Investigation report no. BI-240Summary

Licensee Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd

Station Seven

Type of service Commercial—television

Name of program Seven News

Date of broadcast 2 September 2016

Relevant code

Clause 3.3.1 [accuracy and fairness] and clause 3.4.1 [impartiality] of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2015 (the Code)

Date finalised 11 November 2016

Decision No breach of clause 3.3.1 [accuracy and fairness]

No breach of clause 3.4.1 [impartiality]

BackgroundIn September 2016 the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) commenced an investigation under section 170 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (the BSA) into a segment of Seven News titled ‘[Catholic girls’ school] Student Petition’.

The segment was broadcast on Seven by Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd (Seven) on 2 September 2016 at 6.09 pm.

The ACMA received a complaint alleging the licensee did not present factual material accurately and did not present news fairly and impartially in the segment.

The ACMA has investigated the licensee’s compliance with clause 3.3.1 [accuracy and fairness] and clause 3.4.1 [impartiality] of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2015 (the Code).

The programSeven News is a news program, described as:

Comprehensive coverage of breaking news and local, national and international top stories, plus sport, finance and weather updates.1

The segment reported that a school had allegedly discriminated against two girls in a same-sex relationship and that a petition had been signed by students in support of the girls. It included:

comments from a student (Interviewee 1) from a nearby school alleging that the two girls were kept apart at the school

comments from Dr Niki Vincent, the South Australia Equal Opportunity Commissioner (the Commissioner) concerning the general complaints and reconciliation process in such matters

a statement from the school indicating that it had been misrepresented on social media.

A transcript of the segment is at Attachment A.

Assessment and submissionsWhen assessing content, the ACMA considers the meaning conveyed by the material, including the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone, images and any inferences that may be drawn. This is assessed according to the understanding of an ‘ordinary reasonable’ viewer.

Australian courts have considered an ‘ordinary reasonable’ 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 affairs2.

Once the ACMA has ascertained the meaning of the material that was broadcast, it then assesses compliance with the Code.

1 https://au.tv.yahoo.com/plus7/7news/, accessed 24 October 2016.2 Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 at pp 164–167.

ACMA Investigation report—Seven News broadcast on Seven on 2 September 2016 2 of 16

This investigation has taken into account the complaint (at Attachment B) and submissions from the broadcaster (at Attachment C). Other sources are identified as relevant.

Issue 1: Accuracy and fairness

Relevant Code provisions 3 News and Current Affairs

3.1 Scope and Interpretation

3.1.2 Compliance with this section 3 must be assessed taking into account all of the circumstances at the time of preparing and broadcasting the material, including:

a) the facts known, or readily ascertainable, at that time;

b) the context of the segment (or Program Promotion) in its entirety; and

c) the time pressures associated with the preparation and broadcast of such programming.

3.3 Accuracy and fairness

3.3.1 In broadcasting a news or Current Affairs Program, a Licensee must present factual material accurately and ensure viewpoints included in the Program are not misrepresented.

3.3.2 Clause 3.3.1 applies to material facts and material misrepresentations of viewpoints only.

FindingThe licensee did not breach clause 3.3.1 of the Code.

ReasonsTo assess compliance, the ACMA has addressed the following questions:

What did the material convey to the ordinary reasonable viewer?

Was the material factual in character?

If so, did it convey a material fact or facts in the context of the relevant report?

If so, was the factual material accurate?

The considerations the ACMA uses in assessing whether or not broadcast material is factual are set out at Attachment D.

The complaint is that the segment:

‘was not factually accurate’ and ‘entirely misrepresented the nature of the circumstances’

accused the school of ‘claims which were false and wholly unsubstantiated’

relied on the ‘testimony of a single student who did not attend the school’

referred to a Facebook post as ‘highlighting discriminatory behaviour of the school’, whereas the ‘post was a broad, general comment about diversity, and did not include any details whatsoever about any incident’.

The licensee submitted to the ACMA that:

ACMA Investigation report—Seven News broadcast on Seven on 2 September 2016 3 of 16

‘the report was careful to ensure that any claims made about the school were appropriately described as allegations/claims’

‘it would have been clear to the ordinary reasonable viewer that comments made by the friend [Interviewee 1] represented her own perspective on the matter’

Seven was informed by a number of individuals that the online petition was ‘in direct reference to the alleged incident involving the students in question’

the statement released by the school ‘referenced misrepresentation of its views via social media’.

What does the material convey to the ordinary reasonable viewer?

The segment reported on allegations that a school had discriminated against two girls in a same-sex relationship. It also reported that a petition had been signed by students in support of the girls. The segment included an account from Interviewee 1, a friend of the girls who did not attend the school. It also briefly included a website image of the petition and closed with a comment that the school had made a statement that it had been misrepresented and no student had been threatened with suspension or expulsion.

In this context, the ordinary reasonable viewer would have understood that the segment was reporting on a contentious matter, and included the following assertions:

allegations had been made about the school discriminating against students in a same-sex relationship

an online petition had been signed by hundreds of students in support of the girls

according to the school, it had been misrepresented on social media.

Was the material factual in character?

As outlined in Attachment D, the ACMA considers contextual indicators (including subject, language, tenor and tone and inferences that may be drawn) in determining whether content is factual.

Here, the segment was presented in the format of a news report and was framed as a factual account of a current, contentious matter.

In this context, the assertions listed above are factual in character. They are specific, unequivocal and capable of independent verification.

Did it convey a material fact or facts in the context of the relevant report?

Given that the allegations were the focus of the report, each of the above assertions were material facts in the context of the relevant segment.

Was the factual material accurate?

Allegations of discrimination by the school

There is no dispute from the complainant that the segment concerned a report of allegations on a controversial matter. The main element of the complaint is that the report ‘misrepresented the circumstances’.

The statements made by the presenter and reporter included that the school was ‘under fire’ for allegedly discriminating against the girls and that the students were allegedly banned from communicating with each other. The qualifier ‘allegedly’ or similar qualifiers, would have indicated to the viewer that the substance of the accusations was unproven and contestable.

ACMA Investigation report—Seven News broadcast on Seven on 2 September 2016 4 of 16

Comments from Interviewee 1 supported the assertion that allegations had been made against the school concerning treatment of the two girls in the same-sex relationship. However, she was described as a friend recounting the girls’ treatment. Her account would have been understood as a subjective, personal account rather than incontrovertible fact.

The licensee has also submitted that:

The complainant is in error in asserting that the report “relied upon the testimony of a single person that did not attend the school”. A number of students separately contacted Seven News in relation to the incident and material provided within the broadcast. The allegations were consistent with each other.

A statement posted on the school’s Facebook page on 1 September 2016 supported the interpretation that allegations had been made against the school:

Social media has this week provided an avenue for a serious misrepresentation regarding the school’s policies. The school – like many others – provides guidelines around student behaviour in school uniform, including public displays of affection, and has been absolutely consistent in their implementation. Contrary to some reports, no student’s class has been changed, nor has any student been threatened with suspension or expulsion. [Catholic girls’ school] is a diverse community founded on Mercy values of respect and inclusion.3

Articles in the public domain also contained statements from the school in response to allegations of discriminatory behaviour.4

The contestable nature of the claims was later emphasised by the interview with the Commissioner as it described how the matter would be dealt in the event that the girls made a discrimination complaint. It was clear from the statement from the Commissioner, that at the time of broadcast there had been no formal complaint made against the school and therefore no final judgment had been given on the matter.

In this regard, the ACMA is satisfied the underlying assertion concerning the school’s treatment of the two girls in the same-sex relationship was accurately presented as a contestable allegation.

The online petition

The complaint is that the segment falsely reported that a Facebook post signed by more than 400 people was a protest highlighting the discriminatory behaviour of the school, whereas the post was a broad general comment about diversity and did not include details about the incident or refer to any act of discrimination by the school.

The segment opened with the statement about the school allegedly discriminating against the students, then referred to hundreds of students signing an ‘online petition claiming the teenagers were being treated unfairly’.

A page of the online petition was later shown briefly on screen with some accompanying information; namely, that it had been posted by a [Catholic girls’ school] student, had received nearly 500 signatures, and the school had ordered it to be removed after a few hours.

The ACMA does not have any other material before it concerning the online petition and is unable to verify its nature. It is no longer available on the website. However, the licensee submitted that the petition was signed by 463 students and that:

3 Facebook page - Catholic girls' school, accessed 8 November 2016.4 Daily Mail news link and https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/32520217/claims-lesbian-couple-not-allowed-to-see-each-

other-slammed-by-catholic-school/#page1, accessed 8 November 2016.

ACMA Investigation report—Seven News broadcast on Seven on 2 September 2016 5 of 16

The Avaaz.org petition is headed […]: INCLUSIVENESS FOR ALL STUDENTS AT [Catholic girls’ school] and provides as follows:

‘At [Catholic girls’ school], we value ourselves on our mercy, respect and justice towards all students regardless of race, gender, sexual preference, disability or age. Recently the rights of some students have been breached due to students not having respect and acceptance for their peers due to who they really are..... Everyone should have the right to be themselves and speak their mind, but not at the expense of someone else. Sign this petition to show your support! BAN THE HANDS OFF POLICY.’

Seven News was informed by a number of individuals that the Avaaz petition was in direct reference to the alleged incident involving the students in question, and the substantive content of the petition also matched what Seven News was informed about the alleged [sic].

The ACMA accepts that the material quoted by the licensee was the petition referred to in the broadcast. While it included statements about diversity and did not cite the alleged incidents giving rise to allegations of discrimination, in referring to a ‘breach of students rights’, acceptance of students ‘for who they really are’ and seeking signatures in support of banning the ‘hands off policy’, it is apparent that the alleged treatment of the students at the school was the subject of the petition.

On the basis of this material, and the licensee’s submission about information provided by a number of individuals, the ACMA accepts that the petition referred to the incident involving the students and the alleged prohibition on the girls communicating with each other.

The ACMA is satisfied that the material aspects of the assertion concerning the online petition were accurate, that it concerned the treatment of students at the school and was signed by hundreds of students at that school.

The school’s position that it had been misrepresented on social media

The statement posted on the school’s Facebook page on 1 September 2016 was shown in a visual image at the close of the broadcast with an accompanying voiceover:

In a statement the school says it’s been misrepresented on social media, and no student has been threatened with suspension or expulsion.

The ACMA is satisfied that this was an accurate representation of the school’s account and position on this matter, as evidenced by the Facebook post noted above.5

Accordingly, the licensee did not breach clause 3.3.1 of the Code.

Issue 2: Impartiality

Relevant Code provisions3.4 Impartiality

3.4.1 In broadcasting a news Program, a Licensee must:

a) present news fairly and impartially;b) clearly distinguish the reporting of factual material from commentary and analysis

3.4.2 Nothing in this Section 3 requires a Licensee to allocate equal time to different points of view, or to include every aspect of a person’s viewpoint, nor does it preclude a critical examination of or comment on a controversial issue as part of a fair report on a matter of public interest.

5 Facebook post - Catholic girls' school, accessed 8 November 2016.

ACMA Investigation report—Seven News broadcast on Seven on 2 September 2016 6 of 16

FindingThe licensee did not breach clause 3.4.1 of the Code.

ReasonsThe Code requires that news programs be presented fairly and impartially. Clause 3.4.1 requires that information be presented in such a way that one side of an issue is not favoured over another and that the program does not show prejudice or bias against a particular side.

Achieving fairness and impartiality requires a broadcaster to present content in a way which avoids conveying a prejudgment, or giving effect to the affectations or enmities of the presenter or reporter who plays a key role in setting the tone of the program, through their style and choice of language.6

A program that presents a perspective that is opposed by a particular person or group is not inherently partial.

Whether a breach of the Code has occurred will depend on the theme of the news item, the range of perspectives that were presented or sought to be presented in relation to that theme, the overall presentation of the story and the circumstances in which the program was prepared and broadcast.

The ACMA accepts the licensee’s submission that the Code does not require news broadcasters to allocate equal time to different points of view.

The ACMA has previously noted that it is legitimate for a broadcaster to investigate and report on matters of public interest and concern. However, care in framing is important, particularly where a broadcast makes strong claims in relation to potentially sensitive matters.7 It has also noted that matters that could lead to a consideration that material has been presented unfairly or partially may include an unfair selection of material from the range of material available, an undue emphasis on certain material, or the unfair juxtaposition of material out of context.8

In this case, the complainant submitted to the licensee:

This news item was not factually accurate. It entirely misrepresented the circumstances. It was not fair and impartial, and it did not critically examine a controversial matter.

[…]

The entire news report was therefore based on a single point of view, from a student whose identity was concealed, who came from a different school, and who could not possibly have direct knowledge of what occurred.

The licensee submitted to the ACMA:

The language, style and tone of the report was appropriately neutral and unaffected by commercial arrangement or other predisposition of the reporter or the network. Therefore the report was suitably impartial as required by the Code.

[Catholic girls’ school] was contacted for comment, and while they did not wish to participate in an interview, the news report included the full statement released by [Catholic girls’ school] on screen, and also detailed in voice over and on-screen text, that the school believed it had been

6 See ACMA Investigation Report 3313 (Seven News - Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd - 23 October 2014).7 See ACMA Investigation Reports 1922 & 1953 (‘Sudanese crime gangs’ - Ten News at Five - Network TEN

Melbourne Pty Ltd - 3 October 2007), 1943 (‘Sudanese crime gangs’ - Channel Seven News - Channel Seven Melbourne Pty Ltd - 3 October 2007) and 1952 (‘Sudanese crime gangs’ - National Nine News - General Television Corporation Pty Ltd - 3 October 2007).

8 Ibid.

ACMA Investigation report—Seven News broadcast on Seven on 2 September 2016 7 of 16

misrepresented on social media, and that "no student had been threatened with suspension or expulsion."

In this case, the theme of the program was the allegation that students had been discriminated against because of their relationship. These allegations were the basis of the report and the fact that they were made has not been disputed. As noted above, the report of these allegations was presented accurately.

The ACMA accepts the licensee’s submission that the language, style and tone of the report was appropriately neutral throughout the segment.

The ACMA notes that in the broadcast:

The description of the allegations, and the interviews did not include colourful language or hyperbole and there is nothing to suggest that the material was taken out of context.

Claims of discrimination were described as allegations only.

The tone of the presenter and reporter were neutral and the statements used to describe the alleged discrimination were brief and non-emotive.

While interviewee 1 stated that the girls had been prohibited from talking to each other and being physically near each other, this was presented in a factual manner.

Interviewee 1’s claims were also clearly presented as her own recounting of what she had been told by the affected students and were not exaggerated, or unduly emphasised by the reporter.

The outcome of potential discrimination claims that could be made to the South Australia Equal Opportunity Commissioner was not pre-empted.

The discussion of the process for the conciliation of such claims illustrated the seriousness of claims of discrimination on the basis of sexual preference, as well as the possibility for resolution, providing a broader balancing context for the allegations.

An alternative perspective was attempted by the reporting of the school’s statement that it had been misrepresented on social media and had not threatened the students with suspension or expulsion.

The ACMA is satisfied that, overall, in reporting the allegations, the broadcast did not present an unfair selection of material. The tone was factual, and in the context of a report on allegations, the material did not give undue emphasis to those allegations. In this way the segment met the requirement for impartiality in reporting on a contentious and sensitive matter.

Accordingly, the licensee did not breach clause 3.4.1 of the Code.

ACMA Investigation report—Seven News broadcast on Seven on 2 September 2016 8 of 16

Attachment ATranscript of Seven News segment titled ‘[Catholic girls’ school] Student Petition’ broadcast on Seven on 2 September 2016.

00:07 Presenter:A Catholic Girls’ school in the city has come under fire for allegedly discriminating against a same-sex couple. Hundreds of students signed an online petition claiming the teenagers were being treated unfairly.

00:20 Reporter:[Catholic girls’ school] prides itself on being the school of mercy, but the all-girls Catholic school is being accused of doing the opposite. Seven News was contacted by concerned students when two senior girls were allegedly banned from communicating with each other, after it was revealed they were in a lesbian relationship.

00:40 Blurred student (face blurred and voice distorted):The girls actually cannot talk to each other, they actually cannot be physically near each other at school.

00:46 Reporter (voiceover) with accompanying images of reporter in interview shot: A friend of the girls who attends a nearby school says she’s decided to stand up in support of her peers.

00:52 Blurred student:Not going to the school, I can’t be threatened with suspension or exclusion.

00:58 Reporter (voiceover) with website image:An online petition posted by a [Catholic girls’ school] student received nearly 500 signatures in just a few hours before the school ordered it be removed.

01:05 Blurred student:It’s caused a massive uproar with the school.

01:08 Reporter (onsite): Seven News understands the two students involved have had to have some time off school since the incident occurred.

01:16 Reporter (voiceover):

The state’s Equal Opportunity Commissioner says the girls can make a complaint with support of an appropriate adult.

01:21 Dr Niki Vincent – Equal Opportunity Commissioner (with accompanying visuals of Commissioner):

We would bring the parties together for a conciliation meeting to try and settle, out of um, out of court if you like, before it goes to the Tribunal.

01:29 Reporter (voiceover) with visuals of the letter from the school:

In a statement the school says it’s been misrepresented on social media, and no student has been threatened with suspension or expulsion

01:37 Reporter (voiceover):

ACMA Investigation report—Seven News broadcast on Seven on 2 September 2016 9 of 16

Stacey Lee, Seven News.

ACMA Investigation report—Seven News broadcast on Seven on 2 September 2016 10 of 16

Attachment BComplaint

Complaint to the licensee submitted September 2016:

I am writing to complain about a news item shown on Channel 7 on September 3 2016. This item was titled “A Catholic girls’ school in the city has come under fire for allegedly discriminating against a same-sex couple.” This news item was not factually accurate. It entirely misrepresented the circumstances. It was not fair and impartial, and it did not critically examine a controversial matter. These are all serious breaches of the Industry Code of Practice.

It accused the school in question – [Catholic girls’ school] – of claims which were false and wholly unsubstantiated. This was eminently clear to anyone on even a brief perusal of the evidence. The news item relied upon the testimony of a single student who did not attend the school. It provided no evidence from students involved, or from anyone with any knowledge of the alleged discrimination.

It also referred to a Facebook post. It alleged that the Facebook post, which more than 400 people had signed, was a protest highlighting discriminatory behaviour of the school. This was entirely false. The Facebook post was a broad, general comment about diversity, and did not include any details whatsoever about any incident. In fact, it reiterated the values that the school strives to uphold. The Facebook post did not refer to any act of discrimination by the school.

The entire news report was therefore based on a single point of view, from a student whose identity was concealed, who came from a different school, and who could not possibly have direct knowledge of what occurred. I am stunned that a news programme could broadcast. It was irresponsible, false and defamatory. It disseminated images of [the Catholic girls’ school] and students, and alleged discriminatory conduct that was absolutely false groundless.

A simple critical examination of the evidence would reveal this to anyone – which is why the matter has not been reported by any other news programme or newspaper. I would like a response to this complaint, as I intend to make a formal complaint with the Australian Communications and Media Authority. Could you please confirm that you have received this letter and are considering its contents.

Complaint to the ACMA dated 14 September 2016:

I made a complaint about an item on Seven News. The item claimed that a school had discriminated against two students in a lesbian relationship. The story relied on the testimony of a single student who did not attend the school, and a petition signed by over 400 people.

Seven News denied there was an issue with its reporting, claiming that the use of the word “allegedly” excused any breaches of the Industry Code of Practice. They also claimed that they never "does not expressly state or imply" that the petition related to the incident regarding the girls.

This is not true. The report clearly indicated that there was strong condemnation of the school’s alleged discrimination, evidenced in a petition that received “nearly 500 signatures in just a few hours.”

The news segment clearly implied not only that the petition referred to “the incident concerning the two girls”, but that it was evidence of very strong condemnation.

ACMA Investigation report—Seven News broadcast on Seven on 2 September 2016 11 of 16

This is the plain meaning of the word “imply”. The inclusion of the petition, and the way it was presented in the report clearly implied that it was relevant to the story and that it referred to the issue they were presenting.

Without the petition – which Channel Seven now suggests was irrelevant and not relatable to the story – the news segment would rest solely on the testimony of a single student, who did not attend the school and whose identity was concealed.

Your response has not satisfied me that you presented factual material accurately. It has raised even further issues about the conduct of Seven, as it indicates your awareness that the petition did not directly refer to ‘the incident’. In other words, it shows an awareness that you are using factual material in a way that clearly distorts its true nature, in an attempt to deceive your audience.

I believe Seven News clearly acted in a manner that is contrary to the Code of Practice. I do not consider Seven's complaint to be adequate.

ACMA Investigation report—Seven News broadcast on Seven on 2 September 2016 12 of 16

Attachment CLicensee’s response and submissions

Licensee response to the complainant dated 6 September 2016:

You have raised concerns that the report was not factually accurate and not fair and impartial.

By way of background, the material broadcast on Australian free-to-air television is regulated in accordance with the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice (the Code). The Code is registered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority and provides that you may refer to them if you are dissatisfied with our response, insofar as your comments constitute a complaint under the Code. You can access a copy of the Code and what it covers at www.freetv.com.au

The news segment in question reports on an incident at an Adelaide School, which led to an online petition being signed by multiple students, and the two students at the centre of the matter taking some time off classes.

The Code specifically requires that news and current affairs programs must "present factual material accurately." To this end, the news report does not make assertions as to whether the school acted in a discriminatory fashion, rather it reports on allegations that were made by parties relevant to the dispute.

The news presenter's introduction commences with, "a Catholic girl's school in the city has come under fire for allegedly discriminating against a same sex couple." The journalist goes on to report, "Seven Network was contacted by concerned students when two senior girls were allegedly banned from communicating with each after it was revealed they were in a lesbian relationship."

Regarding the friend who speaks on camera, the journalist clearly states that she does not attend the same school as two girls. There is no suggestion that she speaks with any other authority than that of her own personal view.

Regarding your reference to a "Facebook post", the news report in fact shows an Avaaz.org petition with the banner, "[...]: Inclusiveness for all students at [Catholic girl's school]." The reporter states in voice over, "an online petition hosted by a [Catholic girls’ school] student received nearly 500 signatures in just a few hours before the school ordered it be removed." The report does not expressly state nor imply that the petition directly refers to the incident concerning the two girls.

With a view to impartiality, the Code provides that news programs, "must present news fairly and impartially," Please note that this provision does not impart an obligation on broadcasters in terms of editorial content, with no requirement on news broadcasters to allocate equal time to different points of view.

That notwithstanding, the news report very clearly states the school's position on the matter. The school's official statement is shown in text on the screen, while in voice over, the journalist directly states, "the school says it's been misrepresented on social media, and no student has been threatened with suspension or expulsion."

ACMA Investigation report—Seven News broadcast on Seven on 2 September 2016 13 of 16

Licensee submission to the ACMA dated 18 October 2016:

We refer to your letter dated 27 September 2016 regarding an investigation in respect of a Seven News report broadcast by SAS Adelaide on 2 September 2016, in relation to allegations that [a Catholic girls’ school] in Adelaide was treating two girls in a same sex relationship unfairly (Broadcast).

The ACMA has requested comments from Seven in relation to the Broadcast's compliance with 3.3.1 [accuracy and fairness], and 3.4.1 [impartiality] of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice (Code).

1. Accuracy and fairness -- clause 3.3.1

Clause 3.3.1 of the Code provides that in broadcasting news and current affairs programs, licensees must "present factual material accurately and ensure viewpoints included in the Program are not misrepresented."

The Broadcast included:

comments from a friend of the two girls who were allegedly the subject of unfair treatment by the school;

a description of an online petition posted by a [Catholic girls’ school] student that had 463 signatures

comments by South Australia's Equal Opportunity Commissioner Dr Niki Vincent on reconciliation processes

a copy and description of an official statement released by [Catholic girls’ school] in relation to the matter.

The complainant asserts that the Broadcast presented factual material inaccurately and that the allegations made about the conduct of the school were false and unsubstantiated.

Seven contends that the representations in the report concerning the conduct of the school were not 'factual' in nature.

The Code provides that any examination of News and Current Affairs' compliance with the Code should be assessed in the context of the segment in its entirety. To this end, the "ordinary, reasonable viewer" should be assumed to have heard and seen the entire news item and to have interpreted any statements made in the context in which they are presented.

The report was careful to ensure that any claims made about the school were appropriately described as allegation/claims. In particular:

At the beginning of the report, the presenter states, "a catholic girls' school in the city has come under fire for allegedly discriminating against a same sex couple."

Directly prior to the claims made by the friend of the two girls, the journalist states in voice over, "Seven News was directly contacted by concerned students when two senior girls were allegedly banned from communicating with each other after it was revealed they were in a lesbian relationship."

Viewed appropriately in this broader context, it would be very clear to an ordinary reasonable viewer that the comments made by the friend represented her own perspective on the matter, and were included as part of broader reportage on an incident where the facts had not been ultimately determined.

In addition to the language used, the unproven nature of the allegation would also have been emphasised to an ordinary reasonable viewer in the following ways:

ACMA Investigation report—Seven News broadcast on Seven on 2 September 2016 14 of 16

It is clearly stated that the friend describing the alleged conduct does not attend the same school as the girls in question, and therefore an ordinary reasonable viewer would appreciate that the friend did not have first-hand knowledge of the events — but was rather describing her own understanding of what had occurred; and

It is clear from the segment as a whole that the school contests the claims being made. In particular, towards the conclusion of the segment, the full written statement from [the Catholic girls’ school] is shown in full on screen. This is accompanied by a statement by the reporter that "the school says it has been misrepresented on social media and that no student has been threatened with suspension or expulsion."

The complainant is in error in asserting that the report "relied upon the testimony of a single student who did not attend the school." A number of students separately contacted Seven News in relation to the incident. The allegations made by the various contacts were consistent with each other, and were also consistent with the substantive content of the online Avaaz petition, which was signed by 463 students, prior to being taken down.

In regards to the news report's references to the Avaaz petition, Seven incorrectly advised in its letter of response to the complainant that the news report did not state or imply that the petition directly referred to the incident concerning the two students. Our letter was incorrect and we apologise for any confusion this may have caused.

The news report did in fact refer to the online petition as "claiming the teenagers were being treated unfairly." and we believe this is an accurate description of what the petition claims.

The Avaaz.org petition is headed [...]: INCLUSIVENESS FOR ALL STUDENTS AT [Catholic girls’ school] and provides as follows:

At [Catholic girls’ school], we value ourselves on our mercy, respect and justice towards all students regardless of race, gender, sexual preference, disability or age. Recently the rights of some students have been breached due to students not having respect and acceptance for their peers due to who they really are..... Everyone should have the right to be themselves and speak their mind, but not at the expense of someone else. Sign this petition to show your support! BAN THE HANDS OFF POLICY.

Seven News was informed by a number of individuals that the Avaaz petition was in direct reference to the alleged incident involving the students in question, and the substantive content of the petition also matched what Seven News was informed about the alleged.

The statement released by [Catholic girls’ school] also referenced misrepresentation of its views via social media, which further supports Seven's view that the claims in the petition did directly relate to the incident in question.

2. Impartiality — clause 3.4.1

Clause 3.4.1 of the Code provides that news programs must "present news fairly and impartially." The Code also relevantly provides that nothing in section 3 requires a Licensee to allocate equal time to different points of view, or to include every aspect of a person's viewpoint, nor does it preclude a critical examination of or comment on a controversial issue as part of a fair report on a matter of public interest.

To the extent that the segment in question allocated more time to the allegations made against the school than it did to the schools refutation of those claims that is not a breach of the impartiality requirement. The language, style and tone of the report was appropriately neutral and unaffected by commercial arrangement or other predisposition of the reporter or the network. Therefore the report was suitably impartial as required by the Code.

ACMA Investigation report—Seven News broadcast on Seven on 2 September 2016 15 of 16

[The Catholic girls’ school] was contacted for comment, and while they did not wish to participate in an interview, the news report included the full statement released by [the Catholic girls’ school] on screen, and also detailed in voice over and on-screen text, that the school believed it had been misrepresented on social media, and that "no student had been threatened with suspension or expulsion."

3. Correction

Clause 3.3.3 of the Code provides that "Licensees must make reasonable efforts to correct or clarify significant and material errors of fact that are readily apparent or have been demonstrated to the Licensee's reasonable satisfaction in a timely manner."

Clause 3.3.4 also provides that if a Licensee makes a correction in an appropriate manner within 30 days of a complaint being received or referred to the ACMA (whichever is the later), then the Licensee will not be in breach of clause 3.3.1 in relation to that matter.

A correction under clause 3.3.4 may be made:

a) during a later episode of the relevant program;b) on a Licensee's news website;c) on the official website of the relevant program;d) any other way that is appropriate in the circumstances.

The online version of the 7News report in relation to [the Catholic girls’ school] includes the following statement at the beginning report:

“A Catholic girls school has slammed claims it has discriminated against a same sex-student couple and says accusation it has "banned" the girls from seeing each other is incorrect."

To the extent the ACMA does not accept Seven's position in relation to the accuracy of the report as broadcast, Seven submits that an appropriate online clarification was made within 30 days of the report being broadcast.

ACMA Investigation report—Seven News broadcast on Seven on 2 September 2016 16 of 16

Attachment DACMA considerations for determining factual content:

> In practice, distinguishing between factual material and other material, such as opinion, can be a matter of fine judgement.

> The ACMA will have regard to all contextual indications (including subject, language, tenor and tone and inferences that may be drawn) in making its assessment.

> The ACMA will first look to the natural and ordinary meaning of the language used.> Factual material will usually be specific, unequivocal and capable of independent

verification. > The use of language such as ‘it seems to me’ or ‘we consider/think/believe’ will tend to

indicate that the content is contestable and presented as an expression of opinion or personal judgement. However, a common sense judgement is required and the form of words introducing the relevant content is not conclusive.

> Statements in the nature of predictions as to future events will rarely be characterised as factual material.

> Statements containing argumentative and exaggerated language or hyperbole will usually indicate a subjective opinion and will rarely be characterised as factual material.

> The identity of the person making a statement (whether as interviewer or interviewee) will often be relevant but not determinative of whether a statement is factual material.

> Where it is clear in the broadcast that an interviewee’s account is subjective and contestable, and it is not endorsed or corroborated, their allegations will not be considered as factual assertions.

> Where an interviewee’s stance is separately asserted or reinforced by the reporter or presenter, or proof of an allegation is offered so that it becomes the foundation on which a program or a critical element of the program is built, it may be considered a factual assertion.9

> Sources with expertise may be relied on more heavily than those without, in determining whether material is factual, but this will depend on:> whether the statements are merely corroborative of ‘lay’ accounts given by other

interviewees > the qualifications of the expert> whether their statements are described as opinion > whether their statements concern past or future events10 > whether they are simply comments made on another person’s account of events or

a separate assertion about matters within their expertise.

9 See investigation 2712; Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Limited v Australian Communications and Media Authority [2014] FCA 667.

10 See investigations 3066, 2961.

ACMA Investigation report—Seven News broadcast on Seven on 2 September 2016 17 of 16