Press watchdog lambasts The Maitland Mercury for letter to the editor published day before election
The Maitland Mercury has fallen foul of the press watchdog, over a letter to the editor about an electoral candidate the day before a mayoral election.
A letter entitled ‘Family Affair’, which was published on September 8 2017, addressed concerns related to more than one nomination from the same family running for a local government election.
The Maitland Mercury published a letter to the editor about an electoral candidate and his family
It said should seven members of the the candidate’, who was running for mayor, were nominated, they could all be elected to create a council “with a majority from the one family”.
The complainant said the suggestion the majority of his family would make up the local council was inaccurate and unfair and the publication would have been well aware of it. He added it was almost impossible in a preferential election for all family members to be elected.
One of his biggest complaints was to due to the fact he was not given the opportunity to respond. Given the letter ran the day before the election, that was unfair, he claimed. He expressed concerns on the effect the letter had on his candidacy. The complainant said he lost the mayoral election by a small margin and said copies of the letter were distributed by opponents on social media.
He asked for an apology and correction.
However The Maitland Mercury said the viewers of the writer involved were newsworthy, relevant and represented a community concern. Across the campaign period, The Maitland Mercury had published a number of articles about candidates. However the publication said it was an unusual election campaign which had resulted in threatening letters, police being called and verbal attacks on the outgoing mayor. This had resulted in a strained relationship with the complainant, it argued, which had resulted in no communication.
Given the letter did not contain offensive comments, it did not contact the candidate for comment.
The Press Council did not agree. It said the letter was ‘adverse’ to the candidacy for the position of mayor and as the letter was published the day before the election without balancing comment or response, the only fair time to give the complainant time to respond was in the same edition. This did not occur, it noted.
“The Council concludes that the publication breached General Principles 3 and 4 by publishing the letter, which contained material adverse to the candidate and failing to afford the complainant a fair opportunity for reply before the election was held,” the ruling said.
“The Council considers it was not necessary, in reaching this conclusion, to determine the effect, if any, of the publication of the letter on the election result.”
