Adjudication No. 1458 (adjudicated May 2010) [2010] APC 8

Adjudication No. 1458 (adjudicated May 2010)

The Australian Press Council has dismissed a complaint by the Association for Berowra Creek Inc. over a report and an editorial in the Hornsby Advocate on 17 December 2009. Both articles dealt with Hornsby Council's approval in principle of cross-country mountain bike trails in the shire. The in-principle approval opened the way for the council to seek finance for the project and to prepare a draft mountain bike plan with reference to environmental issues.

The association complained that the article quoted only a spokesman for mountain bikers and failed to state the views of six individuals and groups who spoke against the proposal. It also took offence at the editorial's portrayal of opponents of the scheme as "NIMBYs" and "fearful Freddies".

The newspaper replied that its article stated there were dissenting voices in the debate. The article was about moving forward once the scheme had won in-principle approval, and not about re-presenting the arguments that had failed to sway council. The article quoted one of the pro-bike trail advocates from the council debate whose comments, the newspaper said, presented the contrasting issues in the matter. The editor said he stood by his right to express in the editorial, which was clearly labelled "opinion", his strong support for dedicated mountain bike trails.

The association also complained that the newspaper ignored two emails it sent on 20 December 2009 and 21 January 2010. The first appeared to be in the form of a letter to the editor designed for publication and the second was a re-send of the same letter, with a covering note referring in part to the need for the newspaper to provide "a reasonable and swift opportunity for a balancing response". While the newspaper did not publish correspondence from the association, it did publish a letter from an opponent of the bike trails on 7 January, and posted for-and-against views on its website between 18 December 2009 and 11 January 2010.

The Press Council finds that the article principally concerned a new development in an on-going issue that continued to be reported in the newspaper. Accordingly, the article did not need to cover all sides of the debate. In these circumstances, the published letters on the article in the newspaper and on its website provided sufficient balance and the editorial was within acceptable bounds as a clearly designated expression of the newspaper's opinion.

Although the complainant expected a reply from the newspaper to its submitted letter, it is the general practice for newspapers to do this only when there are particular circumstances. The Press Council can see nothing in this case that would require the newspaper to reply.