0/5

Sam Newman put on ‘ACMA watch’

Nine will have to advise ACMA every time a complaint is received for Sam Newman or The AFL Footy Show for the next 6 months, after ruling his 'mannequin stunt' in breach of the Code of Practice.

newmanfooty1The Australian Communications and Media Authority has instructed Nine to inform it of any complaints it receives about the AFL Footy Show or Sam Newman for a period of six months after ruling Nine in breach of the Industry Code of Practice for his 2008 stunt involving a mannequin.

The mannequin parodied sports journalist Caroline Wilson, also a Nine personality on Footy Classified, provoked severe ridicule against her on the grounds of gender.

Nine was also found to have failed to provide a substantive written response to the complainants.

ACMA found the segment made use of a female mannequin dressed in lace lingerie which the audience was asked to ‘pretend’ was Wilson. Several comments were made about her appearance and at one point a photograph was stapled to the mannequin’s head.

The stunt caused an uproar in the media with Newman subsequently calling some of his critics “liars and hypocrites.” Nine eventually stood him down and ordered anti-discrimination training. Newman also offered to resign.

ACMA has concluded that the action by Nine was sufficient, citing the following:

* the broadcast of an apology on Footy Classified and the AFL Footy Show
* a private apology to the journalist concerned
* professional training for Sam Newman and the entire production staff
* the removal of Sam Newman from the program for several episodes to undergo professional anti-discrimination training run by external lawyers
* a subsequent apology broadcast on National Nine News prior to Sam Newman’s return to the AFL Footy Show.
* detailed code training relating to the requirements to provide substantive responses to complaints.

On balance the anti-discrimination training for Newman does seem to be a considered response, but in its 24 page investigation report ACMA did not indicate what checks and balances it had on the training being either effective or comprehensive.

It also did not indicate why Nine did not already have an effective system in place to ensure complainants received written complaints.

Source: ACMA

14 Responses

  1. Appropriate response by ACMA. Let’s rejoice in the 24 pages – what, you wanted them to dispose of the whole matter in 2 paras? I agree I’d like to see some fines but given their constraints, and Nine’s handling of the situation, it seems fair to give Nine and Newman the benefit of the doubt and just keep an eye on whether he re-offends. I’ll be interested to see how he gets on. His persona may defeat him.

    I don’t believe that Someone BBBA’s ‘freedom of speech’ means ‘freedom to publicly wound and humiliate anyone you feel like without being held liable for your actions’. As a society we should hold ourselves to a better standard. Juxtapose this with Four Corners this week; different code, same principle. Surely there’s a connection between public and private respect for women?

  2. Are Channel Nine saying that they had no idea Sam was going to do this on the show?! They supplied the props and and complicit to the act in question! If it was offensive (I just think it’s an example of boring, desperate, talentless entertainment in it’s loosest definition) others should take responsibility as well as they could have stopped him at anytime – just look at Gary’s reaction to the “sketch”. He hardly wants to be part of the kiddy humor that the shows producers want to take place.

    Sam’s behaviour is very predictable – His laughs are based on trying to shock viewers with cheap shots and most people would find the show even more boring if he wasn’t playing up. As usual people will laugh as long as they aren’t the ones being made fun of on national tv.

  3. That’s a very logical and substantiated reason Tia – “I can’t stand the guy”. If only we based more of our society around such enlightened principles. What good is freedom of speech when it prevents us from ruling over “guys we can’t stand”?

  4. By their mere existence ACMA are inherently a disgrace, but this all that to a whole new level. It looks like the rights of all Australians to a free and democratic media is now under threat not only from fringe Christian nutters, but also PC lefty whinebags.

    Whether the Sam Newman incident was offensive or funny, creative or juvenile is irrelevant. The issue at hand here is blatant government censorship of the media. Anyone who supports free speech would condemn this latest attack on our freedoms.

  5. how long ago was this. oh yeah 12 months ago. nine dealt with it and they apoligise to caro and she accepted it. every else has moved on and so should the acma

  6. PT…. I agree with you but give the poor guys a break… it took them long enough to write up 24 pages for the sake of a two minute sketch… imagine how long “real action” is going to take them… ??? LOL!

  7. I didn’t say it wouldn’t have been embarrassing or offensive to the person involved. Deserving of bad press? Maybe. It’s just not something I believe a government body should be interfering with.

  8. Righto then, some nice rhetoric from ACMA, but what are they actually going to Do About It? All that ACMA ever seem to do is sternly tell off the networks and that’s it. Let’s see some real action. Fines, prosecution, something lasting.

  9. C’mon Kilus, you’re not serious. Have you watched it? Imagine your face was stuck up there and 1000 people in the audience were laughing at you.

Leave a Reply