Adjudication No. 957 (February 1998) [1998] APC 3

ADJUDICATION No. 957 (February 1998)

The Australian Press Council finds that the Newcastle Herald's treatment of Prime Minister John Howard's holiday at the nearby Hawks Nest resort did not breach its principles.

However, the Council does not endorse the newspaper's approach and believes the coverage verged on the irresponsible and on an unnecessary invasion of privacy.

Several readers complained to the Council, and many more to the newspaper itself, about the Herald's 7 January 1998 page one "Dear John" letter to the PM in which the newspaper criticised Mr Howard for his failure to visit Newcastle immediately after BHP last year announced plans to close its main Newcastle steel mill.

The page one article announced the newspaper was delivering a letter, printed inside the paper, to the PM and invited the readers "to pay him a visit too", and was accompanied by a map of the Hawks Nest township and directions on how to find the PM.

In part, the article read: "Take a few beers and a bag of prawns, by all means. Let's be polite about it. But let's tell the Prime Minister that it just isn't good enough for him to duck for cover when we need him most and then rub salt into the wound by lounging on our doorstep when the fuss blows over."

Though there were other grounds for the numerous complaints, it was these words, together with the directions to find the PM, which inspired the most angry responses, to both the Press Council and the newspaper.

The most common criticism is that the newspaper was not giving the PM a "fair go" and was invading his privacy by urging readers to disrupt his holidays. The Council notes, however, that the PM had offered photo opportunities to the media during the stay.

One complainant said "This disgraceful piece of journalism encourages the beer swilling, prawn eating element of the community" to disrupt the PM's rest, an elitist reference the Press Council does not read into the newspaper's coverage and which the Council rejects.

The argument, put by another complainant, that the articles were offensive because they were "an incitement to citizens to take action which is likely to lead to a breach of peace or to commit criminal offences" (under the Crimes Act) is also rejected by the Press Council.

The Newcastle Herald printed responses from Mr Howard and various public figures, including many politically opposed to him, strongly criticising the newspaper. It printed dozens of letters which vigorously attacked the newspaper. On this score, the Newcastle Herald observed its obligation to provide balance.

In the eyes of some of the complainants and some of the newspaper's readers, the coverage was tasteless, to others it was childish, nevertheless public political figures are open to scrutiny, whether on holiday or not.