Adjudication No. 1499 (June 2011) [2011] APC 10

The Australian Press Council has considered a complaint from Anitra Thomas against a front-page article in the NewsMail, Bundaberg on 26 November 2010 (headed NOISE WAR), an editorial on the same day and an SMS message from a reader published on 8 December.

The article described concerns of a group of residents from a semi-rural street on the outskirts of Bundaberg about repeated complaints by their neighbour, Anitra Thomas, that they made excessive noise. They were reported as saying their lives were a “living hell” since she moved in 18 months ago and the dispute had created a bitter feud because she constantly complained about barking and wandering dogs, motorbikes and tooting car horns.

The editorial was expressed in general terms rather than referring specifically to this dispute. It said everyone needed to act reasonably in relation to noise but added “if we cannot tolerate noise of any kind then perhaps we should not live near other people at all”.

Ms Thomas complained that the article was biased and contained lies that she “was sneaking around causing dogs to bark”. She said the editorial unfairly singled her out for criticism by suggesting that people concerned about harmful noise should be forced to live in isolation.

The SMS message read “Hey A Thomas, was it your red light stolen?” Ms Thomas works at home as a massage therapist and said the message (which was simply signed “Farmer”) implied that she was a prostitute.

The newspaper said in reply that Ms Thomas had refused its invitation to respond to the neighbours’ claims in the proposed article and that letters from her responding to the editorial and article had been published on 1 and 6 December, respectively. As well, five letters from her (three before the 26 November article and the two letters in reply) had been amongst the sixteen letters published on the dispute.

The Council considers the newspaper made sufficient attempts to provide balanced coverage. It approached Ms Thomas for prior comment, included neutral material about Noise Watch Australia to which she belonged, and published many of her letters. The editorial was reasonably balanced and did not seek to criticise Ms Thomas unfairly. Accordingly, the complaints about the article and editorial are dismissed.

The Council agrees with Ms Thomas that the SMS could readily be interpreted as implying she is a prostitute. The newspaper did not suggest any other interpretation and did not argue that the interpretation was true. Great care should be taken when publishing readers’ comments, particularly from digital sources that are anonymous or use a pseudonym. Accordingly, the Council considers that publication of this message was offensive and unfair and this aspect of the complaint is upheld.