Investigation Report 2709
File Nos. / ACMA 2011/1822Broadcaster / Ten Network (Sydney) Pty Ltd
Station / TEN
Type of service / Commercial television broadcasting service
Name of program / The Bolt Report
Date of program / 10 July 2011
Relevant Code / Clauses 4.3.1 and 7.12 of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2010
Date Finalised / 23 May 2012
Decision / No breach of clause 4.3.1 (factual accuracy)
No breach of clause 7.12 (complaints handling)
Complaint
The Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) received a complaint about the program, The Bolt Report, broadcast on 10 July 2011 by Network TEN (Sydney) Pty Ltd, the licensee of TEN.
The complainant submitted that the program contained factual inaccuracies regarding the subject of climate change.
The complainant was not satisfied with the response provided by the licensee and complained to the ACMA.[1]
The investigation has considered the licensee’s compliance with clauses 4.3.1 [factual accuracy] and 7.12 [complaints handling] of Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2010 (the Code).
The program
The Bolt Report is a half hour current affairs program and is broadcast at 10.00 am on Sundays. It is presented by Andrew Bolt and is described on the licensee’s website as:
Join Andrew Bolt, one of Australia's most read, most topical newspaper columnist, as he addresses today's political and social issues through opinion commentary, panel discussion and interviews.[2]
On 10 July 2011, the relevant segment ran for approximately 8.30 minutes and reported on the issue of whether the introduction of a carbon tax will reduce global warming. The segment included diagrams, quotes and footage from various sources which related to the presenter’s view that the tax will have little or no effect on the world’s temperature. The segment concluded with an interview with Professor Richard Lindzen of Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
A transcript of the segment is found at Attachment A.
Assessment
This investigation is based on a letter of complaint to the ACMA, correspondence between the licensee and the complainant, submissions from the licensee to the ACMA and a copy of the broadcast provided by the licensee. 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’ listener or viewer.
Australian Courts have considered an ‘ordinary, reasonable’ reader (or 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[3].
In considering compliance with the Code, the ACMA considers the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone, and any inferences that may be drawn. In the case of factual material which is presented, the ACMA will also consider 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.
Issue 1: Presentation of factual material
Relevant Code Clause
News and Current Affairs Programs
4.3In broadcasting news and current affairs programs, licensees:
4.3.1must present factual material accurately and represent viewpoints fairly, having regard to the circumstances at the time of preparing and broadcasting the program;
4.3.1.1An assessment of whether the factual material is accurate is to be determined in the context of the segment in its entirety.
The ACMA’s general considerations as to whether or not material complained of is compliant with a licensee’s obligations under clause 4.3.1 of the Code are found at Attachment B.
Statement 1: ‘For at least a decade the planet has not warmed…’
Complainant’s submission
The complainant in his initial complaint to the licensee said that “By any measure, the statement ‘the planet has not warmed’ cannot be substantiated by reference to Mr Bolt’s preferred data set.”
The complainant relevantly submitted to the ACMA that:
Specifically, Mr Bolt’s statement that “for at least a decade the planet has not warmed even though emissions have soared”. This claim was accompanied by a graph of UAH Lower Troposphere Mean Temperature data from 1995 to 2011 (inclusive) titled “Where’s the Warming”. A least squares trend analysis of the data Mr Bolt referred to revealed a warming trend over the period of 0.13 degrees C per decade or 1.3 degrees C per century. In my original complaint I also limited the period to January 2000 to December 2010 or “at least a decade” and found a warming of 0.17 degrees C per decade or 1.7 degrees C per century. However, to be fairer to Mr Bolt if we limit the period to January 2001 to December 2011 we find a warming trend of 0.09 degrees C per decade or 0.9 degrees C per century.
Licensee’s submission
The licensee submitted to the ACMA that:
The chart used in the program depicts a variance in temperature of no greater than +/-0.7degrees Celsius from 1995 onwards. The variance oscillates between positive and negative changes. The data source (UAH) is clearly identified and the Satellite-Based temperature of the Global Lower Atmosphere were accurately presented over the timeframe in Mr Bolt’s comment (at least a decade),
The ACMA has established the principle that an inference reasoned from observed facts would usually have to be an inference of a judgmental or contestable kind to qualify as an opinion/viewpoint.
In the context of Mr Bolt’s opening editorial commentary, the statement is a judgmental inference reasoned from the data (and graph) identified and one that the complainant clearly does contest. The complainant does not dispute the accuracy of the data presented to viewers, only Mr Bolt’s opinion as to what it means. Viewers like the complainant were provided with the opportunity to draw their own inference from the graph.
Mr Bolt’s comment was broad in nature and preceded by the words, “…the evidence suggests…” (emphasis added) which further indicates the statement to be his opinion.
The licensee provided a link to the original source of the graph from the University of Alabama, Huntsville, upon which the graph broadcast in the program was based.[4]
Finding
The licensee did not breach of clause 4.3.1 of the Code in relation the statement, ‘For at least a decade the planet has not warmed’.
Reasons
The relevant comment (in bold) was made in the following context:
Presenter: Three strikes and the truth is out. This tax will do nothing for the climate. No other country will be inspired to impose their own carbon dioxide tax and we’re just too small to make any difference with ours. Now that’s true even if man’s emissions were heating the planet dangerously. But increasingly the real world’s evidence suggests they aren’t. For at least a decade the planet has not warmed even though emissions have soared.
The following graph was shown onscreen at the same time the comment was made:
The complainant submitted that the comment made by the presenter was inaccurate on the basis that the graph indicates a ‘warming trend’ of 0.09°C from January 2001 to December 2010.
Was the statement one of fact or opinion?
The first issue to determine is whether thecomment would have been understood by the ordinary, reasonable viewer as a statement of fact or an expression of opinion, the latter of which is not subject to the accuracy requirements in the Code.
The ACMA accepts that the opening comments of the presenter concerning the then proposed carbon emissions tax, and its likely impact on future carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were expressions of opinion.
However, the statement‘for at least a decade the planet has not warmed,’was supported by an accompanying graph, which was introduced as ‘evidence’ of the assertion.
Although there is debate over the human contribution to carbon dioxide levels and the rate and degrees of warming, there is reasonable consensus by peer reviewed scientific organisations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [5] and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)[6]that the planet has warmed in recent decades.
The ACMA considers that the ordinary reasonable viewer would have understood the graph to be evidence of the absence of warming in the period, whether or not he or she could interpret it.
The graph
The complainant has said that the graph demonstrates a warming trend, rather than an absence of warming as claimedby the presenter. The licensee has submitted that it showsthere was a variance in temperature which oscillated from 1995 onwards but has not refuted the complainant’s argument that in the decades from 2000 and 2001 there was a warming trend.
The ACMA notes that without a clear understanding of the data considerations in the graph, such as the data validity, the way in which tends are interpreted, measurement scales and the application of appropriate tests, it is not possible to assess the validity of either of the interpretations offered. However, it also considers that the ordinary reasonable viewer would not have beenable to draw their own inferences from the graph as suggested by the licensee.
The context of the segment in its entirety
Clause 4.3.1.1 of the Code provides that an assessment whether factual material is accurate is to be determined in the context of the segment in its entirety.
In this case, the presenter used the words ‘evidence suggests’ when introducing the graph.
The segment also included an interview with Professor Lindzen. In response to the question from the presenter, ‘First how much is the planet actually warming?’ he made it clear that in the last century there has been ‘somewhere between a half and three quarters of a degree centigrade...Since 95, since 1995, there hasn’t been much warming, certainly not that can be distinguished between noise.’
The presenter and Professor Lindzen continued with a discussion about the significance of that warming, the impact of further warming caused by man and the likely effect of a carbon tax on warming. These references to warming and the discussion of its significance was on the premise that there was at least some global warming occurring in recent years, contradicting the earlier inference that there had been nil warming in the last decade: ‘Is that warming lower than what alarmists have been telling us to expect’, ‘but no real warming’, ‘if we do get further warming...’
Professor Lindzen referred to the IPPC and factors giving rise to variability, and in the course of the interview it was made clear that there is debate over levels of warming and its causes. The ordinary reasonable viewer would have understood that this is a contentious issue and that other viewpoints exist.
In the context of the segment in its entirety, the ACMA considers that it was clear that the assertion about the warming of the planet over the last decade and the rate of such warming was contestable, and a matter of opinion. As such it was not required to be accurate.
Accordingly, the licensee has not breached clause 4.3.1 of the Code in relation to that statement.
Statement 2: ‘The flooding rains we were told would never fall again have returned’
Complainant’s submission
The complainant submitted to the ACMA that:
The second point of my complaint referred to the factual accuracy of Mr Bolt’s claim that “the flooding rains we were told would never fall again have returned”. As noted in the original complaint I have personally made Mr Bolt aware of a number of scientific studies, including IPCC Assessment and Special Reports dating back to at least 1997 which project that “(e)nhanced groundwater recharge and dam-filling events were expected from more frequent high-rainfall events…”.
According to the Network’s response “Mr Bolt’s commentary…is based on several statements, including comments that…Professor Tim Flannery made during an interview broadcast on Landline on the ABC in February 2007. This includes Professor Flannery’s comments, “so even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that’s a real worry for the people in the bush”. Professor Flannery’s full response is as follows:
PROFESSOR TIM FLANNERY: We're already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although we're getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that's translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That's because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that's a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we're going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation.[7]
Nowhere in the above quote does Professor Flannery claim that “the flooding rains…would never fall again…” I assert that it is particularly dishonest to suggest that Professor Flannery’s comments about observed declines in winter rainfall (in “some areas of Australia”) leading to even greater observed declines in run-off are equivalent to the claim that “the flooding rains… would never fall again…”
Licensee’s submission
The licensee submitted to the ACMA that:
We consider the ordinary reasonable viewer would have clearly understood the statement to be commentary by Mr Bolt and as such not subject to the relevant Code provision. Mr Bolt’s comment is a broad, generic statement which does not refer to any specific facts, statistics, reports, statements, or third party viewpoints.
Rather it is a broad brush comment based on a range of views of those in the climate change field, such as those of Professor Time Flannery in the Landline interview, a section of which is transcribed below…
From statements such as “even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems”, one can infer that the rain will not be “flooding rains”. This is an inference of a judgemental or contestable nature and one that the complainant does appear to contest. MrBolt’s inference is contrasted with the subsequent Queensland and Victorian floods in 2011.
Given the above, Mr Bolt’s expression of opinion is not subject to the requirements of clause 4.3.1 of the Code.
Finding
The licensee did not breach of clause 4.3.1 in relation to the statement, ‘The flooding rains we were told would never fall again have returned’.
Reasons
The relevant comment (in bold) was made in the following context:
Presenter: Three strikes and the truth is out. This tax will do nothing for the climate. No other country will be inspired to impose their own carbon dioxide tax and we’re just too small to make any difference with ours. Now that’s true even if man’s emissions were heating the planet dangerously. But increasingly the real world’s evidence suggests they aren’t. For at least a decade the planet has not warmedeven though emissions have soared. The rise in the sea levels have slowed, not sped up. The Great Barrier Reef is not dying after all and the flooding rains that we were told would never fall again have returned.
The first issue to determine is whether the comment above would have been understood by the ordinary, reasonable viewer as a statement of fact or an expression of opinion, the latter of which is not subject to the accuracy requirements in the Code.
Having regard to the context in which it was made, the ACMA considers that the comment would have been understood as an opinion.
The complaint is that respected climate scientists and bodies such as the IPCC have not predicted that flooding rains would never fall again, rather that the warming of the planet will result in more intense weather patterns including more droughts and more floods. Although the complaint and the licensee’s response refer to statements by Professor Tim Flannery, in the broadcast itself, the comment is not attributed to a particular person or represented as a scientific view, and is not supported by any data. It is a broad, general statement in response to predictions about future events.
The ACMA considers that the ordinary reasonable viewer would understand the comment under considerationto be an expression of opinion.
Given that the ACMA is satisfied that the comment amounts to an opinion, it is not necessary to consider its accuracy.
Statement 3: The omission of additional information relating to the wheat study
Complainant’s submission
The complainant submitted to the ACMA that:
My third point concerned Mr Bolt’s misrepresentation of the results of a Victorian Department of Primary Industries Free Air Carbon Dioxide Enrichment (FACE) study. While Mr Bolt’s statement that the study found "about a 20% increase in yield because of elevated CO2" was factually correct he neglected to mention that the study also found elevated CO2 contributed to a decrease in crop quality, lower protein levels, and an increase in soil nitrogen uptake which could impact on fertiliser costs. In Mr Bolt’s commentary he clearly states that “the more carbon dioxide we put in (wheat’s) air the better it grows”. However, plant growth is more than just a function of yield. In relation to the Victorian DPI study, crop quality and cost were also important factors and the negative findings on these measures were deliberately ignored by Mr Bolt.