Investig… · Web viewwhere a word is not ... that the plan drawn up by Syria’s opposition...

Investigation report no. BI-267Summary

Broadcaster Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Station ABC1

Type of service National broadcasting—television

Name of program ABC News: Early Edition

Date of broadcast 8 September 2016

Relevant legislation/standard

Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (the BSA):o subsection 130ZZA(5) of Part 9D [compliance with

captioning standard by a national broadcaster]o subsection 130ZR(1) of Part 9D [captioning programs

between 6 am and midnight on free-to-air primary channels]

Broadcasting Services (Television Captioning) Standard 2013 (the Standard)

Date finalised 22 February 2017

Decision Breach of the Standard by 6 distinct segments of the ABC News: Early Edition program broadcast on 8 September 2016, and as such a breach of subsections 130ZZA(5) and 130ZR(1) of Part 9D of the BSA.

BackgroundIn November 2016, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) commenced an investigation into the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s (the ABC, the Broadcaster) program the ABC News: Early Edition (ABC News, the Program).

The Program was broadcast on ABC1 by the ABC on 8 September 2016 at 5.00 pm.

On 29 September 2016, the complainant contacted the ACMA alleging that on 8 September 2016, the captioning quality of ABC1 was not satisfactory in accordance with the Standard and that the ABC did not properly respond to the complainant.

The ACMA exercised its discretion under the BSA to investigate whether the ABC:

o provided a captioning service under subsection 130ZR(1) of the BSA

o complied with the Standard and subsection 130ZZA(5) of the BSA.

Excerpts of relevant sections of the BSA and the Standard are contained at Attachment A.

The programABC News is a news and current affairs program presented by James McHale, and is described in these terms:

‘a complete half hour snapshot of the day's key stories, with a focus on major national and world news. Includes political coverage from Canberra, sport, finance and weather with Graham Creed’1

The program in question consisted of twenty-one distinct program segments: an introduction, thirteen stories covering news and current affairs, a finance report, weather, four sports segments and closing remarks.

Assessment and submissionsThe ACMA has investigated the ABC’s compliance with the captioning obligations imposed under Part 9D of the BSA and the requirements relating to quality set out in the Standard. The outcome of this assessment will determine whether the ABC has breached the Standard.

The Standard establishes minimum requirements relating to the quality of captioning services. The Standard specifically requires captions to be readable,2 accurate3 and comprehensible,4 so that they are meaningful to deaf and hearing impaired viewers.

A ‘captioning service’ is defined in the Standard as a service in which the captions enable the viewer to follow the speakers, dialogue, action, sound effects and music of a program. ‘Captions’ are defined in the Standard as the visual translation of the soundtrack of a program.

1 http://www.abc.net.au/tv/programs/abc-news-early-edition/ accessed on 23 November 20162 subsection 7(a) of the Standard3 subsection 8(a) of the Standard 4 subsection 9(a) of the Standard

ACMA Investigation report—ABC News: Early Edition broadcast on ABC 1 on 8 September 2016 2 of 25

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/programs/abc-news-early-edition/

When determining the quality of a captioning service for a program, the cumulative effect of the readability, accuracy and comprehensibility of the captions must be considered.5 A copy of the factors which relate to the readability, accuracy and comprehensibility of a captioning service is contained at Attachment A.

The Standard also stipulates that the quality of a captioning service for a program must be considered in the context of the program as a whole.6 The circumstances of the broadcast and the nature of the program being broadcast are also relevant considerations.

This investigation has taken into account the complainant (Attachment B), submissions from the ABC (Attachment C) and a copy of the broadcast provided to the ACMA by the ABC. Other relevant sources relied upon have been identified in the report.

As part of its assessment, the ACMA reviewed the relevant broadcasts of the Program both with and without sound, in order to assess the quality of each captioning service. In considering the issue of delay, the ACMA assessed the extent to which the appearance or disappearance of the captions coincided with the sound effects, speakers, music and/or shot or scene changes in each segment of the Program, in accordance with the factors relating to comprehensibility outlined in subsections 9(b)(iii), 9(b)(iv) and 9(b)(ix) of the Standard.

Assessment of distinct program segmentsThe Standard stipulates that the quality of a captioning service for a program must be considered in the context of the program as a whole.7 The circumstances of the broadcast and the nature of the program being broadcast are also relevant considerations.

The definition of ‘program’ in the Standard is that ‘program’ includes a television program and a distinct program segment within a television program.8 This is consistent with the definition of ‘program’ at sections 6 and 130ZK of the BSA. Section 6 of the BSA states that ‘program’ is ‘matter the primary purpose of which is to entertain, to educate or to inform an audience’. Section 130ZK of the BSA states that ‘program’ excludes advertising or sponsorship matter, or a community service announcement or an emergency warning.

The definition of ‘program’ in the Standard, together with subsection 6(b) of the Standard, require that in the case of a program with distinct program segments, the quality of the captioning service must be considered in the context of that distinct program segment. The ACMA maintains that this approach best fits the purpose of Part 9D of the BSA, being ‘to facilitate improved access to free-to-air and subscription television by Australia’s hearing impaired community’.9

As the program being assessed has distinct program segments, the quality of the captioning service has, where applicable, been assessed in the context of each distinct program segment (with a list of segments and their associated key captioning issues presented in Attachment D).

Assessment of live captioning5 subsection 6(c) of the Standard6 subsection 6(a) of the Standard7 subsection 6(a) of the Standard8 section 4 of the Standard 9 Explanatory Memorandum to the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Improved Access to Television) Bill 2012

(which introduced Part 9D of the BSA), p.1


Within their submission the ABC stated the following:

[…]

News and current affairs content is unlikely to be available for captioning in advance of the broadcast, and is therefore most often captioned live as the program is being put to air. This live captioning method is particularly dependent on the skills of the individual captioner. While live captioners always aim to provide the highest quality captions, there are factors that impact on these efforts

[…]

The Explanatory Statement to the Standard states the following:

The ACMA recognises that broadcasters and narrowcasters may use different methods of captioning, such as live captioning and pre-prepared captioning. The ACMA takes the view that it is important to consider whether the captioning service provided with a program is what would be expected in the context of the program as a whole.

Factors to consider include the circumstances of the broadcast and the nature of the program being broadcast. For example, it is reasonable to expect that during the live broadcast of a fast-paced sporting match there would be a time lag between the captions and the soundtrack and the caption lines may not end at natural linguistic breaks.10

In determining the quality of captioning, the ACMA takes into account, among other factors, the circumstances of the broadcast, including the nature of live captioning and the fact that delays may occur. The ACMA had regard to this fact in the present investigation, but also notes that regardless of the method of captioning, the captioning provided for a program must be meaningful to viewers.

Issue 1: Did the ABC provide a captioning service for the program that complied with the Standard and accordingly complied with subsection 130ZZA(5) of the BSA?

FindingSix program segments did not comply with the Standard

The ACMA found that the ABC did not comply with the Standard and accordingly has not complied with subsection 130ZZA(5) of the BSA (see Attachment A) with respect to six distinct segments of the program.

ReasonsThe ACMA‘s assessment is that the various issues with the captioning service throughout the six segments were significant enough to make those segments unable to be readily followed or comprehended.

10 See Section 6 Determining the quality of captioning services – Broadcasting Services Television Captioning Standard Explanatory Statement


http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwihwqbRkoDRAhVBopQKHdKOC8gQFggZMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.acma.gov.au%2F~%2Fmedia%2FDiversity%2520Localism%2520and%2520Accessibility%2FInformation%2FWord%2520Document%2FBroadcasting%2520Services%2520Television%2520Captioning%2520Standard%2520%2520Explanatory%2520Statement%2520docx.docx&usg=AFQjCNGaWkqwyGEoaKvEkhGow9ekYxJl1g


The ACMA found that, considering the important information contained in the six segments that was not imparted to viewers reliant on the captioning service, the captions directly affected the overall accuracy and comprehensibility of the captioning service provided for these distinct program segments.

The Explanatory Statement to the Standard states the following:

Paragraph (b) of section 6, and the definition of “program” in section 4, together have the effect that the quality of a captioning service for a program that is a distinct program segment within a television program will be considered in the context of that distinct program segment on its own, provided that the segment is unrelated to other program segments. So, for example, a current affairs program may consist of several segments which are each distinct from and unrelated to other segments in that program.11

Similar to a current affairs program, a news program generally consists of segments, which may be distinct and unrelated to other segments. The ACMA has found in this instance that each of the twenty-one segments were distinct in themselves and therefore the captioning was assessed within each segment as opposed to the program overall.

The table at Attachment D lists the distinct program segments and their relevant key captioning issues.

The following segments of the program contained captioning issues which affected the accuracy, comprehensibility and readability of the segment in question. These captioning issues within the segments referred to below would have made it difficult for a person relying on the captions to comprehend the segment, to the extent that captioning was not meaningful to viewers relying on captions.

Segment 1. Introduction

The following issues relating to the quality of captioning were identified in the ‘Introduction’ segment of the Program:

Six lines of captioning across the segment introduction. The captions obscured other on-screen text and part of a speaker’s face including the mouth (subsection 7(b)(iv) of the Standard).

Six lines of captioning across the segment introduction, so more than three lines in length (subsection 7(b)(v) of the Standard).

There is latency at the beginning and throughout the segment of at least seven seconds such that the captions did not coincide with the onset of speech of the corresponding speaker (subsection (9)(b)(iii) of the Standard).

A key name is incorrectly spelt i.e. ‘Clinton’ captioned ‘Clin’ (subsection 9(b)(v) of the Standard).

The complainant submitted that the segment was poor and difficult to follow (see Attachment B).

The ABC submitted that ‘…Overall, we believe that this segment remained comprehensible to viewers relying on captions’ (see Attachment C).

11 See Section 6 Determining the quality of captioning services – Broadcasting Services Television Captioning Standard Explanatory Statement




Having considered the complainant’s and the ABC’s submissions, and having viewed the program, the ACMA has found that the cumulative effect of the issues relating to the quality of captioning outlined above means that this segment did not meet the requirements of the Standard.

Segment 2. Labor Senator

The following issues relating to the quality of captioning were identified in the ‘Labor Senator’ segment of the Program:

The captions do not clearly identify speakers. The correct colour coding was not used for the captions within this story to indicate a new speaker’s comments. This is particularly important where differentiation of statements between key speakers within a segment is necessary, to make clear a speaker’s direct quote, point of view or opinion, and to differentiate between off-screen reporting and on-screen voices. This would have meant that a person relying on the captions would have been unable to identify which person was making the statement which would have impacted on their ability to have meaningful access to the news story (subsection (9)(b)(i) of the Standard).

Captions end mid-sentence, not coinciding with the relevant shot change. In this instance, the captions which read ‘means it’s a’ towards the end of the segment, conveying to the viewer that this was not the end of the segment but that there was further information to follow (subsection 9(b)(ix) of the Standard).


The ABC submitted that ‘…Overall, we believe that this segment remained comprehensible to viewers relying on captions’ (see Attachment C).


Segment 5. Presidential Debate

The following issues relating to the quality of captioning were identified in the ‘Presidential Debate’ segment of the Program:

Key sentences of dialogue from key speakers are omitted from the captioning i.e. missing ‘defaming a gold star family, the family of Captain Khan’ and ‘We need change’ (subsection (8)(b)(i) of the Standard).

The captions do not clearly identify speakers. The correct colour coding was not used for the captions within this story to indicate a new speaker’s comments. This is


particularly important where differentiation of statements between key speakers within a segment is necessary, to make clear a speaker’s direct quote, point of view or opinion, and to differentiate between off-screen reporting and on-screen voices. This would have meant that a person relying on the captions would have been unable to identify which person was making the statement which would have impacted on their ability to have meaningful access to the news story (subsection (9)(b)(i) of the Standard).

Key names are incorrectly spelt i.e. ‘ISIS’ is captioned ‘eye is’, ‘IS’ as ‘Istomin’ and ‘mine’ as ‘Mike’. While the captions did at times resemble homophones that may relate to the content being broadcast, they did not match the spoken words or soundtrack of the segment. Throughout most of this segment, the erroneous inclusion of the incorrect captions would have made it difficult for a person relying on the captions to comprehend the segment (subsection (9)(b)(v) of the Standard).


The ABC submitted that ‘...Overall, we believe that this segment remained comprehensible to viewers relying on captions’ (see Attachment C).


Segment 6. Eastern Aleppo Airstrike

The following issues relating to the quality of captioning were identified in the ‘Eastern Aleppo Airstrike’ segment of the Program:

Many key names from the dialogue are omitted from the captioning i.e. the key name of the township of 'Jarabulus' and details of the settlement of returning Islamic refugees are not included in the captioning, the key name and details of 'Raqqa' are also not included in the captioning and the key name of president ‘Bashar al-Assad’ is not captioned (subsection (8)(b)(i) of the Standard).

The key warning for distressing images is missing. Whilst the captions provide ‘A cautious this report contains distressing’, the captioned content does not reflect the spoken dialogue. The lack of sufficient warning would have made it difficult for a person relying on the captions to comprehend that the segment contained images that some viewers may find distressing, prior to seeing the accompanying distressing images (subsection (8)(b)(i) of the Standard).

The captions do not clearly identify speakers. The correct colour coding was not used for the captions within this story to indicate a new speaker’s comments. This is particularly important where differentiation of statements between key speakers within a segment is necessary, to make clear a speaker’s direct quote, point of view or opinion, and to differentiate between off-screen reporting and on-screen voices. This would have meant that a person relying on the captions would have been unable to


identify which person was making the statement which would have impacted on their ability to have meaningful access to the news story (subsection (9)(b)(i) of the Standard).

A key name is incorrectly spelt i.e. ‘Turkish’ captioned as ‘tishing’ and ‘IS’ captioned ‘Istomin’. While the captions did relate to the content being broadcast, they did not match the spoken words or soundtrack of the segment. The erroneous inclusion of the incorrect captions would have made it difficult for a person relying on the captions to comprehend the segment (subsection (9)(b)(v) of the Standard).

The captions are incomplete and cut off at the end of the segment such that disappearance of the captions did not coincide with the end of speech of the corresponding speaker (subsection (9)(b)(ix) of the Standard).


The ABC submitted ‘We accept that viewers relying on captions would have had difficulty understanding this story as a result of some key errors and omissions, and on this basis we agree that the segment would not have been comprehensible to viewers relying on captions…However, we do not agree that the additional matters noted by the ACMA in the preliminary report rendered the captioning of this segment incomprehensible’ (see Attachment C).


Segment 9. Hungarian Camerawoman Arrested

The following issues relating to the quality of captioning were identified in the ‘Hungarian Camerawoman Arrested’ segment of the Program:


The captions are incomplete and cut off at the end of the segment such that disappearance of the captions did not coincide with the end of speech of the corresponding speaker (subsection (9)(b)(ix) of the Standard).


The ABC submitted ‘We agree that the latency in this segment and the omission of the key fact that the tripped man was an asylum seeker trying to reach the Serbian border, meant that viewers relying on captions were not able to meaningfully access this news story... To the extent that in Attachment D there is additional criticism of this segment on the basis that the captions did not coincide with the relevant shot change, this is an unreasonable expectation for a live-captioned program, and is not in keeping with established industry standards’ (see Attachment C).



Segment 19. Live Cross

The following issues relating to the quality of captioning were identified in the ‘Live Cross’ segment of the Program:

The captions do not clearly identify speakers. The correct colour coding was not used for the captions within this story to indicate a new speaker’s comments. This is particularly important where differentiation of statements between key speakers within a segment is necessary, to make clear a speaker’s direct quote, point of view or opinion, and to differentiate between off-screen reporting and on-screen voices. This would have meant that a person relying on the captions would have been unable to identify which person was making the statement which would have impacted on their ability to have meaningful access to the news story (subsection (9)(b)(i) of the Standard).


Key names are incorrectly spelt i.e. ‘Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency’ captioned ‘Victorian Aboriginal killed care agency’, ‘Muriel Bamblett’ captioned ‘mural Bamblett and ‘Calais’ captioned as ‘Kal a’ (subsection (9)(b)(v) of the Standard).


The ABC submitted that ‘…overall, viewers relying on captions would not have been denied meaningful access to the day’s news by the problems with the captioning of this segment’ (see Attachment C).

The ACMA notes that this segments captions contained ad-hoc reports of state and international news, though it also appeared to effectively be a profile-raising bulletin for the program that was to follow the news. The ‘Live Cross’ segment is then followed on by the ‘Weather’ segment, and as such was contained within the program as an individual segment within the news. The general expectation is that bulletins that operate within the news are news bulletins, and the segment has been assessed as such.



ConclusionTaking into account the requirements of readability, accuracy and comprehensibility of the Standard, the ACMA has found that the cumulative effect of captions not accurately recreating the soundtrack of the program, important parts of spoken content not being captioned, captions not clearly identifying individual speakers, and captions not coinciding with the onset of speech of the corresponding speaker and shot change, meant that the captioning service was incomprehensible and inaccurate.

The ACMA finds that the ABC has not complied with the requirements of the Standard, by not providing a captioning service that was accurate and comprehensible for the six segments (amounting to approximately 9 minutes) in the Program broadcast on 8 September 2016. In doing so, the ABC has not complied with the requirements of the Standard with respect to these six segments in the Program, and has consequently breached subsection 130ZZA(5) of the BSA.

FindingRemaining program segments

The ACMA found that for the remaining distinct program segments within the Program, the ABC provided a captioning service that complied with the Standard and therefore complied with subsection 130ZZA(5) of the BSA (see Attachment A).

ReasonsWhile the ACMA identified a number of issues relating to the quality of the captioning service provided in the remaining distinct program segments within the Program, the captioning service for these segments was considered, on balance, to still be meaningful to deaf and hearing impaired viewers and to comply with the Standard. The key issues identified are listed against each segment in Attachment D, with the fundamental issues highlighted below:

Delays: The captions for some segments were delayed. However, the relationship between visuals and sound was largely preserved, due mainly to the extensive use of location or related footage and other visuals. These visuals remained on screen for a substantial length of time, allowing the viewer sufficient time to comprehend the message being conveyed.

Identification of speakers: The ACMA identified that there were some readability issues in the program, relating to the inconsistent colour coding for identification of speakers. However, on this occasion this did not make the captions unreadable and the overall message of each remaining news segment was still conveyed to the viewer.

Missing captions: While certain program segments were missing some captions, often singular words, these program segments were comprehensible overall.

Incorrect captioning: Incorrect captioning is present for some segments, but this issue does not affect the overall comprehensibility of the news stories.


Captioning covering on screen text: Captioning obscured other on-screen text for some of the segments, though in many instances this information remained comprehensible and did not affect the overall comprehensibility of the news stories.

The ACMA found that the captioning errors in the remaining distinct program segments within the program, on balance, did not affect the overall readability, accuracy and comprehensibility of the captioning service provided for these segments. The captioning service provided, along with the strong visual content present, allowed for meaningful access to the remaining distinct program segments within the program as a whole for persons relying on the captioning service.

Accordingly, the ACMA considers that the ABC complied with the requirements of the Standard in relation to the remaining distinct program segments within the program and in doing so, complied with subsection 130ZZA(5) of the BSA in relation to those remaining distinct program segments.

Issue 2: Did the ABC comply with the requirements of subsection 130ZR(1) of the BSA, by providing a captioning service for the program, in accordance with the basic rule?

FindingSix program segments

The ACMA found that the ABC did not comply with the requirements of subsection 130ZR(1) of the BSA (see Attachment A), by not providing a captioning service for six distinct segments of the Program on 8 September 2016, in accordance with the basic rule.

ReasonsUnder subsection 130ZR(1) of the BSA, the ABC was required to provide a captioning service for the program as it was broadcast on the ABC’s primary television service during the designated viewing hours.

While the term ‘captioning service’ is not defined in the BSA, implicit in the obligation to provide a captioning service is that the captioning service satisfies requirements relating to quality which are set out in the Standard. This interpretation is consistent with the power granted to the ACMA under subsection 130ZZA(1) of the BSA, to determine standards that relate to the quality of captioning services.

The ACMA’s interpretation also fits the purpose of the BSA. Firstly, the Explanatory Memorandum to the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Improved Access to Television) Bill 2012, which introduced new and expanded captioning provisions to the BSA, states that the purpose of developing captioning standards is to ‘obligate broadcasters to provide a consistent


quality of captioning services … and … ensure captioning services are meaningful to the viewer’. Secondly, as mentioned above, the more general purpose of Part 9D, is 'to facilitate improved access to free-to-air and subscription television by Australia’s hearing impaired community'. That is, captioning services must be of a consistent quality, so they are meaningful to hearing impaired viewers, to enable them to have improved access to television.

Section 5 of the Standard requires Broadcasters to comply with the requirements relating to quality in the Standard when providing a captioning service in accordance with their captioning obligations.

FindingRemaining program segments

The ACMA found that the ABC complied with the requirements of subsection 130ZR(1) of the BSA (see Attachment A) by providing a captioning service for the remaining program segments within the Program, in accordance with the basic rule.

ReasonsAs noted above, the ACMA found that the remaining program segments of the Program complied with the requirements of the Standard. Accordingly, the ACMA found that the ABC provided a captioning service for the remaining program segments as required by subsection 130ZR(1) of the BSA (see Attachment A), and thus complied with the basic rule for these program segments.

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK


Attachment ARelevant provisions of the BSA

Part 9D of the BSA — Captioning

Captioning obligations--basic rule

Subsection 130ZR(1)

Each commercial television broadcasting broadcaster, and each national broadcaster, must provide a captioning service for:

(a) television programs transmitted during designated viewing hours; and

(b) television news or current affairs programs transmitted outside designated viewing hours.

Division 4 – Captioning standards

Subsection 130ZZA(1):

The ACMA may, by legislative instrument, determine standards that relate to:

(a) the quality of captioning services provided by commercial television broadcasting broadcasters for television programs;

...

Subsection 130ZZA(5):

(5) A national broadcaster must comply with a standard determined under subsection (1).

Broadcasting Services (Television Captioning) Standard 2013

Section 6 Determining the quality of captioning services

(a) Subject to paragraph (b), when determining the quality of a captioning service for a program, the captioning service must be considered in the context of the program as a whole.

(b) When determining the quality of a captioning service for a program that is a distinct program segment within a television program, the captioning service must be considered in the context of that distinct program segment on its own.

(c) When determining the quality of a captioning service, the cumulative effect of the following factors must be considered:

(i) the readability of the captions;

(ii) the accuracy of the captions; and

(iii) the comprehensibility of the captions.


Note: Whilst noting that it is not authorised to determine that a lower quality of captioning service is acceptable for a kind of program or program material (see subsection 130ZZA(2B) of the Act), in determining this Standard, the ACMA has considered the differences (including time constraints for live content) between providing captioning services for live and pre-recorded television programs; and wholly live or wholly pre-recorded television programs and television programs that include both live and pre-recorded program material (see subsection 130ZZA(2A) of the Act).

Section 7 Readability of captions

(a) When providing a captioning service for a program, broadcasters and narrowcasters must use captions that are readable.

(b) When determining whether captions are readable, the following factors must be considered in the context of the program as a whole:

(i) whether colour and font is used in the captions in a way that makes them legible;

(ii) whether the caption lines end at natural linguistic breaks and reflect the natural flow and punctuation of a sentence, so each caption forms an understandable segment;

(iii) whether standard punctuation of printed English has been used in the captions to convey the way speech is delivered;

(iv) whether the captions are positioned so as to avoid obscuring other on-screen text, any part of a speaker’s face including the mouth and any other important visuals where possible; and

(v) whether the captions are no more than three lines in length.

Section 8 Accuracy of captions

(a) When providing a captioning service for a program, broadcasters and narrowcasters must use captions that accurately recreate the soundtrack of a program.

(b) When determining whether captions accurately recreate the soundtrack of a program, the following factors must be considered in the context of the program as a whole:

(i) whether spoken content has been captioned;

(ii) whether the captions of spoken content are verbatim;

(iii) where it is not possible for the captions of spoken content to be verbatim, whether the captions reflect the actual meaning of the spoken content;

(iv) where the intended target audience of a program is children and the captions are not verbatim, whether the captions reflect the actual meaning of the spoken content;

(v) whether the manner and tone of voice of speakers has been conveyed, where practical and material; and

(vi) whether sound effects and/or music, material to understanding the program and not observable from the visual action, have been accurately described.


Section 9 Comprehensibility of captions

(a) When providing a captioning service for a program, broadcasters and narrowcasters must use captions that are comprehensible.

(b) When determining whether captions are comprehensible, the following factors must be considered in the context of the program as a whole:

(i) whether the captions clearly identify and distinguish individual speakers, including off-screen and off-camera voices;

(ii) whether the captions are displayed for a sufficient length of time to allow the viewer to simultaneously read them and follow the action of the program;

(iii) the extent to which the appearance of the caption coincides with the onset of speech of the corresponding speaker, sound effect or music;

(iv) the extent to which the disappearance of the caption coincides with the end of the speech of the corresponding speaker, sound effect or music;

(v) whether the words used in the captions have been spelt correctly;

(vi) where a word is not spelt correctly, whether the spelling provided nevertheless conveys the meaning of the actual word;

(vii) whether explanatory captions are provided for long speechless pauses in the program;

(viii) the extent to which a caption over-runs a shot or scene change; and

(ix) the extent to which the appearance or disappearance of the caption, as the case may be, coincides with the relevant shot or scene change.


Attachment B

Complaint

Complaint to the ABC dated 8 September 2016:

The complainants submission to the ABC dated 8 September 2016 stated in part the following:

[…]

Your captioning , upon which I totally rely as I am deaf, is appallingly poor. Just watch the news, or indeed any program. Terribly behind the speaker, so as to make it so difficult to follow, and dreadful mistakes and spelling with similar results.

[…]

Complaint to the ACMA dated 29 September 2016:

The complainants submission to the ACMA dated 29 September 2016 stated in part the following:

[…]

I wish to complain about the quality of captioning on A B. C, TV... THe captioning is usually so far behind the actual speech so that lip reading is rendered almost useless.

A complaint to the ABC was met with little response

MAny thousands of hearing impaired viewers rely on this service, most entirely for understanding the programs,and those people are entitled to better service.

[…]


Attachment CABC response and submissions

ABC’s response to the complainant dated 19 September 2016:

The ABC response to the complainant dated 19 September 2016 stated in part the following:

[…]

Many ABC news programs are captioned live by a stenographer listening to the dialogue and producing captions at the point of broadcast. This is due to editorial deadlines or because they are broadcast live to air and there is no option to pre-record the captions for the program. Because of this there is always a delay in the captions and there will be a higher rate of inaccuracy than in a program with pre-recorded captions.

If you have concerns regarding the quality of captions on any particular broadcasts, please let us know the program and approximate broadcast date and time and we can look into the matter further.

[…]

ABC’s response to the ACMA dated 12 December 2016:

The ABC’s response to the ACMA dated 12 December 2016 stated in part the following:

[…]

We note your statement that the investigations are being undertaken in light of the significance of news and current affairs as a genre and the seriousness of allegations of ongoing systemic issues with ABC news programs. In the three years since the captioning standard was introduced, the ACMA has not notified the ABC of any complaints received about caption quality; no investigations have been initiated. The ABC considers it quite unnecessary in these circumstances for the ACMA to suggest that [the complainant’s ] complaint may point to ongoing issues for the ABC in meeting the captioning standard.

The ABC recognises the importance of news and current affairs coverage for all members of the Australian community. The ABC is also acutely aware of the difficulty of captioning this content. News and current affairs content is unlikely to be available for captioning in advance of the broadcast, and is therefore most often captioned live as the program is being put to air. This live captioning method is particularly dependent on the skills of the individual captioner. While live captioners always aim to provide the highest quality captions, there are factors that impact on these efforts, such as:

- Changed running orders- Unanticipated positioning of screen graphics- Complex dialogue - including difficult terminology, fast-paced speakers and inaudible

content.

The ABC regularly reviews its broadcast captions noting any quality and technical issues. Daily logs are used to record issues arising across the many hours of live and pre-prepared


broadcasts and quality issues are followed up with the captioning provider. The ABC is confident that there is no ongoing problem with caption quality.

In addition to this ongoing activity, the ABC regularly requests and receives extensive quality reviews of live captioned programming from our caption provider, examining a cross-section of programs broadcast nationally, locally and on our dedicated news service.

Over the past five months, the ABC has initiated 37 formal reviews of selected live broadcasts. Most broadcasts were nominated at random by the ABC and reviews were conducted using the NER and Textual methods. All but two of the reviewed broadcasts met or exceeded the expected 98% accuracy rate. The remaining two broadcasts were assessed as 97% accurate. Any review which identifies a less than 98% accuracy rate prompts a full investigation of the circumstances and further follow up action is taken as required.

In addition, the ABC’s captions provider conducts its own regular internal quality review of captioners and captioning output.

[…]

ABC submission to the ACMA dated 3 February 2017:

The ABC’s submission to the ACMA dated 3 February 2017 stated in part the following:

[…]

Segment 1 – Introduction

I am advised that the six lines of captioning that ‘hang’ on the introduction to the News are a result of the process of extracting vision for the ACMA from a continuous recording. The six caption lines of a previous program have been dragged into the beginning of this piece of vision, but the lines would not have been broadcast as such.

The ABC acknowledges that the word Clinton was incorrectly captioned as ‘Clint’. While unfortunate, we do not believe that this error would materially impede a viewer’s understanding. It was clear from the context that the story referred to the US presidential elections and viewers could be expected to be aware that the contenders for the presidency were Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Footage of Mrs Clinton had just been displayed on screen and the story was introduced with the captioned text – ‘Who would you trust with the nuclear launch codes?’. In this context, there is little risk that a viewer would be unable to comprehend that ‘Clint’ was a misspelling of ‘Clinton’.

We accept that there was a noticeable latency between the vision and the captions, and observe that the rapid pace of the introductory segment made more immediate captioning very difficult. However, we do not believe that the latency in this segment would prevent viewers reliant on captions from meaningfully accessing this segment.

Overall, we believe that this segment remained comprehensible to viewers relying on captions.

Segment 2 – Labor Senator

Transitions between speakers were differentiated by a change in font colour, except for one instance when Scott Morrison was speaking. While this lack of differentiation would have been momentarily confusing to viewers, in each other instance the combined visual cues of the different speakers appearing in footage, and the changed font colour, satisfactorily indicated a


change in speaker and gave viewers relying on captions meaningful access to the news story. Given the number of speakers and the rapid pace at which this piece progressed, it is unlikely that viewers would clearly recall and rely upon a particular coloured font to identify a speaker.

We accept that there was one instance at the very end of the item where the captions ended mid-sentence. The reporter’s concluding sentence: ‘Either way, the public nature of this spat means it’s a topic that won’t disappear any time soon’ – was captioned: ‘Either way, the public nature of this spat means it’s a’. While this incomplete caption was regrettable and may have left viewers wondering what was to follow, no essential part of the story was conveyed in the omitted words. Viewers relying on the captions had meaningful access to the news story being conveyed, notwithstanding the omitted words.

We note also that the incomplete sentence did in fact enable the captions to coincide with the relevant shot change – that is, the return to the newsreader in the studio – with the effect that captioning could commence as promptly as possible with the start of the next story.


Segment 5 – Presidential Debate

We accept that there was one instance in this item where the transition from speaker Hillary Clinton to speaker Donald Trump was not accompanied by a change in caption colour. While regrettable, any temporary confusion would have been mitigated by the vision, which moved from an interview with Mrs Clinton to an interview with Mr Trump.

We accept that two sentences were omitted from the captioning – Mrs Clinton’s statement ‘defaming a gold star family, the family of Captain Khan’ and Mr Trump’s ‘We need change’. While regrettable, these omissions did not prevent viewers relying on captions from meaningful access to the news story being conveyed.

We agree that the word ‘ISIS’ was mis-transcribed twice, and the word ‘mine’ was mis-transcribed on one occasion as ‘Mike’, and the context in which these errors occurred would have confused viewers relying on captions. We do not understand what ‘additional captions’ ACMA is referring to in this statement: ‘Throughout this segment, the erroneous inclusion of the additional captions would have made it difficult for a person relying on the captions to comprehend this segment’.


Segment 6 – Eastern Aleppo Airstrike

We accept that viewers relying on captions would have had difficulty understanding this story as a result of some key errors and omissions, and on this basis we agree that the segment would not have been comprehensible to viewers relying on captions. Specifically:

- The captioning of the newsreader’s introduction was problematic. Instead of stating that the plan drawn up by Syria’s opposition leaders ‘would involve an agreed transfer of power from President Bashar al-Assad to an elected government’, the captions stated that power was to be transferred ‘to the president to an elected government’.

- President Assad’s name was captioned correctly only once during the segment. Assad was twice miscaptioned as ‘Assefa’.

- ‘Turkish forces’ was miscaptioned as ‘tishing forces’.

- The captioning of the reporter’s statement: ‘Turkey now says it is ready to cooperate with the US against the biggest Istomin strong hold of all’ was confusing and omitted the reporter’s important description of that ‘biggest strong hold of all’, ‘their defacto capital, Raqqa’.


However, we do not agree that the additional matters noted by the ACMA in the preliminary report rendered the captioning of this segment incomprehensible:

- While the errors in the captioning of the advice about distressing images are regrettable, we do not agree that the warning was missing altogether. Viewers relying on captions would have read, ‘A cautious this report contains distressing’. While clearly imperfect, in the context of a news report about a war where the accompanying footage showed what was clearly the aftermath of a violent attack, viewers would be unlikely to materially misunderstand this viewer advice.

- There was only one instance where the caption colouring did not change with a change in speaker in a way that may have produced some temporary confusion - the transition between the Saudi Foreign Minister and the reporter.

- To the extent that in Attachment D there is additional criticism of this segment on the basis that the captions did not coincide with the relevant shot change, this is an unreasonable expectation for a live-captioned program, and is not in keeping with established industry standards.

Segment 9 – Hungarian Camerawoman Arrested

We agree that the latency in this segment and the omission of the key fact that the tripped man was an asylum seeker trying to reach the Serbian border, meant that viewers relying on captions were not able to meaningfully access this news story.

To the extent that in Attachment D there is additional criticism of this segment on the basis that the captions did not coincide with the relevant shot change, this is an unreasonable expectation for a live-captioned program, and is not in keeping with established industry standards.

Segment 19 – Live Cross

In our view, the failure to caption the newsreader’s introduction of Julia Baird, and the omission of key words from the newsreader’s introduction and Julia Baird’s response, would have been confusing to viewers. This confusion would have been compounded by the mis-transcription of the name of the Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency and the city Calais. However, the mis-transcription of Muriel Bamblett’s name would have been unlikely to meaningfully disadvantage viewers relying on captions.

While the captioning of this segment was not of a high quality, the segment itself was not an essential part of the news broadcast and was effectively a promotion for the program that was to follow. Overall, viewers relying on captions would not have been denied meaningful access to the day’s news by the problems with the captioning of this segment.

[…]


Attachment D

Table of Segments, Approximate Duration and Associated Key Issues

Bold and shaded – Breach due to captioning issues identified. The captioning issues affected the accuracy, comprehensibility and readability of the segment in question, to the extent that it would have made it difficult for a person relying on the captions to comprehend the segment. As such, the captioning was not meaningful to viewers relying on captions.

Normal and unshaded – No breach despite captioning issues identified. The captioning issues did not affect the accuracy, comprehensibility and readability of the segment in question to the extent that the errors would have made it difficult for a person relying on the captions to comprehend the segment. As such, the captioning remained meaningful to viewers relying on captions.

Segment Story Key captioning issues as defined in the Standard

1 Introduction

(approximately 46 seconds)

subsection 7(b)(iv) Six lines of captions across the screen covering the speaker’s face and mouth

subsection 7(b)(v) Six lines of captions across the screen, so more than three lines in length

subsection 9(b)(iii) There is latency at the beginning and throughout the segment of at least seven seconds such that the captions did not coincide with the onset of speech of the corresponding speaker

subsection 9(b)(v) A key name incorrectly spelt

2 Labor Senator

(approximately 2 minutes and 40 seconds)

subsection 9(b)(i) Captions do not at times clearly identify and distinguish individual speakers or differentiate between off-screen reporting and on-screen voices

subsection 9(b)(ix) Captions end mid-sentence not coinciding with the relevant shot change

3 International Summit


subsection 9(b)(ix) Captions end mid-sentence, not coinciding with the relevant shot change though remains comprehensible

4 2016 Paralympics subsection (9)(b)(v) A key name incorrectly


(approximately 1 minute and 10 seconds)

spelt though remains comprehensible

5 Presidential Debate


subsection (8)(b)(i) Key captions are omitted and as such the spoken content has not been captioned

subsection (9)(b)(i) Captions do not at times clearly identify and distinguish individual speakers or differentiate between off-screen reporting and on-screen voices

subsection (9)(b)(v) Key names are incorrectly spelt

6 Eastern Aleppo Airstrikes


subsection (8)(b)(i) Captions are missing many key names and as such the spoken content has not been captioned

subsection (8)(b)(i) Captions are missing key warning for distressing images and as such the spoken content has not been captioned


subsection (9)(b)(ix) Captions end mid-sentence not coinciding with the relevant shot change


7 Tarin Kot Taliban threat


8 French Police Arrest


subsection 9(b)(v) A key name incorrectly spelt though remains comprehensible

9 Hungarian Camerawoman

Arrested


subsection (9)(b)(iii) There is latency at the beginning and throughout the segment of at least seven seconds such that the captions did not coincide with the onset of speech of the corresponding speaker

subsection (9)(b)(ix) Captions end mid-sentence not coinciding with the relevant shot change

10 Murder Charge


subsection (9)(b)(v) A key name incorrectly spelt though remains comprehensible


11 HMAS Gladstone Historical Ship


12 Royal Flying Doctors Service


subsection (9)(b)(iii) Latency at the beginning of the segment of approximately six seconds though segment remains comprehensible

13 R U OK?


subsection (9)(b)(ix) Captions end mid-sentence not coinciding with the relevant shot change though segment remains comprehensible

14 Stock Market


subsection (9)(b)(ix) Captions end mid-sentence not coinciding with the relevant shot change though segment remains comprehensible

15 Sport


subsection (7)(b)(iv) Captioning covers background text at the beginning of the segment though segment remains comprehensible

16 Cowboy’s Football


subsection (9)(b)(ix) The captions are incomplete and cut off at the end of the segment though remains comprehensible

17 Tennis US Open


subsection (7)(b)(iv) Captioning covers background text at the beginning of the segment though information remains comprehensible

subsection (9)(b)(v) Key names incorrectly spelt though segment remains comprehensible

18 Rugby Update


subsection (9)(b)(v) A key name incorrectly spelt though remains comprehensible

19 Live Cross



subsection (9)(b)(iii) There is latency at the beginning and throughout the segment of at least seven seconds such that the captions did not coincide with the onset of speech of the corresponding speaker



20 Weather


21 Closing Remarks



Investig… · Web viewwhere a word is not ... that the plan drawn up by Syria’s opposition...

Documents

Transcript of Investig… · Web viewwhere a word is not ... that the plan drawn up by Syria’s opposition...