Investigation Report No. 2594

File No. / ACMA2011/1007
Licensee / Channel Seven Perth Pty Ltd
Station / TVW Perth
Type of Service / Commercial television broadcasting
Name of Program / Seven News; program promotion for Seven News
Dates of Broadcast / 21 March 2011, 22 March 2011, 25 March 2011, 28 March 2011, 30 March 2011 and 1 April 2011
Relevant Code / Clauses 4.3.1, 4.4.1 and 4.5 of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2010
Date Finalised / 16 September 2011
Decision / No breach of clause 4.3.1 (fair representation of viewpoints in a news program).
No breach of clause 4.4.1 (fair presentation of news in a news program).
No breach of clause 4.5 (accurate presentation of factual material in a promotion for a news program).

The complaint

On 20 May 2011 the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) received a written complaint regarding various news items broadcast by the licensee of commercial television station TVW, Channel Seven Perth Pty Ltd (the licensee). All of the items related to Australian Rules football (AFL) and in particular to the two West Australian teams, the West Coast Eagles and the Fremantle Dockers. The complainant alleged that these news itemsunfairlyfocussed on questioningthe future of the coach of the West Coast Eagles, John Worsfold. The complainant also alleged that a program promotion for news items to be broadcast the following week, which promised in-depth interviews with Mr Worsfold and the coach of the Fremantle Dockers, Mark Harvey, was misleading.

The ACMA has investigated the complaint under the following clauses of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2010 (the Code):

  • clause 4.3.1 of the Code, which deals with the fair representation of viewpoints;
  • clause 4.4.1 of the Code, which deals with the fair presentation of news; and
  • clause 4.5 of the Code, which deals with accuracy in promotions for news programs.

Matters not pursued

The complainant raised certain issues under clause 4.1 of the Code, which sets out the objectives of Section 4 of the Code (news and current affairs programs). However, as clause 4.1 serves as an introductory clause only it does not contain provisions that can be investigated with respect toCode compliance.

With respect to the program promotion, the complainant raised issues with respect to clause 4.3.1 of the Code, which deals with accuracy and fairness in news and current affairs programs. However, accuracy and fairness in promotions for news programs are dealt with under clause 4.5 of the Code and this aspect of the complaint has therefore been considered against clause 4.5 rather than against clause 4.3.1.

In his letter of complaint to the ACMA dated 10 May 2011 the complainant also raised complaints handling issues, stating that:

It is now 38 days and I understand that under the Code of Practice I should have received a reply within 30 days.

However, clause 7.12 of the Code states that a response:

must be made as soon as practicable, but in any case no longer than 30 working days after receipt of the complaint. (emphasis added)

Further correspondence received by the ACMA from the licensee and the complainant indicates that the licensee received the complaint on 5 April 2011 (3 days after the complaint was posted) and responded to the complainant in a letter dated 12 May 2011, which the complainant received on 16 May 2011.

As the complaint was received by the licensee on 5 April it was required by the Code to respond to the complainant no later than 19 May 2011, 30 working days after receipt of the complaint (taking into account the Easter and Anzac Day public holidays). The complainant received a substantive written response from the licensee on 16 May 2011, within the timeframe stipulated in clause 7.12 of the Code, and the complaint has therefore been handled in accordance with the requirements of the Code.

The program

Seven News is a news bulletin broadcast between 6.00 pm and 6.30 pm seven days a week.

The complaint was concerned with the broadcast of the following five news items and one program promotion, listed below in chronological order:

  1. Seven Sports Update news item broadcast on 21 March 2011:
    Features an interview between sports reporter and presenter Basil Zempilas (BZ) and coach of the West Coast Eagles, John Worsfold (JW). BZ starts the segment with the statement: ‘For the first time in his 10 years as coach of the West Coast Eagles, John Worsfold starts the new season knowing it could be his last’. JW then states that his job is on the line every year. After discussing JW’s coaching future, the two discuss issues relating to the selection of the team for the opening game of the season. BZ also announces that JW will be interviewed on Seven News every Monday during the football season, as has been the case in previous years.
  2. Seven Sports Updatenews item broadcast on 22 March 2011:
    Features an interview between BZ and coach of the Fremantle Dockers, Mark Harvey (MH). BZ starts the interview with the question: ‘It must be nice to be the coach in town with some job security. All the focus seems to be on your West Coast counterpart so far this year’. They then go on to discuss injuries to key players and Fremantle’s prospects for the upcoming season. BZ also announces that MH will be interviewed on Seven News every Tuesday during the football season.
  3. Program promotion for an upcoming news item, broadcast on 25 March 2011:
    Announces that news items to be broadcast the following week will feature interviews with JW and MH.
  4. Seven Sports Update news item broadcast on 28 March 2011:
    Features an interview between BZ and JW. The main focus of the interview was on injuries to two key players. At one point BZ remarks: ‘We know what’s on the line for you this season. It can’t help losing your best player for half the year’.
  5. News item broadcast on 30 March 2011:
    The focus of this item, called ‘Future Plans’, focuses on JW’s future as coach of the West Coach Eagles and his plans for life after football. An interview with JW is a major part of the news item.
  6. News item broadcast on 1 April 2011:
    The focus of this item is MH and his thoughts on the future of Australian Rules and the effect of various rule changes on the game.An interview with MH is the major component of the news item.

Assessment

The assessment is based on copies of the relevant program material as identified by the complainant and provided to the ACMA by the licensee, and on submissions from the complainant and the licensee.Other sources used have been identified where relevant.

Issue 1 – Fairrepresentation of viewpoints and fair presentation of news in a news program

Relevant Code Provisions

Clause 4.3.1 of the Code states:

4.3In broadcasting news and current affairs programs, licensees:

4.3.1must broadcast factual material accurately and represent viewpoints fairly, havingregard to the circumstances at the time of preparing and broadcasting theprogram;

Clause 4.4.1 of the Code states:

4.4In broadcasting news programs (including news flashes) licensees:

4.4.1must present news fairly and impartially;

Complainant’s submissions

In his complaint to the licensee the complainant alleges that the news items listed above unfairlyfocussed on John Worsfold’s tenure as coach of the West Coast Eagles, stating that:

It is not fair that John Worsfold should have his future employment continually questioned.

[…]

The program might have represented a fair viewpoint if the Eagles had lost the match on Sunday but as they had won their first game after losing two of their players to injury and they had performed well in the NAB [i.e. pre-season] Cup, it no longer represented a fair viewpoint on the future of the team’s coach.

[…]

One might ask are Harvey and Worsfold being treated differently by Channel 7 presenters in its Sports segment of the news?

In correspondence to the ACMA the complainant stated:

I am not satisfied with the response from Channel 7 as my complaint has been answered in general terms and is wrong in stating that the interview merely poses the question to Mr Worsfold about the risks he faces if his team does not perform. Zempilas does not pose questions but makes statements such as, “It is shaping as one of the biggest decisions in WA football history in his tenth and probably last season as coach of the West Coast Eagles”. And “He knows 2011 could be his last.”

Licensee’s submissions

In its letter of response to the complainant, the licensee stated:

We have reviewed the reports you refer to and believe the segments were broadcast in accordance with our obligations under the Code. Each report is set in an interview context and merely poses the question to Mr Worsfold about the risks he faces if his team does not perform. This is a legitimate question as the contractual obligations of a coach commonly include provisos relating to their team’s performance. In such circumstances, we believe it was appropriate to question Mr Worsfold’s position, particularly after a key player of the West Coast Eagles was injured.

Finding

The licensee of TVW did not breach clauses 4.3.1 or 4.4.1 of the Code in news items broadcast during Seven News on 21, 22, 28, 30 March 2011 and 1 April 2011.

Reasons

In determining whether or not a licensee has represented viewpoints fairly (having regard to the circumstances at the time of preparing and broadcasting the program), the ACMA takes into account that the Code does not require a licensee to present all material which it obtains. The overriding requirement is that the program, that is, whatever goes to air in its entirety, must represent viewpoints fairly. A program may omit material, but must not misrepresent viewpoints in doing so.

Matters that could lead to a consideration that news has not been presented fairly may include an unfair selection of material from the range of material available, an undue emphasis on certain material, or the unfair juxtaposition of material taken out of context.

For the following reasons the delegate is of the view that the news items in question represented viewpoints fairly and presented news fairly:

  1. As the West Coast Eagles are one of only two Western Australian teams in the AFL, it is reasonable that the team, its players and coach should be the focus of news coverage of the AFL competition by Perth-based television stations.
  2. Due to the performance of the West Coast Eagles in recent years in the AFL competition (finishing second-last in 2008, 11th in 2009 and last in 2010), it is reasonable to expect that the issue of the coach’s future would be raised. In this context, statements to the effect that John Worsfold’s tenure as coach of the West Coast Eagles could be in jeopardy if his team has another bad year in 2011 could not be regarded as unfair.
  3. By way of contrast, under Mark Harvey, the Fremantle Dockers made the finals in 2010. Given the recent success of the Fremantle Dockers relative to that of the West Coast Eagles, it is again reasonable to expect that the future of the coach of the West Coast Eagles would be questioned whilst the future of the coach of the Fremantle Dockers would not.
  4. Coaches of major sporting teams, both in Australia and overseas, traditionally receive a large amount of media attention, particularly if their team’s performance is in question.
  5. John Worsfoldwas allowed to present his views at length in three of the five news items mentioned by the complainant. The other two news items featured interviews with the coach of the side based in nearby Fremantle, the Fremantle Dockers.TheACMA has not been provided with any information to suggest that the viewpoints of either coach were not fairly represented or misrepresented during the broadcasts in question.

Accordingly, the licensee did not breach clauses 4.3.1 and 4.4.1 of the Code.

Issue 2 – Accuracy in a promotion for a news program

Relevant Code Provision

Clause 4.5 of the Code states:

4.5In broadcasting a promotion for a news or current affairs program, a licensee mustpresent factual material accurately and represent featured viewpoints fairly, havingregard to the circumstances at the time of preparing and broadcasting the programpromotion, and its brevity. A licensee is not required by this clause to portray all aspectsor themes of a program or program segment in a program promotion, or to represent allviewpoints contained in the program or program segment.

Complainant’s submissions

In his letter of complaint to the licensee the complainant stated:

On Friday, 25th of March, I saw an advertisement by Zempilas, promoting a program for the following week where the coaches were to face some form of in-depth interviews. There were flashes of Mark Harvey and John Worsfold with Worsfold defending his position as coach.

[…]

Finally on Wednesday, 30th March, the in-depth interview with the coaches became an interview with John Worsfold and no other coach. It commenced with the headline FACING THE FUTURE and the statement by Zempilas of an “exclusive John Worsfold on his future and why the Eagles will not have to sack him”.

[...]

Now John Worsfold may have agreed to this interview to clear up comments that may have been made in the previous week. The program was not the program that had been advertised the week before because it didn’t involve both coaches but it had obviously been taped in that week and like all other conjecture on John’s future it was all occurring before a ball had been kicked in the 2011 season. John’s statement about leaving the club was similar to a comment he made last year when the pressure of this type of questioning had been used.

[…]

An interview with Mark Harvey did take place on Friday night, the 1st of April, that may or may not have been the one referred to in the advertisement mentioned above. It was not announced in the headlines on Friday and given the prominence of the John Worsfold interview. It was only introduced by Zempilas but then he took no further part in it. The voice-over belonged to Adrian Barich. There were no in-depth questions or statements that might reflect personally on Mark Harvey. […] I believe this program may have only been included as a ploy to balance the interview with John Worsfold and in this respect I believe it failed.

Finding

The licensee of TVW did not breach clause 4.5 of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2010 in broadcasting,on 25 March 2011,a promotion for Seven News.

Reasons

The promotion, which lasted for approximately 20 seconds, consisted of the following:

Announcer: ‘Footy’s back and we’ve got the biggest names in the game. Next week we’ve got the coaches live, plus one-on-one interviews. Worsfold on his make or break season.

John Worsfold: I’m not tied to coaching as a career.

Announcer: Harvey on the pressure to succeed. ‘Inside AFL’ exclusives, on Seven News’.

The delegate is of the view that the program promotion did not contain any factual inaccuracies regarding the nature of the material it was promoting.In the week following the broadcast of the program promotion, editions of Seven News contained interviews with both John Worsfold (on Wednesday, 30 March 2011) and Mark Harvey (on Friday, 1 April 2011), both of which lasted for several minutes. The complainant has alleged that the program promotion was inaccurate as ‘the program was not the program that had been advertised the week before because it didn’t involve both coaches’ and it ‘was promoting a program for the following week where the coaches were to face some form of in-depth interviews’. However, the program promotion did not state that these interviews would be broadcast during the same program, nor did it include any statement to the effect that the interviews would be ‘in-depth’.

Accordingly, the licensee did not breach clause 4.5 of the Code.

ACMA Investigation Report – Seven News broadcast by TVW Perth (various dates)1