Is The Examiner a publisher that publishes without fear or favour

The letter to The Examiner's Editor below is here with the permission of the author. But more of that later! Firstly, let’s look at the unedited version of the Letter to The Examiner – dated Thursday, July 13, 2006

Dear Sir,

Your paper prints the spin put out by Gunns Limited without query or question. Suggestions by them that they can build a Pulp Mill for $1.3 billion dollars creating 8,000 direct and indirect jobs are arrived at so as to give the Community that warm cosy feel good feeling.

I ask, how can a company whose share price has fallen 34% in the last financial year, making it the ninth worst performing stock on the Exchange (Australian Financial Review, 12 July 2006, page 34) afford to spend $1.3 billion dollars on a Pulp Mill when its capital value, based on a share price of $2.75 is $880 million dollars?

Secondly if it takes 8,000 men on say $1,000 a week some two years to build the Pulp Mill, the labour cost alone is 8,000 x $1,000 x 52 x 2 or $832 million dollars.

May I suggest, that based on Gunns figures they may need to hire a new Financial Controller, for the Company will, in all probability, go bust. Mr Lennon will then have to help them out yet again presumably as usual at the expense of ordinary hard working Tasmanians, but maybe an investigative journalist from your paper could discover if $1.3 billion dollars and 8,000 jobs is a fiction or a fact. [215 words]

John Hawkins
Chudleigh 7304
Phone number supplied but presumably(?) not used.

NOW FOR WHAT WHEN TO PRINT:

"Suggestions by Gunns Ltd that it can build a pulp mill for $1.4 billion, creating thousands of direct and indirect jobs, are arrived at so as to give the community that warm and cosy good feeling.

How can a company whose share price has fallen 34 per cent in the last financial year, making it the ninth worst performing stock on the Australian Stock Exchange, afford to spend $1.4 billion dollars on a pulp mill when its capital value, based on a share price of $2.75 is $880 million?
{93 words]
JOHN HAWKINS, Chudleigh.

If you are a letter writer, and you imagine that there is a realistic comparison between the two letters then you are very easy to please. But there is another problem here perhaps. It goes to the issue of the common law moral rights of the author, or letter writer, and when that might just kick in – Copyright Amendment (Moral Rights) Act, December 21, 2000.

About Moral Rights

Authors, even letter writers to The Editor, have intellectual property in their letters and that includes; (1) The right of attribution (including the right against false attribution); And (2) The right of integrity. The right of integrity is infringed if the work [a letter? ] is subjected to derogatory treatment which is prejudicial to the author's honour or reputation. Derogatory treatment has been defined to include: 'material distortion, mutilation or material alteration of a work [letter?]'.

So far as Letters to the Editor are concerned the moral rights of letter writers probably hasn’t been tested. Nonetheless, it would seem that The Examiner might be prudent if it got some expert advice on this one perhaps.

It is always good to know that The Examiner is busy correcting syntax, spelling, etc. while at the same time anticipating just what it is readers really need to know and writers really want to say.

ENDNOTE: Gunns’ shares were selling at $ 2.560 at Noon July 2006 with 426,159 shares being traded for the day at that time. The Commonwealth Bank seemed to have been on the money in their advice to investors and it is a pity that The Examiner’s readers do not seem to be able to rely upon this paper as one that will report the news without fear or favour.