Investigation Report No. 3167
File No. / ACMA2014/143Licensee / Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Station / 2CN – 666 ABC Canberra Mornings
Type of Service / National Broadcaster - Radio
Name of Program / Mornings with Genevieve Jacobs
Date of Broadcast / 21 January 2014
Relevant Code / Standards 7.1 and 7.2 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (revised in 2013)
Date Finalised / 2 June 2014
Decision / No breach of standards:
· 7.1 [harm and offence]
· 7.2 [warnings or advice]
of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (revised in 2013).
Background
· In February 2014, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) commenced this investigation into a complaint about a segment of Mornings with Genevieve Jacobs broadcast by 2CN (the ABC) on 21 January 2014.
· Mornings with Genevieve Jacobs is described on the ABC website in the following terms[1]:
Mornings presents local news and issues, talking with everyday folk about current issues. Local stories and issues are at the heart of the Mornings program, bringing you fresh local and regional information - including your opportunity to ask direct questions to the ACT Chief Minster each Friday.
· The segment in question discussed the etymology and use of certain words relating to the female anatomy and sexual violence that are increasingly being used in a colloquial manner. The presenter, Genevieve Jacobs interviewed and sought the views of JP, Senior Lecturer in Journalism, University of Technology, Sydney, and SB, Editor, Macquarie Dictionary. A transcript of the segment is at Attachment A.
· The complainant submitted that:
The mornings program with G Jacobs was beyond the broad boundaries of majority of people...even though there were plenty warnings the host used the word ‘c...’ in the context of discussion which I appreciated however it was the continual use of the word and sexual discussion which upset me and I am sure many other listeners...I thought the discussion should have been either stopped or at least G should have reminded the other guest of its poor taste...
[…]
I understand the warnings given however the tone of the conversation and the hesitancy of the host to keep the conversation to the subject (in other words not let other panel members become disrespectful/vile) is my objection …
· The ABC responded to the complainant that:
The ABC’s Code of Practice allows for the broadcast of content that may offend viewers if it “is justified by the editorial context.” Where content is likely to cause offence appropriate warnings should be provided to listeners.
The discussion tackled whether particular words relating to female anatomy and sexual violence are being used in an increasingly casual way by the younger generation and, if so, whether this should be of serious concern. Many people believe this is an important subject and the discussion was conducted in a serious manner. The actual words were not used excessively, gratuitously or aggressively. Clear and appropriate warnings were given by the presenter.
Assessment
· The investigation is based on submissions from the complainant, the ABC’s response to the complainant and a copy of the broadcast provided to the ACMA by the ABC. 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 or listener.
· Australian Courts have considered an ‘ordinary, reasonable’ viewer or listener 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 and inferences that may be drawn.
· Once the ACMA has applied this test to ascertain the meaning of the material broadcast, it then determines whether that material has breached the Code.
· The ACMA has considered the ABC’s compliance with standards 7.1 and 7.2 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (revised in 2013) (the Code):
Harm and offence
7.1 Content that is likely to cause harm or offence must be justified by the editorial context.
7.2 Where content is likely to cause harm or offence, having regard to the context, make reasonable efforts to provide information about the nature of the content through the use of classification labels or other warning or advice.
· The Code includes the following provisions that are relevant to the matter raised by the complainant.
1. Interpretation
In this Code, the Standards must be interpreted and applied in accordance with the Principles applying in each Section.
[…]
The Standards in Part IV and V are to be interpreted and applied with due regard for the nature of the content under consideration in particular cases. The ABC is conscious that its dual obligations – for accountability and for high quality – can in practice interact in different ways. It can be a sign of strength not weakness that journalism enrages and art shocks. The Standards are to be applied in ways that maintain independence and integrity, preserve trust and do not unduly constrain journalistic enquiry or artistic expression.
· Standards 7.1 and 7.2 of the Code are applied by reference to the overarching principles of standard 7 (the principles)[3]. The principles are:
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. But it also contributes to diversity of content in the media and to fulfilling the ABC’s function to encourage and promote the musical, dramatic and other performing arts. 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 acknowledges that a public broadcaster should never gratuitously harm or offend and accordingly any content must have a clear editorial purpose.
The ABC potentially reaches the whole community, so it must take into account community standards. 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 judgement. Context is an important consideration. What may be inappropriate and unacceptable in one context may be appropriate and acceptable in another. Coarse language [...] may form a legitimate part of reportage, debate, documentaries or a humorous, satirical, dramatic or other artistic work. Consideration of the nature of the target audience for particular content is part of assessing harm and offence in context, as is any signposting that equips audiences to make informed choices about what they see, hear or read.
Issue: Harm and offence
Finding
The ACMA finds that the ABC did not breach standards 7.1 and 7.2 of the Code.
Reasons
· The principles relating to harm and offence in Section 7 of the Code speak of content that may take risks, is innovative and which may offend some of the audience some of the time. However, the principles acknowledge that the ABC, as a public broadcaster, should never gratuitously harm or offend. Any content that is likely to harm or offend must have a clear editorial purpose.
· Additionally, the principles state that the ABC must take into account community standards while also being able to provide content for specific target audiences whose standards may differ. The principles emphasise the need for ‘careful judgement’ in applying standards and the importance of considering the nature of the target audience when assessing harm and offence in context.
· The ACMA notes that the content included strong coarse language and for that reason it had the capacity to cause offence. However, the content was justified by the editorial context.
· In coming to this decision, the ACMA has taken account of the following:
o The language was used legitimately, in the editorial context of serious discussion about the change of word usage over time and through social media. It focused on two words, ‘rape’ and ‘cunt’ (the c-word). This context was clearly established by the presenter at the beginning of the segment, when she stated:
[...] Words can be the harshest weapons of all. Words that are harsh, words that change their meaning, words that do enormous damage because of the way we perceive them. Of course, social media causes this kind of thing to spread like wildfire. One that’s shocked me lately is the casualisation of words that I’d see, as admittedly a middle aged person, as very strong, very significant, words like ‘rape’ and one or two others.
o The guests referred to the full ‘c’ word primarily in the context of providing their expert views on the usage of the word, including the etymology of the word and the impact of this word in comparison to other coarse language.
o In response to the presenter’s comment that the second wave of feminism was keen to reclaim the ‘c-word’, JP said that she was very happy to have reclaimed the ‘c-word’. She then went on to acknowledge the use of this word in reference to her own sexual activity in terms of ‘awesome service’ over 57 years. The ordinary, reasonable listener would have understood that she made this comment to convey what she considered to be an appropriate example of ‘reclaiming’ the word, rather than for gratuitous reasons (noting that her comment was proceeded by a statement to the effect that she was ‘still struggling with the concept of saying it on the ABC’).
o The ABC, having regard to the context, made reasonable efforts to provide information about the nature of the comments including through the use of two warnings. In this regard, the ACMA notes that the presenter:
§ provided a warning at the commencement of the segment which noted that it will include ‘very strong language’; and
§ provided a warning on a second occasion, when she first introduced the ‘c’ word, stating, ‘I’m now going to give you the strongest possible language warning I can [...]’.
o On this basis, the ACMA is of the view that the ABC did not breach standards 7.1 and 7.2 of the Code.
ATTACHMENT A
Transcript
Presenter: Well remember the old rhyme, sticks and stones can break your bones but names will never hurt me? Oh dear, what a crock. Words can be the harshest weapons of all. Can’t they? Words that are harsh, words that change their meaning, words that do enormous damage because of the way we perceive them, and of course, social media causes this kind of thing to spread like wildfire. One that’s shocked me lately is the casualisation of words that I’d see, as admittedly a middle aged person, as very strong, very significant, words like ‘rape’ and one or two others.
In that context just let me say that there is a very strong language warning for this story. It’s all in context, it’s editorially appropriate and we have sort of approval. But you’ll hear a piece of very strong language a little bit later on. So please do come back later if that’s going to worry you, and I will let you know again as that’s just about to occur.
But with me now, are writer [JP], who’s also a senior lecturer in Journalism at University of Technology Sydney, [...]. [JP], hello, good morning. Oh, hang on, [JP] good morning, got you there. Hello.
JP: Hi, hello, I’m here.
Presenter: Good, fine, sorry, that’s me pressing the wrong button, and also, [SB], who is the Editor of the Macquarie Dictionary. [SB], good morning to you.
SB: good morning.
Presenter: Now swearing is one thing, but I think this is another altogether. What I’m talking about is the rise of rape as a synonym on social media for something damaging and dramatic. I think there’s beginning to be anecdotal evidence about this. English cricketer [GS] got himself into very big trouble, for using it in exactly that sense. [JP], to you first, have you heard this?
JP: All the time, and I think it’s a way of trying to trivialise something very serious. In fact, I wouldn’t say that people are even using it to signify something dramatic. I hardly think that the cricketing loss in England, the cricketing loss by the English in Australia is dramatic in the way that sexual assault is dramatic. I think it’s a way of tying to neutralise a very serious word.
Presenter: Well there seem to be a couple of contexts. We looked at a UK article that did some analysis on twitter usage, for example, where it could also be used in the context of sexual contact, but very casually. So, and I’m quoting here ‘He’s so cute I want to rape him’. [JP] what do you think could possibly be going on here?
JP: Well first, there’s a couple of thing going on. First of all I think the way we talk about sex is still very hidden. We don’t talk about intercourse in a pleasurable, happy open way. We make it secret. But we do use the word rape in public. So it’s a way of signifying sexual contact without having saying look I actually want you to penetrate me in a gorgeous way or I just want to make gorgeous love to you. I’m even blushing as I’m say this. People understand that it’s a word that is about sexual contact, but it’s about the most offensive kind of sexual contact. So I think they’re the two things happening.