Gill, J. C. H. (James Connal Howard)

University of Queensland eSpace

55 
HISTORY MISHANDLED 
A Print Media Lapse 
by J.CH. Gill 
Mr J.CH. GiU was Senior Vice President of the Society from 1968 to 1982 and Chairman 
of the Queensland Museum Board of Trustees (1970-1990) and of the Library Board 
of Queensland (1979-1986). He has contributed a variety of articles to the Society's 
Journal Queensland Heritage and he is author of The Missing Coast: Queensland Takes 
Shape. 
Windows on the War is an apt title provided the person telling us 
presents truthfully what there is to see. By truthfully I mean presenting 
a view as coherently as possible with recourse to relevant historical 
sources and with an honest acknowledgement of perceived lacunae 
in that understanding. Few windows are entirely free of scratches or 
distortion. It is not permissible to take intuitive leaps to fill deficiencies 
or resort to down-right deception for the sake of a good story. 
I refer to an item in the Courier-Mail of 25 January 1992 which 
purported to be a potted account of the Coral Sea Battle and indeed 
of the Pacific War. It began 
Palm TYee Hit too Close for Comfort 
The only reported land casualty of the battle of the Coral Sea was a palm 
tree hit by a bomb in Townsville. It reveals how close to Australia's shores the 
battle fought from May 4 to 8, 1200 km off the north Queensland coast, really 
Having been in Townsville during the Coral Sea battle and closely 
aware of what was happening, I found the article unbelievable. During 
the Coral Sea battle no bombs fell on the mainland coast of north 
east Austraha. The palm tree was hit during the last of three air raids 
on Townsville between 25 and 28 July 1942. The bomb fell near Cluden 
Racecourse which the Japanese aircraft captain mistook for an 
airfield. 
The article went on to state that "The battle was fought in the sea 
and air by carrier aircraft from the USS Yorktown and Lexington and 
HMAS Australia and Hobart." The US ships were carriers but the 
Australian ships were cruisers and carried no offensive aircraft. 
56 
Further it states that "Tulagi was to be occupied first, on May 3, 
and then Port Moresby but the timetable was never carried out 
following the allied victory in the Coral Sea." While the Port Moresby 
option had been lost, the Japanese timetable was still carried out in 
the Solomons. Tblagi was heavily attacked on 2 May and Japanese 
landed next day and then crossed over to Guadalcanal where they 
commenced construction of an airfield. United States forces with 
support from the RAN landed on Guadalcanal on 7 August 1942 and 
captured the airfield just as it was ready for use. Fierce sea, air and 
land battles ensued, but by the end of 1942 the Japanese had been 
defeated, apart from small pockets of resistance on some of the 
Solomon Islands. 
The article concluded "Less than a month after the Coral Sea battle, 
Japan lost four of its best carriers in the Battle of Midway, which 
effectively ended the war in the Pacific." Midway cannot be said to 
have "effectively ended the war in the Pacific." The balance of forces 
in aircraft carrier strength was equalised but the superior industrial 
strength of the United States soon put them ahead in carrier 
construction. In any event, Midway was in June 1942 and it took until 
August 1945 for the war in the Pacific to be ended. Perhaps it might 
be conceded, to quote Churchill, it was "the end of the beginning". 
On the same pages as the article was a picture of an aircraft 
attacking shipping captioned "A US B-25 Mitchell bomber attacks 
Japanese supply ships in the battle for the Coral Sea". I was at first 
uncertain where the B-25 bomber was operating. It was similar to 
pictures I had seen of B-25s in action in the Battle of the Bismarck 
Sea in March 1943, but on study, what had at first appeared to be 
bomb bursts turned out to be the Beehives, small islands in the 
harbour at Rabaul. In any event the action was not in a Coral Sea 
battle context. 
I wrote to the Courier-Mail expressing my astonishment at the ease 
with which history could be re-written. I then set out to correct the 
article. My letter was ignored. 
I had heard about the Australian Press Council, said to be a 
watchdog over the improprieties of the Austrahan print media, so I 
lodged a complaint with it on the grounds that an event of extreme 
importance in Australian history had been falsely presented to the 
people of Australia. The reply brought little comfort. I was chided 
for not being versed in the Press Council's complaints procedure and 
was sent a copy of their booklet of the Council's Aims and Principles 
setting out inter alia the manner in which a complaint should be 
lodged. The letter then went on to say: 
While I believe that many of your points are nitpicking, and that the tenor 
of the article is accurate and historically sound, I will nonetheless write to 
the editor of the Courier-Mail to see if he has emy comments on your complaint. 
57 
I wrote back expressing regret that many of my points were 
considered to be nit-picking and asking if it was to be inferred that 
there is no longer a basic requirement for accuracy. I stated that I 
deemed that all reasonable steps to ensure the truth of the statements 
in the article complained of had not been fulfilled. I added: 
The article has obviously been written by a lightweight. I find it interesting 
that a further account of the Coral Sea Battle appeared in the Sunday mail 
supplement on 1 March 1992. This, written by one of the senior feature writers 
on the Courier-Mail/Sunday Mail staff is a much more accurate account and 
is based on the Coral Sea Battle chapter in George Hermon Gill's (no relation) 
Royal Australian Navy 1942-1945. You say the tenor of the subject article is 
"accurate and historically sound". Yes, we won (strategically) and they lost 
(despite a tactical win). But that does not alter the fact that the article was 
researched in a slovenly marmer and written with a facile disregard for the truth. 
Though the Sunday Mail article was a vast improvement, there was 
a side-bar column giving political reactions to the result of the Coral 
Sea battle. This contained a reference to US President "Theodore 
Roosevelt". This Roosevelt had left the presidency in 1909; Franklin 
D. Roosevelt was the man in 1942. 
The Courier-Mail informed the Press Council that the photograph 
was really a bombing run over Rabaul Harbour. That the photograph 
was captioned as it was, was an error by the sub-editor concerned. 
The editorial manager of the Courier-Mail telephoned me and 
explained it was ' 'one of those things that happen''. He knew nothing 
about the other matters about which I had complained. 
As far as the Press Council was concerned, it informed me that 
my further letter had also been forwarded to the Courier-Mail and 
was there any further action I wanted on my complaint. I replied in 
the negative and received a very prompt reply that my file had been 
closed. I wrote straight away to say that if any reply was received to 
my further letter I would be glad to know the contents. This was over 
three months ago and I have heard nothing. 
It was an interesting exercise. It leaves a doubt in my mind as to 
the probity and credibility of the print media and the efficacy of the 
Press Council. It accepted one admission of fault, but did not bother 
to require any other explanation of the many points which were 
misleading or even deceptive. Apparently as long as the journalist 
comes up with something of which "the tenor ... is accurate and 
historically sound" it does not matter about any farrago of nonsense 
which may be used as a filler. I may be wrong, but I have a strong 
feehng that the fuss I created resulted in the much superior article 
of 1 March. 
58 
I have written a number of entries for the Australian Dictionary 
of Biography and have become aware how the standards of journalistic 
report have slipped this century. A century ago press reports and 
obituaries were a historian's delight. Today obituaries are often 
scimped in their content on occasion present facts about the wrong 
person. William Randolph Hearst and his grey eminence, Arthur 
Brisbane, have much to answer for in the lowering of the standards 
of journahsm. 
X ^ 
Collecting Used lyres in Giru for the War Effort — John Oxley Library 


History mishandled : a print media lapse

http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:206530/s00855804_1993_15_2_55.pdf

History mishandled : a print media lapse

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Queensland eSpace