3109 final report radio 6pr publication version docx (2)

8/12/2019 3109 Final Report Radio 6PR Publication Version Docx (2)

1/6

ACMA Investigation Report 3109 Mornings and Drive broadcast by Radio 6PR Perth Pty Ltd 6 and 9May 2013

Investigation Report No. 3109

File No. ACMA2013/1311

Licensee Radio 6PR Perth Pty Ltd

Station 6PR

Type of Service Commercial radio

Name of Program Mornings and Drive

Date/s of Broadcast 6 and 9 May 2013

Relevant

Legislation/Code

Clauses 1.1(d),1.2(a) and 2.3(c) of the Commercial Radio Australia

Codes of Practice 2013

Date finalised 6 February 2014

Decision No breach of clauses 1.1(d), 1.2(a) and 2.3(c) of the CommercialRadio Australia Codes of Practice 2013


2/6


2

Background On 27 August 2013, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA)

received a complaint concerning interviews with Dr Philip Nitschke on the Mornings and

Drive programs broadcast by Radio 6PR Perth Pty Ltd (the licensee of 6PR) on 6 and 9May 2013, respectively.

Mornings is broadcast on 6PR from 8:30 am 12pm on weekday mornings and, on 6May 2013, the program was presented by Paul Murray.

Drive is broadcast on 6PR from 3pm 5pm on weekday afternoons and, at the time of thebroadcast, the host was Howard Sattler.

The station website describes the each program in the following way 1 :

Mornings

Get the latest news, hottest issues and the opportunity to have your say.Drive

The Drive program, bringing you the latest news and information on your drive home.

On 6 May 2013, Paul Murray interviewed Dr Philip Nitschke in relation to a new productintroduced by Dr Nitschke to enable voluntary euthanasia.

On 9 May 2013, Howard Sattler sought the views of Dr Nitschke on whether the matter ofvoluntary euthanasia should be resolved at a federal election in a referendum and, if so,what the referendum question should be.

In relation to the broadcast on 6 May 2013 the complainant alleged that:

o the presenter, Paul Murray, and Dr Philip Nitschke discussed suicide in a positiveand supportive way

o the segment gave detailed instruction on how to use Dr Nitschkes killing devicefor anyone to (build and) take their own life in suicide, or which can even be usedas a DIY blueprint to take the life of someone else

o the segment was broadcast during childrens hours when there is an increasedrisk that children could be listening

o there was no public interest in the broadcast of this content.

In relation to the broadcast on 9 May 2013 the complainant alleged that:o Howard Sattlers use of the term from a life -threatening condition when he

discussed voluntary euthanasia was misleading as it expanded the definition ofvoluntary euthanasia beyond terminal illness and could mean someone facingrisky surgery, or even someone feeling they are facing their end due to mountingdebts or something

o Dr Nitschkes us e of the terms suffering and with no hope of recovery werealso misleading as they dont reflect the absolute inevitability of terminal illness

1 http://www.6pr.com.au/shows
http://www.6pr.com.au/showshttp://www.6pr.com.au/showshttp://www.6pr.com.au/showshttp://www.6pr.com.au/shows


3/6


3

o this language expands the voluntary euthanasia definition beyond terminal -illness into something completely different suicide-on- demand

o it presented suicide as a desirable alternative...

o it was not in the public in terest to do that within such a serious and very troublingdebate for the public.

The licensee responded to the complainant that both broadcasts complied with theCommercial Radio Australia Codes of Practice 2013 (the Codes) .

Assessment This investigation is based on submissions from the complainant , the licensees response

to the complainant and a copy of the broadcasts provided to the ACMA by the licensee.Other sources used have been identified where relevant.

In assessing content for compliance with the Codes , the ACMA considers the meaningconveyed by the relevant material. This is assessed according to the understanding of anordinary 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 persons general knowledge and experience of worldly

affairs 2.

In considering compliance with the Codes, the ACMA considers the natural, ordinarymeaning 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 wasbroadcast, it then determines whether that material has breached the Codes.

The ACMA has considered whether the broadcasts complied with clauses 1.1(d) and1.2(a) of the Codes:

Proscribed Matter

1.1 A licensee must not broadcast a program which in all of the circumstances:

[...]

(d) depicts suicide favourably or presents suicide as a means of achieving a

desired result; or

[...]

1.2 Nothing in sub-clause 1.1 prevents a licensee from broadcasting a program of the kind

or kinds referred to in those sub-clauses if the program:

(a) is presented reasonably and in good faith for academic, artistic (including

comedy or satire), religious instruction, scientific or research purposes in the

public interest, including discussion or debate about any act or matter.

2 Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 at 164 167.


4/6


4

The ACMA has also considered whether the broadcast on 9 May 2013 complied withclause 2.3 (c) of the Codes:

News and Current Affairs Programs

2.3 In the preparation and presentation of current affairs programs a licensee mustensure that:

(c) viewpoints expressed to the licensee for broadcast are notmisrepresented and material is not presented in a misleading mannerby giving wrong or improper emphasis or by editing out of context; and

[...]

In assessing the broadcast material, the ACMA has also considered the following relevantdefinitions from the Macquarie Dictionary (Sixth Edition) :

Suicide : 1. The intentional taking of ones own life.

3. Someone who intentionally takes their own l ife

Euthanasia : The deliberate bringing about of the death of a person suffering from an

incurable disease or condition, as by administering a lethal drug or by

withdrawing existing life-supporting treatments.

Voluntary

Euthanasia : Euthanasia practised at the wish of a person with a terminal illness.

Suicide The ACMA acknowledges the care that must be observed when reporting or discussing

suicide in a broadcast, with particular concern for the impact the broadcast may have onpeople in the community who are vulnerable to suicide.

The guidelines and explanatory notes for the Codes 3, while not a formal part of theCodes, note that programs should avoid depicting suicide favourably or presenting it as ameans of achieving a desired result. The guidelines suggest that the broadcast shouldavoid language that glamorises or sensationalises suicide, or presents it as a solution toproblems and should exclude detailed descriptions about method of suicide.

Depiction of suicide - 6 May 2013 broadcast

Finding The licensee did not breach clauses 1.1(d) and 1.2(a) of the Codes.

Reasons

In reaching the above finding, the ACMA notes that:

While suicide and voluntary euthanasia are closely connected, they are, in fact,distinct as indicated by the above definitions provided in the MacquarieDictionary .

3 Page 38 of the Codes - http://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/About/The-ACMA-story/Regulating/broadcasting-codes-schemes-index-radio-content-regulation-i-acma
http://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/About/The-ACMA-story/Regulating/broadcasting-codes-schemes-index-radio-content-regulation-i-acmahttp://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/About/The-ACMA-story/Regulating/broadcasting-codes-schemes-index-radio-content-regulation-i-acmahttp://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/About/The-ACMA-story/Regulating/broadcasting-codes-schemes-index-radio-content-regulation-i-acmahttp://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/About/The-ACMA-story/Regulating/broadcasting-codes-schemes-index-radio-content-regulation-i-acmahttp://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/About/The-ACMA-story/Regulating/broadcasting-codes-schemes-index-radio-content-regulation-i-acmahttp://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/About/The-ACMA-story/Regulating/broadcasting-codes-schemes-index-radio-content-regulation-i-acma


5/6


5

The discussion focused on a new product introduced by Dr Nitschke and waspresented as a device to enable voluntary euthanasia and not as a device forsuicide more broadly.

The product was discussed in the context of elderly people seeking a peacefuldeath and those with a serious illness. The ordinary, reasonable viewer wouldhave understood that this would have been in reference to an otherwise non-peaceful death associated with terminal illness and serious illness of a terminalnature.

Dr Nitschke referred to suicide on one occasion, when he stated: often in thecontext of serious illness [...] they dont want to be th ought of as someone whossuicided . This also framed the discussion of the product in terms of use forvoluntary euthanasia and not for suicide more broadly.

The product was not suggested for any other purpose, such as a means ofdealing with mental illness or other problems.

The product was also discussed in the context of advanced planning and in termsof elderly and terminally ill people who make a conscious, informed decision onhow to end their lives. It is established at the beginning of the segment thatpeople attend workshops hosted by Dr Nitschke to explore options in how tocontrol the end of their lives.

While Dr Nitschke provided some details about the use of his product and notedthat it provides a peaceful and reliable death, these descriptions were not sodetailed as to constitute a favourable depiction of suicide or the presentation ofsuicide as a means of achieving a desired result. The descriptions did not includelanguage that glamorised or sensationalised suicide.

Discussion also focused on the controversies surrounding voluntary euthanasiaand the release of this product. This included a discussion of Dr Nitschkes on -going disagreement with the Australian Medial Association (AMA) in relation tohis work in voluntary euthanasia.

The segment included opposing views on the product, which were conveyed bythe presenter in noting that the director of Hope has questioned the legal status ofthis approach.

To the extent that the segment depicted suicide as favourable and as a means ofachieving a desired result, it was presented reasonably and in good faith in thebroader context of an on-going debate about voluntary euthanasia in Australia,which is a topic of public interest.

The Perth Radio Surveys provided by the licensee for March 2012 May 2013shows that the listening audience for the licensees service as a whole is matureand concentrated in the 55+ age bracket. The ACMA is satisfied that the programwas not directed at children.


6/6


6

Depiction of suicide and accuracy - 9 May 2013 broadcast

FindingThe licensee did not breach clauses 1.1(d), 1.2(a) and 2.3(c) of the Codes.

Reasons In reaching the above finding, the ACMA notes that:

Howard Sattler sought the views of Dr Nitschke on whether the matter ofvoluntary euthanasia should be resolved at a federal election in a referendumand, if so, what the referendum question should be.

Dr Nitschkes suggested referendum question, with Howard Sattlers input [inbold] was If you are suffering from a life threatening condition with no hopeof recovery, do you think you should be able to get lawful help from a doctor to beable to end your life?

The ordinary, reasonable listener would have understood that the terms a lifethreatening condition, suffering and no hope of recovery were used to refer toillness of a terminal nature and not to broader conditions relating to financialstress or other matters.

The segment was very brief and the discussion about voluntary euthanasia waslimited to the potential referendum question.

It did not include any language that glamorised or sensationalised suicide or thatpresented it as a desirable solution to problems. Nor did it include any detaileddescriptions about method of suicide.

There does not appear to be any dispute that voluntary euthanasia is a matter ofpublic interest and debate. Within this context, the potential referendum questionwas a valid topic for discussion.

3109 final report radio 6pr publication version docx (2)

Documents