Investigation Report No. 2729
File No. / ACMA2011/1965Licensee / Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd
Station / SAS
Type of Service / Commercial television
Name of Program / Today Tonight
Date of Broadcast / 3 October 2011
Relevant Code / Clauses 4.3.1, 1.9.5 and 1.9.6 of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2010
Date Finalised / 21 May 2012
Decision / No breach of clause 1.9.5 (cultural sensitivities)
No breach of clause 1.9.6 (dislike, contempt or ridicule)
No breach of clause 4.3.1 (factual accuracy)
ACMA Investigation Report 2729—Today Tonight—SAS
Background
· On 8 December 2011, the Australian Communication and Media Authority (the ACMA) received a complaint regarding the program Today Tonight broadcast on 3October2011 by Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd, the licensee of SAS (the licensee).
· Today Tonight is a current affairs program broadcast by the Seven Network at 6:30pm on week nights. On 3 October 2011, the program included a segment about young mothers and the social welfare benefits available to them. It included interviews with Mrs X, who is 20 years old with six children; Ms Y, who is 16 years old with one child; a professor from the Austin Hospital; and, a representative from the Link Up Young Parents program. A transcript of the segment is at Attachment A.
· The complaint raised a number of allegations including that:
1. there is no such thing as the “welfare gravy train” and therefore the use of the phrase was not fair or accurate;
2. [use of the phrase] is a clear violation of section 4.3.1 of the Code which requires that the station be fair and accurate in its current affairs broadcasts;
3. it is highly inaccurate and extremely prejudicial to falsely claim that teenage mothers are “exploiting” the system;
4. the phrase, the “welfare gravy train” is insulting, demeaning and defamatory and it involves racial vilification as indigenous people are disproportionately represented in teenage pregnancy rates;
5. as teenage mothers are under 18 years of age, the comment vilifies children;
6. the comment violates Sex Discrimination legislation; and
7. ‘the comment is violates the Racial Discrimination Act’.
· The investigation has considered the licensee’s compliance with clauses 4.3.1, 1.9.5 and 1.9.6 of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2010 (the Code):
News and Current Affairs Programs
4.3 In broadcasting news and current affairs programs, licensees:
4.3.1 must present factual material accurately and represent viewpoints fairly, having regard to the circumstances at the time of preparing and broadcasting the program;
Proscribed material
1.9 A licensee may not broadcast a program [...] which is likely, in all the circumstances, to:
1.9.5 seriously offend the cultural sensitivities of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people [...] in the Australian community;
1.9.6 provoke or perpetuate intense dislike, serious contempt or severe ridicule against a [...] group of persons on the grounds of age [or] race [...].
· This assessment is based on a recording of the segment supplied to the ACMA by the licensee, a submission from the complainant and correspondence between the licensee and the complainant. 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 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.[1]
· The ACMA asks what the ‘ordinary, reasonable viewer’ would have understood the program to have conveyed. It considers the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone, 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 the material has breached the Code.
Matters not pursued
· The ACMA does not have jurisdiction to investigate complaints under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) or Sex Discrimination legislation. Rather, the ACMA has considered whether the broadcast seriously offended the cultural sensitivities of Indigenous Australians or provoked or perpetuated intense dislike, serious contempt or severe ridicule on the grounds of race or age.
· Current affairs programs are not bound by the fairness and impartiality requirements set out in clause 4.4.1 of the Code which only applies to news programs. Accordingly, this aspect of the complaint has not been considered in this investigation.
Issue 1: Presentation of factual material accurately
Finding
The licensee did not breach clause 4.3.1 of the Code.
Reasons
· The complainant has asserted that ‘legally, there is no such thing as the welfare gravy train’ and, as such, the use of the phrase ‘welfare gravy train’ was ‘inaccurate’.
· In considering the obligation at clause 4.3.1 of the Code that licensees must broadcast factual material accurately, the first step is to identify the material of concern. In its consideration of the presentation of factual material, the ACMA then assesses whether the material would have been understood by the ordinary, reasonable viewer as a statement of fact or an expression of opinion and, if a statement of fact, whether it was accurate.
· The phrase ‘welfare gravy train’ was used twice by the reporter during the segment:
1. One twenty year old mum with six kids to three different dads says she’s not on the welfare gravy train and is fed up with how teen mums are viewed.
2. [Mrs X] is determined to change the stigma that all young mums are bludgers who simply take a ride on the Centrelink welfare gravy train.
· The ACMA notes that the term ‘gravy train’ is referenced in the Macquarie Dictionary (Fifth Edition) and defined as:
Noun Colloquial any source of private profit or advantage for those involved with it: *plans to halt the ludicrous gravy train that allowed delegates to roam the world at will inspecting bid cities. –aap news, 2000. [US slang; from expressions such as ride (or board) the gravy train (or boat)].
· The ACMA considers that it is likely that the ordinary, reasonable viewer would have been familiar with the colloquialism ‘gravy train’ and would have understood the phrase ‘welfare gravy train’ to relate to people exploiting social welfare benefits.
· Although the term ‘gravy train’ is a colloquialism, in the context of a program about teenage mothers allegedly having babies in order to obtain welfare benefits, the term conveys the correct meaning and is not inaccurate.
· In relation to the complaint that the program falsely claimed that teenage mothers are exploiting the system, the ACMA also considers that the ordinary, reasonable viewer would have understood the phrase to be an expression of opinion as opposed to a statement of fact.
· In coming to this view the ACMA notes that the phrase was meant to be judgemental and subjective in nature. The reporter refers to ‘the stigma, that all young mums are bludgers who simply take a ride on the Centrelink gravy train’ highlighting the contestable quality of the phrase.
· In fact, much of the segment focuses on Ms X who contests the negative connotations associated with young mothers in receipt of welfare benefits. Ms X says ‘You don’t have a baby for the money’. Having challenged the concept that such mothers are ‘bludgers’ the program proceeds to discuss the costs of raising a child and later discusses the Government’s ‘earn or learn’ initiative to discourage exploitation, and the Link Up Young Parents’ program to deal with young mums reliant on welfare.
· As the phrase would have been understood by the ordinary, reasonable viewer as an expression of opinion and not a statement of fact, the requirement for accuracy in relation to the phrase is not relevant.
Issue 2: Seriously offend the cultural sensitivities of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
Finding
The licensee did not breach clause 1.9.5 of the Code.
Reasons
· The complainant is concerned that the use of the phrase ‘welfare gravy train’ was ‘deliberately intended to portray teenage mothers, a significant percentage of whom are indigenous people as people who were more interested in the money than in caring for their children’.
· Whether material seriously offends the cultural sensitivities of an identified group is assessed in ‘all the circumstances’. This includes considerations of how prominently the material featured in the program, whether the material was presented by a guest or a host, and what other material was presented in association with it.
· In this case, the question is whether the ordinary, reasonable viewer would have understood from the material broadcast, that it would be likely, in all the circumstances, to seriously offend the cultural sensitivities of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Australian community.
· The ACMA has reviewed the segment in its entirety and notes that there were no direct or indirect verbal or visual references to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. As such, the ordinary, reasonable viewer would not have understood the phrase ‘welfare gravy train’ to relate to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
· As the segment did not contain such references, the ACMA is of the view that the program was not likely to have seriously offended the cultural sensitivities of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Australian community.
Issue 3: Provoke or perpetuate intense dislike, serious contempt or severe ridicule against a group of persons on the grounds of age or race
Finding
The licensee did not breach clause 1.9.6 of the Code.
Reasons
· The complainant asserted that ‘many of the recipients of [welfare] benefits and allowances are indigenous people, [...] which means that in trying to unfairly and falsely impugn recipients of these benefits, [the licensee] is demonstrating racial discrimination’. The complainant further asserted ‘I do not believe it is appropriate to impugn, imply or accuse children on a national current affairs program of exploiting welfare payments’.
· In determining whether the licensee has breached clause 1.9.6 of the Code, consideration must be given to the following:
identification of the relevant individual or group;
identification of the relevant characteristic on which the individual/group was targeted; and
consideration of whether the broadcast provoked or perpetuated intense dislike, serious contempt or severe ridicule against the relevant individual or group because of that characteristic.
Race
The relevant person or group of persons and the relevant ground
· In light of the context of the segment and the complaint, the ACMA considers the program reported on young mothers in receipt of social welfare. This is indicated by the presenter’s introduction to the segment, ‘We’ll start tonight with the young mums that view motherhood as a career path, thanks to generous Government handouts’.
· As indicated above, the ACMA notes that there were no direct or indirect verbal or visual references to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. As such, race is not the basis for any provocation or perpetuation of intense dislike, serious contempt or severe ridicule in the program.
Age
The relevant person or group of persons and the relevant ground
· In light of the context of the segment and the complaint, the ACMA considers the relevant group of persons to be young mothers, including teenagers, in receipt of social welfare and the relevant grounds to be age. As such, the ACMA must assess whether the segment provoked or perpetuated intense dislike, serious contempt or severe ridicule against young mothers in receipt of social welfare on the grounds of age.
Provoke or perpetuate intense dislike, serious contempt or severe ridicule against a group of persons on the grounds of age
· Use of the words, ‘intense’, ‘serious’ and ‘severe’ indicate that the Code contemplates a very strong reaction and sets a high test for the prohibited behaviours. It is not sufficient that the behaviour induces a mild or even strong response or reaction.
· As indicated above, the segment was about young mothers and the social welfare benefits available to them.
· The segment praised young mother, Mrs X, the focus of the segment, and her husband for earning an income and making plans to undertake tertiary study in the future. Acknowledging this, the reporter stated ‘[Mrs X] is determined to change the stigma that all young mums are bludgers and on the welfare gravy train’.
· The ACMA acknowledges that the segment was, at times, critical of young mothers who are not earning an income: ‘single mums like Ms Y also cash in on other government benefits by choosing to stay at home’. However, the critical comments were balanced by the inclusion of Mrs X’s comments contesting the negative connotations associated with young mothers in receipt of welfare benefits.
· The ACMA is not satisfied that any negative reactions which may have been evoked towards young mothers in receipt of welfare benefits were on the grounds solely of age. The program explored the issues surrounding young mothers in receipt of welfare benefits. Any criticism was based on the decision of young mothers to not earn an income or undertake studies with a view to entering the workforce, rather than their age per se.
· In any event, applying the threshold test outlined in clause 1.9.6 — including the requirement to consider ‘all the circumstances’ of the broadcast— the ACMA does not consider that any negative reactions evoked were sustained, explicit or strong enough to elicit the high threshold response required by the Code in the mind of the ordinary, reasonable viewer.
· Even if the ACMA considered that the viewers felt intense dislike, serious contempt or severe ridicule for the young mothers on the grounds of age, it is noted that material which merely conveys negative reactions towards a person or group is not ‘provocation’. There must be something more than an expression of opinion, something that is positively stimulatory of that reaction in others. The ACMA is satisfied that the broadcast did not stir up, incite or stimulate viewers against young mothers in receipt of welfare benefits; it did not actively encourage viewers to feel dislike, contempt or ridicule towards this ‘groups of persons’ in terms of the Code.