Investigation Report No. 3266

RETs

Investigation Report No. 3266

The complaints

In October 2014, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) commenced an investigation about a Four Corners report,Power to the People,broadcast on 7 July 2014 by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (the ABC) on ABC1.

The initial complainant (Complainant A) submitted that the report breached the impartiality standards of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (revised 2014)(the Code). In January 2015, this investigation was expanded to include a second complaint(Complainant B)that raised concerns about accuracy within the program.

In his complaint to the ACMA, Complainant B noted delays in complaint handling by the ABC, which is a matter not covered by the Code, and concerns about the program’s compliance with standard 5.3 (opportunity to respond), which were not raised with the ABC in the first instance. These matters are not within the ACMA’s jurisdiction and the ACMA has not considered these aspects of the complaint in the course of this investigation.

The program has been assessed in accordance with standards 2.1 and 2.2 [accuracy] and standards 4.1, 4.2, 4.4 and 4.5 [due impartiality and diversity of perspectives] of the Code.

The program

Four Corners is a current affairs program broadcast on Mondays at 8.30pm. It is described on the ABC’s website as follows:

Four Corners is Australia's premier television current affairs program.

It has been part of the national story since August 1961, exposing scandals, triggering inquiries, firing debate, confronting taboos and interpreting fads, trends and sub-cultures.[1]

The reportin question was 45 minutes long. It exploredthe impact of the Australian Government’s decision to review the Renewable Energy Target (the RET) and featured examples of growth and developments in the renewable energy industry in Australia and in the United States of America (USA).

A transcript of the segment is at Attachment A.

Assessment

The ACMA’sfindings are based on submissions by the complainants and the ABC, and a copy of the broadcast provided to the ACMA.

Other relevant sources have been identified where used.

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[2].

The ACMA considers the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone, visual images and any inferences that may be drawn. In the case of factual material which is presented, the ACMA will also consider relevant omissions (if any).

Once the ACMA has applied this test to ascertain the meaning of the material that was broadcast, it then assesses compliance with the Code.

Issue 1: Accuracy

Relevant Code standards

Standard 2.1

Make reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented in context.

Standard 2.2

Do not present factual content in a way that will materially mislead the audience. In some cases, this may require appropriate labels or other explanatory information.

The Code requires that these standards are interpreted and applied in accordance with the relevant principles, which in this case includethe following:

The ABC requires that reasonable efforts must be made to ensure accuracy in all fact-based content. The ABC gauges those efforts by reference to:

• the type, subject and nature of the content;

• the likely audience expectations of the content;

• the likely impact of reliance by the audience on the accuracy of the content; and

• the circumstances in which the content was made and presented.

The ABC accuracy standard applies to assertions of fact, not to expressions of opinion. An opinion, being a value judgement or conclusion, cannot be found to be accurate or inaccurate in the way facts can. The accuracy standard requires that opinions be conveyed accurately, in the sense that quotes should be accurate and any editing should not distort the meaning of the opinion expressed.

The efforts reasonably required to ensure accuracy will depend on the circumstances. Sources with relevant expertise may be relied on more heavily than those without. Eyewitness testimony usually carries more weight than second-hand accounts. The passage of time or the inaccessibility of locations or sources can affect the standard of verification reasonably required.

The ABC should make reasonable efforts, appropriate in the context, to signal to audiences gradations in accuracy, for example by querying interviewees, qualifying bald assertions, supplementing the partly right and correcting the plainly wrong.

Submissions

Complainant B’s complaints to the ABC and to the ACMA concerning accuracy are at Attachment B.

Extracts from the ABC’s response to Complainant B, following an investigation by its Audience and Consumer Affairs unit,are at AttachmentC.

Findings

The ABC did not breach standards 2.1 and 2.2 of the Code.

Reasons

In applying standard 2.1 of the Code, the ACMA considers the following:

Was the particular material (the subject of the complaint) factual in character?

Did it convey a ‘material’ fact or facts in the context of the relevant broadcast?

If so, were those facts accurate?

If a material fact was not accurate (or its accuracy cannot be determined), did the ABC make reasonable efforts to ensure that the ‘material’ fact was accurate and presented in context?

In applying standard 2.2 of the Code, the ACMA also considers:

Was the particular material (the subject of the complaint) factual in character?

Was the factual contentpresented in a way that would materially (i.e. in a significant respect) mislead the audience?

The considerations the ACMA uses in assessing whether or not broadcast material is factual in character are set out at Attachment D.

Complainant B made a complaint to the ABC on 4 August 2014. He was not satisfied with the ABC’s response and complained to the ACMA. This complaintincluded a number of matters that were not raised in the initial complaint to the ABC.

As a complaint must first be made to the ABC under section 150 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, this investigation considers only those issues that were raised inComplainant B’s complaint to the ABC of 4 August 2014.

The complaints to the ABC included claims that the program was not factually accurate and that it was not impartial. These were supported by examples of ‘unfair, biased or inaccurate reporting’ quoting from the Four Corners website and program transcript. The ACMA does not have jurisdiction to investigate online content and has considered only the material that was broadcast.

The following claims concernedaccuracy.

The program:

exaggerated the claim of breakthroughs in solar power generation

did not acknowledge the economic costs to the community at large arising from regulation through the renewable energy targets (RET) and ignored submission to the Warburton inquiry concerning broader economic issues

falsely argued a solution to the ‘intermittency problem’

failed to note the impact of fracking on costs in USA and Western Europe

falsely represented the views of the Chair of the RET.

Context

In its response to Complainant B of 9 September 2004,the ABC submitted:

While noting the questions and issues you personally believe the program should have focused on, Audience and Consumer Affairs is satisfied there was no editorial requirement within the context of this report for the program to do so. It is important to understand the constraints on the amount of information that can be included in a 45 minute report.

The newsworthy matter of energy supply, its cost and the broader aspects of that issue is vast and complicated. Power to the People was not presented as the definitive view on this topic. Audience and Consumer Affairs notes that Four Corners has broadcast a range of reports on energy and related issues, on a newsworthy basis over time, and will continue to do so.

Four Corners has explained the newsworthy focus of this particular report was to examine some of the possible impacts of the Abbott government’s decision to review the Renewable Energy Target (RET) and at the same time have a look at some examples of what is happening outside of Australia, regarding investments in renewable energy. Four Corners has explained that it focused on the United States because it did not have the time or the resources to broadly canvas renewable energy investments in Europe and China, and therefore made the editorial decision to limit the program’s scope to Australia and the US.

The ACMA has previously noted that programs are entitled to take specific lines of enquiry and there is no requirement in the Code for all facts that are potentially relevant to a program to be presented.[3]

In this case, the program opened with references to the government’s change in policy tocut back the RET at a ‘critical time for investment decisions here.’ The presenter noted that ‘Australia has just about every energy resource in abundance – old and new, dirty and clean.’ He then introduced the reporter, ‘Stephen Long looks at some startling comparisons on both sides of the Pacific.’

In this way context for the report was established as being the impact of the change in policy on the RET for the renewable energy sector and a comparison of growth and developments in the industry in Australiawith those inparts of the USA.

Accuracy complaints

(a)The program exaggerated the claim of breakthroughs in solar power generation

The complaint is that the program exaggerated the claim of breakthroughs in solar power generation. Examples cited by the complainant(and set out in full at Attachment B) included:

1.The program claimed key problems in solar and wind generation were being solved, and that views to the contrary were idiotic.

8.The program falsely implied that Apple was using solar power to wholly power its cloud computing facilities.

10.The program wrongly treated the “nameplate capacities” of Australian solar and wind facilities as if they were actual outputs delivered continuously, or over any specified time period.

The ABC’s response (set out at Attachment C) was not confined to particular statements or examples. It argued that it took ‘reasonable efforts’ to substantiate the information presented in the report and said:

‘Although Four Corners illustrated new developments in renewables with case studies in California and Nevada, it relied on extensive academic research and modelling to support the story.The program confirmed there is abundant, demonstrable evidence to support the report’s analysis that new developments in renewable energy are potentially revolutionary, making it technically possible to supply ever increasing amounts of electricity from renewable sources and that some of those technologies are disrupting the existing business model of the electricity supply industry. The program clearly made the point in the reporter’s introduction that not everyone agrees in the debate on renewable and existing power sources and that the issue is contentious:

STEPHEN LONG, REPORTER: To supporters, renewable energy is part of a revolution that will eclipse fossil fuels and change the way we live and work. But, not everyone sees it that way.

The program has provided a sample of its references, for your information;

Mark A. Delucchi and Mark Z. Jacobson:

Elliston, MacGill and Diesendorf:

Bloomberg New Energy Finance:

CSIRO

The International Energy Agency

Audience and Consumer Affairs is satisfied the program’s references to renewable energy were not “sourced exclusively from vested interests in the industry in the US” and were based on published research and demonstrable evidence.We have concluded the programmet the editorial requirement for accuracy in section 2 of the ABC Code of Practice by making reasonable efforts to ensure the material facts were accurate and presented in context.

The ACMA considers that the ordinary reasonable viewer would have understood the statements in the program concerning breakthroughs in solar power to be factual material. They were specific, unequivocal and capable of independent verification. In the context of the program the statements were material facts.

As noted in the program, the issue of renewable energy and the impact of the government’s change in policy on the RET is a matter of debate in the community. The ACMA is not in a position to determine the accuracy of claims for and against assertions concerning breakthroughs in solar power. Therefore, it must assess whether the ABC made reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts were accurate and presented in context.

In the context of the program, discussed above, the ACMA notes that developmentsin the use of solar technology were discussed by the following interviewees:

John Grimes, CEO Australian Solar Council, commenting that the government wants to ‘stop renewable in their tracks’

Jeremy Rifkin, author, saying Australia is the ‘Saudi Arabia of renewable energy … why would you rely on a depleting supply of fossil fuels’, and later questioning why we would keep the old energies of the 20th century when we could have an unlimited amount or renewable energy

David Hochschild, California Energy Commissioner, discussing the growth of investment and innovation in renewable energy in California, the increase in employment in solar energy and, as a result of legislative changes California having the largest wind project in the world, the largest geothermal project in the world, the largest solar thermal and solar PV projects in the world, and the largest manufacturing operation in California being an electric car factory

Danny Kennedy, an ex Australian and Co-Founder, Sungevity, commenting on risk capital available in Silicon Valley for rooftop solar, and later on the renewables being disruptive

Heather Swan, Lancaster Power Authority, describing how her city’s facilities are powered to 98 per cent by solar

Brian Painter, who runs Crescent Dunes, a solar thermal power plant with molten salt enabling the storage of solar energy

Kevin Smith, CEO of Solarreserve, commenting that the change of policy in Australia ‘took the life out of’ the large scale renewable energy projects and to move back to conventional fuels: coal and oil

Richard Van Breda, CEO Stanwell Corporation Queensland, discussing the glut of electricity on the market, the loss of jobs and the move to solar rooftops and that coal fired power is the cheapest form of electricity

Simon Corbell, ACT Energy Minister, discussing a solar farm. A large scale solar power facility, that will assist with Canberra being 90 renewable powered by 2020, and stating ‘renewables is the cheapest source of energy into the electricity market

Pat Egan, Orange city bowling club treasurer, discussing the club’s savings after switching to rooftop solar

Lisa Jackson, Vice President Environmental Affairs, Apple, which has the largest solar farm in the USA and will have headquarters that are 100 per cent powered by renewable energy.

The reporter’s statements concerning solar breakthroughs were based on the assertions of industry experts in Australia and the USAconcerning the growth and development of solar power, participation by community in the generation of solar power and savings in end-user costs. There is no dispute that their views were misrepresented or that the meaning of their statements was distorted.

The ACMA accepts that the analysis of the program was demonstrated through these views. The reporter did not make independent factual assertions, going beyond the claims of the interviewees. It also accepts the ABC’s submissions concerning its academic research and modelling to support the analysis presented in the program.

Of the statements concerning Apple, the ABC submitted that the program did not imply that Apple was using solar energy to wholly power its cloud computing facilities, as the program went on to state that the power demands of these services ‘have led to accusations that technology companies have a “dirty cloud”’, which could not be claimed if they were running only on solar.

The reporter does not imply that Apple was using solar energy to wholly power its cloud computing facilities; the reporter did state that the Maiden solar facility generates ‘enough [kilowatt hours] to make Apple’s data centre 100 per cent powered by renewable energy’. The ordinary reasonable viewer would have inferred that this relates to the single data centre being discussed in the program. The reporter goes on to qualify that ‘it’s supplemented by fuel cells that store electricity generated from biomass’.