Investigation Report No. 2730
File No. / ACMA2011/1960Licensee / Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Station / ABC TV1 NSW
Type of Service / National broadcasting
Name of Program / Media Watch
Date/s of Broadcast / 19 September 2011
Relevant Code Standards / Standards 2.1, 2.2, 4.1 and 5.3 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011
Investigation Conclusions:
The conclusions of the Australian Communications and Media Authority are that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation:
- did not breach standards 2.1 and 2.2 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 in relation to the statement, “It’s an opinion we share. We've said so before. And the Tele is getting more blatantly one-sided as the government's poll figures slide. A classic example, just last week”;
- did not breach standards 2.1 and 2.2 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 in relation to the statement, “…But 2007 was an untypical year in Norway – old slot machines had been removed, and new ones not yet installed. Norsk Tipping itself thinks that, overall, the survey proves the opposite to what the Tele reported”;
- did not breach standards 2.1 and 2.2 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 in relation to the statement, “I don't agree. In a news story, it's not legitimate to cherry pick facts and ignore one side of an important argument. That's not journalism, its propaganda; and it undermines democracy”;
- did not breach standards 2.1 and 2.2 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 in relation to the statement, “[The] ... story was indeed exclusive because it told us exclusively about Clubs Australia’s interpretation of the figures in the Norsk Tipping survey”;
- did not breach standard 4.1 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 in relation to gathering and presenting news and information with due impartiality;
- breachedstandard 5.3 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 in relation to making allegations about a person or organisation and failing to make reasonable efforts in the circumstances to provide a fair opportunity to respond.
The complaint
The Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) received a complaint regarding an edition of the program Media Watch broadcast by ABC TV on 19 September 2011. The complainant (the Writer) alleged that he had not been given a fair opportunity to respond to allegations made in the program about an article written by him published in The Daily Telegraph newspaper, that various statements made in the program about him, the article and The Daily Telegraph were untrue and that the program was not presented with due impartiality.
The ACMA has investigated the ABC’s compliance with standards 2.1, 2.2, 4.1 and 5.3 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (the Code).
Matters not pursued
In his complaint to the ABC and to the ACMA, the Writer raised the issue of defamation. The Writer was informed that the ACMA has no jurisdiction to make findings that a person has been defamed, or to make any orders for redress for defamation, and that consequently that aspect of his complaint would not be investigated.
The program
Media Watch is described on the ABC’s website as:
Australia’s leading forum for media analysis and comment’. […] 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.
The edition broadcast on 19 September 2011 (the Segment) was concerned with the independent inquiry into print and online media regulation that had recently been announced by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. A transcript of the extract from the Segment that was the basis of the complaint can be found at Appendix A. A transcript of the full Segment can be found on the ABC website[1].
The Segment also focused on an article that had been published in the Sydney newspaper The Daily Telegraph on 14 September 2011 (the Article). The Article reported on poker machine reforms in Australia that were being proposed by the Federal government and Prime Minister Julia Gillard. These proposed reforms included that mandatory pre-commitment spending limits be introduced on poker machines across Australia.
The Article was entitled “Gillard is gambling on failed system” andcited a study undertaken in Norway, the “only country in the world to have introduced a mandatory pre-commitment spending limit”.Amongst other things, it reported on the results of the Norwegian research, and stated that the reforms had “failed” in that country. The Article appears at Appendix D.
The presenterstated that the Article “told us exclusively about Clubs Australia’s interpretation of the figures in the [Study]” and concluded that “in a news story, it's not legitimate to cherry pick facts and ignore one side of an important argument. That's not journalism,it’s propaganda; and it undermines democracy.”
Assessment
This investigation is based on submissions from the complainant, the ABC and Media Watch, as well as a copy of the broadcast provided to the ACMA by the ABC. Other sources have been identified where relevant.
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 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.[2]
The ACMA examines what the “ordinary, reasonable viewer” would have understood the Segment to have conveyed. It considers the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone and 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.
Issue 1 - Whether:
- reasonable efforts were made to ensure that material facts were presented accurately and in context; and
- factual content was presented in such a way that it would have materially misled the audience
Relevant Code standards
Standard2.1 of theCode states:
2.1Make reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented in context.
The considerations which the ACMA generally applies in determining whether or not a statement complained of was compliant with the ABC’s obligations in standard 2.1 are set out at Appendix E.
Standard 2.2 of the Code states:
2.2Do not present factual content in a way that will materially mislead the audience. In some cases, this may require appropriate labels or other explanatory information.
Findings
The ABC did not breach standards 2.1 or 2.2 of the Code in relation to the following:
- “It’s an opinion we share[3]. We've said so before. And the Tele is getting more blatantly one-sided as the government's poll figures slide. A classic example, just last week”;
- “…But 2007 was an untypical year in Norway – old slot machines had been removed, and new ones not yet installed. Norsk Tipping itself thinks that, overall, the survey proves the opposite to what the Tele reported”;
- “I don't agree. In a news story, it's not legitimate to cherry pick facts and ignore one side of an important argument. That's not journalism, its propaganda; and it undermines democracy.”
- “[The Writer’s] story was indeed exclusive because it told us exclusively about Clubs Australia's interpretation of the figures in the Norsk Tipping survey. In fact, the only person quoted in the entire story was Clubs Australia president Peter Newell.”
Reasons
“It’s an opinion we share. And the Tele is getting more blatantly one-sided as the government’s poll figures slide. A classic example, just last week.”
Complainant’s Submissions
The complainant’s submissions on this point are at Appendix B.
Broadcaster’s Submissions
The ABC’s submissions on this point are at Appendix C.
Reasons
The first issue for the ACMA is whether the statement was an opinion of the presenter, or a statement of fact.
Footage is shown of Senator Stephen Conroy, the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, in a press conference. Senator Conroy states: “The campaign that they have been running against the government has been blatant; it breaches its own journalistic ethics of News Limited, and I have them here ... some of the reporting recently in the Daily Telegraph fails one... two... three of the first three. But that’s a personal opinion”. The camera then cut to the presenter who stated: “It’s an opinion we share. And the Tele is getting more blatantly one-sided as the government’s poll figures slide”.
This introduction makes it clear that rather than being assertions of fact, as claimedby the complainant, these comments were opinions being expressed by the presenter. The ordinary, reasonable viewer would have viewed the presenter’s comments in this way. As such, they are not subject to the accuracy standards as outlined in standards2.1 and 2.2 of the Code.
“It’s not legitimate to cherry pick facts and ignore one side of an important argument” and the description of the Article as “propaganda”
Complainant’s Submissions
The complainant’s submissions on this point are at Appendix B.
Broadcaster’s Submissions
The ABC’s submissions on this point are at Appendix C.
Reasons
The relevant comment made by the presenter in relation to the Article was a statement of opinion and is accordingly not subject to the requirements outlined in standards2.1 and 2.2 of the Code.
The comment (in bold) was made in the following context:
Voiceover (excerpt from a Sydney Morning Herald article) – That newspapers might take an editorial line strongly for or against a party policy is a legitimate part of the community conversation that underpins democracy.
The presenter– Well, I don’t agree (emphasis added). In a news story, it’s not legitimate to cherry-pick facts and ignore one side of an important argument. That’s not journalism; it’s propaganda. And it undermines democracy.
By prefacing his comments with the words “I don’t agree”, the presenter was making it clear that the statements that followed were his opinion on the subject. Accordingly, these comments are not subject to the requirements of standards 2.1 and 2.2 of the Code.
“As far as they go, those figures are accurate. Here they are in the annual report of Norway’s gambling monopoly Norsk Tipping. But 2007 was an untypical year in Norway. Old slot machines had been removed and new ones not yet installed. Norsk Tipping itself thinks that overall the survey proves the opposite to what the Tele reported.”
Complainant’s Submissions
The complainant’s submissions on this point are at Appendix B.
Broadcaster’s Submissions
The ABC’s submissions on this point are at Appendix C.
Reasons
The relevant comments (in bold) were made in the following context:
The presenter: …A classic example, just last week:
Voiceover: Gillard is gambling on failed system. The poker machine restrictions Julia Gillard is staking her prime ministership on have failed in the only country in the world to have introduced a mandatory pre-commitment spending limit. An independent study of 3000 people in Norway found serious problem gambling had increased from 1.3 per cent to 2.1 per cent in the past three years, despite players having betting limits.
— Daily Telegraph, 14th September, 2011
The presenter: As far as they go, those figures are accurate. Here they are in the annual report of Norway's gambling monopoly, Norsk Tipping. But 2007 was an untypical year in Norway – old slot machines had been removed, and new ones not yet installed. Norsk Tipping itself thinks that, overall, the survey proves the opposite to what the Tele reported.
Voiceover (quoting Norsk Tipping): The 2010 poll identified a significant rise in the number of players without problems compared with the 2008 survey...which suggests that both official money game policy and NorskTipping's measures against compulsive gaming have had the desired effect.
The ordinary reasonable viewer would have understood the relevant comments as statements of fact. There is no indication that they are the opinion of the presenter. Accordingly, the comments are required to meet the accuracy requirements as outlined in standards 2.1 and 2.2 of the Code.
In July 2007,in response to ongoing concerns over the detriment caused by problem gambling, the Norwegian government banned all electronic gaming machines from Norway. In January 2009, new gaming machines—known as video lottery terminals—were introduced into Norway under the sole control of Norsk Tipping.[4] The following statistics,which were briefly shown onscreen at the time the relevant statement was made, indicate the proportion of compulsive gamblers in Norway in the following years:[5]
Year
2005 1.7%
20071.3%
2008 1.9%
2010 2.1%
The complainant submitted that the presenter“suggested that the Article was attempting to mislead readers by basing its argument on statistics obtained in 2007”,that “the programme failed to reveal to viewers that the Annual Report referred to by [the presenter] shows that as far back as 2005, every single year prior to the 2010 survey contained a lower proportion of ‘compulsive gamblers’ than in 2010” and that “the figures clearly show that mandatory pre-commitment measures have not reduced the number of serious problem gamblers.”
The presenter did not explicitly say the Article was misleading. He stated that 2007 was an untypical year in Norway and that, overall, Norsk Tipping believed the study to have produced the opposite result to what the Article had reported.
As stated during the Segment, the Norsk Tipping report included the following
The 2010 poll identified a significant rise in the number of players without problems compared with the 2008 survey (up by 1.8 percentage points, or about 165 000 people). This is a positive trend, which suggests that both official money game policy and NorskTipping’s measures against compulsive gaming have had the desired effect.
The report also accounted for the rise in the incidence of compulsive players (an increase of only 0.2% between 2008 and 2010) by stating that this rise was “within the margin of error for the 2008 survey” before addingthat “there appears to bea general decline in the proportion of Norwegians with a gaming problem”.[6]
These conclusions were not reported in the Article, which opened and finished with the view that poker machine restrictions had failed in Norway.
The ACMA considers that this excerpt from the report, as well as the absence of any reference to it in the Article, supports the presenter’s claim that “Norsk Tipping itself thinks that, overall, the survey proves the opposite to what the Tele reported” and that accordingly, his statement was an accurate one.
Accordingly,the statement was accurate and presented in context.Theordinary, reasonable viewer would not have been materially misled by it.
[The Writer’s] story was indeed exclusive because it told us exclusively about Clubs Australia’s interpretation of the figures in the Norsk Tipping survey.
Complainant’s Submissions
The complainant’s submissions on this point are at Appendix B.
Broadcaster’s Submissions
The ABC’s submissions on this point are at Appendix C.
Reasons
The relevant statement followed references to an Australian Associated Press article which had reported that anti-pokies campaigners had accused Clubs Australia of cherry-picking misleading data from Norway. It referred to Clubs Australia’s argument that the Norway study had found serious problem gambling had increased, and a quote from Senator Xenophon.
The relevant statement(in bold) was made in the following context:
The presenter– Get the idea? Everyone’s point of view gets a guernsey. Or, as News Limited’s professional conduct policy, clause 1.3 puts it...
Voiceover – Try always to tell all sides of the story in any kind of dispute.
The presenter– But the Daily Telegraph didn’t. [The Writer’s] story was indeed...
Voiceover – Exclusive.
The presenter– Because it told us exclusively about Clubs Australia’s interpretation of the figures in the Norsk Tipping survey. In fact, the only person quoted in the entire story was...
Voiceover – Clubs Australia President Peter Newell.
The statement made by the presenter was factual in nature. The words did not include language indicating that it was an opinion.Rather,it was stated as an assertion of fact. The ordinary, reasonable viewer would have interpreted it as such.
The statement would have conveyed to the ordinary reasonable viewer that:
- the Article had offered a single interpretation of the results in the Norsk Tipping survey
- thatinterpretation was the interpretation of Clubs Australia.
The ABC submitted and the ACMA accepts that an “interpretation” is “an explanation given” or “a construction placed upon something”.