• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Investigations 3195 and 3224 File no. ACMA2014/273 and ACMA2014/446 Broadcaster Australian Broadcasting Corporation Station ABC1 Type of service ABC television Name of program Media Watch Dates of broadcast 17 February 2014 and 24 February 2014 Relevant code Standards 2.1, 2.2, 3.1 and 5.3, and Section III of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (revised in 2014) Date finalised 24 September 2014 Decision The Australian Broadcasting Corporation: did not breach standard 2.1 did not breach standard 2.2 did not breach standard 3.1 did not breach standard 5.3 complied with Section III of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (revised in 2014) ACMA Report into investigations 3195 and 3244 – Media Watch broadcast by ABC1 on 17 and 24 February 2014 The complaints On 31 March 2014, the ACMA commenced an investigation into an episode of the program, Media Watch, broadcast by the ABC on 17 February 2014 (the first broadcast). The ACMA commenced its investigation following receipt of a complaint that the ABC breached standards 2.1, 3.1 and 5.3 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (revised in 2014) (the Code) in respect of the statement in the first broadcast (the statement) that: Insiders tell Media Watch that The Australian is losing $40 million to $50 million a year. On 5 June 2014, the ACMA commenced an investigation into an episode of Media Watch broadcast by the ABC on 24 February 2014 (the second broadcast). The ACMA commenced its further investigation following receipt of a complaint that the second broadcast ‘present[ed] facts in a misleading way’ and ‘did not correct errors in an appropriate way’. The complaints were made by lawyers acting for Nationwide News Pty Limited, the publisher of The Australian (the complainant). The ACMA has investigated the complaints together as they are from the same complainant and concern related broadcasts. The program Media Watch is presented by Paul Barry and is broadcast on ABC1 on Monday nights at 9.20 pm and Wednesday mornings at 12.25 am. The program is described on the ABC’s website as follows: Media Watch is Australia's leading forum for media analysis and comment. Conflicts of interest, bank backflips, deceit, misrepresentation, manipulation, plagiarism, abuse of power, technical lies and straight out fraud: Media Watch has built an unrivalled record of exposing media shenanigans since it first went to air in 1989. The media provides the information we need to make decisions about our lives, but how reliable are the media reports that shape our views of the world? Media Watch turns the spotlight onto those who literally 'make the news': the reporters, editors, sub-editors, producers, camera operators, sound recordists and photographers who claim to deliver the world to our doorsteps, radios, computers and living rooms. We also keep an eye on those who try to manipulate the media: the PR consultants, spin-doctors, lobbyists and "news makers" who set the agenda. The first broadcast, a 13 minute long program on 17 February 2014, was called ‘Clicks, cats and crazy headlines’ and focused on pressures facing print media in Australia generally from falling circulations, loss of advertising revenue and competition from new online sites. The second broadcast was an 87 second long segment on 24 February 2014 called ‘Media Watch responds to The Australian’, described as ‘an attempt to set the record straight’ on The Australian’s (the newspaper) financial performance. It included footage from a video interview between Chris Mitchell, the newspaper’s Editor-in-Chief, and Sharri Markson, the ACMA Report into investigations 3195 and 3224 – Media Watch broadcast by ABC1 on 17 and 24 February 2014 2 newspaper’s Media Editor (the interview). The interview was published on the newspaper’s website earlier the same day. Complete transcripts of the first broadcast and the second broadcast are at Attachment A and Attachment B respectively. Assessment This investigation is based on correspondence between the complainant and the ABC, submissions from the complainant and the ABC to the ACMA, and the broadcasts. Other sources used have been identified in the report. 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 Accuracy of the statement in the first broadcast Relevant Code standard 2. Accuracy 2.1. Make reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented in context. The Code requires that standards are interpreted and applied in accordance with relevant Principles. In the case of factual accuracy, the relevant Principles include: 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. 1 Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 at 164-167. ACMA Report into investigations 3195 and 3224 – Media Watch broadcast by ABC1 on 17 and 24 February 2014 3 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 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 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. Complainant’s submissions The complainant submitted to the ABC that ‘the statement is factually incorrect’ and that: the obligation on the ABC to make reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented in context … [was] not complied with in circumstances where this assertion was not put to any of the Editor-in-Chief, Editor, Finance Manager or CEO of The Australian, the Director – Policy, Corporate Affairs and Community Relations, or Head of Corporate Affairs of News Corp Australia. The complainant further submitted to the ABC that ‘had the program … made the bare minimum of enquiries, let alone “reasonable efforts”, it would have been advised that the statement is wrong’. To the ACMA, the complainant submitted that: The attribution of the information to ‘insiders’ clearly imputes that the statement of fact has been subjected to scrutiny … and is accurate. It imputes that the information came from News Corp Australia or The Australian itself, when in fact, Mr Barry has publicly confirmed neither entity was approached for a response. The complainant’s submissions are at Attachment C. ABC’s submissions The ABC responded to the complainant that: The statement concerning [the complainant] was based on information provided to Media Watch by sources reasonably expected to have the requisite knowledge. And also: … having three sources that are judged reliable and well-informed is sufficient confirmation to publish an attributed estimate. In the circumstances, the efforts made by Media Watch to ensure the accuracy of the statement were reasonable … The ABC’s submissions are at Attachment D. Decision The ABC did not breach standard 2.1 of the Code. ACMA Report into investigations 3195 and 3224 – Media Watch broadcast by ABC1 on 17 and 24 February 2014 4 Reasons In applying standard 2.1 of the Code, the ACMA usually adopts the following approach: Was the particular content complained about factual in character? Did it convey a ‘material’ fact or facts in the context of the relevant segment? 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? The first consideration is whether the content complained about is factual. Some considerations which the ACMA generally applies in assessing whether particular broadcast content is factual in character are set out in Attachment E. In this case, the ACMA considers that the nub of the statement is appropriately characterised as factual. It cited a specific range of figures ($40-50 million) that are capable of independent verification and was not qualified in a way that would suggest it was mere speculation or an expression of opinion. The ACMA notes that the statement identified the source of the range of figures as ‘insiders’. In the context of the broadcast, this attribution to ‘insiders’ was likely to convey to the audience that the figures had been provided by people with access to accurate information reinforcing for the ordinary, reasonable viewer that that statement was factual in character.

Load more

  47

Copy Link