Investigation Report No. 2632

File No. / ACMA2011/1323
Broadcaster / Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Station / 3LO (ABC Local Radio – Melbourne)
Type of Service / National broadcasting
Name of Program / Mornings
Date of Broadcast / 19 May 2011
Relevant Code / Standards 4.1, 4.2, 4.5 and 7.7 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011
Date finalised / 18 October 2011
Decision / No breach of Standard 4.1
[impartially presenting news and information]
No breach of Standard 4.2
[presenting a diversity of perspectives over time]
No breach of Standard 4.5
[not unduly favouring one perspective over another]
No breach of Standard 7.7 [avoiding the unjustified use of stereotypes and discriminatory content]

The complaint

On 11 July 2011 the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) received a complaint about an edition of the program Mornings broadcast by the ABC radio station 3LO on 19 May 2011. The complainant alleged that the issue of Christian religious education (CRE) in Victorian state schools was dealt with by the program’s presenter in a way that was biased, negative and unbalanced.

The program

Mornings is broadcast by ABC Local Radio from 8.30 am to 11.00 am on weekdays. It features news (local, national and international), current affairs and talkback.

During the edition of Morningsbroadcast on 19 May 2011[1], the issue of Christian religious education in Victorian state schools was discussed. The discussion was prompted by the chaplain of Melbourne Grammar School, the Reverend Ron Noone, questioning the role of religious instruction classes in state schools.

The segment began with an interview,lasting for approximately seven minutes,between the program’s host, Sally Warhaft, and Denise Nichols,the Director of Education Services at Access Ministries, an organisation that provides most of the chaplains and religious instructors to Victorian state schools. The Access Ministries website states:

ACCESS Ministries, formerly CCES, is an inter-denominational body which provides Christian Education and Chaplaincy in State Schools in Victoria, under the provision of the Education Act 1958 (revised 1999, 2006). It provides this service in partnership with Christian churches[2].

Ms Nichols defended religious teaching in schools by saying that these classes were values-based and focussed on how to behave morally and ethically, often using stories from the Bible to illustrate a point. She further went on to say that the purpose of these classes was not to try and convert the children and that the volunteers who took these classes were aware of this and had all received suitable training.

This interview was followed by, in chronological order:

  • five talkback callers, one of whom was supportive of Christian religious education in state schools and four of whom were against the teaching of Christian religious education in state schools;
  • an interview lasting approximately five minutes with a woman whose son, who had ‘opted out’ of religious instruction classes at school, had to spend the time at the back of the class or in the corridor. The woman had complained to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, who had in turn referred her complaint to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The woman’s main criticism was of the way her son had been treated by the school administration, rather than of the religious instruction itself; and
  • seven talkback callers, two of whom were supportive of Christian religious education in state schools and five of whom were against.

Assessment

This investigation is based on submissions from the complainant and the ABC and a copy of the broadcast provided to the ACMA by the ABC. Other sources used have been identified where relevant.

The ‘ordinary, reasonable listener’ test

In assessing content against the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (the Code), the ACMA considers the meaning conveyed by the relevant material. This is assessed according to the understanding of an ‘ordinary, reasonable listener’.

Australian courts have considered an ‘ordinary, reasonable listener’ 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[3].

The ACMA asks what the ‘ordinary, reasonable listener’ would have understood this program to have conveyed. It considers the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone and inferences that may be drawn.

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.

Complainant’s submissions

In his complaint to the ABC, the complainant stated:

Recently the ABC generated a television news article about Access Ministries and chaplaincies in schools. The following day this was translated into a morning program on radio 774 and opened up to callers. There seemed to be some balance with the presenter – Waleed Aly – giving personal insights with his own school experiences.

On Thursday May 19th Sally Warhaft, using an article written by a school chaplain and published in the school’s magazine, opened up the issue again of school chaplaincies, teaching Christian Religious Education and exemptions from being taught CRE. For whatever reason one would not know. This was an issue which was already “done and dusted” and the progressives and atheists in the community had had their say with Waleed Aly’s term on radio.

My complaint about Sally Warhaft relates to the bias and negativity she showed on this issue, the degree of insistence which was used to get listeners to call with views that invariably followed her line, and lack of balance which was used and all at a time when the news story of the day was Barack Obama’s Middle East speech. This memorable and ground breaking speech hardly rated a mention until the Weekly Wrap segment. As well, much emphasis was placed on children being exempt from CRE having to sit on school corridors whilst the lesson was conducted. This is not the CRE educators fault but rather some ineptitude being displayed by the school authorities.

The ABC may have a bias against Christianity and its presenters may see themselves as socially progressives and not of a Christian persuasion, however this doesn’t give them the right, nor the position, to generate negativity towards an institution and right of belief which has been in existence for 2,000 years. Interestingly, the school system which today is under attack from the ABC and others for incorporating CRE into the curriculum was first started by the same Christian Churches which are now being criticized.

[…]

I don’t think any of this enters into the ABC’s consciousness and one wonders why the continuous debate on school chaplains, volunteer CRE teachers and exemption of children from these classes doesn’t include the balance with reference to the wonderful things society benefits from as a result of the mission and ministry of the Christian Church.

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

My complaint [to the ABC] was about the lack of objectivity shown by the ABC presenter in the way the subject matter – teaching of Christian Religious Education in schools – was treated.

I believe the presenter showed personal bias by raising the subject again after it had been seriously and more than adequately covered some days beforehand by another presenter. This earlier morning radio presentation followed an even earlier evening news item on ABC television.

Broadcaster’s submissions

In its response to the original complaint, the ABC stated:

The issue of how CRE [Christian Religious Education] should be funded and managed in Victorian schools was in the news on May 19 because the school chaplain from Melbourne Grammar had written a critical article about the program in his school’s newsletter.

President Obama’s speech was an important story on the day but it was appropriate for local radio to report that news as well as discuss local issues like CRE.

The segment leading up to the 9.00 am news, which discussed CRE, was about 15 minutes long. Approximately half that time was devoted to an interview with Denise Nichols who represented Access Ministries. Sally Warhaft gave her ample opportunity to state the position of Access Ministries and to defend the CRE program. Ms Nichols did that very cogently and at length.

The interview was followed by five talkback callers. While four of the callers spoke against the CRE or Access Ministries, by far the longest call taken was with a gentleman from a local church in Dandenong who presented an articulate and heartfelt defence of the program.

Ms Warhaft was polite with all the callers and her guest, giving them the chance to state their case. If anything, the balance of the segment was with supporters of CRE rather than opponents.

This issue was extensively covered by 774 over many days. Over the course of the coverage comment was sought from all perspectives in this debate.

In its response to the ACMA’s request for comments, the ABC stated:

On review of the broadcast itself, the ABC has found no evidence of the bias and negativity that [the complainant] suggested was characteristic of Sally Warhaft’s approach to the subject matter. Ms Warhaft at all times took a measured approach, and her interview with Denise Nicholls from Access Ministries and discussions with talkback callers were conducted with courtesy and respect. The approach taken by the program allowed listeners to hear a diversity of perspectives, augmenting the views already presented in the earlier program hosted by Mr Waleed Aly to which [the complainant] refers positively in his correspondence. Ms Warhaft also informed listeners that on the morning of 19 May, the program was seeking interviews with both the Reverend Ron Noone and the Victorian Education Minister. Unfortunately, neither was able to participate in the program on that day.

It is not a breach for the ABC’s impartiality standard for a presenter to be questioning or to allow talkback callers to engage with the issue being discussed and contribute to the conversation. In the program on 19 May, there was no undue favouring of one perspective over another, nor did the broadcast include unjustified use of stereotypes or discriminatory content. To the contrary, the ABC considers that the overall tone of the coverage on 19 May was thoughtful and respectful of the different views in the community.

Issue 1: Whether news and information was gathered and presented with due impartiality

Relevant Code Standard

4.1Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.

Finding

The ABC did not breach Standard4.1 of the Code.

Reasons

The ACMA’s general considerations as to whether or not material complained of is compliant with the ABC’s obligations under Standard 4.1 of the Codeare set out at Attachment A.

Impartiality essentially concerns how content is treated.[4] The ACMA has assessed whether the relevant program material contained editorial comment or was presented in such a way that was biased. A broadcast may be considered to be partial if it conveys a pre-judgement or if it gives effect to the affections or enmities of the presenter or reporting journalist in respect of the subject matter being reported on or discussed.

During the interview with Denise Nichols from Access Ministries the program’s presenter interrupted Ms Nichols on a number of occasions and at times questioned some of the statements made by Ms Nichols. However, the ordinary, reasonable listener would have understood that the use of interruptions and the questioning of some of the statements made by the interviewee were, in this case, employed to move the interview forward and to ensure that it was probing and challenging. The use of such techniques does not affect the impartiality of a program and the interruptions did not limit Ms Nichol’s ability to provide adequate responses to the questions posed during the interview or to present her viewpoints. It is also noted that the same techniques were used during the interview with the woman who had objected to the treatment of her son by the school during religious education classes.

Furthermore, there is nothing in the segment to suggest that the presenter’s handling of the interviewees and talkback callers demonstrated partiality or represented her own view in relation to the issue of Christian religious education in state schools. Ms Warhaft did not use sustained,emotive or colourful language in dealing with the interviewees and callers, nor provide any comments which indicated that what was being reported was her own view.

For these reasons, the ACMA considers that the conduct of Ms Warhaft during the broadcast of the relevant program material did not convey a prejudgement or partiality.

The complainant has alleged that the presenter showed bias by raising the subject on a day when there were, in the complainant’s opinion, more newsworthy issues to discuss, such as President Obama’s Middle East speech. However, the ACMA considers that merely opening for discussion the issue of Christian religious education in Victorian state schools does not convey a biased or partial presentation of news. The issue was a legitimate subject for debateon a station that is at least in part concerned with presenting local issues(ABC Local Radio Melbourne). It is noted that the issue also received coverage in the print media, such as in Melbourne newspaper ‘The Age’ on 20 May 2011[5], the day after the broadcast in question.

Accordingly, the ACMA considers that the ABC did not breach Standard 4.1 of the Code.

Issue 2: Whether a diversity of perspectives was presented over time

Relevant Code Standard

4.2Present a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented.

Finding

The ABC did not breach Standard4.2 of the Code.

Reasons

The program material supplied to the ACMA by the ABC indicates that the ABC aired a number of diverse perspectives on the issue of Christian education in Victorian state schools during the edition of Mornings broadcast on 19 May 2011. For example:

  • during the interview with the representative from Access Ministries the interviewee was allowed to present at length her views supporting the role of Access Ministries in Victorian state schools;
  • talkback callers in favour of Access Ministries and Christian religious education presented different perspectives on the issue. One caller stated that Access Ministries helped troubled children; two other callers stated that there was widespread misunderstanding regarding what was actually taught in these classes and that the lessons were not Christian specific but weremore generally concerned with morals, ethics and values;
  • during the interview with the woman whose son, who had ‘opted out’ of religious instruction classes at school, had to sit at the back of the class or in the corridor during these classes, the interviewee expressed her dissatisfaction with the treatment of her son by the school rather than with the classes themselves; and
  • talkback callers expressed a number of different views as to why they were against Christian religious education in State schools. For example, one caller expressed the view that there was no place for religious education in State schools, one caller stated that children were incapable of understanding such concepts as God, heaven and death, whilst another caller thought that religious education should be replaced by sex education.

Accordingly, the ACMA considers that the ABC did not breach Standard 4.2 of the Code.

Issue 3: Whether one perspective was unduly favoured over another

Relevant Code Standard

4.5Do not unduly favour one perspective over another.

Finding

The ABC did not breach Standard4.5 of the Code.

Reasons

The ACMA’s general considerations as to whether or not material complained of is compliant with the ABC’s obligations under Standard 4.5 of the Codeare set out at Attachment A.

As stated above under ‘Issue 2’, the ABC aired a number of diverse perspectives on the issue of Christian education in Victorian state schools during the edition of Mornings broadcast on 19 May 2011.

There is nothing in this program to suggest that one perspective was unduly favoured over another. Whilst it is true that the talkback callers who were not in favour of Christian religious education in state Victorian schools outnumbered those who were in favour, the ACMA does not consider that this is, in and of itself, evidence that one perspective was favoured over another. The main advocate for Access Ministries and Christian religious education was given ample opportunity to express her views and answer questions from the program’s presenter, Ms Warhaft. Furthermore, this interview was by far the longest programming element in the segment, lasting for approximately seven minutes.