Investigation report no. BI-270

Summary
Broadcaster / Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Station / ABC
Type of service / National broadcasting—television
Name of program / ABC News Breakfast
Date of broadcast / 29 September 2016
Relevant standards / ABC Code of Practice 2011 (revised in 2016)
Date finalised / 10 February 2017
Decision / No breach of Standard 2.1 [accuracy]
No breach of Standard 4.1 [due impartiality]

Background

In December 2016, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) commenced an investigation under section151 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (the BSA) into a complaint about a segment broadcast on ABC News Breakfast (the program).

Theprogram was broadcast on ABC and ABC HDby the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (the ABC) on29 September 2016 at 6.00 am.

The ACMA received a complaint alleging that a segment about the power outage that had affected South Australia the previous day contained materialthat was not presented accurately and that lacked impartiality.[1]

The ACMA has investigated the ABC’s compliance with Standard 2 [accuracy] and Standard 4 [impartiality] of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (revised in 2016) (the Code).

The program

ABC News Breakfast is a news program, described as:

… [bringing] the news as it unfolds & [going] behind the headlines to reveal the who, what, where, when & why.[2]

ABC News Breakfast is broadcast on weekday mornings between 6.00am and 9.00am. The segment which was the subject of complaint was five minutes and 35 seconds in duration and consisted of alive discussion between host, Ms Del Irani, and ABC News’ Political Editor, Mr Chris Uhlmann.The discussion concerned the power outage that had affected all of South Australia the previous day.

Prior to the live discussion between Ms Irani and Mr Uhlmann, the program broadcast a number of interviews and press conferences concerning this issue, including with the Hon. Jay Weatherill MP, Premier of South Australia and the Hon. Josh Frydenberg MP, Minister for the Environment and Energy, and with emergency services personnel and people affected by the events of the previous day.

The ABC provided extensive coverage of the power outage in South Australia across multiple ABC programs and services.

A transcript of the relevant segment is at Attachment A.

Assessmentand submissions

When assessing content, the ACMA considers the meaning conveyed by the material in issue, including the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone, images and any inferences that may be drawn. This is assessed according to the understanding of an ‘ordinary reasonable’ listener or viewer.

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

Once the ACMA has ascertained the meaning of the material that was broadcast, it then assesses compliance with the Code.

This investigation has taken into account the complaint (at Attachment B) and submissions from the broadcaster (at Attachment C). Other sources are identified as relevant.

Issue 1: Accuracy

Relevant Code provisions

2. Accuracy

2.1 Make reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented in context.

Principles: The ABC has a statutory duty to ensure that the gathering and presentation of news and information is accurate according to the recognised standards of objective journalism. Credibility depends heavily on factual accuracy.

Types of fact-based content include news and analysis of current events, documentaries, factual dramas and lifestyle programs. The ABC requires that reasonable efforts must be made to ensure accuracy in all fact-based content. The ABC gauges those efforts by reference to:

  • the type, subject and nature of the content;
  • the likely audience expectations of the content;
  • the likely impact of reliance by the audience on the accuracy of the content; and
  • the circumstances in which the content was made and presented.

The ABC accuracy standard applies to assertions of fact, not to expressions of opinion. An opinion, being a value judgement or conclusion, cannot be found to be accurate or inaccurate in the way facts can. The accuracy standard requires that opinions be conveyed accurately, in the sense that quotes should be accurate and any editing should not distort the meaning of the opinion expressed.

The efforts reasonably required to ensure accuracy will depend on the circumstances. Sources with relevant expertise may be relied on more heavily than those without. Eyewitness testimony usually carries more weight than second-hand accounts. The passage of time or the inaccessibility of locations or sources can affect the standard of verification reasonably required.

The ABC should make reasonable efforts, appropriate in the context, to signal to audiences gradations in accuracy, for example by querying interviewees, qualifying bald assertions, supplementing the partly right and correcting the plainly wrong.

Finding

The ABC did not breach Standard 2.1 of the Code.

Reasons

To assess compliance, the ACMA has considered the following questions:

Was the particular content complained about factual in character?

Did it convey a material fact or facts in the context of the relevant segment?

If so, were those facts accurate?

If a material fact was not accurate (or its accuracy cannot be determined), did the ABCmake reasonable efforts to ensure that the material fact was accurate and presented incontext?

The considerations the ACMA uses in assessing whether or not broadcast material is factual in character are set out at Attachment D.

The complaint to the ABC stated:

This morning on News Breakfast [Chris Uhlmann] clearly indicated that it was his strong suspicion that the SA statewide blackout occurred because of SA's reliance on renewable energy. Energy market experts now tell us that the blackout had nothing to do with the state's reliance on wind energy.

[…] He should not leap to conclusions and make statements prejudicial to the issue as a journalist, but even more so as the political editor of the ABC.

The broadcaster submitted:

[…] Mr Uhlmann neither stated nor implied that the blackout in South Australia occurred because of South Australia’s reliance on renewable energy.

Rather, he raised for further consideration a series of highly newsworthy and considered open questions, in the context of South Australia’s energy mix and the rare event of the State-wide blackout, namely:

  • When the Interconnector to Victoria went down, what happened to the rest of SA’s supply?
  • Why the outage cascaded across the State in the way it did?
  • Why the whole State lost power; whether or not South Australia’s energy mix might expose it to some real security risks in future; and whether those risks might be spread across Australia?
  • In the context of putting asynchronous, intermittent energy onto the grid, questions should be asked about overcoming the inherent engineering problems in that process.

Was the particular content complained about factual in character?

Ms Irani introduced the segment with the comment that ‘while power has been restored to 95% of the state, the political fallout is only just beginning’. She then introduced Mr Uhlmann ‘to talk us through the implications’.

Mr Uhlmann made a number of statements about the possible contribution of renewable energy to the spread of the power outage across South Australia, including:

The question is what then happened to the rest of South Australia’s power supply. Now, one of the problems with having a lot of renewable energy on the grid is that it presents a frequency problem. Now, every second of every day the frequency in the electricity system has to be in balance at 50 Hz. If it gets out of balance then it can trip that switch that the Premier was talking about it. Now, it seems to have cascaded all the way across the state. Now then you’ve got a problem where you have to have what’s called a ‘black start capability’. Now, you can’t do that with wind energy.

Mr Uhlmann then stated:

[…] but this is an extremely rare event, we need to know why it happened and whether or not the way that South Australia’s gone about its energy mix now does expose it to some real security risks in future, and whether we might spread those risks across the rest of Australia.

Ms Irani then sought Mr Uhlmann’s comment on a report by the Grattan Institute earlier that week about the need for more security and reliability in energy networks. Mr Uhlmann was discussing that report when he made the following statement about suspicions held by some people in the energy industry:

Now that should be a warning, as Tony Wood said, again, we don’t know all the causes of what happened in South Australia yesterday but I’ve been speaking to people who know the electricity market very well and there are some very strong suspicions that this reliance on renewables—and the Minister’s and the Premier’s right—this is the direction of the Australian energy market.

Ms Irani then asked Mr Uhlmann about the political implications of the power outage. Mr Uhlmann stated that the implications would be vast and outlined their nature. He then stated that:

Now, it may well be that none of those things that I pointed to which experts are now discussing are the reasons why South Australia shut down, but let’s make no mistake here, this is an extremely rare event – you have regions go down, you very rarely have an entire state go down and why that happens needs to be investigated in a clear-eyed way […]

Although the complaint is that Mr Uhlmann clearly indicated that he suspected that the power outage occurred because of South Australia’s reliance on renewable energy, the segment did not include a direct statement to this effect.Mr Uhlmann noted that there was ‘a question’ about what happened to South Australia’s power supply. Mr Uhlmann’s only direct reference to ‘suspicions’ was to those held by “people who know the energy market”. Mr Uhlmann’s comments also noted that ‘it may well be that none of those things that I pointed to … are the reasons why South Australia shut down.’

The ACMA considers that Mr Uhlmann’s comments in the segmentwould have conveyed to the ordinary reasonable viewer that hewas asserting that:

not all the causes of the blackout were known at the time of the broadcast

there are some concerns amongst some people with knowledge of the electricity market about energy security and reliability due toincreased reliance on renewable energy.

The ACMA considers that bothassertions are factualin nature as they are specific, unequivocal and capable of independent verification.

Did the content convey a material fact or facts in the context of the relevant segment?

The segment was an examination of a major event that had occurred the previous day. This issue was of considerable public interest at the time of the broadcast.Thefactual assertions were therefore material facts in the context of the segment.

If so, were the material facts accurate?

At the time of the broadcast, noformal investigation had been carried out into the incidentand no conclusions had been reached or released to the public givingthe reasons for the power outage.

Premier Weatherill and Minister Frydenberg had indicated in interviews broadcast prior to the segment that weather events were responsible for the outage. However, given the lack of definitive information available at the time of the broadcast about the causes of the power outage, it was accurate for Mr Uhlmann to assert that not all the reasonsfor the power outage were known at that time.

It was also accurate for Mr Uhlmann to assert that some people with knowledge of the energy industry hadsome concerns about energy security and reliability due to increased reliance on renewable energy.

In this respect, the ACMA notes that a number of reportshave been written on the challenges of integrating the intermittent nature of new renewable electricity within existing energy systems. The ABC’s submission at Attachment C refers to a number of publications relied onby Mr Uhlmann, amongst other things, in preparing his analysis for the segment.

Accordingly, the ABC did not breach Standard 2.1 of the Code.

Issue 2: Impartiality and diversity of perspectives

Relevant Code provisions

4.1 Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.

[…]

Principles: The ABC has a statutory duty to ensure that the gathering and presentation of news and information is impartial according to the recognised standards of objective journalism.

Aiming to equip audiences to make up their own minds is consistent with the public service character of the ABC. A democratic society depends on diverse sources of reliable information and contending opinions. A broadcaster operating under statute with public funds is legitimately expected to contribute in ways that may differ from commercial media, which are free to be partial to private interests.

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.

The ABC aims to present, over time, content that addresses a broad range of subjects from a diversity of perspectives reflecting a diversity of experiences, presented in a diversity of ways from a diversity of sources, including content created by ABC staff, generated by audiences and commissioned or acquired from external content-makers.

Impartiality does not require that every perspective receives equal time, nor that every facet of every argument is presented.

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.

Finding

The ABC did not breach Standard 4.1 of the Code.

Reasons

To assess compliance, the ACMA has considered the following:

contextual factors

the ABC’s hallmarks for 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.

The complainant submitted:

My complaint is that Mr Uhlmann had no business guessing the cause in advance of investigation or at least gaining expert opinion. The issue of renewable energy generation is an extremely important one for Australia and the whole world. He should not leap to conclusions and make statements prejudicial to the issue as a journalist, but even more so as the political editor of the ABC.

The broadcaster submitted:

Ms Irani introduced the segment by noting that although power had been restored to about 95% of South Australia, the political fallout from the power outage was only just beginning.

Against that background, Mr Uhlmann and Ms Irani discussed the significance of the outage; South Australia’s energy mix and its limitations; the report published by the Grattan Institute earlier in the week, about the July power outage in South Australia; the engineering complexities around combining synchronous and asynchronous power into a grid; and the political decision making around power generation. These issues were all highly relevant and newsworthy in the context of South Australia’s power outage.

As the story of South Australia’s power outage unfolded from4pmon28 September, the ABC provided extensive coverage on the blackout, including through the live broadcast of interviews and press conferences with South Australia’s Premier, Jay Weatherill; interviews with the Federal Energy Minister, Josh Frydenberg; and rolling direct reports from various ABC journalists across South Australia; together with ongoing analysis, including from Mr Uhlmann.

Contextual factors

Standard 4.1 requires the ABC to ‘gather and present news and information with due impartiality’. Inclusion of the word ‘due’ indicates an element of flexibility depending on the particular context.

Whether a breach of the Code has occurred will depend on the themes in the program, any editorial comment, the overall presentation of the story and the circumstances in which the program was prepared and broadcast.

As noted in the relevant ABC Principles, impartiality does not require that every perspective receives equal time, or that every facet of every issue is presented. The ACMA has, in previous investigations, noted that programs are entitled to take specific lines of enquiry and there is no requirement in the Code for all facts that are potentially relevant to a program to be presented.

The South Australian power outage was a controversialissue that was highly newsworthy given its impact on the people of South Australia.The causes of the power outage were highly contentious and there was significant public interest in the issue.

Hallmarks of impartiality

The ABC’s hallmarks of impartiality indicate that, in order to meet the impartiality standard, broadcasts should provide a balance that follows the weight of evidence, give fair treatment to subjects that may be contentious, maintain an open-mindedness that does not preclude particular outcomes, and provide opportunities over time for principal relevant perspectives on matters of contention to be expressed.