0/5

Media watchdog responds to Media Watch comments on new Code

Media Watch lacked "important contextual information about the application of the new code," says ACMA.

2015-11-19_0115

The Australian Communications and Media Authority has responded to Monday night’s episode of Media Watch, in which host Paul Barry referred to it as a “media watchpuss.”

Here are some of the responses from ACMA surrounding Impartiality and current affairs programs:

The segment suggested that the explicit acknowledgement (in the new code) that current affairs programs are not required to be impartial amounts to the removal of an existing rule concerning this requirement – this is simply not the case.

The effect of the new code and the previous code are the same – only news must be impartial and current affairs programs can take a particular view on issues.

‘Gratuitous emphasis’ in news and current affairs programs
The segment implied that the removal of the ‘gratuitous emphasis’ provision would allow more programs such as the 2012 A Current Affair (ACA) ‘All Asian Mall’ broadcast (which the ACMA found in breach of the previous code). The Media Watch commentary lacked important contextual information about the application of the new code.

The ACMA’s investigation of that ACA program found the licensee breached not only the gratuitous emphasis provision, but also the accuracy rules and the ‘provoke or perpetuate intense dislike’ provision. Importantly, the ‘provoke or perpetuate intense dislike’ provision is retained in the new code – and provides a wider protection than the ‘gratuitous emphasis’ provision as it applies to all programming (not just news and current affairs). Under the new code, licensees must not broadcast material:

‘which is likely in all the circumstances, to provoke or perpetuate in, or by a reasonable person, intense dislike, serious contempt or severe ridicule against a person or group of people because of age, colour, gender, national or ethnic origin, disability, race religion or sexual preference’.

On Code complaints it noted:

The segment included a suggestion that ‘complaining about TV programs is also going to get harder’ because the new code precludes complaints about material provided online by the broadcasters (i.e. online catch-up services).

Such online content has never been regulated by the commercial television code. This is simply a function of the legislation governing broadcasting and the internet in Australia. It is not the result of the new code or any decision by the ACMA, and the suggestion to the contrary is incorrect.

You can read more on their responses regarding Advertorials, ‘Public panic’ in news and current affairs programs and M and MA15+ programs earlier in the evening here.

12 Responses

  1. Regulation of television is just as relevant now as it was in the days of the ABCB. The majority of viewers still prefer the FTA stations. ACMA needs to be exposed for what it is, weak and vacillating. ACMA under Chairman Chris Chapman ex-Channel 7 executive is an absolute joke with no commitment whatsoever ever to the public interest. He should resign. With regard to the ABC, they are subject to more scrutiny than any other media. That is as it should be, as they are taxpayer funded. The viewing public have a right to expect better from the commercial networks as they also receive generous government support. Last year the government handed the commercial television networks a 50% tax cut, reducing licence fees for the publicly owned spectrum they use from 9% to 4.5% of revenue. This has cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars since 2010, on the basis that it’s getting more…

  2. Most if not all regulators are toothless tigers especially when it comes to large corporations and companies. ACMA is no different they have for a long time been ineffective in properly regulating the media environment. But here’s the thing: People in general are more informed anyway and with the amount of news and content from others avenues in time ACMA and the old media will completely be irrelevant. Paul Barry and Media Watch are great but the people can regulate these things by not watching “normal” tv.

  3. Barry’s main argument was that just like the old code the new code doesn’t stop Hanson delivering Op-Ed while leaving Barry free to make inaccurate , biased rants on the ABC. Which isn’t subject to the Code of Practice and can do what it likes.

    1. I tend to agree (I think Media Watch under Paul Barry is self-[industry]-serving & quite often extremely hypocritical), but the ABC does operate under a Code of Practice. It’s just not the same one the commercial stations write for themselves.

      In anything, there are higher expectations of the ABC, and it is held to harsher standards – not all of which are its own, or even its viewers…

    2. The new code is just ACMA rolling over to the demands of the TV stations it is the usual cowards way out all it is doing is giving the Tabloid TV shows ACA & TT and the rolling joke that passes for News on commercial TV open slather.
      Christ knows what News on 10 will be like when Murdoch gets his oar into it, most likely here is the News interpreted by Ray Hadley,weather by Piers Ackerman followed by Chris Kenny and Miranda Devine doing Current affairs,wont that be fun

  4. I don’t wish to keep banging my head against a wall of hypocrisy but from ACMA’s own media release – “The new code reflects the reality that television is operating in a new, digital era in which content can be viewed from a wide variety of sources and on a wide variety of platforms.”

    However, they then go on to say in their rebuttal to Media Watch that online content is beyond the remit of the TV Code of Practice and elsewhere insist that people have to use snailmail should they wish to complain about something. How is that recognising this (not really) “new digital era”?

    If they had consulted with the community more thoroughly they would know that things such as programs starting at their advertised times are of much more concern to people. Sadly, that was never going to be on an agenda that has been set by the commercial networks themselves.

  5. I would question the whole reason for retaining ACMA. Normally I would be all for having watchdogs, but ACMA has consistently shown itself to be a toothless tiger. Either toughen up it’s regulator role, response time and enforcement or give it up. I wonder what would be the response of ACMA employees if told their jobs would go because of irrelevancy.

    The Media Watch segment painted a picture of a government body taken over by the industry it is expected to regulate / monitor. The response above seems to be playing around the edge, but doesn’t go to the heart of what I saw in the segment – a watchdog rolling over to industry demands.

    Maybe we should just let the industry do what it wants to do and let it accelerate its own demise. TV is dead. The owners refuse to acknowledge it and believe that government interference is the cause. The cause is a proliferation of brain…

    1. Back in the old days there was the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. It set quality/accuracy/content standards, independently investigated breaches, & had a range of options for dealing with them – from forced corrections/retractions, through fines & restrictions, up to licence cancellation.

      It became the ABA, which merged with the ACA to become ACMA. Each time, a little of its quality/content powers were stripped.

      Eventually, under Howard, ‘industry self-regulation’ became the mantra & its remaining powers were gutted. It can’t create content standards, only question/rubber-stamp ones handed to it; it can’t investigate on its own, only respond to complaints; it’s required to judge, but has few options for punishing breaches.

      Basically all it can do is ask nicely for a correction, or go the nuclear option of suspending/cancelling licences – there’s little in-between.

  6. Is ACMA any longer relevant? Probably not ! Media operators still live in an age of entitlement? Without a doubt ! Well done media watch, there is a big need for scrutiny in these matters.

Leave a Reply