Investigation Report No. 3149

File no. / ACMA2013/1639
Broadcaster / ABV
Station / ABC1 - Victoria
Type of service / National Broadcaster
Name of program / Q & A
Date of broadcast / 4 November 2013
Relevant code / Standards 4.2 and 7.1 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011
Date finalised / 3 March 2014
Decision / No breach of standard 4.2 (diversity of perspectives)
No breach of standard 7.1 (harm and offence)

Background

  • On 26 November and 3 December 2013, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) received twoseparate complaints about an episode of the television program Q & A broadcast by ABC1 - Victoria (the ABC) on 4 November 2013.
  • Q & A is a 60 minute current affairs program and is broadcast at 9.30pm on Monday nights on ABC1 across Australia. It involves a host, Tony Jones,as moderator,and a panel of guests in front of a live audience. Audience members have the opportunity to ask questions of the guest panellists. The program’s website describes Q & A as follows:

Q&A puts punters, pollies and pundits together in the studio to thrash out the hot issues of the week.

It's about democracy in action - on Q&A the audience gets to ask the questions.[1]

  • The 4 November 2013 episode was broadcast as part of the ‘Festival of Dangerous Ideas’, an annual event held at the Sydney Opera House, described on its website as

[presenting] ideas, conversation and debate from leading thinkers and culture creators in a series of talks across one dangerous weekend[2].

  • There were four guest panellists: Mr Peter Hitchens (a British journalist and author; social conservative and Christian), Ms Germaine Greer (a high-profile Australian author and feminist), Ms Hanna Rosin (an American writer active in the field of shifting gender roles) and Mr Dan Savage (an American author, journalist and prominent gay rights activist). Under the moniker ‘The collapse of Western civilisation’, the discussion covered a number of topics including sexuality, gay rights, gender roles and moral values in contemporary Western society.
  • A full transcript of the broadcast is available from the ABC’s website at:
  • The ACMA has investigated the ABC’s compliance with standards 4.2 and 7.1 of theABC Code of Practice 2011 (the Code):

Impartiality and diversity of perspectives

4.2Present a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented.

Harm and offence

7.1Content that is likely to cause harm or offence must be justified by the editorial context

Assessment

  • This investigation is based on submissions from the complainant, correspondence between the complainant and the ABC and a copy of the broadcast provided to the ACMA by the ABC. Other sources have been identified where relevant.
  • In assessing content for compliance with 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.[3]

  • In considering compliance with the Codes, the ACMA considers the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone, and any inferences that may be drawn.
  • Once the ACMA has applied this test to ascertain the meaning of the material that was broadcast, it then determines whether or not that material has breached the Codes.

Issue 1: Diversity of perspectives

Finding

The ABC did not breach standard 4.2 of the Code.

Reasons

  • The first complainant submitted the following to the ABC:

It has been my opinion for years that your left-wing bias has gone too far. Monday’s Q&A was once again compered atrociously by Tony Jones. His snide, sarcastic interruptions of the only panel member not of the left is to be condemned. He does it week after week and clearly has not been brought into line by senior managers. Why? His left-wing extremism, like that of all your current affairs presenters, is disgraceful.

He also submitted the following to the ACMA:

If the ABC seeks ‘a variety of perspectives and personalities’ how come there is generally only one guest not of the left? Their claim is untrue. The words ‘disproportionately represented’ are clearly ignored.... Mr Hitchens was not treated with respect. Tony Jones frequently interrupted his (and no-one else’s) answers. He does so week after week of guests not left-leaning, often sarcastically...

The first complainant’s submissions can be found in full at Attachment A.

  • The ABC responded as follows:

Through the course of the year Q & A invites a very wide range of guests, including many from the conservative side of politics and social opinion. In this episode, Mr Hitchens was a strong and articulate advocate for his conservative views, and despite being interrupted occasionally, he was given ample opportunity to state his arguments. Mr Jones treated him with respect.

The ABC’s submissions can be found in full at Attachment C.

  • Attachment D sets out the considerations to which the ACMA generally has regard in assessing compliance with standard 4 of the Code.
  • The ACMA notes that standard 4.2 is to be interpreted in conjunction with the Code principles for impartiality and diversity of perspectives which relevantly provide:

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.

  • The ACMA considers that more conservative strands of thought were represented during the episode. Mr Hitchens, one of the four panellists, openly identified himself as a social conservative. He spoke articulately on a number of different issuesincluding affirmation of the Christian faith, his view that the West is in a state of moral decline, and his belief that society ought to place a greater emphasis on the importance of the traditional family unit.
  • The ACMA is also not persuaded by the complainant’s submission that ‘Mr Hitchens was not treated with respect’ and that Mr Jones‘frequently interrupted his (and no-one else’s) answers’. The ACMA considers that Mr Jones allowed Mr Hitchens a number of opportunities to present his viewpoint, and that he did so courteously and respectfully. While Mr Jones did occasionally interrupt Mr Hitchens,the ACMA does not consider that this was done in an inappropriate or unfair manner, and further notes that similar interruptions were made of other panel members during the broadcast.
  • The ACMA notes that while on oneoccasion Mr Hitchens claimed that ‘you haven’t stopped anybody else’, Mr Jones made it clear that he was only interrupting as an audience member had a question dealing with the precise issue that was being discussed. The ACMA further notes that Mr Hitchens was then given a clear, unimpeded opportunity to respond to the question from the audience.
  • The ACMA is not persuaded by the complainant’s submission that Mr Jones displayed ‘left-wing extremism’ during the broadcast, or that left-wing viewpoints were given preferential treatment by him. In this regard, the ACMA notes that there was some degree of alignment on certain issues between the views of Mr Hitchens and Ms Greer despite the fact that they are identified with opposite ends of the political spectrum. Similarly, Ms Greer’s views differed from Mr Savage’s on a number of points, in particular on the discussion of the value of marriage.
  • The ACMA is therefore satisfied that the ABC did not breach standard 4.2 of the Code.

Issue 2: Harm and offence

Finding

The ABC did not breach standard 7.1 of the Code.

Reasons

  • The broadcast includedthe following exchange:

PETER HITCHENS: No, it's your misrepresentation. It’s your misrepresentation of the system I would like to defend. It isn't the system.

DAN SAVAGE: Could I characterise the system you would like to defend? It's the conservatism of ‘Ick, I don't like that, therefore you should not be allowed to do it. I don't approve of drinking. I don't use drugs myself. I don’t suck dick myself, therefore you should be legally prevented from doing those things.’

PETER HITCHENS: Well—

DAN SAVAGE: That’s radical. That is not conservative.

PETER HITCHENS: And what’s so brilliant about that because there are things I think...

DAN SAVAGE: I give a wicked blow job.

PETER HITCHENS: ...that we see around us that, that we do not...

DAN SAVAGE: I’m pretty brilliant.

PETER HITCHENS: There are things that we see around us that we do not like and if we don't act to stop then we’re guilty of allowing them to take place.

DAN SAVAGE: But ‘I don't like it’ isn't enough reason to use the force of the State to stop it. I don't like cunnilingus. I’m not going to use the force of the state to prevent that from happening.

  • The second complainant submitted the following in relation to this passage:

Absolutely disgusted that you could permit Dan Savage to say those vile descriptions of sex and the language that he used!! How could this be allowed on television??!! I have never heard a heterosexual talk like this on any media – what gives a homosexual this right??!! Australia deserves an apology.

The second complainant’s submissions can be found in full at Attachment B.

  • The ABC responded as follows in relation to this issue:

Q&A does not encourage the use of coarse language, however, the program is live and guests will sometimes use strong language to make their points. In this case, Mr Savage on three occasions within a relatively short period of time referred to sexual acts in terms which offended some viewers... Mr Savage took [Mr Hitchens’ views] as a personal affront and responded in a way that was intended to demonstrate his own lack of shame in his sexual preferences. There was, therefore, a deliberate editorial intent and context to the use of explicit language. It was not used gratuitously.

There was no warning given before the program as it was live and the use of coarse language was unpremeditated and could not have been controlled by the ABC. However, in the context of a program which was part of the Festival of Dangerous Ideas and was discussing changing sexual mores and similar issues, most viewers would not have been surprised to hear open discussion of sexual habits and attitudes.

The ABC’s submissions can be found in full at Attachment C.

  • Standard 7.1 is to be interpreted in conjunction with the Code principles for harm and offence which relevantly provide:

The ABC broadcasts comprehensive and innovative content that aims to inform, entertain and educate diverse audiences. Innovation involves a willingness to take risks, invent and experiment with new ideas. This can result in challenging content which may offend some of the audience some of the time. ... The ABC acknowledges that a public broadcaster should never gratuitously harm or offend and accordingly any content which is likely to harm or offend must have a clear editorial purpose.

... The ABC must also be able to provide content for specific target audiences whose standards may differ from generally held community attitudes. Applying the harm and offence standard requires careful judgment. Context is an important consideration. What may be inappropriate and unacceptable in one context may be appropriate and acceptable in another. Coarse language, disturbing images or unconventional situations may form a legitimate part of reportage, debate or a humorous, satirical, dramatic or other artistic work. ...

  • The ACMA considers that Mr Savage’s comments cited above would not have been likely to cause harm and offence, and to the extent that they may have caused offence to some viewers, they were justified by the editorial context in which they were made.
  • The ACMA notesthatas Q & A is a current affairs program, there is no requirement for the ABC to classify it under Standard 7.3 of the Code[4].
  • The complaint was directed at Mr Savage’s referencesin his exchange with Mr Hitchensto ‘suck dick’, ‘cunnilingus’ and stating that ‘I give a wicked blow job’. The ACMA accepts that these terms were explicit and that they may have caused offence to some viewers watching the program.
  • However, the ACMA considers that these terms, used in the context that they were, would not have been likely to cause harm or offence to the program’s target audience:
  • The content was presented within the context of a current affairs program, aimed at an adult audience, and broadcast at 9.30pm, during a time zone that was outside of viewing hours designated for children.
  • The broadcast was introduced as ‘live from the Festival of Dangerous Ideas’ and just over half way through the broadcast, Mr Jones reminded viewers that were ‘watching Q & A at the Festival of Dangerous Ideas’.
  • The Festival of Dangerous Ideas is promoted as:

A ‘must-see’ annual event for many, and a ‘must-do’ for some of the most controversial and confronting speakers in the world today.[5]

  • The panellists included a sex columnist and gay rights activist, as well as two well-known and outspoken feminists. Therefore, viewers would have appreciated that the broadcast was likely to include discussions of sexuality, and perhaps also material of a sexualnature.
  • In this context, the ACMA is satisfied that Mr Savage’s use of these terms would not have been likely to cause harm or offence to the target audience.
  • To the limited extent that some viewers may have been offended by Mr Savage’s comments, they were justified by the editorial context in which they were made.
  • The ACMA notes that Mr Savage used descriptions of sexual acts to emphasise his viewpoint in a discussion dealing with freedom to choose one’s sexual preferences and whether or not the state should have the power to intervene in this regard. As Mr Savage himself stated when Mr Hitchens accused him of being ‘rude and unpleasant’ in relation to his choice of words, ‘I’m carrying your argument to its logical extreme. I’m not being rude for no reason’.
  • The ACMA accepts the ABC’s submission that there was:

... a deliberate editorial intent and context to the use of explicit language. It was not used gratuitously.

  • The ACMA therefore considers that the ABC did not breach standard 7.1 of the Code in relation to the broadcast.

Attachment A

First complainant’s submissions

The first complainant relevantly submitted the following to the ABC:

It is high time OUR ABC stopped airing offensive (to the majority) subject matter like same sex marriage and homosexuality. You do not only air these things but glorify them. It has been my opinion for years that your left-wing bias has gone too far... Monday’s Q&A was once again compered atrociously by Tony Jones. His snide, sarcastic interruptions of the only panel member not of the left is to be condemned. He does it week after week and clearly has not been brought into line by senior managers. Why? His left-wing extremism, like that of all your current affairs presenters, is disgraceful.

He also relevantly submitted the following to the ACMA:

If the ABC seeks ‘a variety of perspectives and personalities’ how come there is generally only one guest not of the left? Their claim is untrue. The words ‘disproportionately represented’ are clearly ignored.... Left-leaning bias of Jones too. Mr Hitchens was not treated with respect. Tony Jones frequently interrupted his (and no-one else’s) answers. He does so week after week of guests not left-leaning, often sarcastically. The programme was not in keeping with editorial standards...

Attachment B

Second complainant’s submissions

The second complainant submitted the following to the ABC:

Absolutely disgusted that you could permit Dan Savage to say those vile descriptions of sex and the language that he used!! How could this be allowed on television??!! I have never heard a heterosexual talk like this on any media – what gives a homosexual this right??!! Australia deserves an apology.

The second complainant then submitted the following to the ACMA:

A guest referred to sex acts, a number of times, in great and specific detail. In the station reply to me it was because ‘he took this as an affront’. This is not true. And even if it was, it is no excuse to use vile, pictorial imagery to describe sex acts, of a 2% minority group, incidentally.

Should he be allowed to force his opinions and sexual depravity on the remaining 98% of the population? The program and ABC1 has failed in upholding its Harm & Offence standards.

7.1 – ‘Editorial context’ was absent and therefore behaviour unjustifiable.

The complainant then cited standards 7.2, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6 and 7.7, asserting that they had also been breached. Given that she did not raise any of these issues with the ABC at first instance, however, the ACMA does not have jurisdiction to investigate them.