Investigation Report No. 2957
File No. / ACMA2013/143Licensee / Channel Seven Queensland Pty Ltd
Station / STQ Wilde Bay
Type of Service / Commercial television
Name of Program / Seven Local News (Channel 7 Wide Bay News)
Date of Broadcast / 15 November 2012
Relevant Code / Clauses 4.3.1 and 4.4.1 of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2010
Date Finalised / 20 June 2013
Decision / No breach of clauses 4.3.1 (factual accuracy) and 4.4.1 (impartiality)
The complaint
On 14 January 2013, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) received a complaint about the broadcast of a segment of Seven Local News (Channel 7 Wide Bay News)on 15 November 2012 by Channel Seven Queensland Pty Ltd (the licensee).
The complaint is that the segment was ‘grossly exaggerated, distorted and unbalanced’ in its reporting of a foreshore protest about the clearing of vegetation.
Not satisfied with the response of the licensee, the complainant referred the matter to the ACMA for consideration.[1]
The complaint has been investigated in accordance with clauses 4.3.1 [presentation factual material accurately and represent viewpoints fairly]; and 4.4.1 [present news fairly and impartially] of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2010 (the Code).
Matter not pursued
The complainant has requested a retraction and an apology with respect to the broadcast content of concern to him. The ACMA does not have the power to direct a licensee to make an apology or retract content, and accordingly, this aspect of the complaint has not been pursued.
The program
Seven Local News (Channel 7 Wide Bay News) is a local news program broadcast weekdays at 6pmon Channel Seven (STQ Wide Bay).
The segment complained about reported on a local Council’s plan to clear vegetation at the foreshore at Hervey Bay, and the reaction of both local businesses and environmentalists. The segmentcommenced as follows:
[Presenter]: Esplanade businesses have slammed protestors who are calling on council to halt its major clearing project along Hervey Bay’s foreshore. Environmentalists have begun a 4 day protest against the works. But businesses say they’re reaping the benefits from the beautification project.
The segment ran for 1 minutes and 43 seconds and included the viewpoints of the presenter, the reporter, local businesses, and environmentalist protestors.
A transcript of the segment is at Attachment A.
Assessment
This investigation is based on submissions from the complainant and the licensee and a copy of the broadcast provided to the ACMA by the licensee. Other sources used have been identified where relevant.
‘Ordinary, reasonable’ viewer test
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 or listener.
Australian Courts have considered an ‘ordinary, reasonable’ reader (or 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[2].
The ACMA 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 1: Accuracy
Relevant code clause
4.3 In broadcasting news and current affairs programs, licensees:
4.3.1 must 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.
The considerations which the ACMA generally applies in assessing whether particular broadcast material is factual in character are set out atAttachment B.
Complainant’s submissions
The complainant’s submissions are set out at Attachment C.
Licensee’s submissions
The licensee’s submissions are set out at Attachment D.
Finding
Thelicensee did not breach clause 4.3.1 of the Code in relation to the broadcast of Seven Local News(Channel 7 Wide Bay News)on 15 November 2012.
Reasons
Clause 4.3.1 of the code obliges the accurate presentation of factual material and the fair representation of viewpoints.
The complainant has raised concerns about the accuracy of the following statements in the broadcast:
- Presenter:Esplanade businesses have slammed protestors who are calling on council to halt its major clearing project along Hervey Bay’s foreshore; and
- Business owner:Most people that are complaining about it are not necessarily the residents down here, or the business owners down here. They have seen an improvement; and
- Reporter:The Hervey Bay Foreshore protection group has set up camp on the esplanade for the next few days. Confident strong winds and a high tide tomorrow will prove once and for all Council’s clearing was a bad idea.
- Esplanade businesses have slammed protestors who are calling on council to halt its major clearing project along Hervey Bay’s foreshore.
The complainant’s concern is that it was inaccurate to say ‘slammed’ when there were only three local businesses in the program who favoured the clearing of vegetation.
The accuracy provisions of the Code apply to factual material. Accordingly, the first issue is to determine whether the statement was presented as a statement of fact, or opinion. As outlined at Attachment B, this is assessed in accordance with contextual indications, including the language, tenor and tone of the statement and the remaining broadcast.
The ACMA notes that immediately following this statement the presenter stated:
Environmentalists have begun a 4-day protest against the works. But businesses say they’re reaping the benefits from the beautification project.
The term ‘slam’ according to the Macquarie English Dictionary (Online)is colloquial for ‘a severe criticism’. The ‘severe criticism’ in this case describes the reaction of one side to a dispute the details of which subsequently unfolded in the segment. While the term contains a subjective element indicative of an opinion, the statement on the whole was presented as fact.
Clause 4.3.1.1 of the Code states that ‘an assessment of whether the factual material is accurate is to be determined in the context of the segment in its entirety’. The segment was about a local Council’s plan to clear land along a foreshore. The segment reported on the dispute that ensued including a group that agreed with the plan and a group that did not. The ACMA is of the view that the ordinary, reasonable viewer would have understood the term ‘slammed’ as the local businesses expressingdisagreement to an action in the context of a debate. This was not inaccurate. To the extent that the statement came across as an exaggeration of numbers, when viewed in context of the entirety of the segment, the ordinary reasonable viewer would have obtained sufficient details on both sides of the debate and would not have been misled by the use of the term.
Accordingly, the licensee did not breach the Code in relation to the presentation of statement 1 in the broadcast.
- Most people that are complaining about it are not necessarily the residents down here, or the business owners down here. They have seen an improvement.
In his complaint to the station, the complainant stated:
One business owner who was interviewed on your program, said that some of the protestors were not even local business people. Does this owner and Journalist Tara, who interviewed her, believe that you have to be a business owner to be able to protest about the clearing of the foreshore?
The four peaceful protestors shown on camera on your program are all local residents of approximately 80 years, 39 years, 38 years and 7 years. Does the business owner and Journalist Tara, consider these people unsuitable to be peaceful protestors? The elderly lady spoke about her long residence in the Bay, and that her ancestors had planted trees on the foreshore. This occurred during the segment, where the four people mentioned were asked by Journalist Tara to chant “Stop the Chop”, yet her words were not aired on your program. I was the only one of the protestors who was interviewed and given air, yet three business owners were interviewed and given air time.
While the statement came from an interviewee who is party to the debate, having regard to the unequivocal language, tenor and tone, the statement would have been understood by an ordinary reasonable viewer as one of fact.
The first concern of the complainant is that this statement inferred that a person needs to be a resident in order to have serious concerns about the vegetation of that area.
The ACMA does not consider that it was the position in this statement. The ordinary reasonable viewer would have understood the statement on face value, that most of the people concerned about vegetation clearing are not all local businesses or residents.
The ACMA does not understand there to be a dispute that not all protestors are residents at the local foreshore.
The complainant’s second concern about this statement is that the four protestors in the segment are in fact all local residents, one of which spoke of her residency there but it was omitted.
While the licensee is not required to present all factual material available to it, if the omission of some factual material means that the factual material actually broadcast is not presented accurately, this may amount to a breach of the obligation. The ACMA does not consider this to be such a case. Including details of the residency of the protestors appearing in the broadcast would not have altered the meaning conveyed.
Accordingly, the licensee did not breach clause 4.3.1 of the Code with respect to statement 2 in the broadcast.
- The Hervey Bay Foreshore protection group has set up camp on the esplanade for the next few days. Confident strong winds and a high tide tomorrow will prove once and for all Council’s clearing was a bad idea.
Immediately after this statement, the complainant appears in the broadcast stating:
Complainant: As the winds get ah stronger, these pubs and restaurants and businesses over here are going to start to feel the effects of that.
The complainant submitted:
This is one piece of evidence not proof. I hold a Bachelor of Science Degree and would not and did not make such a reported statement.
The ordinary, reasonable viewer would have understood the statement to be a factual assertion. The language, tenor and tone used by the reporter is unequivocal and does not allude to individual viewpoint.
The complainant is concerned about the use of the word ‘prove’ in the statement, because there is already ‘evidence’ of the type of damage that can be caused to the foreshore if the land is cleared.
The question for the ACMA is what message would have been conveyed by this statement to an ordinary, reasonable viewer. The ACMA is satisfied that the ordinary, reasonable viewer would have understood the statement to suggest that the protestors were hopeful for the forecast weather to contemporaneouslyexemplify the negative effects of land clearing as part of the protest’s cause. The ACMA does not understand the complainant to dispute that this was the case.
The ordinary, reasonable viewer would not have understood the presenter to suggest that there is no evidence or that there is a need for ‘proof’ in order for the clearing of vegetation to not go ahead.
Accordingly, the licensee did not breach clause 4.3.1 of the Code in relation to statement 3 made in the broadcast.
Fair representation of viewpoints
In determining whether or not a licensee has represented a viewpoint fairly (having regard to the circumstances at the time of preparing and broadcasting the program), the ACMA takes into account that the code does not require a licensee to present all material which it obtains. The overriding requirement is that the program, that is, whatever goes to air in its entirety, must represent viewpoints fairly. A program may omit material, but must not misrepresent a viewpoint in doing so.
The ACMA notes that the segment did not name the complainant has having stated that ‘strong winds and a high tide tomorrow will prove once and for all Council’s clearing was a bad idea’. To the extent that the statement was purporting to represent the complainant’s viewpoint, the ordinary reasonable viewer in this case would not have been misled by the use of the term ‘prove’ as opposed to ‘evidence’. The ACMA considers that these terms are synonymous. The term ‘prove’ is defined by the Macquarie English Dictionary(online) as ‘to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument’; and the term ‘evidence’ is defined as ‘ground for belief; that which tends to provide or disprove something; proof’. The ordinary reasonable viewer in this case would not have been misled by the use of the term ‘prove’ as opposed to ‘evidence’, particularly in light of the message conveyed by the statement explored above.
Furthermore, the complainant himself appeared in the broadcast enabling the viewer to fully understand the perspective of the complainant. There is no evidence before the ACMA to indicate that the complainant’s view was edited out of context or misrepresented in the sense contemplated by the Code.
Accordingly, the licensee did not breach clause 4.3.1 of the Code in relation to the representation of the complainant’s viewpoint.
Issue 2: Impartiality
Relevant code clause
4.4 In broadcasting news programs ... licensees:
4.4.1 must present news fairly and impartially.
The considerations which the ACMA generally applies in assessing fairness and impartiality of particular broadcast material are set out atAttachment E.
Complainant’s submissions
The complainant’s submissions are set out at Attachment C.
Licensee’s submissions
The licensee’s submissions are set out at Attachment D.
Finding
The licensee did not breach clause 4.4.1 of the Code in relation to the broadcast of Seven Local News on 15 November 2012.
Reasons
The code imposes on commercial television licensees the requirement that news programs (as distinct from current affairs programs) be presented fairly and impartially.
At the outset, the ACMA notes that under the Code it is legitimate for a licensee to investigate and report on matters of public interest and concern.
In this case, in summary, the ACMA considers that the segment broadcastdid not breach the requirements of clause 4.4.1. In reaching this view, the ACMA had regard to the tenor and tone of the presenter and reporter, and the broadcast contained both sides of the debate. On the whole, the broadcast could not reasonably be found to amount to an unfair or partial presentation of news. The segment itself demonstrated a willingness to include alternative viewpoints without conveying any prejudgment, and there was sufficient material to allow a viewer to form its own view of the relevant issues at hand. The following viewpoints of the protestors were included fairly, without any contextual editing:
- Environmentalists have begun a 4 day protest against the works.
- The Hervey Bay Foreshore protection group has set up camp on the esplanade for the next few days. Confident strong winds and a high tide tomorrow will prove once and for all Council’s clearing was a bad idea.
- Complainant [organiser]: As the winds get ah stronger, these pubs and restaurants and businesses over here are going to start to feel the effects of that.
- Reporter: But, environmentalists remain unmoved.
[banner – stop the chop]
Complainant: What do you do? You get on the phone you ring the police, you don’t go and cut down trees.
The segment ended with the reporter stating that Council had been invited to meet with the protestors, and included an image of a newspaper article heading of a business that had been hit by a tidal surge:
- Reporter: [image of newspaper article – Urangan businesses hit hard by tidal surge] Council has been invited to meet with protestor’s tomorrow.
On balance, taking account of the context of the segment, the neutral tone of the reporter and the opportunity to air both sides of the debate, the ACMA is satisfied that the segment broadcast did not breach clause 4.4.1 of the Code.
Attachment A
Transcript – Seven Local News
[Presenter] Esplanade businesses have slammed protestors who are calling on council to halt its major clearing project along Hervey Bay’s foreshore. Environmentalists have begun a 4 day protest against the works. But businesses say they’re reaping the benefits from the beautification project.