6JJJ - ACMA Investigation Report 2839

Investigation Report No. 2839

File No. ACMA2012/787

Broadcaster Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Station 6JJJ

Type of Service National broadcasting

Name of Program Various

Dates of Broadcast 2, 3 and 15 February 2012

Relevant Code Standards 7.1 and 7.2 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 Provisions Date Finalised 16 February 2012

Decision No breach of Standard 7.1 (content causing harm or offence) No breach of Standard 7.2 (provision of warnings)

ACMA Investigation Report – language in various programs broadcast by 6JJJ Error: Reference source not found

The complaint On 27 March 2012 the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) received a complaint regarding content broadcast during February 2012 by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (the ABC) on Perth radio station 6JJJ. The complainant alleged that a number of programs broadcast on 6JJJ contained inappropriate and offensive language and that these programs were not preceded by a warning.

The programs 6JJJ is part of the nationally networked ABC radio station triple j, which targets listeners aged between 18 and 24. The complainant cited three instances where offensive language was broadcast without a preceding warning:  2 February 2012 at 4.55 p.m. The segment features an interview between a triple j announcer, known as ‘The Doctor’, and the actor Sam Worthington about his latest movie, ‘Man on a Ledge’. During this interview the announcer says: ‘It actually looks like you’re s**ttin’ yourself’ and ‘Do you still look back on that [‘that’ being a reference to the movie ‘Avatar’] and go, ah s**t!  3 February 2012 at 6.50 a.m. A repeat of the interview between ‘The Doctor’ and Sam Worthington broadcast the previous day; and  15 February 2012 at 5.30 a.m. A song by the Australian hip-hop band ‘The Herd’ includes the lyrics: ‘F**k that for a joke’ and ‘Some eloquent bulls**t’.

Assessment This investigation is based on submissions from the complainant and the ABC and a copy of the broadcasts provided to the ACMA by the ABC. The complaint has been assessed against Standards 7.1 and 7.2 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (the Code).

Complainant’s submissions In correspondence to the ABC, the complainant stated:

Some presenters (02.02.2012 – 16.55) are using offensive language when context does not warrant. The word used – S**T.

Some presenters are not providing offensive content warnings prior to media being aired that contains offensive language. Some are and they are to be commended.

While offensive language content is warned by some, we differ on our classification of the word S**T. As it is not considered offensive by the presenters, then there are no language content warnings. This is the essence of the complaint.

2 Basically while you are correct for a defined section of the community, this philosophy cannot be applied uniformly across the community. While certain community attitudes have changed over time as you say, with respect to language and attitude, other factors have also been in force. Diversity in religion and culture due to immigration is just one aspect.

The target band is narrow and could also be considered discriminatory for those outside of the target.

As the station is a public broadcaster, encourages youth participation (under 18), it could be considered that the target audience viewpoint is exposing youth to language and could be considered negative.

The ABC has standards and while these allow for artistic expression, gratuitous language is not encouraged. In fact presenters should be setting community examples.

In his complaint to the ACMA, the complainant stated:

Television and other media have language content warnings and this I have noticed includes words such as S**T. All I am asking is that JJJ abide by the same content warning system that others use responsibly. I am not asking for content or programming change.

I like the music content of JJJ but am offended by language. I wish to be able to make an informed decision on what I listen to. JJJ is not offering that service that others do, for me to make an informed choice.

Broadcaster’s submissions In correspondence to the complainant, the ABC stated:

Language, as with all things, has evolved over time and what might have been considered swearing of offensive 10 or more years ago, is now part of everyday speech. S**t is one of those words that is now more acceptable in society and increasingly part of everyday speech, especially with the target demographic for triple j which is 18-24 year olds. They are generally not as offended by language but having said [that] we are very mindful of not offending to any extent a large degree of our audience. Our presenters are aware of, and reminded regularly about, their responsibilities when it comes to language. […] I can, however, tell you that songs requiring a language warning are clearly marked and adhered to by presenters.

Regarding the song broadcast on 15 February 2012 and cited by the complainant, the ABC stated:

The Herd is an Australian hip hop act. Hip hop is a genre born out of certain social contexts; its themes and languages are a reflection of their cultural and social environment and resonate with young people across the world.

Radio advises that it is triple j’s practice to assess tracks, including usage and context of coarse language, when deciding whether a language warning is warranted. They concluded that in this instance the use of the word “f**k” was in context, was not repetitive and was not used gratuitously, and therefore a language warning was not warranted.

ACMA Investigation Report – language in various programs broadcast by 6JJJ 3 Error: Reference source not found

The Principles guiding the ABC’s Editorial Policies state:

“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.”

In Audience and Consumer Affairs view the use of the words “bulls**t” and “f*ck” were editorially justified in the context of a hip hop song expressing frustration at the political process and other aspects of society.

In assessing whether a warning should have been given a judgement must be made about the nature and expectations of the target audience and whether it is likely that audience would be significantly offended by the language. As you can see the Principles specifically make allowances for differences between the many different target audiences the ABC caters for with its various broadcast platforms. Triple j targets 18-24 year olds for whom hip hop and other confronting music and coarse language is likely to be very familiar. For this target group broadly assessed community standards are not necessarily relevant or applicable. Judgements are necessarily subjective but it is the role of the managers of the individual platforms to make the best informed decisions they can. Many factors are taken into account; audience feedback being among the most important. In this instance, we have received only your complaint.

We do not consider this policy to be discriminatory; the ABC by using different platforms and programs to target diverse audiences is fulfilling its charter to inform and entertain all Australians.

On review, Audience and Consumer Affairs’ view is that the use of coarse language in this case is very moderate and unlikely to significantly offend its target audience – each word is used only once, they are not used in a particularly aggressive, vulgar or abusive manner and they are justifiable in context.

4 Issue 1: Whether the ABC broadcast content that was likely to cause harm or offence and, if so, whether it was justified by the editorial context

Relevant Code Standard

7.1 Content that is likely to cause harm or offence must be justified by the editorial context.

Finding The ABC did not breach Standard 7.1 of the Code.

Reasons For a breach of Standard 7.1 to occur, two elements must both be satisfied:  a broadcast must include ‘content that was likely to cause harm or offence’; and  the broadcast of that content cannot be ‘justified by the editorial context’.

These two elements are discussed separately below. Was the content likely to cause harm or offence? Clauses 7.1 and 7.2 of the Code are interpreted and applied by reference to the overarching Principles of clause 7.1 The Principles at clause 7 note that the ABC’s function is to entertain diverse audiences and, among other things, encourage and promote innovative music content. This is in line with the object of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (the BSA) to promote the availability of a diverse range of radio services to audiences throughout Australia2.

The Principles of clause 7 also recognise that innovative content may offend some audience members and that the ABC should not broadcast content that is likely to offend without a clear editorial purpose. When assessing if content is likely to cause offence, context is a key consideration. The Principles of clause 7 provide that ‘consideration of the nature of the target audience for particular content is part of assessing harm and offence in context’. It is considered that the target audience of 6JJJ (i.e. those aged between 18 and 24) would frequently be exposed to coarse language of the sort mentioned in the complaint and would likely expect some coarse language on triple j. Although the ACMA accepts that some listeners would be offended by such coarse language, language of this sort would not likely cause offence to the station’s usual target audience. Regarding the interview with Sam Worthington, the ACMA notes that:  The segment did not contain excessive use of coarse language. There were two uses of the word s**t during an interview that lasted for over eight minutes.  The interviewer’s use of the word appeared to be spontaneous and formed part of the general conversation, with no undue emphasis.

1 IV. Principles and Standards, ABC Code of Practice 2011. 2 See section 3(1)(a) of the BSA.

ACMA Investigation Report – language in various programs broadcast by 6JJJ 5 Error: Reference source not found

 The tone of the interview was light-hearted. The word s**t was not used in an aggressive manner and was not used in a demeaning or insulting fashion. Regarding the song ‘Spin Cycle’ by The Herd, the ACMA notes that:  It is likely that regular listeners to 6JJJ would have been familiar with song lyrics containing coarse language of this nature and would not have found them offensive.  The lyrical content of the song would not have fallen outside the expectations of the regular 6JJJ listening audience and would not be offensive to the targeted listening audience of 6JJJ, namely those in the 18 – 24 age range.  The Herd is one of Australia’s most popular hip-hop bands and the ACMA considers that it is likely that triple j listeners would have been familiar with their lyrical style, which often contains coarse language as a legitimate part of the band’s musical work. Accordingly and for the above reasons, the ACMA finds that the content in question was not likely to cause harm or offence. If the content was likely to cause harm or offence, was the broadcast of that content justified by the editorial context? As the ACMA has determined that the relevant content was not ‘likely to cause harm or offence’, it is not necessary to determine whether the broadcast of that content ‘was justified by the editorial context’. Accordingly, Standard 7.1 of the Code has not been breached in this instance.

Issue 2: Whether information was provided about the nature of content that was likely to cause harm or offence

Relevant Code Standard

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 warnings or advice.

Finding The ABC did not breach Standard 7.2 of the Code.

Reasons The wording of Standard 7.2 of the Code makes it clear that the requirement ‘to provide information about the nature of the content’ only applies to content that ‘is likely to cause harm or offence’. As the ACMA has determined that the relevant content was not ‘likely to cause harm or offence’, the requirement ‘to provide information about the nature of the content’ does not apply. Accordingly, Standard 7.2 of the Code has not been breached in this instance.