Investigation Report No. 3146
File no. / ACMA2013/1600Licensee / Network Ten (Melbourne) Pty Ltd
Station / ATV Melbourne
Type of service / Commercial television
Name of program / The Biggest Loser: The Next Generation
Dates of broadcast / 18/3/13 and 2/4/13
Relevant Code / Clauses 1.9.6 and 1.9.7 of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2010
Date finalised / 7 February 2014
Decision / No breach of clause 1.9.6 [provoke or perpetuate intense dislike, serious contempt or severe ridicule on the grounds of disability]
No breach of clause 1.9.7 [present participants in reality television programs in a highly demeaning or highly exploitative manner]
The complaint
On 27 November 2013, following correspondence clarifying the matters within its jurisdiction, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) commenced an investigation into two episodes of the program The Biggest Loser – Next Generation broadcast by Channel Ten (Melbourne) Pty Ltd (Channel Ten).
The complainant was concerned about the nature of the program generally over the entire season, however, for the purpose of this investigation, identified the following broadcasts:
· All of episode 2, broadcast on 18 March 2013; and
· A short excerpt from episode 9, broadcast on 2 April 2013.
The complaint submitted that:
· ‘the portrayal of contestants provokes contempt and ridicule...’; and
· ‘a reasonable person would easily form the view [from the broadcast] that the contestants are demeaned and exploited.
The ACMA’s investigation is limited to issues raised in the complaint within the scope of clauses 1.9.6 [provoke or perpetuate intense dislike, serious contempt or severe ridicule on the grounds of disability] and 1.9.7 present participants in reality television programs in a highly demeaning or highly exploitative manner] of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2010 (the Code).
Matters not pursued
The complaint documentation included issues of concern in relation to public health. These issues are not matters within the Code and are therefore not investigated.
The broadcasts
The program
The Biggest Loser Australia was first broadcast in 2006. While the series initially involved single contestants competing against each other, in recent years the program has included teams including couples and families. The relevant episodes of The Biggest Loser: Next Generation were part of the eighth season of the program.
The Biggest Loser – Next Generation is described on its website as follows:
This year’s The Biggest Loser is all about the Next Generation and tackling the cycle of generational obesity.
We will follow a number of parents with either their son or daughter. The duos will battle it out to lose weight and fight their demons as they face brand new challenges, twists, eliminations and, of course, transformations.
Returning is host [host’s name] along with favourite trainers – [M], [S] and ‘The Commando’. There's a brand new Biggest Loser house, with four new gymnasiums, and a new weigh-in set up.
The Biggest Loser: The Next Generation is sure to surprise, entertain, inspire and prove that obesity cycles in Australian families can indeed be broken.[1]
The 18 March 2013 episode featured the contestants’ first ‘weigh-in’ where each parent and child team was weighed in front of the other contestants and the trainers, and their combined weight recorded. During the weigh-in, the contestants were prompted to make comments about their weight and how it made them feel, as well as what they hoped to get out of the Biggest Loser experience. The episode also covered the contestants’ first exercise training session, and finished with a segment where pairs of contestants were confronted with video footage predicting how the child would look by the time they were their parent’s age, if no lifestyle changes were made.
The 2 April 2013 episode included footage of two contestants being rewarded with a visit from their partners, fitness training sessions and a ‘challenge’ segment. The challenge involved the contestants competing against each other (in a task requiring them to keep one arm above their head while balancing on a beam) to win immunity from being voted out of the competition. The episode also included a segment where one of the trainers instructed the contestants on how to prepare a healthy breakfast.
The part of the 2 April 2013 episode that the complainant has identified for investigation involved an altercation between trainer M and one of the contestants (R) during a training session. During the exchange M tells R to increase the incline on the treadmill he is working on. Eventually, R does increase the incline, and M states ‘did we need to have that argument’. The scene concludes with M commenting (after the event), ‘I will be calling the shots R, shut up.’
The full transcript of this exchange is at Attachment A.
Assessment
This investigation is based on submissions from the complainant, correspondence between the complainant and Channel Ten and a copy of the episodes provided to the ACMA by Channel Ten. Other sources have been identified where relevant.
In assessing content for compliance with the Codes, 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’ reader (or listener of 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.[2]
In considering compliance with the Codes, the ACMA considers the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone, and any inferences that may be drawn.
Once the ACMA has applied this test to ascertain the meaning of the material that was broadcast, it then determines whether that material has breached the Code.
Issue 1: Provoke or perpetuate intense dislike, serious contempt or severe ridicule
Relevant Code clause
Proscribed Material
1.9 A licensee may not broadcast a program, program promotion, station identification or community service announcement which is likely, in all the circumstances, to:
1.9.6 provoke or perpetuate intense dislike, serious contempt or severe ridicule against a person or group of persons on the grounds of age, colour, gender, national or ethnic origin, disability, race, religion or sexual preference.
Complainant’s submissions
The complainant submitted to the licensee that it had breached clause 1.9.6 on the basis that:
Obesity is defined by the World Health Organisation as a disease. It is also a cause of disability.
The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (http://www.aihw.gov.au/disability-associated-wth-chronic-diseases) defines disability as ‘one or more of 17 limitations, restrictions or impairments which have lasted or are likely to last, for a period of six months or more, and which restrict a person’s everyday activities’...
[...]
· chronic or recurrent pain or discomfort causing restriction
· shortness of breath or breathing difficulties causing restriction
[...]
· restriction in physical activities or in doing physical work
· disfigurement or deformity
[...]
· any other long term condition resulting in a restriction
The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare recognises that the concepts of functioning and disability involve a range of body impairments and activity limitation. The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) of 1992 provides a similar definition, but is wider than that of the ABS and includes discrimination on the basis of imputed disability. A person whose weight (or lack of it) actually impairs his or her functioning would be covered by the DDA.
Accordingly it seems unequivocal, in an Australian context, that many obese people as compared to non-obese have varying degrees of disability consequent upon their obesity.
The evidence that this section of the Code has been has been breached includes the following:
· Australian research showing that viewers of the program developed negative attitudes towards obese people (Attachment 1).
· The portrayal of the contestants provokes contempt and ridicule which is evident in the numerous comments made on twitter (Attachment 2).
...Stereotypes held about overweight and obese people have resulted in pervasive levels of discrimination. Messages exhorting obese people to eat less and exercise more may do little except increase the stigmatism and levels of despair experienced by them.
Licensee’s submissions
The licensee submitted in its response to the complainant that:
The Biggest Loser has a long history of helping people – both participants and viewers – address their weight issues and helping them lead healthier lives. The show is about a complete lifestyle change. For the contestants, the program provides the opportunity to focus on change without any other distraction and with a strong support network. The Biggest Loser: The Next Generation has a particular focus on demonstrating that obesity cycles in Australian families can be broken.
... Nor, to the extent that obesity falls within the scope of clause 1.9.6, is the program likely to provoke or perpetuate intense dislike, serious contempt or severe ridicule against a person or a group of persons on the grounds of disability.
Finding
The licensee did not breach clause 1.9.6 of the Code.
Reasons
In determining whether the licensee has breached clause 1.9.6, consideration must be given to the following:
· identification of the relevant person or group and the relevant ground; and
· whether the broadcast provoked intense dislike, serious contempt or severe ridicule against the relevant individual/group on that ground.
The ACMA’s interpretation of clause 1.9.6 of the Code is outlined at Attachment B.
Research and Twitter
To support its submission that Channel Ten breached 1.9.6 the complainant has provided material including:
· An Australian research paper ‘“Cheapening the Struggle”: Obese People’s Attitudes Towards The Biggest Loser’ that reports on the perceptions of obese people of the program and its impact on both their own and other people’s attitudes towards them.[3]
· A selection of comments posted on social media site Twitter about the Biggest Loser program and/or contestants on the program.
The ACMA notes that the research, published in Obesity Management in October 2007, was an in-depth qualitative study with 76 participants.
Although the research pre-dated the episodes and did not relate specifically to them, it found:
· 69 of the study participants had watched the Biggest Loser at least once.
· 35 of the participants identified with the personal struggles of the contestants
· 54 thought the basic concept of the show was a negative one – the show used ‘weight as entertainment,’ was like ‘a side show at some kind of circus,’
· 11 were concerned about the public humiliation of contestants – in particular showing them binge eating or making them wear revealing exercise clothes
· 51 thought the core concept of the show – weight loss through healthy eating and ‘supported’ exercise was a good one but was unrealistic for people suffering from obesity
· Participants had 4 key criticisms:
1. the show’s approach was unrealistic, unaffordable and inaccessible
2. the rate at which contestants lost weight was unhealthy, dangerous or unsustainable
3. the show gave the impression that obese people can change if they are bullied, shamed and degraded
4. the show has a negative impact on societal perceptions of people living with obesity
· The criticisms support the hypothesis that the messages viewers were receiving from the Biggest Loser included that ‘big weight loss is possible and all you have to do is apply yourself’ and ‘any one can lose weight if he or she just has the will power’.
· The messages were applicable to (then) current approaches to obesity, including the continued acceptance of damaging social stereotypes about obesity resulting in experiences of stigma and discrimination.
It concluded:
At an extreme level, ‘the Biggest Loser’ reflects the general views and attitudes of our society towards obesity. It does little to offer sustainable strategies for weight loss and improved health outcomes at the individual, community or population levels. And it promotes an excessive ‘quick fix’ response to weight loss...
The Twitter comments provided by the complainant are described as ‘A relatively small selection of what is appearing in Social Media, in this case #BiggestloserAu on twitter mostly from the past 3-4 days’. The list is not dated, but attached to correspondence to the licensee of 5 April 2013.
Although the research and Twitter comments do not specifically refer to the particular episodes which are the subject of this investigation, they have been considered in the context of the assessment of clause 1.9.6 of the Code below.
The matters the ACMA take into account in interpreting clause 1.9.6 of the Code are set out at Attachment B.
The relevant ground
The complainant submits that the episode of The Biggest Loser – Next Generation broadcast on 18 March 2013, and the identified segment from the episode broadcast on 2 April 2013 provoked contempt and ridicule against obese people. In doing so, it characterised obesity as a ‘disability’ for the purposes of clause 1.9.6.
The ACMA notes that the definition of disability in the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) includes circumstances where a person has total or partial loss of their bodily functions, or malfunction of a part of their body.[4] The ACMA accepts the complainant’s submission that in some cases, obesity can cause bodily impairments that impact on an obese person’s functioning. In these cases, obesity may be considered a disability.
The ACMA is, therefore, satisfied that the relevant group is people who are disabled by obesity and the relevant ground is disability for the purposes of clause 1.9.6 of the Code.
Provoke or incite
As outlined at Attachment B, the ACMA must consider whether the program was likely to stir up, arouse or stimulate an audience to feelings of intense dislike, serious contempt towards persons who are disabled by their obesity. The content must include something more than the use of words that merely convey a person’s intense dislike, serious contempt or severe ridicule towards a person:
There must be something more than an expression of opinion, something that is positively stimulatory of that reaction in others.[5]
Intense dislike, serious contempt or severe ridicule