention to apparent and known factual errors and gives an opportunity of reply to any person whose reputation or interest is damaged.

Helen Garner's controversial book, The First Stone, deals with allegations of sexual harassment at Melbourne University's Ormond College. The Age, on 21 September 1995, published extracts of a speech by one of the critics of the book, Dr Jenna Mead.

The former Master of Ormond College, Dr Alan Gregory, complains to the Australian Press Council about one published assertion by Dr Mead, who said:

"Even the Ormond Council, who are not a bunch of feminists by the way, came to see that the manager of a residential college has a duty of care towards the students who are residents. And, admittedly after almost 18 months, the council recognised that the master had contravened this basic requirement of the job."

Dr Gregory says there is no basis for such an assertion. He says that at no stage did the college council indicate or express by motion or letter or in any way that he had so contravened the basic requirements of the job. He insisted upon an immediate correction, withdrawal and apology. Instead, The Age offered to publish a letter along these lines, but took the position that Dr Gregory's dispute is with Dr Mead, whose views it was only reporting.

It can however be argued that these words are Dr Mead's interpretation of the view of the Ormond Council (of which she was a member) which were not recorded formally. As such it could be said that they were opinion. However, to a reader without a detailed knowledge of the matter, this would appear to be a statement of fact. Recognising that such a statement was likely to be damaging, The Age should have checked it and, if necessary, published Dr Gregory's position. As it did not, the complaint is upheld.