Investigation Report No. 2631

File No. / ACMA2011/1327
Licensee / Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Station / 2BL Sydney
Type of Service / Radio Broadcaster
Name of Program / Breakfast with Adam Spencer
Dates of Broadcast / 7 July 2011
Relevant Code / Standard 4.1 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011
Date Finalised / 23 December 2011
Decision / No breach of clause 4.1 (impartiality)


Background

The program

Breakfast with Adam Spencer is radio program broadcast on weekday mornings[1] by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC).

The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) received two complaints regarding the program broadcast on 7 July 2011, concerning interviews conducted by Adam Spencer with Lord Monckton. [2] Transcripts of the interviews are at Attachment A.

The complaints

The complaints are set out at Attachment B. They each allege that the interviews were biased. Complainant 1 also claimed that the interviewer was rude and disrespectful, the interview was not balanced and the ABC did not provide listeners with an understanding of this issue from both sides.

The Code

The complaints have been considered against Standard 4 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011. This requires impartiality and diversity of perspectives in the presentation of news and information.

There are no Code requirement for politeness and respect during interviews broadcast by the ABC, so this matter is not within the ACMA’s jurisdiction. It is considered only to the extent that it is relevant to the question of impartiality.

The ABC’s submissions

The complainants were not satisfied with responses by the ABC’s Audience and Consumer Affairs and then made complaints to the ACMA.[3] The ABC’s submissions are set out at Attachment C.

The ordinary reasonable viewer

In assessing content against the Code, the ACMA considers the meaning conveyed by the relevant material. This is assessed according to the understanding of an ‘ordinary, reasonable listener’.

Australian courts have considered an ‘ordinary, reasonable listener’ to be:

A person of fair average intelligence, who is neither perverse, nor morbid or suspicious of mind, nor avid for scandal. That person does not live in an ivory tower, but can and does read between the lines in the light of that person’s general knowledge and experience of worldly affairs[4].

The ACMA asks what the ‘ordinary, reasonable listener’ would have understood this program to have conveyed. It considers the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone and inferences that may be drawn.

Once this test has been applied to ascertain the meaning of the broadcast material, it is for the ACMA to determine whether the material has breached the Codes.

Issue: Impartiality

Relevant Code Standard

4.5 Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.

The ACMA’s general considerations as to whether or not material complained of is compliant with the ABC’s obligations under Standard 4.1 of the 2011 Code are found at Attachment D.

Finding

The ABC did not breach Standard 4.1 of the Code.

Assessment

The ABC submitted that the interviews were intended to ask questions of Lord Monckton and explore his opposition to the majority view on climate change. It acknowledged that the interview became combative and continued to degenerate.

The ACMA considers that the ordinary reasonable viewer would have understood the interviews to have covered the then currently contentious issue of climate change science, the economic impact of global warming and the Government’s proposed carbon tax.

The interviews opened with the testing of Lord Monckton on his credentials, not only in the arena of climate science but on his membership of the House of Lords and as a putative Nobel Laureate. Both parties talked over each other during a discussion of Lord Monckton’s analysis of climate science and the first interview ended with the termination by the presenter of the phone call. The interviewer apologised for this in the second interview which focussed on Lord Monckton’s activities in Australia and economic issues surrounding the carbon tax.

As indicated at Attachment D, achieving impartiality requires a broadcaster to present content in a way which avoids conveying a pre-judgement, or giving effect to the affectations or enmities of the presenter or reporter who play a key role in setting the tone of the program, through their style and choice of language.

Whether a breach of Standard 4.1 has occurred will depend on the themes of the program, any editorial comment, the overall presentation of the story and the circumstances in which the program was prepared and broadcast. A perspective may be favoured where the evidence supports it. Probing and challenging questions may be used to explore an issue, and programs must demonstrate a willingness to include alternative perspectives without prejudgement.


The ACMA considers that, in this case, although the opening questions tended to convey a suggestion that Lord Monkton’s claims about his credentials were false, the matters put to him were based on factual reports of his claims. Although designed to test his credentials, the questions were put in an open manner and were not derisive or contemptuous. The interviewee was given the opportunity to respond and he explained his credentials at some length.

The interviews continued with questions on Lord Monckton’s public analysis of climate science which included references to claims by academics this was inaccurate and that he misrepresented the scientific data, and concluded with questions about the nature of his activities in Australia and his views on climate science. The presenter cited the sources of claims by scientists and economists in the public debates on the issues, and details of the arguments. Questions were based on material in the public domain, rather than arising from any enmity or particular affectations of the presenter.

Lord Monckton asserted himself, responding at length to the questions and at times accusing the presenter of being ‘hostile’ and ‘childish’. Questions on his stance on contentious issues were refuted by Lord Monckton in some detail with references to data and the academics supporting his stance. Although there were interruptions by both parties, these did not limit Lord Monckton’s ability to provide complete responses to the questions posed.

The questions asked were probing and challenging. However, there is insufficient evidence to indicate that the presenter demonstrated partiality or represented his own view in relation to the issues canvassed. The presenter did not use sustained, emotive or colourful language in asking the questions nor provide any comments which indicated that what was being reported was his own view.

This enabled the relevant perspectives on the matters of contention covered in the interviews to be presented. In the process of the interviews listeners were given a fuller understanding of the issues from both sides.

Of course, the presenter terminated the first interview without notice. However, when he returned to the second interview he appeared to genuinely regret the manner in which the interview had been earlier terminated:

‘Can we just move on from a discussion of the science because I don't want us to butt heads again on that sort of stuff’, and

‘My apologies for hanging up on you before but I stand by my decision to terminate the interview because we weren't getting anywhere. But I should have said to you on air that I was going to terminate the interview. Have a great time for the rest of your time in Australia’.


The ACMA considers that the interviews included a discussion of the evidence in support of each of the issues raised, and lengthy and complete responses on these issues by Lord Monckton. Although the interviews were at times mutually combative, they were rigorous but fairly conducted. The presenter sought to challenge Lord Monckton on his credentials and his scientific methods, but he was open to the responses given, enabling relevant perspectives to be aired.

For these reasons, the ACMA finds that the program did not breach Standard 4.1 of the Code in relation to the broadcast on 7 July 2011.


Attachment A

Transcript of interview with Lord Monckton – 2BL– 7 July 2011

ADAM SPENCER on ABC Sydney 702, 6.40 am 7/7/11:

Spencer: Lord Christopher Monckton, he joins us this morning. Lord Monckton, thank you so much for your time.

Monckton: It’s a pleasure.

Spencer: Can I just clarify to start sir, are you a member of the House of Lords?

Monckton: Aah, yes, but without the right to sit or vote.

Spencer: Because the House of Lords, when you've made that claim before, have consistently said there is no such thing. When peerages were abolished in the mid-1990s, before you inherited your position, there’s no such thing as a member of the Hosue of Lords who can’t sit or vote. They have repeatedly asked you to stop calling yourself such, haven't they?

Monckton: No they haven't because um ... they have not yet repealed by Act of Parliament the letters patent creating the peerage and until they do I am a member of the House as my passport records. It says I am the Right Honourable the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, so get used to it.

Spencer: You would accept that is in dispute from from ... with some people?

Monckton: Of course there will be people who will dispute anything they like. But ...

Spencer: Aah.

Monckton : Just listen, the letters patent which created the peerage have not been repealed by act of parliament . . .

Spencer: Are you ...

Monckton: Just listen

Spencer: Yes sir.

Monckton: And until they are I remain the Right Honourable Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. I have explained quite straight forwardly, that does not give me the right to sit and vote – that was been taken away by the House of Lords Act 1999.

Spencer: Are you a Nobel Laureate as is claimed on many websites?

Monckton: Aah ... I don’t know what websites. No website that I control says any such thing. It is, however, quite clear that after a seminar that I had given on the determination of climate sensitivy at Rochester University in upper New York State, aah ooh ... four or five years ago now, aah the Professor of Physics there, a very distinguished man called Professor David Douglas got up and said that in view of the corrections that I had made to the 2007 IPCC Report, that I should be regarded as having the same Nobel Laureate status as the other authors of that IPCC Report. And he kindly presented me with a little prize pin which I wear from time to time as a joke. That's what we on the centre-Right would call "a joke". It is something you on the Left at the ABC might not perhaps fully understand.

Spencer: With the greatest respect sir ...

Monckton: (unclear)

Spencer: I don't take a position on the Left or the Right or the Centre.

Monckton: Well that's a, that’s a ...

Spencer: I’m simply asking questions.

Monckton: That’s a very welcome change (talking over each other).

Spencer: I'm trying to establish your credentials to make the claims you do, because there seems to be a consistent pattern that when you speak publicly and and and ... analyse climate science and make pronouncements ... and it's my understanding that you've never held any academic position at any university or any research institute attached to any science connected to climate science. But when you make these claims publicly and then your talks are taken and replayed to the authors and the journal writers who you quote they consistently say that is not what I meant that is not the graph that is a misrepresentation of what I say. There is a very famous case of when one of your talks was taken, and every single person who is quoted has come back and said that is not the thrust of what I have said. It’s suggested by some that you consistently misrepresent and twist fractions of reports and elements of data to create a spiel that is not academically and intellectually consistent ...

Monckton: Nah, so far what we've had from you and you say you are not taking a position, and it is clearly a position which is deliberately hostile. You’re entitled to do that. That's what the ABC is infamous for in this debate. You've only taken one side in it yourself.

Spencer: I apologise if you detect any hostility, I'm simply putting out questions, sir. But continue.

Monckton: Don't be childish. Now just listen. I would like a specific example, please.

Spencer: Well you know ... you know the analysis done by J. P. Abrahams of St Thomas’s University, a speech given, you know the response from a series of climate scientists, to the testimony given to the US Congressional select committee on energy independence and global warming.

Monckton: Now, I want a specific example please of one scientist who you say that I cited incorrectly.

Spencer: J. P. Abrahams presented to you a list of dozens of them, including Dr [Ola] Johannessen for example.

Monckton: Right. Now can you please tell me what I got wrong in Dr Johannessen's paper?

Spencer: Er, I don't have that particular one because . . .

Monckton: No, I bet you don't (raised voice). Alright ..

Spencer: For example sir, on Alan Jones’ breakfast show.

Monckton: (unclear)

Spencer: On Alan Jones’ breakfast show last year when you said CO2 was present in the atmosphere at twenty times today’s levels in the Cambrian era and in the Jurassic era. There is no reference in international peer reviewed literature anywhere in the world of that happening. Secondly, those changes in CO2 levels occurred over 30 million years, not over decades as is being postulated now. And thirdly, immediately before the Jurassic era there was the third great mass extinction. You remove those points of analysis and simply claim there was massive CO2 levels back in the Cambrian era. There was some nice coral there. Why should we be worried about increased CO2 levels? And there are multiple examples of things like that.