the acma found that the captioning errors in the remaining .../media/broadcasting investig… ·...

Investigation report no. BI-268Summary

Broadcaster Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Station ABC1

Type of service National broadcasting—television

Name of program ABC News 7.00pm Victorian Edition (the Program)

Date of broadcast 4 October 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 7.00pm Victorian Edition program broadcast on 4 October 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 7.00pm Victorian Edition (ABC News, the Program).

The Program was broadcast on ABC1 by the ABC on 4 October 2016 at 7.00pm.

On 5 October 2016, during a follow-up call via the National Relay Service regarding an initial complaint (BI-267), the complainant advised the ACMA that he was concerned with the poor quality of live captioning for the news program broadcast on the evening of 4 October 2016. The complainant was concerned that the poor quality captioning prevented him from engaging in news content and current affairs in a meaningful way. The complainant indicated that he believed the ongoing poor live captioning quality may be indicative of a potential systemic issue.

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 Tamara Oudyn, and is described in these terms:

’Local, National and International News hosted by Tamara Oudyn’1

The program in question consisted of fifteen distinct program segments: an introduction, ten stories covering news and current affairs, a finance report, weather, one sport segment 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://iview.abc.net.au/programs/abc-news-vic/NN1707V044S00 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 7.00pm Edition broadcast on ABC1 on 4 October 2016 2 of 24

http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/abc-news-vic/NN1707V044S00

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 complaint (Attachment B) and 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 each of 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).

5 subsection 6(c) of the Standard6 subsection 6(a) of the Standard7 subsection 6(a) of the Standard8 section 4 of the Standard9 Explanatory Memorandum to the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Improved Access to Television) Bill 2012

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


Assessment of live captioningWithin 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.

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


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 that the ABC did not comply 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.

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 fifteen 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 2. Melbourne Road Tolls

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




The following issues relating to the quality of captioning were identified in the ‘Melbourne Road Tolls’ 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 onscreen 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).

Latency within 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).

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).

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 4. Market Power

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





The ABC submitted that ‘This 2 minute 26 second segment included some 29 audio grabs and the rapid transitions between numerous speakers would have presented a considerable challenge to the most capable and experienced captioner. It is clear from reviewing the segment that the captioner on this occasion prioritised accuracy over colour changes, with the result that the transcription quality was high but the differentiation between speakers was inadequate. We agree that the persistent failure to indicate transitions between speakers – while understandable in the context of this piece – meant that viewers relying on captions did not have meaningful access to this news story’ (see Attachment C).


Segment 6. USA Votes

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




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


Segment 7. Muslim Insurgency

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





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

Having considered the complainant’s submissions 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 9. Ballarat Priest

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

Key sentence information from the dialogue is omitted from the captioning i.e. ‘He sexually abused altar boys in the vestry before mass, and girls as they celebrated communion’ (section (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 onscreen voice. 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).




The ABC submitted that ‘We agree that the persistent failure to signal transitions between speakers with changed caption colour meant that viewers relying on captions did not have meaningful access to this news story’ (see Attachment C).


Segment 10. Investment Boom Risk

The following issues relating to the quality of captioning were identified in the ‘Investment Boom Risk’ 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 onscreen voice. 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).



The ABC submitted ‘Viewers would have had some difficulty distinguishing between different speakers – particularly the reporter and the representative from Industry Super – as the language used was similarly professional with an emphasis on facts and analysis. This would have had some impact on a viewer’s ability to comprehend this item and the perspectives advanced’ (see Attachment C).


ConclusionTaking into account the requirements of readability, accuracy and comprehensibility of the Standard, the ACMA 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 found 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 14 minutes) in the Program broadcast on 4 October 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 (see Attachment A).

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 (see Attachment A) 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?

Finding

Six 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 4 October 2016, in accordance with the basic rule.

Reasons Under 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.

Finding

Remaining 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 A

Relevant 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 BComplaint

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.

[…]

Complaint to the ACMA dated 5 October 2016

In a follow up conversation on the 5 October 2016, the complainant stated in part the following:

[…]

The captioning is usually appalling. Every night it’s terrible. Just look at last night’s evening news program….The live captions are incomprehensible.

[…]


Attachment CABC response and submissions

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

The ABC’s submission 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 2 – Melbourne Road Tolls

We acknowledge that there was an unfortunate failure to change caption colours as the audio transitioned between the Victorian Premier, the reporter and the Victorian Opposition leader. To the extent that this would likely have created some confusion for viewers, it was mitigated to a degree by the accompanying visuals which showed first the Premier speaking and then the Opposition leader.

We acknowledge the latency in this segment and note that the complex language used in the report would have made more immediate captioning very difficult.

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

Segment 4 – Market Power

This 2 minute 26 second segment included some 29 audio grabs and the rapid transitions between numerous speakers would have presented a considerable challenge to the most capable and experienced captioner. It is clear from reviewing the segment that the captioner on this occasion prioritised accuracy over colour changes, with the result that the transcription quality was high but the differentiation between speakers was inadequate. We agree that the persistent failure to indicate transitions between speakers – while understandable in the context of this piece – meant that viewers relying on captions did not have meaningful access to this news story.

In our view, the latency was unexceptional given the complexity of the piece.

Segment 6 – USA Votes

There were two instances in this segment where no colour change was used to signify a change in speaker. Specifically:

- In the first instance, while footage of Mr Trump speaking at a rally is shown on screen, his speech is captioned: ‘I have legally used the tax laws to my benefit. Honestly, I have brilliantly, I have brilliantly used those laws’. The footage then shows Mr Trump standing amongst a crowd, applauding, and the reporter resumes speaking. While the caption colour does not change to mark this transition, the context makes clear that it is no longer Mr Trump being captioned. The next captioned text says: ‘But Mr Trump concedes the existing laws are unfair’. Footage is then shown of Mr Trump standing at a podium addressing a cheering crowd. Again the caption colour does not change, but the content of the captions signals that Mr Trump is again speaking: ‘And I’m a big beneficiary. But you’re more important than my being a beneficiary so we are going to straighten it out’.

In our view any confusion that may have arisen by the failure to change the caption colour was significantly mitigated by the other verbal and visual cues provided which effectively signalled a change in speaker.

- In the second instance, while footage of Mrs Clinton speaking at a podium is shown on screen, her speech is captioned: ‘Trump was taking from America about both hands and leaving the rest of the us with the bill. He says he’s the one that can fix this but it’s like letting the fox guard the henhouse, right?’ Footage showed Mr Trump waving while disembarking an aeroplane, and then images of an official letter from the New York Attorney General. The caption colour did not change as the reporter started speaking, and the captions read: ‘Hot on the heels of the revelations about Trump’s tax returns, a new controversy. His charity was ordered to stop fundraising activities immediately’.

We accept that this transition would have been more confusing to viewers relying on captions. Since both Mrs Clinton and the reporter were speaking about Mr Trump in the third person, the textual cues that were evident in the first instance described above were lacking here.


In our view, the latency of this piece did not prevent viewers relying on captions from having meaningful access to this news story.

While it is regrettable that each speaker transition did not coincide with a change in caption colour – and this may have resulted in some confusion in the second instance described above – overall we believe the segment remained comprehensible to viewers relying on captions.

Segment 7 – Muslim Insurgency

There were three instances in this segment where no colour change was used to signify a change is speaker. Specifically:

- In the first instance, the reporter is speaking about targets of the Muslim insurgency in Thailand. His speech is captioned: ‘Buddhist monks are seen as a symbol of the Thai state, and so have become a target for separatist Muslim insurgents, lines this man. He rose through the ranks before quitting the BRN earlier this year’. The image shown on screen is of a man sitting in shadow in a darkened room, in a manner which viewers would associate with protecting a source’s identity. As the man speaks, the caption colour does not change. The captions read: ‘My role as a logistics officer was to find food, aim anything and bomb supplies. I was proud to be with the BRN.’ In our view, any confusion that may have arisen by the failure to change the caption colour was significantly mitigated by the other verbal and visual cues provided, which both effectively signalled a change in speaker.

- In the second instance, the former insurgent is again speaking: ‘It was our job to plant the bombs in certain areas to resist the government’. The colour of the captions does not change to coincide with the change to the reporter speaking: ‘Since 2004 the struggle for an independent state has claimed more than 6,500 lives.’ While the failure to mark this transition with a different colour is regrettable, it would not have materially affected a viewer’s understanding, particularly as the second phrase was a statement of fact, not a viewpoint or opinion.

- In the third instance, the reporter was describing the difficulties for soldiers policing the area. He said: ‘It’s difficult for the soldiers to tell the difference between the local community and the fighters’. Footage on screen showed a member of the Thai armed forces speaking. The caption colour did not change to indicate the transition from the reporter to the soldier, but the soldier’s language was identifiably different to the reporter’s: ‘If they’re good guys, they wouldn’t walk here. If we see 3 or 4 men walking through this forest at night, it’s not normal. We know they are bad guys’. In our view, any confusion that may have arisen by the failure to change the caption colour was mitigated by the other verbal and visual cues provided, which effectively signalled a change in speaker.

In our view, the latency of this piece did not prevent viewers relying on captions from having meaningful access to this news story.

While it is regrettable that each speaker transition did not coincide with a change in caption colour – and this may have resulted in some momentary confusion – overall we believe the segment remained comprehensible to viewers relying on captions.

Segment 9 – Ballarat Priest

We agree that the persistent failure to signal transitions between speakers with changed caption colour meant that viewers relying on captions did not have meaningful access to this news story. We note that there were some nine speakers for whom the caption colour remained the same throughout the segment, and differentiating between the opinions and perspectives of these individual speakers was important to an understanding of the piece.

We note that the sentence highlighted by the ACMA in its preliminary finding was the only substantial omission in the segment and we do not believe that this one omission, or the latency in the captioning, would themselves have prevented viewers relying on captions from having meaningful access to this story.


Segment 10 – Investment Boom Risk

While this segment was not in the same category as segment 9, there was a repeated failure to signal transitions between speakers with changed caption colour. Viewers would have had some difficulty distinguishing between different speakers – particularly the reporter and the representative from Industry Super – as the language used was similarly professional with an emphasis on facts and analysis. This would have had some impact on a viewer’s ability to comprehend this item and the perspectives advanced.

In our view, while the latency in this segment was not desirable, it alone would not have prevented viewers relying on captions from having meaningful access to this story.

[…]


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 35 seconds)

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

2 Melbourne Road Tolls

(approximately 2 minutes and 26 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)(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

3 Malaysian controversy


subsection (9)(b)(i) Captions do not clearly identify key speakers, though speakers remain distinguishable

4 Market Power



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

5 Nuclear Relations


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

6 USA Votes




7 Muslim Insurgency




8 Victorian Seniors Awards


subsection (9)(b)(i) Captions do not clearly identify speakers, though speakers remain distinguishable

subsection (9)(b)(iii) Latency within the segment of at least seven seconds though segment remains comprehensible

9 Ballarat Priest


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




10 Investment Boom Risk




11 Finance

(approximately 2 minutes)

12 Sport

(approximately 1 minute and 52 seconds)

13 Weather


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

14 Phar Lap


subsection (9)(b)(i) Captions do not clearly identify key speakers, though speakers remain distinguishable

15 Closing Remarks

(approximately 11 seconds)

subsection (9)(b)(iii) Latency at beginning of segment though closing remarks remain comprehensible

subsection (9)(b)(ix) Captions end mid-sentence though coincides with end of program


the acma found that the captioning errors in the remaining .../media/broadcasting investig… ·...

Documents