GTV9 Melb - ACMA Investigation Report 2940

Investigation Report No. 2940

File No. ACMA2013/60

Licensee General Television Corporation Pty Ltd

Station GTV Melbourne

Type of Service Commercial television

Name of Program 60 Minutes

Date of Broadcast 23 September 2012

Relevant Code Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2010 Clauses 2.4.1, 4.3.1, 4.3.11, and 7.15

Date Finalised 6 May 2013

Decision No breach of clause 2.4.1 (exercise care in selection of material) No breach of clause 4.3.1 (factual accuracy) No breach of clause 4.3.11 (correction of significant errors) No breach of clause 7.15 (effort to resolve complaint)

ACMA Investigation Report 2940 – 60 Minutes broadcast by GTV on 23 September 2012 The complaint The complaint is about a segment of the program 60 Minutes called ‘Journey into Hell’, broadcast by General Television Corporation Pty Ltd (the licensee) on 23 September 2012. The segment dealt with the situation in Syria. The complainant alleges that:  the segment contained factually inaccurate information  an acknowledged inaccuracy has not been corrected  the segment glorified a bomb maker and  the licensee’s response to his complaint contained a ‘blatant lie’.

The complaint is at Appendix 1 to this report. The complaint has been investigated in relation to clauses 2.4.1, 4.3.1, 4.3.11 and 7.15 of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2010.

Matters not pursued The complainant alleged that the segment was not presented impartially. Impartiality is not a code requirement for current affairs programs on commercial television. Current affairs programs may take a stance and favour a particular point of view. Accordingly, the ACMA has not pursued this aspect of the complaint. The complainant also alleged breaches of clauses 4.1.1 and 4.1.2. These clauses are a statement of the objectives for Section 4 of the code, rather than requirements. Accordingly, the ACMA has not pursued this aspect of the complaint. The complainant has been advised of the matters that the ACMA has not pursued.

The program The program 60 Minutes was broadcast at 7:30 pm on 23 September 2012. The segment ‘Journey into Hell’ was 14:45 minutes long and was based on the reporter’s experiences embedded with the Free Syrian Army (FSA).

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 a 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 asks, what would the ‘ordinary reasonable listener/viewer’ have understood this program to have conveyed? It considers the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, 1 Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 at 164–167 (references omitted).

ACMA Investigation Report 2940 – 60 Minutes broadcast by GTV on 23 September 2012 2 tenor, tone, inferences that may be drawn, and in the case of factual material, relevant omissions (if any). Once this test has been applied to ascertain the meaning of the broadcast material, it is for the ACMA to determine whether the material has breached the code.

Issue 1: Exercise care in the selection of material

Relevant code clause Classification of Other Material 2.4.1 Exception for news, current affairs and broadcasts of sporting events: these programs do not require classification, provided that the licensee exercises care in selecting material for broadcast having regard to: 2.4.1.1 the likely audience of the program; and 2.4.1.2 any identifiable public interest reason for presenting the program material.

Relevant material The complainant noted the interview with the FSA bomb maker as relevant of consideration. A transcript is at Appendix 2.

Complainant’s submissions The complainant submitted: A bomb maker was interviewed while making bombs that will be used illegally by FSA. Without a thorough investigation into the activities of the FSA this is extremely irresponsible journalism. Essentially they have interviewed a terrorist in a positive light as they have painted him a hero. This is not in line with Australian values.

Licensee’s submissions The licensee submitted:

Our Code states that […] news [and] current affairs do not require classification, provided we exercise care in selecting material for broadcast having regard to: ‘likely audience of the program and any identifiable pubic interest reason for presenting the program material’.

Your complaint touches on the part of the story where a bomb maker was interviewed. We do not believe he was painted a ‘hero’, [but] rather showed that he was part of the FSA movement. We did not at any point glorify or make statements to reflect him as a hero. Further as stated by the Code, as the audience of news and current affairs programs are generally adults we do not believe we breached this Code provision. Given the current state of Syria, we believe there was a public interest for broadcasting this story to the public and exercised care when presenting this story.

ACMA Investigation Report 2940 – 60 Minutes broadcast by GTV on 23 September 2012 3 Finding The licensee did not breach clause 2.4.1 of the code.

Reasons Under the code, current affairs programs do not require classification, provided that the licensee exercises care in selecting material for broadcast, having regard to the likely audience of the program and any identifiable public interest reason for presenting the program material. The segment ‘Journey into Hell’ featured interviews with members of the FSA, a Syrian doctor and a refugee. The interviews were intercut with footage that included Syrian landscapes, war- damaged streets and buildings, FSA members firing weapons, bodies wrapped in shrouds, civilian casualties and refugee camps. An interview with an FSA soldier, who was identified as its chief bomb maker, took place at approximately 7:30 minutes. He was depicted sitting in a bare room, putting a white substance onto a cylindrical canister. A series of brief images also depicted the bomb maker putting white powder and wiring into a small metal canister. The images were accompanied by the reporter’s voice-over narration:

REPORTER He makes everything from hand grenades to land mines [...] A fuse, transmitter and remote control: it’s simple but deadly.

During the interview with the bomb maker, the reporter asked: ‘So these bombs do the job?’ The bomb maker nodded his head and replied. An off screen translator was heard saying, ‘Yes’. The interview cut to footage of two army tanks in transit. A loud noise was heard and thick smoke enveloped the tanks. This was followed by footage of what appeared to be a container in a street exploding into flames, although detail was limited due to the poor quality of the footage and the brevity of the shot. The next scene cut to the reporter interviewing the bomb maker outside a building: REPORTER Can I ask you – it’s a very personal question – are you prepared to die for this? BOMB MAKER Yeah. Yeah. REPORTER You would go all the way? BOMB MAKER I will die if this help my country. Help my people, my family, my wife and my children. If the government kill me, I am ready.

Further scenes in the segment included images of bodies wrapped in shrouds and injured civilians, including children. Scenes also depicted FSA members firing weapons from buildings. The depictions and descriptions of conflict were presented with care. Verbal references to death and injury were brief and provided as factual information to establish the impact of the conflict. The footage was primarily shot with hand-held cameras and was grainy and poor in quality. Footage of wounded and apparently deceased individuals was infrequent and blood detail limited. FSA members were shown firing weapons from a derelict building; however their gunfire was not visibly directed at anyone and no casualties were apparent. Impact was further mitigated by the reporter’s voice-over narration and commentary to the camera, which provided context.

ACMA Investigation Report 2940 – 60 Minutes broadcast by GTV on 23 September 2012 4 The interview with the bomb maker was brief, lasting approximately one minute in a segment more than 14 minutes in duration. It was provided as one of many interviews and not given any focus within the segment. The reporter did not comment on the bomb maker’s role, or place a positive emphasis on his actions. The questions put to the bomb maker were similar to those put to other members of the FSA, particularly in relation to their commitment to the FSA and its cause. He was not portrayed as a hero - the questions about his role in the conflict were asked and answered in a factual manner. It is further noted that the segment did not identify in any precise detail, through either visual or verbal means, how to manufacture an explosive device. For the above reasons it is considered that the licensee exercised care in selecting material for broadcast. As a current affairs program, 60 Minutes reports on newsworthy and topical stories that cover subjects such as politics, health, war, conflict, religion, crime, sports and celebrity. Due to its format, style and subject matter, it is reasonable to expect that 60 Minutes would primarily appeal to a mature audience. As such it is considered that the material was not unsuitable for the likely audience of the program.

The segment covered the current conflict taking place in Syria and as such there was a clear public interest reason for broadcasting the program material.

Issue 2: Accuracy and fairness

Relevant code clause 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.

Clause 4.3.1 of the code obliges the accurate presentation of factual material and the fair representation of viewpoints. Considerations generally applied by the ACMA in assessing whether particular broadcast material is factual in character are set out at Appendix 3. In relation to representation of viewpoints, the ACMA notes that viewpoints were expressed in the segment by:  the guide who took the reporter into Syria  FSA combatants  a doctor in Aleppo whose ‘loyalty’ the reporter described as being ‘for the FSA’ and  a Syrian refugee in Turkey.

The ACMA has not been provided with any information to suggest that these viewpoints were not fairly represented in the broadcast. Accordingly, an examination of the program’s compliance with clause 4.3.1 insofar as it relates to the obligation to represent viewpoints fairly has not been pursued further.

ACMA Investigation Report 2940 – 60 Minutes broadcast by GTV on 23 September 2012 5 Relevant material The relevant material was the following, which occurred in the presenter’s introduction: PRESENTER There are few more dangerous places in the world right now than Syria. Especially if you’re a western reporter. Just getting into the country is a life-and-death proposition. You need to be smuggled across the border in the middle of the night. Then you have to hope there are rebel soldiers waiting on the other side, prepared to truck you to the front line.

Complainant’s submissions The complainant submitted in his complaint to the licensee (see Appendix 1) that the information provided in the above passage is factually incorrect as journalists can enter Syria legally as many have in the past and currently still do. A choice was made to cross the border with members of the FSA.

In his complaint to the ACMA, the complainant submitted that the ‘two key points’ for the licensee’s compliance with clause 4.3.1 are: that the FSA offer safety, and that you cannot enter the country legally as a journalist. [Bolding in original]

Licensee’s submissions The licensee’s response to the complainant (see Appendix 4):  maintained that the statement in question ‘is substantiated by the history of the horrible treatment of journalists in Syria’;  quoted Reporters Without Borders (RWB) as reporting: ‘At one point, virtually no visas were being granted, but foreign journalists are once again being allowed entry, although only in a trickle’;  included the statement: ‘While journalists can enter it is still very dangerous’;  stated ‘we feel our statement is accurate and fair’, given ‘documented accounts of dangers posed to journalists entering Syria’; and  referred to the statement as ‘implying’ that ‘the only way to enter Syria is illegally’ and apologised to the complainant for that. In response to a request from the ACMA, the licensee advised that the 60 Minutes team had visited Syria in September 2012.

Finding The licensee did not breach clause 4.3.1 of the code.

Reasons

‘Need to be smuggled across the border’ A threshold issue is what this material conveyed to an ordinary, reasonable viewer. The ACMA notes that there is no explicit reference to legality or illegality of entry, and accordingly some viewers may have understood the material as indicating that entry to Syria had to be made clandestinely, under cover of darkness, due to the dangers involved in entering by day. Insofar as viewers may have understood the material as indicating that it was generally not possible for international journalists to enter Syria legally because the Syrian Government would not grant them visas to do so, the ACMA considers that the statement was accurate. While there are

ACMA Investigation Report 2940 – 60 Minutes broadcast by GTV on 23 September 2012 6 individual exceptions, the statement broadcast reflects the general situation for foreign journalists seeking access to Syria at the time of preparing and broadcasting the program. Information from RWB and the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) both emphasise that it is almost impossible for foreign journalists to enter Syria legally. As noted above, the RWB report cited by the licensee, which dates from September 2011,2 states that such journalists are being allowed entry ‘only in a trickle’. A CPJ report dated 18 December 20123 includes: Bashar al-Assad’s government sought to cut off the flow of information by barring entry to international reporters, forcing [the BBC journalist Paul] Wood and many other international journalist to travel clandestinely into Syria to cover the conflict.

The CPJ also refers to international journalists being ‘blocked’ in Syria and states: International reporters have not been able to work openly in the country and have been forced to rely on activists and smugglers, rather than traditional fixers, for assistance.

The CPJ material corresponds more closely to the time of the 60 Minutes team’s visit to Syria (September 2012). In these circumstances, the ACMA considers that the statement in the broadcast did not amount to presenting factual material inaccurately for purposes of clause 4.3.1.

FSA safety The ACMA does not consider that there was any material in the broadcast that conveyed to an ordinary reasonable viewer that foreign journalists would be safe if they were with the FSA. On the contrary, there were at least two scenes in the segment which suggested that the reporter for the segment was in danger from crossfire while travelling with the FSA: one at a ‘rebel forward post’ 500 metres from the Syrian Army; and another at the front line, a position in which, according to the segment, there were ‘snipers out there’ in buildings opposite him.

Issue 2: Correction of errors

Relevant code clause

News and current affairs programs 4.3 In broadcasting news and current affairs programs, licensees: 4.3.11 must make reasonable efforts to correct significant errors of fact at the earliest opportunity. A failure to comply with the requirement in clause 4.3.1 to broadcast factual material accurately will not be taken to be a reach of the code if a correction, which is adequate and appropriate in all the circumstances, is made within 30 days of the licensee receiving a complaint or a complaint being referred to the ACMA (whichever is later).

Complainant’s submissions The complainant submitted: Channel 9 have ... apologised for presenting implied information that the only way to enter Syria is illegally. In this case they have admitted distorting the truth ... As no corrections have been made and a 30-day period has lapsed the above can been now seen as a breach of the code.

2 ‘Syria’, 17 March 2010, updated 1 September 2011. en.rsf.org. [Date accessed: 5 March 2013] 3 ‘Journalist deaths spike in 2012 due to Syria, Somalia’, www.cpj.org/reports. [Date accessed: 1 March 2013]

ACMA Investigation Report 2940 – 60 Minutes broadcast by GTV on 23 September 2012 7 Finding The licensee did not breach clause 4.3.11 of the code.

Reasons The ACMA does not consider that the broadcast contained any significant error.

Issue 4: Effort to resolve complaint

Relevant material The following excerpts of the licensee’s response (see Appendix 4) are relevant: Reporters Without Borders states ‘Syria is one of the most dangerous countries in the world to report from’ based on the fact that numerous journalists have been killed, injured and incarcerated by the Syrian government. They report that 11 journalists have been killed in Syria, 14 journalists imprisoned, and 42 netizens and citizen journalists killed ... No journalists have been reported to be killed, injured or incarcerated by the Free Syrian Army (FSA), which is why our reporter entered into Syria with the FSA.

Relevant code clause Resolution of complaints 7.15 Licensees will make every reasonable effort to resolve code complaints promptly, except where a complaint is clearly frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of the code process.

Complainant’s submissions The complainant submitted that the licensee’s response ‘provided incorrect information with intent to mislead’.4 The complainant stated the following about the part of the response excerpted above: This is factually incorrect and a blatant lie – according to the Committee to Protect Journalists 14 journalists have been killed by armed rebels of the FSA. Of the total 32 officially murdered journalists in the WORLD only 3 were killed in Syria. However another 14 were killed as a result of cross fire between armed forces and rebels. There is a notable difference between a death in cross fire and murder by government forces ... As per the Committee to Protect Journalists, the FSA have also conducted several kidnappings of journalists, another inaccuracy of the response from Channel 9.

The complainant further submitted: Journalists have been kidnapped and killed by the FSA as well as a great deal killed in the line of fire as a result of travelling with the FSA. The response provided to me by Channel 9 cited further inaccurate information going as far as to say that no journalists have been harmed by the FSA. The first journalist killed in Syria, Gilles Jacquier, ... was killed at a pro-Government rally by FSA forces and this has been documented as factual by the French Ministry of Defence. In addition, no distinction has been made between being killed in the line of fire and being murdered and this is a misrepresentation of facts. So the 2 key points here are that the FSA offer safety, and that you cannot enter the country legally as a journalist. It hasn’t been the case for Ankhar Kochneva ...

4 The complainant also noted that the licensee had ‘admitted distorting the truth’ but had not made an on- air correction. This aspect has been addressed in relation to clause 4.3.11 rather than clause 7.15. See Issue 3.

ACMA Investigation Report 2940 – 60 Minutes broadcast by GTV on 23 September 2012 8 The source provided by Channel 9 was Reporters Without Borders – this site considers citizens as journalists and makes no mention of FSA or anti-government forces killings. This is not a credible source of information. This should have been reviewed before used as justification in the response provided to me by Channel 9.

Licensee’s submissions The licensee relevantly submitted that: We did not include the [material impugned] to ‘mislead’ as alleged by the complainant. Rather this information was used to further address the items in his complaint. This information was provided for the sole purpose of making a ‘reasonable effort to resolve code complaints promptly’ in that we deemed it useful to provide the complainant with further information in context of our story, and particularly, the information relied upon by Nine’s staff at the time of entering Syria to produce the story. When measuring the standard of effort involved it is clear that we satisfied this clause in that we not only responded to the code items of complaint but also included additional information and research to provide the complainant with an understanding of why we conducted the program from the viewpoint of the FSA, given the known dangers of entering Syria as a western journalist. As demonstrated by our initial response to the complainant, we provided further research sourced from the United Nations and Reporters Without Borders (both considered an authoritative source of information for journalists) to further substantiate the known dangers of entering Syria to explain why our reporter felt it was safer to enter with the FSA ... Reporters Without Borders, a well-known non-profit organisation, were the source of the statistics used in our initial response on the number of journalists and citizens killed and imprisoned by the Syrian government.

Finding The licensee did not breach clause 7.15 of the code.

Reasons The requirement at clause 7.15 to make ‘every reasonable effort’ relates only to ‘code complaints’. The ‘code complaint’ in this case was that the statement ‘You need to be smuggled across the border in the middle of the night’ was ‘factually incorrect as journalists can enter Syria legally as many have in the past and currently still do’. The licensee’s response on this point, as outlined at Issue 2, addressed the point raised by the complainant and did not contain any inaccuracies. The issues raised by the complainant about the licensee’s response concern the nature of the dangers to journalists in Syria. These issues are incidental in the sense that they do not relate to material that was broadcast. The broadcast itself did not contain any references to Syrian Government responsibility for attacks on journalists; assertions about FSA respect for journalists; or comparisons between the Syrian Government and the FSA in this regard. The statements about dangers to journalists in Syria were generalised in the broadcast (‘There are few more dangerous places in the world right now than Syria. Especially if you’re a western reporter’ and ‘incredibly risky journey’) and the complainant has not disputed them. The ACMA considers that any inaccuracies in the licensee’s response did not detract from the licensee’s substantive engagement with the code complaint itself. Accordingly, the licensee’s effort to resolve the complaint complied with clause 7.15 of the code.

ACMA Investigation Report 2940 – 60 Minutes broadcast by GTV on 23 September 2012 9 Appendix 1 Complaint Complainant to licensee

I feel this piece of journalism was in breach of the below items in the code of practice:5 4.1.1 news and current affairs programs are presented accurately and fairly; 4.1.2 news and current affairs programs are presented with care, having regard to the likely composition of the viewing audience and, in particular, the presence of children; 4.1.3 news and current affairs take account of personal privacy and cultural differences in the community ...

The below is a small piece of the transcript: There are few more dangerous places in the world right now than Syria, especially if you’re a western reporter. Just getting into the country is a life and death proposition. You need to be smuggled across the border in the middle of the night. Then you have to hope there are rebel soldiers waiting on the other side, prepared to truck you to the frontline. [Reporter’s name] made the clandestine and incredibly risky journey to the heart of Syria’s brutal and bloody civil war. He discovered a place where civilians are being slaughtered in their tens of thousands and their ancient cities bombed to rubble. And all the while, the rest of the world does nothing.

4.1.1 News and current affairs programs are presented accurately and fairly: The above information provided by 60 Minutes is factually incorrect as journalists can enter Syria legally as many have in the past and currently still do. A choice was made to cross the border with members of the FSA ...

4.1.2 News and current affairs programs are presented with care, having regard to the likely composition of the viewing audience and, in particular, the presence of children A bomb maker was interviewed while making bombs that will be used illegally by the FSA. Without a thorough investigation into the activities of the FSA this is extremely irresponsible journalism. Essentially they have interviewed a terrorist in a positive light as they have painted him a hero. This is not in line with Australian values. Please review the full transcript for further information as I feel this is an irresponsible piece of journalism that was biased, misleading and factually incorrect.

Complainant to the ACMA My complaint was raised regarding the content of this story run by 60 Minutes and its factual inaccuracies. Please see the original complaint. This complaint is being written regarding the response provided by Channel 9 and the incorrect information provided in their rebuttal. I dispute the following excerpt from Channel 9’s response to my complaint: ‘They report 11 journalists have been killed in Syria, 14 imprisoned, 42 journalists killed by the Syrian Government. 6 No journalists have been reported to have been killed, injured or incarcerated by the Free Syrian Army’. This is factually incorrect and a blatant lie – According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, 14 journalists have been killed by armed rebels of the FSA. The first was Gilles Jacquier; an investigation by the French Ministry of Defence concluded that Jacquier had been killed in an attack carried out by anti-Assad rebels of the FSA. Of the total 32 officially murdered journalists in the WORLD only three were killed in Syria. However another 14

5 The clauses cited by the complainant are the objectives for Section 4 of the code, rather than requirements. However, the code does contain requirements in relation to the issues he has raised. A clause that does not apply to current affairs programs, and therefore did not apply to the broadcast, has been omitted from this Appendix. See ‘Matters not pursued’ in the body of the report. [ACMA footnote] 6 The relevant part of the licensee’s response (see Appendix 4) was: They report that 11 journalists have been killed in Syria, 14 journalists imprisoned, and 42 netizens and citizen journalists killed. [ACMA footnote]

ACMA Investigation Report 2940 – 60 Minutes broadcast by GTV on 23 September 2012 10 were killed as a result of cross fire between armed forces and rebels. There is a notable difference between a death in cross fire and murder by government forces. This distinction has been distorted to justify the breach of clause 4.1.1 in that information is to be presented accurately and fairly. As per the Committee to Protect Journalists, the FSA have also conducted several kidnappings of journalists, another inaccuracy of the response from Channel 9. Channel 9 has also apologised for presenting implied information that the only way to enter Syria is illegally. In this case they have admitted distorting the truth once again. I believe this is an attempt to mislead by providing false information. I would like this misinformation to be addressed. I have the intention to follow this through until I am satisfied with the outcome. I am concerned with the level of bias presented in this story and feel it’s contributing to a growing negative view of Syria in support of interventionism.

The ACMA advised the complainant that it could not investigate compliance with clauses that set out objectives, rather than requirements, or clauses which do not apply to current affairs programs. The complainant responded: I would like this investigated based on the scope outlined in your email below. Although as you have stated it is a reduced scope, I believe that because it pertains to information being factual, it would be grossly irresponsible to not address this. The following breachable provisions you have highlighted in section 4.3 and 4.3.11. 4.3.1 Must broadcast factual material accurately and present viewpoints fairly, having regard to the circumstances at the time of preparing and broadcasting the program. The program falsely advised viewers that the only way into the country was illegally under the safety of the FSA. As I have stated in my response to you, this is false information. Journalists have been kidnapped and killed by the FSA as well as a great deal killed in the line of fire as a result of travelling with the FSA. The response provided to me by Channel 9 cited further inaccurate information going as far as to say that no journalists have been harmed by the FSA. The first journalist killed in Syria, Gilles Jacquier, as stated in my letter, was killed at a pro-Government rally by FSA forces and this has been documented as factual by the French Ministry of Defence. In addition, no distinction has been made between being killed in the line of fire and being murdered and this is misrepresentation of facts. So the two key points here are that the FSA offer safety, and that you cannot enter the country legally as a journalist. It hasn’t been the case for Ankhar Kochneva.7 This misrepresentation was used to draw a line between good and bad with the view that the FSA present a safe and balanced approach to the uprising. This is not acceptable and is not in the spirit of investigative journalism. In 60 Minutes’ admission, they advised that they are not required to provide a ‘balanced view’ so this highlights intent to mislead. In their response, they have apologised for ‘implying that the only way to enter the country is illegally’. 4.3.11 Must make reasonable efforts to correct significant errors of fact at the earliest opportunity. As no corrections have been made and a 30-day period has elapsed, the above can be now seen as a breach of the code. The source provided by Channel 9 was Reporters Without Borders – this site considers citizens as journalists and makes no mention of FSA or anti-government forces killings. This is not a credible source of information. This should have been reviewed before used as justification in the response provided to me by Channel 9. Please take steps to address this issue as it is in my view a form of propaganda.

7 Ukrainian journalist Ankhar Kochneva was kidnapped by the FSA on 9 October 2012. The kidnapping appears to have been first reported on 12 October 2012. ‘News providers in Syria continue to be targeted’, 18 October 2012, www.ifex.org/syria [Date accessed: 6 March 2013]; BBC Monitoring Newsfile: ‘Ukrainian diplomats pledge help to release translator kidnapped in Syria’, 15 October 2012. (The licensee’s response to the complainant is dated 11 October 2012.) [ACMA footnote]

ACMA Investigation Report 2940 – 60 Minutes broadcast by GTV on 23 September 2012 11 Appendix 2 Transcript of interview with bomb maker in segment ‘Journey into Hell’ REPORTER So rebels rely on crude but effective home-made explosive devices. Equalisers in an unequal war. A year ago, [name] was a mechanical engineer. Now, he’s one of the FSA’s master bomb-makers. REPORTER (to bomb maker) You are the chief bomb maker? REPORTER He makes everything from hand grenades to landmines. REPORTER (to bomb maker, who is showing an explosive device) Just press the switch? BOMB MAKER Push and – REPORTER (to bomb maker) Boom! REPORTER A fuse, transmitter and remote control: it’s simple, but deadly. REPORTER (to bomb maker) So these bombs do the job? BOMB MAKER [Nods – off-screen translator says ‘Yes’]

[...] REPORTER (to bomb maker) Can I ask you – it’s a very personal question – are you prepared to die for this? BOMB MAKER Yeah. Yeah. REPORTER (to bomb maker) You would go all the way? BOMB MAKER I will die if it’s help my country. My people. My family. My wife and children. If the government kill me, I am ready. REPORTER (to bomb maker) The cost of freedom. BOMB MAKER Yeah. REPORTER Yeah.

ACMA Investigation Report 2940 – 60 Minutes broadcast by GTV on 23 September 2012 12 Appendix 3 Considerations which the ACMA has regard to in assessing whether or not broadcast material is factual in character  The primary consideration is whether, according to the natural and ordinary meaning of the language used and the substantive nature of the message conveyed, the relevant material is presented as a statement of fact or as an expression of opinion.  In that regard, the relevant statement must be evaluated in its context, i.e. contextual indications from the rest of the broadcast (including tenor and tone) are relevant in assessing the meaning conveyed to the ordinary reasonable listener/viewer.  The use of language such as ‘it seems to me’, ‘we consider/think/believe’ tends to indicate that a statement is presented as an opinion. However, a common sense judgment is required as to how the substantive nature of the statement would be understood by the ordinary reasonable listener/viewer, and the form of words introducing the relevant statement is not conclusive.  Inferences of a factual nature made from observed facts are usually still characterised as factual material (subject to context); to qualify as an opinion/viewpoint, an inference reasoned from observed facts would usually have to be presented as an inference of a judgmental or contestable kind.  The identity of the person making the statement would not in and of itself determine whether the statement is factual material or opinion, i.e. it is not possible to conclude that because a statement was made by an interviewee, it was necessarily a statement of opinion rather than factual material.  Statements in the nature of prediction as to future events would nearly always be characterised as statements of opinion.

ACMA Investigation Report 2940 – 60 Minutes broadcast by GTV on 23 September 2012 13 Appendix 4 Licensee’s response to complainant (accuracy issue) Your complaint mentions that our reporter, [name], was incorrect in saying ‘Just getting into the country is a life and death proposition. You need to be smuggled across the border in the middle of the night’. However this statement is substantiated by the history of the horrible treatment of journalists in Syria. The Syrian government has been condemned by all Western governments, all Arab governments (except from Iran [sic]) and a wide variety of human rights and aid groups for its military actions against civilians. Reporters Without Borders reports that: ‘At one point, virtually no visas were being granted, but foreign journalists are once again being allowed entry, although only in a trickle’. In recent news, we have seen journalists being held hostage by the Syrian government. So, while journalists can enter, it is still very dangerous. Reporters Without Borders states: ‘Syria is one of most dangerous countries in the world to report from’ based on the fact that numerous journalists have been killed, injured and incarcerated by the Syrian government. They report that 11 journalists have been killed in Syria, 14 journalists imprisoned, and 42 netizens and citizen journalists killed. Due to this risk, many journalists illegally enter the country to report on what is occurring in Syria. No journalists have been reported to be killed, injured or incarcerated by the Free Syrian Army (FSA), which is why our reporter entered into Syria with the FSA. The United Nations (UN) has issued statements urging journalists to refrain from entering into Syria due to the current state it is in. The UN has condemned the current Syrian government and recently the US embargoed trade with Syria. As stated above, there are numerous stated atrocities and our story’s purpose was to shed light on this situation. The Committee to Protect Journalists website lists numerous occasions of Syrian violence towards journalists in the past few months. It discusses journalists who have been kidnapped or reported missing from Japan, US and Turkey. Given the above information on documented accounts of dangers posed to journalists entering Syria, we feel our statement is accurate and fair. Nonetheless, we apologise for implying that the only way to enter Syria is illegally and have advised the story’s producer and the executive producer of 60 Minutes of this. However, the statement was based on the above information regarding the current state of Syria and the known risks of entering this country to report on what is occurring.

ACMA Investigation Report 2940 – 60 Minutes broadcast by GTV on 23 September 2012 14