Letter from the Australian Press Council - May 2nd 1998 and The Courier-Mail's response:
Dear Mr Balson
Enclosed is a copy of the Courier-Mail’s response to your complaint (to the Australian Press Council).
At this stage, you may elect to let the matter rest. Alternatively, you may ask that it be examined first by the Complaints Committee and then by the full Council.
Would you please advise this office without delay - either by brief letter or by phone - if you want to follow the latter course. I will then set down the complaint for hearing at the first Complaints Committee meeting at which time is available.
Your Sincerely,
Jack R Herman
Executive Secretary
Australian Press Council
May 1, 1998
Mr Jack Herman
Executive Secretary
Australian Press Council
Suite 303, 149 Castlereign Street
Sydney NSW 2000
re Complaint from Mr Balson
Dear Mr Herman:
Thank you for forwarding the material from Mr Balson.
For convenience I will respond to the matters raised in his letter of March 30.
In terms of a request that a statement be issued apologising for the original Charlton article Mr Balson should be left in no doubt that no such apology will be forthcoming.
To address the complaint under Principle Two, The Courier-Mail, and indeed all newspapers of standing and importance, allow columnists and commentators to express their opinions on contemporary matters. This freedom has been recognised in adjudications issued by the Australian Press Council.
Peter Charlton is a nationally recognised senior journalist. His opinions are his own. He is entitled to express these opinions and will be encouraged by this newspaper to do so. He is also called on frequently by the ABC for political and social commentary.
Mr Balson may find these opinions “harmfully inaccurate” but Mr Charlton does not.
In relation to Principle eight, The Courier-Mail decided that the best method of giving Mr Balson the right to reply was to include parts of his lengthy response in a subsequent article by Mr Charlton. This obviously conveyed Mr Balson’s views to the same audience as would have read the initial article.
Mr Balson takes umbrage that material in Mr Charlton’s original column had come from Mr Balson’s web pages or rather Global Web Builders page. Mr Charlton recognises this in the article and commented upon the nature of the material and its ease of access. Other material used came from other web sites including the OECD. Clearly those who hold opposing views to Mr Charlton could have sought Mr Balson’s views by accessing his web page. Mr Charlton’s article could have given more exposure to this web page than it previously enjoyed.
Mr Balson must realise that material on a Web page is in a public domain. Certainly Queensland Newspapers recognises this and despite an obvious breach of copyright concerning digital material has not sought to pursue Mr Balson for material from its mastheads he has placed on Global Web Builders page.
Concerning Principles Five and Eight, Mr Charlton’s column is clearly a distinguishable opinion piece and he has not misrepresented or suppressed relevant facts. We would argue that Mr Balson and indeed Ms Hanson have received a fair go by this newspaper.
The Council should know that this newspaper has extensively reported on the various debatable matters raised by Pauline Hanson. A search of our database shows that 1,001 articles containing references to Mrs Hanson have been published in The Courier-Mail or the Sunday Mail between April 22, 1997 and May 1, 1998.
Sincerely,
Gareth Evans
Editorial Manager