The Management of the Augusta Margaret River Mail is in denial over its publishing of a letter by the CEO of the Shire criticising a candidate in the upcoming elections for our Shire.
Last Wednesday i spoke by phone to Debbie Ashcroft, manager of the Mail, and asked her if it was common practice for the Mail to show letters people had written to third parties prior to their publication. At this time Debbie flatly denied that the Mail would have done this, even when I drew her attention to the fact that the CEO’s letter referred specifically to the other letter in question.
Despite this statement that the Mail did not show letters tothird parties, the following day i received the following email from Debbie Ashcroft.
“Hi Noel
Sorry for the delay – you asked for a response in writing on the CEO’s letter:
It is standard newspaper practice to provide the right of reply in the same edition (wherever this is possible) in contentious issues, as was the case in this instance.
Regards
Deb”
This statement contradicts Ms Ashcroft’s former statement, and admits to her newspaper providing letters to the editor to third parties prior to their publishing in order for a response to be written from them. Despite investigations on my part I have found no substantive evidence to back up Ms Ashcroft’s claim that it is “standard newspaper practice to provide a right of reply” to letters to the editor. Indeed I cannot remember seeing this done (except for editorial correctness) in any other newspaper in Australia.
This brings me to my last point. In today’s Mail my letter questioning the Mail’s practice in this regard was published, along with a response by the Mail. I provide a link to that letter and response here.
The Mail at least makes it quite clear that the letter was shown to the CEO, which contradicts the initial denail. But again it is unsatisfactory. Previously when I have question a Council response to a letter the Mail has thrown itself own its sword and stated it was at fault, rather than the supposed author of that response. The Mail has done this again in this instance, by stating that the CEO did not know the author of the letter in question, and that the Mail doctored his letter in order to reflect that it was in response to the letter that appeared directly above it.
So the Mail has orchestrated a personal attack upon a letter writer without the consent of the person who has written the attack?
I find this implausible. It was either wrong of the Mail to alter the CEO’s letter, or wrong of them to provide the first letter to him. This is a furphy, created to detract from the culpability of the CEO in attacking a candidate for the election. It is also culpable of the Mail. If it did change the CEO’s letter,this is both corrupt and culpable, if it did not then it has lied.
Where is the truth? Why was there no public apology in the Mail for this public and unwarranted attack against a candidate in the forthcoming election?
Will the Mail provide the unfettered letter written by the CEO so that we can judge it on its merits to determine whether or no the CEO is in breach of any protocols, and whether or no the Mail has corrupted its journalistic principals by altering a letter to make it into a personal attack by the CEO of an organisation against a candidate standing for that organisation?
Noel Conway.
