Investigation Report 2583

File Nos. / ACMA2011/880
Broadcaster / Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Station / ABV Melbourne
Type of service / ABC television
Names and dates of programs / Media Watch 21 March 2011
Relevant Code / Clauses 5.2 and 5.3 of the ABC Code of Practice 2007
Date Finalised / 17 October 2011
Decision / No breach of clause 5.2 (impartiality)
No breach of clause 5.3 (accuracy)

The complaint

On 15 April 2011, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) received a complaint alleging that the ABC had made an unsubstantiated claim and had engaged in bias in a segment about climate change reportage appearing on the Media Watch program on 21March 2011.

The complainant was not satisfied with the ABC’s response and referred the matter to the ACMA for consideration.[1]

The complaint has been investigated in accordance with clauses5.2 [impartiality] and 5.3 [accuracy] of the ABC Code of Practice 2007(the Code).

The program

Media Watchdescribes itself as:

Australia's leading forum for media analysis and comment.

[...]

Media Watch has built an unrivalled record of exposing media shenanigans since it first went to air in 1989.

[...]

Media Watch turns the spotlight onto those who literally 'make the news': the reporters, editors, sub-editors, producers, camera operators, sound recordists and photographers who claim to deliver the world to our doorsteps, radios, computers and living rooms. We also keep an eye on those who try to manipulate the media: the PR consultants, spin-doctors, lobbyists and "news makers" who set the agenda.

Media Watch airs on ABC1 on Monday nights at 9.20pm and Wednesday mornings at 12.25am.[2]

A transcript of the program broadcast on 23 March 2011 can be viewed at Annexure A.

The program considered the treatment of the current climate change debate by commercial stations on AM radio. It included excerpts from talk-back programs and discussed a lack of presentation of significant viewpoints. A number of climate change scientists and organisations from both sides of the debate were referred to.

The host made the following statement:

Now I'm not suggesting that the good professors shouldn't be interviewed on the radio. But shouldn't one or two of the vast majority of qualified scientists who disagree with them occasionally be given a guernsey too?

Assessment

This investigation is based on submissions from the complainant and the ABC and a copy of the broadcast provided to the ACMA by the ABC. Other sources used have been identified where relevant.

Matters not pursued

The complainant advised the ACMA, in a letter dated 15 April 2011 that she was concerned about changes to ABC procedures resulting in her matter not being considered by its independent review committee.

The complainant has since advised the ACMA that she is satisfied with the ABC’s consideration of her complaint.Accordingly, the ACMA has not pursued this matter.

‘Ordinary reasonable’viewertest

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

Australian courts have considered an ‘ordinary reasonable 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.[3]

The ACMA 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 of the broadcast material, it is for the ACMA to determine whether the material has breached the Code.

The complaint

The complainant’s issues are set out at Annexure B.The complaints considered in this investigation are:

  • the host’s claim that a ‘vast majority of scientists’ hold a particular view was not based in fact, and the ABC took no appropriate steps to check the accuracy of this statement;
  • in the program the ABC produced an unbalanced account.

The complainant also questioned whether scientists had been surveyed to ascertain their views.

Response to the complaint

The ABC’s submissions in response to the complaint are set out at Annexure C.

Ithas submitted that the host’s claim was supported by information from a number of websites, journalists’ research, extended interviews, and reports on climate change andassociated issues, and consideration of publications by peer reviewed scientists.Organisations referred to by the ABC include Australian Academy of Science, The Fellowship, National Academy of Sciences (USA), Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies and the Royal Society (UK).

The ABC stated that the views of the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies represent ‘60,000 working scientists and technologists’. It also submitted that it had spoken to people who do not accept the evidence for man-made climate change, both scientists and commentators, and researched their articles and websites extensively.

The ABC’s submission includes references to a number of websites.

Further correspondence between the ABC and the complainant appears at Annexure D.

Issue 1:Accuracy of factual content

Relevant Code clause

Topical and factual content

5.3 Every reasonable effort must be made to ensurethat factual content is accurate and in context andthat content does not misrepresent other viewpoints.

The considerations which the ACMA generally applies in determining whether a statement complained of was compliant with the ABC’s obligations concerning factual content are set out at Attachment E.

Finding

The ABC did not breach clause 5.3 of the 2007 code.

Reasons

What would an ‘ordinary reasonable viewer’ have understood the material to have conveyed?

In the context of the surrounding material in the program, the ACMA considers that the claim was ‘the vast majority of qualified scientists’ considerthat climate change is human induced.

The first issue is whether this claim was ‘factual content’ or an expression of opinion. As indicated above, the matter is assessed according to what an ‘ordinary reasonable viewer’ would have understood. In this case the ACMA considers that the claim was made in an unqualified and unequivocal manner, based on observable facts and was not presented as a judgemental or contestable matter.

It is considered that an ordinary reasonable viewer would have regarded the material as factual content.

Such a viewer would also have been aware that there has been a great deal of debate regarding climate change in recent years, and that many views have been and continue to be expressed regarding climate change and the degree to which it is human induced.

Did the ABC breach the code of practice?

The thrust of the program was the predominance of climate change sceptics’ views on commercial radio, rather than an analysis of the evidence for and against human induced climate change. The complaint does not dispute this predominance or suggest that the views expressed on commercial radio were misrepresented in the program.

The question here is whether the ABC had made every reasonable effort to ensure that the claim that the majority of scientists disagree with those views, was accurate. In this instance, the ACMA is satisfied that the ABC and Media Watch staff conducted substantial research on the topic of climate change, asdetailed in the ABC’s submissions to the complainant and the ACMA. For example, the ABC submitted that the Media Watch host ‘reported extensively on climate change and associated issues in his role as a reporter on ABC Four Corners.

price global warming?

afraid of nuclear power?’

This research included discussions with ‘people who do not accept the evidence for man-made climate change, both scientists and commentators, and (research of their) articles and websites extensively’. This research also included interviews with a range of scientists who are proponents of man-made climate change and the position of scientific organisations.The ACMA considers that it is acceptable to treat the official views of these organisations as representative of their members’ views.

Based on this research and analysis, the ACMA is satisfied that the ABC was reasonably able to conclude that a ‘vast majority of qualified scientists’held a particular view in relation to climate change.

Issue 2: Impartiality

Relevant Code clause

Topical and factual content

5.2 The ABC is committed to impartiality: where topical and factual content deals with matters of contention or public debate, a diversity of principal relevant perspectives should be demonstrated across a network or platform in an appropriate timeframe.

The ABC has previously clarified that:

  • a ‘network’ for purposes of clause 5.2 is basically the ‘channel’ on which material is broadcast and that Radio National, ABC1 and 3LO are examples; and
  • ‘platform’ is a term that applies to the ABC’s on-line content and does not apply to radio.

Finding

The ABC did not breach clause 5.2 of the 2007 code.

Reasons

The requirements of clause 5.2 of the Code apply if topical and factual content deals with matters of contention or public debate. If this is the case, clause 5.2 requires that a diversity of principal relevant perspectives should be demonstrated across a network or platform in an appropriate timeframe.

An assessment has been made as to:

  • whether the Media Watch broadcast dealt with matters of contention or public debate and, if so;
  • whether, in relation to the matters of contention or public debate, a diversity of principal relevant perspectives was demonstrated across a network or platform; and
  • whether this occurred in an appropriate timeframe.

Did the relevant program material broadcast on Media Watch deal with matters of contention or public debate?

The program concerned ‘the way a large number of commercial talkback radio presenters deal with the contentious topic of climate change’. The phrase ‘contentious’ was used by the host during the broadcast, and neither the complainant nor the ABC has argued that this issue is not a matter of contention or public debate TheACMA considers the issue of human induced climate change to be a matter of contention or public debate. As a result, the requirement of clause 5.2 of the Code that ‘a diversity of principal relevant perspectives should be demonstrated across a network or platform in an appropriate timeframe’ is applicable.

In relation to these matters of contention or public debate, was a diversity of principal relevant perspectives demonstrated across a network or platform?

The complainant has argued that the program was biased because it produced an unbalanced and opposite account, without evidence, it ‘did not treat those who held views favourable to climate change in the same way or subject them to the same scrutiny, as those with the opposing view.’The issue debated was the number of individuals who believed in aparticular viewpoint rather than the relative merits of different viewpoints.

As set out above, the ACMA considers that reasonable efforts were made to ensure that the factual claim that the majority of scientists consider climate change to be human induced, was accurate.

Clause 5.2 requires that a diversity of principal relevant perspectives be demonstrated across a network or platform. It does not require that precisely equal time be given to opposing views within a single program. Nor does it oblige the ABC to demonstrate a diversity of views on every topic mentioned in a particular broadcast. The ACMA considers that for the purposes of this investigation the relevant network is ABC1.

The ABC has cited the following instances as evidence of it having demonstrated a diversity of principal relevant perspectives aired on ABC1, in relation to the issues raised in the program:

  1. ‘As well as the perspective of host Jonathan Holmes, it presented the perspectives of Professors David Karoly, Will Steffen and Andy Pittman, all of whom were critical of some media coverage of climate science’.
  2. Ten recent episodes of Q&A, Lateline and Insiders where the issue of man-made climate change has been critically considered, sometimes from the viewpoint of advocates against man-made climate change.

For example, Lateline on 1 July 2011 featured a story about a ‘well organised’ anti-carbon tax rally which included quotes from entertainer Angry Anderson, politician Barnaby Joyce, talkback host Alan Jones as well as protesters against the Federal Government’s proposed carbon tax. [4]

Q&A on 18 October 2010 featured a debate on climate change, which aired the views of biologist and climate change sceptic Jennifer Marohasy amongst others. [5]

Lateline on 10 March 2010 featured a story about Greens Senator Christine Milne calling for ABC chairman Maurice Newman to publicly apologise after he attacked the media for being too accepting of the conventional wisdom on climate change. [6]

  1. Six recent episodes of Media Watch where the issue of man-made climate change had been considered.

While in the ACMA’s view, the program was sympathetic towards advocates of man-made climate change, the broadcast also included the views of well known advocates against man-made climate change. The broadcast included quotes from radio announcers and climate change sceptics such as Alan Jones, Chris Smith, Howard Sattler, Gary Hardgrave, Leon Byner and Jason Morrison.

For example, the following Chris Smith quote in relation to a protest against the Federal Government’s proposed carbon tax appears during the broadcast:

From Sydney there are now 23 buses paid up in full with paid up passengers, paid up protesters ready to get to Canberra. 23 buses chockers... we need to make this a message that they listen to, a message in their face on the lawn of Parliament House on March the 23rd...

The followingHoward Sattler quote also appears during the broadcast:

0.038% as a fraction of what is in the atmosphere – that’s CO2 – that’s the carbon we’re talking about – 1/27th of 1%.

Similarly, the following Jason Morrison quote also appears during the broadcast:

Now I have no doubt that the climate is a changing. Because I think it always changes. Just about every day it’s different. Over time it changes but as new evidence pops up it starts to cast further doubt over whether indeed it is us making that change happen.

The above broadcasts and extracts from the program demonstrate that ABC1 and Media Watch aired a number of different perspectives on the issues raised in the program.

This met the requirement under clause 5.2 that a diversity of relevant viewpoints be demonstrated on a matter of contention or public debate.

Did this demonstration of a diversity of principal relevant perspectives occur in an appropriate timeframe?

The ACMA notes that the Code does not provide any guidance as to what constitutes an ‘appropriate timeframe’ for the purposes of assessing compliance with clause 5.2. However, it is considered that the demonstration of a diversity of principal relevant perspectives in an appropriate timeframe would require that this demonstration, with respect to the issues being discussed during the broadcast of the relevant program, occur:

•while these issues are still topical and the subject of public debate; and

•in reasonable proximity to the broadcast of the relevant program.

In its response to the ACMA’s request for comments the ABC stated:

‘For the more topical subjects dealt with on specialist programs, the ABC’s rule of thumb is to expect platform impartiality to be achieved within a 12 month period, unless good reasons exist to justify a longer period ... this subject has received ongoing attention in the period before and after the 21 March 2011 broadcast’.

The ACMA notes that all but one of the broadcasts referred to by the ABC fall within 12 months of the Media Watch broadcast of 21 March 2011. Accordingly, the ACMA is of the view that the broadcast of these diverse viewpoints occurred in reasonable proximity to the Media Watch broadcast on 21 March 2011 and within an appropriate timeframe.

Conclusion

Media Watch is well known for criticising various aspects of media coverage across a range of issues. In this instance, Media Watch criticised the coverage by commercial radio of the climate change issue and did so by presenting examples of the coverage by commercial radio of the climate change issue, and then offering its response to these issues and this coverage. It made reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy of the claim that the majority of scientist hold a particular view and it referred to the competing viewpoints on the issue of human induced climate change.

In the ACMA’s view, Media Watch did not misrepresent the views of those whose views it presented. The program did not act unfairly in its treatment of the coverage by commercial radio of the climate change issue.

Annexure A

The following is a transcript of the program:

But a great many people, all around the country, every day, listen to stuff like this...