ABN (ABC) - ACMA Investigation Report 2917

Investigation Report No. 2917

The complaint

The complaint is about the use of the term ‘marriage equality’ in an item broadcast on ABC News 24 on 7 September 2012. The complainant considers that

• the phrase is a gay lobby ‘propaganda term’
• its use by the item reporter constituted ‘biased reporting’ and
• its use by the item reporter constituted ‘pushing the false idea that there is not already equality in the existing definition of marriage’.

The matter has been investigated in relation to clauses 4.1 and 2.2 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011.

Matters not pursued

The complainant submitted to the ACMA that this item was ‘not an isolated instance’ and that the ABC has repeatedly:

• pushed the term ‘marriage equality’;
• promulgated the homosexual lobby’s message without reporting or even acknowledging many of the opponents’ arguments; and
• reported petitions and protest rallies from the homosexual lobby’s side while simultaneously ignoring petitions and rallies from the opposing side, even though these petitions and rallies represented greater numbers of people.

The ACMA’s investigation is confined to the broadcast of 7 September 2012 because that is the only specific broadcast referred to in the complaint to the ABC and the subsequent complaint to the ACMA. In relation to the ABC, the ACMA is able to investigate only complaints which, amongst other things, have first been made to the ABC.

The complainant also sought to refer to the ACMA a complaint he had made to the ABC about the use of the term ‘marriage equality’ in a post on an ABC News webpage. Under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, the ACMA’s jurisdiction is relevantly restricted to investigating complaints that the ABC has acted contrary to its code of practice in providing a national broadcasting service, ie a service provided on radio or television. That is, the ACMA does not have jurisdiction to investigate complaints of inaccuracy or bias in the ABC’s on-line postings. Accordingly, the ACMA has not investigated the complaint about the on-line material.

The program

The item was 5:10 minutes long. The presenters reported that the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, had cancelled plans to speak at the annual conference of the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) after an official of that organisation, who will be referred to in this report as JW, made comments to the effect that homosexuality was more dangerous to health than smoking. A reporter (TT) then interviewed two people, who will be referred to in this report as AG and KV, about their views on this development.

The phrase ‘marriage equality’ was spoken four times during the item, and was also on-screen in written form for a few seconds, in the identification caption for AG.

A transcript of the item is at Appendix 1.

Assessment

This investigation is based on submissions from the complainant and a copy of the broadcast provided to the ACMA by the ABC. Other sources used 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 listener/viewer’.

Australian courts have considered an ‘ordinary, reasonable reader (or listener to 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[1].

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

Issue 1: Impartiality

Relevant code clause

4Impartiality and diversity of perspectives

4.1Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.

Relevant principles in relation to impartiality and diversity of perspectives include the following:

Judgements about whether impartiality was achieved in any given circumstances can vary among individuals according to their personal and subjective view of any given matter of contention. Acknowledging this fact of life does not change the ABC’s obligation to apply its impartiality standard as objectively as possible. In doing so, the ABC is guided by these hallmarks of impartiality:

• a balance that follows the weight of evidence;
• fair treatment;
• open-mindedness; and
• opportunities over time for principal relevant perspectives on matters of contention to be expressed ...

Assessing the impartiality due in given circumstances requires consideration in context of all relevant factors including:

• the type, subject and nature of the content;
• the circumstances in which the content is made and presented;
• the likely audience expectations of the content;
• the degree to which the matter to which the content relates is contentious;
• the range of principal relevant perspectives on the matter of contention; and
• the timeframe within which it would be appropriate for the ABC to provide opportunities for the principal relevant perspectives to be expressed, having regard to the public importance of the matter of contention and the extent to which it is the subject of current debate.

Considerations which the ACMA generally applies in determining whether the ABC complied with clause 4.1 are at Appendix 2.

Complainant’s submissions

As noted, the complainant considers that the phrase ‘marriage equality’ is a gay lobby ‘propaganda term’ and that its use by the reporter constituted ‘biased reporting’.

The complainant relevantly submitted that the term ‘marriage equality’ is ‘hugely loaded’ and

obviously portrays anyone who opposes the marriage definition change as being opposed to equality and thereby attempts to undermine any opposing argument, not on the basis of the argument itself but by vilifying those who propose the argument. By using this mechanism it is very easy to portray one’s opponents as bigots and thereby discount or not report their arguments. An unbiased portrayal of the debate would define it as a ‘marriage definition change to accommodate homosexuals’.

Broadcaster’s submissions

The ABC submitted:

This brief report by the ABC’s [TT] sought and presented reactions from representatives of both the gay and Christian communities to comments made earlier that week by [JW], the Australian Christian Lobby’s managing director, which compared the health effects of smoking and homosexuality. The comments made by [JW] during a debate on same-sex marriage prompted Prime Minister Julia Gillard to pull out of a speech at the Australian Christian Lobby’s national conference. This matter was highly newsworthy, and the story provided an opportunity to both Australian Marriage Equality spokesman [AG] and practising Christian and doctor [KV] to comment on [JW]’s remarks and the Prime Minister’s decision to withdraw from the conference.

The interviews were conducted with due impartiality; the questions were clearly based on news values and both participants were provided with ample opportunity to put forward their views. The ABC understands that the complainant believes the report demonstrated bias because the reporter used the term ‘marriage equality’. Other than referencing the organisation Australian Marriage Equality, [TT] made one reference to marriage equality in a question to [AG], he stated in part: ‘ ... as a campaigner around marriage equality you spend a lot of time in the halls of power down in Canberra ...’. This was clearly a reference to [AG]’s role as a representative for the organisation Australian Marriage Equality, and did not state or imply support for same-sex marriage.

Clarification from the broadcaster

The ABC’s response to the complainant included a statement that ‘the phrase “marriageequality” has been used by both supporters and opponents of the changes’. The complainant queried this in his complaint to the ACMA. The ACMA asked the ABC if it was maintaining that the term ‘marriage equality’ is used as a synonym for ‘same-sex marriage’ by both supporters and opponents of change. The ABC relevantly responded:

The ABC does not maintain that the term ‘marriage equality’ is widely used as a synonym for same-sex marriage by both supporters and opponents of changes to the Marriage Act. While the ABC disagrees with [the complainant]’s broader point that the use of the term ‘marriage equality’ is of itself inherently partial, it is important to consider the context in which such terms are used. The content which is the subject of the complaint was clearly and demonstrably gathered and presented with due impartiality.

Finding

The ABC did not breach clause 4.1 of the code.

Reasons

The complaint relates to the use of the term ‘marriage equality’ by the reporter. The reporter used the term twice:

Statement 1:

REPORTER

To give you a bit of a sample of some of the opinions and reactions to [JW]’s comments, I have with me [AG], who’s the head of Australian Marriage Equality, and also have [KV], who’s a doctor as well as a practising Christian.

Statement 2:

REPORTER

[A], as a campaigner around marriage equality, you spend a lot of time round halls of power down in Canberra; do you see the Australian Christian Lobby there much, and do you feel like they wield much influence?

[Emphases added by the ACMA]

The reporter’s use of the term in Statement 1 does not raise issues with the ABC’s compliance with clause 4.1 of the code. The ACMA has confirmed that ‘Australian Marriage Equality’ is the name of the organisation headed by AG at the time of the broadcast.[2] The reporter’s use of the term in this context, therefore, merely reflects his accurate presentation of a factual matter.

With regard to Statement 2, the term is used in a generic sense. The ACMA notes that it has been usedin Australia and other countries such as the United States of America and the United Kingdom in the context of arguments in favour of legislation for same-sex marriage. For example, the Honourable Michael Kirby,in referring to ‘marriage equality’, has said that marriage as a legal status ‘should not be denied or unavailable to a cohort of people because of their gender or sexual orientation’.[3] The term has been included in the short title of Amendment Bills introduced into Parliament in recent years: the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012,[4] summarised on the Parliament of Australia website as ‘amends the Marriage Act 1961 to: remove discriminatory references based on sexual orientation and gender identity; and allow marriage regardless of sex, sexual orientation or gender identity’; and the Marriage EqualityAmendment Bill 2009.[5]

However, the ACMA accepts that the term ‘marriage equality’ is tendentious in some people’s view. For example, Mr Shayne Neumann MP, Member for Blair, speaking in the House of Representatives, referred to it as ‘a clever marketing ploy’[6] on the part of proponents of same-sex marriage, and Mr John Murphy MP, Member for Reid, referred to it as an ‘seemingly innocuous term’ that had been ‘hijacked by those who want to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples – for the simple reason that this will maximise support’.[7]

The single usage would not mean thatthe item in its entirety was biased, even if it were accepted that the term is ‘loaded’, as the complainant submits. As noted above, assessing the impartiality due in given circumstances requires consideration in context of all relevant factors, including:

• the type, subject and nature of the content;
• the circumstances in which the content is made and presented;
• the likely audience expectations of the content; and
• the degree to which the matter to which the content relates is contentious.

The matter to which the content related in this instance is contentious to a high degree, imposing upon the ABC a need to be careful in its presentation in order to achieve impartiality. On the other hand, the circumstances in which the content was made and presented were ones in which, due in particular to the Parliamentary bills referred to above, the term ‘marriage equality’ was frequently used as a synonym for same-sex marriage, and was familiar to audiences in that sense.

Further, as indicated at Appendix2, whether a breach of clause 4.1 has occurred depends, amongst other things, on the themes of the program. In the current case, the major topic of the item was not same-sex marriage but the reaction to JW’s comments about homosexual health, including the Prime Minister’s decision to cancel a scheduled appearance at the ACL annual conference and the possible impact of JW’s commentson the ACL’s status and credibility. The presenters’ introduction focused exclusively on this topic:

FEMALE PRESENTER

The Prime Minister has cancelled plans to speak before the Australian Christian Lobby after its leader says a homosexual lifestyle is more dangerous than smoking.

MALE PRESENTER

The Australian Christian Lobby’s managing director, [JW], said: ‘I think we’re going to owe smokers a big apology when the homosexual community’s own statistics for its health – which it presents when it wants more money for health – are that it has higher rates of drug-taking, of suicide.’

FEMALE PRESENTER

‘It has the life of a male reduced by up to 20 years. The life of smokers is reduced by something like seven to 10 years and yet we tell all our kids at school they shouldn’t smoke.’

MALE PRESENTER

It’s been a much-talked-about topic on Triple J’s Hack program this week, and their reporter, [TT], joins us now from Sydney. [TT], what’s been the reaction to [JW]’s comments and the Prime Minister’s decision to pull out of her speech at the Christian Lobby’s annual conference?

The reporter’s questions also focused exclusively on this topic:

REPORTER to AG:

What was your reaction to [JW]’s comments?

REPORTER to KV:

What about you, [K]? What did you think of [JW]’s comments, as a Christian?

REPORTER to KV:

[A] just mentioned that there are negative health – mental health – outcomes for gay Australians. Is that a factor? Was he honing in on any truth there, when he made comparisons about the health of gay Australians?

REPORTER to KV:

And do you have any Christian friends that agreed with what [JW] said?

REPORTER to AG:

[A], we heard one commentator say that the PM should face up to the Australian Christian Lobby and speak at the national conference. Is there any truth in that? Should she perhaps have gone there and taken them head-on?

REPORTER to KV:

What about you, [K]? We’ve seen John Howard, Tony Abbott and Kevin Rudd speak at this conference in the past, do you think the PM made the right decision by pulling out?

REPORTER to AG:

[A], as a campaigner around marriage equality, you spend a lot of time round halls of power down in Canberra; do you see the Australian Christian Lobby there much, and do you feel like they wield much influence?

REPORTER to KV:

And just lastly to you, [K]: How do you feel about the Australian Christian Lobby representing you in the halls of power?

The reporter’s conclusion likewise focused on the same topic:

REPORTER

There you have it, guys. People still talking about the comments from [JW] in Hobart on Wednesday.

Given the focus of the segment, the ACMA considers that the reporter’s single use of an arguably tendentious term relating to a different (albeit related) matter did not mean that the item as a whole failed to comply with clause 4.1 of the code.

Issue 2: Not materially mislead

Relevant code clause

2Accuracy

2.2Do not present factual content in a way that will materially mislead the audience. Insome cases, this may require appropriate labels or other explanatory information.

Complainant’s submissions

As noted, the complainant considers that the reporter’s use of the phrase ‘marriage equality’ constituted ‘pushing the false idea that there is not already equality in the existing definition of marriage’.

The complainant further submitted that:

• the proposed marriagedefinition change would not in fact have resulted in equality at all, and ‘was not related to equality at all’:

If it had gone ahead it would have been a diminishing of the respect given to marriage and the family by defining marriage simply as a commitment

and

• it was not accurate to say that the homosexual community is campaigning for ‘marriage equality’

because what the homosexual community is asking for is not equality but a special dispensation to cater for their special case and because it is, in fact, not marriage at all by the almost universal view of what marriage is.

Finding

The ABC did not breach clause 2.2 of the code.

Reasons

As noted, the relevant material comprises the following utterances by the reporter:

Statement 1:

REPORTER

To give you a bit of a sample of some of the opinions and reactions to [JW]’s comments, I have with me [AG], who’s the head of Australian Marriage Equality, and also have [KV], who’s a doctor as well as a practising Christian.

Statement 2:

REPORTER

[A], as a campaigner around marriage equality, you spend a lot of time round halls of power down in Canberra; do you see the Australian Christian Lobby there much, and do you feel like they wield much influence?

[Emphases added by the ACMA]

The ACMA has asked the following questions:

• Was the material complained of ‘factual content’?
• If so, what would an ordinary, reasonable viewer have understood this material to have conveyed?
• Was there any ‘material’ inaccuracy in what the material conveyed as factual content to such a viewer?

Statement 1: Statement 1 relevantly contained factual material about the position occupied by AG. This material conveyed, to the ordinary, reasonable viewer, that AG was the head of an organisation entitled ‘Australian Marriage Equality’. As already noted, there does exist an organisation with this name, and AG was the national convener of this organisation at the time of the broadcast. There was no material inaccuracy in what the material conveyed as factual content, and the relevant factual content in Statement 1 was not presented in a way that would havematerially misled the audience.