Investigation Report No.3313
File no. / ACMA2014/916Broadcaster / Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd
Station / ATN (Sydney)
Type of service / Commercial Television
Name of program / Seven News
Date/s of broadcast / 23 October 2014
Relevant legislation/code / Clauses 4.3.1 and 4.4.1 of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2010
Date finalised / 9 April 2015
Decision / No breach of clauses 4.3.1 (accuracy) and 4.4.1 (fairness and impartiality)
The complaint
In December 2014, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) commenced an investigation into a segment of Seven News, broadcast by Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd (the licensee of ATN) on 23 October 2014.
The complaint is that the news item was ‘inaccurate’ and ‘one-sided’.
The segment has been assessed in accordance with clauses 4.3.1 (accuracy) and 4.4.1 (fairness and impartiality) of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2010 (the Code).
The program
The news item reported on the future of North Sydney Council in light of reported disputes between the Mayor and some Councillors. It included comments from:
the Mayor of North Sydney Council (the Mayor)
a Councillor of North Sydney Council (Councillor B)
a former Mayor of North Sydney Council (the former Mayor)
A transcript of the news report 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.
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 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 provision
News and Current Affairs Programs
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 accuracy requirements under clause 4.3.1 of the Code apply to factual material.
Complainant’s submissions
The complainant’s submissions are set out at Attachment B.
Licensee’s submissions
The licensee’s submissions are set out at Attachment C.
Finding
The licensee did not breach clause 4.3.1 of the Code.
Reasons
The first question for the ACMA to determine in such matters is whether the material complained of is factual material. If the material is factual, the ACMA will then consider whether it was broadcast accurately, having regard to the circumstances at the time of preparing and broadcasting the segment, and in the context of the segment in its entirety.
The considerations the ACMA uses in assessing whether broadcast material is factual in character are set out at Attachment D.
The ACMA has approached Issue 1 by assessing the accuracy complaints by reference to the following key subjects:
1. a feud/falling-out and police involvement
2. an office move and the Mayor’s personal belongings
3. a Council vote
4. the potential suspension of North Sydney Council.
The complainant has also submitted that the headline ‘Bullied Mayor’ is untrue. The broadcast did not include any graphics or text of this nature, nor did it include any comments with this reference. As such, this aspect of the complaint has not been pursued.
1. A feud/falling-out and police involvement
The complaint is that claims concerning a ‘feud’ between the Mayor and Councillors, the Mayor having fallen-out with some Councillors and the General Manager, and police involvement were untrue.
The relevant statements (in bold) are:
Presenter: The future of North Sydney Council hangs in the balance tonight as the government decides if it should be suspended. A feud between Councillors and the Mayor is so bad, police have been called in, with the Mayor saying she’s been embarrassed and humiliated.
[…]
Reporter: The Mayor has fallen out with some Councillors and the General Manager.
[…]
Reporter: Recently North Sydney Council has seen the police called in. Law suits launched, then dropped. Yelling at Council meetings and even a vote on banning a 5 minute toilet break.
The complainant submitted:
There is no “feud” between the Mayor and Councillors. As a result, there is no “feud” which has necessitated the police to be called in.
That at times, Mayoral Minutes (motions put forward by the Mayor) are not supported by a majority of the Council does not constitute a feud – that is the democratic process.
Recently, the Mayor called the police to the Council offices [in relation to an incident concerning her hand written notes], the police advised the SMH that they were no longer investigating. […] Clearly the police being called to Council by the Mayor had nothing to do with any alleged “feud” between the Mayor and Councillors.
[…] noting that Councillors who have a difference of opinion or vote differently to the Mayor does not constitute a "falling out" but is part of the democratic process.
[…] you fail to disclose that it was the Mayor who called the police in.
The licensee submitted:
These relationship issues were confirmed by Council members, the Mayor, and former Mayor […] during interviews with our reporter and are also referred to in the letter from the Minister
[…]
Additionally a report from the Minister of Local Government evidences that North Sydney Council had more Code of Conduct complaints than any other local council in NSW in 2012/2013 […]
We also draw your attention to numerous media reports that clearly support there being an acrimonious relationship between members of the council […]
Seven considers that the statements about the lawsuits and the involvement of the police are accurate. The Mayor called the police in to investigate an incident [concerning her personal notes]. This was confirmed in the complainant's letter of complaint to Seven.
The police investigation was also documented in a Sydney Morning Herald article dated 4 October 2014, […]
The statements in bold are factual material. They are specific, unequivocal and capable of independent verification.
The online Macquarie Dictionary (Sixth Edition) relevantly defines a ‘feud’ as:
noun 2. A quarrel or contention.
A notice of intention to suspend North Sydney Council was issued by the Minister for Local Government (the Minister) on 15 September 2014. This notice refers to, among other things:
[…]
Previous attempts at intervention by the Office of Local Government on 9 October 2013 and 23 January 2014, and by myself as Minister for Local Government on 14 July 2014, have failed to rectify the poor relationships that exist between the councillors and the Mayor, and the Mayor and the General Manager. Council has received three warning letters to improve its performance.
The appointment of an administrator is necessary to restore the proper or effective functioning of Council. This is essentially to give councillors some time away from each other in an attempt to remedy the acrimony that exists.
The most recent situation at Council's meeting on 1 September 2014, as outlined below, is a serious culmination of the pattern of poor or inappropriate behaviour by councillors that has not been rectified, and demonstrates a failure by Council to comply with its legislative responsibilities, standards and guidelines.
[…]
It is apparent from this notice that there had been a history of ‘poor relationships’ between the Mayor and some Councillors and the Mayor and the General Manager.
On the basis of the Minister’s notice, the ACMA is satisfied that there has been contention between the Mayor and some Councillors and the Mayor and the General Manager.
Accordingly, the ACMA is satisfied that any factual assertions within the news item concerning a ‘feud’ and a ‘falling out’ were factually accurate.
It is noted that the complainant does not dispute that police had been ‘called in’ to the Council. This is also verified by material in press reports[2]. However, the complainant submitted that this had nothing to do with an alleged ‘feud’ between the Mayor and the Councillors and the report failed to note that it was the Mayor who called the police.
The complainant submitted an explanation as to why the police were called in, which the ACMA considers is broadly related to the issue of ongoing acrimony within the Council.
On this basis, the ACMA is satisfied that the assertions that the police were ‘called in’ due to a ‘feud’ or ‘falling out’ between the Mayor and some councillors were factually accurate. The omission of detail as to who called the police did not render the above factual assertions inaccurate.
Accordingly, the licensee did not breach clause 4.3.1 of the Code in relation to these statements.
2. An office move and the Mayor’s personal belongings
The complaint is that representations concerning an office move and treatment of the Mayor’s personal belongings during the move were untrue. The complainant has submitted that the Mayor’s items were packed and moved on her behalf while she and other Councillors were at a conference and has suggested that the Mayor herself may have ‘strewn’ the items across the floor for ‘dramatic effect’.
The relevant statement in bold is:
[…]
Reporter: This is the latest salvo in a war that’s engulfed dysfunctional North Sydney Council. The Mayor’s personal belongings taken from her office and scattered on the floor in another the room [with visuals of the room].
Mayor: I felt very embarrassed in front of staff. This happened without my consent and without my consultation. I did feel humiliated.
[…]
The complainant submitted:
It appears that, subsequent to the Mayor’s belongings being carefully packed and relocated to her new office whilst she and others (including myself) were at the Local Government conference in Coffs Harbour, the Mayor’s belongings were then “strewn” around by someone else – perhaps by the Mayor herself – for dramatic effect.
The Mayor had been advised that the move was to take place imminently and was asked to pack up her personal possessions – the Mayor was also offered assistance with the packing up of her personal effects. The Mayor did not take the opportunity to pack up her personal effects prior to the move so they were carefully packed for her and relocated, as is case with office relocations that happen in any corporate environment.
When the Mayor returned from the Local Government conference in Coffs Harbour, she moved her possessions from her new office back to her old office and contacted various media outlets including yours, to try and portray a different version of events – perhaps to give the appearance of a “bullied Mayor”.
The licensee submitted:
Seven considers that the above statement is factually accurate. Seven considers that it is apparent from the video footage in the Broadcast that some of the Mayor's personal belongings were scattered on the floor, including some paperwork and personal effects spilling out of boxes on the floor. The Broadcast did not make any claim or assertion in relation to who it was that scattered the relevant belongings on the floor.
The complainant has not provided any basis on which it could be concluded that the statement in the Broadcast was inaccurate.
Distinguishing between factual material and other material, such as opinion can be a matter of fine judgement. Here, the Mayor presented her account of how the office move was handled, stating it had occurred without her consent and consultation. In this context, the ordinary reasonable viewer would have understood the Reporter’s statement in bold to be in reference to the Mayor’s first-hand, personal account of the office move and her belief that items were scattered on the floor and that she felt humiliated as result, rather than being a separate assertion of fact by the Reporter. It is also noted that the description of how the items were placed on the floor was consistent with the accompanying visuals.
The acrimony within North Sydney Council, that was the subject of the Minister’s notice of 15 September 2014, provides the context of the statements made by the Reporter and the Mayor concerning the office move.
To the extent that the statement contained a separate factual assertion by the Reporter, the ACMA accepts that there was acrimony within North Sydney Council as evidenced by the Minister’s notice. In this context, and given that the items were packed and moved on behalf of the Mayor, the Reporter’s comments on this subject were not factually inaccurate.
Accordingly, the ACMA is satisfied that the licensee did not breach clause 4.3.1 in relation to this statement.
The complaint that the Mayor’s account of how the move was handled was not challenged by the Report is considered below, under Issue 2: Fairness and Impartiality.
3. A Council vote
The complaint is that the claim that there has been a ban of a five minute toilet break was untrue.
The relevant statement (in bold) is:
Reporter: Recently North Sydney Council has seen the police called in. Law suits launched, then dropped. Yelling at Council meetings and even a vote on banning a five minute toilet break.
The complainant submitted that:
[…]
There has been no banning of a 5 minute toilet break for anyone, be they the Mayor, Councillors, staff or members of the public - everyone is free to leave the chamber whenever they wish during which time the business at hand continues. This is the case at all levels of government.