Investigation Report No. 2873

File No. / ACMA2012/1212
Licensee / Network TEN (Melbourne) Pty Ltd
Station / ATV
Type of Service / Commercial television broadcasting
Name of Program / The Project
Date of Broadcast / 8 July 2012
Relevant Code / Clauses 4.3.1 and 4.4.1 of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2010
Date Finalised / 26 October 2012
Decision / No breach of clause 4.3.1 (fair representation of viewpoints)
No breach of clause 4.4.1 (fairness and impartiality in news)

The complaint

On 28 August 2012, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) received a complaint regarding an edition of the program The Project broadcast by the licensee of commercial television station ATV, Network TEN (Melbourne) Pty Ltd (the licensee), on 8 July 2012.

The complainant alleged that comments made about the One Nation Party during the program were inaccurate and unfair.

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 bulletins, 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 networksites and recent news stories.

The program’s website provides the following description of The Project:

It's the news – but not as you know it. Guaranteeing no miracle diets, no stories that ‘no parent can afford to miss’, and virtually no dodgy plumbers, The Project is a TV show joining in the conversations going on in living rooms around the country.

The name may not be very surprising, but the show always is. Led by comic co-hosts Dave Hughes and Charlie Pickering and newsreader Carrie Bickmore, The Project is the simplest idea in television for a long time. Each weekday at 6:00pm, the trio dissect, digest and reconstitute each day’s news.

[...]

A team of correspondents deliver stories from around Australia and around the world into the The Project’s studio every night.

Not afraid to be serious, but not a satirical newscast, it's an earthy, real and fun approach to discussing the news of the day.

The Project is a place where people who are genuinely interested in the world around them come together to talk, offering genuine conversation in a space previously crowded by scandal andspin.

During the edition broadcast on 8 July 2012 there was a story on the relationship between the Greens Party and the Labor Party, which was prompted by recent comments from a number of Labor Party identities to the effect that the Labor Party should disassociate itself from the Greens Party. One of these Labor party identities, Sam Dastyari, who was described in the voiceover as a ‘New South Wales factional leader’, was quoted as describing the Greens ‘as extremists, like One Nation’. There followed a brief clip of former One Nation leader Pauline Hanson saying: ‘Please explain?’

Most of the segment featured an interview with Deputy Greens Leader Adam Bandt.Mr Bandt was asked how he felt about the comparison between the Greens Party and the One Nation Party. Mr Bandt replied:

The Greens are a forward looking party that believes in equality and we want to take Australia into a clean economy in the 21st century. One Nation were a bunch of racist throwbacks really, who want to take Australia back to the 17 or 1800s.

One of the program’s co-hosts, well-known comedian Dave Hughes, then says:

I think that comparison’s a bit much. I mean you guys can be wacky, but One Nation were wackjobs[1]! (background laughter)

There was no further mention of, or discussion about, the One Nation Party.

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 orviewer 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[2].

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.

Complainant’s submission to the licensee

In his complaint to the license the complainant wrote:

I am writing to complain about the episode of The Project shown on Sunday, 8th July 2012. My complaint concerns the labelling of Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party as 'wackjobs' and the assertion that they were worse than the Greens. According to Mr Hughes, a regular host, the Greens are merely 'wacky' but the One Nation members are 'wackjobs' which, given the way MrHughes presented these two judgments, clearly showed that Mr Hughes approved of the Greens but not of One Nation.

While Mr Hughes is entitled to his opinion as a private citizen when he spouts his hatreds on air on The Project he is no longer Mr Hughes, private citizen, but Mr Hughes, representative of Channel Ten. Given that The Project is a news and current affairs program and given that Channel Ten accepts that the Industry Code of Practice applies to its news and current affairs programs I charge that Channel Ten has breached the Code by allowing Mr Hughes and other members of The Project to make such slurs against the members of Pauline Hanson's One Nation in contradiction to the requirements of the Code.

In the Code, Section 4: News and Current Affairs Programs (and The Project is a news and current affairs program), it says that such programs are to be presented accurately and fairly (4.1.1), and impartially (4.1.4). Labelling the members of a political party 'wackjobs' and getting the agreement of other Project panellists is not being impartial or fair. And it is certainly not accurate to say that the members of One Nation were 'wackjobs' either. I was in the party for five years and I met many good and decent people in that party who were just your typical Aussies who had concerns and felt that the established political parties were not listening to them. It is true that there were some dubious characters in One Nation but to smear the whole party and its entire membership as all being 'wackjobs' is grossly unfair, inaccurate and insulting. All political parties have their assortment of dubious characters, so singling out One Nation like Mr Hughes did tonight is unfair. And as noted it is not being impartial.

I am aware that the political tone of The Project could be best described as Left-wing, as exhibited by Mr Hughes showing favouritism toward the Greens, saying that the Greens were only 'wacky' not 'wackjobs', despite the fact that many in the community have deep concerns over the Greens and their policies. I have heard Mr Pickering and Ms Bickmore make other favourable comments toward the Greens and negative comments about the right-wing parties such as the Liberals, One Nation, even Mr Katter and his party, so I realise that the political slant taken in the program will be favourable to the Left and disparaging of the Right, but that doesn't make it right. The Project panellists are all entitled to their views as private citizens but when on air they have to abide by the Code or quit being on-air. Mr Hughes' comment that all the members of One Nation are 'wackjobs' also appears to breach 4.3.1.

Licensee’s response to the complainant

In its letter of response to the complaint, the licensee wrote:

The Project features a mix of current affairs and entertainment. The format and tone of the program is conversational, opinion-based, and at times, humorous. It usually features a variety of guests, ranging from journalists to comedians, who provide a broad range of views and opinions.

You refer to the report about Paul Howes and Sam Dastyari criticising the Greens Party. Following the report, the hosts interviewed Deputy Greens Leader Adam Bandt. Mr Bandt was asked about recent public statements comparing the Greens Party to One Nation. In response to Mr Bandt’s comments which were critical of One Nation, host Dave Hughes expressed his light-hearted comparison that was a play on words ‘wacky’ and ‘wackjob’.

As you note, the Code requires news programs to be presented fairly and impartially (Clause4.4.1). Current affairs programs such as The Project are not subject to this requirement, nor are they required to present all viewpoints within a report. Nevertheless, the program regularly features a variety of gusts, interviewees and hosts with differing opinions.

Complainant’s submission to the ACMA

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

Recently I complained to Channel Ten about what I believed were several breaches of the TV Industry Code of Practice on their evening TV program, The Project. I received a response from Channel Ten which denied it had breached the Code. I regard this response from Channel Ten as unsatisfactory.

I would like to explain why. Channel Ten's response contradicts itself. In the second paragraph of Ten's response Channel Ten notes that "The types of material that may be broadcast on commercial television are governed by the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice. ... The Code includes specific requirements for news and current affairs programs covering, amongst other things, that factual material must be broadcast accurately and viewpoints represented fairly. The Code requires news programs to be presented fairly and impartially."

But then Channel Ten writes: "Current affairs programs such as The Project are not subject to this requirement nor are they required to represent all viewpoints within a report."

Channel Ten then goes on to write: "We take care to ensure that our programs comply with these provisions, as well as other relevant laws, program standards and industry codes."

These statements are contradictory. On the one hand Channel is saying that it abides by the Industry Code of Practice and acknowledges that news and current affairs programs have to be fair and impartial accurate, yet then goes on to say that because The Project is a current affairs programthat thereforethe Code does not apply to it.

It is because The Projectis a current affairs program that those parts of the Industry Code relating to current affairs programs do apply to it, surely?

In fact The Project is not just a current affairs program but also a news program as they read out the news both at the beginning of the program and throughout the program.

Thus those parts of the Code that apply to news and current affairs programs must apply to The Project. Channel Ten's attempt to evade the Code in this response should be seen for what it is: nonsensical and unsustainable.

I ask that ACMA receive my complaint and act upon it and hopefully find that Channel Ten did indeed breach the Code, specifically that part of the Code that deals with news and current affairs programs. The Project is a news and current affairs program. Channel Ten used its program, The Project, to single out in a negative way the members of the One Nation Party unfairly by stereotyping all the people in that party, including me, as all being 'wackjobs'. The membership of the One Nation Party was not composed of only one type of person (i.e. 'wackjobs'). The diversity of character in One Nation's membershipwas just like in any other party. That is, there were all types in the One Nation Party. So stereotyping One Nation members iswrong, unfairand inaccurate. Also by saying that the Greens were merely 'wacky' whilst the people in One Nation were all 'wackjobs' Channel Ten is showing a bias in favour of the Greens over One Nation and not being impartial or fair in this regard as well. Channel Ten should not be favouring one political party over another in this stereotypical fashion. Channel Ten should not use a news and current affairs program like The Project to show favouritism toward one political party over another or to negatively stereotype all the members of a political party as it did on the night it said that all members of One Nation were 'wackjobs'.The Project is a news and current affairs program. Consequently it must be impartial, fair and accurate. I contend that Channel Ten did not meet this requirement.

Issue 1:Whether factual material was presented accurately and viewpoints represented fairly

Relevant code clause

Clause 4.3.1 of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2010 (the Code) states:

4.3 In broadcasting news and current affairs programs, licensees:

4.3.1 must broadcast factual material accurately and represent viewpoints fairly, having regard to the circumstances at the time of preparing and broadcasting the program.

Finding

The licensee did not breach clause 4.3.1 of the Code.

Reasons

The ACMA’s general considerations as to whether or not material complained of is compliant with the licensee’s obligations under clause 4.3.1 of the Codeare set out at Appendix A.

Clause 4.3.1 has two limbs that must both be satisfied in order for a news and current affairs program to comply with the Code. Factual material must be broadcast accurately and viewpoints must be represented fairly, ‘having regard to the circumstances at the time of preparing and broadcasting the program’. Each of these limbs is assessed separately below:

Was factual material broadcast accurately?

The wording of clause 4.3.1 of the Code indicates that the requirement for accuracy applies to the broadcast of factual material only. The first issue to be determined is therefore whether the statement under examination constituted ‘factual material’. The complainant’s concern relates to the Mr Hughes’s statement:

I think the comparison’s a bit much. I mean you guys [i.e. The Greens Party] can be wacky, but One Nation were wack jobs!

The ACMA has assessed whether the above statement would have been understood by the ‘ordinary, reasonable viewer’ as a statement of fact or an individual viewpoint or comment.

Having regard to the language, tenor and tone of Mr Hughes’s statement, it is considered that, on the whole, it would have been understood by the ‘ordinary, reasonable viewer’ as an individual viewpoint.

As stated on the program’s website, the role of the panellists on the program is to ‘digest’ and ‘dissect’ current affairs in the media, which involves expressing their viewpoints on topics under discussion. The language and tone used by Mr Hughes strongly indicates an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact.The ACMA is of the view that the ‘ordinary, reasonable viewer’ would have understood that referring to someone or something as a ‘wack job’ is an opinion, not a factual statement. The use of such a colloquial expression would not normally be associated with a statement that is factual in nature. This view is further reinforced by the fact that Mr Hughes began his comment with the phrase: ‘I think … ’ whichis by its very naturea subjective and contestable expression, indicating that what followed was his individual viewpoint.

As Mr Hughes’s statement constituted his individual viewpoint, rather than a statement of fact, it is not subject to the relevant Code provision.The requirement that factual material be presented accurately is therefore not applicable.

Were viewpoints represented fairly?

In determining whether or not a licensee has represented a viewpoint 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 a viewpoint in doing so.

Notwithstanding this, the ordinary, reasonable viewer would not have understood the segment to be a wide-ranging discussion about the One Nation Party. As stated earlier in this report, the segment was primarily concerned with the relationship between the Labor Party and the Greens Party and the reference to the One Nation Party was brief and incidental to the main subject.

There is no information before the ACMA to suggest that viewpoints represented during the segment were represented unfairly by being edited out of context or providing the incorrect impression or emphasis.The main part of the segment was taken up by an interview with Deputy Greens Leader Adam Bandt. He was allowed to offer his opinions and answer the questions put to him by the panel at length and uninterrupted. The ACMA has not been provided with any information to suggest that his viewpoint was not fairly represented or misrepresented during the segment in question.