investig… · web viewonce the acma has applied this test to ascertain ... course and this...

Investigation Report 3148

File no. ACMA2013/1629

Broadcaster Prime Television (Southern) Pty Ltd

Station CBN (Southern NSW)

Type of service Commercial Television

Name of program Weekend Sunrise

Date of broadcast 19 October 2013

Relevant code Clause 4.3.1 of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2010.

Date finalised 5 March 2014

Decision No breach clause 4.3.1.

ACMA Investigation Report 3148 – Weekend Sunrise broadcast by CBN on 10 October 2013.

Background The complaint is about a segment of the program Weekend Sunrise that was broadcast on

10 October 2013 by the licensee, Prime Television (Southern) Pty Ltd. Weekend Sunrise is a commercial television breakfast program broadcast weekends at 7:00 am on the Seven Network.

This investigation commenced in December 2014.

The segment in question involved a discussion on the status of immunisation in Australia following recent measles alerts issued by State health departments. The discussion ran for approximately 12 minutes and included the viewpoints of guests Professor Peter McIntyre, Director of the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance, and Ms Meryl Dorey, representative and founder of the Australian Vaccination Network.

Relevant excerpts of the broadcast transcript are extracted at Attachment A.

Throughout the discussion a subtitle heading featured intermittently on the screen stating ‘The Great Vaccination Debate, Experts weigh in on what’s best for our kids’.

The complainant was concerned that this heading inaccurately presented Ms Dorey as an ‘expert’ on vaccination whereas she has no training in science, health or medicine.

The complainant also submitted that the broadcast resulted in ‘false balance’:

By using Ms Dorey as the oppositional voice to a Professor suggests to the audience that her view is equally valid.

And

I was also concerned by the presenter’s closing statement where she suggested that she herself had doubts about vaccination ‘when the needle was going in’ to the arm of her child. I thought this was an irresponsible comment to conclude the story with and left the viewer with the real feeling of doubt about immunisations.

The licensee responded to the complainant stating that:

The description of Ms Dorey as an ‘expert’ was not intended to validate her views, but was simply to recognise her close involvement with the vaccination issue and her role within the Australian Vaccination Network. Her organisation has been a recurrent and vigorous contributor to the vaccination issue, and in that sense she is an ‘expert’.

And

The comment made by [the presenter] in relation to her doubts ‘when the needle is going in’ was not intended to legitimise Ms Dorey’s views but was a comment indicating [her] own experience with her children’s vaccinations and the usefulness of research validating immunisation in reducing any doubts that parents might hold. ...

Relevant extracts from the complainant and licensee’s submission are at Attachment B and Attachment C, respectively.

The ACMA has investigated the complaint in accordance with clause 4.3.1 of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2010 (the Code), which provides:

ACMA Investigation Report 3148 – Weekend Sunrise broadcast by CBN on 10 October 2013.2

Clause 4.3.1: In broadcast current affairs programs, licensees must broadcast factual material accurately and represent viewpoints fairly, having regard to the circumstances at the time of preparing and broadcasting the program;

Clause 4.3.1.1: An assessment of whether the factual material is accurate is to be determined in the context of the segment in its entirety.

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

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

the complainant, and a copy of the broadcast provided to the ACMA by the licensee. 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' viewer to be:

A person of fair average intelligence, who is neither perverse, nor morbid or suspicious of mind, nor avid for scandal. That person does not live in an ivory tower, but can and does read between the lines in the light of that person’s general knowledge and experience of worldly affairs1.

Once the ACMA has applied this test to ascertain the meaning of the material broadcast, it then determines whether or not the material has breached the Code.

Issue: Accuracy

FindingThe licensee did not breach clause 4.3.1 of the Code.

Reasons In assessing accuracy under the Code, the ACMA must consider the factual material in the

context of the segment in its entirety (4.3.1.1).

The topic of discussion was the status of immunisation in Australia, following measles alerts issued by State health departments in light of a recent outbreak.

At the commencement of the segment, as the topic and guests were introduced, the following caption heading featured (which also appeared intermittently throughout the discussion):

‘The Great Vaccination Debate - Experts weigh in on what’s best for our kids’.

When each individual guest spoke, the following captions appeared:

o For Professor McIntyre: Prof Peter McIntyre – National Centre for Immunisation Research

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


o For Ms Meryl Dorey: Meryl Dorey – Australian Vaccination Network

When Ms Dorey was first asked to speak, the presenter introduced her as follows:

Meryl Dorey, from the Australian Vaccination Network joins us. Ah, it’s a group of people concerned about vaccination risks.

The ACMA is satisfied that segment contained information that accurately identified Ms Dorey and her position and did not suggest that she or her group had any medical, science or health expertise.

The ACMA accepts the licensee’s submission that the description of Ms Dorey as an expert was intended to recognise her close involvement with the vaccination issue and her role in the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN).

At no stage during the segment was the impression given that Ms Dorey was a medical or scientific expert. Ms Dorey herself did not associate herself with the medical or scientific community when giving her views:

If the Government and the Medical Community are really concerned about the health of Australians why aren’t they doing something about this obvious huge cause of death in Australia instead of worrying about Measles which basically when the vaccine came in it was called in the medical literature ‘common and benign disease of childhood’.

The ACMA is satisfied that in the context of the segment in its entirety, it would have been clear to the ordinary reasonable viewer that Mrs Dorey was not a scientific, medical or health expert.

On the question of false balance, the ACMA is also satisfied that in exploring the views of Professor McIntyre and Ms Dorey, the segment did not create false balance by suggesting that Ms Dorey’s or the AVN’s position and the position of scientific, medical, health experts were of equal weight.

Several statements made throughout the discussion by Professor McIntyre and the presenters questioned the substance of the information supplied by the AVN, making it clear that it had no scientific, medical or health basis and that the AVN’s views have been discredited by the scientific community. For example:

Prof: ...And there are people who are concerned for various reasons and a lot of the time in fact their concerned for the wrong reasons and they’ve got bad information such as the information which unfortunately comes from Meryl’s organisation.

...

Prof: Well I think Meryl’s concerns are ill-founded and in fact it’s just like the other stuff you read on the AVN website which for someone who’s looking for information, it’s basically like a superhighway to garbage information - the sort of stuff that you see on their website, unfortunately.

...

P1: ... Now, Meryl it seems that there are a number of chief concerns from people like yourself who oppose immunisation and vaccination. But, it does seem as though a lot of those concerns have been addressed, so, can you outline them for us? [emphasis added by the ACMA]


Professor McIntyre also discussed and provided data for a range of childhood illnesses and their complications which had been significantly reduced by vaccination, as well as advances in vaccines and studies being conducted in the area of vaccination.

The ACMA is satisfied that the benefits of vaccination were presented in the program and the ordinary, reasonable viewer would not have understood from the segment in its entirety that Ms Dorey and the AVN position was of equal scientific weight to the medical view presented by Professor McIntyre on the benefits.

The ACMA accepts that the comment by the presenter at the conclusion of the broadcast reflected her experience of vaccination as a parent. As it was preceded by her strong statements in support of vaccination and the usefulness of research, the ACMA is satisfied that in the context of the segment in its entirety the ordinary, reasonable viewer would not have understood the statement to legitimise Ms Dorey’s position.

The ACMA is satisfied that the segment would not have predisposed viewers against the medical position in favour of vaccination and would not have misled them about the safety of vaccination.

Accordingly, the ACMA is satisfied that the licensee did not breach clause 4.3.1 of the Code.


Attachment ATranscript ExtractsPresenter 1 (P1): NSW has become the latest Australian state to issue a ‘measles’ alert, following Queensland and Victoria.

Caption: [THE GREAT VACCINATION DEBATE

Experts weigh in on what’s best for our kids]

Queensland Chief Health Officer has even taken the unprecedented step of writing to parents whose kids are unvaccinated.

Presenter 2 (P2): The measles outbreak has once again re-ignited the immunisation debate of course and this morning we are exploring both sides of the argument.

P1: Meryl Dorey, from the Australian Vaccination Network joins us. Ah, it’s a group of people concerned about vaccination risks, ah she joins us from the Gold Coast. Here in the studio we have Professor Peter McIntyre from the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance. Good morning to you both.

Prof M: Good morning.

Ms Dorey: Good morning.

P1: Now, first of all to you Peter, this latest measles outbreak, how serious is it and what are the potential effects?

Caption: [Prof Peter McIntyre – National Centre for Immunisation Research]

Prof M: Well the only reason it looks serious is because we have so little measles. I mean Australia has basically gotten rid of its own measles. So the only measles we get now is Measles from overseas. What’s happening in all the states, Queensland, NSW and Victoria is Bali is having a Measles outbreak.

Caption: [THE GREAT VACCINATION DEBATE


P1 & P2: Oh okay.

Prof M: So in fact, what’s happening is people who are not themselves immunised are going to Bali from Australia are bringing measles back to Australia. And the problem is that there’ll always be some people who are not immune against Measles. Some people who didn’t get vaccinated or some people who have other health problems or their immune system is not so great etcetera who haven’t responded to the vaccine. And that’s one of the big reasons to have the measles vaccination rates as high as possible is to protect those people who we can’t protect with the vaccines because, you know, their health won’t allow it.

P1: Yes, yes, indeed.

P2: Well the Queensland’s Chief Health Officer has written, and I’m assuming this is a first, to the 10,000 parents that don’t have their children immunised. Do you think that should be across the country?


Prof M: Well in fact parents whose children aren’t fully immunised get regular reminders anyway, that’s something that happens via our register. And of course, you know, if your child is in childcare and you are wanting to get the childcare benefit, you also need to have that child immunised to be eligible so there are regular reminders happening anyway. Um, there have been things done like this before NSW wrote to parents a year or two ago, Queensland’s just done it. And, I guess the idea behind that is to just highlight to people you know, now look we have got a problem here and you really need to get on with it.

P2: But did that improve the numbers? Because, I think if they haven’t immunised their children they feel quite strongly about it.

Prof M: Well, I think there’s really two groups of people whose children aren’t immunised. There’s people who’ve got, you know, significant problems in their lives, or you know, challenges because of being single parents or having lots of other children, you know, life is just difficult. And we need to try and make it as easy as we can for people like that to be able to access the free immunisation services we have in Australia. And there are people who are concerned for various reasons and a lot of the time in fact their concerned for the wrong reasons and they’ve got bad information such as the information which unfortunately comes from Meryl’s organisation.

P1: Now let’s bring in Meryl on this. Meryl it seems that there are a number of chief concerns for people like yourself who oppose immunisation and vaccination. But, it does seem as though a lot of those concerns have been addressed, so, can you outline them for us?

Caption: [Meryl Dorey – Australian Vaccination Network]

Ms Dorey: Well first of all I have to correct Professor McIntyre because he said that parents who don’t vaccinate their children won’t be able to get them into school, pre-school or childcare and that’s not correct. All you have to do is register as a conscientious objector.

[THE GREAT VACCINATION DEBATE


Now with measles it’s an interesting situation because in the hundred years before the Measles vaccination started the death rate declined by 99.9%, without a vaccination, then the vaccine came in in 1969 and took credit for this decline, when credit was not due to the vaccination. Credit was due to other causes. Now, we have a situation where Queensland Health is reminding 10,000 parents that they haven’t vaccinated their children because 11 people in Queensland, mostly adults, and probably at least some of them vaccinated against measles, got Measles anyway, and what we’re ignoring is the current situation that we see in Australia where every week up to a thousand Australian’s are dying in the public hospital systems alone from adverse reactions to properly prescribed medication, and hospital-borne infections, and medical error. This is the elephant in the room. If the Government and the medical community are really concerned about the health of Australians why aren’t they doing something about this obvious huge cause of death in Australia instead of worrying about Measles which basically when the vaccine came in it was called in the medical literature ‘common and benign disease of childhood’. It wasn’t until the vaccination came in that we started to hear that measles was a deadly disease in this century. So, let’s put the money and the emphasis where it belongs in trying to stop people from dying because of medical error and adverse reactions to drugs.


P2: Well I can tell you my cousin was born deaf because his mother had the German measles while she was pregnant, which had a huge rise in the 60’s in this country. And in fact at the Murdoch’s Children Research Institution where I am an ambassador, we’ve been doing some interesting research on the tuberculosis vaccine which we don’t give to children anymore. And the rise in allergies - we’re starting to see a link - because the tuberculosis vaccine - when it was given - kick-started a baby’s immune system. So allergies that are on the rise in our country, 1 in 10 children, there are other benefits that are outside of the traditional disease we are vaccinating against.

P1: Sure, and measles is of course only one of the vaccinations we receive. Peter, how do you respond to Meryl’s concerns?

Prof M: Well I think Meryl’s concerns are ill-founded. In fact it’s just like the other stuff you read on the AVN website which for someone who’s looking for information, it’s basically like a super highway to garbage information - the sort of stuff that you see on their website, unfortunately.

[Heading: Prof Peter McIntyre – National Centre for Immunisation Research]

And, what Meryl’s just said about measles is ah is partially correct, so, it is true that death rates declined because we got antibiotics, we got better medical care, and people were dying of complications like that. But, there’s this hard core of complications from measles like encephalitis which is inflammation of your brain, and something really scary which has a long name, SSPE which is actually a delayed encephalitis so the child looks okay and then 10, 20 years later, they get a brain rot. And both encephalitis and SSPE cause people to die, and it doesn’t matter how good your diet is. It doesn’t matter how healthy your lifestyle is, you can still be one of the unlucky ones that gets measles and has either severe disability or dies. And that’s what we can prevent with the vaccine, and that’s what we’ve managed to do is get rid of all deaths from measles, and in fact get rid of measles in Australia. But, as I’ve said what we’ve still got is measles overseas.

P1: Meryl, many people would listen to you and say, okay I suppose there might, you know, be some cause for concern but why not be safe rather than sorry?

Ms Dorey: Well, let’s put it this way. The Australian Vaccination Network represents thousands of families.

Caption: [Meryl Dorey – Australian Vaccination Network]

Some like my own have children who were permanently injured by vaccines. Some unfortunately have even lost children to vaccinations. We are passionate about children’s health. We care deeply about the health of children. Parents have valid concerns. They’re asking good scientific questions, and unfortunately the Government is not providing enough information. Now, the last time I met with Peter McIntyre -

P1: - The questions might be good scientific questions, but haven’t the questions been answered in a really good scientific way?

Ms Dorey: - Well the last time I met with Peter McIntyre a couple of years ago we discussed the possibility of starting a study that has never been done anywhere in the world and that’s a study that compares the overall health of the fully vaccinated with the fully unvaccinated. Because we have the childhood immunisation register we’re in a position to do that study cheaply and easily. We could become world leaders in vaccination science. And instead of


the Government putting its money towards this, they’ve chosen not to do this study. Now, I would like to extend the hand of friendship and cooperation to Peter and the staff of the NCIRS, work with the AVN, let’s do this study, let’s prove once and for all that fully vaccinated children are healthier and more protected than fully unvaccinated children. I cannot think of one parent in this world who would not vaccinate their child if the information was there to show that their children would be healthier if they were vaccinated. But until that information is there, parents are going to continue to err on the side of caution, especially parents who’ve already had a child affected by vaccines.

P1: So the study? Proposed?

Prof M: Well in fact this study is still in the planning stage. It’s actually more complicated than Meryl suggests, but we’re keen to see the best quality evidence and we have no doubt what the outcome will be. We’ve seen very recent evidence with things like meningitis due to HIB, which when I was training as a paediatrician, there’d be 500, 700 children every year who would get meningitis or another really nasty thing called epiglottitis, both of which kill you, and in fact Meningitis, even if you got better, often you had long-term handicaps we don’t see that anymore. You know we used to have 6 or 700 children, now we have less than 10. And that didn’t happen by some magic change in the last 10 – 15 years with everyone having a better lifestyle, right. And similarly with pneumococcal vaccine, another cause of meningitis it’s very nasty. Well, that vaccine has almost eliminated the types of pneumococcus that the Vaccine that the vaccine targets. And we’re now expanding to try and get even more types of pneumococcus covered. We have the meningococcal vaccine, something very very scary. That -

P2: - Whooping cough as well.

Prof M: Well whooping cough has not been such a good story as the others. Because we’ve still got the problem of babies too young to be vaccinated.

P2: That happened to my daughter.

Prof M: Yeah yeah. And we’ve still got the problem that the vaccine does ware off over time but I guess the good thing about the vaccine is that once you’ve got it, it protects you really well against bad whooping cough. It’s not good against mild whooping cough, but against bad whooping cough it’s very good and the next step we are looking at is can we either give the mother, give the vaccine to the mother during pregnancy, or to a baby immediately after birth, to try and protect those very young babies that are too young to immunise at the moment.

P1: Well we’re going to have to leave it here pretty shortly Meryl but you must be pretty pleased to hear that as Peter says that the kind of study you’re talking about is in train or at least in the planning stages.

Ms Dorey: I am very happy about that and I hope that Peter will contact me and give me some information about that and we would love to work with the NCIRS on this study, and I really appreciate him doing that. Thank you.

P1: Terrific. Meryl thanks for joining us, thank you Peter.

Prof M: Thank you.

P1: You know, it is one of those debates that doesn’t seem to go away. But, you know.


P2: But that sort of study would put a lot of parents’ minds at ease, including my own, even though I believe in vaccination, you still have that doubt when that needle goes in the arm, so I think it’ll be a good thing.


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

Sunrise aired a story on the ‘vaccination debate’ and featured Meryl Dorey as an ‘expert’ in the vaccination field. I am particularly concerned by the heading that featured for the whole interview at the bottom of the screen ‘experts weigh in on the vaccination issue’ as this suggests Ms Dorey is an ‘expert’. Ms Dorey is at best a concerned parent but she in no way meets the definition of an expert. At worst she is the founder of an anti-vaccination lobby group that spread misinformation amongst our community. By using Ms Dorey as the oppositional voice to a Professor suggests to the audience that her view is equally valid. This is not the case in the scientific and medical community there is no debate vaccination is an important public health intervention that we in Australia are so fortunate to have access to. It should not be presented as a ‘debate’ in the media, this is providing the community with false balance. I was also concerned by the presenter’s closing statement where she suggested that she herself had doubts about vaccination ‘when the needle was going in’ to the arm of her child. I thought this was an irresponsible comment to conclude the story with and left the viewer with the real feeling of doubt about immunisations. This was a very irresponsible way for sunrise to report on vaccination especially in light of the measles cases that are occurring all around the country.

The complainant submitted to the ACMA that:

My original complaint made online at ‘Free TV’ was in relation to the vaccination story run on Sunrise. My complaint relates to:

1. The program interviewed Prof McIntyre from the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance and Ms. Meryl Dorey from the AVN. The program ran a subtitle under the interview ‘The Great Vaccination Debate, Experts weigh in on what’s best for our kids’. I expressed concern that Ms. Dorey and been called an ‘expert’. She has no formal training in medicine/health/science. She is the founding member of an anti-vaccination lobby. It is not correct to call her an ‘expert’ and I do not accept the letter from [the station] saying that she is an expert. Placing her alongside a preeminent medical doctor leads the viewer to believe that they are equally qualified to give advice about vaccination, and this is not the case. Had the program described her as a ‘concerned parent and anti-vaccination lobbyist’ this would have been more truthful.

2. By using Meryl Dorey for comment on vaccination the public is presented with false balance. It gives the impression that the ‘two sides’ of the issue are equal which is completely untrue. There is overwhelming scientific evidence of the benefits of vaccination and Sunrise would have been hard pressed to find a suitably qualified scientists or doctor who did not agree with vaccination (which is why they have used Ms Dorey to make their story more sensational). I note that Sunrise do not interview people who believe the earth is flat for stories involving geography, which would be similar to what they have done with vaccination and interviewing Ms Dorey.

3. [P2] stated at the end of the story that she worries ‘as the needle is going in’ about the vaccination issue. Although I appreciate [the station’s] response that [P2] did not intend to legitimise Ms. Dorey’ view, her comment in fact left viewers with the feeling of uncertainty and fear around vaccination. It was especially unfortunate to conclude the story with such a negative comment.


Attachment CLicensee’s submissionsThe licensee responded to the complainant that:

You have raised issues in relation to the segment featuring Professor Peter McIntyre (Director of the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance) and Meryl Dorey (founder of the Australian Vaccination Network) discussing the divergent views on vaccination in Australia. You have expressed concern regarding the appropriateness of the balance given to the respective views of Professor McIntyre and Meryl Dorey in the segment and the characterisation of Ms Dorey as an ‘expert’. ...The Code requires us, in broadcasting news and current affairs programs, to broadcast factual material accurately and represent viewpoints fairly, having regard to the circumstances at the time of preparing and broadcasting the program.

The segment in question sought to provide a balanced and impartial report of a current issue, being the status of immunisation in Australia, the report being precipitated in part by recent measles alerts issued by State health departments. As a broadcaster, and in accordance with our obligations under the Code, we seek to present all sides to a story rather than a one-sided view. In interviewing Professor McIntyre and Ms Dorey, the Program sought to provide a reasonable opportunity for both sides to be presented, being the official view of the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance as represented by Ms Dorey.

Although you have expressed concern that the program gave a false balance to the vaccination issue, we would respectfully disagree. The Program did not seek to sponsor or endorse the views of Ms Dorey, or to provide unnecessary emphasis to her views. The description of Ms Dorey as an ‘expert’ was not intended to validate her views, but was simply to recognise her close involvement with the vaccination issue and her role within the Australian Vaccination Network. Her organisation has been a recurrent and vigorous contributor to the vaccination issue, and in that sense she is an ‘expert’. At all times, her views were expressed as her own and we do not consider that labelling her an ‘expert’ had the effect of endorsing the veracity or otherwise of her views.

The comment made by [P2] (the female presenter on the Program) in relation to her doubts ‘when the needle is going in’ was not intended to legitimise Ms Dorey’s views, but was a comment indicating [P2’s] own experience with her children’s vaccinations and the usefulness of research validating immunisation in reducing any doubts that parents might hold [P2’s] comment should also be considered in context as she had prefaced her comment with confirmation of her personal belief in vaccination. We would also note in this regard that earlier in the interview, [P2] commented on research being conducted by the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute which suggested that immunisation could have wider benefits beyond the prevention of the target vaccination disease. ...


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 viewonce the acma has applied this test to ascertain ... course and this...

Documents