Investigationreport no. BI-264
SummaryLicensee / Harbour Radio Pty Limited
Station / 2GB
Type of service / Commercial—radio
Name of program / The Chris Smith Show
Dateof broadcast / 15 March 2016
Relevant code / Code 2.2 of the Commercial Radio Australia Codes of Practice & Guidelines 2013
Date finalised / 21 February 2017
Decision / No breach of code 2.2 [accuracy]
Background
In November 2016, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) commenced an investigation under section 170 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (the BSA) intoThe Chris Smith Show.
Theprogramwas broadcast on 2GB by Harbour Radio Pty Limited (the licensee) on
15 March 2016.
The ACMA received a complaint allegingthat Mr Smith presented an‘uncorroborated’view about climate change, which ‘is not shared by any expert body, authority or government globally’, and presented a ‘cherrypicked view’ based on ‘a highly selective climate data set’.
The ACMA hasinvestigatedthe licensee’s compliance with code 2.2 [accuracy]of the Commercial Radio Australia Codes of Practice & Guidelines 2013 (the Codes).
The program
The Chris Smith Show is a current affairs program, described as follows:
Chris Smith has worked in news and current affairs on radio and TV nationally and internationally for more than 30 years ... His focus on-air is breaking news, but after 15 years hosting his program, he also knows how to entertain and have fun.[1]
The program of 15 March 2016 featured a discussion aboutthe need for, and the effectiveness of, vitamins and other supplements. Mr Smith spoke to a number of callers about their views and experiences with different medication, alternative medicines and supplements, and made a number of comments about the need for an evidence-based approach to make informed decisions about these products.
Towards the end of this discussion, Mr Smith read out part of an email he had received from a listener asserting that he took an evidence-based approach to vitamins, but not to climate change. Mr Smith then made a number of comments about climate change.
A transcript of an excerpt from the segmentis at Attachment A.
Assessmentand submissions
When assessing content, the ACMA considers the meaning conveyed by the material, including the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone,and any inferences that may be drawn. This is assessed according to the understanding of an ‘ordinary reasonable’ listener or viewer.
Australian courts have considered an ‘ordinary reasonable’ 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]
Once the ACMA has ascertained the meaning of the material that was broadcast, it then assesses compliance with the Codes.
This investigation has taken into account the complaint(at Attachment B) and submissions from the broadcaster (at Attachment C). Other sources are identified where relevant.
Relevant Code provisions
Commercial Radio Australia Codes of Practice & Guidelines 2013
CODE OF PRACTICE 2:
NEWS AND CURRENT AFFAIRS PROGRAMS
Purpose
The purpose of this Code is to promote accuracy and fairness in news and current affairs programs.
[…]
2.2In the preparation and presentation of current affairs programs, a licensee must use reasonable efforts to ensure that:
(a) factual material is reasonably supportable as being accurate; and
(b)substantial errors of fact are corrected at the earliest possible opportunity.
[…]
Definitions
current affairs program means a program a substantial purpose of which is to provide interviews, analysis, commentary or discussion, including open-line discussion with listeners, about current social, economic or political issues.
Finding
Thelicenseedid not breachcode 2.2 of the Codes.
Reasons
To assess compliance, the ACMA has addressed the following questions:
What does the material convey to the ordinary reasonable listener?
Was the material factual in character?
Were reasonable efforts used (at the time of broadcast) to ensure that the factual material was reasonably supportable as being accurate?
The complainant submitted:
2GB presented a view which is uncorroborated and which is not shared by any expert body, authority or government globally, or the UN, etc. It is essentially [a] cherrypicked view, utilising an unusually high El Nino year in a highly selective climate data set.
[…]
2GB also cherrypicks its 'expert' opinion - one, UK citizen Mr Monckton, is not a scientist; he has a degree in classics and a diploma in journalism. Why do they not check the CSIRO's website, or make a local phone call to them or check with any other expert body globally? The other expert is a relatively obscure, lone voice.
The licensee submitted:
The nub of the complaint is compliance with clause 2.2 of the Code regarding the assertion in the broadcast that "in the past seventeen years, if you want to look in a more modern way, warming has plateaued".
This statement was mischaracterised in the complaint as "no warming in seventeen years". Contrary to the assertion that Mr Smith denied warming, he went on to say "And as John Christy from the IPCC said on this very program, thank Godwe're warming and not cooling. And there's alot of evidence to say that it is good that we are warming and not cooling."
Consequently, the complainant's characterisation of Mr Smith's remarks on the show as denying global warming is incorrect.
The talkback format is a common feature of current affairs radio programs, providing analysis, commentary and discussion with listeners about current social, economic or political issues.It frequently approaches matters from a strong viewpoint,which is part of the appeal of such programs to their listeners.[3] Much of what is said on talkback radio will be in the nature of opinion.
The ACMA notes that for current affairs programs, there is not the same requirement for fairness and impartiality that applies to news. Current affairs and talkback programs are not precluded from taking a position on any matter and are not required to be balanced or to include all information about a particular issue.
The accuracy requirements in the Code only apply to statements of fact and do not apply to statements of opinion. In distinguishing between factual material and other material such as opinion, the ACMA has regard to all contextual indications (including subject, language, tenor and tone and inferences that may be drawn) in making its assessment. The considerations that the ACMA applies in assessing whether material is factual in nature are set out at Attachment D.
Where a program, such as The Chris Smith Show, includes factual material, code 2.2(a) of the Code requires licensees to use reasonable efforts to ensure that any factual material is reasonably supportable as being accurate.
What does the material convey to the ordinary reasonable listener?
Mr Smith stated that:
I just believe that evidence comes from past events, not from future modelling, and that’s where all the hysteria has come from in terms of climate change, that we’re going to be six foot under. It’s all future modelling; it’s not past events.
Mr Smith then made three comments about warming:
‘If you looked at past events for evidence, which you should when it comes to climate change, you’ll know that it has been warming in the world for 14,000 years. Hardly the fault of human CO2, Jess.’
‘In the past 17 years, if you want to look in a more modern way, warming has plateaued.’
‘As John Christy from the IPCC said to me on this program, thank God we’re warming and not cooling, and there’s a lot of evidence to say that it’s good that we are warming and not cooling.’
The ACMA considers that:
the ordinary reasonable listener would have understood that Mr Smith was referring to the warming of the atmosphere in these comments
the abovethree commentstaken together would have conveyed to the ordinary reasonable listener that:
- atmospheric temperatureshave been increasing for 14,000 years, and
- there has beena plateauing (little or no increase) in warming of the atmospherein the past 17 years.
Further, the ACMA considers that listenerswould haveunderstood from Mr Smith’s language and argumentative tone, that he was defending a viewpoint about the merits of future modellingand theextent to which humans are responsiblefor global warming. It would have been apparent that the segment did not purport to analyse the science around broader climate change issues and that Mr Smith was not presenting himself as an expert in this field.
Was the material factual in character?
Statements that were opinion
The ACMA considers that Mr Smith’s comments about past evidence being better than future modelling was an expression of his opinion becausetheybegan with the words ‘I just believe’ and included imprecise language such as ‘we’re going to be six foot under’ and ‘hysteria’.
Statements that were factual in character
Mr Smith’s statements about earlier comments made by Dr John Christy on his program about warming being better than cooling were factual in character in so far as they related to what Dr Christy said on the program. It is not alleged that Dr Christy’s views were inaccurately presented by Mr Smith.Mr Smith’s statement that warming has occurred over the last 14,000 years was also factual in character, but not alleged to be inaccurate by the complainant.
Mr Smith’s statement that warming has plateaued in the last 17 years wasfactual incharacteras it was specific, unequivocal and capable of independent verification.
Were reasonable efforts used (at the time of broadcast) to ensure that the factual material was reasonably supportable as being accurate?
The licensee submitted that it reliedon a number of articles, interviews and reports about climate change to support the accuracy of Mr Smith’s comments:
TheIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) FifthAssessment Report released in stages in 2013 and 2014
a New Scientist article published in 2008[4]
an interview with Dr Christy broadcast on Mr Smith's program in 2011
an article referring to Dr Christy's research work published on cnsnews.comin 2013[5]
an article by Lord Christopher Moncktonpublished on climatedepot.comin 2015[6]
an article published in the Mail on Sunday in 2012.[7]
While there is debate within the scientific community over the human contribution to carbon dioxide levels and the rate and degrees of warming, there is reasonable consensus by peer reviewed scientific organisations such as the IPCC[8] and other agencies such as the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)[9] that the earth has warmed in recent decades.
Analysis of climate change takes into account ‘multiple independent climate indicators’ including ‘changes in surface, atmospheric and oceanic temperatures; glaciers; snow cover; sea ice; sea level and atmospheric water vapour’.[10]The IPCC has noted:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.[11]
The licensee submitted that Mr Smith did not deny that climate change is occurring and that his comment that ‘it is good that we are warming and not cooling’ demonstrated that ‘the complainant’s characterisation of Mr Smith’s remarks on the show as denying global warming is incorrect’. The ACMA accepts this submission.
With regard to Mr Smith’s comment about the ‘plateauing’ in warming in the last 17 years, the ACMA notes that there was scientific observation by the IPCCin 2013[12]of slowdown in the rate of rise in global mean and average surface temperatures, while broader indicators provided evidence that climate change was occurring.[13]The apparent slowdown, which commenced with the 1998 El Niño event, was termed a ‘hiatus’ by the IPCC.
With the exception of the article by Lord Monckton, the material cited by the licensee as being relied upon was a number of years old.Since the release of the IPCC report in 2013, and beforethe program was broadcast, temperature information for the years 2014 and 2015 became available. This information provides that the year 2014 was the warmest year since records began in 1880[14] and that this wassurpassed by the year 2015, which marked the largest margin by which an annual temperature record has been broken.[15]These last two years might be seen to be a sharp uptick following the ‘hiatus’ described by the IPCC in 2013.
The question for the ACMA, in these circumstances, is whether reasonable efforts were made to ensure that the statement was reasonably supportable as being accurate. The material relied upon to support the accuracy of a fact should be commensurate with the nature and context of the subject matter.
In an investigation of compliance with code 2.2, the role of the ACMA is not necessarily to adjudicate on the accuracy of the factual content broadcast. Rather, it must determine whether the licensee made reasonable efforts to ensure that the factual content was reasonably supportable as being accurate(at the time of broadcast).What efforts are reasonable in a given situation will depend on all the relevant circumstances.
Mr Smith’s statements would have benefited from the up to date information that there were significant increases in global surface temperatures in 2014 and 2015, and an acknowledgement that an assertion of a plateauing of warming related to surface temperature measures only. However,given the immediacy of the medium of live talk-back radio and thatMr Smith’s brief, off-the-cuff comments about climate changewere made within what was otherwise a lengthy discussion about vitamins, the ACMAconsiders, on balance, that the licenseemade reasonable efforts to ensure that the factual material was reasonably supportable as being accurate.
Accordingly, the ACMA does not find a breach by the licenseeofcode 2.2 of the Codes.
Observations
As noted above,additional global data has been released since the 2013 IPCC report. The most recent data indicates that2016 was:
the warmest year in NOAA's [National Centers for Environmental Information] 137-year series. Remarkably, this is the third consecutive year a new global annual temperature record has been set.[16]
This highlights that care should be taken by licensees when broadcasting factual statements about changes in global surface temperatures. This is particularly the case when specifying particular time frames, such as referring to the rate of change in ‘the past X years’, given the accuracy of such statements will likely vary over time. Reasonable efforts includes an expectation that the most recent information available will be considered by a licensee in determining whether factual material is reasonably supportable.
Similarly, care needs to be taken by licensees when broadcasting factual material about climate change in general, noting that new evidence is regularly released on the range of indicators measured, not just global surface temperatures.
Attachment A
Excerpt from transcript of segment on The Chris Smith Show broadcast on 2GB on 15 March 2016
Chris Smith:Evidence-based drugs and drugs based on anecdotes. There are so many websites around that say ‘this will protect your heart’, ‘this will stop you having a stroke’, but it’s not evidence based, it’ssimply a series of anecdotes from people saying ‘it worked for me’.
[Callers ring in with stories about medication they take.]
Chris Smith: You start taking supplements and you take the wrong supplements with alternative medicines, the problem is that it’s hard to get the definitive ruling on what can be mixed with what because alternative medicine practitioners will tell you a different story to the next one. 131873.
Jess has just written me an email from Zetland, g’day there Jess. ‘It’s funny how you defend the science behind vaccines, fluoride and vitamins’ - well only certain vitamins, Jess, the ones that have evidence-based information behind them -‘while denying climate change on the other hand. You don’t care about evidence, only politics’.
Well, Jess, no, it is all about the evidence concerning climate change and I just believe that evidence comes from past events, not from future modelling, and that’s where all the hysteria has come from in terms of climate change, that we’re going to be six foot under. It’s all future modelling. It’s not past events.
If you looked at past events for evidence, which you should when it comes to climate change, you’ll know that it has been warming in the world for 14,000 years. Hardly the fault of human CO2, Jess.
And in the past 17 years, if you want to look in a more modern way, warming has plateaued, and as John Christy from the IPCC said to me on this program, thank God we’re warming and not cooling, and there’s a lot of evidence to say that it’s good that we are warming and not cooling. So it is about evidence, but just not about future predictions and hysteria.
[Callers rings in with stories about medication they take.]
Chris Smith: It’s good to have hope, but it’s not good to have false hope though,and I am going to a break to take us to the news, but it’s false hope and expense that doctors should be looking at and just simply tell us the truth.