Adjudication No. 839 (January 1996) [1996] APC 12

ADJUDICATION No. 839 (January 1996)

The Australian Press Council has upheld in part a complaint by Animal Liberation ACT against the Canberra Times over an editorial which appeared on 23 October 1995.

The editorial arose out of two earlier news stories concerning the Parkwood Eggs farm. Animal Liberation claimed to have evidence that battery hens at the farm were kept in below-standard and overcrowded conditions, and were anaemic, underfed, and infested with lice and worms. In a raid on the farm, reported in the Canberra Times, Animal Liberationists chained themselves to the cages, and four were arrested and charged with trespass.

In an editorial "Chickens before eggs", the Canberra Times said the public should regard Animal Liberation "stunts" with considerable scepticism. "Animal Liberation is not about improving the condition of animals bred for food, wool, hair or skins but on preventing any use of animals by humans at all. Were they a little more frank about this, it is doubtful if their stunts would attract much support," the editorial said.

In its complaint, Animal Liberation said the editorial breached Press Council principles on honesty and fairness in news and comment, and on making fact and opinion clearly distinguishable. The editorial contained a number of errors of fact, and a letter "of reasonable length" had been sent to the Canberra Times giving the organisation's response. This had not been published.

In reply, the paper said it had published six letters critical of the editorial, and it supplied copies of others which were all supportive of Animal Liberation. In its news stories it had carried "copious" quotes from the organisation explaining its stand.

The Editor said it was his policy not to publish letters of more than 250 words, and Animal Liberation's letter had been "about 80 percent" over this limit.

The Press Council accepts that by publishing a substantial number of letters all supporting Animal Liberation's stand the paper met the obligation of a balanced coverage.

However, in view of the nature of the editorial which is strongly critical of Animal Liberation, the newspaper might have gone a little further and negotiated a letter of suitable length with the organisation, which felt itself under unfair attack. Only to this extent, the complaint is upheld.