Subject: A FURTHER FORMAL COMPLAINT
From: Kim Bax
Date: 7 May 2012 11:03:14 AM AEST
Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Press Council office
From: Mrs. Kim Bax (Full contact details supplied)
A further formal complaint & questions, re gross Australian press omissions in the reporting of the Schapelle Corby case.
I note that in your letter to me of 3 May 2012 (in response to my complaint of 26 April 2012), reproduced here:
. . . you are endorsing the decision of Australia's Herald Sun not to mention hard evidence of Schapelle Corby's innocence, within an article directly relating to that issue. I also note that when I phoned the author of that letter, and directly asked how that ruling complied with both your own Statement of Principles, e.g:
"Publications should take reasonable steps to ensure reports are accurate, fair and balanced. They should not deliberately mislead or misinform readers either by omission or commission."
Plus Murdoch's own Code of Conduct:
1.4 Do not knowingly withhold or suppress essential facts
. . . he point blank refused to reply or respond on that key point. Therefore, I'm now formally asking your organisation to explain in detail, and in writing (for posterity), how your decision of 3 May 2012 complies with your Statement of Principles, and Murdoch's own Code of Conduct (as outlined in the points from those codes, quoted above).
I also note this shameful finding, as reported in The Guardian UK of 2 May 2012:
"A committee of British lawmakers called Rupert Murdoch unfit to run his global media empire — a finding that reflects just how deeply the phone hacking scandal born of his defunct News of the World has shaken the relationship between the press and politics."
So I am also looking forward to a reply from Phil Gardner (editor of Australia's Herald Sun), to my formal complaint of 26 April 2012 (so far ignored), also explaining in detail how his decision complies with Murdoch's own published Conduct of Conduct - or are we to assume that the committee of British lawmakers were completely correct, and Murdoch's own published "Code of Conduct" is not worth the paper it's written on?
I will phone you later this week to confirm you have received this further formal complaint and questions, and ask how long (approx), it will take you to reply.
CC - Tom Watson MP