Investigation Report No. 3026

File No. ACMA2013/666

Licensee Network TEN (Sydney) Pty Ltd

Station TEN Sydney

Type of Service Commercial television

Name of Program The Project

Date of Broadcast 24 January 2013

Relevant Code Clause 4.3.1 of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2010

Date Finalised 30 April 2013

Decision No breach of clause 4.3.1 (factual accuracy)

ACMA Investigation Report 3026 – The Project broadcast by Network TEN (Sydney) Pty Ltd - 24 January 2013 Background  On 15 March 2013, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) received a complaint concerning an interview with the Hon. Bob Katter MP on The Project broadcast on 24 January 2013 by Network TEN (Sydney) Pty Ltd (the licensee).  The interview followed a segment on comments made by two members of Katter’s Australian Party comparing gay Australians to paedophiles and stating that they would not let a gay person teach their children.  During the interview, two of the panellists asked the Hon. Bob Katter MP questions about whether he found it offensive to compare homosexual people with paedophiles.  The complainant alleges that the interview contained inaccurate statements by the two panellists in relation to there being no connection between homosexual orientation and paedophilia, and that the panellists attempted to persuade the Hon. Bob Katter MP to take their view.  The Project is a current affairs program that features a mix of current affairs and entertainment. It is described on the program’s website as:

.... an earthy, real and fun approach to discussing the news of the day. The Project is a place where people who are genuinely interested in the world around them come together to talk, offering genuine conversation in a space previously crowded by scandal and spin1.

Assessment  This investigation is based on submissions from the complainant (extracts at Appendix A), the licensee’s response to the complainant (extracts at Appendix B) and a copy of the broadcast provided to the ACMA by the licensee (transcript at Appendix C). Other sources used have been identified where relevant.  In assessing content against the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2010 (the Code), the ACMA considers the meaning conveyed by the relevant material. This is assessed according to the understanding of an ‘ordinary reasonable listener/viewer’. Australian courts have considered an ‘ordinary, reasonable reader’ (or listener to 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 affairs2.  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, 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.

1 http://theprojecttv.com.au/about-the-project.htm 2 Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 at 164–167.

ACMA Investigation Report 3026 – The Project broadcast by Network TEN (Sydney) Pty Ltd on 24 January 2013 2  The ACMA has considered the licensee’s compliance with clause 4.3.1 of the Code:

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  As The Project is a current affairs program and not a news program, the ACMA has not considered the licensee’s compliance with the impartiality requirement in clause 4.4.1 of the Code that applies only to news programs.

Issues: factual accuracy and fair representation of viewpoints

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

Reasons  The considerations which the ACMA generally applies in assessing whether particular broadcast material is factual in character are set out at Appendix D.

 In applying the factual accuracy aspect of clause 4.3.1 of the Code, the initial consideration is whether the relevant material is presented as factual material in the context of the broadcast. An expression of opinion is not factual material.  In this case, the relevant material is the questions the two panellists put to the Hon. Bob Katter MP about the issue raised in the preceding news story – that is, the offensiveness of comparing gay and lesbian people with paedophiles.  The questions put to Mr Katter on the comparison included:

Bob, I want to know, do you find it offensive to compare paedophilia or paedophiles with gay and lesbian Australians?  The ACMA considers that the language and tone used by the two panellists and the phrasing of their questions, in the context of the interview, would have conveyed to the ordinary reasonable viewer that they were asking questions of Mr Katter to elicit his opinion on whether he found the comparison offensive or not and that the questions were informed by their personal opinion.  As the two panellists were asking Mr Katter for his opinion rather than making statements of fact about there being no connection between a homosexual orientation and paedophilia, the relevant material is not factual material and the accuracy obligation does not apply.  Clause 4.3.1 of the Code also requires the fair representation of viewpoints in news and current affairs programs. The ACMA notes that during the interview Mr Katter had the opportunity to present his viewpoint and nothing in the broadcast suggests that his viewpoint was not represented fairly.

ACMA Investigation Report 3026 – The Project broadcast by Network TEN (Sydney) Pty Ltd on 24 January 2013 3 APPENDIX A

Complainant’s submissions

The complainant’s submissions to the licensee included:

....We were astonished at the ignorance of your two interviewers who attempted to persuade politician Mr Katter that there was no connection between homosexuality and paedophilia (referring to remarks he and/or members of his Party had made), and that it was insulting for him to link paedophilia to homosexuals. Your interviewers were 100% wrong and we challenge them to produce solid research evidence that there is no connection.

[..] The complainant’s submissions to the ACMA included:

...We are not satisfied with the response from TV 10 since we consider it adopted a superficial attitude toward our fundamental complaint that two interviewers telecast inaccurate information to the public, namely that “there is no connection between a homosexual orientation and a paedophilic orientation”. To compound the issue, the interviewers, Natasha Stott Despoja and Charlie Pickering attempted several times to persuade Mr Katter MP, to confirm their false opinion.

....We note that TV10 alleges Natasha Stott Despoja and Charlie Pickering have breached no code or standard. However, we maintain that their spoken view of homosexuality was not only inaccurate but publicly irresponsible behaviour and constituted lying to Australian viewers.

[..]

ACMA Investigation Report 3026 – The Project broadcast by Network TEN (Sydney) Pty Ltd on 24 January 2013 4 APPENDIX B

Licensee’s response

The licensee’s response to the complainant included:

....The Codes includes specific requirements for news and current affairs programs covering amongst other things, that factual material must be broadcast accurately and viewpoints represented fairly. The Code requires news programs to be presented fairly and impartially. Current affairs programs such as The Project are not subject to this requirement, nor are they required to present all viewpoints within a report. We take care to ensure that our programs comply with these provisions, as well as other relevant laws, program standards and industry codes.

.....Your complaint expressed concerns regarding comments by Natasha Stott Despoja and Charlie Pickering during the interview with the Hon. Bob Katter MP. The interview followed a story about members of Katter’s Australian Party. The duration of the entire segment was approximately eleven minutes and thirty seconds, of which the interview comprised over nine minutes. While the interview broadcast was robust, we consider Mr Katter and the interviewers were provided the opportunity to express their viewpoints fairly during the interview.

[...]

ACMA Investigation Report 3026 – The Project broadcast by Network TEN (Sydney) Pty Ltd on 24 January 2013 5 APPENDIX C

Transcript of questions about whether it is offensive to compare homosexuality with paedophiles (not a complete transcript)

Panellist 1: Bob, its Natasha here, now you and I both know politics, I’m not in the media, it is possible to be in a fringe group and care passionately about these issues by the way. Bob I want to know do you find it offensive to compare paedophilia or paedophiles with gay and lesbian Australians? I think that’s something that’s concerning a lot of us, some of us have agreed and disagreed with you in the past, but that’s something that a lot of Australians are concerned about today including those of us who aren’t necessarily in the media. The Hon Bob Katter MP: I stood in front of 600 people and two women came out to the mic and burst out crying because they’re about to be thrown out on the street. The town which is in the centre of my dairying area in North Queensland that I represent had the highest suicide rate in Australia... Panellist 1: But Bob, is it offensive? The Hon Bob Katter MP: And that is my focus and every minute you take off that focus is a minute that my enemies are winning... Panellist 1: No Bob, I’m not going to take away the focus from that, you know that The Hon Bob Katter MP: Well you are Panellist 1: No these are human rights issues for a range of Australians The Hon Bob Katter MP: We’ve gone on a nationwide program and the only questions that you’ve asked me, that you’re interested, in are these questions Panellist 2: But nowhere in your statement do you say whether it is offensive to equate homosexuality with paedophilia. It would only take one sentence. It would only take one sentence of this interview Bob and then we can talk about the other great work that you’re doing. You’re doing some fantastic work and we’re about to ask you about it. All you have to do is say whether you think its offensive to equate homosexuality with paedophilia. Just answer that. The Hon Bob Katter MP: Um, I, the statement I have made I will make repeatedly and continuously. Panellist 2: Then I will ask my question continuously and repeatedly. I want to talk about the great work you’re doing in Victoria, but I... The Hon Bob Katter MP: It’s going to get very boring... Panellist 2: I want to hear from a political leader in this country that he does not equate homosexuality with paedophilia and that he finds the idea offensive. The Hon Bob Katter MP: You are taking me out of the area of my concern, right, and look, you’re entitled to your concerns. Other panellist: But Bob this is your concern because two of your candidates are making offensive statements and you need to be accountable for that.

ACMA Investigation Report 3026 – The Project broadcast by Network TEN (Sydney) Pty Ltd on 24 January 2013 6 The Hon Bob Katter MP: You are concerned about it. The party is very accountable for it. We’ve made a very very clear cut and unequivocal statement. And every one of you know the implications of that statement. If you can’t see the nature of that statement, that statement is very clear cut. Panellist 2: Are you concerned that if you don’t say that you find the idea offensive that it will cost you votes in Queensland? The Hon Bob Katter MP: I am not interested in being dragged into that area...

ACMA Investigation Report 3026 – The Project broadcast by Network TEN (Sydney) Pty Ltd on 24 January 2013 7 APPENDIX D

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 3026 – The Project broadcast by Network TEN (Sydney) Pty Ltd on 24 January 2013 8