Press Council dismisses! Irish slight complaint

Press, 1 December 1987, Page 36

Press Council dismisses! Irish slight complaint

PA Wellington The Press Council has dismissed a complaint by Mr Benjamin Barker, of Auckland, against the “New Zealand Herald.” Mr Barker’s complaint concerned an article in the “Herald” of October 9 by a contributing sports columnist. The column began by saying it was surely news when a world figure in sport spoke resentfully about the way sport was treated in relation to South Africa. The next sentence read: “Not surprisingly, the critic is Irish.” In a later passage, the article referred to the Belfast Boat Club “which, being Irish, not surprisingly no longer fields any boats.”

Mr Barker wrote to the editor that these comments were unacceptable, being racist and bigoted. He asked for publication of an apology, especially to readers of Irish descent who had no doubt been grievously offended by the article. The editor replied that the opinions were those of a contributor; readers could accept or reject them. But he suggested that comments such as these, offered in mere irony or flippancy, should not be taken too seriously. No other reader had complained. In further correspondence, Mr Barker said this reply seemed to indicate the editor took no responsibility for articles published in the news-

paper, but the editor said that was a mistaken assumption. As editor he took responsibility for what was published. Mr Barker first complained to the Press Council that the “Herald” had published an article which offended ' against the proper feelings of the Irish people and that the editor had denied responsibility tor the content of the article. However, after his further correspondence with the editor, he amended his pomplaint, saying it appeared that the editor did accept responsibility but did not accept that the comment in the article was wrong or improper. He said the “Herald” should be asked to publish some form of quallfica-

tion or apology. The editor told ’ the council the passages in question did hot have- the effects claimed by Mr Barker. Read with a reasonable sense of humour they were quite acceptable. . ; . •./ The Press Council, in its decision, said an editor was clearly responsible for what appeared in a newspaper. Including contributed articles. But in this instance the editor had acknowledged that responsibility and this was accepted by Mr Barker. As to the article itself, the council found the columnist’s comments were light-hearted asides which should not offend any not over-sensitive reader, and the complaint could not be sustained.