3lo investigation report no 3002 - home | acma/media/broadcasting investig… · web view3lo...

Investigation Report No. 3002File No. ACMA2013/380

Broadcaster Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Station 3LO Melbourne

Type of service National broadcaster

Name of program Mornings with Jon Faine

Date of broadcast 1 February 2013

Relevant code Standards 4.1, 5.1 and 5.7 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011

Date finalised 23 July 2013

Investigation Outcome

No breach of standards 4.1, 5.1 and 5.7 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011.

ACMA Investigation Report 3002—Mornings with Jon Faine—3LO—1 February 2013

The complaintThe Australian Communication and Media Authority (ACMA) received a complaint regarding an interview conducted on the program Mornings with Jon Faine, broadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (the ABC) on 1 February 2013.

The complainant considered that the interview was biased and the ABC provided false assurances about the nature of the interview.

The complainant was not satisfied with the response provided by the ABC’s Audience and Consumer Affairs and referred the complaint to the ACMA.

The investigation has considered the ABC’s compliance with standards 4.1, 5.1 and 5.7 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (the Code).

The programMornings with Jon Faine is a magazine-style program with interview and talkback segments and is broadcast from 8.30 am to 11.00 am on weekdays. It is described on 3LO’s website as:

Known for his quick wit and willingness to ask the stickiest of questions, Jon Faine delivers thought-provoking radio.1

On 1 February 2013, Mr Faine interviewed ‘a primary researcher’ from The Expendable Project (the interviewee):

a global collaboration documenting and exposing the wilful political sacrifice of an innocent woman [Schapelle Corby]2

The interview was introduced as follows:

Jon Faine: Someone sent me a link to a YouTube clip, we played a little bit of it before, which is about Schapelle Corby, and indeed there is a conspiracy theory that Schapelle Corby is a victim of a government fixup:

For the last eight years, an innocent woman, Schapelle Corby, has been suffering in a squalid prison in Indonesia.

‘When it was at its worst, how bad did it get?’

‘She couldn’t speak, she couldn’t walk. I was led into the prison to bathe her’.

Her own government, the Australian government, has always known she is innocent of any crime. But they hid the proof, manipulated the media and covered up the truth for their own self-interest.

And so on it goes. [The interviewee] is primary researcher with The Expendable Group, who have put this, I might say, very slick looking website, together. It’s described as the political sacrifice of Schapelle Corby.

A full transcript of the interview is at Attachment A.

1 http://www.abc.net.au/melbourne/programs/melbourne_mornings/ 2 http://www.expendable.tv


http://www.expendable.tv/

http://www.abc.net.au/melbourne/programs/melbourne_mornings/

BackgroundPrior to the broadcast of the interview with the interviewee, the ABC contacted the complainant from The Expendable Project to organise the interview. Email correspondence between the complainant and the ABC on 30 January 2013 focused on the complainant seeking assurances from the ABC regarding the manner in which the interview would be conducted.

A copy of this correspondence is at Attachment B.

AssessmentThe assessment is based on submissions from the complainant, correspondence between the ABC and the complainant and a copy of the broadcast provided to the ACMA by the ABC. Other sources are 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.

Australian courts have considered an ‘ordinary reasonable reader’ (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

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).

Issue 1: ImpartialityRelevant Code standard

Impartiality and diversity of perspectives

4 Impartiality and diversity of perspectives

Standards

4.1 Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.

Relevant Principles in relation to impartiality and diversity of perspectives include the following:

Judgements about whether impartiality was achieved in any given circumstances can vary among individuals according to their personal and subjective view of any given matter of contention. Acknowledging this fact of life does not change the ABC’s obligation to apply its impartiality standard as objectively as possible. In doing so, the ABC is guided by these hallmarks of impartiality:

a balance that follows the weight of evidence;

fair treatment;

open-mindedness; and

opportunities over time for principal relevant perspectives on matters of contention to be expressed.

3 Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 at 164–167 (references omitted).


[...]

Assessing the impartiality due in given circumstances requires consideration in context of all relevant factors including:

the type, subject and nature of the content;

the circumstances in which the content is made and presented;

the likely audience expectations of the content;

the degree to which the matter to which the content relates is contentious;

the range of principal relevant perspectives on the matter of contention; and

the timeframe within which it would be appropriate for the ABC to provide opportunities for the principal relevant perspectives to be expressed, having regard to the public importance of the matter of contention and the extent to which it is the subject of current debate.

The considerations which the ACMA has regard to in assessing the ABC’s compliance with standard 4.1 of the Code are found at Attachment C.

SubmissionsThe submissions of the complainant and the ABC are found at Attachment D.

FindingThe ABC did not breach standard 4.1 of the Code.

ReasonsThe complainant submitted that the interview was biased and comprised ‘abuse of the interviewee, repeated interruption, talking-over, and outright hostility’.

Standard 4.1 requires the ABC to ‘gather and present news and information with due impartiality’. Inclusion of the word ‘due’ indicates an element of flexibility depending on the particular context.

As indicated at Attachment C, achieving impartiality requires the broadcaster to present content in a way which avoids conveying pre-judgement or giving effect to the affectations or enmities of the presenter or reporter who play a key role in setting the tone of the program, through their style and choice of language. Whether a breach of standard 4.1 has occurred will depend on the themes in the program, any editorial comment, the overall presentation of the story and the circumstances in which the program was prepared and broadcast.

While the ACMA accepts that Mr Faine interrupted the interviewee on many occasions throughout the interview, the interruptions alone do not necessarily evince partiality. The ACMA notes that Mr Faine interjected when the interviewee strayed from the subject matter and to move the interview forward. As such, the interruptions were generally used to progress the interview. For instance:

Jon Faine: When she was sentenced or when she was arrested [interviewee]?...

Interviewee: It’s factual what, I mean, you can, I can cite examples from the website, particular letters of correspondence from, for example Justice Minister Ellison and AFP Commissioner Keelty…

Jon Faine: (interrupting) At the time that when she was sentenced or when she was convicted?


…

Interviewee: …The government knew it, Ellison knew it, Keelty knew it. Nobody told Schapelle Corby that her bag was the only one not scanned on that flight…

Jon Faine: (interrupting) When are you claiming that the Australian government knew that piece of information?

Interviewee: I’m not claiming anything, I’m telling you because the letter is on the website, the 6th of July 2005.

Jon Faine: (interrupting) You didn’t answer my question. Are you claiming that the Australian government knew her bag wasn’t scanned…

Interviewee: (interrupting) Yes…

Jon Faine: …before she was even convicted?

Interviewee: Before her appeal because…

Jon Faine: (interrupting) No, I asked you before she was convicted?

The ACMA considers the use of interruptions during interviews does not, of itself, reflect partiality by the presenter, provided the interviewee is still given the opportunity to put their point across and to respond to questions asked. The ACMA is satisfied that the interruptions in this case did not limit the interviewee’s ability to provide responses to the questions posed during the interview. In this regard, it is noted that the interviewee reasserted himself on several occasions throughout the interview. For instance:

Jon Faine: (interrupting) Well so far you haven’t told me anything that hasn’t been reported by the Australian media…

Interviewee: Please let me finish the sentence, it is part of the agreement that I would come here and talk to you that you would let me finish my sentence…

Jon Faine: I do need to get you to go to the point.

Interviewee: I am getting there but if you let me finish the sentence I’ll get there. Her bag was the only bag, and this is the third time I’ve said this, that wasn’t scanned on that flight. That is absolutely vital information that Schapelle Corby, in this scenario, that she was in. However, she was never told. The court was never told. Schapelle Corby’s lawyers were never told. The government knew it, Ellison knew it, Keelty knew it. Nobody told Schapelle Corby that her bag was the only one not scanned on that flight…

While the questions put to the interviewee were, at times, confrontational, challenging and direct, they were asked in a way that sought to inform the listener of the evidence obtained from The Expendable Project to support its belief that Schapelle Corby was innocent and that the Australian government was aware of her innocence.

The ACMA notes the complainant’s concern that Mr Faine’s opinion was apparent to the audience and that this amounted to bias. It is noted that Mr Faine made it clear that he was not convinced that the interviewee had proven his point that the Australian government was aware of Schapelle Corby’s innocence. He also called The Expendable Project’s website ‘a conspiracy theory’, which the interviewee denied.


The ACMA does not consider that the expression of Mr Faine’s views on the credibility of the conclusions of The Expendable Project amount to a lack of due impartiality:

The audience expects that with interviews on matters of contention, presenters will be questioning, and at times sceptical, in their analysis.

The ordinary, reasonable listener would expect a degree of scrutiny by the interviewer given the public’s knowledge of the Schapelle Corby case.

Mr Faine indicated that he had examined the information published on the website of The Expendable Project before he expressed his view.

At the end of the interview, Mr Faine said that it was open to the listeners to make up their own minds by viewing the website, thus allowing the audience to decide for themselves as to whether they accept the conclusions of The Expendable Project.

Accordingly, the ACMA finds that the ABC complied with standard 4.1 of the Code.

Issue 2: Dealing with participants

Relevant Code standardDealing with participants

5.1 Participants in ABC content should normally be informed of the general nature of their participation.



ReasonsThe complainant submitted that the ABC gave him false assurances about the nature of the interview that would take place between Mr Faine and a representative of The Expendable Project.

Standard 5.3 of the Code requires the ABC to normally inform participants of the ‘general nature’ of their participation. In this case, the ACMA considers that the ABC complied with this requirement by advising the complainant in an email of 30 January 2013 that:

We are happy to talk about the evidence your researcher has amassed, but we'd like to know a little more about the group as well. The format will be a radio interview for approximately five minutes.

The ACMA is satisfied that this advice – information on the subject matter which will be discussed during the interview (the evidence and The Expendable Project) and the likely duration of the interview (about five minutes) - amounts to information about the ‘general nature’ of participation in the interview.

Accordingly, the ABC complied with standard 5.3 of the Code.

The issue of the manner in which Mr Faine conducted the interview is dealt with under Issue 3: Undertaking below.


Issue 3: Undertakings

Relevant Code standardUndertakings

5.7 Assurances given in relation to participation, use of content, confidentiality or anonymity must be honoured except in rare cases where justified in the public interest



ReasonsStandard 5.7 requires the ABC to honour assurances given in relation to participation, use of content, confidentiality or anonymity, except in rare cases where justified in the public interest.

The complainant submitted that the ABC failed to honour its assurances regarding the manner in which Mr Faine interviewed the interviewee. The complainant explained that while the ABC assured him that the interview with the interviewee would be ‘respectful and fair’ and would not be a ‘format of trivial interruption and argument’, Mr Faine repeatedly interrupted the interviewee and was hostile and aggressive during the interview.

The ABC corresponded4 with the complainant two days prior to the interview regarding the nature of the interview with the interviewee. In this correspondence, the complainant specifically referred to a previous interview which Mr Faine had conducted with Mr KB regarding Mr KB’s disbelief in the official ‘9/11’ story and sought assurances from the ABC that the interview with the interviewee would not be the same as the one with Mr KB.

The ABC provided the following assurances to the complainant:

…we’re not proposing a ‘format of trivial interruption and argument.’ Jon will interview the guest with all due respect and vigour as is expected by our listeners, they will have a fair chance to speak to the audience…

…the interview will be respectful and fair. We are happy to talk about the evidence your researcher has amassed, but we'd like to know a little more about the group as well…

…

[[The interviewee] would not face a sneering hostile guy, interrupting and challenging every other sentence].

The ACMA considers that the assurances made by the ABC relate to the interviewee’s ‘participation’ in the interview in terms of standard 5.7. The next issue to consider is whether the ABC honoured those assurances.

4 See Attachment B


As indicated above, the ACMA does not consider that Mr Faine’s interruptions were ‘trivial’ as they were generally used to progress the interview. The ACMA notes that they were also used to test the interviewee’s claim that certain information about Schapelle Corby was not reported by the Australian media. The ACMA accepts the ABC’s submission that it is ‘standard journalistic practice’ to conduct a vigorous interview and ask probing questions.

Further, the ACMA does not consider that the manner in which Mr Faine conducted the interview was hostile and disrespectful. While Mr Faine did not accept the information contained on The Expendable Project’s website and was forceful in his views, he allowed the interviewee the opportunity to explain the purpose of the Project and outline examples of some of the documents obtained by the Project. The interviewee was also given the opportunity to refute Mr Faine’s claim that The Expendable Project is a ‘conspiracy theory’. The ACMA considers that interviews of this nature require presenters to be questioning, and at times sceptical, in their analysis. Mr Faine’s questions were consistent with this approach and did not result in a hostile and disrespectful interview.

Accordingly, the ACMA finds that the ABC complied with standard 5.7 of the Code.


Attachment A

Transcript– Mornings with Jon Faine – 1 February 2013Jon Faine: Someone sent me a link to a YouTube clip, we played you a little bit of it before, which is about Schapelle Corby, and indeed there is a conspiracy theory that Schapelle Corby is the victim of a government fixup:

For the last eight years, an innocent woman, Schapelle Corby, has been suffering in a squalid prison in Indonesia.

‘When it was at its worst, how bad did it get?’

‘She couldn’t speak, she couldn’t walk. I was led into the prison to bathe her’.

Her own government, the Australian government, has always known that she is innocent of any crime. But they hid the proof, manipulated the media and covered up the truth for their own self-interest.

And so on it goes. [Interviewee] is primary researcher with The Expendable Group, who have put this, I might say, very slick looking website, together. It’s described as the political sacrifice of Schapelle Corby. Morning to you [interviewee].

Interviewee: Good morning.

Jon Faine: I love a good conspiracy theory, what’s this one?

Interviewee: This is not a conspiracy theory.

Jon Faine: Well, what is, what is your theory?

Interviewee: It’s not a theory. We are a group of academics from around the world, North America, UK, Europe and Australia who picked this story up four and a half years ago and began to research it systematically using standard research methodologies. We obtained tens of thousands of government items, documents, correspondence, cables, and we reviewed them over a lengthy period of two or three years professionally. And what we identified was particular items of correspondence between ministers and the AFP and so forth, which illustrated, demonstrated quite clearly what was going on inside the Howard government when Schapelle Corby was sentenced in Indonesia.

Jon Faine: When she was sentenced or when she was arrested [interviewee]? Can I apologise to the audience. This is a Skype connection which was the only basis on which, I think, you agreed to do the interview and we’re trying to make it as clear as we can for radio broadcast but there are limitations. Do respond.

Interviewee: No, it’s factual what, I mean, you can, I can cite examples from the website, of particular letters of correspondence from, for example, Justice Minister Ellison and AFP Commissioner Keelty.

Jon Faine: (interrupting) At the time when she was sentenced or when she was convicted?

Interviewee: Well, throughout the period.

Jon Faine: Well, you said before when she was sentenced and of course, that’s late in the process.


Interviewee: Well, the one, the letter I have in front of me at the moment which was the example I was going to cite, it’s just after sentencing, obviously on the website you’ve seen it. The actual reports start from October the 8th, 2004 which was the day she was arrested.

Jon Faine: Yes, and it’s absolutely normal and typical for all governments with a citizen in trouble in another country to engage diplomatically as does the government in the UK, the US, France, Belgium, anyone anywhere does that. So what’s unusual there?

Interviewee: Well, I’ll cite you one of the many dozens of examples which will actually, perhaps illustrate what is the problem. 6 July 2005, a letter from Justice and Customs Minister Ellison to AFP Commissioner Keelty, discussing the fact that her bag, her boogie board bag, was the only bag not scanned at Sydney on that flight. Think about that just for a second. That bag could be marijuana was the only bag not scanned.

Jon Faine: This is not news to anybody in Australia, [interviewee]…

Interviewee: (interrupting) Yes, it is…

Jon Faine: I don’t know if you’re aware of the fact that all of this has been in, in, incredible detail, trawled through…

Interviewee: (interrupting) No, no, no, no…

Jon Faine: …on every media outlet in the country.

Interviewee: Find me one media report at all in Australia, broadcast or printed press that refers to this fact, I’m not actually finished telling you the fact yet…

Jon Faine: (interrupting) Ok, well get to the point.

Interviewee: Let’s complete the fact. Here we have information which has not been reported by the Australian media, contrary to what you say…

Jon Faine: (interrupting) Well so far you haven’t told me anything that hasn’t been reported by the Australian media…

Interviewee: Please let me finish the sentence, it is part of the agreement that I would come here and talk to you that you would let me finish my sentence…

Jon Faine: I do need to get you to go to the point.

Interviewee: I am getting there but if you let me finish the sentence I’ll get there. Her bag was the only bag, and this is the third time I’ve had to say this, that wasn’t scanned on that flight. That is absolutely vital information that Schapelle Corby, in this scenario, that she was in. However, she was never told. The court was never told. Schapelle Corby’s lawyers were never told. The government knew it, Ellison knew it, Keelty knew it. Nobody told Schapelle Corby that her bag was the only one not scanned on that flight…

Jon Faine: (interrupting) When are you claiming that the Australian government knew that piece of information?

Interviewee: I’m not claiming anything, I’m telling you because the letter is on the website, the 6th of July 2005.

Jon Faine: (interrupting) You didn’t answer my question. Are you claiming that the Australian government knew her bag wasn’t scanned…

Interviewee: (interrupting) Yes…

Jon Faine: …before she was even convicted?


Interviewee: Before her appeal because…

Jon Faine: (interrupting) No, I asked you before she was convicted?

Interviewee: Ah, they knew on the 6th of July 2005…

Jon Faine: (interrupting) I don’t have the timeline in front of me.

Interviewee: They were approached by [PH] who was Schapelle Corby’s lawyer, on the 8th of July, two days after they were discussing this critical piece of information and they never told him. Ellison never told him, never told the court, never told Schapelle Corby so this was never, ever presented to the court and it’s absolutely central information for her situation.

Jon Faine: [Interviewee], do you realise how absurd it is to Australian to hear suggestions from overseas commentators, and you claim to be academics, but whatever that might mean, to say that this is the story the Australian media won’t touch because this case has been absolutely trawled through countless times in extraordinary detail.

Interviewee: Smear after smear after fabrication after smear, we’ve read it all. We’ve done the research, we did four and a half years, a team of how many people researching every dot and comma of this case. And we’ve seen the media reports every single one of them, we’ve got a specialist team looking at it…

Jon Faine: There have been books written about this case.

Interviewee: Yes and look at them, look at them.

Jon Faine: Well…

Interviewee: Anyone can make a theory…

Jon Faine: (interrupting) So everybody’s wrong, everybody’s wrong, and you’re right?

Interviewee: I’m basing this, I’m not saying that, if you don’t believe it, if anybody is listening to my words have any doubt, go and look at the correspondence for yourself…

Jon Faine: (interrupting) Well I’ve had a look at the correspondence and even though I devoted, I must say, far more of my time than in the end that I thought was worthwhile, I couldn’t find a single thing there that justified the level of excitement that you claim you’re entitled to.

Interviewee: Well, I’m very sorry but I don’t think you looked properly because…

Jon Faine: (interrupting) Well no, it’s a classic conspiracy theory and I can’t see what the actual evidence is that you claim to have.

Interviewee: You’re meant to be interviewing me from an objective viewpoint which is asking questions and I’m giving you the answers. Don’t accuse it of being a conspiracy theory when it’s not. There are a set of dozens and dozens of letters and documents and correspondence between government ministers which prove exactly what they knew, it’s never been reported in Australia. Probably because a lot of the broadcasters have the same attitude you have. You’ve got a position and it’s evidenced by this conversation. You’re accusing it of being a conspiracy theory when it’s a set, it’s a cache of information. That’s what The Expendable TV website is.

Jon Faine: Ok, and so are you going to take down the bit now about how this is the story that the Australian media don’t dare touch because we just dared touch it.


Interviewee: Well, you’ve touched it briefly in a discussion with me during which you’ve trying to call a conspiracy theory, which is rather unfortunate because it isn’t. Are you going to stop calling it a conspiracy theory when it’s fact, not a theory?

Jon Faine: Well as I’ve…the time I have devoted to it which I ended up, quite frankly regretting, I decided that you hadn’t actually proven your point and made your claim at all.

Interviewee: Let your listeners decide shall we, let them look at the website, look at the letters…

Jon Faine: That’s exactly why you’re on air so they can, so we can tell them about it and you can stop that silly claim that this is a story that no Australian media dare touch, which is always a bit of a giveaway.

Interviewee: Look at the facts…

Jon Faine: Huh?

Interviewee: You’re always going to get this sort of attitude from your media, that’s what you’ve had for eight years and that’s why she’s still there now.

Jon Faine: Alrighty.

Interviewee: The government have known she’s innocent since 2005.

Jon Faine: [Interviewee], I’m indebted to you for accepting the invitation and yes, the audience can make up their own minds and thank you, and we’ll see where it goes to. [Interviewee], primary researcher with The Expendable Group and you can have a look The Expendable Project, which they claim is the political sacrifice of Schapelle Corby.


Attachment BFrom: [ABC]To: [Complainant]Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:32:50 +1100Subject: RE: The Expendable Project

[Complainant]- you have my assurance.

[…]

thanks________________________________________From: [Complainant]Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2013 10:32 AMTo: [ABC]Subject: RE: The Expendable Project

[ABC]

Basically, that the researcher doesn't face a sneering hostile guy, interrupting and challenging every other sentence, as in the 911 example.

These are actual government cables, the validity of which can easily be established, so any accusation of conspiracy or similar insult would result in a hang-up.

[…]

[Complainant]

From:[ABC] To: [Complainant]Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:22:06 +1100Subject: RE: The Expendable Project

[Complainant] - what further do you require in terms of assurance? Can you please be specific.

[…]

________________________________________From: [Complainant]Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2013 10:17 AMTo: [ABC]Subject: RE: The Expendable Project


[ABC]

That doesn't really answer the questions though, does it. Respectful and fair was not how I would characterize the interview I just heard with the 911 chap, so I would need further assurances on that. The focus on the core subject matter, however, is helpful.

It is evening and night time in the US and the UK, so anything today is not going to be possible. Can I assume that you do not record interviews?

Finally, I'm not convinced that you are fully aware of the gravity of this situation. To help, I have copy/pasted the following from the internet. These are all verified facts, confirmed through FOI data, which the Australian media have never reported. They provide at least some insight into the serious nature of what has been established.

Regards,

[Complainant]

25 UNREPORTED FACTS

[…]

--------------------------------

From: [ABC]To: [Complainant]Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:01:42 +1100Subject: RE: The Expendable Project

Hi [Complainant]

As assured the interview will be respectful and fair. We are happy to talk about the evidence your researcher has amassed, but we'd like to know a little more about the group as well. The format will be a radio interview for approximately five minutes.

Regards,

________________________________________From: [Complainant]Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2013 9:55 AMTo: [ABC]Subject: RE: The Expendable Project

[ABC]


Do you consider that the 911 fellow was interviewed with "all due respect and vigour", and that he had "a fair chance to speak to the audience"?

I have to be frank in stating that I don't. Whatever the subject matter, the interviewee would have struggled against such a hostile onslaught.

I would, therefore, need assurances on format to recommend this.

For example, as the subject matter would be the primary evidential information, proving what the government actually did, the sort baseless smears against Schapelle Corby's family which the Australian media is so adept at delivering would have to be precluded.

Assurances of no interruption, or talking-over, would have to be provided. Good manners such as these would be expected by senior politicians, and is the least the nominated researcher would expect too.

[…]

[Complainant]

From: [ABC]To: [Complainant]Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 09:20:29 +1100Subject: RE: The Expendable Project

Hi [Complainant}

thanks for your reply.

I can assure you we're not proposing a 'format of trivial interruption and argument,' Jon will interview the guest with all due respect and vigour as is expected by our listeners, they will have a fair chance to speak to the audience.

The interview would give your group exposure to a large metro prime-time audience.

Who do you propose as talent?

Regards,

________________________________________From: [Complainant]Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2013 9:15 AMTo: [ABC]Subject: The Expendable Project


Good morning…

I have been passed your message by the webmaster of the website (Expendable.TV)…

I have something of a problem here. One of the US based academics came across this, whilst performing background research further to your request:http://candobetter.net/node/2279

It is somewhat alarming. Regardless of the merits or otherwise of the 911 theories, Mr Faine was clearly hostile to the interviewee, constantly interrupting and ridiculing him. The scope to discuss the issues the interviewee was making was lost entirely.

I would make two serious points here:

1. The Expendable Project has published a raft of government documentation, including correspondence and cables. These are not in any way 'theory', and they are not ambiguous. Rather, they prove exactly what Australian government ministers did with respect to Schapelle Corby, including suppression of absolutely vital primary evidence. They knew she was innocent in July 2005.

2. In view of the gravity of this situation, and the apparent tendency of Mr Faine to impose his own pre-determined opinion upon his guests, a productive engagement would appear to be unlikely. These serious issues have not been reported, and I don't believe that a format of hostile cross examination when the information is conveyed to the public would be sensible.

I invite you to read the government cables for yourself.

I invite you to see for yourself the difference between theory and fact, and to see exactly what ministers like Christopher Ellison and Alexander Downer were up to in 2005. I invite you to see what AFP Commissioner Keelty was engaged in. I invite you to view their own correspondence.

If you do this, you will understand the gravity of what The Expendable Project exposes, and the scandal that the Australian media has failed to report it.

You will understand why a format of trivial interruption and argument is not an appropriate way to proceed.

If you can suggest a format which precludes this sort of scenario, I am sure we could work something out. Do let me know.

Kind regards,

[Complainant]


http://candobetter.net/node/2279

Attachment C

In determining whether or not material complained of is compliant with the ABC’s obligations under standard 4.1 of the Code, the ACMA generally has regard to the following considerations:

The meaning conveyed by the relevant material is assessed according to what an ordinary reasonable viewer would have understood the program concerned to have conveyed. The Court’s interpretation of the ordinary reasonable viewer has been detailed above in the considerations under accuracy.

Achieving impartiality requires a broadcaster to present content in a way which avoids conveying a prejudgement, or giving effect to the affections or enmities of the presenter or reporter in respect of what is broadcast. In this regard:

o The ACMA applies the ordinary English meaning of the word ‘impartial’ in interpreting the Code. The Macquarie Dictionary (Fifth Edition)5 defines ‘impartial’ as: ‘not partial; unbiased; just’. It defines ‘partial’ to include: ‘biased or prejudiced in favour of a person, group, side, etc., as in a controversy’. ‘Bias’ is defined as: ‘a particular tendency or inclination, especially one which prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question’.

o The ACMA considers that a helpful explanation of the ordinary English usage of the term ‘bias’ is set out by Hayne J in Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng6 as follows:

‘Bias’ is used to indicate some preponderating disposition or tendency, a ‘propensity; predisposition towards; predilection; prejudice’.7 It may be occasioned by interest in the outcome, by affection or enmity, or, as was said to be the case here, by prejudgement. Whatever its cause, the result that is asserted or feared is a deviation from the true course of decision-making, for bias is ‘any thing which turns a man to a particular course, or gives the direction to his measures’.

The relevant provision requires the ABC to ‘gather and present news and information with due impartiality’. Inclusion of the word ‘due’ indicates an element of flexibility depending on the particular context: for example, the gathering and presentation of factual information for a news bulletin may be materially different from an interview of a political figure, where challenging questions are ordinarily appropriate.

A program that presents a perspective that is opposed by a particular person or group is not inherently partial. Whether a breach of standard 4.1 has occurred will depend on the themes of the program, any editorial comment, the overall presentation of the story and the circumstances in which the program was prepared and broadcast.

5 Online edition at http://www.macquariedictionary.com.au6 (2001) 205 CLR 507 at 563 [183] Gleeson CJ and Gummow J at 538 [100] agreeing.7 Oxford English Dictionary (Second Edition), meaning 3(a).


http://www.macquariedictionary.com.au/

Presenters and reporters can play a key role in setting the tone of a program through their style and choice of language. The manner in which a report is presented or reported can influence the conclusions that an ordinary reasonable listener would draw from a broadcast.

The nature of current affairs reporting requires reporters and presenters to be questioning, and at times sceptical, in their analysis of important issues. However, while probing and challenging questions may be used to explore an issue, programs must demonstrate a willingness to include alternative perspectives without prejudgement.


Attachment D

Complainant’s submissionsStandard 4.1

The complainant submitted to the ABC and the ACMA:

The interview itself was wholly biased. It comprised abuse of the interviewee, repeated interruption, talking-over, and outright hostility…

…

On the issue of bias and balance, I am afraid that to any objective third party observer, there is no question about this at all.

What you falsely describe as scepticism was a hostile position. It wasn't careful probing or intelligent questioning, it was laced with attitude and aggression. The audience would have been in no doubt at all in what the opinion of Mr Faine, of the ABC, actually was. Indeed, some complained on this matter too, in their texts.

This is called bias... By definition, it was the ABC openly demonstrating a position. I am sure you realize this, as I am sure you understand what the purpose of your overall response was.

Standards 5.1 and 5.7

The complainant submitted to the ABC and the ACMA:

I was lied to by the ABC... I was given false assurances about the nature of the interview, which [the interviewee] were provided with, including that he would not be repeatedly interrupted. Yet, [the interviewee] was indeed repeatedly interrupted. In fact he was interrupted to the point at which members of the public made complaints, which were read on air during the broadcast itself. You forgot to mention that fact though, didn't you?

He was interrupted to the point at which he had to ask, on air, to be allowed to answer the question. Yet the ABC had committed, in writing, to an assurance that this would not happen.

The assurance also embraced the tone, tenor and manner of the interviewer. Again, an assurance was provided. Yet the interviewer was indeed hostile in nature, and aggressive in style. This is not scepticism... Allow me to introduce you to the meaning of that word: "the disbelief in any claims of ultimate knowledge".

It is perfectly possible to disbelieve something without almost abusing the other party, and without acting in a belligerent vitriolic manner. This applies in life generally, let alone on public radio with a member of the public.

I should also mention your own personal position... I would suggest that evidence of your own attitude extends beyond the misuse of words to falsely characterise the nature of the interview, and is somewhat betrayed by the term "The claims being made by [the interviewee] did amount to an allegation of a conspiracy".


This is in fact, false, but allow me to remind you, that I stated clearly that "These are actual government cables, the validity of which can easily be established, so any accusation of conspiracy or similar insult would result in a hang-up", which was a condition of the interview. The ABC breached this understanding as well, which you also failed to mention in your response, and you now use precisely the same false and abusive term.

ABC’s submissionsThe ABC wrote to the complainant:

[…]

On the basis of the email trail you have provided it is clear that the general nature of the program was accurately described. The assurance you received was that the interviewee would not “face a sneering hostile guy, interrupting and challenging every other sentence, as in the 911 example”.

Jon Faine certainly conducted a probing and sceptical interview with [the interviewee], however, there was no abuse or hostility. Mr Faine’s interruptions were not excessive and were consistent with a normal desire to move the interview along and to pick up on controversial claims. For example, he interjected to clarify whether [the interviewee’s] claims related to when Ms Corby was arrested, or when she was sentenced. He interjected again to clarify that [the interviewee] was wrong in stating the Australian media hadn’t reported a certain aspect of the story.

In relation to impartiality, one should not confuse scepticism, even a high degree of scepticism, with bias. The claims being made by [the interviewee] did amount to an allegation of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by the Australian Government. That is a very serious claim and Mr Faine was right to hold the interviewee to account. [The interviewee] had ample opportunity to express his opinion. The Expendable Project received in excess of ten minutes of air time. Jon Faine concluded, in agreement with a statement by [the interviewee], to invite listeners to make up their own minds about the validity of [the interviewee’s] claims.

[…]

The ABC submitted to the ACMA:

The assurances given by [the ABC] to Dr Hedley were adhered to in Jon Faine's subsequent interview with Interviewee.

Dr Hedley appears to believe that an assurance was given that the term 'conspiracy theory' would not be used. No such assurance was given.

[The interviewee] did not face a 'sneering, hostile guy, interrupting and challenging every other sentence'. Jon Faine opened the interview by playing an extended grab from the Expendable Project website which included the following '[Schapelle Corby's] own government - the Australian government - has always known that she is innocent of any crime but they hid the proof, manipulated the media and covered up the truth for their own self-interest'. Mr Faine described the Expendable Project's website as 'very slick' and noted that it was headed 'The political sacrifice of Schapelle Corby'.


The interview with [the interviewee] commenced in a positive and enthusiastic manner and [the interviewee] was given ample opportunity to set out the approach taken by the Expendable Project, highlight some of the relevant information it had collected, and refute the suggestion that the group was prosecuting a conspiracy theory. Consistent with his duty to conduct a fair and duly impartial interview, Mr Faine did interrupt to ensure that the interview moved along and to clarify important points (such as precisely when the government was said to have knowledge of relevant facts that may have assisted Schapelle Corby's case), and also used natural breaks in the conversation to ask relevant questions (such as what was unusual about the government's diplomatic intervention in the Corby case, what support there was for the claim that Australian media had failed to critically cover the government's role in the Corby story).

There was never an assurance given that [the interviewee] would not be questioned or called to account for the quite extraordinary claims the Expendable Project was making. To the contrary, [the interviewee] was specifically advised that the interview would be conducted with due respect and vigour, in keeping with the expectations of 774 ABC Melbourne listeners. As explained above, interruptions were not made for trivial reasons, but to ensure that the interview progressed and that [the interviewee’s] claims were properly tested. This is standard journalistic practice.

Mr Faine was not hostile or abusive: he remained professional and duly impartial throughout.


3lo investigation report no 3002 - home | acma/media/broadcasting investig… · web view3lo...

Documents