Investigation Report No. 2935

File no. / ACMA2012/1807
Broadcaster / Special Broadcasting Service
Station / 2EA (SBS Radio) Sydney
Type of service / National Broadcaster
Name of program / Serbian Language Program
Date of broadcast / 10, 11, 12 and 13/7/12
Relevant code / Clause 2.2 of the SBS Codes of Practice 2006
Data finalised / 12 April 2013
Decision / No breach of clause 2.2 (accuracy, impartiality and balance)

Background

  • The complaint is about the broadcast of the Serbian Language Program by SBS between 10 and 13 July 2012.
  • The program coverage during that periodreported on both historical and present day events related to the 17th Anniversary of the 1995 Sreberenica Genocide (the Genocide).
  • The complainant is concerned that SBS journalists did not use the term ‘genocide’ in its reporting, and instead used other ‘inaccurate’ terms, for example ‘massacre’, ‘killings’, ‘murder’, ‘crimes against humanity’. The complainant considers that this demonstrates the SBS journalists’ own denial of genocide.
  • The complainant states that legally, the term ‘genocide’ differs greatly from these other terms, and that Belgrade has a ‘long term denial’ of genocide and a ‘lack of will to take responsibility’ of genocide.
  • In the SBS Ombudsman’s response to the complainant, the SBS noted that:

Across the four days of programming which were reviewed, the terms ‘massacre’ and ‘genocide’ were both used, along with other terms such as ‘Stradanje’[1] to describe the events depicted. The word ‘genocide’ was the dominant description applied during the programming, but it was not the only term used.

  • Not satisfied with the SBS response, the complainant referred the matter to the ACMA for investigation, noting that his ‘key argument’ is that:

The term ‘genocide’ was heard only in the reports from other sources where Bosniaks were interviewed. ... [I]n all programs in question one could not hear at least one use of term genocide by staff of the Serbian SBS team. ...[this is] evidence of intentional avoidance to be accuratewhich is clearly a breach of [the Codes].

  • The complaint raises issues under clause 2.2 [accuracy, impartiality and balance] of the SBS Codes of Practice 2006(the Codes), which has been assessed in this investigation report. (Attachment A)

Assessment

  • When assessing broadcast content against the Codes, the ACMA considers the meaning conveyed by the relevant material according to the understanding of an ‘ordinary, reasonable listener’.[2]
  • The ACMA investigation is based on:
  • The complainant’s submissions to the SBS and to the ACMA;
  • Submissions provided by the SBS Ombudsman (assisted by in-house translation of the broadcasts)
  • NAATI accredited translations of the entire coverage over the relevant period (18 transcripts covering 5 news reports and 8 current affairs reports) (Attachment B)
  • Other sources are identified where relevant.

Finding and reasons

For the following reasons, the ACMA is satisfied that the broadcasts of the Serbian Language Program were in keeping with the accuracy, impartiality and balance obligations under clause 2.2 of the Codes:

  • A review of the accredited translated transcripts (which the SBS submits is consistent with its in-house translation) indicates that over the coverage the term ‘genocide’ is used on 25 occasions.
  • The transcripts indicate that 17 of these were used by SBS reporters.
  • The ACMA considers that the ordinary, reasonable listener would have understood the term ‘genocide’ to have been used in connection with the 1995 Sreberenica Genocide.
  • The ACMA is satisfied that the broadcasts on the whole did not convey inaccurate assertions, or reflectbiased views with respect to the Genocide.
  • The ACMA alsoconsiders the coverage was balanced with respect to references to the long term denial of the Genocide. For example, on 11 July 2012 at 5:52 pm, a female presenter stated:

The Helsinki Human Rights Foundation warned today that in Serbia there is a strong movement of denying and negating the genocide in Srebrenica and asked the country to adopt a law to sanction that. The Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia demands that the country morally condemns each denial of genocide and that the newly-elected parliament of Serbia adopt a law which would sanction that, it is said in the Committee statement for the seventeenth anniversary. ...

  • Later at 8:20 pm, an interviewee stated:

Contrary to 2010 when then-President Boris Tadic was present at the marking of the 15th anniversary of the crimes committed in Srebrenica, Serbian officials will not go to the commemoration in Potocari today. The Chief Mufti of the Islamic community in Serbia recommends to Tomislav Nikolic, the newly-elected President to go to Srebrenica and pay respect to those killed there because the Bosniaks need sincere condolences and respect towards the innocent victims expressed by the President of Serbia. However, that is not going to happen on the 11th of July this year. Apart from the famous statement that what happened in Srebrenica was a crime, but not genocide, the views of President Nikolic on this issue have not been expressed to the media.

  • The ACMA considers that the coverage was not purporting to solely present political views on the historical denial of the term ‘genocide’, but rather, report a range of historical and present-day events relevant to the anniversary and commemoration of the Genocide.
  • The ACMA does not consider, in this context, that any omission of the use of the term genocide in the Serbian Language Program by SBS broadcast between 10 and 13 July 2012 demonstrates bias, inaccuracy or lack of balance.
  • Accordingly, the SBS did not breach its obligations under clause 2.2 of the Codes.

Attachment A

SBS Codes of Practice

2.2 ACCURACY, IMPARTIALIY AND BALANCE

SBS is committed to achieving the highest standard of news and current affairs presentation. To this end, all reasonably effort must be made to ensure that the factual content of news and current affairs programs is accurate, having regard to the circumstances, and facts known, at the time of preparing and broadcasting the programs.

SBS will take reasonable steps to ensure timely correction of significant errors of fact.

The requirement for accuracy does not mean that an exhaustive coverage of all factual material relating to matters broadcast must be presented.

While the emphasis in news is the reporting of factual information, news programs, as well as current affairs programs, may include comment and analysis.

Reasonable effort should be made to ensure news and current affairs programs are balanced and impartial, having regard to the circumstances at the time of reporting and broadcasting, the nature and immediacy of the material being reported, and public interest considerations.

The commitment to balance and impartiality requires SBS to present – over time and across the schedule of programs broadcast on the relevant service (Television, Radio or Online) – a wide range of significant views, not misrepresenting them or unduly favouring one over another.

It does not require SBS to present all viewpoints on an issue or to allocate equal time to different points of view. Neither does it preclude a critical examination of controversial issues or the expression of critical and provocative points of view.

The decision as to whether it is appropriate for a range of views or particular views to be included within a single program or story is a matter for editorial discretion.

In relation to news programs, for major issues that are matters of controversy, balance should be provided over the period in which the controversy is active. Balance will be provided through the presentation, as far as possible, of principal relevant viewpoints

SBS has a policy of self-identification (see Code 1.5) and does not arbitrate on the validity of territorial claims.

SBS journalists will identify themselves and SBS before proceeding with an interview for broadcast.

ACMA Investigation Report 2935 – Serbian Language Programbroadcastby 2EA on 10, 11, 12, and 13/7/12. 1

[1]Serbian term for ‘suffering’ and ‘tribulation’ (translate.google.com.au)

[2]Australian Courts have defined the ‘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.’ Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 at 164-167.