Investig… · Web viewOn 19 September 2013, the program featured a segment ‘Queensland battles...

Investigation Report No. 3123

File No. 2013/1488

Broadcaster Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Station ABC Radio National Canberra

Type of service National broadcaster

Name of program PM with Mark Colvin

Date of broadcast 19 September 2013

Relevant code Standards 2.1 and 2.2 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011

Date finalised 6 February 2014

Decision No breach of standards 2.1 or 2.2 (factual accuracy)

ACMA Investigation Report 3123 – PM with Mark Colvin broadcast by ABC Radio National Canberra on 19 September 2013 1

Background On 16 October 2013, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the

ACMA) received a complaint about a segment of PM with Mark Colvin broadcast on 19 September 2013 by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) on radio station Radio National Canberra.

PM with Mark Colvin is a news and current affairs radio program broadcast daily across Australia on both Radio National and ABC Local Radio. It has a duration of half an hour, and is described on its website in the following terms:

PM covers a broad spectrum of issues relevant to all sections of Australia's geographically and culturally diverse community.1

On 19 September 2013, the program featured a segment ‘Queensland battles measles outbreak’, which ran for approximately 4 and a half minutes. It featured interviews with two medical experts and who stated their belief that a recent rise in the incidence of measles had been caused in part by the ‘anti-vaccination lobby’, as well as reiterating the serious and dangerous nature of the measles virus.

The segment then featured brief excerpts of an interview with a spokeswoman for the ‘Australian Vaccination Network’ (AVN) described by the segment’s reporter as ‘the peak anti-vaccination group’.

The transcript of the broadcast is at Attachment A.

The complainant submitted to the ABC that:

Although it was stated that [the spokeswoman] is from the AVN, and that the group is opposed to vaccination, it failed to mention that [the spokeswoman] has absolutely no qualifications whatsoever in the field of health/medicine/science. Having her comments beside those of the University professor leads the listener to believe she is someone of equal standing and qualification.

Airing [the spokeswoman’s] views in the current measles outbreak is incredibly irresponsible. There are not ‘two sides’ to the vaccination ‘debate’.

In response to the complainant, the ABC asserted that the broadcast met its editorial requirements for accuracy, as outlined in standard 2 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (Code).

Relevant extracts from the complainant and ABC’s submissions are extracted at Attachments B and C, respectively.

The ACMA has investigated the ABC’s compliance with the following standard of the Code:

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.

1 http://www.abc.net.au/pm/


Assessment This investigation is based on the complainant’s submissions, the ABC’s response to

the complainant and the ACMA, 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 broadcast according to the understanding of an ‘ordinary, reasonable’ listener or viewer.

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 affairs2.

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

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

Reasons The relevant Principles relating to standard 2 of the Code include the following:

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.

In addition, the general considerations which the ACMA has regard to in assessing whether or not broadcast material is factual in character are at Attachment D.

The complaint is that the spokeswoman was not introduced appropriately due to her lack of medical qualifications and expertise, and that her views accordingly would have been interpreted as carrying equal scientific weight to those of the medical practitioners and experts interviewed during the segment.

The ACMA notes that the ABC introduced the spokeswoman as ‘a representative of’ the AVN and not as a medical, scientific or health expert. In this way she was distinguished from the other interviewees who were described as qualified medical practitioners and experts. Her representation of AVN is a factual matter and the description was not inaccurate.

In addition, the anti-vaccination movement was discredited throughout the segment through:

o The reporter describing of the AVN’s views as ‘anti-vaccination propaganda’;2 Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 at 164–167 (references

omitted).


o The University of Queensland’s infectious diseases expert referring to the AVN as ‘a couple of cowboys... putting out bad information to the public’, claiming that the anti-vaccination lobby ‘has a lot to answer for’, and stating that he was ‘really concerned that [the AVN are] putting this information out to the public because they’re putting people’s lives at risk’;

o The reporter stating the expert’s belief that ‘the [AVN]’s concern about the vaccine is not borne out by science’; and

o The reporter stating that the AVN has been directed to change its name as it is seen as misleading, and that the study on which the AVN based its view concerning the link with autism many of its views had been ‘discredited and the British doctor involved struck off the medical register’.

The ACMA is satisfied that in this context, and given that her qualifications were not elevated, the spokeswoman was described accurately and the ordinary reasonable listener would not have been misled into believing that she was someone of equal standing as the medical experts.

The ACMA also notes that the program included statistical information about the number of deaths from measles and the number of vaccines administered with no adverse effects. The result was that the AVN position was not presented as the dominant perspective. In this way the program did not mislead the listener as to the safety of immunisation.

Further, given that the topic of the segment was the ‘worrying comeback’ of measles in Queensland and the drop in immunisation rates, the exploration of the reasons for this drop was a valid matter for discussion in the program.

Having regard to the Code principles outlined above, the ACMA considers that audience members of the program would likely be familiar with the presentation style of the program and would expect the perspectives of those responsible for the drop in immunisation to be explored.

The ACMA considers that the segment followed the weight of evidence and did not suggest that the anti-vaccination position is of equal weight to the position of the medical, scientific and health experts.

While the spokeswoman was given an opportunity to state her beliefs, the ACMA is not persuaded by the complainant’s submission that this was ‘incredibly irresponsible’.

Overall, the comments were presented in context (for the reasons outlined above), the spokeswoman was not introduced on the same footing as the medical experts interviewed during the segment. The ordinary, reasonable viewer would have interpreted her comments and opinions in a different manner to those proffered by the medical experts, and would not have been predisposed against the Queensland chief health officer’s opening medical advice urging ‘people to ensure that they’re vaccinated against the potentially deadly disease.’

The ACMA is satisfied that the ABC made reasonable efforts to ensure that the segment’s material facts were accurate and presented in context.


In addition, the ACMA does not consider that the segment was presented in such a way that the audience would have been materially misled.

Accordingly, the ABC breached neither standards 2.1 nor 2.2 of the Code.


Attachment ATranscript of ‘Queensland battles Measles Outbreak’ item broadcast on 19 September 2013

Presenter: Measles - once extremely rare because of widespread vaccinations - has made a worrying comeback in Queensland. So far, 16 people have been infected and the state's top doctor has urged people to ensure that they're vaccinated against the potentially deadly disease. The chief health officer [doctor’s name] says the movements in the community of infected people have put many more at risk. Anti-vaccination propaganda has led about 8 per cent of parents in Queensland not to immunise their children. [Reporter’s name] reports.

Reporter: Queensland's measles problem has been imported. The recent spate of cases has been traced to people who've brought the disease in from overseas. Early symptoms - a runny nose, cough and red eyes - are so vague that those infected have unknowingly passed it on before the tell-tale rash appears. Their movements in the community have been so great that chief health officer [doctor’s name] has urged everyone in Queensland to check they're vaccinated.

Doctor: Prior to vaccination being available, 100 million people across the world every single year got measles and six million of those people died. It's a really, really, really serious disease and we are so lucky in our country, we've got a fantastic vaccine.

Reporter: [Doctor’s name] is concerned that already the number of cases is four times higher than last year. She warns if people aren't vaccinated, they're taking a huge risk.

Doctor: And it is an awful disease. It'll make you really sick, really unhappy and around a third of people who get it end up in hospital. It's not a pleasant thing and as I said, up to 6 per cent die. So, get enough cases and we'll see deaths.

Reporter: Government statistics show across the state the vaccination rate is 91.9 per cent. But that leaves about 8 percent of people unvaccinated and in certain pockets, like the Sunshine Coast, that figure is higher. Infectious diseases expert [expert’s name] from the University of Queensland says the anti-vaccination lobby has a lot to answer for.

Expert: It's not a major outbreak but I guess it does show if we let vaccination levels go down these diseases which we thought we'd got rid of can come back.

Reporter: The peak anti-vaccination group says the Queensland Government is fear-mongering. The Australian Vaccination Network, which has been directed to change its name by New South Wales Fair Trading as it's seen as misleading, continues to publish information on its website linking the vaccine to autism, despite the original study being discredited and the British doctor involved struck off the medical register. [The spokeswoman’s name]:

Spokeswoman: This study that you say is discredited now has over 80 studies that backed it up that are saying that the information that was published in that study was in fact correct.

Reporter: I suppose when it comes down to it, is it better in your network's opinion for a person to get the measles than to get the vaccination?

Spokeswoman: We don't give out that sort of information. That's medical advice and we don't deal in medical advice. But we can tell you that measles has been described as a deadly disease and yet the experience in Australia before the vaccine came out demonstrates very clearly that is not a deadly disease in healthy, well-nourished people.


Reporter: [The expert’s name] says the network's concern about the vaccine is not borne out by science.

Expert: I'm really concerned that they're putting this information out to the public because they're putting people's lives at risk. There's been more than 1000 studies in publications on the MMR vaccine, hundreds of millions of doses of the vaccine have been given with no adverse affects. The vaccine saves lives.

Reporter: Do you think in a way that an outbreak of measles like this may actually serve the purpose of people like yourself to show how dangerous these diseases are and perhaps sway that percentage of people who still are concerned about vaccinating their children?

Expert: Yeah look I agree with that, I think this is a bit of a wake-up call. You do have to think carefully about, you know, the facts and evidence from thousands of studies showing that the vaccination is safe and a couple of cowboys are putting out bad information to the public. Please believe the evidence over the last 20, 30 years that these vaccines are safe and they do work.

Presenter: Infectious diseases expert [the expert’s name] from the University of Queensland ending [reporter’s name]’s report.


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

I was appalled to hear comment from [the spokeswoman] on the subject of measles. Although it was stated that [the spokeswoman] is from the AVN, and that the group is opposed to vaccination, it failed to mention that [the spokeswoman] has absolutely no qualifications whatsoever in the field of health/medicine/science. Having her comments beside those of the University professor leads the listener to believe she is someone of equal standing and qualification.

Airing [the spokeswoman’s] views in the current measles outbreak is incredibly irresponsible. There are not "two sides" to the vaccination "debate".

For an excellent story on false balance in the media (which is exactly what happened today) I refer you to Media Watch episode 35.

As a GP I am frequently confronted with parents acting (or failing to act) after misinformation on vaccination. Exactly the misinformation that was aired in your program today.

I suggest that the program issues an apology and retraction immediately, especially with the current measles outbreak.

The complainant submitted to the ACMA that:

[The spokeswoman] is not a vaccine expert. She should not be presented to the public as someone with a relevant opinion on vaccination. False balance in the media is extremely dangerous - I refer you to today's article by [journalist’s name] in The Guardian "Anti-vaccination activists should not be given a say in the media", it outlines the danger of reporting "both sides" of the vaccination issue, leading consumers to think that the anti-vaccination side is of equal weight. I feel this may even be a greater issue for radio broadcasting where a listener may only catch part of a story and be led to think that [the spokeswoman] was the expert.

I would like to point out specifically that the reporter did not debunk [the spokeswoman’s] assertion that there are "80 studies" proving a link between vaccination and autism. She was not even questioned on this fact that she sprouted. The reporter also asked [the spokesperson] l for her opinion on whether it was better to get measles or the vaccine - this is medical advice and although [the spokesperson] declined to answer, the reporter was irresponsible in even asking the question. It leads the listener to think that [the spokesperson] is qualified to answer such a question.


Attachment CABC’s submissionsThe ABC responded to the complainant that:

We are satisfied that the reported drop in immunisation rates in Queensland represents a matter of significant public interest and that it was relevant, and in context, for the program to question the claims and objectives of one of the most prominent anti-vaccination organisations and to highlight the role of the anti-vaccination lobby in creating conditions for disease outbreaks. The introduction to the report set the context by noting how important vaccinations are for controlling the outbreak of measles, and how anti-vaccination propaganda had led to a worrying increase in Queensland parents choosing not to immunise their children;

Presenter: Measles - once extremely rare because of widespread vaccinations - has made a worrying comeback in Queensland. So far 16 people have been infected and the state's top doctor has urged people to ensure they're vaccinated against the potentially deadly disease.

The chief health officer [doctor’s name] says the movements in the community of infected people have put many more at risk. Anti-vaccination propaganda has led about 8 per cent of parents in Queensland not to immunise their children.

We note the report introduces [the spokeswoman] and her organisation by raising doubt about its credibility and expertise and that [the spokeswoman’s] unsubstantiated claims were questioned by the reporter and immediately debunked by infectious disease expert, [the expert];

Reporter: The Australian Vaccination Network, which has been directed to change its name by New South Wales Fair Trading as it's seen as misleading, continues to publish information on its website linking the vaccine to autism, despite the original study being discredited and the British doctor involved struck off the medical register.

Reporter: [The expert] says the network's concern about the vaccine is not borne out by science.

Expert: I'm really concerned that they're putting this information out to the public because they're putting people's lives at risk. There's been more than 1000 studies in publications on the MMR vaccine, hundreds of millions of doses of the vaccine have been given with no adverse affects. The vaccine saves lives.

The report presented a range of principal relevant perspectives, including the expert medical views of Queensland’s Chief Health Officer, [doctor’s name] and infectious disease expert, [the expert] from the University of Queensland, both of whom were scathing of the anti-vaccination message and provided their informed, expert perspective on the need for vaccination and the significant dangers of failing to immunise;

Doctor: Prior to vaccination being available 100 million people across the world every single year got measles and six million of those people died. It's a really, really, really serious disease and we are so lucky in this country, we've got a fantastic vaccine.

On review, we are satisfied that the perspective of [the spokeswoman] was relevant to the issue being covered, and that it was presented in context, and was not unduly favoured over any other perspective. We are satisfied that the report presented sufficient context to make it clear to the program’s audience that the weight of scientific evidence on this issue was overwhelmingly in favour of immunisation, and that [the spokeswoman] and her organisation were a fringe group that was considered by mainstream medical science to be misleading and dangerous in its advice on this matter. None of [the spokeswoman’s] claims were presented as facts, and her claims were subjected to criticism by a recognised expert in the broadcast.

For these reasons, Audience and Consumer Affairs have concluded the broadcast is in keeping with the accuracy standards in section 2 of the ABC Code of Practice.


Attachment DConsiderations 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. 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.

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.


Investig… · Web viewOn 19 September 2013, the program featured a segment ‘Queensland battles...

Documents

Transcript of Investig… · Web viewOn 19 September 2013, the program featured a segment ‘Queensland battles...