Investigation Report No. 2978
File No. / ACMA2013/259Licensee / Radio 6PR Perth Pty Ltd
Station / 6PR Perth
Type of Service / Commercial radio
Name of Program / Drive
Dates of Broadcast / 3 May 2011, 29 August 2011 and 22 September 2011
Relevant Legislation/Code / Commercial Radio Australia Codes of Practice 2010
Clauses 1.1(d), 1.1(c)(ii), 1.1(a), 1.1(e), 1.3 (a), 2.2(a), 2.2(b) and 2.3(c)
Broadcasting Services Act 1992
Clause 6(2) of Schedule 2
Commercial Radio Australia Codes of Practice 2011
Clauses 1.1(a), 1.3(a) and 5.5
Date Finalised / 9 August 2013
Decision / No breach of clause 1.1(d) [depict suicide favourably], 1.1(c)(ii) [present use of illegal drugs as desirable], 1.1(a) [encourage brutality], 1.1(e) [hatred, contempt or ridicule because of religion], 1.3(a) [standards of decency], 2.2(a) [accuracy of factual material], 2.2(b) [correct errors] or 2.3(c)[presentation of material in misleading manner] of the Commercial Radio Australia Codes of Practice 2010.
No breach of clause6(2) of Schedule 2 [advertisement for therapeutic goods] to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.
No breach of clause 1.3(a) [standards of decency] or 1.1(a) [incite violence ad encourage brutality] of the Commercial Radio Australia Codes of Practice 2011.
No breach of clause 1.1(a) [incitement of violence] of the Commercial Radio Australia Codes of Practice 2011.
No breach of clause 5.5 of the Commercial Radio Australia Codes of Practice 2011.
The complaint
The complaint is about material broadcast by Radio 6PR Pty Ltd during the program Drive on 3 May 2011, 29 August 2011 and 22 September 2011. The complainant also alleged that the licensee’s response to his complaint did not address all relevant issues.
Matters not pursued
The complainant sought to refer to the ACMA concerns about some 325 broadcasts on 6PR over the period 24 September 2008 – 22 September 2011. The complainant had made his complaint to the licensee on 23 September 2011, to which the licensee responded on 20October 2011. Having been dissatisfied with the licensee’s response, the complainant brought the matter to the ACMA on 9 January 2013.
The ACMA declined, under section 149(2) of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (the BSA), to investigate all but 13of the 325 broadcasts subject of the complaint.
In response to the ACMA’s request for copies of these 13 broadcasts, the licensee provided a copy of the broadcast of 3 May 2011; a copy of an interview that took place in the broadcast of 29 August 2011; and a copy of an interview that took place on 22September 2011. The licensee advised that, due to the passage of time, [1] it no longer held copies of the other broadcasts, or of other material aired on 29 August and 22 September 2011. The ACMA then made enquiries with an independent media monitoring company. Thecompany advised that it no longer held copies of the broadcasts sought.
The ACMA decided not to pursue complaints about material for which copies of broadcast were not available.
The complainant was advised of the matters which the ACMA decided not to pursue.
The program
Drive is broadcast weekdays on 6PR in the afternoon. The program includes talkback, news, commentary by the presenter, discussions and interviews relating to current events.
The ACMA considers that Drive meets the definition of ‘current affairs program’ in the code:
current affairs program means a program a substantial purpose of which is to provide interviews, analysis, commentary or discussion, including open-line discussion with listeners, about current social, economic or political issues.
Mr Howard Sattler was the presenter in the broadcasts of 3 May, 29 August and 22September 2011.
Assessment
This investigation is based on submissions from the complainant and licensee, and copies of broadcasts provided to the ACMA by the licensee. Other sources used have been identified where relevant.
In assessing content against a code of practice, the ACMA considers the meaning conveyed by the relevant material. This is assessed according to the understanding of an ‘ordinary reasonable listener/viewer’.
Australian courts have considered an ‘ordinary, reasonable reader (or listener or viewer)’ 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.[2]
The ACMA asks, what would the ‘ordinary reasonable listener/viewer’ have understood this program to have conveyed? It considers the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone, inferences that may be drawn, and in the case of factual material, relevant omissions (if any).
Once this test has been applied to ascertain the meaning conveyed by the broadcast material, it is for the ACMA to determine whether the material has breached the code.
The broadcast of 3 May 2011 has been assessed against the Commercial Radio Australia Codes of Practice 2010 whereas the broadcasts of 29 August 2011 and 22 September 2011 have been assessed against the Commercial Radio Codes of Practice 2011, which commenced on 25 August 2011. (The clauses relevant to this investigation were identical in the 2010 and 2011 codes.)
A Broadcast of 3 May 2011
The program on 3 May 2011 included material about the deaths of an elderly couple, Don and Iris Flounders, who had ended their lives by taking the drug Nembutal. Audio from a video which the couple had made shortly before their deaths was played. This was followed by:
· an interview with Dr Philip Nitschke, of the organisation Exit International;
· an interview with Ms Margaret Tighe, of Right to Life Australia;
· discussions with callers;
· discussion with an in-studio lawyer; and
· discussion between the presenter and a television reporter who provided a preview of what was to be on the television news that evening.
A transcript of relevant excerpts of the program is at Appendix 1.
The complainant alleged that the broadcast:
A1) promoted suicide as a desirable outcome;
A2) presented the use of an illegal drug, namely unprescribed Nembutal, as desirable (for purposes of suicide);
A3) encouraged brutality by allowing abuse of Mrs Tighe and others who share her views;
A4) incited hatred against a group based on their religion;
A5) offended contemporary standards of decency by portraying as desirable illegal activities (ieinternational drug-smuggling, lying to police, concealing an illicit drug, failing to divulge relevant information etc) and by airing a ‘disgusting’ account of a suicide;
A6) incorrectly described Mrs Flounders’ death as voluntary euthanasia when it was suicide;
A7) presented material in a misleading manner by giving wrong or improper emphasis to MrsFlounders’ death as voluntary euthanasia;
A8) failed to correct errors in the broadcast; and
A9) violated the therapeutic goods provision of the BSA by explicitly naming Nembutal as the drug used in the couple’s deaths.
Relevant excerpts of the complaint are at Appendix 2.
Matters A1) to A8) have been examined in relation to clauses 1.1(d), 1.1(c)(ii), 1.1(a), 1.1(e), 1.3(a), 2.2(a), 2.3(c) and 2.2(b) of the Commercial Radio Australia Codes of Practice 2010 (the 2010 code) respectively. Matter A9) has been examined in relation to clause 6(2) of Schedule 2 to the BSA.
The complainant also alleged that the presenter had a ‘biased approach’. There is no requirement for current affairs programs on commercial radio to be impartial. Such programs may adopt a stance and favour a particular viewpoint. Accordingly, this aspect of the complaint has not been pursued.
Issue A1: Suicide
Relevant code clause
Commercial Radio Australia Codes of Practice 2010
Proscribed Matter
1.1 A licensee must not broadcast a program which in all of the circumstances:
(d) depicts suicide favourably or presents suicide as a means of achieving a desired result.
Complainant’s submissions
The complainant’s concerns (see Appendix 2) may be summarised as being that the program presenter had:
· depicted suicide favourably through ‘his expressed strong personal convictions, historical statements, activist persona, biased participatory input and other professional influences’;
· expressed his support for DrNitschke and interviewed him on the program;
· played the soundtrack of the Flounders’ video;
· indicated, in many statements, favourable support for Iris Flounders’ suicide based on her misery at the impending loss of her spouse Don; and
· portrayed suicide as the desirable outcome in a case of mental illness or depression, namely Iris Flounders.
The complainant also submitted that the description of the suicide of Caller 10’s father had depicted a suicide act favourably. He mentioned in addition that the broadcast had included detailed descriptions of suicides, and had not included any information about sources and contacts for help in avoiding suicide.
Finding
The licensee did not breach clause 1.1(d) of the 2010 code.
Reasons
The ACMA acknowledges the care that must be observed when reporting or discussing suicide in a broadcast, with particular concern for the impact the broadcast may have on people in the community who are vulnerable to suicide. However, in the present case, the ACMA considers the licensee did not breach clause 1.1(d) of the code as:
· the subject matter of the broadcast - voluntary euthanasia – was presented with circumspection and sensitivity
· the broadcast presented a range of views including those opposed to the practice.
Circumspection in presentation
For the following reasons, the ACMA considers that the presenter did not depict suicide favourably or present suicide as a means of achieving a desired result:
· In the broadcast, the presenter repeatedly drew a distinction between promoting actions such as the Flounders’ and respecting what he described as the ‘right’ of people to take such actions, for example:
HS: Now, while not wanting to promote that sort of – umm – action if you like, I respect their right to make that decision, it’s their life and they wanted to die with some dignity.
HS (to Mrs Tighe): No-one would wish this on anybody, but Don Flounders was confined to that room ...
HS (to Caller 2): I’m not promoting people taking their own lives, I’m simply supporting people in the position which Don and Iris found themselves in ... Now, that’s their choice ... I’m simply supporting people’s right to die with dignity. That’s all.
HS (to Caller 5): Nobody wants anyone to die ... But if they contract the condition, and there is no hope, who wants anyone to have no quality of life?
HS (to Caller 11, who spoke about a seriously-ill friend of his): No-one would wish him dead, not me or anybody else; but at the end of the day, at the end of it all, it’s his decision. Now, I would hope he doesn’t make that decision. Right? I would hope he doesn’t. But if he did finally make that decision, I would respect him, right? I’d respect him making that decision based on his condition.
· The presenter also expressed equal support for those who, in similar circumstances, had decided not to take their own lives, including his own father:
HS (to Caller 6): You made the decision to kick on; that’s fine ... And if they [ie the Flounders] wanted to continue fighting it, and wanted to resist it, that’s fine too. That’s up to them.
HS (to Caller 7): My father died of cancer, he died a horrible death, but it was his decision to fight on ... His decision was to fight it. And good on him! Good luck to him. That’s his decision.
· Further, he told Caller 11 not to advise his seriously-ill friend to end his life:
Caller 11: I don’t want to give the advice he should do it, but at the same time –
HS: No, no, please! It’s not for you to give that advice anyway. What you should be doing is encouraging him to find all options that are open to him ... Please discourage him to do anything to himself, but, at the end of the day, it will be his decision and his decision alone, nobody else’s.
· He recommended ‘support and counselling’ in the case of a young wife who, in Caller 11’s opinion, ‘won’t want to live’ if ‘something happens’ to her seriously-ill husband:
HS: So she’s only – she’s round about the same age [as her husband], is she?
Caller 11: She’s actually younger. So yeah. She’s, oh well, nearly 30 herself.
HS: She obviously needs as much support and counselling as possible.
· He explicitly sought to limit the discussion to exclude cases involving mental illness:
HS (to Caller 2): I’m not talking about people who are healthy, and sound minds or – not sound minds, but unsound minds but healthy, physically: not talking about that at all.
At one point, the presenter commented to the effect that Mrs Flounders should be given ‘credit’ for ‘lov[ing] [her husband] so much she didn’t want to live without him’. However, the broadcast as a whole provided additional information about Mrs Flounders’ circumstances (her advanced age, her three-year resolution to end her life when her husband chose to end his, and an untreatable physical ailment that was making her life, as she put it, ‘unbearable’). This information was sufficient to ensure that the focus of the broadcast excluded discussion of suicide in cases of mental illness.