Investigation Report No. 3032

File No. ACMA 2013/737

Broadcaster Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Station 2RN Australia-wide

Type of service National broadcaster

Name of program AM

Dates of broadcast 10 December 2012

Relevant code provisions

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

Date finalised 1 August 2013

Decision No breach of standard 2.1 [accuracy]No breach of standard 2.2 [not materially mislead]No breach of standard 4.1 [impartiality]

ACMA Investigation Report 3032 – AM broadcast by 2RN on 10 December 2012 1

Background On 22 March 2013, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) received

a complaint regarding an interview broadcast during AM on 10 December 2012 by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). 1

AM is a current affairs program broadcast on various ABC radio stations from 8am Monday to Saturday. The website describes the program as:

AM is Australia’s most informative morning current affairs program. AM sets the agenda for the nation’s daily news and current affairs coverage. 2

The relevant broadcast was a three and a half minute segment of a reporter interviewing a professor in climate science from the University of New South Wales (the Professor). They discussed a recent article3 published in science journal Nature Climate Change (the article) analysing the IPCC’s4 climate projections 20 years after they were initially made, and the outcome of the United Nations Climate Change Conference held in Doha, Qatar (the Doha meeting).

A transcript of the segment is included at Attachment A.

The complainant submitted in his complaint to the ABC that the broadcast contained ‘errors and omissions’ and misleading content:

[the Professor] spun [the figures in the article] into an implication that global warming was increasing (when the IPPC and the article clearly do not demonstrate).

The complainant also submitted that the reporter was biased in the way she conducted the interview (‘she did not pursue appropriate questioning of [the Professor]’) and:

The ABC has shown itself to be a biased and unprofessional news organisation on the issue of global warming and the science behind it ...

In its response to the complainant, the ABC provided extracts from the article that it submits show that the Professor’s statements were ‘reasonable and did not require qualification or challenge by the reporter’. The ABC also asserted that:

Given that the report was published in a highly respected journal, was peer reviewed and was written by eminent scientists, it was reasonable for the reporter to rely on the factual statements included in that report in framing her questions.

Relevant extracts from the submissions of the complainant and the ABC are found at Attachment B.

The ACMA has investigated the ABC’s compliance with standards 2.1, 2.2 and 4.1 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (the Code):

1 Under s 150 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth).2 http://www.abc.net.au/am/about.html accessed 24 July 2013.3 ‘The Challenge to keep global warming below 2° C’, by G Peters, R Andrew, T Boden and others. Nature

Climate Change, published online at http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n1/full/nclimate1783.html. Accessed 24 July 2013.

4 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – described on its website as ‘the leading international body for the assessment of climate change’ (http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml).

ACMA Investigation Report 3032 – AM broadcast by 2RN on 10 December 2012 2

Accuracy

2.1 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.

Impartiality and diversity of perspectives

4.1 Gather and present news and information with due impartiality

Assessment This investigation is based on submissions from the complainant and the ABC,

correspondence between the complainant and the ABC, and a copy of the broadcast provided to the ACMA by the ABC. Other sources used have been identified where relevant.

In assessing content against the Code, the ACMA considers the meaning conveyed by the relevant material. This is assessed according to the understanding of an ‘ordinary reasonable listener’. Australian courts have considered an ‘ordinary, reasonable listener’ to be:

A person of fair average intelligence, who is neither perverse, nor morbid or suspicious of mind, nor avid for scandal. That person does not live in an ivory tower, but can and does read between the lines in the light of that person’s general knowledge and experience of worldly affairs. 5

The ACMA asks what the ‘ordinary reasonable listener’ would have understood the program to have conveyed. It considers the natural, ordinary meaning of the language used, context, tenor, tone, inferences that may be drawn, and in the case of the presentation of factual material, any relevant omissions.

Once this test has been applied to ascertain the meaning of the broadcast material, it is for the ACMA to determine whether the material has breached the Code.

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

ACMA Investigation Report 3032 – AM broadcast by 2RN on 10 December 2012 3

Issue 1: Accuracy

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

Reasons

Standard 2.1

The relevant Principles in the Code include:

The ABC requires that reasonable efforts must be made to ensure accuracy in all 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.

...

Sources with relevant expertise may be relied on more heavily than those without.

The Code stipulates that the factual accuracy requirement in standard 2.1 only applies to assertions of fact. So, the ACMA must first assess whether the relevant content is fact or opinion.

The considerations the ACMA uses for making this determination are set out at Attachment C.

The complainant asked the ABC to ‘respond to the errors and omissions’ regarding the reporting of the IPCC 1990 predictions in the broadcast. 6

The broadcast under consideration was an interview with a climate change scientist who provided an explanation of the Nature Climate Change article, anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change (ACC) and the Doha meeting.

The ACMA considers that the Professor’s statements summarising the article, which included the references to the IPCC’s 1990 predictions, were factual content. The statements were unequivocal and not qualified, referred to specific figures and time periods, and are capable of independent verification.

The ACMA considers that the article was a central focus of the broadcast and the summary of the article provided by the Professor were material facts.

6 The complaint referred to a third party blog entry about the way the IPCC’s 1990 predictions had been presented in the broadcast.

ACMA Investigation Report 3032 – AM broadcast by 2RN on 10 December 2012 4

In its response to the complainant, the ABC explained that:

The interview with [the Professor] was in response to an article published in the journal Nature Climate Change. The journal article assessed the first consensus predictions on global temperatures published by the IPCC in 1990, comparing them with actual data up to 2010. [The reporter] interviewed [the Professor] to provide a summary of what is a complex paper for a non-expert audience.

The ACMA considers that the ABC made reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts were accurate and presented in context:

o the context of the statements was a segment on the article and the DOHA meeting

o a climate change scientist explained the article’s findings in terms which a non-expert audience could understand

o as explained by the ABC, the article and the IPCC’s 1990 predictions referred to in the article were accurately summarised by the Professor in the broadcast

o it was reasonable for the ABC to rely on the Professor’s statements given his expertise in the field of climate science.

As a result, the ACMA finds that the ABC complied with standard 2.1.

Standard 2.2

In his complaint to the ABC, the complainant submitted that the broadcast promoted ‘a falsehood’. He referred to a third party blog that contained references to alternative peer reviewed science (that reaches different conclusions about the IPCC predictions and ACC7) and wrote that the Professor:

…spun [the figures in the Report] into an implication that global warming was increasing (when the IPPC and the Report clearly do not demonstrate).

The real story here is the fact that CO2 emissions are up over 58% over 1990 but no increase in the rate of warming can be found nor is the rate of 0.17C outside what the IPCC itself stated could be due to natural variation. This is not spin or some alternative interpretation of the report, it is the only conclusion one could reach based on the IPCC and HadCrut/GISTEMP temperatures.

The Code stipulates that the factual accuracy requirement in standard 2.2 only applies to content that is fact. So the ACMA must first assess whether the relevant content is fact or opinion.

The Professor made the following statements about ‘greenhouse gas’ emissions causing a rise in global temperatures:

Reporter: And given the recent papers that have suggested that we're on average increasing our global emissions by 3 per cent and we're 58 per cent above the 1990 levels, can you see these IPCC figures and forecasts tracking on the right direction by 2030 or do you think they'll increase?

7 Anthropogenic climate change.

ACMA Investigation Report 3032 – AM broadcast by 2RN on 10 December 2012 5

Professor: Oh absolutely, if anything they will increase. I mean we do run a whole range of scenarios for future projections. We have to take account of the possibility of big action on climate change and that's what we call a low end scenario of emissions, right through high end scenarios. And at the moment we are tracking at the high end in terms of our emissions and so all of the projections that we look to at the moment are those high end forecasts ... And so yes, without any action on greenhouse gas emissions, it will be those high end IPCC scenarios that are extremely costly to society in terms of extreme events bearing out in time.

The ACMA considers that the Professor’s statements about the effects of greenhouse gas emissions were expressions of opinion, rather than fact, for the following reasons:

o the Professor was being interviewed to offer his expert opinion about the article, the Doha meeting and ACC as can be seen from the question posed by the reporter: ‘can you see…do you think?’;

o the Professor referred to forecasting global emissions, thus indicating a level of supposition;

o the reporter and the Professor acknowledged that there is a diversity of opinion on ACC:

Reporter And there's been criticism in the past of whether or not the IPCC is on track. Is that quashing that criticism?

Professor: Oh absolutely. There are people actually out there trying to say that the IPCC has overstated or overestimated climate change. This report shows very clearly that the projections have occurred.

Given that the ACMA considers that the relevant statements amount to opinion, the ABC did not breach standard 2.2.

Issue 2 – Impartiality and diversity of perspectivesFindingThe ABC did not breach standard 4.1 of the Code.

Reasons The complainant submitted that the broadcast was ‘biased and unprofessional’ and that

‘there is no rigorous questioning of those who claim AGW8 [ACC] is real’. The complainant also referred to a third party’s blog, and included a list of questions (copied from the blog) that the reporter ‘would have asked if she was doing her job’.

The considerations the ACMA uses for assessing material in terms of standard 4.1 are set out at Attachment D.

The ACMA considers that 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 of the program, any editorial comment, the overall presentation of the story and the circumstances in which the program was prepared and broadcast.

8 Anthropogenic global warming.

ACMA Investigation Report 3032 – AM broadcast by 2RN on 10 December 2012 6

In applying standard 4.1, the ACMA acknowledges that presenters and reporters can play a key role in setting the tone of a program through their style and choice of language. The manner in which a report is presented or reported can influence the conclusions that an ordinary reasonable listener would draw from a broadcast.

The ABC submitted to the ACMA that:

The reporter’s approach was neutral and questioning throughout as she sought the Professor’s view on whether the latest research had matched the IPCC predictions, whether this addressed previous criticism of those predictions, and his reaction to the Doha decision.

The ACMA is satisfied that the reporter conducted the interview with due impartiality, having regard to the type, subject and nature of the content, for the following reasons:

o the purpose of the interview was to seek the Professor’s expert opinion on the article and the Doha meeting. In this regard, the reporter asked relevant questions:

And there's been criticism in the past of whether or not the IPCC is on track. Is [the Report] quashing that criticism?

As a climate scientist, are you disappointed with what's come out of Doha given some of the forecasts and predictions that climate science has been delivering?

o the reporter’s manner and tone was neutral, and the questions asked did not indicate that she had prejudged the subject matter or was offering her own views;

o the purpose of the interview was not to canvas a range of views on climate change, but rather to seek the perspective of a climate scientist regarding a recently released climate change article and the outcome of the Doha meeting on climate change.

For these reasons, the ACMA finds that the broadcast did not breach standard 4.1 of the Code.

ACMA Investigation Report 3032 – AM broadcast by 2RN on 10 December 2012 7

Attachment A

Transcript of AM broadcast on 10 December 2013

Presenter: A deal was finally clinched in the dying hours of the United Nations climate talks but few people, especially climate scientists, appear to be celebrating the outcome.

The Doha meeting delivered a weakened Kyoto protocol and agreed to continue tracking towards a new agreement by 2015. There were however no commitments for genuine cuts in greenhouse gases.

It comes as a new report published in Nature confirms that the UN's chief science body is spot on with its climate projections and 20 years after its initial forecast the rate of warming is consistent with its original predictions.

Environment reporter [Reporter] is talking here to [Professor] from the University of New South Wales.

Professor: Well what it's done is it's analysed the very first consensus projections of climate change that were made in the 1990 IPCC report, for the first report of the IPCC. And there's been 22, 23 years since that report was compiled and it shows that the projections of that report have actually come true.

We've sat back and watched the two decades unfold and warming has progressed at a rate consistent with those projections.

Reporter: And there's been criticism in the past of whether or not the IPCC is on track. Is that quashing that criticism?

Professor: Oh absolutely. There are people actually out there trying to say that the IPCC has overstated or overestimated climate change. This report shows very clearly that the projections have occurred.

Reporter: So the forecast was of a predicted rise of 0.7 to 1.5 degrees, is that right?

Professor: That's right, and it's by 2030, so we're halfway through this projected period. And the warming to date is consistent with that projection.

And so anybody out there lying that the IPCC projections are overstatements or that the observations haven't kept pace with the projections is completely offline with this. The analysis is very clear that the IPCC projections are coming true.

Reporter: And given the recent papers that have suggested that we're on average increasing our global emissions by 3 per cent and we're 58 per cent above the 1990 levels, can you see these IPCC figures and forecasts tracking on the right direction by 2030 or do you think they'll increase?

Professor: Oh absolutely, if anything they will increase. I mean we do run a whole range of scenarios for future projections. We have to take account of the possibility of big action on climate change and that's what we call a low end scenario of emissions, right through high end scenarios.

And at the moment we are tracking at the high end in terms of our emissions and so all of the projections that we look to at the moment are those high end forecasts.

ACMA Investigation Report 3032 – AM broadcast by 2RN on 10 December 2012 8

And so yes, without any action on greenhouse gas emissions, it will be those high end IPCC scenarios that are extremely costly to society in terms of extreme events bearing out in time.

Reporter: As a climate scientist, are you disappointed with what's come out of Doha given some of the forecasts and predictions that climate science has been delivering?

Professor: Well it's been consistent over the past decade, so in some sense the disappointment already occurred a decade ago. I mean the warnings about ongoing greenhouse gas emissions have been in place for three or four decades now so it's hard to sort of get disappointed each time there is a lack of action.

Certainly things are on track for high end climate change and that's going to cost humanity deeply in time. And it's just a matter of we keep telling this message that the projections are coming true and unfortunately too many people are out there trying to derail the science and pretend or lie that it's not bearing true in time. And policymakers are either listening to that too much or just ignoring this is as too big a problem to solve.

Presenter: [Professor] from the University of New South Wales talking to environment reporter [Reporter].

ACMA Investigation Report 3032 – AM broadcast by 2RN on 10 December 2012 9

Attachment BComplainant’s submissionsThe complainant submitted to the ABC that:

Once again the ABC has shown itself to be a biased and unprofessional news organization on the issue of global warming and the science behind it. There is no rigorous questioning of those who claim AGW9 is real and a serious threat while at the same time anyone who disagrees is marginalised rather than given an opportunity to argue alternative peer reviewed science.

I listened to the ABC AM program report referenced in the subject line and subsequently read [third party’s] blog about it on Wed. I checked her IPCC references myself as well as [reporter’s] statement that world CO2 emissions have increased by 58% since 1990. I would note the information identified by [third party] is not opinion but come directly from IPCC reports and [the reporter].

I am writing to ask the ABC Board to respond to the errors and omissions in the ABC broadcast that [third party] identified and to consider asking [reporter] why she did not pursue appropriate questioning of [the Professor].

The complainant’s further correspondence to the ABC, forwarded as a complaint to the ACMA, stated that:

ABC allowed a program to promote a falsehood that CO2 emissions since 1990 are increasing the rate of global warming when in fact the 58% increase in emissions has had no impact on temperatures. Temperatures that continue to remain within the IPCC range of "natural variation".

Your response to my email states the following two points:

1. The report concludes:

“... this evaluation strongly supports the contention that the climate is responding to enhanced levels of GHGs10 in accordance with historical expectations.”

This is patently misleading. The climate is not responding to the 58% increase in CO2 emissions since 1990 since the actual increase of 0.17C - 0.2C per decade is within the 0.17C per decade rise experienced over the previous 100 years and within the IPCC's range of "natural variation". In addition the increase is at the very bottom of the wide range predicted by the IPCC. The 58% increase in the rate of CO2 emissions since 1990 are by the reports own numbers not having an effect on warming.

9 Anthropogenic global warming10 Green-house gases

ACMA Investigation Report 3032 – AM broadcast by 2RN on 10 December 2012 10

2. Furthermore, [the Professor’s] assessment that “the IPCC projections are coming true," and that observed temperatures are consistent with “high-end forecasts” was reasonable and did not require qualification or challenge by the reporter.

Again false, the observed temperature rise is consistent with the "high-end forecasts" only in meeting the low end 0.17C to 0.175C of the forecast, but a 0.17C increase as admitted by the IPCC, " could be largely due to natural variation". [The Professor] "spun" this into an implication that global warming was increasing (when the IPCC and the report clearly do not demonstrate).

The real story here was the fact that global CO2 emissions are up 58% over 1990 but no increase in the rate of warming can be found nor is the rate of 0.17C outside what the IPCC itself stated could be due to natural variation. This is not spin or some alternative interpretation of the report, it is the only conclusion one could reach based on IPCC and HadCrut/GISTEMP temperatures.

Your continued "promotion" of the AGW view on the basis of "consensus" and "peer review" is at odds with what the role of the Press should be; skeptical, investigative and challenging of "consensus". You remain biased, uncritical and tending to "wowser" reporting on climate. Billions of tax dollars, laws, regulations and forced economic changes have been uncritically accepted based on what "could", "may" happen based on computer models. ABC go against the "consensus" on issues with a lot more evidence than AGW.

ABC’s submissionsThe ABC stated in its response to the complainant that:

The interview with [the Professor] was in response to an article published in the journal Nature Climate Change. The journal article assessed the first consensus predictions on global temperatures published by the IPCC in 1990, comparing them with actual data up to 2010. [Reporter] interviewed [the Professor] to provide a summary of what is a complex paper for a non-expert audience. Given that the report was published in a highly respected journal, was peer-reviewed and was written by eminent scientists, it was reasonable for the reporter to rely on the factual statements included in that report in framing her questions.

The paper looked at both Scenario ‘A’ and Scenario ‘B’, which forecast annual rises in the range of 0.2°C – 0.5°C per decade and 0.16°C – 0.63°C per decade respectively. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_spm.pdf. Scenarios ‘A’ & ‘B’ were the higher of the four scenarios in the report in terms of both predicted GHG levels and temperatures.

ACMA Investigation Report 3032 – AM broadcast by 2RN on 10 December 2012 11

According to the paper, between 1990 and 2010 global mean temperature has risen by 0.35°C (HadCRUT3) or 0.39°C (GISTEMP). The paper comments in relation to Scenario ‘A’:

“The observed trend lies just on the borderline outside the range stated by the 1990 scientists. However, adding noise from natural year-to-year variability through any method widens that prediction enough to comfortably include the observed trend. The degree of consistency between the prediction and observations thus depends strongly on whether or how one incorporates natural variability into the prediction.”

Scenario ‘A’ assumed business-as-usual and did not take other non GHG factors into account, such as occurred with the eruption of Mt Pinatubo. The report noted that actual GHG levels were better predicted by Scenario ‘B’ and:

Scenario B... was closer to the mark as of 2010, especially with respect to methane emissions. Scenario B gives ... a range of about 0.16°-0.63°C accounting for climate sensitivity uncertainty

and interval variability using the most restrictive interpretation discussed above, which very closely matches the observed trend.”

 The report concludes:

“... this evaluation strongly supports the contention that the climate is responding to enhanced levels of GHGs in accordance with historical expectations.”

The summary of the report in the introduction that stated that it found warming was consistent with 1990 forecasts was, therefore, an accurate account of the report.

Furthermore, [the Professor ’s] assessment that “the IPCC projections are coming true," and that observed temperatures are consistent with “high-end forecasts” was reasonable and did not require qualification or challenge by the reporter.

We understand that the journal article and its conclusions are open to challenge. The degree to which scientists incorporate natural variability into such analyses is bound to be contentious. However, that is not a debate that the ABC could have been expected to enter into. The Nature report was newsworthy, but it was also complex and embargoed. It was appropriate and sufficient that the reporter accurately report its key conclusions and seek a qualified person familiar with the report to help explain its significance for the audience.

Accordingly, while noting your concerns, Audience and Consumer Affairs are satisfied the story was in keeping with the ABC’s editorial standards for accuracy.

ACMA Investigation Report 3032 – AM broadcast by 2RN on 10 December 2012 12

Nonetheless, please be assured that your comments have been noted and conveyed to ABC News management.

ACMA Investigation Report 3032 – AM broadcast by 2RN on 10 December 2012 13

Attachment C

Considerations which the ACMA has regard to 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.

ACMA Investigation Report 3032 – AM broadcast by 2RN on 10 December 2012 14

Attachment DConsiderations which the ACMA has regard to 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 4.1 of the Code, the ACMA generally has regard to the following considerations:

The meaning conveyed by the relevant material is assessed according to what an ordinary reasonable viewer would have understood the program concerned to have conveyed.

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)11 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 Legeng12 as follows:

‘Bias’ is used to indicate some preponderating disposition or tendency, a ‘propensity; predisposition towards; predilection; prejudice’.13 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 ‘anything 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 the Code 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.

11 Online edition at http://www.macquariedictionary.com.au12 (2001) 205 CLR 507 at 563 [183] Gleeson CJ and Gummow J at 538 [100] agreeing.13 Oxford English Dictionary (Second Edition), meaning 3(a).

ACMA Investigation Report 3032 – AM broadcast by 2RN on 10 December 2012 15

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

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

ACMA Investigation Report 3032 – AM broadcast by 2RN on 10 December 2012 16