Australian Press Council dismisses Balson's complaint against The Courier Mail
Faxed: 1st June 1998
Adjudicated: 29 May 1998
Issued: 1 June 1998
For General Release: 5 June 1998
The Courier Mail 4 June 1998
The Australian Press Council
Adjudication No 973
The Australian Press Council has dismissed a complaint made by Scott Balson against The Courier Mail. Mr Balson’s complaint arose from articles in the Monitor section of The Courier Mail of 21 and 28 March 1998. These were bylined opinion pieces written by Peter Charlton relating to the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI).
These articles were critical of the opponents of the MAI, particularly their assertions that the treaty had been produced in secret. Among such opponents identified in the first article were Pauline Hanson. Extracts of comments appearing on Mr Balson’s web site were cited in support of Mr Charlton’s criticisms. Mr Charlton made disparaging remarks about Ms Hanson and her opinions on the MAI. An allusion to some matters included on the Internet as “fruit loop territory” could be read as referring to Mr Balson’s web site.
Mr Balson who describes himself as “the webmaster for Pauline Hanson’s One Nation” sent a long piece to The Courier Mail rebutting the 21 March article. He described this as an exercise of his “right of reply”. Following discussions with the newspaper he sent a second shorter version of the piece. The first was longer than the Charlton article and the second much longer than a publishable letter. Neither was published by the newspaper. However, the 28 March article included an extract from the first of Mr Balson’s pieces together with a refutation to the validity of the comments.
Mr Balson has complained to the Council about the comments relating to Ms Hanson and himself and the description of his web site. He also objected to the failure to publish his rebuttal of the Charlton article and the extracting without his consent of a part of the rebuttal.
The Council considers that the freedom of the press permitted in this country gives latitude to by-lined columnists to express strong views in their columns. While the Council expects that there may be the opportunity provided for balancing response, it does not recognise an automatic “right of reply”. No reader has a right for a newspaper to publish his or her views. The Courier Mail was entitled to decline to publish Mr Balson’s piece.
It may have been courteous for Mr Balson’s approval to have been sought to the quotation of part of his rebuttal but persons who submit material of an overtly political and controversial nature to a newspaper should expect the contents of their material will be reproduced by the paper in some form.
Comment:
View the "right of reply" and decide for yourself whether the article was of an of an overtly political and controversial nature somehow I think not.
Somehow I think the Australian Press Council has fallen into the clutches of the media barons.