abc tv3 (vic) - acma investigation report 2672/media/broadcasting... · web viewminister for...

Investigation Report No. 2672File No. ACMA2011/1549

Broadcaster Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Station ABC TV3 Victoria

Type of Service National Broadcasting

Name of Program Behind the News Extra

Date of Broadcast 15 April 2011

Relevant Code Standards 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4.1 and 4.4 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011

Findings

The ACMA has reached the following findings:

The ABC did not breach Standards 2.1 and 2.2 (accuracy) of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (the Code);

The ABC did not breach Standard 3.1 (correction of significant error) of the Code;

The ABC did not breach Standard 4.1 (impartial presentation of news and information) of the Code; and

The ABC did not breach Standard 4.4 (representing perspectives) of the Code.

ACMA Investigation Report – BTN Extra broadcast by ABC on 15 April 2011

The complaintOn 25 August 2011, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) received a complaint concerning a segment of the program Behind the News Extra (BTNE) broadcast on 15 April 2011 by the ABC.

The complainant alleged that the program contained inaccurate, misleading and unbalanced information relating to genetically modified food.

The ACMA investigated this complaint under section 151 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. The complaint raised issues of compliance with Standards 2.1 (factual accuracy), 2.2 (misleading factual content), 3.1 (correction of error), 4.1 (impartial presentation of news and information) and 4.4 (representing perspectives) of the Code.

The programIn its submission to the ACMA, the ABC described BTNE as a ‘magazine style program aimed at primary school age children’ and is described on the ABC website as:

... a mix of Behind The News reports, features and stories that explore issues that are relevant to young people. It also features expanded reports on some of the headline news stories from the nightly ‘News on 3’ program.

BTNE is also described on the ABC website as a ‘high energy, fun way for upper primary and secondary students to learn about current issues and events in their world.’

On 15 April 2011 the ABC broadcast a segment in BTNE, which was a remake of a segment from the ABC program Catalyst (broadcast on 17 March 2011), about genetically modified (GM) food.

In response to the ACMA’s investigation, the ABC provided a DVD copy of the segment broadcast on 15 April 2011. A transcript of the BTNE segment, provided by the complainant, is at Attachment A.

IssuesThe issues examined in the ACMA’s investigation concerned:

Factual accuracy in the BTNE segment (specifically with reference to Standards 2.1, 2.2 and 3.1 of the Code);

The representation of perspectives in the BTNE segment (with reference to Standard 4.4 of the Code); and

Impartiality in the BTNE segment (with reference to Standard 4.1 of the Code).

The issues and the reasons for the ACMA’s decision are discussed below.

ACMA Investigation Report – BTN Extra broadcast by ABC on 15 April 2011 2

Reasons for decision

Ordinary reasonable viewer of the programSections 2 and 4 of the Code place obligations on the ABC relating to, amongst other things, factual accuracy and impartiality. These sections of the Code also set out principles which the ABC must have regard to when seeking to comply with those obligations.

In relation to accuracy, the Principles in Section 2 of the Code provide that when determining the effort the ABC must make in order to ensure accuracy in all fact-based content, it should have regard to, among other matters, the likely audience expectations of the content (emphasis added).

Similarly, when assessing the impartiality required in given circumstances, the Principles in Section 4 of the Code, provide that the ABC must consider, among other matters, the likely audience expectations of the content (emphasis added).

Based on the ABC’s description of BTNE, its target audience is likely to be school children in years 5 to 8, who are in the age group of 10 to 14 and who are watching the program in a classroom setting with a teacher. Accordingly, when determining the effort it must make in order to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented in context and when assessing the level of impartiality required when gathering and presenting news and information, the ABC must have regard to the likely expectations of the content by school children aged 10 to 14. Given the broad age range and the significant cognitive differences between a 10 year old child and a 14 year old child however, when considering the level of expectations, the ABC’s main focus should be at the younger end of the age spectrum, to ensure the expectations of the majority of its audience are considered.

Once these expectations are considered, the ABC can then determine the efforts it must make to ensure material facts are accurate and presented in context. For example, the broadcast may require further and simpler factual explanations, in order to meet the expectations of the younger viewer. Similarly, the ABC may require a much greater level of impartiality when presenting news and information than would be required for an adult viewer. For example, a 10 year old school child may expect all news and information in a documentary style format, such as BTNE, to be neutral and well-balanced. As such, the ABC must ensure that the broadcast presents any differing perspectives on a particular issue impartially.

When the ACMA assesses compliance with Standards 2 and 4 of the Code, it will engage in a similar exercise to the ABC and will consider the audience’s likely expectations of the content and in this case, the expectations of school children aged 10 to 14, with a focus on children at the younger end of the age spectrum.

When assessing the audience’s likely expectations of the content, which is similar to determining the message conveyed to the audience by a broadcast, the ACMA has adopted the ordinary reasonable viewer test. In Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 at pp164-167, the ordinary reasonable viewer is described as:

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.

Applying this description of the ordinary reasonable viewer to the current investigation, requires the ACMA to consider what an ordinary reasonable 10 year old school child, who was of average intelligence, would have expected of the content being broadcast, having regard to the particular Standard of the Code being assessed.

The ABC also submitted that BTNE is primarily viewed in a classroom setting and teachers lead discussions about the content of the programs. While this may be the case, the ordinary reasonable viewer test applies to what the viewer understands or expects of the content being broadcast, and not how that content may be explained or discussed by a third party (such as a parent or teacher).

Factual accuracyThe complainant alleged that a number of statements were inaccurate and misleading, and provided a significant amount of literature relating to the GM food process and technology.

Standard 2.1 of the Code requires the ABC to make reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented in context. Standard 2.2 of the Code prohibits the ABC from presenting factual content in a way that will materially mislead the audience.

Both of these provisions require the ACMA to first consider what the ordinary, reasonable 10 year old school child viewer of average intelligence would have expected in terms of the accuracy and context of the facts being broadcast.

Once the ACMA has considered this, it can then determine whether, based on the facts that were broadcast, the ABC made reasonable efforts to ensure those material facts were accurate and presented in context and not in a way that would have materially misled the audience.

The ACMA has considered each of the complainant’s allegations concerning statements in the BTNE segment against the expectations of the 10 year old school child of average intelligence and has then made an assessment of whether the ABC made reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts were accurate and presented in context in the broadcast.

Allegation 1In the BTNE segment broadcast, it was stated:

3. NARRATION: Imagine eating CHOCOLATE that’s as healthy as a banana...or a HAMBURGER without any FAT...

4. NARRATION: Thanks to GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD...that might one day be possible.

The complainant’s submitted that these statements were ‘a gross exaggeration...’.

The ACMA considers having regard to the language, tenor and tone of the material that the ordinary reasonable 10 year old school child of average intelligence is likely to have understood these assertions as an expression of opinion. The terms ‘imagine’, ‘might’, ‘one day’ and ‘possible’ are subjective and inherently contestable in nature. The information was not being imparted as an unequivocal statement of fact. As such, it is the ACMA’s view that the ABC did not breach Standard 2 of the Code in this regard.


Allegation 2

In the BTNE segment broadcast, it was stated:

6. NARRATION: This is the AMERICAN city of ST LOUIS... It’s famous for being a world leader in genetically modified food.

The ACMA considers that the assertion about St Louis would have been understood by an ordinary reasonable 10 year old school child of average intelligence as a statement of fact. It is presented in an unequivocal manner without any allusion to individual opinion. The complainant alleged that this is not accurate and has not been able to find any sources suggesting that St Louis is famous for being a world leader in GM food.

As already noted the Code requires the ABC make reasonable efforts to ensure that ‘material facts’ are presented accurately, and to avoid using factual content in a way that is ‘materially misleading’. For a fact to be ‘material’ it would have to be germane to the discussion, as distinguished from an insignificant, trivial or unimportant one.

The ACMA accepts the ABC’s submission that whether or not St Louis is famous for being the world leader of GM food technology is immaterial to the story as a whole. The ACMA is not satisfied that this statement was presented as ‘material fact’ in the context of a specific experiment with GM food; nor was the audience ‘materially’ misled in the context of the segment as a whole. The statement was merely scene-setting before the narration goes on to state:

7. NARRATION: [St Louis is] where a company called MONSANTO... is hard at work trying to make our FOOD more nutritious.

The BTNE segment then largely describes the specific experiments with GM food being conducted by the company Monsanto in St Louis.

Therefore, it is the ACMA’s view that the ABC did not breach Standard 2 of the Code in this regard.

Allegation 3

It was stated in the BTNE segment:

13. NARRATION: In this case, SOY BEANS have been altered...by adding a gene that produces OMEGA THREE acids.

14. NARRATION: Omega 3s are normally found in fish and algae, but the Monsanto scientists used an unusual source.

The ACMA considers that the ordinary, reasonable 10 year old school child of average intelligence would have understood lines 13 and 14 as statements of fact (save for the description of the source being ‘unusual’). Each statement is presented in an unequivocal and unquestioning manner without allusion to individual opinion and without any use of qualification or comparison.


Turning to what the ordinary reasonable 10 year old school child of average intelligence would have expected of these statements of fact, the ACMA notes the following submissions of the complainant:

In this construct we understand that genetic material from somewhere else produces omega 3 acids in a GM soy, and we learn that omega 3 acids are normally found in fish.

Claims:

that a gene has been added to soy beans that produces omega 3 acids

that omega 3s are normally found in fish and algae

that the soybeans have been altered with genetic engineering to make the omega 3s that are normally found in fish and algae.

That the soybeans now have the omega 3’s that are normally found in fish and algae.

Further inferences:

It sounds like the Narrator is saying that if it weren’t for the technique of genetic engineering, soy would never have had these omega 3 acids that are present in fish.

It sounds like the Narrator is saying that if it weren’t for fish or GM SDA soybeans we would never get our omega 3’s.

The ACMA, in considering the expectations of the ordinary, reasonable 10 year old school child of average intelligence, is of the view that the messages conveyed by the statements are that:

1. Omega 3 acids are normally found in fish and algae; and

2. Another (rare) type of gene that produces Omega 3 acids was added to soy beans.

Having regard to the direct language used, the ACMA does not consider that any additional inferences would have been drawn by an ordinary reasonable 10 year old school child, who was of average intelligence. The ACMA understands that the accuracy of these two messages is not disputed by the complainant.

Accordingly, it is the ACMA’s view that the ABC did not breach Standard 2 of the Code in this regard.

Allegation 4

It was stated in the BTNE segment:

12. NARRATION: But now...scientists are learning how to cut and paste those genes from one organism to another... to change its qualities.

13. NARRATION: In this case, SOY BEANS have been altered...by adding a gene that produces OMEGA THREE acids.



15. Dr Stark: The genes actually come from a mushroom and a petunia so we tried algae because everything we do in GM we learn how nature does it and then we take it into the plant that we want to grow and consume. The algae genes didn’t work as well in soybean but we found that the mushroom and petunia versions did so that’s where we went for our gene sources.

The complainant submitted that lines 12 and 13 simplify the GM process so that it is understood that a gene in nature is precisely cut from its original organism and carefully placed in the DNA of a host plant to make a new product. The complainant also submitted that it is inaccurate to state that soybeans have been altered by a gene that produces Omega 3 acids ‘because the construct included genetic material that did not code for Omega 3 acids’. The complainant submitted the construct included genetic material to code for two different enzymes called desaturases.

In response, the ABC submitted that these lines simplify but do not misrepresent the process. Describing the full complexity of gene technology would be completely inappropriate and unnecessary for a child audience. The submission was that a reasonable viewer, including a child, would have understood that the program was simplifying the science behind the GM process.

The ACMA acknowledges that the assertions simplify the process of genetic modification. However, this would not be unusual in a program directed at children. The ABC’s submission that the program ‘is not a program which purports to provide authoritative coverage of science to an adult audience...’ is noted. The BTNE segment spans 4 minutes and 33 seconds and discusses examples of GM food. It is in this context that the ACMA considers that the ordinary reasonable 10 year old school child of average intelligence would have expected this to be a simplified, illustrative explanation of the scientific process that a primary school audience could relate to, and not an explanation of the process in its entirety. The ACMA also notes the more tentative language used in line 12, where the narrator states that scientists are ‘... learning how to cut and paste... genes’ (emphasis added).

The complainant also submitted that the genetic materials for the protein coding parts of the genes were originally sourced from a red bread mould and a primula, not a mushroom and a petunia, contrary to Dr Stark’s statement. The ABC submitted that it was appropriate for the producers to rely on Dr Stark for an explanation of where the genes came from. He is an expert and there was no reason to suspect that he would misrepresent the source of the gene.

The ACMA accepts the ABC’s submission. Dr Stark is identified as the vice president of Monsanto, the company undertaking the experiments. It would be reasonable to assume that Dr Stark has a very good understanding of the work undertaken by his company. Therefore, the ACMA does not consider it would have been necessary for the ABC to take further steps to ensure that Dr Stark’s version of the process’ methodology was accurate.

It is the ACMA’s view, therefore, that the ABC did not breach Standard 2 of the Code.


Allegations 5 and 6

In the BTNE segment, it was stated:

16. NARRATION: The end result is a soybean that is much better for the heart.

17. Dr David Stark: It helps prevent the arrhythmia in the ventricle part of the heart and that’s what kills you from a heart attack it’s not the clogged artery it’s the arrhythmia.

Accuracy

The complainant submitted that in the Catalyst program, Dr Stark’s statement was made in the context of fish oil being good for heart health. However, in the BTNE segment, Dr Stark’s comment took the meaning that he was claiming that GM soybeans prevent arrhythmia in the ventricle part of the heart.

In response to the complaint, the ABC stated:

In [the Catalyst] Dr Stark’s comment about arrhythmia etc refer to fish oil rather than soybean oil. It can also be seen that while Catalyst points out that the oil from the modified soy beans is in a healthier form it stops short of stating unequivocally that it is good for the heart.

...

... [In BTNE] it can be seen that the narration says unequivocally that the soy bean oil is good for the heart and supports that with the quote from Dr Stark that originally referred to fish oil rather than soy bean oil.

In our view, this change of context is a breach of section 2.2 of the ABC’s Editorial Policies in that it misrepresented Dr Stark’s comment.

The accuracy of the statement that the soy bean oil is ‘much better for the heart’ is also not established. It goes beyond the claims made in the original Catalyst story and is not supported by the scientific literature.

ABC News apologises for the error.

Section 2 of the ABC’s Editorial Policies Principles + Standards (including section 2.2) is identical in terms to Standard 2 of the Code. However, the ABC later submitted to the ACMA:

... While it’s not spelt out in the Catalyst story or the BTN Extra story, the research the Catalyst story was based on showed that the mix of Omega 3s in genetically modified soy oil, while different to fish oil, contains high levels of some of the Omega 3s that are believed to be the ones that help prevent arrhythmia... While Dr Stark’s quote was presented in an improper context and the accuracy of the narrator’s immediately preceding comment (‘much better for the heart’) has not been scientifically established, the point of this small part of the story was that the genetically modified soy oil and fish oil should have the same properties and the same benefits. In the ABC’s view, the information conveyed was not likely to mislead in any significant or material way and nor were the original errors significant in the context of the story overall.


The ABC also noted that BTNE is not a program that provides authoritative coverage of science to an adult audience, but is a magazine style program providing a broad introduction to GM foods to children. The ABC submitted that it is unlikely that the audience would have placed their reliance on the fine details in the BTNE segment, such that these errors would be likely to materially mislead or the errors themselves concern material facts.

The ACMA considers that the ordinary reasonable 10 year old school child of average intelligence would understand from the broadcast that a benefit of the genetically modified soy bean is that it is better for the heart because it helps prevent arrhythmia.

Having regard to the segment as a whole, the ACMA considers this to be a material fact. The BTNE segment is broadly broken up into two examples or case studies of GM food. The first case study, concerning soy beans, explains the modifications to soy bean genes and the benefit (i.e. that it helps prevent arrhythmia), before moving on to the second case study. This is the only benefit presented, making it, in the context of the segment, a key or material fact. The ACMA considers that in re-editing the Catalyst segment for BTNE, the ABC did not make reasonable efforts to ensure this material fact was accurate and presented in context. This material fact was from Dr Stark’s statement, who was speaking about fish oil during the Catalyst segment, was taken out of context. In addition, the ACMA notes that it is not accurate to state or suggest unequivocally that soy bean oil ‘helps prevent the arrhythmia in the ventricle part of the heart’.

The ACMA also considers that this factual content was presented in a way that materially misled the audience. It is significant that the only benefit presented to the GM soy bean in this case study was not accurate.

It is the ACMA’s view, however, that the ABC did not breach Standard 2 of the Code in light of the correction/clarification it published. This is discussed below.

Correction/clarification

Standard 3.1 of the Code requires the ABC to acknowledge and correct or clarify, in an appropriate manner as soon as reasonably practicable:

a. Significant material errors that are readily apparent or have been demonstrated; or

b. Information that is likely to significantly and materially mislead.

The complaint was made to the ABC on 26 May 2011. On 15 July 2011, forty-nine days later, the ABC posted a correction/clarification on its website as follows:

The ABC acknowledged that reasonable efforts were not made to ensure material facts were accurate; the story stated unequivocally that soybean oil is good for the heart. This goes beyond the published scientific evidence. The ABC also acknowledged that factual content was presented in a way that could have materially misled the audience. The story was a re-edited and slightly re-scripted version of one that had been broadcast on Catalyst. The original story included comments from a representative of agricultural company Monsanto, who said that, in relation to fish oil, “It helps prevent the arrhythmia in the ventricle part of the heart and that’s what kills you from a heart attack it’s not the clogged artery it’s the arrhythmia”. This statement was also included in the BTN Extra story, but was removed from its original context which had the effect of changing the meaning in that it appeared to refer to benefits of soybean oil...


As discussed above, the ACMA considers that lines 16 and 17 in the BTNE segment broadcast are likely to significantly and materially mislead. The ACMA also considers that significant material errors have been demonstrated in these two lines.

The ACMA considers the above correction/clarification posted by the ABC on its website on 15 July 2011 appropriate. It addresses the inaccuracy of the claim that soybeans are good for the heart and that the ABC took a quote out of context. This correction was posted on the ABC’s ‘Contact the ABC\Complaints\Upheld Complaints’ page (see http://www.abc.net.au/contact/upheld/s3270119.htm). The ACMA also considers that broadcasting the correction/clarification would not be proportionate to the apparent errors; publishing it online was sufficient. The ACMA also understands that the BTNE segment is not available online.

The ACMA also considers that the above correction/clarification was made as soon as reasonably practicable. The complaint to the ABC of 26 May 2011 was 54 pages in length and raised a number of issues, including accuracy (as addressed in this investigation report). The ABC finalised its investigation on 5 July 2011 and published the correction/clarification shortly after. The ACMA considers this an appropriate timeframe for the ABC to have investigated the complaint and published a correction/clarification in these circumstances.

It is, therefore, the ACMA’s view that the ABC did not breach Standard 3 of the Code.

In addition, Part III of the Code states that a failure to comply will not be a breach of the Code if the ABC has, prior to the complaint being made to the ACMA, taken steps which were adequate and appropriate in all of the circumstances to redress the cause of the complaint. The Code also provides an illustration, where a failure to comply with Standard 2 of the Code will not be a breach if a correct or clarification, which is adequate and appropriate in all of the circumstances, is made prior to or within 30 days of the ABC receiving the complaint.

The ABC published the above correction/clarification prior to the complaint being received by the ACMA on 25 August 2011. The ACMA considers this correction/clarification adequate and appropriate to redress this aspect of the complaint. The publication addressed the inaccuracy of the claim that soybeans are good for the heart and that the ABC took a quote out of context by correcting and clarifying it. In addition, while this correction/clarification was not made within 30 days as suggested by the illustration in the Code, this is an illustration only and such a timeframe would have been difficult to achieve in these circumstances.

Accordingly, it is the ACMA’s view that the ABC did not breach Standard 2 of the Code.

Allegation 7


26. DR NIGEL TAYLOR: So that if you eat cassava for your breakfast then you’ll be receiving all of these nutrients that you require for the whole day in one meal.

27. NARRATION: ... PLANTS are grown in high-tech greenhouses which can simulate just about any environment on EARTH.

28. NARRATION: Success here... could have a big impact on LIFE in the THIRD WORLD.


http://www.abc.net.au/contact/upheld/s3270119.htm

29. DR PAUL ANDERSON: ... this is about improving the nutritional value of a crop for ever worldwide...

30. DR MARTIN FREGENE: In Nigeria for example you save 39 thousand children dying you know every year from provitamin A deficiency.

The complainant submitted that nobody would consider it appropriate that people rely on one staple for their full dietary needs. In addition, the complainant submitted that GM cassava will not prevent children from being hungry and malnourished in rich or poor countries.

While the transcript records line 30 as appearing in the broadcast of the BTNE segment, this was not in the DVD broadcast provided by the ABC. The ACMA considers, on balance, that the DVD, provided by the ABC as a record of the broadcast, is a more accurate record of the BTNE segment broadcast. Accordingly the ACMA considers that line 30 was not broadcast during the BTNE segment.

The ACMA considers the material broadcast to be presented in the nature of a prediction of what is possible or what could happen. Looking at the full context of these statements, particularly the topic of a process that is a scientific experiment, the ordinary, reasonable 10 year old school child of average intelligence would not have understood the material as being presented as unequivocal statements of fact. Words such as ‘could have’ are subjective and inherently contestable. The overall impression of lines 26 to 29, in the context of the BTNE segment, is one of what could be possible, particularly since the process or experiment is still taking place: ‘It’ll be four years before the GM cassava can leave the lab... and begin its journey to farmers.’

As such, it is the ACMA’s view that the ABC did not breach Standard 2 of the Code in this regard.

Allegation 8


20. Dr Martin Fregene: [Cassava] came to Africa with the Portuguese traders 500 years ago...

...

34. Dr Martin Fregene: If you’ve never been hungry then you can get involved in all those kind of debates but if you’ve really been hungry then it’s not an argument you know it’s so clear it’s so obvious.

Dr Fregene was not introduced in the BTNE segment by way of superimposed text or otherwise. The complainant submitted that the ABC hid his full identity to create an image of another type of person, for the purpose of telling a ‘fake story’. The complainant suggested that Dr Fregene was depicted in the segment as representing the majority of struggling Africans. However, the complainant could find little mention of his name in African literature and it appeared that Africa had not been his place of residence for a long period of time.


The ordinary reasonable 10 year old school child of average intelligence would not understand that Dr Fregene’s view represents the views of a majority of struggling Africans. Dr Fregene was shown in a laboratory during the broadcast, suggesting he is a scientist or in some way involved in the research. While Dr Fregene later makes the argument at line 34 that GM cassava could, at least in some part, address hunger, this does not mean that he is representing ‘struggling Africans’.

Accordingly, it does not appear that factual content has been presented in a way that materially misleads the audience; nor that reasonable efforts have not been made to ensure that materials facts are accurate and presented in context. It is therefore the ACMA’s view that the ABC did not breach Standard 2 in this regard.

Representing perspectivesIn the BTNE segment, it was stated:

33. NARRATION: Some critics of GM food are also worried about the health and environmental risks. They argue we don’t know enough about nature to be messing with its designs.

34. Dr Martin Fregene: If you’ve never been hungry then you can get involved in all those kind of debates but if you’ve really been hungry then it’s not an argument you know it’s so clear it’s so obvious.

While lines 33 and 34 are stated, footage was shown of protestors wearing red blindfolds. The complainant submitted that the organisation represented by these protestors was misrepresented by the ABC. The complainant stated that while it is a group concerned about health and environmental risks, it is not concerned about ‘messing with [nature’s] designs’. The organisation does not give nature the attribution of the capability of designing. It has never referred to nature as being a god-like designer.

Standard 4.4 of the Code prohibits the ABC from misrepresenting any perspective.

While footage of protestors is shown, there are no clear visual signs naming any organisation of which they are a part. In the ACMA’s view, the ordinary, reasonable 10 year old school child of average intelligence would not have identified a specific organisation from the broadcast material.

In addition, it is not clear from the broadcast material that the arguments in line 33 are those of the organisation, whichever it may be, represented by the protestors. The BTNE segment does not attribute those comments or arguments to the organisation represented by the protestors pictured. On balance, in the ACMA’s view, the ordinary reasonable 10 year old school child of average intelligence would expect that some people are critics of GM food (as shown in the footage) and some of the arguments against it are summarised very briefly in line 33.

Without being able to identify the organisation from the material, and the general arguments against GM food that are presented without attribution, the ACMA considers that the protestors’ organisation’s perspective is not misrepresented. It is the ACMA’s view that the ABC did not breach Standard 4.4 of the Code.


Impartiality

The complainant submitted that the ABC’s broadcast of the BTNE segment was not impartial and created a ‘positive impression of GM food technology’. The complainant argued that the broadcast would have acted as a ‘corporate branding experience for most children watching, from a trusted source’. The complainant also submitted that while critics of GM food technology are referred to in the introduction to the BTNE segment, line 5 suggests to children ‘that some people don’t like this miraculous technology that can make chocolate as healthy as a banana’.

Standard 4.1 of the Code requires the ABC to gather and present news and information with due impartiality. ‘Impartiality’ concerns how perspectives or viewpoints are treated (see Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng (2001) 205 CLR 507 at 563 per Hayne J Gleeson CJ and Gummow J at 538 agreeing).

The inclusion of the word “due” simply means that the overall content in a broadcast must be given the required level of impartiality based on:

The type, subject and nature of the content; The circumstances in which the content is made and presented; The degree to which the matter to which the content relates is contentious; and The range of principal relevant perspectives on the matter of contention.

The ACMA considers that the ordinary, reasonable 10 year old school child of average intelligence would understand that the BTNE segment is broadly broken up into two case studies of GM food. The first case study, concerning soy beans, explains the modifications to soy bean genes and the potential benefits. The second case study explains modifications to cassava, their potential benefits, and refers to criticisms of GM food.

Having regard to the BTNE segment in its entirety, the ACMA considers that the purpose of the material was not to discuss the arguments for or against GM food, but to inform the audience about the developments in GM food in the two case studies. The ACMA agrees with the ABC in that it would have been difficult to further explore the arguments surrounding GM food in the material, having regard to its purpose, the short duration of the segment (approximately 4 minutes), and the degree of explanation required for the ordinary, reasonable 10 year old school child of average intelligence. The ACMA considers it was necessary for the BTNE segment to be clearly focussed on a limited number of issues or themes.

The BTNE segment presented newsworthy developments in GM food. Notwithstanding this, the ACMA notes that an ordinary reasonable 10 year old school child of average intelligence would also have understood the broadcast to have conveyed positive messages of GM food. For example, at lines 3 and 4, the BTNE segment begins with a reference to the potential of GM foods to create healthy chocolates and hamburgers. This introduction is colourful and engaging, and uses positive examples of GM food that children can relate to.


However, as discussed above, the target audience of the BTNE segment is likely to be school children in years 5 to 8, who are in the age group of 10 to 14. The ACMA acknowledges the use of devices, such as those at lines 3 and 4, to stimulate these viewers’ interest and curiosity in an area of contemporary science that may not otherwise have general appeal.

The ordinary reasonable 10 year old school child of average intelligence would also understand from the BTNE segment that some people disagree with GM food, having regard to references or suggestions of this during the broadcast, for example:

33. NARRATION: Some critics of GM food are also worried about the health and environmental risks. They argue we don't know enough about nature to be messing with its designs.

Such a viewer may have a limited understanding of why people have concerns with GM food from the broadcast. For example, there is no explanation of the potential ‘health and environmental risks’ of GM food referred to in line 33.

In this regard, the ACMA notes the circumstances in which the BTNE segment was made and presented. The material was adapted from the ABC program Catalyst, a general interest science program targeted at adults. While the BTNE segment was a shortened version of the item from Catalyst, the BTNE segment expanded on the arguments opposing GM food by including line 33. Line 33 is a summarised version of perspectives opposing GM food and is in addition to the suggestion from Mr Phelps that GM food is unnecessary (at line 32). The ACMA also notes the difficulty in further exploring the arguments surrounding GM food in the BTNE segment, as discussed above.

In addition, while the ACMA does not propose to offer an opinion in the debate concerning GM food, it has had regard to how contentious this topic is, and the bodies of research and perspectives in this area. The complainant provided documentation relating to the GM industry and specifically information concerning Monsanto. In response, the ABC referred to Food Standards Australia and New Zealand’s (FSANZ) consideration of GM food, the nature of Green Peace’s concerns, and the CSIRO’s research, all of which suggest that there is no scientific evidence to conclude that GM foods are harmful to humans.

The Code notes that it is not necessary for the ABC to traverse every facet of every argument in material. The ABC is guided in the Code by the following ‘hallmarks of impartiality’ (amongst others):

A balance that follows the weight of evidence; Fair treatment; and Open-mindedness.

The BTNE segment expressly recognised, on a number of occasions, that the use of genetic engineering technology to modify food is contentious. In addition, while the focus of the BTNE segment were the case studies that explained developments in the area of GM food and its potential benefits, the segment also summarised other relevant perspectives. The ACMA considers this to be a reasonable balance that follows the weight of evidence, having regard to the ABC’s submission that among scientists (notably those associated with FSANZ and the CSIRO) there is agreement as to GM food’s safety, utility and potential.


Having regard to the above factors, the ACMA considers that the news and information in the BTNE segment was presented with due impartiality. The various perspectives or viewpoints were canvassed within the time constraints and limitations of the existing format, taking into account that the purpose of the BTNE segment was to inform the ordinary, reasonable 10 year old viewer of average intelligence audience of noteworthy developments in the area of GM food. A balance of perspectives was included in the BTNE segment (including arguments against the utility of GM foods that were added to the original material on which the segment was based), which followed the weight of evidence.

Accordingly, it is the ACMA’s view that the ABC did not breach Standard 4.1 of the Code.


ATTACHMENT AABC3 BtN Extra - Friday April 15, 9:00 am

Transcript

INTRODUCTION:1. NARRATION: When you sit down for LUNCH today... ask yourself what FOOD will look like in the

FUTURE. [ACMA’s note: only the word ‘Future’ was said from line 1 in the broadcast provided by the ABC]

2. NARRATION: It's a question scientists are asking themselves... as they try to find ways to make our FOOD more healthy.

3. NARRATION: Imagine eating CHOCOLATE that's as healthy as a banana... or a HAMBURGER without any FAT...

4. NARRATION: Thanks to GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD... that might one day be possible.

5. NARRATION: But as Sean found out... it's technology that not everyone's got an appetite for.

STORY:

6. NARRATION: This is the AMERICAN city of ST LOUIS... It's famous for being a world leader in genetically modified food.

7. NARRATION: It's where a company called MONSANTO... is hard at work trying to make our FOOD more nutritious.

8. NARRATION: So how do they do that?

9. NARRATION: Genetically modified food or GM for short .. is food which scientists have been able to change genetically.

10. NARRATION: All living things are made up of genes ... which determine their every feature....

11. NARRATION: The shape of a carrot .. the redness of a tomato .. the sweet watery taste of a watermelon.

12. NARRATION: But now ... scientists are learning how to cut and paste those genes from one organism to another .. to change its qualities.

13. NARRATION: In this case, SOY BEANS have been altered ... by adding a gene that produces OMEGA THREE acids.


15. DR DAVID STARK: The genes actually come from a mushroom and a petunia so we tried algae because everything we do in GM we learn how nature does it and then we take it into the plant that we want to grow and consume. The algae genes didn't work as well in soybean but we found that the mushroom and petunia versions did so that's where we went for our gene sources.

16. NARRATION: The end result is a soybean that is much better for the heart.


17. DR DAVID STARK: It helps prevent the arrhythmia in the ventricle part of the heart and that's what kills you from a heart attack it's not the clogged artery it's the arrhythmia.

18. NARRATION: But those who could really benefit from more NUTRITIOUS FOOD... live in poorer countries.

19. NARRATION: One of the most widely grown crops in AFRICA... is CASSAVA.

20. DR MARTIN FREGENE: It came to Africa with the Portuguese traders 500 years ago and it displaced every other staple crop, it displaced yams, it displaced everything and today if you look at Cassava's production figures in Africa is going like that (points upwards) almost vertical.

21. NARRATION: Unlike most crops... CASSAVA can grow well in drought conditions and poor soil.

22. NARRATION: In fact, you can keep it in the ground for TWO years before harvest.

23. NARRATION: But it's not exactly a MIRACLE of NUTRITION.

24. DR NIGEL TAYLOR: This is an excellent source of calories full of starch, but the roots here are devoid of protein, almost no protein whatsoever in here, there's no vitamin A, very little vitamin E, no iron or zinc, so it means that if you rely on this crop as your staple foods you'll suffer from malnutrition.

25. NARRATION: So back in ST LOUIS... researchers are genetically modifying CASSAVA... by adding genes to increase PROTEIN, VITAMIN A... and IRON.

26. DR NIGEL TAYLOR: So that if you eat cassava for your breakfast then you'll be receiving all of these nutrients that you require for the whole day in one meal.

27. NARRATION: To make it all happen... the PLANTS are grown in high-tech greenhouses which can simulate just about any environment on EARTH.

28. NARRATION: Success here... could have a big impact on LIFE in the THIRD WORLD.

29. DR PAUL ANDERSON: This really isn't all about just making a couple of new lines this is about improving the nutritional value of a crop for ever worldwide so that its always going to have a better nutrient content and a person eating that is always going to have the benefits of that regardless of where they are or when they're eating it.

30. DR MARTIN FREGENE: In Nigeria for example you save 39 thousand children from dying you know every year from provitamin A deficiency. [ACMA’s note: not broadcast]

31. NARRATION: But not everyone reckons Genetically Modified food is the best way to feed an increasingly hungry planet.

32. BOB PHELPS: the Food and Agriculture Organisation reports that there's enough food currently produced in the world to feed 12 billion people, and we have a population of six billion so we could feed everyone well twice.

33. NARRATION: Some critics of GM food are also worried about the health and environmental risks. They argue we don't know enough about nature to be messing with its designs.


34. DR MARTIN FREGENE: If you've never been hungry then you can get involved in all those kind of debates but if you've really been hungry then it's not an argument you know it's so clear it's so obvious.

35. NARRATION: It'll be FOUR years before the GM CASSAVA can leave the lab... and begin its journey to FARMERS.

36. NARRATION: But until then, there will still be plenty of mouths to feed. [ACMA’s note: Line 36 was not in the transcript provided by the complainant, but was stated in the broadcast provided by the ABC]


abc tv3 (vic) - acma investigation report 2672/media/broadcasting... · web viewminister for...

Documents