Investigation Report No. 2795
File No. / ACMA2012/556Broadcaster / Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Station / ABW Western Australia
Type of Service / National broadcaster
Name of Program / ABC News
Date of Broadcast / 1 March 2012
Relevant Code / ABC Code of Practice 2011 - Clauses 7.1, 7.2 and 7.5
Date Finalised / 18 May 2012
Decision / No breach of clause 7.1 (justification for content likely to cause harm or offence)
No breach of clause 7.2 (provide information about nature of content likely to cause harm or offence)
No breach of clause 7.5 (sensitivity, distress to relatives and cultural practices)
The complaint
The complaint is about footage of the corpse of an asylum-seeker which was broadcast during a news item on 1 March 2012.
The complaint has been investigated in relation to clauses 7.1, 7.2 and 7.5 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011.
The program
The item, entitled ‘Death in Detention’, was introduced as follows:
PRESENTER
Horrific pictures have emerged of an asylum-seeker who was allegedly tortured while in detention in Indonesia. Police say the 28-year-old escaped from the detention facility and was found dead a day after he’d been recaptured. Indonesia correspondent [reporter’s name] reports. And a warning: this story contains disturbing images.
The footage complained of was on screen for 16 seconds during the broadcast of the item, while the reporter said in voiceover:
REPORTER
The next day, one of the men, a 28-year-old Afghan, was found dead and taken to the local morgue. Police say a doctor found the asylum seeker died after being beaten with a blunt object. And there were other signs of torture: apparent cigarette burns and marks where his wrists were bound.
The footage showed workers at a morgue opening the door of a refrigeration unit cell and pulling out a shelf on which the body of the deceased was lying. The body, which was near naked, was in a contorted position, with legs bent and arms tensed. The face was not visible. A close-up of injuries on an unspecified part of the body was also shown.
The item included comments on the death from an officer of the Indonesian Immigration Department and an Indonesian detective.
In the last part of the item, the reporter mentioned events at a different Indonesian detention centre:
REPORTER
Asylum seekers have also been wounded at the Surabaya Detention centre on Java. They say they were beaten by the guards when they resisted attempts to transfer them to Pontianak last week. The Chief of Security at the centre confirms there was a scuffle, but he says the guard did not cause any injuries.
The report concluded:
REPORTER
The UN’s Refugee Agency says the man who died at Pontianak was a registered asylum seeker, and it’s deeply saddened by his death.
Assessment
This investigation is based on submissions from the complainant and a copy of the broadcast provided to the ACMA by the ABC.
Issue 1: Justification
Relevant code clause
7 Harm and offence
7.1 Content that is likely to cause harm or offence must be justified by the editorial context.
Complainant’s submissions
The complainant submitted that she had been ‘amazed and disgusted’ by the footage, and that it had not been necessary to show it:
It would have been acceptable, and appropriate, for the reporter in this story to have described to the ABC audience that he or she had personally seen the body of the main and could confirm that he had been tortured.
Broadcaster’s submissions
The ABC relevantly submitted that:
· viewers understand and expect that news reports will include coverage of distressing and disturbing events
· in particular, the consequences of violence are often portrayed in news broadcasts, in keeping with the duty to provide information in the public interest
· it is uncontroversial to observe that issues relating to asylum seekers are of considerable public interest in Australia and, accordingly, receive considerable media attention
· treatment of asylum seekers in Indonesia is of particular interest to Australian audiences, given the proximity of the two countries, the fact that it is not uncommon for those who seek asylum in Australia to have travelled to Australia from Indonesia, and the prominence of Indonesia in Australian domestic political discussion of asylum seekers
· there have been other allegations of wounding by guards made by other asylum seekers at a centre in Surabaya, which were denied by the Chief of Security at that Centre – the body of the dead asylum seeker showed evidence of injuries consistent with being beaten and tortured prior to death, thereby substantiating claims that beatings do occur in Indonesian detention centres
· TV is a visual medium; that is its power and particular nature – it is therefore not an adequate substitute to simply describe things, particularly when there is contention about the facts of what occurred
· the footage, powerful and confronting though it is, is an important part of the evidentiary record of what occurred
· the decision to broadcast was made carefully – it was discussed at length both in the Jakarta bureau and with the foreign desk in Sydney, and care was taken in presenting the footage (see Issue 2).
Finding
The ABC did not breach clause 7.1 of the code.
Reasons
The ABC has referred to ‘public interest’ as providing the contextual justification for the broadcast. The code does not define ‘public interest’. The ACMA’s Privacy Guidelines for Broadcasters (December 2011), in the context of invasion of privacy, state that:
Whether something is in the public interest will depend on all the circumstances, including whether a matter is capable of affecting the community at large so that citizens might be legitimately interested in or concerned about what is going on.[1]
Public interest issues include public health and security; criminal activities; corruption; misleading the public; serious anti-social behaviour; politics; government and public administration; elections; and the conduct of corporations, businesses, trade unions and religious organisations.
Not all matters that interest the public are in the public interest.
Any material that invades a person’s privacy in the public interest must directly or indirectly contribute to the public’s capacity to assess an issue of importance to the public, and its knowledge and understanding of the overall subject.[2] It should be proportionate and relevant to those issues, and not disclose peripheral facts or be excessively prolonged, detailed or salacious.[3]
The ACMA considers that the treatment of asylum seekers is a matter of concern in the community at large; that the report related to potentially criminal activities (assault, torture and murder); and that the report contributed to the public’s knowledge and understanding of the treatment of asylum seekers in Indonesia. The ACMA therefore agrees that the broadcast was in the public interest.
In relation to the display of visual material, rather than simply providing audio narrative, the ACMA accepts that television is a visual medium and conveys information through images. In the present case, the subject-matter of the item was alleged beatings and mistreatment of asylum seekers in Indonesian detention centres. The ACMA notes that the footage of the body of the deceased showed injuries to various parts of his body. The footage, accordingly, was not gratuitous, or tangential, but strongly connected to the main subject-matter of the item. Nor was the footage excessively prolonged or salacious, and the amount of detail was pertinent to the subject.
As such, the content was justified by the editorial context.
Issue 2: Provide information
Relevant code clause
7 Harm and offence
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.
Complainant’s submissions
The complainant submitted that the warnings had not prepared her for the footage that was to come, because:
Warning are understood by the viewing audience within the context that they are used by the ABC. I have never seen footage of this level of explicit and degrading nature before on the ABC news, despite having watched a large number of bulletins that include footage from war zones or tragedies, Bodies of deceased are normally, if shown (with appropriate warnings) filmed from a distance. Close up shots of bodies are not shown.
Broadcaster’s submissions
The ABC relevantly submitted that the item was presented carefully and thoughtfully:
· the broadcast used a strong warning leading into the item
· production staff made sure there was ample time for viewers to turn off after the warning
· the lead-in story, with images of the exterior of the detention centre and an interview with an Indonesian immigration officer, was screened for approximately 25 seconds before the first images relating to the deceased were shown
· the first images of the deceased comprised five seconds of the morgue unit cell door being opened so viewers glimpsed the feet of the deceased; this was followed by a couple of seconds of signage, before returning to the morgue and showing the remainder of the footage, including a close-up of the injuries.
Finding
The ABC did not breach clause 7.2 of the code.
Reasons
The ACMA agrees that the footage was unusually graphic, with the contorted position of the body, and its display on a morgue shelf, being particularly likely to cause distress and disturbance to viewers. However, the warnings were also strong, with the words ‘horrific’ and ‘disturbing’ being used. Further, the warnings came some time before the footage appeared on screen, and the footage itself (as noted by the ABC) was introduced gradually, so as to give viewers time to realise what was to come and avoid seeing the most disturbing part of the footage if they chose to do so. Accordingly, the ABC’s efforts to provide information about the nature of the content were reasonable.
Issue 3: Sensitivity, distress to relatives, cultural practices
Relevant code clause
7 Harm and offence
7.5 The reporting of depiction of violence, tragedy or trauma must be handled with extreme sensitivity. Avoid causing undue distress to victims, witnesses or bereaved relatives. Be sensitive to significant cultural practices when depicting or reporting on recently deceased persons.
Complainant’s submissions
The complainant submitted that:
· the deceased was not treated with dignity and respect;
· the deceased may have relatives who live in Australia who saw the broadcast, learnt of their relative’s fate through the broadcast, and/or were distressed as a result of seeing how he had suffered prior to death;
· close-up shots of bodies are never shown, even with warnings; and
· ‘just because imagery of this nature is achievable in Indonesia, does not make it right that it should be shown by an Australian company, and in particular a government funded news service’.
Broadcaster’s submissions
The ABC relevantly submitted:
· the use of the footage was carefully considered in the first instance
· the footage was only used once ABC News judged there was a clear editorial basis for including it
· the subject matter was conveyed in the introduction
· clear warnings were provided
· there was ample opportunity for viewers to turn away before the footage was shown
· the broadcast of the footage does not mean that the dead man was not treated with dignity and respect – his alleged injuries at the hands of immigration authorities was the central fact of the item
· there is no evidence that the ABC is aware of that indicates that the dead man had bereaved relatives in Australia
· there is no basis for suggesting that footage of the bodies of alleged torture victims is culturally prohibited in Australia or elsewhere.
Finding
The ABC did not breach clause 7.5 of the code.
Reasons
Extreme sensitivity in reporting or depicting violence, tragedy or trauma: The broadcast placed the deceased’s body on public display. In some circumstances, such a display might indicate that a broadcaster had not shown ‘extreme sensitivity’ in reporting or depicting violence, tragedy or trauma. However, in the present case, the ACMA considers that the ABC fulfilled its obligations under clause 7.5 by treating the deceased’s death as a matter of serious concern. In that respect, it is noted that the ABC sought comments from the Indonesian Immigration Department and Police, and included the UNHCR comment that it was ‘deeply saddened’ by the deceased’s death. The ACMA does not consider that the item was merely sensational, or that it de-humanised the deceased. The requirement to handle the reporting or depiction of violence, tragedy or trauma is not to be interpreted as preventing the broadcast, in visual medium, of matters of significant public interest. As noted at Issue 1, the treatment of asylum seekers in Indonesian detention centres is, for the Australian public, one such matter.
Regard for bereaved relatives: The ACMA has no information to indicate that the deceased does have relatives in Australia. In any case, the deceased was not named in the broadcast and his face was not shown. It is therefore no more than a remote possibility that the deceased’s relatives learnt of his fate through the broadcast. Supposing that the deceased does have relatives in Australia, and that they were already aware that he had died in the circumstances described in the broadcast, the ABC made reasonable efforts to avoid causing them undue distress by providing warnings (see Issue 2).
Sensitivity to significant cultural practices: The complainant appears to suggest that it is contrary to Australian cultural practices to display close-up shots of bodies. The ACMA agrees that the footage was unusually confronting, but notes that, as indicated at Issue 2, there were warnings and the introduction of the footage was gradual. Because of this the ACMA considers that the ABC showed the sensitivity required by clause 7.5 in relation to cultural practices.
ACMA Investigation Report 2795 – ABC News broadcast by ABW on 1/3/12 7
[1] See London Artists v Littler (1969) 2 QB 375 at 391.
[2] This test is drawn from case law—Allworth v John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd (1993) 113 FLR 254 at 263; London Artists v Littler (1969) 2 QB 375 at 391.
[3] Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22 at 164–165.