Investigation Report No. 2868
File No. / ACMA2012/1194Licensee / Network TEN (Melbourne) Pty Ltd
Station / ATV
Type of Service / Commercial television broadcasting
Name of Program / The Project
Date of Broadcast / 23 July 2012
Relevant Code / Clause 1.9.6 of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2010
Date Finalised / 16 October 2012
Decision / No breach of clause 1.9.6 (provoking or perpetuating severe ridicule against a group of persons on the grounds of religion)
The complaint
On 21 August 2012, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) received a complaint regarding comments made during an edition of the program The Project broadcast by the licensee of commercial television station ATV, Network TEN (Melbourne) Pty Ltd (the licensee), on 23 July 2012.
The complainant alleged that these comments ridiculed the Christian faith.
Matters not pursued
The complainant also alleged that the broadcast in question was in breach of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001. The complainant was informed that the ACMA does not administer this Act and consequently would not be investigating this aspect of his complaint.
The program
The Project is an ‘infotainment’ program broadcast during weeknights between 6.00 pm and 7.00 pm on Network Ten. It presents a mix of news, current affairs, chat, comment and comedy and is presented by several regular co-hosts as well as guest panellists and other guest interviewees. It is generally, although not always, light-hearted and irreverent in nature and draws content from the media, social networks and recent news stories.
The segment complained about concerned UFOs (unidentified flying objects) and the apparent rise in the number of sightings across Australia. There were quotes from representatives from both sides of the debate, footage of UFOs and an interview with a representative from the organisation ‘New South Wales UFO Research’.
At one point the program’s host says:
But, is believing [that] a guy with a beard created the world in just six days then took a breather on the seventh day any more nuts than believing other intelligent life is out there and just wants to make friends?
Later in the segment the program’s host asks the interviewee:
So why do you think when people believe that they have seen a UFO, they have made contact, they get such a hard time from everyone else, yet people have some pretty out there religious beliefs and we seem to just go along with them?
Towards the end of the program, when one of the co-hosts says that she finds it very hard to believe in alien visits to earth, the program’s host replies:
That said, [the program’s co-host] does believe that a magical man created everything and that his son died and rose again from the dead. So we all believe strange things.
I’m going to get a lot of complaints, I’m going to get a lot of complaints for that! All I’m saying is, everything is a leap of faith, whether it’s believing in UFOs or believing in superstition.
Assessment
This investigation is based on submissions from the complainant and the licensee and a copy of the broadcast provided to the ACMA by the licensee.
The ‘ordinary, reasonable’ viewer test
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 or viewer.
Australian courts have considered an ‘ordinary, reasonable’ listener or 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 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.
Relevant code clause
Clause 1.9.6 of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2010 (the Code) states:
A licensee may not broadcast a program, program promotion, station identification or community service announcement which is likely, in all the circumstances, to:
[…]
provoke or perpetuate … serious contempt or severe ridicule against a ... group of persons on the grounds of ... religion ...
Interpretation of clause 1.9.6 of the Code.
‘Likely, in all the circumstances’
The phrase, ‘likely, in all the circumstances’, imposes an objective test[2] and implies a real and not a remote possibility. That is, something which is probable.[3]
‘Provoke or perpetuate serious contempt or severe ridicule’
As the Code does not include definitions of the terms used in this provision, they have been given their ordinary English language meanings. The Macquarie English Dictionary (5thedition) includes the following definitions:
Provoke verb 2. to stir up, arouse or call forth; 3. to incite or stimulate (a person etc) to action.
Perpetuate verb 1. to make perpetual; preserve from oblivion.
Serious adjective1. of grave or solemn disposition or character.
Contempt noun 1. the act of scorning or despising.
Severe adjective 1. harsh, harshly extreme
Ridicule adjective 1.words or actions intended to excite contemptuous laughter at a person or thing; derision.
‘On the grounds of’
The provocation or perpetuation of intense dislike or serious contempt towards the person or group, must occur on one or more of the grounds specified in clause 1.9.6 of the Code, including, for example, religion.
There must be a causal connection, in this case, between the religion of the person or group and the feeling of intense dislike or serious contempt or severe ridicule, which is likely to be provoked or perpetuated by the broadcast.[4]
Complainant’s submissions
In his complaint to the license the complainant stated:
The Project had an item on UFOs and [the program’s host] made the comment that those who believe that a man had come down from heaven, died and rose again, would also believe in UFOs! [The program’s host] might have thought that he made a humorous comment, but such was not the case.
I was shocked to hear the Lord Jesus Christ and the faith of Christians ridiculed like this.
In his complaint to the ACMA the complainant stated:
To ridicule the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ is an attack on the most central truth in our Christian faith.
Licensee’s submissions
In its response to the complaint the licensee stated:
You refer to the story about reported increases in the number of Australians claiming to have witnessed a UFO and an online poll which appeared on news.com.au about the number of Australians who believe that alien contact has been made and covered up. The report featured Mariana Flynn, President of UFO Research who said “it’s time for the media and the governments to stop treating people as nutcases. There are too many people out there like you and me who have had serious encounters or sightings.” The report also featured an alternative view from Terry Kelly of Australian Skeptics. Subsequently, the panel interviewed Doug Moffett from UFO Research NSW.
During the report, [the program’s host] queried whether a belief in UFOs was any more extraordinary than a belief that God created the world in six days. [The program’s host] posed the question to Mr Moffett as to why those who believe in UFOs are subject to ridicule compared to some religious beliefs. At the end of the segment [the program’s host] clarified his view that both a belief in UFOs (which is subject to ridicule), and a belief in religion, require a leap of faith.
We consider that [the program’s host’s] comments were not likely to provoke or perpetuate such intense dislike, severe ridicule or serious contempt on the basis of religion. [The program’s host’s] comments were not intended to ridicule Jesus Christ and the Christian faith.
Finding
The licensee did not breach clause 1.9.6 of the Code.
Reasons
Clause 1.9.6 sets a high threshold for the likely effect of prohibited material. The definitions of ‘severe ridicule’ and ‘serious contempt’ set out at page 3 of this report indicate that the Code contemplates a very strong reaction to the prohibited behaviours. It is not sufficient that the behaviours induce a mild or even strong response.
The ACMA has assessed the relevant comments and the complainant’s concerns in the context of the broadcast as a whole, including the program’s features, as well as the content, tone and language of the comments.
As outlined above, The Project often takes a light-hearted approach to its subject matter and discussion of news items can involve comments and depictions which are irreverent and satirical.
The ACMA is of the view that the comments made by the program’s host, including such terms as ‘a guy with a beard’, ‘nuts’, ‘magical man’ and ‘superstition’, ridiculed Christianity and the beliefs of Christians. However, these comments did not provoke or perpetuate the high level of intense reactions contemplated by the Code and underlined by the inclusion of the adjectives ‘serious’ in relation to contempt and ‘severe’ in relation to ridicule. The language and tone of the relevant comments and the segment as a whole highlighted the light-hearted and irreverent context in which they were made and this served as a factor that diluted the overall effect.
Applying the threshold test outlined above, including the requirement to consider ‘all the circumstances’ of the broadcast, it is unlikely that the comments were so harsh or extreme that they would perpetuate or provoke severe ridicule or serious contempt against Christianity and/or Christians in the mind of the ‘ordinary, reasonable viewer’.
It is noted that comments which merely convey negative reactions towards a person or group are not provocation. There must be something more than an expression of opinion, something that is positively stimulatory of that reaction in others. The comments made by the program’s host did not stir up, incite or stimulate viewers against Christians.
The ACMA also notes that the focus of the segment was the rise in reported sightings of UFOs in Australia and that the offending comments were an incidental accompaniment to what was, overall, a light-hearted examination of the phenomenon of UFO sightings.
The delegate appreciates that the complainant was personally offended by the broadcast. However, for the reasons outlined above, the ACMA is of the view that in the circumstances of this broadcast, the material complained about has not breached clause 1.9.6 of the Code.
ACMA Investigation Report – The Project broadcast by ATV on 23 July 2012 5
[1] Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 at 164–167.
[2] Creek v Cairns Post Pty Ltd (2001) 112 FCR 352 at 356-357 [16].
[3] See the discussion in Re Vulcan Australia Pty Ltd and Comptroller-General of Customs (1994) 34 ALD 773 at 778.
[4] Kazak v John Fairfax Publications Limited [2000] NSWADT 77 at [23].