3RN Melbourne - ACMA Investigation Report 2906

Investigation Report No. 2906

The complaint

On 9 October 2012, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) received a complaint claiming ‘biased reporting’ in segmentsof the radio program TheScience Show broadcast by 3RN Melbourne (the ABC) over the period of a year from 27August 2011 until 18 August 2012. The segments are listed at Appendix A.

The complainant (the Complainant) alleged that the segments had presented the theory ofhuman-caused climate changewithout ‘sceptical balancing material’.He also submitted that the Program had failed to present the matter with due impartiality. The complainant identified specific content in relation to 10 segments which he alleged breached standard 4.1 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (the Code).[1]

The ACMA has investigated these segments against standards4.1 and 4.2 of the Code.

The program

The Science Show is described on its website in the following terms:

The unique content ofThe Science Showhas given Australians fascinating insights into all manner of things from the physics of cricket to prime ministerial biorhythms. According to [the Program’s presenter],The Science Showhas consistently achieved what it originally set out to do in 1975: 'To produce a science program about ideas, not simply facts or bits of boffinry'.[2]

It is broadcast weekly at 12pm on Saturdays, and is also available via podcast. Each episode has a duration of just under an hour and generally features the presenter (the Presenter) interviewing various scientific experts and covering a number of topics of scientific interest.

Assessment

This investigation is based on submissions from the Complainant and the ABCand correspondence between the Complainant and the ABC.Other sources used have been identified where relevant.

In assessing content against the Code, the ACMA considers the meaning conveyed by the relevant material. This is assessed according to the understanding of an ‘ordinary reasonable listener’.

Australian courts have considered an ‘ordinary, reasonable’listener 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.[3]

The ACMA examines what the ‘ordinary, reasonable listener’ would have understood the materialto have conveyed. It considers the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone and 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 it has breached the Code.

Relevant Code Standards

Impartiality and Diversity of Perspectives

4.1 Gather and present news and information with due impartiality

4.2Present a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented.

The principles applying to standard 4 of the Code (the Principles) include:

Judgements about whether impartiality was achieved in any given circumstances can vary among individuals according to their personal and subjective view of any given matter of contention. Acknowledging this fact of life does not change the ABC’s obligation to apply its impartiality standard as objectively as possible. In doing so, the ABC is guided by these hallmarks of impartiality:

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

The ABC aims to present, over time, content that addresses a broad range of subjects from a diversity of perspectives reflecting a diversity of experiences, presented in a diversity of ways from a diversity of sources, including content created by ABC staff, generated by audiences and commissioned or acquired from external content-makers.

Impartiality does not require that every perspective receives equal time, nor that every facet of every argument is presented.

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

• the type, subject and nature of the content;
• the circumstances in which the content is made and presented;
• the likely audience expectations of the content;
• the degree to which the matter to which the content relates is contentious;
• the range of principal relevant perspectives on the matter of contention; and
• 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 ACMA has considerations it generally applies in determining whether or not a statement complained of was compliant with the ABC’s obligations in standard 4. These are set out at Appendix B.

Submissions

The Complainant’s submissions can be found at Appendix C.

The ABC’s submissions can be found at Appendix D.

A list of the segments that the ABC provided in their response to the Complainant in respect of standard 4.2 can be found at Appendix E.

Issue 1 - Impartiality

Finding

The ABC did not breach standard 4.1 of the Code.

Reasons

The Complainant identified segments 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, 19, 20 and 27as lacking impartiality in breach of clause 4.1 of the Code.

The Segments

• Segment 1: David Attenboroughdiscusses a range of topics, including climate change scepticism and studies into ice cores and their use in measuring global temperatures. The Complainant submits that the interviewee omitted aspects of the science and the Presenterfailed to challenge the intervieweeon the issue of whether or not there is a lag between carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and rising temperatures.
• Segment 2: David Attenborough discusses acidification of the world’s oceans due to increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which turns into carbonic acid changing the acidity of the oceans. The Complainant says there is a great deal of speculation about acidification, refers to a contrary exchange in another interview on the resilience of coral reefs andstatesthat: ‘[the Presenter] habitually agrees with whomever he is interviewing and never proffers his awareness of contrary information to the interviewee or his audience on-air.’
• Segment 3:Mark Hendersonrefers to evidence that the world is warming and the fact that humans are responsible for this as an irrefutable matter of physics, which does not vary according to political viewpoint.The Complainant claims that the intervieweeneglected to mention alleged controversies surrounding some of his claims. He further states ‘it is inconceivable that [the Presenter] is unaware of the Hendersonnonsenses, because he is after all publically knowledgeable about many obscure things... However, he is happy to allow his audience to be misled.’

• Segment 7: The Presenter refers to the ABC programI can change your mind about climate, featuring Anna Rose, co-founder of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition, and former Senator Nick Minchin to represent both sides of the debate. Each was to introduce the other to well-credentialed experts with the aim of converting one another to their views.Ms Rose was introduced to Marc Morano a sceptic, but refused to debate with him. At the end of the segment the Presenter recommended Anna Rose’s book, Madlands: A Journey to Change the Mind of a Climate Change Sceptic.The Complainant submitted that Ms Rose refused to debate Mr Morano because he was not a climate scientist, despite the fact that she and the others were also non-climate scientists,and said the Presenter has not recommended books by those who go against his personal dogma.
• Segment 9: An excerpt from the ABC program I can change your mind about climate, featuring US ProfessorNaomi Oreskas who discusses the strength of the consensus in the scientific community on the issue of climate change.The Complainant states that the Presenter ‘endorses the term climate change deniers, (meaning sceptics of [human-caused global warming]), which reflects his own repeated use of that term and thus his biased attitude. What is unbalanced is that most sceptics do NOT deny climate change but principally dispute the forecasts of computer modelling which rely on intuitive inputs such as various feedbacks.’
• Segment 10:Acidification of the oceans is discussed by the Professor Jason Hall-Spencer.The Complainant asserts that his statements are narrow, circular and controversial. He states that ‘[the Presenter] must be aware of some of these limitations [the interviewee’s views regarding ocean acidification] given that he claims to read about 25 journals per week.’
• Segment 13: Interview with Professor Michael McPhadendiscussing documents aimed to spread doubt and confusion in the climate debate that had been improperly obtained from the Heartland Institute by Peter Gleick,a climate change activist. Professor McFadden refers to this as a breach of scientific ethics. The complainant argues that one of the documents has been revealed to be a forgery by Gleick and claims that this is referred to only once in closing: “the the [HI] has acknowledged that most of those documents are their own. There's one that is in question which is a summary document, so it's hard to talk about that.”He also says it is ‘ironic’ thatthe interviewee is the president of the same organisation that Gleickwas the president of previously.
• Segment 19: The Presenter’s opening statements including a reference to the ‘burial of climate science’ is followed by a song ‘Denial Tango’, the lyrics of which are an ironic take on the climate change sceptic position. The Complainant asks, ‘What has this comedic song got to do with science...? It says more about The Science Show team’s attitude.’
• Segment 20: Professor Tom Trull refersto CO2 in the ocean from emissions and the lowering of pH. The Complainant challenges the interviewee’s assertion that CO2 levels are lowering the oceans’ pH, claims that Trull’s views are not universal and states that ‘[the Presenter] must be aware of some of these limitations.’

• Segment 27: In interviews with winners of the Eureka Prizes, including John Cook, author of Climate Change Denial who refers to measuring the actual effect from CO2 compared with simulations. The Complainant states that Cook’s observations about warming are unfounded in the literature and also refers to the Presenter’s repeated use of his insult to sceptics of the term denierswhich ad hominem is clearly a severe indication of his non-impartiality.’

Findings

The ACMA notes that The Science Show is a program which includes interviews and discussion of scientific facts and various scientific theories. A ‘theory’ is defined by the Macquarie Dictionary (online) variously as a ‘coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena’ and ‘conjecture or opinion’.

Applying the Principles and the ACMA considerations set out at Appendix B, the ACMA accepts the ABC’s submission that impartiality requires a balance that follows the weight of evidence;in the context of a program presenting science, the ABC’scoverage of climate science reflects ‘the balance of the weight of evidence’, and not the ‘balance of weight of public opinion’.The ACMA also accepts the ABC’s submission that ‘impartiality is not measured on the basis of giving all sides of an argument equal voice or equal time’.

Further, the ACMA considers that impartiality does not require that every facet of every argument is presented and a program that presents a view that is opposed by a particular person or group is not inherently partial. Interviews may be probing but, as noted at Appendix B, presenters will play a key role in setting the tone of a program through their style and choice of language.

In the context of a science program, interviews and discussion may involve an explanation of the interviewee’s views and theories on any given issue, as well as reports on the findings of scientific research.

The ACMA has reviewed each of the 10 segments identified by the Complainant and considers that:

• it was apparent from the segments that the issue of human caused climate change and the reported facts and theories surrounding this issue are matters of contention
• where interviews were included in a segment:
• interviewees’ positions were substantiated by sufficient scientific evidence to give credence and authority to their views
• there is no submission that their perspectives were misrepresented
• inthe segment in which the issue of climate change was debated by Nick Minchin and Anna Rose
• representatives from both sides were given equal time to debate
• criticisms of Anna Rose by her opponents for not debating were aired
• opposing perspectives were expressed demonstrating a fair treatment of opposing views on the issue within the segment
• references to books and articles by interviewees were made in the context of the topic under discussion
• the term ‘denier’ used in the context of works by interviewees (Cook’sClimate Change Denial; Rose’sMerchants of Doubt) reflected the use of the term in discussion about dissent in the broader debate within the scientific and the general community
• in the discussion about improperly obtained documents:
• the method used to obtain them was criticised
• it was made clear that one had been forged and
• the interviewee’s presidency of the organisation did not indicate a lack of impartiality
• the comedic song was brief, throwaway and light-hearted, presented in the context of the opening of the segment and did not demonstrate a lack of impartiality

Generally, the Presenter maintained a relatively neutral tone, the language used by him was objective and he did not malign the views of sceptics. It was also made clear that there are strongly held alternative views on the topic of human induced climate change and on the facts surrounding the issue. Terms used in the segments reflected the broader debate rather than any affections or enmities of the Presenter.

The ACMA is of the view that the ABC fulfilled its obligations under standard 4.1 in each instance. While the circumstances vary in each of the segments cited above, they did not convey a pre-judgement on the Presenter’s part. Further, to the extent that sceptical viewpoints were not explored in the segments, it is noted that impartiality does not require that every perspective receives equal time, or that every facet of every argument is presented. In addition, the nature of the Program, namely an exploration of scientific thought and study, involves brief snapshots of the methods and results of each scientist’s findings.

The ACMA considers that taking into account the type, subject and nature of the content of the above segments, being scientific content which followed the weight of evidence on the issue, as well as the circumstances in which the content of the above segments was presented and the likely audience expectations of the program, the Presenter’s approach to the issues dealt with in the interviews was in keeping with his obligation for due impartiality under standard 4.1

Accordingly, the ACMA is satisfied that the ABC did not breach standard 4.1 in relation to this segment.

Issue 2 – Diversity of Perspectives

Finding

The ABCdid not breach standard 4.2 of the Code.

Reasons

Standard 4.2 requires the ABC to present a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented.

The Complainant submitted that the 29 programs broadcast in the period from 27 August 2011 to 18 August 2012 (see Appendix A) indicate that the ABC has breached standard 4.2, that the programs identified by the ABC in response (see Appendix E) did not include balancing material, and that15 segments pre-dated the one year period in which the 29segments identified by him were broadcast.

The ABC has submitted that it broadcast 16 segments (including 2 on the Science Show) that challenged the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change over a five-year period; that its assessment must take into account the balance of weight of evidence and that for this reason, the majority of The Science Show’s coverage of climate change has highlighted research by ‘reputable scientists who broadly support the thesis of anthropological warming’.

The ACMA acknowledges the Complainant’s submission that these 16 segments were broadcast over a period of five years, as opposed to the one-year sample provided by him, and further that they were broadcast on a number of different Radio National programs and not exclusively onThe Science Show.