Investigation Report No. 3022

File No. / ACMA2013/379
Licensee / Network TEN (Melbourne) Pty Ltd
Station / ATV Melbourne
Type of Service / Commercial television
Name of Program / The Project
Date of Broadcast / 14 January 2013
Relevant Code / Clause 4.3.1 of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2010
Date Finalised / 03/06/2013
Decision / No breach of clause 4.3.1 (factual accuracy)

Background

  • On 27 February 2013, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) received a complaint concerning a segment of The Project called ‘Gun Comeback’ broadcast by Network TEN (Melbourne) Pty Ltd (the licensee) on 14 January 2013.
  • The Project is described on the program’s website as:

.... an earthy, real and fun approach to discussing the news of the day. The Project is a place where people who are genuinely interested in the world around them come together to talk, offering genuine conversation in a space previously crowded by scandal and spin[1].

  • The relevant segment discussed the recent increase of private firearm ownership in Australia, in the context of Vice President Biden’s Gun Control Task Force review of firearm regulation in the United Statesof America (US). The segment included a graph of firearm-related deaths in Australia between 1992 and 2010, accompanied by the following statement:

Reporter: Statistically, since Howard’s gun control measures, the risk of an Australian dying by gunshot has fallen by more than half.

  • The segment also featured an interview with a spokesperson from Gun Control Australiawho indicated that Australia gun lobby-groups have started to model themselves on the USNational Rifle Association (NRA) and aremarketing sports-shooting to families and young children.During the interview, images of firearm shops and a child firing a fully-automatic firearm were shown in quick succession.
  • A transcript and reproduction of the images in the segment are found at Attachment A.
  • In his complaint to the licensee, the complainant submitted that the reporter’s statement quoted above was inaccurate, and that the segment showed inaccurate footage:

…the graph used in the segment showed that there was a decrease in firearms deaths from 1991-1992; this period pre-dates the 1996 changes to law laws by some five years ... and [the US images] did not reflect the increases in or types of firearms being owned in Australia.

  • The licenseeresponded to the complainant that:
  • …[the graph showed] a decline in gun deaths from 516 in 1996 to 236 in 2010. This represents a decline of 54% and is consistent with the voiceover and hence the verbal statement was accurate.
  • the footagewas ‘clearly file footage from the United States’ and accompanied the spokesperson’s comments that ‘the ‘gun lobby’ in Australia was modelling itself on the US National Rifle Association and promoting firearms to families and children to build resources and membership’.
  • The ACMA has considered the licensee’s compliance with clause 4.3.1 of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2010 (theCode):

4.3In broadcasting news and current affairs programs, licensees:

4.3.1must broadcast factual material accurately and represent viewpoints fairly, having regard to the circumstances at the time of preparing and broadcasting the program

4.3.1.1 An assessment of whether the factual material is accurate is to be determined in the context of the segment in its entirety.

  • Clause 4.3.1 applies only to news and current affairs programs. The ACMA notes that in its response to the complainant, the licensee stated that ‘The Project features a mix of current affairs and entertainment.’ The ACMA considers that The Project is a current affairs program as it focuses on ‘social, economic or political issues of current relevant to the community’.[2]

Assessment

  • This investigation is based on submissions from the complainant, the licensee’s response to the complainant and a copy of the broadcast provided to the ACMA by the licensee. Other sources used have been identified where relevant.
  • In applying the factual accuracy aspect of clause 4.3.1 of the Code, the initial consideration is whether the relevant material is presented as factual material in the context of the broadcast. An expression of opinion is not factual material.
  • The ACMA then 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[3].

  • The ACMA examineswhat the ordinary reasonable listener or viewerwould have understood the relevant material 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 there has been a breach of the Code.

Issue:Factual accuracy

The statement- ‘Statistically, since Howard’s gun control measures, the risk of an Australian dying by gunshot has fallen by more than half’

Finding

  • The licensee did not breach clause 4.3.1 of the Code.

Reasons

  • The complainant submitted that the following statementwas inaccurate:

Statistically, since Howard’s gun control measures, the risk of an Australian dying by gunshot has fallen by more than half.

  • This statement was accompanied by a line graph thatshowed the gun related deaths were: 618 in 1992; 516 in 1994; 516 in 1996; 312 in 1998; 324 in 2000; 292 in 2002; 234 in 2004; 246 in 2006; 232 in 2008; and 236 in 2010.
  • The ACMA considers thatthe statement amounts to factual material. It was made unequivocally and without qualification, both the figure and the time period are specific, and the statement is capable of independent verification.
  • Having considered the context in which the statement was made, the ACMA considers that theordinary reasonable viewerwould have understood the statement to mean that from 1996 to 2010, the number of yearly gun-related deaths would have reduced by more than 50%.
  • The ACMA is aware that ‘Howard’s gun control measures’ were implemented in 1996 andnotes that the 1992-1996 statistics were included in the graph to create a context for the statement regarding the 1996-2010 statistics. The inclusion of the1992-1996 statistics does not detract from or alter the conclusion that the reduction in gun-related deaths have halved since the introduction of gun control measures in 1996.
  • For the above reasons, the ACMA finds that the statement was factually accurate and the licensee did not breach clause 4.3.1 of the Code.

The firearm images

Finding

The licensee did not breach clause 4.3.1 of the Code.

Reasons

  • The relevant material is the five images identified by the complainant in his complaint to the licensee(the images and the accompanying transcript are at Attachment A):

-Image 1: The inside of a firearms shop, showing racks of firearms on the walls

-Image 2: A man with a handgun in a holster around his waist.

-Image 3: Floor-mounted racks of firearms.

-Image 4: Wall-mounted racks of guns

-Image 5: A child firing a fully-automatic firearm under adult supervision.

  • The licensee has submitted that the images were US file footage and that:

No reference or commentary was made concerning the footage in question, including no references that the footage was filmed in Australia or reflected the increases in or types of firearms owned in Australia ... the images were clearly file footage from the United States.

  • The majority of the firearms shown in the US file footage cannot be legally owned and operated in Australia by private citizens. The complainant alleged that viewers would have gained the impression that the images were from Australia and that the firearms shown were the kind being discussed. As a result, he believes that, in the context of the segment as a whole, the US file footage was used in a way that was factually inaccurate.
  • The question for ACMA is whether the ordinary reasonable viewer would have identified the five images as US file footage.
  • Where file footage is used in a segment without labelling or explicit reference, viewersare more reliant on the surrounding images and accompanying audio for context and ‘meaning’ for the images. In this regard, the ACMA notes that :

-The footage was shown alongside images of Australian gun shops with guns in locked cabinets and members of the Australian Sporting Shooters Association shooting at a rifle range.

-The footage followed comments comparing Australian gun lobby groups to the NRA, and preceded a discussion about Australian and US gun laws.

  • In this case, the ACMA considers that the ordinary reasonable viewer would have understood the five images to be US file footage because the simultaneous discussion comparing Australia and the US, and the use of Australian and US file footage was a pictorial representation of the differences being discussed.
  • Given the above, ACMA finds that licensee did not breach clause 4.3.1 of the Code by broadcasting the US file footage.

Attachment A

Extracts of transcript of “Gun Come-back” broadcast on 24 January 2013

...

SPOKESPERSON: Well, I think what’s going on in Australia is that we’ve had a lot of effort by the gun lobby put into promoting forearms to kids, to families, to try and market them, in the same way that we see tobacco marketed to kids. The aim of the exercise for the gun lobby is to build resources, membership for its clubs, and to build its base, because it’s modelling itself on the NRA in America, and the gun lobby in Australia sees itself as some sort of Australian version of the NRA and wants to exert the same sort of political influence and that’s something that I think is alarming.

PANELLIST 1: [Spokesperson], pardon my ignorance – I’ve never seen one of these gun ads that’s apparently persuading families and children to get involved in shooting. Am I reading the wrong magazines, or not watching the right cable TV shows?

SPOKESPERSON: You’d need to be reading

(IMAGE 1)

sporting shooting magazines

(IMAGE 2)

and see the ads that they place for

kids and promoting it to families.

(IMAGE 3)

You’d need to be a schoolkid like

(IMAGE 4)

in Queensland, where they’re running campaigns

to encourage kids to get into shooting,

(IMAGE 5)

so yeah you’re not looking in the right place.

PANELLIST 2: [Spokesperson], we see the Americans now after Sandy Hook looking at the Australian laws: is there any relevance to what we did after Port Arthur for the Americans?

SPOKESPERSON: Well, look, it’s yes and no. Umm. In a sense, everything that goes on in America is tainted by the second amendment to the constitution, which is the right to bear arms. And it’s tainted by the influence of the NRA. On the other hand, America can look to Australia, and can see that after high-powered semi-automatic rifles were banned in this country, that Australia is a much safer place.

PANNELIST 3: Well, thanks for your time tonight, [Spokesperson]. [Applause]

...

ACMA Investigation Report 3026 – The Project broadcast by Network TEN (Melbourne) Pty Ltd on 14 January 2013 1

[1]

[2] Clause 4.2 of the Code.

[3]Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 at 164–167.