media/Broadcasting... · Web viewHe had stated that there was a ‘world of...

Investigation Report No. 3137

File no. ACMA2013/1560

Broadcaster Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Station ABQ Brisbane

Type of service National Broadcaster

Name of program ABC News – ‘Fact Check’

Date of broadcast 11 October 2013

Relevant code Standards 2.1, 2.2, 4.1 and 4.4 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011

Date finalised 16 January 2014Decision No breach of standards 2.1 or 2.2 [factual accuracy]

No breach of 4.1 or 4.4 [impartiality and diversity of perspectives]

ACMA Investigation Report 3137 – ABC News broadcast by ABQ Brisbane on 11 October 2013

Background On 28 October 2013, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA)

received a complaint about a ‘Fact Check’ segment on ABC News broadcast by ABQ Brisbane (the ABC) on 11 October 2013.

‘Fact Check’ is described on the ABC website as follows:

ABC Fact Check determines the accuracy of claims by politicians, public figures, advocacy groups and institutions engaged in the public debate....

All verdicts fall into three colour-based categories: In The Red, In The Green or In Between - red being a negative ruling, and green being a positive.

The ABC Fact Check team will monitor the media on a daily basis for contentious claims.

Our focus will be on statements likely to influence the public debate, rather than minor errors or gotcha moments involving trivial gaffes.

Opinions and exaggerated rhetoric will be avoided.1

On 11 October 2013 the 1pm news bulletin on ABC News 24 included a ‘Fact Check’ segment that examined the meaning of the Federal Government’s policy to ‘turn back’ boats attempting to bring asylum-seekers into Australia ‘where it is safe to do so’. This was in light of recent comments made by the Prime Minister, the Hon Tony Abbott MP, addressing media references to a policy of ‘tow backs’ as being incorrect. He had stated that there was a ‘world of difference between turning boats around in Australian waters and the Australian Navy towing them back to Indonesia’. In the segment, the presenter concluded that Mr Abbott was ‘splitting hairs’ in making a distinction between ‘towing’ and ‘turning’.

The complainant submitted that the segment was incorrect and that in fact ‘tow back’ and ‘turn back’ have very different meanings. She also complained that the segment misrepresented the current Government position and was biased against the Coalition Government.

The duration of the segment was approximately 3 minutes. A transcript is at Attachment A.

The complainant submitted the following to the ABC on 11 October:

... I heard the factchecker come on and announce that people had thought (his opinion) that the ABC had changed the wording of policies of the government to cause problems when the talks were to start with Indonesia about the illegal immigrants. Turn the boats was the one he mentioned changed to TOW THE BOATS...............There was nothing about our PM saying he would TOW the boats as you well know. Then as the conclusion, your factchecker said, "You're SPLITTING HAIRS MR ABBOTT," No, he's not. The factchecker is splitting hairs to try to justify some of the bias and bitterness the ABC has that the labor party is not in power any more.....

Following a response from the ABC the complainant further submitted that:

1 http://www.abc.net.au/news/factcheck/about/


2

The story about TOW BACK THE BOATS being the same as TURN BACK the boats is completely incorrect. If your presenter thinks they are the same he should be dismissed...

The complainant’s submissions can be found in full at Attachment B.

The ABC replied to the complainant as follows:

The unit checked the government’s stated policy positions, the statements of current and former coalition ministers and the undisputed facts of what occurred under the Howard government. It laid out the information for the viewers to see so they could make up their own minds as well as presenting their own analysis of the issue.

The important part of their conclusion was that, in practice, an effective policy to turn boats back has involved, at least some of the time, taking control of boats and towing them back. Therefore, to draw a sharp distinction between the two was ‘splitting hairs’.

On review, we are satisfied that, consistent with the ABC Code of Practice, the factual elements of the program were presented accurately and in context and that the program’s analysis was based on demonstrable evidence. The information was presented impartially and the coalition’s position was not misrepresented.

The ABC’s response can be found in full at Attachment C.

The investigation has considered the ABC’s compliance with standards 2.1, 2.2, 4.1 and 4.4 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (the Code):

Accuracy

2.1 Make reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented in context

2.2 Do not present factual content in a way that will materially mislead the audience. In some cases, this may require appropriate labels or other explanatory information

Impartiality and diversity of perspectives

4.1 Gather and present news and information with due impartiality

4.4 Do not misrepresent any perspective

Assessment This investigation is based on submissions from the complainant, correspondence

between the complainant and the ABC and a transcript of the broadcast provided to the ACMA by the ABC. Other sources have been identified where relevant.

In assessing content for compliance with 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.2

2 Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (1998) NSWLR 158 at 164-167


3

In considering compliance with the Codes, the ACMA considers the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone, and any inferences that may be drawn.

Once the ACMA has applied this test to ascertain the meaning of the material that was broadcast, it then determines whether that material has breached the Codes

Issue 1: Accuracy

FindingThe ABC did not breach standards 2.1 and 2.2 of the Code.

Reasons Standard 2.1 requires the ABC to ‘make reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts

are accurate and presented in context’.

Standard 2.2 requires the ABC to ‘not present factual content in a way that will materially mislead the audience’. It notes that in some cases, this may require appropriate labels or other explanatory information.

The Principles at standard 2 of the Code state that the ‘ABC accuracy standard applies to assertions of fact, not to expressions of opinion. An opinion, being a value judgment or conclusion, cannot be found to be accurate or inaccurate the way facts can.’

The general considerations which the ACMA has regard to in assessing whether or not broadcast material is factual in character are at Attachment D.

The complaint is that the assertion by the presenter that Mr Abbott was ‘splitting hairs’ in making a distinction between ‘turning back’ and ‘towing back’ the boats was factually incorrect as these terms do not have the same meaning. In her complaint to the ABC, she stated that ‘tow’ involves direct handling whereas ‘turn’ does not, and that the Prime Minister has not said that boats would be towed.

The segment included a number of factual statements concerning the Abbott and Howard Governments’ border protection policies, the accuracy of which have not been disputed, including:

public statements made by Mr Abbott (including ‘the Howard Government did it, what’s been done before can be done again’), the Hon Alexander Downer AC, (former member of Parliament) and Hon Christopher Pyne MP

headlines from various print media that were shown on screen

references in the Howard Government policy to boats being towed under

references in the current Abbott Government policy to boats being intercepted, boarded, steered and taken control of.

The presenter also acknowledged that there was confusion over the issue, and that it was true that Mr Abbott has consistently referred to his policy as ‘turn back’ but that in the context of the operational circumstances the terms’ tow back’ and ‘turn back’ were interchangeable.


4

Based on the factual material presented to the audience, the presenter concluded that Mr Abbott was ‘splitting hairs’ in making a distinction between the expressions ‘towing back’ and ‘turning back’. The ACMA considers this conclusion would have been understood by the ordinary reasonable viewer as an expression of opinion because it was an inference of a judgmental or contestable kind, or a value judgement.

The Code accuracy standard does not apply to expressions of opinion.

In her complaint to the ABC, the complainant also noted that that the footage of Mr Downer and Mr Pyne was undated.

The ACMA notes that the footage of Mr Downer was dated 26 September 2012, and that the footage of Mr Abbott and the Hon Christopher Pyne MP was identified by date and month only, and not by year.

The ACMA is satisfied that the comments made by members of the current Government would have been understood as relating to current policy, and in the context of the segment as a whole, the failure to identify footage by year would not have materially misled the audience.

The ACMA considers that that the material facts were accurate and presented in context, and that factual content was not presented in a way that would have materially misled the audience.

Accordingly, the ABC did not breach standards 2.1 or 2.2 of the Code.

Issue 2: Impartiality and diversity of perspectives

FindingThe ABC did not breach standards 4.1 and 4.4 of the Code.

Reasons Standard 4.1 requires the ABC to ‘gather and present news and information with due

impartiality’. Inclusion of the word ‘due’ indicates an element of flexibility depending on the particular context.

Standard 4.4 requires that the ABC not misrepresent any perspective.

The Principles at Standard 4 provide:

Aiming to equip audiences to make up their own minds is consistent with the public service character of the ABC...the ABC is ‘guided by these hallmarks of impartiality:

o a balance that follows the weight of evidence; o fair treatment; o open-mindedness; and o opportunities over time for principal relevant perspectives on matters of contention to be

expressed....

Assessing the impartiality due in given circumstances requires consideration in context of all relevant factors including:


5

o the type, subject and nature of the content; o the circumstances in which the content is made and presented; o the likely audience expectations of the content; o the degree to which the matter to which the content relates is contentious; o the range of principal relevant perspectives on the matter of contention; and o the timeframe within which it would be appropriate for the ABC to provide opportunities for

the principal relevant perspectives to be expressed, having regard to the public importance of the matter of contention and the extent to which it is the subject of current debate.

In addition, the general considerations which the ACMA has regard to in assessing whether material complained of is compliant with the ABC’s obligations under standard 4.1 of the Code are at Attachment E.

The complaint was that the segment was one sided and biased against the Abbott Government, and that the ABC was acting in self-interest in stating that Mr Abbott was ‘splitting hairs’ during the segment and was attempting to justify its bias.

As set out at Attachment E, a program that presents a perspective that is opposed by a particular person or group is not inherently partial. Whether a breach of the Code has occurred will depend on the themes of the program, any editorial comment, the overall presentation of the story and the circumstances in which the program was prepared and broadcast.

In this case, the theme of the program was an exploration of the distinction between ‘towing’ and ‘turning’ back asylum seeker boats and the operational application within Coalition Governments.

The ACMA accepts the ABC’s submission that the issue was highly newsworthy at the time and that it was reasonable for the program to examine the distinction. It also accepts that ‘it laid out information for viewers to see so they could make up their own minds, as well as presenting an analysis of the issue’.

Asylum-seeker policy was a contentious issue and the audience would have expected a rigorous analysis of it.

The ACMA is satisfied that the segment was carried out with due impartiality, having regard to the type, subject and nature of the content, for the following reasons:

o Regular viewers of ABC News familiar with the Fact Check segment would have understood that the segment was intended to debate the accuracy of a contentious statement;

o At the start of the segment footage was shown of Mr Abbott stating that there is a ‘world of difference’ between tow backs and turn backs – this footage presented the Government’s perspective on the subject of the segment and would have enabled viewers to clearly distinguish between Mr Abbott’s perspective and the opinion put forward by the presenter; and

o Before stating his opinion that Mr Abbott was ‘splitting hairs’, the presenter provided the audience with a summary of facts – that is, a snapshot of past references to ‘towing back’ and ‘turning back’ the boats in both the media and by Coalition politicians, and quoted previous and current Coalition government policy. It was open to the audience to draw different conclusions to the presenter based on these facts.


6

Having regard to the Principles at Standard 4, the ACMA considers that the program presented evidence, and the conclusion that there was not an operational distinction between towing and turning back asylum seeker boats followed the weight of evidence.

Balance and fairness was achieved through the presentation of the perspectives of current and former Coalition Ministers and distinctions in the Howard and Abbott Government policies. These were key relevant perspectives and the topic did not require perspectives from other political parties or commentators.

The ACMA considers that Mr Abbott’s views were not distorted or otherwise presented out of context, and is is satisfied that Mr Abbott and the Coalition Government’s perspectives were not misrepresented.

Accordingly, the ABC did not breach standards 4.1 and 4.4 of the Code.


7

Attachment ATranscript of the segmentPresenter: The Coalition’s ‘stop the boats’ policy continues to come under scrutiny. On his recent tour of Asia the Prime Minister said the media had misrepresented the Coalition’s border protection policy. JB takes a closer look.

[Crosses to JB]

JB: On his recent trip to Indonesia, Prime Minister Tony Abbott tried to allay Jakarta’s concerns over his ‘turn back the boats’ policy.

[Crosses to footage of the Prime Minister]

The Hon Tony Abbott MP (Prime Minister of Australia): Can I just scotch this idea that the Coalition’s policy is or ever has been tow-backs. Our policy, which we’ve repeated ‘til we’re blue in the face, is that we reserve the right to turn boats around where it’s safe to do so. There’s a world of difference between turning boats around in Australian waters, and the Australian navy towing them back to Indonesia, there’s just a world of difference.

[Crosses back to JB]

JB: So, how did people get the idea that it was Coalition policy to tow back the boats?

For years, reporters have been asking questions about a policy of towing back the boats without being corrected. It’s also been a favourite phrase with headline writers.

[Various headlines shown on screen while JB is talking:

‘Opposition vows to tow back boats’ The Age, December 2012

‘Tow-back plan would open up legal minefield’ The Australian, 13 July 2012

‘Coalition defies Indonesia with boat tow-back policy’ The Sydney Morning Herald, 8 July 2013]

JB: And it hasn’t just been journalists either.

[Crosses to footage of Mr Christopher Pyne on Lateline – ‘June 29’ appears at top of screen]

The Hon Christopher Pyne MP (Minister for Education – Leader of the House): When a boat leaves an Indonesian port and it is towed back by an Australian naval vessel....


JB: And when asked about how turning boats around would work in reality, Mr Abbott says what’s been done before can be done again.

[Crosses to footage of Mr Abbott on the 7.30 Report – July 8 appears at top of screen]

Tony Abbott: Very importantly, you’ve got to have the option of turning boats around where it’s safe to do so. The Howard Government did it, what’s been done before can be done again.


JB: OK, so what was done before?

[Crosses to footage of Alexander Downer on Sky News – ‘September 26, 2012’ appears at top of screen]


8

Alexander Downer (former Liberal Party MP): The Howard Government stopped the boats with a range of different measures, and not many boats were towed back. I just don’t remember how many. 3, 4, 5, a small number like that. But the very fact that the Government showed a determination to tow the boats back sent a very, very strong message to the people smugglers.


JB: It’s understandable some confusion has crept into the debate. Now, if we look at the Government’s policy, it says navy and customs vessels will intercept and take control of boats as soon as they enter Australian waters. Note the words ‘take control’. We know that under the Howard Government the navy intercepted boats, boarded the boats and steered them back through international waters. And, in some cases, they also towed the boats. It’s true that Mr Abbott has consistently referred to his policy as ‘turn back’ but history shows us that taking control of boats involves a range of operational tactics, including towing. In terms of policy, Mr Abbott is creating an arbitrary distinction between towing and turning. ‘Turn back’ and ‘tow back’ are interchangeable depending on the operational circumstances. Far from a world of difference, Mr Abbott is splitting hairs. That’s a Fact Check, you will find more on our website.

[Fact Check logo appears on screen with an orange semi circle graphic, indicating an ‘in between’ ruling on the accuracy of Mr Abbott’s statements]


9

Attachment BComplainant’s submissionsThe complainant submitted the following to the ABC:

At 1.14 Qld time on abc24news I heard the factchecker come on and announce that people had thought (his opinion) that the ABC had changed the wording of policies of the government to cause problems when the talks were to start with Indonesia about the illegal immigrants. Turn the boats was the one he mentioned changed to TOW THE BOATS. I know this is correct because many of your announcers said these words, especially T Jones who had the audacity to try to discredit the PM just before his meetings by relaying these words to a minor official in Indonesia. Your factchecker was trying to save the ABC by saying that this was SPLITTING HAIRS by our PM. He cited words by Christopher (not dated) and the PM, who said, "The boats were stopped. It was done in the past and can be done in the future." He always said, "Turn back the boats when it is safe to do so". Your factchecker found an interview with Alexander Downer (not dated) who said that in the past, boats were turned round and some maybe 2 or 3 were towed. There was nothing about our PM saying he would TOW the boats as you well know. Then as the conclusion, your facthecker said, "You're SPLITTING HAIRS MR ABBOTT," No, he's not. The factchecker is splitting hairs to try to justify some of the bias and bitterness the ABC has that the labor party is not in power any more, and they are worried about their future. So they should be worried.

Following a response from the ABC the complainant submitted the following:

I tried for some time to lodge this on the fact check site but it is not at all user friendly, exactly like the abc. The story about TOW BACK THE BOATS being the same as TURN BACK the boats is completely incorrect. If your presenter thinks they are the same he should be dismissed and someone who has one ounce of sense replace him... The head of the abc may soon find himself gone as many of the presenters as they are not worthy of working at my abc. In fact, I don't think I want the abc as it has changed dramatically into a labor station in the past few years. ABC24 is a disgrace with its labor leanings.

Following a further response from the ABC the complainant submitted the following:

If you don’t know the difference between TOW and TURN then you are as poorly educated as the FACT CHECKER. I noticed Barrie Cassidy on the INSIDERS corrected a journalist on his programme on Sunday 13-10-13 who said the Government’s policy of TOW BACK the boats.... and Cassidy said that he was incorrect and the policy was TURN back the boats. The only Compliment I have sent the abc. TURN back is not TOW back. I can turn around I can NOT tow around.

So the factchecker saying they are the same and Mr Abbott is splitting hairs is NOT A FACT.

I have NOT heard the fact checker scrutinize any labor comments.

abcnews 24 is not balanced and is leaning far to the left of politics. Watch it sometimes instead of saying it is fair. It isn’t.

The charter of the abc used to be that it would be balanced in politics and it has not been in the past couple of years. Did it also promote Flannery’s climate council??? Is it overpaying too many announcers? Is Q&A balanced? Watch them sometimes yourself and you should be able to reply to your own statements...


10

Following a further response from the ABC the complainant submitted the following:

TURN has myriad meanings, some being reverse, direct, vary, deviate,deflect, spin, etc

TOW means drag, haul, pull etc. NOTHING ALIKE One involves hands on direct handling, the other doesn’t...

The complainant then submitted the following to the ACMA:

I am incensed and want to complain about FACTCHECKER stating that our PM Mr Abbott was splitting hairs over the use of the words TURN BACK the boats and TOW BACK the boats. I complain that the factchecker insisted that they meant the same thing. I am indignant that the people’s ABC is not that: it is the labor party’s ABC with their bias, bigotry and bitterness always towards the coalition. I want the ABC either swept clean or privatised. It may as well be, as the cross promotion of abc programmes take up as much time as the advertisements on SBS


11

Attachment CThe ABC’s submissionsThe ABC submitted the following:

Thank you for your email of 11 October concerning the FactCheck, Abbott splitting hairs on the difference between towing and turning back the boats.

As your correspondence raised concerns of a lack of accuracy and objectivity, your email was referred to Audience and Consumer Affairs for consideration and response. The unit is separate and independent from ABC program areas and is responsible for investigating complaints alleging a broadcast or publication was in contravention of the ABC's editorial standards. In light of your concerns, we have reviewed the broadcast and assessed it against the ABC’s editorial requirements for accuracy and impartiality, as outlined in sections 2 and 4 of the ABC’s Code of Practice: http://about.abc.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/CodeofPractice2013.pdf. In the interests of procedural fairness, we have also sought and considered material from ABC News.

The distinction between towing and turning back asylum seeker boats is a distinction which Mr Abbott chose to make. He argued that there is ‘a world of difference’ between the two and that the media and others had been wrong to characterise the Coalition’s policy as a policy to turn back the boats.

The issue was highly newsworthy at the time and it was reasonable of the FactCheck unit to examine whether the distinction is a real one.

The unit checked the government’s stated policy positions, the statements of current and former coalition ministers and the undisputed facts of what occurred under the Howard government. It laid out the information for the viewers to see so they could make up their own minds as well as presenting their own analysis of the issue.

The important part of their conclusion was that, in practice, an effective policy to turn boats back has involved, at least some of the time, taking control of boats and towing them back. Therefore, to draw a sharp distinction between the two was ‘splitting hairs’.

On review, we are satisfied that, consistent with the ABC Code of Practice, the factual elements of the program were presented accurately and in context and that the program’s analysis was based on demonstrable evidence. The information was presented impartially and the coalition’s position was not misrepresented.

Accordingly, while noting your concerns, Audience and Consumer Affairs are satisfied the broadcast was in keeping with the ABC’s editorial standards. Nonetheless, please be assured that your comments have been noted and conveyed to ABC News management and the producers of the program.

Following further correspondence from the complainant, the ABC submitted the following:

You have said that by scrutinising statements made by the Government, the presenter should be replaced with someone with an ounce of sense. You have not pointed out how the finding Splitting Hairs is “completely incorrect” or misleading.

The ABC Fact Check unit scrutinises all sides of politics and comments made by public figures - whatever their background.


12

Likewise News24 broadcasts balanced news of interest to Australian audiences and it is not clear how you feel it is a disgrace with its Labor leanings.

Following a reply from the complainant the ABC submitted the following:

...You say that our finding of Splitting Hairs is incorrect and biased. Here it is shorthand:

The claim: Tony Abbott says there is a world of difference between turning boats around in Australian waters and the Australian Navy towing them back to Indonesia.

The verdict: In practical terms, "turn back" and "tow back" are interchangeable depending on the circumstances. Mr Abbott is splitting hairs.

We believe it is accurate and not misleading. Should you be dissatisfied with this response to your complaint, you may be able to pursue your complaint with the Australian Communications and Media Authority, more information is available on their website at: HYPERLINK "http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=CONTACT_COMPLAINTS_OVIEW"http://www.acma.gov.au

The ABC Charter and Code of Practice remain as strong as ever. Here it is for your reference, the ABC Code of Practice (11 April 2011): http://abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/codeofpractice2011.pdf...


13

Attachment DConsiderations 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.

Factual material will usually be specific, unequivocal and capable of independent verification.

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.


14

Attachment EConsiderations the ACMA has regard to in assessing whether or not material is compliant with 4.1 of the CodeIn determining whether or not material complained of is compliant with the ABC’s obligations under standard 4.1 of the Code, the ACMA generally has regard to the following considerations:

The meaning conveyed by the relevant material is assessed according to what an ordinary reasonable viewer would have understood the program concerned to have conveyed.

Achieving impartiality requires a broadcaster to present content in a way which avoids conveying a prejudgement, or giving effect to the affections or enmities of the presenter or reporter in respect of what is broadcast. In this regard:

o The ACMA applies the ordinary English meaning of the word ‘impartial’ in interpreting the Code. The Macquarie Dictionary (Fifth Edition)3 defines ‘impartial’ as: ‘not partial; unbiased; just’. It defines ‘partial’ to include: ‘biased or prejudiced in favour of a person, group, side, etc., as in a controversy’. ‘Bias’ is defined as: ‘a particular tendency or inclination, especially one which prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question’.

o The ACMA considers that a helpful explanation of the ordinary English usage of the term ‘bias’ is set out by Hayne J in Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng4 as follows:

‘Bias’ is used to indicate some preponderating disposition or tendency, a ‘propensity; predisposition towards; predilection; prejudice’.5 It may be occasioned by interest in the outcome, by affection or enmity, or, as was said to be the case here, by prejudgement. Whatever its cause, the result that is asserted or feared is a deviation from the true course of decision-making, for bias is ‘anything which turns a man to a particular course, or gives the direction to his measures’.

The relevant provision requires the ABC to ‘gather and present news and information with due impartiality’. Inclusion of the word ‘due’ indicates an element of flexibility depending on the particular context: for example, the gathering and presentation of factual information for a news bulletin may be materially different from an interview of a political figure, where challenging questions are ordinarily appropriate.

A program that presents a perspective that is opposed by a particular person or group is not inherently partial. Whether a breach of the Code has occurred will depend on the themes of the program, any editorial comment, the overall presentation of the story and the circumstances in which the program was prepared and broadcast.

Presenters and reporters can play a key role in setting the tone of a program through their style and choice of language. The manner in which a report is presented or reported can influence the conclusions that an ordinary reasonable listener would draw from a broadcast.

3 Online edition at http://www.macquariedictionary.com.au4 (2001) 205 CLR 507 at 563 [183] Gleeson CJ and Gummow J at 538 [100] agreeing.5 Oxford English Dictionary (Second Edition), meaning 3(a).


15

The nature of current affairs reporting requires reporters and presenters to be questioning, and at times sceptical, in their analysis of important issues. However, while probing and challenging questions may be used to explore an issue, programs must demonstrate a willingness to include alternative perspectives without prejudgement.


16

Date post:	11-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	duongcong
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

media/Broadcasting... · Web viewHe had stated that there was a ‘world of...

Documents