[Home]
[Databases]
[WorldLII]
[Search]
[Feedback]
Australian Press Council |
Adjudication No. 1365 (adjudicated August 2007)
The Press Council has dismissed a complaint brought by Paul Macak against The Australian regarding an editorial published in its 13 April 2007 edition.
The editorial commented adversely on the ruling of the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) pertaining to talkback broadcasts before the Cronulla riots of December 2005 of Sydney radio commentator, Alan Jones.
Jones had read out an email from a listener 'J' suggesting that biker gangs be invited to be present at Cronulla railway station to confront arriving 'Lebanese thugs'. A day later, Jones read out a text message urging 'Aussies ... to take revenge against Lebs and wogs'.
The editorial stated: 'In layman's terms, the ACMA said it was OK for Jones to publicise the text message ... but not OK to read out the email about the biker gangs.' This statement, according to the complainant, created a 'false impression' of inconsistency on the part of ACMA as the editorial omitted a 'pivotal' comment of Jones that "'J' has a good answer'", which was determined by ACMA to be an endorsement of the email about biker gangs.
Editorials are an expression of a newspaper's opinion which the Press Council has consistently maintained should be given a broad latitude. Even if the omitted statement was pivotal as claimed by the complainant, the more appropriate course of action in this instance would have been a timely submission of a letter to the newspaper in furtherance of the public discourse.
The newspaper said that given the delay of three weeks in the submission of a letter from the complainant, 'compelling' reasons would be needed for the newspaper to consider publishing it. The newspaper further pointed out that the editorial was part of a wider reporting of the ACMA ruling, including the publication of two op-ed articles and letters commenting on both sides of the ruling.
The Press Council is of the view that the newspaper, in deciding not to publish the letter because of the absence of compelling reasons, was exercising a discretion in a manner that was not unreasonable
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/APC/2007/22.html