Investigation Report No. 2806
File No. / ACMA2012/676Broadcaster / Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Station / ABC TV1 NSW
Type of Service / National broadcasting
Name of Program / Media Watch
Date of Broadcast / 19 March 2012
Relevant Code / Standards 4.1, 4.4 and 4.5 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011
Date finalised / 17 September 2012
Decision / No breach of clause 4.1 (gathering and presenting news with due impartiality)
No breach of clause 4.4 (misrepresenting perspectives)
No breach of clause 4.5 (unduly favouring one perspective over another)
The complaint
On 8 May 2012 the Australian Communications and Media Authority received a complaint regarding a segment of the program Media Watch that had been broadcast on 19 March 2012 by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (the ABC) on ABC TV1.
The complainant was concerned that the program was not impartial and that it did not comply with the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (the Code) in relation to requirements not to misrepresent any perspective or to unduly favour one perspective over another. The complaint has been assessed against standards 4.1, 4.4 and 4.5 of the Code.
The complainant also raised certain issues relevant to the ABC’s statute and Editorial Policies. The ACMA does not have jurisdiction to consider the ABC’s compliance with its Editorial Policies and has advised the complainant accordingly. However, inasmuch as some of these issues overlap with code obligations, the ACMA has considered these.
The program
Media Watch is a program devoted to media analysis. Media Watch is described on the ABC’s website as:
Australia’s leading forum for media analysis and comment’. […] Media Watch turns the spotlight onto those who literally ‘make the news’: the reporters, editors, sub-editors, producers, camera operators, sound recordists and photographers who claim to deliver the world to our doorsteps, radios, computers and living rooms. We also keep an eye on those who try to manipulate the media: the PR consultants, spin-doctors, lobbyists and “news makers” who set the agenda.
In a segment broadcast on 19 March 2012 the program’s presenter begins by saying that ‘many real journalists struggle when reporting science’. He then discusses and comments unfavourably on the practice of journalists accepting and uncritically reporting on claims made by scientists and organisations without first checking on the background and qualifications of those making the claims.
The presenter illustrates his point by discussing a recent paper issued by what is described during the segment as ‘an environmental lobby group’ (hereafter referred to in this report as ‘the organisation’). The author of the paper (hereafter referred to in this report as ‘the scientist’), a scientist commissioned by the organisation, makes a number of claims regarding the use of water in the Murray Darling Basin area and the needs of the environment versus the needs of farmers and other landowners. The presenter is critical of how the findings of the paper were reported in the media and of how the background of the organisation and the connections between the organisation and the scientist were not mentioned in relevant media coverage. He is also critical of how the media failed to report on criticism of the scientist’s findings by other scientists.
Assessment
This investigation is based on submissions from the complainant, the response from the ABC to the original complaint and an electronic copy of the broadcast provided to the ACMA by the ABC.
Considerations to which the ACMA has regard to in assessing compliance with standards 4.1 and 4.5 of the Code can be found at Appendix A.
Complainant’s submissions
The complainant’s submissions to the ABC and to the ACMA can be found at Appendix B.
Broadcaster’s response to the complainant
The ABC’s response to the complainant can be found at Appendix C.
Issue 1: Whether news and information was gathered and presented impartially
Relevant Code Standard
4.1 Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.
Finding
The ABC did not breach standard 4.1 of the Code.
Reasons
The complainant has alleged that:
An impartial observer would say the program was one-sided, lacking in balance of viewpoint or presentation, clearly biased, and arguably a vehicle for the prejudices of Media Watch in general and [the presenter] in particular.
The ACMA is of the view that the segment did not unduly[1] favour one perspective over another.
In accordance with the considerations at Appendix A, a program that presents a perspective that is opposed by a particular person or group is not inherently partial. Whether or not a breach of the Code has occurred will depend on the themes of Media Watch, any editorial comment, the overall presentation of the segment and the circumstances in which Media Watch is prepared and broadcast.
In this regard, the ACMA notes that Media Watch, as described on its website and noted above, ‘turns the spotlight onto those who literally “make the news”: ... [those] who claim to deliver the world to our doorsteps, radios, computers and living rooms’.
Media Watch is therefore, by its very nature, a program that calls into question the actions of the media and journalists. The ACMA considers that viewers would be cognisant of this fact and would set their expectations accordingly. The ACMA also considers that the presenter’s tone and choice of language did not portray prejudgement or personal affection or enmity in a manner or to a degree unacceptable in this context. The fact that the segment, as a part of its critique of the reportage, revealed that the scientist’s findings were contentious and highlighted the background of the scientist and the organisation that had commissioned her research does not make it inherently partial.
Furthermore, opinions representing both sides of the debate regarding the scientist’s findings were represented and alternative points of view were offered for consideration. During the segment the views of the scientist regarding the allocation of water in the Murray Darling Basin were outlined via direct quotes and quotes from newspaper articles reporting on the scientist’s findings. Other scientists who were critical of these findings were also quoted.
The Code makes it clear that impartiality does not require that every perspective receives equal time or that every facet of every argument is presented.
The ACMA also notes that the presenter did not offer his opinion on the findings of the scientist or on those who were critical of these findings, other than to say that the findings of the scientist were ‘contentious’. At one stage during the segment the presenter states that: ‘it’s not Media Watch’s job to argue with [the scientist] on the science’.
Given the focus of the segment and the airing of opinions and perspectives from both sides of the debate regarding water allocation in the Murray Darling Basin, the ACMA does not consider that the program was unduly partial.
Accordingly, the ACMA considers that the ABC did not breach standard 4.1 of the Code.
Issue 2: Whether any perspectives were misrepresented
Relevant code standard
4.4 Do not misrepresent any perspective.
Finding
The ABC did not breach standard 4.4 of the Code.
Reasons
The complainant has alleged that:
[The presenter] misrepresented the perspective[2] of [the scientist’s] research – a perfectly legitimate, painstakingly researched and fully published position – and [the organisation’s] sponsorship of it – fully disclosed and completely transparent.
However, the ACMA is of the view that the segment did not misrepresent the perspectives of either the scientist or the organisation that had commissioned her research.
The presenter outlined the perspective of the scientist by direct quotes, quotes from media articles reporting on the scientist’s findings or quotes from the media release issued by the organisation that had commissioned the scientist’s research. There were also direct quotes from the organisation who had commissioned her research included in the segment.
For example, the scientist is quoted in her report as saying:
there has developed a false narrative based on junk science and misguided expectations that the buy-back of large volumes of irrigation water … will solve the problem.
and the Executive Director of the organisation is quoted as saying:
What we’re hoping that will happen is that people will look at the science. Because we’re saying that the current policy is based on junk science and that is shown in this report.
Nor does the presenter suggest that the organisation’s sponsorship of the scientist’s research was anything other than ‘fully disclosed and completely transparent’. The presenter details the scientist’s past connection with the organisation, including previous work she had done for the organisation and the fact that she was one of the organisation’s founding directors, stating that ‘all of this information is openly available’.
Although at one stage the presenter describes the claims made by the scientist as ‘to say the least, contentious’, to state that a person’s views are contentious is not to misrepresent those views. During the segment the presenter provides several direct quotes from fellow scientists to substantiate his assertion that the findings were ‘contentious’, including a quote from one scientist who states that:
The paper appears to be a crusade against the barrages and the scientists who have actually carried out their unbiased science there, rather than a sound scientific paper.
Furthermore, the presenter states that:
it’s not Media Watch’s job to argue with [the scientist] on the science.
Later, in response to an allegation from the scientist, read out during the segment, that Media Watch appears to be:
contemplating, asserting or implying that my professional judgement and integrity as a scientist has been influenced or corrupted by personal financial gain
the presenter states:
Let me be clear. We’re not suggesting anything of the sort. Nor are we disputing [the organisation’s] right to promote her views.
We are saying that journalists too easily swallow, and pass on without challenge, highly controversial claims put forward in the name of science, by organisations whose agenda’s aren’t obvious from their names.
The focus of the segment was on the reporting of the scientist’s findings, rather than on the findings themselves. The presenter was putting forward his views that:
· information regarding the background of the scientist, the background of the organisation and the criticism of the scientist’s findings by fellow scientists would all be relevant considerations when making an informed evaluation of the scientist’s findings; and
· journalists should have, but had not, included this information when reporting on the scientist’s findings.
Accordingly, the ACMA considers that the ABC did not breach standard 4.4 of the Code.
Issue 3: Whether one perspective was unduly favoured over another
Relevant code standard
4.5 Do not unduly favour one perspective over another.
Finding
The ABC did not breach standard 4.5 of the Code.
Reasons
For reasons similar to those outlined above in the assessment of compliance with standard 4.1 of the Code, the ACMA is of the view that the program did not ‘unduly favour one perspective over another’.
During the segment the perspective of the scientist regarding the allocation of water in the Murray Darling Basin was outlined via direct quotes and quotes from newspaper articles reporting on the scientist’s findings. Other scientists who were critical of these findings were also quoted (see above under ‘Issue 2’ for examples of these quotes).
The segment was primarily concerned with the reporting by the media of scientific research and findings. The perspective put forward in the segment was that many journalists accept and uncritically report on claims made by scientists and organisations without doing sufficient background research or investigating alternative claims. This was clearly foreshadowed in the introduction to the segment, when the presenter stated that:
many real journalists struggle when reporting science
and summed up by the presenter at the end of the segment when he states:
We are saying that journalists too easily swallow, and pass on without challenge, highly controversial claims put forward in the name of science, by organisations whose agenda’s aren’t obvious from their names.
The presenter supported this perspective by providing an example of the way in which scientific findings are reported on in the media. The example he used was a recent scientific paper on water usage in the Murray Darling Basin. He provided evidence to support his views by:
· quoting from media reports about the paper and its findings;
· quoting the scientist who had written the paper and the organisation that had commissioned the paper;
· providing information on the organisation that had commissioned the paper, the background of this organisation, the background of the scientist who had written the paper and the previous connections between the organisation and the scientist;
· stating that none of the information regarding the scientist and the organisation was conveyed to listeners/readers by journalists even though it was freely available and that this information could influence the public’s perception of the claims made by the scientist in her paper; and
· quoting from scientists who did not agree with the paper’s conclusions and stating that: ‘None of this scientific opposition is even hinted at in most of the media coverage’.
The presenter was using the media coverage of the scientist’s findings to illustrate his point. He did not appear to imply, as claimed by the complainant, that more rigorous standards of investigation should be applied to scientific claims that did not accord with his (i.e. the presenter’s) own, or that the funding of objectors to ‘deep-green’ priorities’ needed closer examination than the funding of supporters of ‘deep-green’ priorities.
The ACMA is consequently of the view that the perspective favoured during the segment, namely that many journalists accept and uncritically report on claims made by scientists and organisations without first checking the background of those making the claims or on the views of scientists with alternative views, was not ‘unduly’ (i.e. excessively, inappropriately, improperly or unjustifiably) favoured.
Accordingly, the ACMA considers that the ABC did not breach standard 4.5 of the Code.
Appendix A
Considerations which the ACMA has regard to in assessing compliance with standards 4.1 and 4.5 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011