Investigation Report No. 2446
File No. / ACMA2010/1433Broadcaster / Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Station / 2RN
Type of Service / National Broadcaster
Name of Program / PM
Date of Broadcast / 7 October 2009
Relevant Code / Clauses 3.4 and 3.5 of the ABC Code of Practice 2007
Date finalised / 2nd December 2010
Decision / No breach of clause 3.4 (impartiality)
No breach of clause 3.5 (balance)
The complaint
On 4 July 2010, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) received a complaint concerning the program PM broadcast on 7 October 2009 by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC).
The complainant alleged that the broadcast contained ‘biased reporting on the benefits of mammography screening’.[1] The complainant was not satisfied with the responses of the ABC’s Audience and Consumer Affairs, Complaint’s Review Executive and the Independent Complaints Review Panel, and referred the matter to the ACMA for investigation.[2]
The complaint has been investigated under clauses 3.4 [impartiality] and 3.5 [balance] of the ABC Code of Practice 2007 (the Code).
The program
PM is a news and current affairs program presented by Mark Colvin and broadcast on weeknights from 6:10pm on ABC local radio and 5:10pm on Radio National.
On 7 October 2009, the program included a segment which reported on a Massachusetts-based study by Dr Blake Cady of Cambridge Hospital Breast Centre and Harvard Medical School, and the participation of Australian women in mammogram screening programs. The report ran for approximately four minutes, and highlighted the study’s finding that mortality rates were lower for women in screening programs than for those who had not been screened, and the study’s conclusion that mammography is the most effective method for women to avoid death from breast cancer.
The broadcast included comments made by Dr Cady, Professor John Boyages from the Westmead Breast Cancer Institute, and Professor Ian Olver, the Head of the Australian Cancer Council.
A full excerpt of the broadcast is set out at Attachment A.
Assessment
The assessment is based on:
a DVD recording of the broadcast provided by the ABC;
the complainant’s submission received by the ACMA on 4 July 2010;
the complainant’s submission to the ABC’s Audience and Consumer Affairs, Complaint’s Review Executive and Independent Complaints Review Panel;
the ABC’s Audience and Consumer Affairs response to the complainant;
the report of the Complaints Review Executive published on 17 December 2009;
the report of the Independent Complaints Review Panel published on 12 July 2010; and
publicly available information, the source of which is identified where relevant.
Issue 1: Impartiality
Relevant Code
3. News and Current Affairs Content
3.4 Content will be impartial. Editorial judgements will be based on news values. One perspective will not be unduly favoured over others.
Considerations
In determining whether or not material complained of was compliant with the ABC’s obligations under clause 3.4 of the Code, the ACMA generally has regard to the following considerations:
The meaning conveyed by the relevant material is assessed according to what an ordinary, reasonable listener would have understood the program concerned to have conveyed. 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.[3]
Achieving impartiality requires a broadcaster to present content in a way which avoids conveying a prejudgment, or giving effect to the affections or enmities of the presenter or reporter in respect of what is broadcast. In this regard:
The ACMA applies the ordinary English meaning of the word ‘impartial’ in interpreting the Code. The Macquarie English Dictionary (5th Edition) defines ‘impartial’ as: ‘not partial; unbiased; just’. It defines ‘partial’ to include: ‘biased or prejudiced in favour of a person, group, side, etc., as in a controversy’.[4] ‘Bias’ is defined as: ‘a particular tendency or inclination, especially one which prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question’.[5]
The ACMA considers that a helpful explanation of the ordinary English usage of the term ‘bias’ is set out by Hayne J in Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng[6] as follows:
‘Bias’ is used to indicate some preponderating disposition or tendency, a ‘propensity; predisposition towards; predilection; prejudice’.[7] It may be occasioned by interest in the outcome, by affection or enmity, or, as was said to be the case here, by prejudgment. Whatever its cause, the result that is asserted or feared is a deviation from the true course of decision-making, for bias is anything which turns a man to a particular course, or gives the direction to his measures.
A program that presents a perspective that is opposed by a particular person or group is not inherently partial. Whether a breach of clause 3.4 of the Code 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.
Presenters and reporters can play a key role in setting the tone of a program through their style and choice of language. The manner in which a report is presented or reported can influence the conclusions that an ordinary, reasonable listener would draw from a broadcast.
The nature of current affairs reporting requires reporters and presenters to be questioning, and at times sceptical, in their analysis of important issues. However, while probing and challenging questions may be used to explore an issue, programs must demonstrate a willingness to include alternative perspectives without prejudgment.
A perspective may be quite reasonably favoured if all the evidence supports it; it is only where the favouring is undue in some way that the Code is breached.
A perspective may be ‘unduly’ favoured in a variety of ways, including editing, juxtaposition of material, editorial comment or reporter’s comments.
Complainant’s submissions
The complainant submitted to the ACMA that:
[...]
The broadcast [...] implied support for the claim that mammograms reduce deaths by 50% by the tone of the news item’s title: “Mammograms prove to be life savers”. No other scientists have claimed such a high figure. It was therefore not being impartial and was unduly favouring one perspective over others [emphasis added by the complainant].
The ABC in subsequent correspondence with our Society tried to justify their support for the claim by offering their own biased interpretation of the statistics. We don’t believe it is the ABC’s job to take sides in medical debates or controversies but to report on those controversies.
It has therefore [...] been in breach of Clause 3.4 [of the Code].
The complainant submitted to the ABC’s Audience and Consumer Affairs and the Complaints Review Executive that:
[...] The ABC has not presented any opinions questioning the current claim that mammograms save lives and as such is in breach of theABC's Charter.
[...]
There are other simple explanations for recent falls in breast cancer deaths that are unrelated to early detection and treatment, but if the ABC does not air these viewpoints Australian women will continue to be misled.
[...]
It doesn't make a claim any more valid by getting biased organisations such as the Australian Cancer Council and the Westmead Breast Cancer Institute to support the claims. They both have vested interests in supporting mammograms and come from one side of the debate and are strongly opposed to evidence based medicine.
It is not the ABC's role to interpret cancer statistics; only to report that there are two sides to how these statistics are being interpreted.
The complainant submitted to the Independent Complaints Review Panel that:
[D]espite several developments showing the increasing harm from mammography screening, and strong evidence showing that no lives are save [sic] by mammography screening, the ABC has not aired any views questioning the benefits of screening.
[...]
[T]he ABC continues to quote from the opinion of a group of cancer specialists with a vested interest in promoting mammogram screening.
[...]
The complainant also provided evidence, including results of studies, to the Independent Complaints Review Panel illustrating developments in relation to mammography screening.
ABC’s submissions –ABC’s Audience and Consumer Affairs, Complaints Review Executive and Independent Complaints Review Panel
ABC’s Audience and Consumer Affairs
The ABC’s Audience and Consumer Affairs did not agree with the complainant that there had been a breach of the Code. The ABC’s Audience and Consumer Affairs responded to the complainant that:
[...] The report was based on a Massachusetts study, conducted by Dr Blake Cady, from the Cambridge Hospital Breast Centre and Harvard Medical School.The ABC understands he presented the findings of his study to the 2009 Breast Cancer Symposium that was held inSan Francisco on October 8-10. His paper was one of five presented on the early detection, treatment and evaluation of breast cancer. Dr Cady's paper was newsworthy because he used different methodology to randomised trials, yet his study yielded the same results, that routine screenings lower the mortality rate of women diagnosed with breast cancer.
The ABC acknowledges that in science opinions and interpretations can differ and in thiscase the story reported on one study, by a respected doctor, and its findings, which were presented to the thousands of people who attended the symposium, including bodies like the American Society of Breast Disease, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the National Consortium of Breast Centres.
The ABC’s Audience and Consumer Affairs provided to the complainant the preview of Dr Cady’s finding stating that they were ‘presented to the press shortly before the symposium’ and informed the complainant that:
[...] I am advised by ABC News management that the reporter compiled her report using this information, which was corroborated by both Sydney's Westmead Breast Cancer Institute, and the Australian Cancer Council. Neither disputed the findings. [...]
Dr Cady did refer to randomised trials, but this was not included in the story because of time constraints. [...]
In regard to your claim of harm from post-surgical treatments negating the benefits of mammographic screening, Dr Cady’s findings (that show a death rate that’s 50% less for screened women), are inclusive of all outcomes, post diagnosis.
You also claim more than a third of tumours detected are treated unnecessarily,many of which would've "disappeared spontaneously" without radiotherapy and chemotherapy. But the tumours referred to, would have had to have been left to run theircourse before anyone could confidently claim early intervention was unnecessary.
The ABC also notes a subsequent report released by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and the National Breast and Ovarian Cancer Centre, on 25 October 2009: http://nbocc.org.au/our-organisation/media-releases/more-breast-cancer-cases. The report shows that 12,614 Australian women were diagnosed with breast cancer in 2006,up from 5289 in 1982. However, the number of breast cancer-related deaths fell by 27 per cent between 1994 and 2006, with only 22 fatalities per 100,000 women.
The report found that while much of the increase in the number of women diagnosed with breast cancer was due to a growing and ageing population, women were now more likely to have breast screens, which was boosting detection levels. In other words, more women than ever before are being diagnosed with breast cancer, but death rates continue to fall and mammograms are a contributing factor to that improvement.
[...]
In a subsequent email to the complainant, the ABC’s Audience and Consumer Affairs stated:
The program covered the research because it was newsworthy. The report’s focus was not a broader debate about the effectiveness of mammograms.The focus was solely on the model and results of the new research. The ABC cannot agree that within that context, a perspective critical of breast screening was required to achieve balance.
AM reported another perspective this week, focusing on research from the University of Sydney that unnecessary screening is growing, which may be of interest to you. http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2009/s2740416.htm.
Complaints Review Executive report
The Complaints Review Executive did not uphold the complaint. A summary of the outcome of the review provided in a letter to the complainant stated:
The [Complaints Review Executive] found that the US study was newsworthy given the public interest in the impact of breast cancer. The item also included comments on the take up of mammograms in Australia. The [Complaints Review Executive] did not consider that the editorial decision to do the story was influenced by any other factor than the findings of the study being newsworthy. The [Complaints Review Executive] also noted that Radio Current Affairs broadcast an item a few weeks later about Australian research on negative side effects of mammograms.
[...]
Independent Complaints Review Panel report
The Independent Complaints Review Panel did not uphold the complaint. Relevant sections of the report regarding impartiality are as follows:
[...] This brief item was, obviously, based on two newsworthy events, being the occurrence of a large US study into breast cancer which had "confirmed that mammograms do save lives" and the views of two Australian experts that only about half of the relevant at-risk group of Australian women were availing themselves of free mammograms in Australia.
These were the relevant "news values" underpinning the item. No other "perspectives" were involved so that the issue of undue favouring in the program does not arise. Indeed, the program did not purport to involve any wider consideration of the benefits or drawbacks of mammograms. It was, simply, a short news item.
Also, no issue is raised as to the item being based on "political, commercial or sectional interests or personal views". Indeed, there is nothing to suggest that it was.
[...]
Finding
In broadcasting PM on 7 October 2009, the ABC did not breach clause 3.4 of the Code.
Reasons
The segment reported on a study by Dr Cady of the Cambridge Hospital Breast Centre and Harvard Medical School that found that mortality rates were lower for women in screening programs than for those who had not been screened, and the study’s conclusion that mammography is the most effective method for women to avoid death from breast cancer.