Investigation Report No. 3172
File no. / ACMA2014/149Broadcaster / Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Station / ABW - ABC News 24
Type of service / National Broadcaster
Name of program / ABC News 24
Date of broadcast / 20 January 2014
Relevant code / Standards 4.1 and 4.3 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011(revised in 2013)
Date Finalised / 3 April 2014
Decision / No breach of standard 4.1 (impartiality)
No breach of standard 4.3 (editorial opinion)
Background
· In February 2014, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) commenced this investigation into a complaint about the ABC News 24 program, broadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) on 20 January 2014.
· The program is described on the ABC website[1] as providing around the clock coverage of news events as they break at home and abroad.
· The program includes ‘tickers’ at the bottom of the screen, which are caption headings that refer to, amongst other things, the latest news headlines and stories available on the ABC’s news website.
· The complainant alleged that a news ticker broadcast on 20 January 2014 demonstrated an ‘anti government bias’. The complainant stated that:
For almost twenty-four hours continuously on Monday 20 January 2014 the ABC News 24 Channel ran the script line 'Government offer to underprivileged workers with disabilities "a stunt."
The anti government biased line had no quoted source of who thought it may be 'a stunt' ...so the conclusion could only be that this was a statement from the ABC.
Adding to this conclusion was that other similar lines running continuously at the bottom of the screen e.g.' Nauru CJ: Cancelled Visa "political stunt," were either factual statements or had a name as the author.
· The ABC responded to the complainant that ‘ticker items on News 24 are preceded by a title which explains that the following headlines are the top stories on abc.net.au/news’. The ABC also responded that the use of quotation marks denoted that the claim that payments were ‘a stunt’ was contained in the story on the website.
· The ABC’s full response is set out at Attachment A.
· The investigation has considered the ABC’s compliance with standards 4.1 and 4.3 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011(revised in 2013) (the Code):
4.1 Gather and present news and information with due impartiality
4.3 Do not state or imply that any perspective is the editorial opinion of the ABC. The ABC takes no editorial stance other than its commitment to fundamental democratic principles including the rule of law, freedom of speech and religion, parliamentary democracy and equality of opportunity.
Assessment
· This investigation is based on submissions from the complainant, the ABC’s response to the complainant, and a copy of the relevant segment of the broadcast provided to the ACMA by the ABC. 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’ listener or 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.[2]
· In considering compliance with the Code the ACMA considers the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone, visual images and 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 that material has breached the Code.
Issue: Impartiality
Finding
The ABC did not breach clause 4.1 and 4.3 of the Code.
Reasons
· The ACMA considers that a program that presents a perspective that is opposed by a particular person or group is not inherently lacking in impartiality. 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.
· The ACMA notes that ticker entries are limited, due to space and time, in terms of the amount of information that they can convey and are intended to provide a headline for the full news story on the ABC website.
· In terms of the presentation of the ticker in question, the ACMA makes the following observations:
o The ticker was preceded by the title: ‘The top stories from abc.net.au/news’ and was placed in the context of other similar tickers that clearly acted as headlines for new stories located on the website.
o While the ticker did not include the source of the claim concerning government payments, the use of quotation marks around the words ‘a stunt’ indicated that this was a claim made in the news story, and was not a comment of the ABC.
o The article on the website contained the source (a law firm) of the claim that the government payments were ‘a stunt’.
· On this basis, the ACMA considers that the ordinary reasonable viewer would have understood that the ticker contained a summary for a news story and that the full story behind that headline, including the source of the claim, was available on the ABC website.
· Accordingly, the ACMA is satisfied that the broadcast exhibited due impartiality in terms of the presentation of the ticker and did not state or imply that the perspective presented was the editorial opinion of the ABC.
· As such, the ABC did not breach standards 4.1 or 4.3 of the Code in relation to the broadcast.
Attachment A
The ABC’s submissions
The ABC submitted the following:
[...]
As your correspondence raised concerns of bias, your email was referred to Audience and Consumer Affairs for consideration and response. The unit is separate and independent from ABC program areas and is responsible for investigating complaints alleging a broadcast or publication was in contravention of the ABC's editorial standards. In light of your concerns, we have reviewed the broadcast and assessed it against the ABC’s editorial requirements for impartiality, as outlined in section 4 of the ABC’s Code of Practice: http://about.abc.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/CodeofPractice2013.pdf . In the interests of procedural fairness, we have also sought and considered material from ABC News.
Ticker items on News24 are preceded by a title which clearly explains that the following headlines are the top stories on abc.net.au/news. Since the headline in question followed close after the abc.net.au/news title it should have been clear to viewers that the headline represented a story on the news website and that that story contained a claim - attributed to a source within the source via the use of quotation marks - that the payments were "a stunt".
As is standard practice, the news website story made it very clear who was making that assertion. The first line of the story read: “Law firm Maurice Blackburn says underpaid intellectually disabled workers have been made an unfair offer by the Federal Government”. One of the firm's partners, [name], goes on to describe it as a stunt.
News believes that it important to be as transparent as possible in all circumstances and, where space and time allow, ticker entries should contain as much information as possible while still serving their purpose as an overall summary of the story. They advise that they will reaffirm this message to staff responsible for writing ticker entries.
Accordingly, while noting your concerns, Audience and Consumer Affairs are satisfied the broadcast was in keeping with the ABC’s editorial standards for impartiality.
[...]
ACMA Investigation Report 3172 – ABC News 24 broadcast by Australian Broadcasting Corporation on 20 January 2014 5
[1] www.abc.net.au/news/abcnews24/
[2] Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (1998) NSWLR 158 at 164-167.