the Contemporary community safeguards inquiry
Qualitative and quantitative findings
MARCH 2014
Canberra
Red Building
Benjamin Offices
Chan Street
Belconnen ACT
PO Box 78
Belconnen ACT 2616
T +61 2 6219 5555
F +61 2 6219 5353 / Melbourne
Level 32
Melbourne Central Tower
360 Elizabeth Street Melbourne VIC
PO Box 13112
Law Courts
Melbourne VIC 8010
T +61 3 9963 6800
F +61 3 9963 6899 / Sydney
Level 5
The Bay Centre
65 Pirrama Road
Pyrmont NSW
PO Box Q500
Queen Victoria Building
NSW 1230
T +61 2 9334 7700
1800 226 667
F +61 2 9334 7799
Copyright notice
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/
With the exception of coats of arms, logos, emblems, images, other third-party material or devices protected by a trademark, this content is licensed under the Creative Commons Australia Attribution 3.0 Licence.
We request attribution as: © Commonwealth of Australia (Australian Communications and Media Authority) 2014.
All other rights are reserved.
The Australian Communications and Media Authority has undertaken reasonable enquiries to identify material owned by third parties and secure permission for its reproduction. Permission may need to be obtained from third parties to re-use their material.
Written enquiries may be sent to:
Manager, Editorial and Design
PO Box 13112
Law Courts
Melbourne VIC 8010
Tel: 03 9963 6968
Email:
acma | iii
Contents (Continued)
Executive summary 1
Summary of findings 1
Classification and time restrictions on free-to-air television 1
Decency on radio 2
Accuracy of news and current affairs programs 2
Corrections 3
Fairness, impartiality and presentation of significant viewpoints in
news and current affairs programs 3
Privacy 3
Advertising 4
Radio 4
Television 4
Complaints-handling by broadcasters 4
Research context 6
Research objectives 6
Research methodology 6
Notes for reading the report 7
researchacma 7
Media use and behaviour 9
Television content consumption 9
Viewing behaviour 9
A range of devices and two-screen phenomena 9
Viewing preferences 9
Radio content consumption 12
Listening behaviour 12
Listening preferences 12
Online news access 14
Classification and time restrictions on free-to-air television 16
Usefulness of tools and methods 16
Attitudes to time restrictions 19
Attitudes to possibility of phasing out time restrictions or replacing
them with other methods 22
Barriers to using parental locks 23
Expectations of content during time restrictions 25
Decency on radio 26
General views on ‘decency’ and radio content 26
Assessing the suitability of content on the radio 27
The role of time restrictions and classifications for radio content 29
Accuracy 30
Expectations of accuracy in news and current affairs programs 30
News programs—television and radio 31
Current affairs (television and radio) 32
Talkback radio 32
Expectations around apologies and corrections 32
Fairness, impartiality and presentation of significant viewpoints in news and current affairs programs 34
Expectations about impartiality, fairness, viewpoints 34
Expectations about impartiality, fairness, viewpoints on current affairs programs, including talkback radio programs 35
Privacy 36
Attitudes towards privacy and broadcasting content 36
Advertising 39
Advertising on radio 39
Attitudes towards the use of in-program advertising on television 40
Acceptability of in-program advertising by program type 42
Complaints-handling by broadcasters 44
Knowledge of the complaints process 44
Confidence in broadcasters’ response to complaints 45
Previous experience with making complaints 46
Nature of complaints 47
Attitudes towards complaints process 47
Appendix A—Research instruments 49
Qualitative research 49
Appendix B—Research methodology 73
Overview and rationale for the methodology 73
Qualitative research 74
Quantitative research 74
Quantitative sample profile 75
Appendix C—Detailed tables 76
acma | vExecutive summary
This report presents the findings of the community research informing the Contemporary community safeguards inquiry. The research explored community attitudes, experiences and expectations of content broadcast on television and radio relating to a range of matters covered by the existing broadcasting codes of practice.
The research was conducted for the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) by GfK Australia. It comprised a qualitative phase of 10 focus groups held in metropolitan and regional areas across three states, followed by a quantitative phase of computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATI) with 1,700 Australians aged 15 years and over. Fieldwork for the telephone survey utilised the insights from the qualitative focus group research.
The research focused on the following issues:
classification and time restrictions on free-to-air television
decency on radio
accuracy of news and current affairs programs
fairness, impartiality and presentation of significant viewpoints in news and current affairs programs
privacy
advertising
complaints-handling by broadcasters.
Due to limits on survey length and the availability of other relevant research, it was not considered necessary for all of these issues to be explored in depth in both the qualitative and quantitative phases of the research. Where issues were explored in both phases or only one phase of the research, this is signposted. Appendix A provides the discussion guide for the qualitative phase as well as the research questionnaire for the quantitative phase.
Summary of findings
Classification and time restrictions on free-to-air television
The research explored community attitudes, particularly those of parents and carers, towards the usefulness and continuing importance of various methods available to manage children’s viewing.
The research indicated that contemporary parents and carers combine a suite of methods to help manage their viewing. Survey findings show that parents and carers consider the top three methods for managing their children’s viewing (rated ‘very useful’) to be:
supervision of children’s viewing by being in the room with them (71 per cent)
program classification symbols and consumer advice (70 per cent)
dedicated children’s program slots or channels (69 per cent).
The time of day that a television program is shown was rated very useful by 57 per cent of parents and carers.
However, a majority of all respondents (including non-parents) agreed with the statement that ‘time restrictions for when free-to-air television broadcasters can show particular content are essential for protecting children from seeing inappropriate content’ (81 per cent). In addition, 45 per cent of respondents disagreed with the statement ‘dedicated children's channels like those available on ABC2, ABC3 and pay television mean that time restrictions on commercial free-to-air channels are no longer necessary’. This view was held more strongly by parents and carers of children under 15 years.
A substantial proportion of parents and carers felt that if time restrictions were removed, other methods would not be able to replace them to manage children’s viewing (41 per cent). Survey findings indicated that the use of parental lock technology is not high among parents and carers, as 43 per cent answered they don’t use parental locks at all, and nine per cent find them not very useful. Reported barriers to the use of parental locks include lack of awareness of the technology and the perceived difficulty in using the technology.
Similar attitudes were identified in the qualitative research, where parents and carers generally were resistant to losing time restrictions completely.
Decency on radio
The research tested whether the type of radio station or program assisted people in deciding on the appropriateness of radio content both in relation to their own listening and when children are listening. When it came to their own listening choices, 67 per cent of survey respondents agreed that, for their listening, ‘it is usually clear from the type of radio station or program if the content will be suitable for you’ with a small minority (eight per cent) disagreeing on this point. When it came to deciding about suitability of radio content when children are listening, there was a notable drop in the proportion of people who agreed that ‘it is usually clear from the type of radio station or program if the content will be suitable for you to listen to on the radio when children can hear it’ (from 67 per cent down to 54 per cent).
In line with this, more than half of the parents and carers surveyed agreed that ‘more information should be provided about some radio program content to help you make decisions about what you listen to on the radio when children can hear it’ (56 per cent). However, a substantial minority of parents and carers also expressed neutral views on this issue (30 per cent), suggesting that the provision of more information was not an imperative. Similarly, the qualitative research indicated that participant parents feel they are ‘in control’ when the radio is on and their children are present, and they could ensure only age-appropriate shows are listened to.
Accuracy of news and current affairs programs
Participants in the qualitative phase of the research indicated that factual accuracy is considered to be ‘essential’ for news programs whether on television or radio. They expressed a strong preference for news programs on both commercial and national stations to report ‘just the facts’. Group participants perceived current affairs programs as being sensationalised. Participants expressed frustration with this, especially when current affairs programs promoted themselves in a similar way to news as being ‘factual’. Participants felt that talkback radio programs sensationalised stories to create a ‘shock factor’ to increase ratings. While some participants reported being irritated to very irritated by this, the need for accuracy was not seen as an essential requirement for such programs.
In the quantitative research, the vast majority of participants (96 per cent) considered the accuracy of news and current affairs on television and radio is ‘just as’, or ‘more important’ now that there are many different sources of news, information and current affairs available online.
Corrections
Both the qualitative and quantitative findings of the research indicated that corrections for factual errors were considered the minimum form of remedy required.
A majority of survey respondents felt that a correction on-air ‘must happen’ if a factual error is made in a news or current affairs program on television or radio (81 per cent). To a lesser degree it was felt that a correction on the broadcaster’s website is required (68 per cent). Sixty per cent of respondents felt that the regulator (the ACMA) should also publish its findings online and in a media release. Only a small segment of respondents (between three and eight per cent) felt that any of these steps were unnecessary.
Participants in the qualitative research considered that when an error has been made in a broadcast on radio or television, a correction should be made and the individual to whom the incorrect information pertains should be given the opportunity to provide their side of the story. Participants also indicated that these corrective measures should be given the same prominence, including placement, as the original story. These steps were seen by participants to be more appropriate than an apology, on the basis that once the information was out in the public domain they felt the ‘damage’ had been done. Focus group participants also saw a requirement for on-air corrections as providing a good incentive for broadcasters to get the facts right in the first instance.
Fairness, impartiality and presentation of significant viewpoints in news and current affairs programs
The qualitative component of this community research sought to explore citizens’ expectations of fairness, impartiality and the presentation of significant viewpoints broadly. This included any differences in expectations between news and current affairs programs (including talkback radio programs) and between television and radio content. Focus group participants saw impartiality and fairness as essential for news programs. They indicated that they wanted and expected news programs to be unbiased and to allow for multiple points of view to be aired. These expectations applied to commercial and national stations on both radio and television. Focus group participants felt that, currently, news programs are largely fair and impartial. Different expectations of impartiality, fairness and presentation of viewpoints emerged from the groups’ discussions of current affairs programs. While many participants indicated that ‘ideally’ current affairs programs should be impartial, fair, and present multiple viewpoints, they considered that, practically, these types of programs could not be held to these standards.
There was also a general feeling among participants that most people ‘know what they are getting’ when it comes to talkback radio programs. Therefore they should not expect unbiased, impartial and fair commentary. In this context, the participants’ perception that currently talkback radio programs are biased is more a source of frustration rather than being seen as ‘inappropriate’.
Privacy
The qualitative phase of the research showed that, regardless of age and overarching attitudes, the majority of participants felt that individuals had a right to privacy in the broadcasting context. However, participants tended not to actively think about privacy with regard to broadcasting, as they rarely had personal experience of the issue. The research confirmed that, for the most part, there was no strong community consensus on what constitutes an invasion of privacy.
The research also indicated that participants assume that consent was obtained for the broadcast of observational programs, for example programs that follow real life situations like hospital emergency rooms.
Advertising
The research explored community attitudes towards in-program advertising on television, and in the qualitative component revisited some of the issues explored in previous research about radio content.[1]
Radio
While there were some differences in group discussion responses by age and life stage, in principle, participants did not see advertising on radio as a problem. They indicated that they did not have concerns about ‘live read’ style content where program presenters read advertising content. However, they did express the view that advertising embedded into program content, conversations and discussions should be clearly identified.
Television
During the group discussions, television advertising was discussed in terms of whether participants were concerned about the separation of advertisements from other content on television, and what they thought about ‘product placement’ in television shows. In this context, participants appeared to be ‘used to’ in-program advertising on television, with many feeling that such advertising is usually ‘quite obvious’ and that they were able to identify it. Overall, participants did not feel that audiences need to be specifically notified about placement. A number felt that notifications would be distracting and unnecessary.