Investigation Report 2701
File No. / ACMA2011/1743Broadcaster / General Television Corporation Pty Ltd
Station / GTV Melbourne
Type of service / Commercial television broadcasting service
Name of program / A Current Affair
Date of program / 29 August 2011
Relevant Code / Clauses 4.3.1, 4.3.10and 1.9.6 of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2010
Date finalised / 30 January 2012
Outcome / The conclusions of the Australian Communications and Media Authority are that General Television Corporation Pty Ltd did not breach the following provisions of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2010:
- clause 4.3.1 (accuracy of factual content);
- clause 4.3.10 (portray in a negative light by placing gratuitous emphasis on ethnic origin and race); and
- clause 1.9.6 (provoke or perpetuate intense dislike, serious contempt or severe ridicule)
The complaint
The Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) received a complaint regardinga segment of A Current Affair broadcast by General Television Corporation Pty Ltd, the licensee of GTV, on 29 August 2011.
The complainant alleges that the report on ‘Gypsies’ contained factual inaccuracies, incited hatredand portrayed Gypsies in a negative lighton the basis of ethnic origin and race.
The investigation considered the licensees’ compliance with clauses 4.3.1 [factual accuracy], 4.3.10 [portray in a negative lightby placing gratuitous emphasis on ethnic origin and race] and 1.9.6 [provoke or perpetuate intense dislike, serious contempt or severe ridicule] of theCommercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2010(the Code).
The program
A Current Affair is broadcast nationally on weekdays at 6:30pm by the Nine Network.
The relevant segment was titled, ‘Gypsy Warning’, and was introduced as follows:
And now for the scam artists who come straight to your front door. They are Gypsy fraudsters, international con artists who prey on the most vulnerable members of society and the authorities are warning that their numbers are increasing.
The report featuredan interview witha representative from the NSW Department of Fair Trading (referred to as MC) and comments from three people who had had dealings with the ‘Gypsies’. It also included video footage of Irish ‘Gypsies’ who sold electric generators and ‘Gypsies’ known as the ‘bitumen bandits’.
A transcript of the report is at Attachment A.
Assessment
The assessment is based on a recording of the segment supplied to the ACMA by the licensee, submissions from the licenseeand correspondence between the licensee and the complainant. 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 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[1].
The ACMA asks what the ‘ordinary, reasonable viewer’ would have understood this program to have conveyed. It considers the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone and inferences that may be drawn.
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: Presentation of factual material
Relevant Code clause
The relevant clause of the Code is clause 4.3.1:
News and Current Affairs Programs
4.3In broadcasting news and current affairs programs, licensees:
4.3.1must present factual material accurately and represent viewpoints fairly, having regard to the circumstances at the time of preparing and broadcasting the program;
4.3.1.1An assessment of whether the factual material is accurate is to be determined in the context of the segment in its entirety.
The considerations which the ACMA generally applies in determining whether a statement complained of was compliant with the licensee’s obligations in clause 4.3.1 are set out at Attachment B.
Complainant’s submissions
The complainant submitted to the licensee in an email dated 6 September 2011 that:
…By the way, these Irish people are Irish and not Gypsies or Jews….
The complainant submitted to the ACMA in an email dated 17 October that:
…Channel 9 Current Affair program [named] a race of people as “criminals”. These people firstly are not Gypsies, but Irish people. Secondly, Channel 9 excuse their racist report as a “Gypsy Warning” broadcast to identify the suspects. They could identify them as ‘conmen’, ‘travelling conmen’ or many other names. They would not have to identify this group as “Gypsies” which refers to a race of people who are under attack from hatred, prejudice, racism and many being killed in Europe…Gypsies are being killed in Europe by skinheads because the media encourage and supports this racism with reports such as Channel 9 sends out.
Licensee’s submissions
The licensee submitted, in a letter to the complainant dated 14 October 2011,that:
…
Can I emphasise from the outset that the purpose of this particular story was to highlight the dangers associated with criminal gangs who are variously referred to by government agencies and investigative bodies as ‘Gypsies’. It was not intended to convey that ‘Gypsies’ were criminals, simply that groups of criminals described as Irish Gypsy gangs were operating in Australia.
…
My understanding is that authorities refer to these groups as ‘Gypsies’ essentially to convey the notion that the nomadic groups of Irish travellers are always on the move and continually relocate to prey on a new group of victims in a location not familiar with their modus operandi. I reject completely that any broadcast by A Current Affair has in some way contributed to the genocide of Gypsies.
…
Finding
The licensee did not breach clause 4.3.1 of the Code.
Reasons
The complainant submitted that the people featured in the program were Irish and not Gypsies, who are a particular race of people. The licensee submitted that the authorities refer to the groups as ‘Gypsies’ ‘to convey the notion that the nomadic groups of Irish travellers are always on the move and continually relocate’.
The references to Irish ‘Gypsies’were made in the following context:
Reporter: For years, European fraudsters have been ripping off unsuspected and vulnerable Australians …
MC: The Gypsyseason is just about to start. Gypsies from the Northern Hemisphere will come here for the Australian summer...
Reporter: [MC] showed us vision of a recent sting by operatives from his department busting Irishmen flogging off dodgy electric generators…
…
MC: Exceptionally well organised and well financed too. In this particular case, we believe that about 90 people were flown from Ireland to the three eastern ports, Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne.
The issue for the ACMA to consider is whether it was accurate todescribethe Irish people mentioned in the report as ‘Gypsies’.
The ACMA notes that the traditional ethnic origin of ‘Gypsies’ is the Romani or Roma people.[2] It is also noted that a separate group of people exist in Ireland, known as Irish ‘Travellers’, whom are not ‘Gypsies’ by ethnicity, as seen from the following document prepared by the Irish Human Rights Commission (IHRC), in which it referred to a statement made by the Irish Government that:
Travellers do not constitute a distinct group from the population as a whole in religion, language or race. They are not a Romany or gypsy people.[3]
Whilst Irish ‘Travellers’ are not ethnically Romany, the ACMA considers that an ordinary, reasonable viewer would have understood that the reference to the Irishmen in the report as ‘Gypsies’ would have referred to the travelling nature of their lifestyle as opposed to their ethnicity as seen by the following definition in the Macquarie Dictionary (Fifth Edition):
gypsy noun1. someone who has an unconventional or nomadic lifestyle.
The ACMA also notes that the IRHC stated in the report referred to abovethat:
…the IHRC is concerned by the approach the Government has taken in relation to the unique accommodation requirements of Traveller families and in response to issues arising as a result of a shortage of appropriate accommodation which would support the Traveller’s nomadic lifestyle.[4]
The ACMA is of the view that the use of the generic noun ‘gypsy’ to signify an itinerant lifestyle is sufficiently widespread to describe the Irish ‘Travellers’ in the program.
The ACMA has also considered the context in which the references were made. In this regard, it is noted that it was apparent that the program was referring to ‘Gypsies’ from Irelandand not ethnically Romany Gypsies.
The ACMA appreciates the complainant’s concern that the program described Irish ‘Travellers’ as ‘Gypsies’, however, the Authority is satisfied that, taking into account the context and the generic use of the noun ‘gypsy’, the licensee did not breach clause 4.3.1 of the Code in this instance.
Issue 2:Portraya person in a negative light by placing gratuitous emphasis on ethnic origin and race
Relevant Code clause
News and Current Affairs Programs
4.3In broadcasting news and current affairs programs, licensees:
[…]
4.3.10must not portray any person or group of persons in a negative light by placing gratuitous emphasis on age, colour, gender, national or ethnic origin, physical or mental disability, race, religion or sexual preference. Nevertheless, where it is in the public interest, licensees may report events and broadcast comments in which such matters are raised.
Complainant’s submissions
The complainant submitted to the licensee in an email dated 6 September 2011 that:
I was watching your show Current Affair on 28 August 2011, at 6.30pm. To my shock, you have covered a “Gypsy crime” more precisely concreting driveways by Irish Gypsy gang[s]. You also got a few people to testify to their crooked ways.
I would like to bring to your attention to name a race of people is against the law, especially when you emphasise a race as a bunch of criminals, people who make their living from crime. If these so-called Irish Gypsies take a DNA test and found to be Jews, would you advertise their race? Would your show cover “Jewish criminal gang”?” I don’t think that would be appropriate and neither is allowed to emphasise race as crime gang as it will start racism, hatred, which leads to genocide…
…
Licensee’s submissions
The licensee submitted that, in a letter to the complainant dated 14 October 2011, that:
…
Can I emphasise from the outset that the purpose of this particular story was to highlight the dangers associated with criminal gangs who are variously referred to by government agencies and investigative bodies as ‘Gypsies’. It was not intended to convey that ‘Gypsies’ were criminals, simply that groups of criminals described as Irish Gypsy gangs were operating in Australia.
A Current Affair has a proud record of pursuing fraudsters and other criminals who have ripped off our viewers, some of these viewers, the elderly in particular, have lost their life savings at the hands of these individuals. At no time did we attempt to label a race as a criminal race, we are simply referring to individuals described as Irish Gypsies.
…
I apologise for any offence you have taken to the A Current Affair story, but I must emphatically assure you that the program is motivated only to identify criminal activity and warn our viewers to not racially vilify people.
…
Finding
The licensee did not breachclause 4.3.10 of the Code.
Reasons
Material will be in breach of clause 4.3.10 of the Code if a person or group of persons is portrayed in a negative light by a gratuitous emphasis being placed on one of the personal characteristics set out in the clause. Broadcasters may, nonetheless, report on events and broadcast comments where such issues are raised providing such reporting or commenting is in the public interest.
‘in a negative light’
The ACMAis satisfied that an ordinary, reasonable viewer would regard the report as portraying the‘Gypsies’referred to in the program in a negative lightby referring to them as ‘fraudsters’, ‘con artists’, ‘scammers’, ‘criminals’ and ‘thieves’ as seen from the following statements:
Presenter: And now for the scam artists who come straight to your front door. They are Gypsy fraudsters, international con artists …
…
MC: The Gypsyseason is just about to start. Gypsies from the Northern Hemisphere will come here for the Australian summer. They will come with a whole range of scams…
…
Reporter: Reports today claim that Gypsies are part of organised crime teams who do more than $30 million worth of shoddy business in Australia each year. They go from state to state driving BMW’s and Range Rovers towing custom built caravans and in the end they leave their customers broke.
…
MC: It’s a cultural thing for them. It’s certainly not a cultural thing for us, fair-minded Australians. But this group of people, they see nothing wrong with it. They see nothing wrong with stealing from your grandmother or my grandmother. They just see it as someone else, another target that they will attack.
‘gratuitous emphasis on ethnic origin and race’
The Coderequires that the negative effectmust be achieved through the placing of gratuitous emphasis on an irrelevant personal characteristic, in this case, ethnic origin and race.The question for the ACMA is whether the report emphasised without reasonor justification the ethnic origin and raceof theIrish ‘Gypsies’where that unjustified emphasis had the effect of portraying them in a negative light.
The ACMA does not considerthat any negative portrayal of the Irish ‘Gypsies’ was a result of the program placing gratuitous emphasis on their ethnic origin or race. In coming to this conclusion the ACMA has considered the ordinary English language meaning of the word ‘gratuitous’, as defined in the Macquarie English Dictionary (Fifth Edition):
gratuitous adjective 2.being without reason, cause, or justification
It is noted that the reference to the Irish ‘Gypsies’ was made by MC, the representative from the Department of Fair Trading, who provided footage of a ‘recent sting’ where the Department arrested the Irishmen for selling ‘dodgy electric generators’. MC explained that there were 90 people from Ireland who were flown to Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne and were selling the products for up to $2,000 after importing them for $69. In the context of describing the surveillance operation and the people involved in the incident, it is considered that the broadcast was justified in referring to the ethnic origin of the ‘Gypsies’.
As the ACMA has not found that Irish ‘Gypsies’ were portrayed in a negative light by placing gratuitous emphasis on ethnic origin, it is not necessary to consider whether the broadcastwas in the public interest.
In conclusion, the ACMA finds that the licensee did not breach clause 4.3.10 in this instance.
Issue 3: Provoke or perpetuate intense dislike or serious contempt against a group of persons on the grounds of ethnic origin and race
Relevant Code of practice
Clause 1.9.6 of the Codestates that:
1.9A licensee may not broadcast a program, program promotion, station identification or community service announcement which is likely, in all the circumstances, to:
[…]
1.9.6 provoke or perpetuate intense dislike, serious contempt or severe ridicule against a person or group of persons on the grounds of age, colour, gender, national or ethnic origin, disability, race, religion or sexual preference…
There are exceptions to the application of clause 1.9.6 of the Code, which are listed at 1.10 of the Code. However, it is first necessary to consider whether there may have been a breach of clause 1.9.6 of the Code.
The ACMA’s interpretation of clause 1.9.6 of the Code is found at Attachment C.
Complainant’s submission
The complaint submitted to the licensee in an email dated 6 September 2011 that:
…
Gypsies are persecuted and killed in Europe today in 2011 for which they [are] given the same reasons. Gypsies are criminals which your show is encouraging as well. The same reason as Heinrich Himmler used in Nazi Germany to commit genocide to kill millions of Gypsies. Therefore you are in violation of the proscribed 1.9: 1.9.6 see below.
I’m a Gypsy, Roma by race and I would like to bring to your attention the world wide hate campaign that the media is creating against the Gypsies, by publishing articles such as “Gypsy thieves”, “Gypsies stole boat”, “Gypsy child thieves” and so on. The media, which includes TV and publishing such as ABC [Four] Corners, BBC News, New York Village Babilon [sic] and against I could write down a full list of media providers writing about the same, inciting hatred against the Gypsies.
…
The complainant identified clause 1.9.6 of the Code in relation provoking or perpetuating intense dislike, serious contempt or severe ridicule against a person or group on the grounds of ‘ethnic origin’ and ‘race’.
Licensee’s submission
The licensee submitted that, in a letter to the complainant dated 14 October 2011, that:
…
Can I emphasise from the outset that the purpose of this particular story was to highlight the dangers associated with criminal gangs who are variously referred to by government agencies and investigative bodies as ‘Gypsies’. It was not intended to convey that ‘Gypsies’ were criminals, simply that groups of criminals described as Irish Gypsy gangs were operating in Australia.
A Current Affair has a proud record of pursuing fraudsters and other criminals who have ripped off our viewers, some of these viewers, the elderly in particular, have lost their life savings at the hands of these individuals. At no time did we attempt to label a race as a criminal race, we are simply referring to individuals described as Irish Gypsies.
…
I apologise for any offence you have taken to the A Current Affair story, but I must emphatically assure you that the program is motivated only to identify criminal activity and warn our viewers to not racially vilify people.
While I understand that you interpreted the comments as remarks against the Gypsy people and therefore were understandably offended by them, we believe the comments did not reach the threshold of “intense, serious or severe” as outlined in the previous ACMA findings. For these reasons we believe the comments are not in breach of the Code.