Adjudication No. 1203 (June 2003) [2003] APC 19

Adjudication No. 1203 (June 2003)

The Australian Press Council has dismissed a complaint from Gary Pierpoint about the editing of his letter to the editor by the Daily Liberal, Dubbo. The letter was published on 15 April 2003.

The fact that Letters to the Editor in newspapers and magazines sometimes appear in an edited form is the subject of many complaints to the Council. In past adjudications the Council has made its attitude clear on this issue. The general rule is that newspapers can edit letters for space or grammar reasons. However, such editing should not change the meaning or tenor of the letter.

Mr Pierpoint has complained that the Daily Liberal deleted two paragraphs which he said were critical to the letter's content. The letter criticised the way the newspaper had covered the NSW State Election particularly a statement in an editorial, which said the coverage was fair and unbiased.

This statement was an insult to the intelligence of readers, Mr Pierpoint said. He also queried the authenticity of the signatures of two letters published on election matters, one signed Harold Rosebutt and the other C J Brown.

One of the deleted paragraphs said that the editor had a responsibility to ensure that all letters received were bona fide. The other said Mr Pierpoint was sure the Australian Press Council would be interested to know the effort the paper had made to ensure the authenticity of these letters.

The newspaper had published a footnote to Mr Pierpoint's letter saying that on this occasion the published letter from " Rosebutt" had slipped through the normal checking procedures and apologised to readers for this oversight. The footnote confirmed that the letter signed by C J Brown was genuine.

In its reply the newspaper rejected the claim that the editing of Mr Pierpoint's letter changed its meaning. The claim about the authenticity of the two letters questioned was abundantly clear and acknowledged in the Editor's note.

The Council agrees with the view that the editing of the letter had not changed its meaning and that the matter of authenticity had been correctly addressed.