abn sydney - acma investigation report 3138/media/broadcasting... · web viewthe reporter also...

Investigation Report No. 3138File No. ACMA2013/1561

Licensee Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Station ABN Sydney

Type of Service National Broadcaster

Name of Program Catalyst

Date of Broadcast 11 July 2013

Relevant Code Standards 2.1, 2.2, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.5 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011

Date finalised 31 March 2014

Decision No breach of standards:> 2.1 [reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy]> 2.2 [factual content that will materially mislead]> 4.1 [gather and present information with due impartiality]> 4.2 [diversity of perspectives]> 4.5 [unduly favour one perspective over another]

of the ABC Code of Practice 2011.

ACMA Investigation Report – Catalyst broadcast by the ABC on 11 July 2013

The complaintOn 3 November 2013, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) received a complaint about an episode of Catalyst broadcast by ABN Sydney (the ABC) on 11 July 2013.

The complaint is that the program was biased, inaccurate and misleading, and that the production techniques employed (editing, sound effects and visuals) contributed to this.

The complaint has been investigated in accordance with the following standards of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (the Code):

> 2.1 [reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy]> 2.2 [factual content that will materially mislead] > 4.1 [gather and present information with due impartiality] > 4.2 [diversity of perspectives] > 4.5 [unduly favour one perspective over another].

The programCatalyst is a program that broadcasts stories on scientific developments and discoveries. It is described on the ABC’s website in the following terms1:

At Catalyst we know that science is a dynamic force for change. Each week Catalyst brings you stories from Australia and around the world. Our passion to meet scientists at the forefront of discovery is matched by our fascination with science breakthroughs however big or small. Science changes all our lives. For better or worse, we are committed to showing you what our future holds.

On 11 July 2013, the program focused on chiropractic treatment, including the growing trend in Australia of chiropractic treatment of infants and children, and the role of chiropractic treatment in the health care system. During the program, the reporter, Dr Maryanne Demasi, interviewed the following people:

> Emeritus Professor JD, Immunologist, University of NSW> Dr MV, Rehabilitation Physician, Geelong Hospital> Dr AM, Chiropractor> Dr TC, Chiropractor, Chiropractic Association of Australia> Dr SH, President, Australian Medical Association> Dr JR, Chiropractor> Mr JC, Spinal Surgeon, Epworth Hospital> Dr MF, Paediatric Neurologist, Monash Medical Centre> Dr PD, Chiropractor, Chair, Chiropractic Board of Australia> Professor PC, Pro Vice Chancellor, RMIT> parents of children receiving chiropractic treatment> LS, a woman who allegedly sustained neck injuries as a result of chiropractic

adjustment.

1 http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/team/about.htm

ACMA Investigation Report – Catalyst broadcast by the ABC on 11 July 2013 2

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/team/about.htm

A full transcript of the program is at Attachment A.

AssessmentThe investigation is based on the complaint to the ABC and the ABC’s response, submissions from the complainant and the ABC, and a copy of the broadcast provided to the ACMA by the ABC. Other relevant sources have been identified where used.

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’ 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.

In considering compliance with the Code, the ACMA considers the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone, visual images and inferences that may be drawn. In the case of factual material which is presented, the ACMA will also consider relevant omissions (if any).

Once the ACMA has applied this test to ascertain the meaning of the material broadcast, it then determines whether that material has breached the Code.

Matters not pursuedThe complaint to the ACMA contains a number of matters which were not included in the original complaint to the ABC. This includes the complaint to the ACMA about comments made in reference to a three-month-old baby rushed to Monash Medical Centre after allegedly having its neck broken from chiropractic therapy.

As the complainant did not first complain to the ABC about these matters, as required under section 150 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, the ACMA has not pursued these aspects of the complaint in this investigation.

Also, the complainant asked the ACMA to 'determine that the ABC review its Code of Practice and guidelines'. This is not a matter for the ACMA as, under The Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983, the ABC develops its own codes of practice and only notifies them to the ACMA.

SubmissionsRelevant extracts from the submissions of the complainant and the ABC are at Attachments B and C respectively.

Issue: Accuracy 2 Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 at pp 164–167.


Relevant Code standards2.1 Make reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented in

context.

2.2 Do not present factual content in a way that will materially mislead the audience. In some cases, this may require appropriate labels or other explanatory information.

Relevant Principles on accuracy include:

Types of fact-based content includes news and analysis of current events, documentaries, factual dramas and lifestyle programs. The ABC requires that reasonable efforts must be made to ensure accuracy in fact-based content. The ABC gauges those efforts by reference to:

The type, subject and nature of the content;

The likely audience expectations of the content;

The likely impact of reliance by the audience on the accuracy of the content; and

The circumstances in which the content was made and presented.

The ABC accuracy standard applies to assertions of fact, not expressions of opinion. An opinion, being a value judgment or a conclusion, cannot be found to be accurate or inaccurate in the way facts can. The accuracy standard requires that opinions be conveyed accurately, in the sense that quotes should be accurate and any editing should not distort the meaning of the opinion expressed.

The efforts reasonably required to ensure accuracy will depend on the circumstances. Sources with relevant expertise may be relied on more heavily than those without. Eyewitness testimony usually carries more weight than second-hand accounts.

In applying standard 2.1 of the Code, the ACMA generally adopts this approach:

Was the particular material (the subject of the complaint) factual in character?

Did it convey a ‘material’ fact or facts in the context of the relevant segment?

If so, were those facts accurate?

If a material was not accurate (or its accuracy cannot be determined) did the ABC make reasonable efforts to ensure that the ‘material’ fact was accurate and presented in context?

In applying standard 2.2 of the Code, the ACMA usually adopts this approach:

Was the particular material (the subject of the complaint) factual in character?

Was that factual content presented in a way that would materially (i.e. in a significant respect) mislead the audience?

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

FindingThe ACMA finds that the ABC did not breach standards 2.1 and 2.2 of the Code.


ReasonsAs noted above, the ACMA’s investigation is confined to those matters raised in the complaint to the ABC - the 2007 study, the segment on LS, and the production techniques employed in the program.

The ACMA has examined the ABC’s efforts to ensure that the material facts were accurate and presented in context, and whether factual content was presented in a way that would have materially misled the audience.

Expressions of opinion are not subject to the accuracy requirements at standards 2.1 and 2.2 of the Code. However, as the Principles to the Code explain:

The accuracy standard requires that opinions be conveyed accurately, in the sense that quotes should be accurate and any editing should not distort the meaning of the opinion expressed.

Special effects

The complaint is that special effects used in the program manipulated and changed the meaning of information. In particular, the complainant referred to the use of sound and flashing lights during the opening sequence that simulated the effect of cameras used to record crime scenes. The complainant alleged that this changed the meaning of the visuals of the original statues with missing limbs to suggest that ‘chiropractors break body parts and perpetuate crime’.

The ABC submitted that the statues were used in the opening sequence to illustrate the fact that ‘the basis to chiropractic therapy is an “ancient art”, hence the use of ancient, classical sculptures’.

The ACMA accepts the ABC’s submission that the statutes alluded to the long history of chiropractic treatment and notes that these visuals were accompanied by voice-over, which referred to ‘the ancient art of spinal manipulation’. The sound and visual effects, while adding a level of tension, did not render the information concerning the history of chiropractic therapy inaccurate. These aspects of the program are further discussed below under code requirements concerning impartiality.

Accordingly, the ACMA is satisfied that the use of the special effects during the opening sequence did not present factual content in a way that would materially mislead the audience.

On this basis, the ABC did not breach standard 2.2 in regard to the use of special effects.

2007 study

The complaint is that the reference to a study dated 2007 which looks at adverse events due to chiropractic treatment was ‘misleading’ and ‘not relevant to the present debate’. According to the complainant, this study refers to earlier studies, including a study in 1969 which reported a mortality, and other earlier studies where problems with chiropractic treatment had occurred.

The relevant statement in bold is:

Reporter: Now, you could argue that if parents want to spend their money on therapies that don't work, then that's their choice. But what if that therapy was causing harm?

Dr TC: There was a study published in 2011 which couldn't find a single significant adverse event in the care of children by chiropractors. Somewhere in the world, in the last 20-plus


years, someone would've said something that would've ended up in the medical literature. At least somebody somewhere, but to have a zero result, that's pretty decent.

Dr MV: I think [TC] could've looked a little harder in the literature - because, without a lot of difficulty, I found a paper from 2007 in a very widely-known journal called Paediatrics, which documented some very serious adverse events, including two fatalities and including 20 delayed diagnoses of serious conditions like cancer and scoliosis, etc, where those people had been managed by chiropractors. So, that's just one study. When one looks through the literature, you do find these things if you look hard enough.

Narration: The problem is, chiropractors don't have a formal system in place for recording adverse events. The regulator can see it's not ideal.

The ABC submitted that the 2007 paper referred to by Dr MV was presented with sufficient context and that Dr TC was also quoted regarding research into chiropractic care.

The ACMA is satisfied that the statement made by Dr MV concerning the 2007 study, was factual material, as it was specific, unequivocal and capable of independent verification.

The ACMA notes that data sources for the 2007 study range from 1966 to 2004 and adverse effects were reported in a range of studies3. The ACMA also notes that there is no Code requirement for all facts that are potentially relevant to a program be presented. Key facts concerning the date of the study (2007) and the findings were presented by Dr MV.

The study was presented by Dr MV in response to the reporter’s line of enquiry regarding harm as a result of chiropractic treatment. The ordinary reasonable viewer would have understood that Dr MV referred to this study broadly as an example of the ease with which he was able to locate medical literature conveying adverse outcomes in the chiropractic care of children and that this was just one example of a relevant study.

As this information was presented by a medical expert, a rehabilitation physician, the ACMA is satisfied that the ABC took reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts in relation to the reference to this study were accurate and presented in context.

The ACMA is also satisfied that the factual content was not presented in a way that would materially mislead the audience. Experts from both sides of the debate presented research they considered to be relevant to their argument. Dr TC also provided a comment about adverse effects of chiropractic care in children and referred to a more contemporary study dated 2011. He clearly established that the study he was referring to examined any adverse effects in the ‘last 20-plus years’.

The ACMA is satisfied that both professional opinions concerning relevant research were accurately conveyed.

Accordingly, the ABC did not breach standards 2.1 and 2.2 in relation to the statement concerning the 2007 study.

The LS Case

The complaint is that segment relating to this case included two statements that were inaccurate and misleading. According to the complainant, LS’s claim that there was nothing wrong with her neck was not correct and it is unlikely that LS would have withdrawn her legal action if a chiropractor admitted fault in this matter.3 http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/119/1/e275.full#ref-27


http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/119/1/e275.full#ref-27

The complainant has submitted correspondence from the Chiropractic Council indicating that ‘the Council has no record of any letter issued by the Council whereby the practitioner admits fault in this matter’. The ACMA notes that this correspondence does not identify the ‘matter’ in question.

The relevant statements in bold are:

LS: When I got there, he sort of said, 'Well, what's wrong with you?' and I said, 'Nothing.' 'I'm just here for a tune-up,' I think, was the words that I used. And, in hindsight, really, he should probably at that point have said, 'Well, if there's nothing wrong with you, there's no reason for you to actually be here.

Reporter: Yet he continued to perform a manipulation on you.

LS: Yeah. On my back and my neck, yeah. There was no reason. There was nothing wrong with my neck. There was no pain in my neck. He then held my head with his two hands, and lifted my head... You know, it felt like he was lifting my head up. And tilted my chin and then cracked that way and then cracked that way.[...]

Narration: [LS] did sue for damages, but the legal bills became insurmountable, so she withdrew her case.

The comment made by LS that ‘there was nothing wrong with my neck’, would have been understood by the ordinary reasonable viewer to be LS’s personal opinion about the state of her neck when she presented for chiropractic treatment, rather than a statement of fact.

In regard to the statement made by the reporter about legal proceedings, the ACMA is satisfied that the first component of this statement is factual material - ‘[LS] did sue for damages [...]’ - as it was unequivocal and capable of independent verification. The ACMA also considers that it is ‘material’ as it concerns potential risks of chiropractic treatment in the context of a program which focused on chiropractic treatment.

However, the ACMA considers that the remaining remarks - the reasons as to why LS withdrew her case - would have been understood by the ordinary reasonable viewer as an expression of opinion, being subjective and a matter of personal judgement.

Also, the ACMA notes that as LS is a layperson, viewers would understand that LS might not use legal terminology in an exact way.

The ABC explained that the reporter relied on LS’s account that she consulted a lawyer and commenced legal action for damages. As LS is the individual directly involved in this matter and spoke of her experience, the ACMA considers that the ABC’s reliance on her account, regardless of whether the chiropractor admitted fault in the matter, amounted to reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts were accurate and presented in context.

Accordingly there is no breach of standards 2.1 or 2.2 of the Code in relation to statements made about the LS case.

Issue: Impartiality and diversity of perspectives Relevant Code standards


4.1 Gather and present news and information with due impartiality

4.2 Present a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented.

[...]

4.5 Do not unduly favour one perspective over another

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.

[...]

Impartiality does not require that every perspective receives equal time, nor that every facet of every argument is presented.

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 of the Code are found at Attachment E.

FindingThe ACMA finds that the ABC did not breach standards 4.1, 4.2 and 4.5 of the Code.

ReasonsAs indicated at Attachment E, achieving impartiality requires a broadcaster to present content in a way which avoids conveying a prejudgment, or giving effect to the affections 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. 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 themes in the program, any editorial comment, the overall presentation of the story and the circumstances in which the program was prepared and broadcast.

In summary, the complaint is that the program:

> ‘cherry picked information to bias its presentation in favour of the anti-chiropractic side...’ under the pretence that both sides of the story were being presented

> unfairly elicited the views of chiropractors on the topic of vaccination, despite the chiropractic profession being neutral on this issue

> included ‘sensationalist’ and ‘tabloid’ techniques, such as special effects and dissonant ambient music and included a comedy skit depicting the history of chiropractic care, all of which undermined the validity of chiropractic care.

The ABC submitted to the complainant that the ‘program demonstrably presented a diversity of views on the chiropractic industry generally and on some specific treatments some chiropractors offer...There were some strong criticisms and concerns raised of some aspects of the chiropractic industry from highly qualified medical practitioners; many of these criticisms were put to representatives of the chiropractic industry for response’.

As indicated above, a program that presents a perspective that is opposed by a particular person or group is not inherently partial.

The ABC is entitled to present and explore issues that relate to chiropractic treatment, as long as the material has been presented accurately and does not convey a prejudgement or unduly favour one perspective over another.

For the reasons outlined under Accuracy above, the ACMA considers that factual material and opinions were presented accurately. In terms of impartiality and diversity of perspectives, the ACMA notes the following.

Both sides of the debate

The program made it clear that there are opposing views on: the risks associated with chiropractic treatment for infants and children, the role of chiropractors and chiropractic treatment in the health care system, and whether universities should offer courses in chiropractic. The program presented a diversity of views from each side of the debate, including opposing views from within the chiropractic industry itself.

The anti-chiropractic perspective was presented by a range of medical experts, which included an immunologist, a pain specialist, a paediatric neurologist, a spinal surgeon and the Australian Medical Association. Also, one chiropractor (Dr JR) expressed concerns with the adjustment of newborns and that some chiropractors are disregarding scientific evidence.

The perspective of the chiropractic industry was presented by the Chiropractor’s Association of Australia, practising chiropractors, the Chair of the Chiropractic Board of Australia (CAA), the Pro Vice Chancellor of RMIT University and parents of children receiving chiropractic care.

The ACMA considers that the program provided those from the chiropractic industry an opportunity to respond on key matters relating to the role of chiropractors and chiropractic treatment in the health care system (including paediatric care and vaccination) and the place of chiropractic as a course of study in universities.


For example, Dr AM (chiropractor) referred to reports of improvement in children in terms of colic, bed wetting and asthma as a result of chiropractic care and Dr TC (CAA) outlined why he considered chiropractors were appropriately qualified to be the doctors of first choice.

The Pro Vice Chancellor of RMIT University was also given an opportunity to respond to criticism concerning material presented as part of the curriculum for chiropractic studies offered at that university.

Vaccination

The ACMA also considers that the line of questioning by the reporter concerning vaccination was valid in the context of Dr TC (CAA) previously being a member of an anti-vaccination lobby, and reports that some chiropractors are disseminating information that warns clients against vaccination.

The ACMA notes that Dr TC was given an opportunity to respond, noting:

> that his view on this issue is the same as the CAA’s view > his reasons for being a member of an anti-vaccination lobby was to access data> that people need to consult with their GP on this issue. Special effects

The complaint is that the program employed a range of ‘sensationalist’ production techniques that created an ‘anti-chiropractic stance’ including:

‘dissonant, ambient music’

sound and visual effects ‘to give the impression that crime scenes are being photographed’

‘a Charlie Chaplin style comedy skit ... to undermine the validity of chiropractic’.

The ACMA notes the ABC’s response to the complainant that the ‘program aims to provide a lay audience with an entertaining and informative approach to science’.

Aspects of a program that can enhance the entertainment value include specials effects, music and re-enactments or other visual references. These are well-established means of engaging the audience in information programs, however, care needs to be taken so that these elements do not work to convey a prejudgement.

The theme of the program, being the controversies surrounding aspects of chiropractic therapy, was established during the opening sequence, which included sound and visual effects.

As the role of chiropractic care in the health care system is currently a contentious issue, the ACMA considers that the special effects were justified to the extent that these elements reflect this tension and controversy. The use of these effects at the beginning of the episode also provides context to the discussion that follows. The ACMA does not consider that the use of these special effects or the ambient music undermined the chiropractic point of view or conveyed a prejudgement.

The ACMA considers that the comedy skit complained of was used to explain the genesis of modern chiropractic therapy. The skit re-enacted the founding of modern chiropractic therapy in 1895 when an American magnetic healer reportedly cured a janitor of profound deafness with an adjustment to the spine.

Although this segment had a different style and presentation to the rest of the program, the ACMA does not consider that this depiction undermined the chiropractic point of view - while the reporter


may have conveyed that she was dubious of this ‘miraculous feat’, Dr TC was given an opportunity immediately following the skit to explain why he considered such an outcome possible.

Overall presentation

In terms of the overall presentation of the program, the ACMA also makes the following observations:

> the reporter maintained a relatively neutral tone throughout the broadcast and did not use sustained emotive or colourful language

> the reporter also conveyed a general sense of open mindedness through the questions posed to participants representing the chiropractic point of view

> while the reporter may have, at times, conveyed a preference for the anti-chiropractic perspective, the ACMA considers that this perspective was reasonably favoured as it followed the weight of evidence

> viewers would have been aware that there were conflicting views on the issues discussed and, based on the information provided from a broad range of perspectives, would have been in a position to form their own view.

On this basis, the ACMA is satisfied that the program presented information with due impartiality, presented a diversity of perspectives and did not unduly favour one perspective over another.

Accordingly, the ABC did not breach standards 4.1, 4.2 and 4.5 of the Code.


Attachment ATranscript: Catalyst transcript –– 11 July 2013

NARRATIONChiropractic therapy is a modern reinvention of the ancient art of spinal manipulation. In recent times, this practice has become steeped in controversy.

Emeritus Professor JD (immunologist)Much of modern chiropractic, unfortunately, has descended into the realm of quackery.

NARRATIONUniversities are being accused of teaching pseudoscience.

Dr MV (rehabilitation physician)It would be misleading to present that to students.

Dr AM (chiropractor)The results are really speaking for themselves. It comes down to 'the proof is in the pudding'.

Woman 1We've been coming for asthma.

Woman 2A little bit of colic and reflux.

NARRATIONThis has the medical fraternity up in arms.

Dr SH (Australian Medical Association)Well, this is a great concern of the medical profession, that there are some individuals taking their infants and young children to chiropractors.

NARRATIONIt's even created factions within the chiropractic industry.

Dr JR (chiropractor)I am angered and I am embarrassed for the profession.

NARRATIONWill chiropractors become the new family doctor, and are they putting our children at risk?

Dr Maryanne DemasiNow, most people go to the chiropractor for back pain, and, despite its surging popularity, its proven benefit is fairly limited. A review of spinal manipulation showed that it could alleviate lower back pain, but it was no more effective than heat therapy, or even a good massage.

NARRATIONChiropractors have an important role in healthcare when it comes to treating musculoskeletal problems. But a new trend is emerging.

Emeritus Professor JD (immunologist)It's the move into paediatrics, and the enormous number of chiropractors who are trying to set up paediatric clinics and claiming that they can cure a range of paediatric conditions, that is really troublesome.


NARRATIONThere have been reports that chiropractors are the new refuge for a range of health problems, like asthma, colic, reflux and autism.

Woman 1Last week, Jade had an asthma attack and I rang quickly, and said, 'Can you fit her in?' And they said yes straightaway. We put her in and it stopped, completely stopped.

Dr Maryanne DemasiWow.

Woman 1She was really... (Gasps wheezily)...you know, the full-on wheezing.

Dr Maryanne DemasiSo, if your girls get sick, do you take them to the GP or the chiropractor first?

Woman 3My first point of call is always the chiropractor. I didn't like to put drugs into their body if it wasn't necessary. So, that's what I found with a GP, that they were very quick to just - quick - write a script and off they go. I didn't feel as if there was a lot of caring, or individual care at least, with the children.

NARRATIONWhere babies used to be rare patients, they're now common in a number of clinics. Newborns and toddlers make up over a third of this chiropractor's client base.

Man...areas of subluxation that I can feel there that are immediately improved after you adjust it like that.

Woman 2I would definitely send her along to the chiropractor first to see that we couldn't settle her first. I think... her being a newborn, I think a nice way to approach it is to go as natural as possible, and to give them care that's gentle and... you know. I think that's more important than sending them along to a GP.

Dr Maryanne DemasiWere you surprised that they could treat a whole range of medical conditions?

Woman 1Yeah, I've been very surprised, because I wasn't... I wasn't really expecting the answer to be yes to be able to sort out asthma.

Dr AM (chiropractor)I've witnessed myself and read reports of improvements in colic, bed wetting, asthma. There's a lot of word-of-mouth information that is going around the public that someone's child has been helped in that way. So they've come to the chiropractor.

Dr Maryanne DemasiNow, you may be wondering how adjusting the spine could possibly help conditions that have nothing to do with the spine. Well, perhaps a brief history lesson may help explain where this came from.


NARRATIONChiropractic therapy was founded in 1895 by an American magnetic healer called 'DD Palmer'. In his building worked a janitor who complained he was hard of hearing. DD Palmer decided to perform an adjustment on the man's spine, and, in a miraculous feat, claimed to have cured him of profound deafness. Palmer hypothesised that aligning the spine unblocked nerve flow through the body and restored the man's hearing. From this, he proposed that a misaligned spine was the cause of virtually all human ailments.

Dr Maryanne DemasiFast forward to today and the Chiropractic Association still believes that curing deafness with spinal manipulation is plausible.

Dr TC (Chiropractor’s Association of Australia)Well, it makes sense that... that fellow lifted something he held, heard a pop in his back and then he became deaf, and, 17 years later, DD did something and his hearing came back. It would suggest that there was a relationship there.

Dr Maryanne DemasiBetween hearing and the spinal column?

Dr TC (Chiropractor’s Association of Australia)Yeah. Yeah. And there are neural pathways that run from where he was supposed to have been adjusted, up into the brain stem, that can impact on function.

NARRATION[Mr JC], a spinal expert, disagrees.

Mr JC (spinal surgeon)There's no nerves that control hearing that have anything to do with the neck. They all come from the base of the skull, which simply cannot be influenced by any sort of spinal manipulation. I would have concern over someone's appreciation of anatomy if they were to claim that the middle ear and Eustachian tube is affected in any way by a nerve that comes from the spine.

NARRATION[Dr TC] explains that even the slightest misalignment in the spine can act like a traffic jam in the central nervous system, and lead to disease. In chiropractic circles, it's called a 'subluxation'.

Dr TC (Chiropractor’s Association of Australia)And so it's not necessarily that you have to compress the nerve root on the way out, but, in fact, the messages coming back in can be distorted because of that static in the nervous system travelling back upward.

Mr JC (spinal surgeon)(Laughs) I'm sorry. It's just senseless rubbish. Um... If there is a static, well, why haven't they shown it? If that is the mechanism, they've had all these years to describe it, to... document it, to study it, to perform experiments on it. Why haven't they?

NARRATION[Dr MV] is a pain specialist, and disagrees with the chiropractic theory about traffic jams in the central nervous system. During surgery, he deliberately scrambles the nerve signals to the spine, so that patients can get pain relief.

Dr MV (rehabilitation physician)We use spinal cord neuromodulators to electrically scramble the information that's going up and down the rear part of the spinal cord. And we see no evidence that that produces anything other than pain relief in most of our patients. So, I think, those observations are not


consistent with the chiropractic view that optimum health depends on there being absolutely no interference with nerve function at all.

NARRATIONPaediatrician [Dr MF] says the science doesn't stack up.

Dr MF (paediatric neurologist)The idea that there are energy flows up and down the spine that cause disease in organs doesn't fit with our current understanding of science. There's been a number of systematic reviews which examined chiropractic use for things like asthma, colic, bed wetting, ear infections, and don't show that there's any evidence that chiropractic is effective. If we look at the asthma trial, there's only been one done which has been conducted in a rigorous way, and they compared chiropractic therapy to a sham therapy. There was no change when they looked at the outcomes of respiratory function tests, the objective measures.

ManThat's it, let's get to the air flow.

NARRATIONExperts say quality of research is lacking. Even though patients swear by it, therapies need to be tested in rigorous trials to remove bias and the placebo effect.

Dr Maryanne DemasiDo you think it could be placebo?

Dr TC (Chiropractor’s Association of Australia)I bring focus to the fact that I want them to feel... safe, and that one of the knock-on consequences of that, just as a side benefit, is that there may be a better placebo effect - that they might feel more confident and they might have a better outcome just because of that. I'm OK with that.

Dr JR (chiropractor)Chiropractors have relied on anecdotal evidence, and, I think, because of their fervent belief in what they do, that they disregard or put aside the scientific evidence, which shows that it's either ineffective or inconclusive.

NARRATION[Dr JR], a chiropractor, says he only treats musculoskeletal problems, and that adjusting newborns is ridiculous.

Dr JR (chiropractor)Now you've got an infant. OK. The nervous system is not developed, its bony structure isn't fully developed. So I fail to see how anyone could find a problem with a one-week-old baby by touching their spine, and therefore...

NARRATIONHe says many paediatric conditions resolve spontaneously, like ear infections.

Dr JR (chiropractor)We know, from all the literature, that 80 per cent of those children will be better within five to seven days without any treatment. So, if you take your baby to a chiropractor with a middle ear infection, he treats the baby, the baby gets better. Well, he's taking credit for it, and you also think that he's performed a miracle.

Dr Maryanne DemasiWhat concerns you the most about chiropractors treating very young babies?


Dr JR (chiropractor)I don't think the general chiropractor is trained well enough to actually diagnose problems with infants.

NARRATIONAnd herein lies the irony. The Chiropractic Association has announced a bold ambition to become the new family doctor.

Dr Maryanne DemasiSo chiropractors really want to be the doctors of first choice?

Dr TC (Chiropractor’s Association of Australia)It's a great idea.

Dr Maryanne DemasiAre chiropractors qualified to handle a whole range of medical complaints?

Dr TC (Chiropractor’s Association of Australia)We're five years university trained, and that gives us the capacity to assess and then redirect. So, of course, if you need your tonsils taken out, I'm not your guy. If you need brain surgery, somebody else needs to help you with that. My job is to find and assess whether you need to be just with me, whether you need to be co-managed, or whether you need to be referred completely.

NARRATIONNot surprisingly, this aspiration has outraged the Medical Association.

Dr SH (Australian Medical Association)Your first point of care in the Australia health system needs to be your family doctor, a medically-trained person, who's comprehensively trained from cradle to grave to look at you and your family and the environment.

Dr Maryanne DemasiIs this a bad reflection on medicine that more and more people are turning to alternatives?

Emeritus Professor JD (immunologist)I think it is. Dissatisfaction with a quickie turnover turnstile medicine approach is a factor that drives people into the misguided hands of people who are doing the patient no good at all.

Dr MV (rehabilitation physician)There is a lot wrong with mainstream medicine, but just because some planes crash doesn't mean we should start using flying carpets. So you have to have a plausible alternative if there is a problem.

NARRATIONWhat's most disturbing about chiropractors being the first port of call in the health system is that many don't support vaccination, which is the most basic form of public healthcare. Chiropractors are the largest number of professionals that support one of Australia's most misleading anti-vaccination lobbies, of which [Dr TC] was a member.

Dr TC (Chiropractor’s Association of Australia)I have been in the past, yeah. I'm not now. My reason for being involved was to access the data and have a look.

Dr Maryanne DemasiSo what's your view after you've viewed the data?


Dr TC (Chiropractor’s Association of Australia)My view is the same as the Chiropractors' Association, that is that it's not what I do. People need to make an informed choice and need to chat to their GP about it.

Dr Maryanne DemasiAre you personally for or against vaccination?

Dr AM (chiropractor)I prefer not to. My own research and my own choices have been made, and that's personal to me. The Chiropractic Association does not deal with vaccinations. We're neutral.

Dr SH (Australian Medical Association)Neutral is not good enough. If the Chiropractic Association takes some time, reads the evidence, they should conclude just like everyone else that there's a major benefit.

Emeritus Professor JD (immunologist)In this day and age, that is completely reprehensible. Vaccination is probably the most successful intervention in medicine, period, and not to have a position is intolerable.

NARRATIONIn 2010, Sydney chiropractor [NW] was reported for making false claims, and inciting fear about vaccination. [Mr JC] lodged a formal complaint to the Chiropractic Board.

Mr JC (spinal surgeon)[NW’s] website, I was concerned had information on it that didn't represent the best available evidence with regards to immunisation. For example, one of the claims that he made was that vaccination actually causes Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, whereas the larger studies that are being done show that vaccination actually halves your risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. He also claimed that vaccination causes autism, when, in actual fact, a large Danish study of over half a million children has proven, without any shadow of a doubt, that there is absolutely no link between vaccination and autism.

NARRATION[NW] declined to comment.

The Federal Government appoints a regulatory board to preside over chiropractors. They enforce codes of conduct and ensure public safety. But the integrity of this regulator has been questioned over their failure to encourage that chiropractors support vaccination.

Dr PD (chiropractor, Chiropractic Board of Australia)We're not here to promote clinical guidelines, all those sort of clinical areas.

Dr Maryanne DemasiBut you're supposed to be protecting the public.

Dr PD (chiropractor, Chiropractic Board of Australia)We are and where that has come to our attention as a notification, we've dealt with it satisfactorily.

NARRATIONBut it seems in vain. This waiting room is full of misleading information. Here, a booklet by AVN, a widely discredited anti-vaccination group. This book suggests that parents delay their child's vaccination program, and even recommends using scientifically unproven homeopathic vaccines as an alternative. Patients are enticed by celebrity endorsements and unscientific remedies. Websites are riddled with false information that chiropractic can help with conditions like autism, ADHD, even HIV. This from a profession that claims to be science-based, and yet it all appears to slip past the regulator.


Dr PD (chiropractor, Chiropractic Board of Australia)Well, I don't know. We haven't been made aware that that's still the case. We don't actually go out and look for it. The onus is on the public and members of the community to bring it to our attention.

Dr Maryanne DemasiHow is the public meant to know whether or not the information they're receiving is correct to bring it to the Board in the first place?

Dr PD (chiropractor, Chiropractic Board of Australia)I don't particularly have the answers for that. We're very conscious of not over-regulating - but, at the same time, not under-regulating. We're trying to always maintain a right touch, or a proportionate... what we call a proportional approach. Um... But it is difficult. That's certainly a challenge, and I take your point.

NARRATIONBut when it comes to coughing up money, it's the taxpayer that loses. Last year, the government spent over ten million dollars on Medicare rebates for chiropractic services. A quarter of that was for paediatrics. [Professor JD] says it's abusing the public purse.

Emeritus Professor JD (immunologist)Yes, absolutely, and that's why we wrote to the Health Minister, asking her to have the chief medical officers review of what practices the government puts money into, and the answer was, 'No, we won't do that for chiropractic, 'cause we've got a national registration board, which is going to protect the consumers.' Palpably, it's not. Look at the chiropractic websites and you'll see just how determined and how penetrative this nonsense is.

NARRATIONThis Sydney-based chiropractor claims to correct the length of a child's leg with a clicking device called an activator.

ManFirst we adjust this. No complaints there, and you get an instant lengthening. See?

Emeritus Professor JD (immunologist)I mean, what can you ask more? Just a few clicks and the child's chronic problem is fixed.

Dr Maryanne DemasiSo, how unscientific is that?

Emeritus Professor JD (immunologist)Well, it's totally unscientific. Obviously when you're positioning a child on a bench like that, you could do anything with your legs, and then he moves the legs until they're equal, and the random clicking away, from the buttocks to the upper spine, with the instant results, this is what is so objectionable.

ManThere is a muscle spasm around the vertebra...

Emeritus Professor JD (immunologist)It was interesting, that the adjustor is then used on the neck, where there are no anatomical structures that, if you altered them in any way, would fix leg shortening.

ManGood, she's done. Easy. Here she comes.

Emeritus Professor JD (immunologist)If he does really believe that he's just cured a musculoskeletal problem that child had - a


shortened leg - then that is really sad. That's really dangerous, because, as Chekhov said, the quacks that are the most dangerous are the ones that really believe it.

NARRATIONThere was a review of eight trials involving the activator which showed it had benefit. But that paper also concluded that all the studies had poor design, small sample sizes and no control groups.

Dr Maryanne DemasiNow, you could argue that if parents want to spend their money on therapies that don't work, then that's their choice. But what if that therapy was causing harm?

Dr TC (Chiropractor’s Association of Australia)There was a study published in 2011 which couldn't find a single significant adverse event in the care of children by chiropractors. Somewhere in the world, in the last 20-plus years, someone would've said something that would've ended up in the medical literature. At least somebody somewhere, but to have a zero result, that's pretty decent.

Dr MV (rehabilitation physician)I think [Dr TC] could've looked a little harder in the literature - because, without a lot of difficulty, I found a paper from 2007 in a very widely-known journal called Paediatrics, which documented some very serious adverse events, including two fatalities and including 20 delayed diagnoses of serious conditions like cancer and scoliosis, etc, where those people had been managed by chiropractors. So, that's just one study. When one looks through the literature, you do find these things if you look hard enough.

NARRATIONThe problem is, chiropractors don't have a formal system in place for recording adverse events. The regulator can see it's not ideal.

Dr PD (chiropractor, Chiropractic Board of Australia)What currently exists is really a lack of hardcore data in terms of, you know, is it or isn't it.

Dr Maryanne DemasiWell, why not establish a register to record adverse events?

Dr PD (chiropractor, Chiropractic Board of Australia)Look, great idea, and I think that's something that was presented to the profession last year here, and there are certainly moves afoot now to sort of say, 'How do we do this and how do we set it up?' And that's important to know, and it's a responsible thing to do for a profession.

Dr Maryanne DemasiThe safety of manipulating a baby's spine has recently been brought into question. A three-month-old baby was rushed here to Monash Medical Centre after allegedly having its neck broken from chiropractic therapy. [Dr MF] has confirmed this on X-ray, but says further details of the case cannot be disclosed due to ongoing legal action.

NARRATIONAnd it's not just the risk to babies.

LSWhen I got there, he sort of said, 'Well, what's wrong with you?' and I said, 'Nothing.' 'I'm just here for a tune-up,' I think, was the words that I used. And, in hindsight, really, he should probably at that point have said, 'Well, if there's nothing wrong with you, there's no reason for you to actually be here.'

Dr Maryanne DemasiYet he continued to perform a manipulation on you.


LSYeah. On my back and my neck, yeah. There was no reason. There was nothing wrong with my neck. There was no pain in my neck. He then held my head with his two hands, and lifted my head... You know, it felt like he was lifting my head up. And tilted my chin and then cracked that way and then cracked that way.

NARRATIONUnfortunately, this was the result. [LS’s] vertebral artery, that runs down the side of her neck, has been dissected. These neck manipulations are known to be risky.

Dr Maryanne DemasiGee, that's confronting to watch, isn't it?

Dr MV (rehabilitation physician)Mm. It's the force of the thrust that is the thing that's believed to cause injuries.

LSI literally couldn't move my neck to the left or the right. It was stuck, yeah, and I was crying, I was incredibly distressed.

NARRATION[LS] was very fortunate she didn't have a stroke. But there was no way she was prepared for what lay ahead.

LSThat sort of was the beginning of what's been now three years of pain management, treatments, diagnosis, testing, a lot of money, a lot of time, a lot of emotional energy. You know, it's been a very difficult journey.

NARRATION[LS] did sue for damages, but the legal bills became insurmountable, so she withdrew her case.

[Emeritus Professor JD], who co-founded Friends of Science in Medicine, says he wants universities to stop teaching chiropractic therapy.

Emeritus Professor JD (immunologist)I don't believe that there is sufficient science to warrant university education. I think they should get out of the chiropractic business. There simply isn't enough fundamental science in chiropractic to warrant a five-year course. And, I think, the universities, by supplying these courses, give credibility. Those people would be much better off spending their time enrolling in a physiotherapy course and learning a whole lot of practical evidence-based skills. There's no place for chiropractic in a really strong, academically-based university.

NARRATIONProfessor [PC] is the Pro Vice-Chancellor at RMIT, where they teach chiropractic. He rejects the criticism.

Professor PC (Pro Vice Chancellor, RMIT)We have a focus on strong evidence-based criteria, basic sciences, and we don't teach pseudoscience.

NARRATIONRMIT supplied me with lecture notes from the course, and I had Dr MV look over them.

Dr MV (rehabilitation physician)There is inaccurate material that's been presented alongside material that's completely wrong,


alongside material that's completely speculative, alongside some very sound anatomy. So, if you're a student, and you don't have the training, or the background or the experience to tell what's what, then that, I think, is gravely concerning. Part of the responsibility of the university is to be a custodian of knowledge, and a dispenser and a trainer of that knowledge. It's not to try and put things over the students in a way that leads them to come out of uni and then find out that they've been misled, or that things have been misrepresented to them.

Professor PC (Pro Vice Chancellor, RMIT)If that information can be documented, I'll take it back to the school and get them to look at it.

NARRATIONBut what hope is there when a staff member actually believes the pseudoscience? We found a casual employee of RMIT making unsubstantiated claims on her website about autism.

Dr Maryanne DemasiNow, there's no evidence in the literature that chiropractic therapy can help with autism.

Professor PC (Pro Vice Chancellor, RMIT)Agreed.

Dr Maryanne DemasiAre you not concerned that she may impart this pseudoscientific knowledge onto the students? They're very impressionable.

Professor PC (Pro Vice Chancellor, RMIT)Students are impressionable, yes. If we bring external experts in, that they would come in to teach a particular area, we're not bringing someone in to teach things like the effect of chiropractic on autism.

Dr Maryanne DemasiIt's a bad reflection on the university that RMIT graduates are going out there and practising non-evidence-based techniques.

Professor PC (Pro Vice Chancellor, RMIT)Well, our graduates, we don't control them once they go out.

NARRATIONWhen we approached [Dr W] for comment, she deferred us to RMIT. The university did approach her, and she has since removed the claim from her website. In a surprise move, but one that is applauded by the medical profession, Sydney's Macquarie University has recently announced their plans to scrap its chiropractic course in a bid to remain focused on science.

Dr Maryanne DemasiMeanwhile, the conflict within the chiropractic union is palpable. But [Dr JR] still believes he can champion change so that opposing sides of the profession can move into alignment.

Dr JR (chiropractor)We still have an opportunity to become spine specialists, non-surgical spine specialists. We have the skills and we have the training, and if we funnel our energies in towards that aim and that goal, and disregard the extraneous things that are going on within the profession, then we will prosper.


Attachment BComplainant’s submissionsExtracts from the complainant’s submissions to the ABC – 9 August 2013

This is a complaint about the Catalyst show ‘Chiropractors’ [...] which was shown on ABC television on 11th July 2013 and subsequently promoted on the main page of the ABC web site. This complaint is not so much about what was presented but about the way it was presented, and the sensationalist and tabloid techniques used in this presentation. Such techniques are unethical when used in a show that calls itself a science program.

I state that in this show on chiropractic the ABC was unethical in their use of special effects and tabloid and sensationalist techniques because they were used to undermine statements about chiropractic and statements made by chiropractors in support of chiropractic treatments. In addition, these tabloid and sensationalist techniques reinforced negative and incorrect statements [...]. These techniques are well known in the mass media and used extensively in advertising, the film industry and tabloid journalism. People attend movies expecting to be entertained with special effects and are aware that advertising is biased but this is not the case with a science program which is expected to present information accurately and without bias.

I state that the use of tabloid and sensationalist techniques is not restricted to this show on Chiropractic. These techniques, which undermine one side of an argument and the speakers for that argument, have been used in previous shows [...]

I do not claim to be an expert on chiropractic but having been a chiropractic patient on and off for over forty years I do have an excellent understanding of chiropractic from a patient’s perspective. The following is a summary of the complaints. In addition, a list of references is given at the end of this letter. I am happy to send a more detailed account of these complaints and provide more supporting evidence if asked. The complaints are:

1: Special effects used to create fear

The anti-chiropractic stance created by sensationalist techniques occurs in the first moments of the show. This show starts with an image of an intact piece of sculpture of a male which is quickly followed by a female sculpture with both arms missing (a Venus statue) and this is followed by sculpture of a man with one arm missing. While the statues with their limbs missing are being shown, images of body parts, broken limbs and broken hands, are flashed on the screen. The effect created is as if they are being broken in front of our eyes. This is accompanied by sound and lighting effects. There are numerous negative effects used in this sequence but the most obvious are sounds and flashing lights that simulate the effect of a camera shutter sound and a camera flash. Such effects are used extensively in police and crime shows when crimes scenes are photographed.

Catalyst uses these special effects to give the impression that crime scenes are being photographed in this show on chiropractic. These crime-scene special effects are used throughout the show and are especially derogatory when used while a chiropractor is adjusting patients. For people who have watched television crime shows, and this would be a large majority, these special effects would create the impression that the chiropractor is performing a criminal offense. Such effects are normally not consciously perceived so the audience are unlikely to be consciously aware of these techniques even though they are being used for interpretation of the scenes. This is discussed in more detail later.


This type of manipulation of meaning is well understood in the mass media. Techniques using lighting effects, sound effects and music that change the meaning of images are used in horror movies to create fear. The technique of using sound to influence the meaning of images is taught as part of audio-visual film theory (Chion 1994; Bordwell & Thompson, 2004) and confirmed by cognitive psychology experiments (Marshall & Cohen, 1988; Cohen, 1993; McGurk, 1976). Because each sense is limited the senses overlap with the result that different senses assisting each other to understand the objects and events (Marks, 1978: ix,185). Therefore the flashing body parts, negative sound effects and flashing lights are used to understand the meaning of the segment. In addition, if there is any overlap of meaning between sounds and images, or the images are in any way ambiguous, and most images are polysemic, the music will be used to interpret the meaning of the images (Cohen, 1993:173; Cook, 1998:69, 73-74, 82-86; Penn, 2000:229). In the opening segment there is a substantial overlap of meaning between the broken statues, the flashing body parts, the negative sound effects and the negative statements [...]. All combine to create a meaning that is not in the original statues if they were viewed alone. The meaning these special effects create is that chiropractors break bodies and perpetrate crimes. This opening sequence with broken sculptures and flashing body parts, sound effects and flashing lights has been designed to create fear that chiropractic treatment will result in injury. This fear is reinforced throughout the show with a shortened form of this special effects segment repeated regularly.

The techniques of adding sound effects and manipulating images in a way that changes meanings, and the influences of these on the audience, are recognised in journalism as unethical. For instance, the American National Press Photographers Association’s code of ethics point 6 states: “Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects” (NPPA 2013). Catalyst’s manipulation of images and added sound would not meet the American National Press Photographers Association code of ethics. The techniques used in this sequence are straight from a murder mystery and they far outdo any tabloid sensationalism of a Sunday rag. The ABC must implement a code of ethics at least equivalent to the American National Press Photographers Association.

2: Pretence that both sides of the story are being presented

Catalyst uses the format of pretending to present both sides of the story but cherry picks information to bias its presentation in favour of the anti-chiropractic side. As Frank Rusciano, Professor of Political Science, Rider University states:

Tabloid journalism [...] usually has neither time nor inclination for the rigorous verification required to declare something as ‘fact’. Instead, it substitutes a ‘simulation’ of objectivity by ‘giving both sides of the story’ (Rusciano, 2005).

This show appears to use a format of presenting both sides of the story, but this is done only to a limited extent in the vaccination segment. On other matters, the chiropractors and RMIT are not given the opportunity to respond to the statements made by the other guests even though the scenes are edited to create the effect that a response is given. The RMIT representative specifically states that if they are provided with the details of [...] complaints about chiropractic subjects they will respond but they are not provided with these details other than on vaccination. The show covers this omission by discussing that RMIT was provided with details of the vaccination issue which is not a chiropractic issue.

The show does switch between one person and another with the appearance of presenting for and against but on careful and repeated examination it can be seen that these switches are not one person in response to the other but only cuts in interviews that are then interspersed to look like responses. The use of cuts in this way is a tabloid technique and unethical. The chiropractors are not told of the doctors comments and are not given the opportunity to respond. Catalyst has used a deceptive format that


simulates giving both sides of the story and pretends to provide right of reply but [...], such a simulation is tabloid journalism.

3: Comedy skit used to undermine credibility

A Charlie Chaplin style comedy skit in a black and white, silent movie format with added music was part of the show. The style of music and silly moustaches of the men categorise this skit as a comic melodrama. It is accompanied by a serious and derogatory voice-over [...]. This skit is a tabloid segment used to undermine the validity of chiropractic, and is something I would have expected from The Chaser but not from a show that claims to be a science program. The use of this tabloid technique puts Catalyst, a so called science program, in the same category as the Chaser.

4: Referring to a study earlier than the date claimed

The reference to a study in 2007 which showed problems and deaths from chiropractic was misleading. This was a study referring to previous studies. Most people do not realise there can be studies of studies of studies. This 2007 study referred to other studies but this could only be seen if the show was paused to allow the dates on the report to be read. One study that discussed a death was published in 1969 and the date when the problem occurred is likely to have been several years earlier, or more, due to the time lag in writing and publishing.

No one would question that 40-50 years ago there were many untrained, unqualified and unregistered people who called themselves chiropractors and the probability of injury could have been high. A chiropractor who stated that there were no reported injuries caused by chiropractic made it clear he was talking about 20+ years, meaning 20 plus a few years, not 40 or 50 years ago. Presenting information that is not relevant to the present debate under the pretext that it is relevant is a tabloid and unethical technique.

5: Vaccinations

[The program] insisted on discussing the vaccinations issue even though CAA policy clearly states chiropractors should not advise people on vaccinations but that people should discuss it with their doctor. The first chiropractor interviewed restates the CAA’s policy. A second chiropractor says they are “neutral” on vaccinations. A guest then states that “neutral is not good enough. [The program is] trying to have it both ways. They are saying chiropractors should not be involved in areas that they are not trained in but at the same time chiropractors should be involved in recommending a treatment in an area that is nothing to do with chiropractic and they are not trained in.

Chiropractors are trained to recognise potential problems such as lumps that might be cancer, and refer the patient to a doctor for further investigation. However they are not trained in vaccination and CAA policy is to refer patients to doctors on this matter so pursuing this line with chiropractors who support the CAA policy can be interpreted as using a form of entrapment to try to obtain something innocent that can be reframed and used against them, in this case the word ‘neutral’.

The evidence [used attempts] to discredit all CAA chiropractors and the RMIT chiropractic course is: 1) the website of one chiropractor in Sydney, 2) the web site of one casual MIT staff member in Melbourne who had information on their web sites about vaccination, 3) a brochure in an unidentified waiting room, and 4) unknown web sites which could be owned by anyone anywhere. This is a very small amount of evidence given there are thousands of chiropractors in Australia.

The show has created a conflict situation on a topic that the CAA clearly states is not part chiropractic treatment and not condoned by the CA from a small amount of evidence. In addition the show used entrapment to involve the CAA. These are tabloid techniques.

6: Questioning the regulator [the complainant subsequently withdrew her complaint about this matter]


7: Biased [LS] segment

The segment with [LS] who had a vertebrobasilar stroke condition was biased and sensationalist in that this condition is well known and well researched but none of this research was mentioned. Many patients know about this condition because many chiropractors explain it before starting treatment. [LS’s] statement that there was “nothing wrong with my neck” before the event was not correct. The extensive research on this problem shows that people with this condition are walking time bombs and [LS] is probably only alive because her condition became apparent with a chiropractor who is trained to recognise it and get immediate medical attention. Research shows that this problem is more likely to occur at the hairdressers than a chiropractic clinic. The CAA could provide details of this research. The statement that [LS] withdrew the legal case because of the cost is misleading. There is little doubt that [LS] withdrew her case because she would not have succeeded because the treatment by the chiropractor was not the cause of the condition, nor was it more likely than anything else to show the condition existed. This can be checked with the solicitor. The evidence would show that she had the problem beforehand and the chiropractor probably saved her life by recognising the problem and getting immediate medical attention. Had the problem surfaced at the hairdressers or while playing sport [LS] would probably have died.

This segment is anecdotal evidence and anecdotal evidence alone is not considered acceptable in science. An acceptable science reporting approach is to present current research and then use anecdotal evidence to make it more interesting and accessible. Catalyst has done the reverse. It has presented anecdotal evidence with no actual evidence to support it. It is likely this has been done because there is no supporting evidence. This approach is a tabloid technique and unethical.

8: Background music and sound effects accompanying chiropractor

Added music is used extensively in the episode. The music is mainly dissonant, ambient music. Dissonant music has a long history of negative association which dates back at least to the Medieval era when dissonant music was banned by the Catholic Church who believed it to be evil and created by Lucifer (Levitin, 2006:13,7). This negative association of dissonance is not an intellectual decision because it has been created through a long association. For instance, in film, dissonance is used in situations which are dramatic and tense or confused (Nelson, 1946:61). In addition, dissonance is identified by a primitive part of the brain which responds before the intellect becomes involved (Levitin, 2006:72). Today, dissonance is considered to be harsh and unstable and used to express pain, grief and conflict and to create tension; this tension can be resolved by consonance but when the resolution is delayed it creates drama, suspense or surprise (Kamien, 2000:60).

Research confirms that today’s use of dissonant music is an effective means for creating and heightening emotion in thriller movies. Cognitive psychology research states that the emotions created by dissonant music are associated with tension and fear. In experiments, the music that created the fear emotion in subjects had rapid tempos, dissonant harmonies, and large variations of dynamics and pitch (Krumhans, 2002:46-7). All are used in the music accompanying this show. While the interpretation of dissonance varies for different times, places and people, there could be little argument that ambient dissonant music creates a negative emotional response in most Western audiences given the association created by its use in dramas, thriller and horror movies.

The use of dissonant music is incongruent with the positive statements made by the chiropractors. Cognitive psychology experiments show that when incongruent media are used together both are normally judged inaccurately and the result is frequently a compromise (Cohen, 2000: 360-2). At other times, the results can be a surreal or humorous effect. In other words, when there is a mismatch between the meaning of the music and the image, a common result is a compromise. If the meanings match, the meaning is reinforced. In this instance, music that is associated with fear will undermine the


positive statements made by chiropractors making them appear to be less convincing and even deceptive. The same music used with criticisms of chiropractic results in the meaning being substantially more negative than the words alone would have communicated.

Another factor is that the music may not be consciously heard, but the brain uses the meaning created by the music to interpret the meaning of the visuals (Cohen, 1993:173; 2000:363,366-8,373-4; Bolivar, Cohen, & Fentress, 1994:48). The use of dissonant background music is all the more deceptive because it is not obvious. Most people don’t notice music when it accompanies narrative unless it is actually part of the narrative itself, and so film music is not normally heard unless it is part of the plot (Marks, 1996: 112). If the music is not consciously heard then the audience loses the ability to critically analyse the meaning as they would do when listening to language. The same applies in this show where it is unlikely this music was consciously heard and where people are unlikely to realise they are being manipulated by the music. The use of such music is a tabloid technique and unethical.

Conclusion

The tabloid and sensationalist techniques used in this show are well known in the entertainment industry so there can be no doubt they were used with the intent to discredit chiropractic in an underhanded way. [...] The ABC must decide whether this is a science program or not and either remove all references to science or ensure it meets the standards and ethics of a science program.

The ABC must, as a very minimum, respond to this unethical practice by implementing ethics on the manipulation of added music, added audio effects and added visual effects, to at least the standard of the American National Press Photographers Association. [The program has] a history of using inappropriate sensationalist techniques such as in the Catalyst show on HRT presented in 2007. These techniques may have been used many times since but for the most part I stopped watching Catalyst because the information presented is of a dubious nature. If requested, I am happy to provide a copy of the analysis of this HRT show, which I conducted at the time as part of my research into tabloid techniques.

I propose the following code of ethics for science and health programs. It is essential that science and health programs have their own code of ethics because it would not be appropriate to apply the same code of ethics to Catalyst as applied to The Chaser team. At the moment there appears to be the same ethical standard for science and comedy. The following code is based to some extent on the American National Press Photographers Association code of ethics:

1. Be accurate and comprehensive in the representation of people and topics.

2. Be complete and provide context. Avoid stereotyping individuals and groups. Recognize and work to avoid presenting one's own biases in the work.

3. Treat all subjects with respect and dignity.

4. Do not intentionally contribute to, alter, or seek to alter or influence events or statements.

5. Editing should maintain the integrity of the content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.

6. Always provide the subject with the right of reply.

7. Do not simulate both sides of the story through editing and cuts

8. Present research clearly and accurately stating actual dates that events occurred and the independence, associations and funding of the researchers.


9. Provide details of sources when referring to information. Do not quote information from websites without identifying the site.

10. Where anecdotal evidence is used, such as personal stories, it must be backed up by research.

I am ashamed that the ABC produces so called science shows which are unethical and that the information in ABC productions is no more reliable than in a Sunday rag. The producers should look at the BBC series Alternative Therapies (2008) which reviewed a number of alternative therapies and which in a number of instances it found no basis for the claims made. This result was made clear to the audience with an open-minded approach that was respectful of the people and professions involved. The BBC presented factual information and did not try to manipulate the viewer with sensationalist techniques as does Catalyst. The result of the BBC series was to create better understanding of the issues and encourage the viewer to make their own decisions based on facts.

I am ashamed that the ABC does not or cannot produce science programs that are of a similar standard to the BBC where viewers are encouraged to make their own decisions without being manipulated. This is in contrast to the ABC’s use of tabloid techniques such as conflict which creates for-or-against attitudes and manipulative techniques such as special effects which create fear. Such techniques undermine the independence of science journalism.

Extracts from the complainant’s submissions to the ACMA – 3 November 2013Point 1: Special effects

[...]

The flash and shutter sound are the same type of special effects used in thrillers and police dramas when crime scenes are photographed and the use of these special effects can create an unconscious association with crime in the episode.

The first time these special effects are used is during the opening sequence with the images of statues. They are also used during chiropractic treatments. Various forms of these effects occur throughout the episode. Within moments of the start of the program the special effects start. The first special effects used are the shutter sound accompanied by the light flash and this starts at 0‟07” and occurs again at 0‟10”, 0‟12”, 0‟13”, 0‟15” (twice), 0‟17” (twice). At 0‟19” the images of body parts - hands and arms - are also flashed on the screen. This creates the effect of the body parts being broken and being photographed as a crime scene.

These special effects are used approximately 23 times within one minute of the start of the episode and continue to be used throughout the episode.[...]

The use of these special effects is particularly unethical when they are used at the same time as a mother talking positively about the chiropractic treatment of her child. This occurs at 00.37 when an arm and forearm are flashed over the mother accompanied by the light flash and shutter sound. This effect has been carefully manipulated because the woman’s face is in front of the hand but her chest is behind the hand. [...]

The research quoted in the original complaint shows that added media, especially luminal effects, always result in a change of the meaning or emotional level even if the change is not consciously perceived. In addition, research shows that subliminal effects significantly affect audience attitudes


(Stewart & Shubert, 2006). There appears no explanation for the use of the special effects previously described other than to create in the audience a negative reaction to chiropractic treatment.

[...]

[The ABC] claims that the opening statement is appropriate but [the ABC] ignores the complaint about the special effects. [...]

Point 2: Both sides of the story[...]

This complaint involves two issues: The first issue is that the episode used editing cuts to create the impression that a chiropractor and a medical doctor were being given the opportunity to respond to each other. The segment of the episode that uses these cuts is from 05‟09” to 06‟55”. This particular segment switches between Dr [TC] of the CAA and Dr [JC] of FOSIM. This segment is cut to look as if each doctor is being given the opportunity to answer the other’s statements but this is not the case. Dr [TC] has confirmed he was not given the right of reply in this instance and the reply artificially inserted into this segment was from a statement he made about dysafferentation.

The second issue is that RMIT are not given the opportunity to respond to extremely derogatory statements about their course content. This segment is from 22‟52” to 24‟48”. It starts with a statement from Prof [JD] of FOSIM stating universities should not be teaching chiropractic. RMIT provided chiropractic course notes to Catalyst and Catalyst gave them to Dr [MV] of FOSIM to review. Dr [MV’s] description of the material includes it being “inaccurate”, “wrong” and “speculative” (although it is not clear what the difference is between inaccurate and wrong). Professor [PC], the Pro Vice-Chancellor at RMIT, specifically states to Demasi that if RMIT are provided with documented details of the complaints they will review them. However RMIT is not provided with the claims and is not given the opportunity to respond.

[...]

[The ABC] did not address either of the above issues and instead raised a number of issues that were not part of the complaint point 2. The first issue [the ABC] raised was that chiropractic paediatrics is a new area. The second is that the episode “presented a diversity of views”.

[...]

The claim that chiropractic paediatrics is new is wrong because it has long been practiced in the USA, probably for over a hundred years, and the large specialist organisation „The International Chiropractic Pediatric Association‟ (ICPA, Inc) was founded in 1986. [the ABC’s] statement, that chiropractic paediatrics is new, further adds to the claim that misleading information has been presented both in the Catalyst episode and in [the ABC’s] response.

The claim that the episode presents a diversity of views is also incorrect. [The program] states that the Medicare rebate cost of chiropractic visits was over ten million dollars. The only way a rebate can be obtained is by a referral from a medical doctor. Therefore there are a very large number of medical practitioners who support chiropractic. Not one of these doctors, who refer patients to chiropractors and represent a very different view to that of the FOSIM doctors, were interviewed. In addition, there is evidence that treatment by a chiropractor is economical when compared to other forms of treatment (Stano, 1993). However no right of response was given to the CAA on this and many other issues.

In addition, the claim that the episode presents a diversity of views is also incorrect given that [Dr TC] is not provided with the right of reply to Dr [MV] (FOSIM) or Dr [MF] who both state that statement by Dr [TC] (CAA) are wrong. [...]


One of the two sides of the story that Catalyst presents is predominately the side of FOSIM. FOSIM does not represent the medical profession given it has been accused of running a witch-hunt against alternative practices including chiropractic, and in addition, current and past presidents of the AMA have distanced themselves from this group (Australian Doctor, 2012). Note that the statement by Dr [SH] was about vaccination and not about chiropractic treatment. Audience perception and acceptance of the information presented is influenced by the credibility of the source of the information with the perceived source being an important influence on the impact of the message (McCombs et al., 2011: 41). By not stating that several of the doctors interviewed were FOSIM members and by not providing the background of FOSIM, Catalyst created a false and misleading influence that these doctors represented the medical profession generally.

The other side of the story (the chiropractic side), is literally a cut down side in that chiropractors’statements have been edited to remove vital information, for example ‘1992’ as explained in point 4 (c), and in addition, that vital information has been limited by not providing a right of reply, and often using cuts to suggest a right of reply was provided when it was not, as stated in 2(a) above.

[...]

Point 3: Comedy skit

[...]

Catalyst included a Charlie Chaplin style skit in the episode (4‟00”- 4‟54”). The meaning of including a comedy skit in this serious evaluation of a health treatment is that chiropractic cannot be taken seriously. This skit mocks both sides of this serious debate. If it was true that a chiropractic treatment had broken a baby’s neck as this is episode suggests, then it is a very cruel skit that makes fun of a treatment that can create such dire results. The Chaser team were stopped from airing humour when severe health problems are involved. On the other hand, if the CAA claim is correct, that there has been no serious adverse affects after 1992, this skit undermines confidence in chiropractors. Given that chiropractors, as do all practitioners, depend on trust from their patients to practice their profession, and Catalyst claims to be a science report and not a comedy show, this skit with its meaning that chiropractic cannot be taken seriously, is defamatory.

[...]

A comedy skit might be appropriate for a light-hearted matter or a comedy show but this topic is not light-hearted and Catalyst is not a comedy. This skit is inappropriate given the context, which is that this is a serious matter whether it is from the side of a person who believes they have had inappropriate treatment or from the side of a chiropractor whose reputation and livelihood is at stake. In a health and science report, turning the history of chiropractic into a Charlie Chaplin style comedy, when the episode is an investigation of the serious health issues, is an editorial comment by the ABC that chiropractic treatment cannot be taken seriously.

Point 4: Study

[...]

The statement by Dr [MV] of FOSIM, that a 2007 study “documented some very serious adverse events, including two fatalities and including 20 delayed diagnoses of serious conditions like cancer and scoliosis”, is misleading. This 2007 study references earlier studies including a study in 1969 and it was the 1969 study and other earlier studies where these problems occurred. This deception also supports the falsification of the statement made by Dr [TC] when the words ‘since 1992’ were removed from his statement as described in point 4 (c). It appears these two issues have been carefully manipulated to create the impression that there have been serious events from chiropractic treatment since 1992.


My understanding is that the only fatality involving a neck adjustment by a doctor in Australia was performed by a medical doctor. Information about this medical fatality would have provided balance to the issue but it was not mentioned. Details of the stroke caused by a neck manipulation by a medical practitioner are:

This iatrogenic consequence of manipulation therapy is ascribed to a chiropractor, despite the article's clear description of the practitioner as a naturopath [...] at the Coroner's Inquest [25] reveals that the naturopath, the deceased's wife, a work colleague, and his boss all declared that the deceased had told them that the medical practitioner had manipulated his neck and aggravated his pain two days before the onset of the stroke. (Terrett, 1995)

According to the 2007 study (the same study quoted by Dr [MV], no serious events occurred after 1992 by trained chiropractors but Dr [MV] gave a very different impression. Most people do not know that many studies refer to previous studies which can be many years earlier so this is a blatant attempt to mislead the public especially as none of the earlier dates were mentioned.

[...]

There is another issue in this claim that [the ABC] introduced by [its] statement that the 2007 paper had adequate context. This is that the standard states that “a balance that follows the weight of evidence” (COP p.5). The weight of evidence, that current chiropractic treatment is dangerous (meaning it can cause a severe adverse affect) to patients including children, is extremely small and possibly nonexistent in Australia. When this is balanced against the evidence that medical treatment is dangerous it pales into insignificance because the weight of evidence that medical treatment is dangerous is significant. For instance, recently the HQCC reported that “more than 200 people died as a result of human error or systemic failings in Queensland hospitals last financial year” (Brisbane Times, 2013). In comparison, in the whole of Australia, not a single person died of care by a trained, registered chiropractor in the last 20 years and probably not at all.

[...]

Point 5: Vaccination

The original complaint was not about the criticism of chiropractors who spoke out against vaccination. It is about the fact that the CAA clearly states to its members that its policy is that chiropractors do not give advice on vaccination. The original complaint claimed this segment was set up as a form of entrapment for sensationalist purposes. This was claimed on the basis that both chiropractors questioned supported the CAA policy which is that chiropractors do not advise on vaccination.

I claim that, regardless of what any chiropractor answered, that answer would have been manipulated to appear to support the anti-vaccination lobby. This can be seen by the twisting of the meaning of the statement by Dr [AM], CAA, that “The Chiropractic Association does not deal with vaccinations. We're neutral”. The way this comment is responded to is as if it supports the anti-vaccination lobby which it does not. Chiropractors are not trained in vaccination and are not qualified to give advice on it and the CAA position is ethical, logical, reasonable and responsible.

[...]

Point 6: Regulator

[not pursued]

Point 7: [LS] case


[LS’s] condition was not caused by a chiropractic treatment and [LS’s] claim that there was “nothing wrong with my neck” is not correct. She had an underlying condition. This condition is well researched but none of this research was discussed nor were the experts or the CAA chiropractors who understand the condition given the opportunity to explain it. The manifestation of this pre-existing condition is more likely to occur at the hairdressers than at the chiropractors.

[...]

[LS’s] condition is often referred to as a slow stroke. It is a vertebral artery dissection and it occurs where an underlying condition exists. The Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania, state it can even be a complication of conducting an orchestra (Rose & Husain, 2012) [...]. It is likely that the reason [LS] survived is that the chiropractor was trained to recognise this condition and took appropriate action.

[The ABC’s] claims that the chiropractor admitted fault (documented in the last paragraph of page 2 of her response letter) and yet [LS] withdrew the action. This is not believable based on the information presented. If a person admitted fault to the claims made in a legal case there would be minimal time, money and stress involved in the case. I suggest that this information, like so much from the ABC in this episode, is either false or stated in a way that is designed to be misleading.

It is very strange that the chiropractor admitted fault but [LS] withdrew the case and this needs to be investigated. I am not in a position to do this because [the ABC] has refused to supply me with more information. In addition, as previously stated, the first email from the Chiropractic Council [...] stated there was “no record of any letter issued by the Council whereby the practitioner admits fault in this matter” and the further statement that they could not verify or confirm my claim. Therefore, I claim that Catalyst and the A&CA are intentionally concealing or constructing information. I request that the AACA find out the truth because to evaluate this complaint and whether or not Catalyst and the A&CA are willing to lie to protect their bias, cannot be known until the facts about the admission of fault are known.

[...]

Point 8: Music

[...]

There is cognitive psychology research dating from at least the mid 1970s that sound changes the meaning of visuals and this is supported by research, theories and experiences from a number of disciplines including education, musicology, film studies as well as cognitive psychology research (McGurk, 1976; Chion, 1994; Bordwell & Thompson, 2003; Marshall & Cohen, 1988; Cohen, 1993; Marks, 1978; Cohen, 1993; Cook, 1998; Penn, 2000) and is also well recognised by overseas broadcasters and media organisations including The New York Times, American Press Institute, CBC and the USA National Press Photographers Association. In addition, it is well accepted that ambient dissonant music as used in the Chiropractors episode has a negative influence creating emotions such as fear and unease. This is described in detail in the original complaint. There is a large amount of information and discussion both within and outside of the news industry on this which I would be pleased to provide if the ACMA require it to make an informed decision.


Attachment C

ABC’s submissionsExtracts from the ABC’s response to the complainant – 27 September 2013

[...]

In the interests of fairness, we have also sought comments from the Catalyst program team. We have considered each of the eight specific points you have raised; however, please note that as indicated below, some of the issues you raise fall outside the requirements of the ABC's editorial standards.

1. The very brief opening sequence of the program used classical statues to illustrate the voice over that stated in part "Chiropractic therapy is a modern reinvention of the ancient art of spinal manipulation. In recent times, this practice has become steeped in controversy." The statues were primarily used to illustrate the fact that the basis to chiropractic therapy is an "ancient art"; hence the use of ancient, classical statues.

While your interpretation of this opening sequence is noted, it is not clear from your letter how you believe this was not in keeping with the ABC's editorial standards. The introduction made the accurate point that some modern chiropractic therapy is highly controversial. Audience and Consumer Affairs are satisfied the introduction was in keeping with ABC editorial standards.

2. This edition of Catalyst examined the increasing popularity of the chiropractic industry and concerns raised within the medical fraternity of the efficacy of some treatments, and in particular that some chiropractors were expanding into new areas, including paediatrics. That the parents of newborns and toddlers are seeking treatment for their children from chiropractors for complaints such as asthma and colic is a legitimate area of investigation for Catalyst.

The program demonstrably presented a diversity of views on the chiropractic industry generally and on some specific treatments some chiropractors offer. As you would be aware, the views of Dr [TC] from the Chiropractor's Association were featured, together with comments from Dr [PD] of the Chiropractic Board of Australia, chiropractors Dr [JR] and Dr [AM], as well as parents who support chiropractic treatment for their children. There were strong criticisms and concerns raised of some aspects of the chiropractic industry from highly qualified medical practitioners; many of these criticisms were put to representatives of the chiropractic industry for response.

It is important to understand that the ABC's standards for impartiality do not require that each party is provided with equal time, or that every facet of every argument is covered. Rather, the ABC endeavours to present a diversity of perspectives and not unduly favour one perspective over another. With regard to vaccinations, the program duly favoured the views of highly qualified medical practitioners and peer reviewed science.

The program was in keeping with the ABC's standards for impartiality.

3. Your views on the presentation style of Catalyst are noted. The program aims to provide a lay audience with an entertaining and informative approach to science.

4. The 2007 paper referred to by Dr [MV] was presented with sufficient context. Audience and

Consumer Affairs note that Dr [TC] was also quoted regarding research into adverse events due to chiropractic care, he stated:


There was a study published in 2011 which couldn't find a single significant adverse event in the care of children by chiropractors. Somewhere in the world, in the last 20-p/us years, someone would've said something that would've ended up in the medical literature. At least somebody somewhere. But to have a zero result, that's pretty decent.

5. The fact that a Board member of the Chiropractor's Association was a member of a highly controversial anti-vaccination lobby group, and that a number of practising chiropractors do not support vaccination was an entirely legitimate area of investigation for Catalyst. The segment was presented in context and in keeping with ABC editorial standards.

6. [...]

7. The reporter went to significant lengths to corroborate the case study about [LS] and ascertained the facts which are that; after the chiropractic treatment [LS] made a formal complaint about the chiropractor and soon after the treatment the chiropractor acknowledged fault and offered a settlement [...]. Audience and Consumer Affairs. have been provided with documents to support these facts, including a letter from the Chiropractic Council of New South Wales. The reporter also spoke to [LS’s] treating physiotherapist. We are further advised that [LS] rejected the amount after her lawyer advised her that the cost of her injuries would far exceed the lump sum the chiropractor was offering. Eventually, [LS] decided to withdraw the case because it was emotionally and financially stressful. Audience and Consumer Affairs are satisfied that the presentation of this segment was relevant and in keeping with ABC editorial standards.

8. Your comments regarding the background music on this edition of Catalyst are noted; Audience and Consumer Affairs disagree that the music in some way undermined the comments from chiropractors featured in the report as you seem to suggest.

In conclusion, Audience and Consumer Affairs are satisfied that this edition of Catalyst was in keeping with the ABC's editorial standards for accuracy and impartiality. Your comments regarding the American National Press Photographer's Association code of ethics are duly noted and have been conveyed to the Catalyst team. However, I can advise that the ABC has comprehensive editorial policies which are distilled in the enclosed Code of Practice.

Extracts from the ABC’s submission to the ACMA – 10 February 2014

[...]

Regarding the [LS] issue, we can advise that the reporter interviewed [LS] at some length and concluded that she was a credible source. The reporter viewed [LS’s] MRI scan showing her vertebral artery dissection and spoke to [LS’s] treating physiotherapist, who corroborated the injury. The reporter was also given a copy of correspondence to [LS] from the NSW Chiropractic Council which offered [LS] a payment [...] to cover the costs of the additional treatment she required following her chiropractic treatment. A cheque for that amount was enclosed.

You have advised that the complaint relates to the following statement in the program: ‘[LS] did sue for damages, but the legal bills became insurmountable, so she withdrew her case.’

[LS] told the reporter that she had consulted a lawyer and had commenced legal action for damages. We doubt that the statement ‘[LS] did sue for damages’ constitutes a material fact for the purposes of the program but should ACMA take a different view, we are satisfied that the reporter’s reliance on [LS] was reasonable in the circumstances. This factual content was not presented in a misleading way.


[LS] told the reporter that she decided to withdraw her case because it was emotionally and financially stressful. [LS’s] view that her legal bills had become insurmountable is a matter of opinion, is inherently subjective and contestable, and is not subject to the requirement for accuracy. The complainant’s view that ‘there is little doubt that [LS] withdrew her case because she would not have succeeded because the treatment by the chiropractor was not the cause of the condition...’ seems to be based on nothing but conjecture.

[...]


Attachment DConsiderations to which the ACMA has regard in assessing whether or not broadcast material is factual in character

The primary consideration is whether, according to the natural and ordinary meaning of the language used and the substantive nature of the message conveyed, the relevant material is presented as a statement of fact or as an expression of opinion.

o In that regard, the relevant statement must be evaluated in its context, i.e. contextual indications from the rest of the broadcast (including tenor and tone) are relevant in assessing the meaning conveyed to the ordinary reasonable listener/viewer

o The use of language such as ‘it seems to me’, ‘we consider/think/believe’ tends to indicate that a statement is presented as an opinion. However, a common sense judgment is required as to how the substantive nature of the statement would be understood by the ordinary reasonable listener/viewer, and the form of words introducing the relevant statement is not conclusive

Factual material will usually be specific, unequivocal and capable of independent verification.

Inferences of a factual nature made from observed facts are usually still characterised as factual material (subject to context); to qualify as an opinion/viewpoint, an inference reasoned from observed facts would usually have to be presented as an inference of a judgmental or contestable kind.

The identity of the person making the statement would not in and of itself determine whether the statement is factual material or opinion, i.e. it is not possible to conclude that because a statement was made by an interviewee, it was necessarily a statement of opinion rather than factual material.

Statements in the nature of prediction as to future events would nearly always be characterised as statements of opinion.


Attachment EConsiderations to which the ACMA has regard in assessing whether or not broadcast material is impartial

In determining whether or not material complained of is compliant with the ABC’s obligations under standard 4 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 listener would have understood the program concerned to have conveyed. The Court’s interpretation of the ordinary reasonable listener has been detailed above in the considerations under ‘Assessment’.

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)4 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 Legeng5 as follows:

‘Bias’ is used to indicate some preponderating disposition or tendency, a ‘propensity; predisposition towards; predilection; prejudice’.6 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 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.

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

4 Online edition at http://www.macquariedictionary.com.au5 (2001) 205 CLR 507 at 563 [183] Gleeson CJ and Gummow J at 538 [100] agreeing.6 Oxford English Dictionary (Second Edition), meaning 3(a).


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.


abn sydney - acma investigation report 3138/media/broadcasting... · web viewthe reporter also...

Documents