6RN Investigation report 3156 - acma.gov.au/media/Broadcasting... · Web viewAcknowledging this fact of life does not change the ABC’s obligation to apply its impartiality standard

Investigation Report No. 3156

File no. ACMA2013/1664

Broadcaster 6RN

Station ABC Radio National Western Australia

Type of service National Broadcaster

Name of program Saturday Extra – ‘Obamacare’

Date of broadcast 26 October 2013

Relevant code Standards 4.1 and 4.2 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (revised in 2013)

Date of decision 7 April 2014

Finding No breach of standards 4.1 [due impartiality] and 4.2 [diversity of perspectives] of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (revised in 2013).

ACMA Investigation Report 3156 – Saturday Extra broadcast by 2RN on 26/10/13

Background On 7 January 2014, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA)

commenced an investigation into a complaint about a segment of Saturday Extra broadcast by 2RN on 26 October 2013.

The segment was a discussion on the topic of the US ‘Affordable Care Act’ (ACA), also known as ‘Obamacare’,1 and featured guests David Smith, Lecturer in American politics and foreign policy at the United States Studies Centre (University of Sydney), and Lesley Russell, Senior Research Fellow at the ANU College of Medicine, Biology and Environment.

The segment was introduced with questions posed by the segment’s host, Geraldine Doogue:

So what is the future of Obamacare? How will it work? When will it work? And really what is it offering?

A transcript of the segment is at Attachment A.

The complainant alleged that the broadcast:

[W]as biased in [favour] of the ACA, and anyone opposing it was characterised as a Tea Party fanatic and a racist. The presenter, Geraldine Doogue, agreed with both guests ... on their support, and there was no alternative voice or opinion presented.

The complainant’s submissions to both the ABC and the ACMA are set out at Attachment B.

In its response to the complainant, the ABC stated that:

...[I]t is expected that experts will express their own views during interviews. This discussion provided listeners with the opportunity to hear the views of two respected academics on the practicalities of Obamacare – “What is the future of Obamacare, how will it work, when will it work, and really what is it offering?” and how Australia could benefit from the US experience. The discussion was not of an adversarial nature; nor was it required to be in order to meet the ABC’s editorial standards.

The ABC’s submissions are at Attachment C.

The ACMA has investigated the complaint in accordance with standards 4.1 [due impartiality] and 4.2 [knowingly exclude significant strand of thought] of the ABC Code of Practice 2011(revised in 2013) (the Code), which provide: 2

4.1 Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.

4.2 Present a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented.

1 A United States federal statute (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ) signed into law by President Barack Obama in March 2010 as part of a regulatory overhaul of the US healthcare system –http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

2 In his complaint to the ACMA, the complainant also alleged a breach of standards 4.4 and 4.5 of the Code, however, these standards have not been considered in this investigation as they were not raised with the ABC in the first instance.

ACMA Investigation Report 3156 – Saturday Extra broadcast by 2RN on 26/10/13 2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

Relevant Principles set out in the Code in relation to impartiality and diversity of perspectives include:

Judgements about whether impartiality was achieved in any given circumstances can vary among individuals according to their personal and subjective view of any given matter of contention. Acknowledging this fact of life does not change the ABC’s obligation to apply its impartiality standard as objectively as possible. In doing so, the ABC is guided by these hallmarks of impartiality:

a balance that follows the weight of evidence;

fair treatment;

open-mindedness; and

opportunities over time for principal relevant perspectives on matters of contention to be expressed.

[...]

Impartiality does not require that every perspective receives equal time, nor that every facet of every argument is presented.

Assessing the impartiality due in given circumstances requires consideration in context of all relevant factors including:

the type, subject and nature of the content;

the circumstances in which the content is made and presented;

the likely audience expectations of the content;

the degree to which the matter to which the content relates is contentious;

the range of principal relevant perspectives on the matter of contention; and

the timeframe within which it would be appropriate for the ABC to provide opportunities for the principal relevant perspectives to be expressed, having regard to the public importance of the matter of contention and the extent to which it is the subject of current debate.

Assessment The investigation has considered submissions from the complainant and the ABC, and a

copy of the broadcast provided to the ACMA by the ABC. Other sources used have been identified in this report.

In assessing content for compliance with the Code, the ACMA considers the meaning con-veyed by the relevant material that was broadcast. This is assessed according to the un-derstanding of an ‘ordinary reasonable’ listener.

Australian courts have considered an ‘ordinary, reasonable’ listener 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 affairs.3

In considering compliance with the Code, the ACMA considers the natural, ordinary mean-ing of the language, context, tenor, tone and inferences that may be drawn. In the case of

3 Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (1998) NSWLR 158 at 164-167.


factual material which is presented, the ACMA will also consider relevant omissions (if any).

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

Issue: Impartiality and diversity of perspectives

Finding The ABC did not breach standards 4.1 and 4.2 of the Code.

ReasonsImpartiality The complaint is that the broadcast was biased in favour of the Obamacare scheme, and

that there was no ‘alternative voice or viewpoint presented’.

The ACMA considers that a program which presents a perspective that is opposed by a particular person or group is not inherently lacking in impartiality. Further, impartiality is not measured by giving all sides of an argument equal voice or equal time.

Whether a breach of the Code has occurred will depend on the themes in the program, any editorial comment, the overall presentation of the story and the circumstances in which the program was prepared and broadcast.

In the context of the then topical and publicised budgetary tensions between the Republicans and Democrats in the United States and the resultant federal government shutdown, the introduction of Obamacare was a newsworthy matter at the time of broadcast.

In this case, the ordinary, reasonable listener would have understood the broad theme of the segment to be an exploration of the Obamacare scheme and the issues surrounding its rollout in the United States, rather than a contentious matter of debate in Australia.

The ACMA accepts the ABC’s submission that ‘the discussion was not of an adversarial nature; nor was it required to be in order to meet the ABC’s editorial standards’.

The interviewees discussed the background of the scheme, noting that Obamacare is based on expanding insurance cover and reducing costs, it is more conservative than was originally proposed by Hillary and Bill Clinton (Democrats) and had been supported by Republicans such as Mitt Romney, but that as implemented by the Obama administration it had triggered opposition including the Supreme Court constitutional challenge and delays through blocking of funding in Republican states.

The discussion also covered the scheme as a global model for public health and early intervention, the costs of providing high technology health care, the social reasons for the disparities with schemes in other countries, the need to share risks between the well and the sick, the market improvement in competition by insurers and the need for benefits to be maintained in order to make the scheme successful.

It concluded with a reference to the Australian insurer NIB, selling offshore surgical packages.


While the presenter referred to Obamacare as being controversial in the United States, the ACMA notes that:

The focus of the program was a discussion of the framework of the scheme, and the political and funding issues surrounding its introduction.

The issues surrounding its introduction were not such contentious matters of public importance in Australia that principal relevant perspectives were required to be presented.

The host was not aggressive in her questioning, but rather, fair, inquisitive, and genuine in her attempt to elicit clarification on a topic that would not be well-understood among many Australian listeners. For example:

“I think it’s become a little bit confusing to Australians to be honest.”

“How would you say, Lesley, as someone who’s really looked around the world - how does it compare with other global health care models including our own and the UK and the Canadian systems?”

“Look it’s just a quick final question, I gather part of the issue – I’ve sort of had to absorb myself in it yesterday, because it’s a bit complicated - is to bring in new insurers to make a new business model for people to come in and insure wide-ranging numbers. And to enter areas where there could be risk for the insurer. ...”

The responses provided were in context, and directly relevant to the queries posed by the host - they were specific to the scheme and were based on the expert knowledge of the interviewees of United States politics and global health care models.

The host appeared to treat perspectives on the scheme with equal weight and in a neutral and objective tone. For example, when Ms Russell noted that the Obamacare scheme was ‘setting up some very thoughtful and innovative and interesting approaches to new ways of delivering and funding health care that the rest of the world is looking at...’, the host responded:

This is the first time I’ve heard this said about the American healthcare system in all my years, isn’t that interesting I have never heard someone say that.

The ACMA considers that the host’s style was questioning and it did not convey any pre-judgement on the issues surrounding the introduction of the Obamacare scheme.

During the course of the interview the host explored the philosophical and political opposition to the scheme since 2008: ‘I seriously don’t understand this…What could have occurred? Is it just prejudice about Obama himself? Or is it in the wake of the financial crisis? And its the rise of the Tea Party? I mean what is it in your view?’

The response was:

Well there’s been a certain part of the Republican party that goes a bit insane every time a Democrat gets elected. But there is something special about Barack Obama, because he is a man of colour, who has a foreign-sounding name. To many people he is the embodiment of change in the United States that threatens what some people see as their way of life. And it is no surprise that the Tea Party crowd tends to be older, whiter, quite well-off and quite well-educated. These are people who see


their own privilege as being under threat from large scale change in America including demographic change and Obama to them is the embodiment of that and they are afraid that Obama basically represents masses of new minorities in the country, newly empowered minorities in the country, who will transform America into a welfare state.

The other interviewee agreed with this position and stated that misinformation about Obamacare had come from right wing sources. However, earlier in the interview she had noted that some state governors, including Jan Brewer who ‘is quite a Tea Party lady’ had recognised that her state would be better off with the scheme. Later, she also stated that some from the left were opposed to Obamacare.

Further into the interview, in response to a question about whether Obamacare will continue this interviewee said, ‘For the reasons that we discussed earlier it’s going to look a lot better in Democratic states than Republican states.’

The ACMA considers that the host and interviewees characterised the support and opposition to the scheme as being based generally on political differences and on reaction to social change, rather than on racial differences. In considering the demographics of President Obama’s constituents and those of the Tea Party they explored the possible reasons for this.

The segment did not depict or characterise opponents to Obamacare as racists or fanatics. Nor did it suggest that responses by opponents or supporters were fanatical, extreme, unreasoned or based on racial prejudice.

Taking account of the context of the segment, the language, tenor and tone used, the ACMA is satisfied that the segment was presented with due impartiality.

Accordingly, the ABC did not breach clause 4.1 of the Code.

Diversity of perspectives

As noted above, the program discussed various aspects of the introduction of the Obamacare scheme which was controversial in the United States but not a contentious matter of public importance in Australia.

The ACMA considers that to the extent required in the context of the segment the ABC has indicated willingness, over time, to present other perspectives with respect to the topic.

Clause 4.2 does not require that a diversity of perspectives must be broadcast on the same program, nor that every perspective received equal time.

The following broadcasts submitted by the ABC (see Attachment C), which also discussed problems with the Obamacare scheme and the US federal government shutdown, included both positive and negative outlooks of the scheme:

‘Obamacare uptake hobbled by website rollout’ on Breakfast on 20 November 2013, which featured the view of Elizabeth Carpenter, Senior Manager of Avalere Health. The following summary was provided on the RN website.

“The policy which was the centre of the US government shutdown last month is having major teething problems.


The Affordable Health Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, has so far had an embarrassingly small rate of uptake.

The website central to the rollout has shouldered most of the blame, with major technical problems stopping many Americans from enrolling.”

‘Obamacare teething problems’ on PM on 31 October 2013, featuring Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Republican congresswoman Marsha Blackburn and former Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala. This included viewpoints of both those in favour and against the Obamacare scheme:

JANE COWAN: ... Obamacare offers the chance of health insurance to millions of Americans who never had it before.

But some 14 million others who already had private health insurance but who'd bought cheap, limited plans, will be forced to buy new, more comprehensive ones.

It's because the new law makes it mandatory for insurance companies to provide coverage for things like hospital stays and maternity and mental health care, rendering defunct plans that don't offer those basics.

Julie Prince is among those who've received letters saying the healthcare plans they've had for years no longer exist.

JULIE PRINCE: What concerns me the most is that I'm not going to be able to afford anything.

JANE COWAN: The Republican congresswoman Marsha Blackburn from Tennessee is the vice chair of the committee that grilled the health and human services secretary.

MARSHA BLACKBURN: Some people like to drive a Ford, not a Ferrari and some people like to drink out of a red cello cup, not a crystal stem. You're taking away their choice.

‘Obamacare dispute set to shut down US Government’ on Breakfast on 1 October 2013 featuring Washington Post columnist EJ Dionne. The following summary was included on the RN website:

US Congress remains in partisan deadlock over President Barack Obama's healthcare reforms.

If the Republicans and Democrats can't clinch a budget deal in the coming hours the nation enters what's called a government shutdown, forcing the closure of all non-essential federal government services.

The Republicans are refusing to guarantee the passage of this year's budget unless the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, is defunded.

The ACMA is satisfied that, to the extent required, the ABC has demonstrated a willingness to broadcast other strands of thought and a diversity of perspectives over time in relation to the introduction of the Obamacare scheme in the United States.


Accordingly, the ABC did not breach standard 4.2 of the Code.


Attachment ATranscript

GD: And continuing with insurance, in its most controversial and most complicated form perhaps, health care in the US, which has been at the centre of impasse between president Obama and the Republican-led House of Representatives. While Obamacare, or the ‘Affordable Care Act’, the ACA to be absolutely accurate, includes many provisions about improvements in quality and safety, its main goal is to expand health care insurance. In fact by March next year every American is required to have insurance. And insurers can no longer deny insurance to the sick. But the rollout as you might have heard, of Obamacare is proving problematic for a variety of reasons, including the fact that some Republican states are simply refusing to cooperate. So what is the future of Obamacare? How will it work? When will it work? And really what is it offering? Well, joining me to discuss this is David Smith a lecturer in politics at the US Studies Centre at the University of Sydney, and Lesley Russell ...Senior Research fellow at the ANU College of Medicine, Biology and the Environment.

Good morning to you both.

LR & DS: [Good Morning]

David this most recent attempt by the Republicans to overturn Obamacare, by depriving the federal government of funds, and they failed but they vow to keep fighting it, how can they, or will they, ever achieve that? I think it’s become a little bit confusing to Australians to be honest.

DS: It has. Obamacare is such a big law with so many components to it that there are all kinds of ways that Republicans at both the federal and state level can chip away at it. And one of the reasons why Republicans had a plan to delay implementation for a year was that it would give their governments at the state level time to devise more strategies to get around it. One of the ways that they have been getting around it is by Republican governors actually refusing federal funds to expand MedicAid which is a federally-funded but state administered program. So, in about half the states in the United States, the provision in the Affordable Care Act that would expand MedicAid to anyone earning less than 133% of the poverty line that just hasn’t been implemented. And that leaves a lot of people without insurance because to buy the insurance on the Obamacare exchanges, you need to be making above poverty-line wages.

GD: So they’ve just blocked it. Even though there’s money available for them.

DS: That’s right. They’re just refusing to take the money. And even though the Supreme Court decision last year that upheld Obamacare as constitutional was hailed as a victory for the Democrats, it also contained this component of saying that state governments were within their rights to refuse the fund to allow a MedicAid expansion.

LR: But if I could just come in here, it is true that the state governors are cutting off their noses to spite their faces and if some cases for example in Arizona, Jan Brewer who’s known for being, you know, quite a Tea Party lady, she recognised that her state was going to be financially better off. And, indeed, her voters pushed her to recognise that


her state was going to be financially better off, by taking this. So, I actually think that if the Republicans choose to delay they will actually fall victim to ... the opposite pressure which is that eventually a lot of the states will look at the bottom line and come around.

GD: Because it’s true isn’t it that where it is being rolled out in the blue states, like New York for instance, Montana, it’s working [laughs] – there’s a variety – ah, working well. So it’s in the red states where it’s been rolled out in a haphazard way that it’s not working. I mean, surely this is a matter of time. Although maybe I just don’t understand the way Americans –

LR: The problem is that the law gave the states the ability to set up the exchanges which are like the market places where people can go to buy approved insurance policies with some sort of bargaining power. Um, but – and I’ve just lost my train of thought –

GD: Yes, go on – the states are – why it’s working well in some -

LR: Yes, but the option was that if the states chose not to do that, that the federal government would do it. Now, originally that actually, economically makes sense to have one big exchange. Makes sense at least if it works. So, 36 states didn’t set up their exchanges. The federal government did it for them and it was the federal government’s exchange that has really had all these glitches. It hasn’t failed because people are still going on and buying insurance and actually being quite pleased with the insurance that they’re buying. But there are a lot of glitches, many of which were foreseeable. Some of which were inevitable given that the federal government couldn’t start to build the exchanges until after the Supreme Court decision which was only in March of this year.

GD: Just by way of giving people context, when our own Medicare rolled out by Bill Hayden ... in the Whitlam Government right at the start, it is worth remembering how gigantic that was as this whole idea of there being a sort of a policy directed from the government to guarantee health care to everybody, it was immensely opposed.

LR: And the AMA hated it.

GD: Hated it.

LR: Totally and I can remember all the surgeons and so on. So I mean that was pretty tumultuous at the time, is this any different?

GD: No it’s not.

LR: In terms of reaction I’m talking about.

GD: Well, yes I suppose it is simply because the philosophical – and David would probably agree with this – you know the philosophical basis in America of what the government should do and shouldn’t do is very different.

DS: Yeah and we have to remember that this is a far more conservative plan than Medicare ever was. The idea of an individual mandate where everybody is forced to buy health insurance, that is an idea that was devised by the Heritage Foundation and advocated by people like Milton Freeman.

GD: And implemented by Mitt Romney very effectively.

LR: In order to not go back to the Hilary Clinton idea and the Bill Clinton idea, which was a much more wide-spread thing that we’d recognise.


DS: That’s exactly right.

GD: This was a conservative notion of bringing the market place in and having much more individual bind is that right?

DS: Ah yes, that’s right, and conservatives, not only did they not have any problem with this idea until about 2008 they were advocates of it.

GD: Like Mitt Romney in Massachusetts.

DS: That’s right. It’s the fact that it’s the Obama administration that was implemented that has triggered all kinds of fears that there’s an attempt to impose Socialism on the United States.

GD: Look I know I’ve heard everybody say this, I seriously don’t understand this, now, just try to help me. What could have occurred? Is it just prejudice about Obama himself? Or is it in the wake of the financial crisis? And it’s the rise of the Tea Party? I mean what is it in your view?

DS: Well there’s been a certain part of the Republican party that goes a bit insane every time a Democrat gets elected. But there is something special about Barack Obama, because he is a man of colour, who has a foreign-sounding name. To many people he is the embodiment of change in the United States that threatens what some people see as their way of life. And it is no surprise that the Tea Party crowd tends to be older, whiter, quite well-off and quite well-educated. These are people who see their own privilege as being under threat from large scale change in America including demographic change and Obama to them is the embodiment of that and they are afraid that Obama basically represents masses of new minorities in the country, newly empowered minorities in the country, who will transform America into a welfare state.

GD: Do you agree with this Lesley?

LR: Yes, yes I do. And Americans are peculiarly insular in where they get their news and their information from and they’ve been fed a lot of misinformation from, in some cases, private right wing sources, about what’s wrong with Obamacare. It is interesting that, I mean it’s taken, it’s a big big project, it takes four or more years to roll out. As it has rolled out everything that’s out there people like. They don’t necessarily recognise that it’s part of Obamacare, so in many ways they’re more opposed to the philosophy and the idea of Obamacare than they are of the practicalities of it. And I do believe that as this goes on, and particularly as people are starting to realise that for the first time they’re going to be able to afford to get health insurance cover, that the ability of the GOP to roll this back is in fact diminishing by the day.

DS: That’s right. And they know that, and that’s why they’ve tried to –

GD: They’re so frantic –

DS: - Take every step up until this point.

GD: How would you say, Lesley, as someone who’s really looked around the world - how does it compare with other global health care models including our own and the UK and the Canadian systems?


LR: Well look, it’s very much a patchwork. Obama took the approach of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. And some from the left were opposed to Obamacare on that very basis. It will leave a lot of people uncovered but it’s going to make a huge difference in the lives of most Americans. And it’s really setting up some very thoughtful and innovative and interesting approaches to new ways of delivering and funding health care that the rest of the world is looking at because we’re all facing the same problems: aging populations; this huge burden of chronic disease most of which is preventable. And, there is this whole culture of innovation inside Obamacare with a lot of focus also on public health and early intervention.

GD: This is the first time I’ve heard this said about the American health care system in all my years, isn’t that interesting I have never heard someone say that.

LR: There’s a lot – um – we used to look at America as the way not to do it. There are still a lot of things in America that you would never want to do. But there are also a lot of things that we should look at, and not just transport them holus bolus to Australia but look at how they could be implemented in the Australian context. So it’s not Canada. It’s not the UK. It’s not Australia. All of those systems are different in their own ways. But we all now increasingly have something to learn from each other.

GD: I gather that already there is some evidence that costs are already plateauing? That costs are - you know that seemingly inexorable graphs – one of Alan Kohler’s graph, you know just going up and up. That it’s already started to plateau. Is that right? Or is that a bit of propaganda?

LR: Um, we think that’s right. Ah, there are several factors at play here. One of which is the economic crisis so people just have less money to spend and some people have argued that that means that people just aren’t going to the doctor, just aren’t spending upfront ‘cause they end up spending in the hospital sector anyway. But increasingly the data really is looking as if the curve is bending – that’s what it’s called – there’s a genuine slowing in the rate of growth. And a lot of that is in part about these new ways of looking at how do we reward value in health care rather than just volume of services.

GD: See I think David that there is some argument as well, one of the reasons costs per individual are particularly high in the US is because –nearly double those of other western-developed countries – is because they’re the technology leader. And because expensive drugs and high technology are introduced there before a lot of the other countries. And I mean, is that reasonable?

DS: There is certainly one view on this that says because hospitals – I mean the United States have these incredible hospitals. It has more hospital beds that can ever actually be filled. And hospitals are non-profit organisations. But they are still incredibly profitable. And, so the money that they make gets ploughed back into technology and research and things like that, which is great in terms of generating really cutting-edge medicine. But at the same time it just gets costlier and costlier and costlier. And there are plenty of towns in the United States or cities even, where the single biggest employer in town is going to be a hospital. Ah the single biggest business in town, is going to be a hospital. As I said, this is great for generating cutting-edge medical research. But at the same time, it’s one of these factors that really sort of builds up the costs.


LR: But Geraldine if I could add to that there’s some data that came up just a couple of weeks ago that suggests that a substantial part, perhaps, a third of, that difference between what average US health costs and average rest of the world costs are, is due to the huge social disparities in the United States, and the fact that the US spends less on social welfare than a country with that GDP should be spending. And obviously, we know that there are these racial and ethnic disparities in health. And you know that those are very much linked to what we call the social determinants of health. To things like income and poverty and education and those sorts of things. And failure to invest in education, for example, result in a significant decrease in health outcomes.

GD: Look it’s just a quick final question, I gather part of the issue – I’ve sort of had to absorb myself in it yesterday, because it’s a bit complicated, is to bring in new insurers to make a new business model for people to come in and insure wide-ranging numbers. And to enter areas where there could be risk for the insurer. Where you’ve already got endemic issues but obviously people should be covered. Is that right?

LR: That’s right. That’s why there’s a mandate. Because it’s very important that, as we have in Australia, that risks are shared between the well and the sick.

GD: So you’ve got to get those young healthy people in.

LR: You do. But they’ve also put requirements on health insurers to deliver what are called essential packages ... that deliver say mental health services at the same level as physical health services. So really they have improved the marketplace and improved competition in the marketplace. Very American idea.

GD: Very. And do you think it will continue? Will we have an Obamacare or whatever we, ‘Affordable Health Care’?

DS: I think it will continue at the moment. For the reasons that we discussed earlier it’s going to look a lot better in Democratic states than in Republican states. I think that it will continue and the willingness of Democrats in that last fight in Congress to actually defend it with everything they had shows that it’s going to continue. I think that the really unpopular aspect of it which is the individual mandate, as Lesley said, that is what is required to make everything else work. That is what you need to actually get all of the benefits that people like, such as children being able to stay on their parent’s insurance plans. I think that that will become more accepted over time.

GD: Look, thank you very much indeed. I hope that’s made it more understandable for people. David Smith from the US Study Centre at the University of Sydney, Lesley Russell from the ANU College of Medicine Biology and Environment. Thank you very much.

LR & DS: Thank you.


GD: And look, we did notice, on this topic of health insurance, a very interesting story. The front page splashed on the Australian today, you might have seen about the Australian insurer NIB selling offshore surgical packages with guarantees about safety and quality for Australians. That’s for the first time the managing director Mark Fitzgibbon quoted a saying ‘We’re building a medical travel business to meet the demands of those who wish to travel overseas - an extraordinary story. We’re going to try to follow this up on Saturday Extra, but I’d be keen to hear your experiences and stories so do get in touch with us via the website or the listener line.


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

The coverage of the US Affordable Care Act presented this morning on Saturday Extra (http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/saturdayextra/obamacare/5046454) was biased in [favour] of the ACA, and anyone opposing it was characterised as a Tea Party fanatic and a racist. The presenter, Geraldine Doogue, agreed with both guests (Lesley Russell and David Smith) on their support, and there was no alternative voice or opinion presented.

The complainant subsequently submitted the following to the ACMA:

My complaint was:

“The coverage of the US Affordable Care Act presented this morning on Saturday Extra was biased in favor of the ACA, and anyone opposing it was characterised as a Tea Party fanatic and a racist. The presenter, Geraldine Doogue, agreed with both guests (Lesley Russell and David Smith) on their support, and there was no alternative voice or opinion presented. “

The full response from ABC Audience & Consumer affairs is attached. In that response, they evaluate this broadcast and their recent coverage of the area (the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare) against two Editorial Standards from their Code of Practice, namely:

4.1 Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.

4.2 Present a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented.

They declare in the response that

“[A]t no stage was the complexity of such opposition reduced to labelling those opposed as “Tea Party fanatic[s] and racist[s]”,

And

“We are satisfied the broadcast was presented with due impartiality and that a diversity of perspectives has been presented in a reasonable timeframe, in keeping with standards 4.1 and 4.2.”

I demonstrate below that, judged against the definition in their Code of Practice, there is no evidence provided to support their contention that the broadcast was “presented with due impartiality”, and significant evidence that it was not; that using the evidence they provide, “a diversity of perspectives” have not been presented; and that during the broadcast, David Smith does characterise opponents of Obamacare as racists.

The broadcast thus clearly violates not only Editorial Standards 4.1 and 4.2 of the Code of Practice, but also 4.4 (Do not misrepresent any perspective) and 4.5 (Do not unduly favour one perspective over another).

As such, the ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs response to my complaint is clearly inadequate and unacceptable – the statements they make are wrong, and are not supported by the evidence they present


http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/saturdayextra/obamacare/5046454

Due Impartiality

The ABC response does not claim the broadcast was unbiased (which was my specific contention), so it can be assumed that they agree it was not.

“Due impartiality” is defined in the ABC Code of Practice - the qualifications of the speakers or whether it was adversarial (both mentioned in the ABC response) are not relevant to this definition.

So I will test it against the definition in the Code of Practice (text in italics is from the Code of Practice – plain text is mine):

Assessing the impartiality due in given circumstances requires consideration in context of all relevant factors including:

• the type, subject and nature of the content – in this case, the relevant question would seem to be “is it impossible to provide this information without being naturally or inherently in favour of Obamacare?” By way of analogy, if they were discussing skin cancer, it is not necessary to try to find someone in favour of it. Given about half the US Congress is opposed to Obamacare, more than half the US population (according to recent polling) is also opposed, and the US Supreme Court was split 5/4 on its constitutionality, it is obvious that there is a significant and comprehensive case against it, and so one that could have been presented. There are also numerous credible and well-credentialed Australian & US commentators that could present this opposing view – I can provide a list if required.

• the circumstances in which the content is made and presented – this program was pre-arranged, and possibly pre-recorded. The guests would have been selected and advised well in advance. There would appear to be nothing in the circumstances that would prevent an alternative viewpoint being presented;

• the likely audience expectations of the content – the broadcast introduction indicated it was to address “the practicalities of Obamacare - “What is the future of Obamacare, how will it work, when will it work, and really what is it offering?”, and how Australia could benefit from the US experience”. The future of Obamacare rests primarily on IF it will work – an informed opposition case would allow this to be evaluated. And the success or otherwise of the opposition to Obamacare in the US is critical to the future of how it will work, when it will work and what it ultimately offers - so it would be a reasonable audience expectation that some effort would be made to present this;

• the degree to which the matter to which the content relates is contentious – Geraldine Doogue, in her introduction, says that the matter is “controversial”. This is also repeated in the ABC response;

• the range of principal relevant perspectives on the matter of contention – again, as above in the first dot-point, there is ample evidence that there is at least one significant other perspective in this case – that of opposition to the implementation of Obamacare, and the argument that it won’t achieve its desired objectives; and

• the timeframe within which it would be appropriate for the ABC to provide opportunities for the principal relevant perspectives to be expressed, having regard to the public importance of the matter of contention and the extent to which it is the subject of current debate – the broader “range of perspectives over time” issue is addressed below. On this specific broadcast, a 16 minute


discussion designed to inform and educate would seem to be ample time for the inclusion of an alternative perspective.

So, in light of the above, it would seem firstly that the ABC response does not adequately address the “due impartiality” of the broadcast, and secondly that, if they had, they would have determined that it failed that test, and was not “duly impartial”.

While the definition does not excluded there being other “relevant factors”, none are addressed in the ABC response, so none are considered here.

Diversity of Perspectives

The ABC response then turns to examining if a “range of perspectives” had been presented in a reasonable timeframe. That is, while they concede that the broadcast was not impartial, this is mitigated in the way outlined in the last dot-point of the Code of Practice:

“We note that Radio National has broadcast a range of perspectives on various facets of the Affordable Care Act including, recently, “Obamacare uptake hobbled by website rollout” on Breakfast on 20 November, which featured the view of Elizabeth Carpenter, Senior Manager of Avalere Health (http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/obamacare-takeup-hobbled-by-website-rollout/5103930); “Obamacare teething problems” on PM on 31 October, featuring Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Republican congresswoman Marsha Blackburn and

former Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala (http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2013/s3881391.htm); and “Obamacare dispute set to shut down US Government” on Breakfast on 1 October featuring Washington Post columnist EJ Dionne (http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/obamacare-dispute-set-to-shutdown-us-government/4990386). ABC Radio will continue to broadcast other views over time.”

Given these programs are presented as the evidence of “a range of perspectives”, they warrant some analysis.

Program Pro Obamacare

Neutral Anti-Obamacare

Reporting & Intro etc

Total Relevant time

Obamacare – Saturday Extra4

10:00 5:00 0 1:00 16:00

4 While the timings on the Saturday Extra piece are approximate, it was effectively only parts of the last

5 minutes of discussion on healthcare spending that was remotely neutral. The remainder was conclusively favourable to Obamacare and against those opposing it.


http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/obamacare-dispute-set-to-shutdown-us-government/4990386

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/obamacare-dispute-set-to-shutdown-us-government/4990386

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2013/s3881391.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/obamacare-takeup-hobbled-by-website-rollout/5103930

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/obamacare-takeup-hobbled-by-website-rollout/5103930

Obamacare uptake hobbled by website rollout - Breakfast5

0 6:30 0 1:00 7:30

Obamacare Teething Problems - PM6

0:57 0:18 0:13 2:07 3:35

Obamacare Dispute set to shutdown US Government - Breakfast7

1:40 0 0 1.00 2:40

Totals 12:37 11:48 0:13 5:07 27:45

Racism

The ABC response says:

“Drs Smith and Russell thoughtfully discussed what they considered to be the philosophical basis of Republican opposition to Obamacare; at no stage was the complexity of such opposition reduced to labelling those opposed as “Tea Party fanatic[s] and racist[s]”

The following exchange took place around the 7-8 minute mark of the presentation:

David Smith [DS]: Conservatives, not only did they not have any problem with this idea until about 2008, they were advocates of it.

Geraldine Doogue [GD]: Like Mitt Romney in Massachusetts.

DS: That’s right – it’s the fact that it’s the Obama administration that is implementing it which has triggered all kinds of fears that this is an attempt to impose socialism on the United States.

GD: Look, I know I’ve heard everybody say this, I seriously don’t understand this – now, just try to help me. What could have occurred? Is it just prejudice about Obama himself, or is it in the wake of the financial crisis and it’s the rise of the Tea Party? I mean, what is it in your view?

DS: Well there’s been a certain part of the Republican Party that goes a bit insane every time a Democrat gets elected – but there is something special about Barack Obama, because he is a

5 In Fran Kelly’s introduction, she describes the current situation with the Obamacare rollout. While it is damning, it is completely factual and so is considered reporting. She also covers some of these issues during her questioning of the healthcare expert, which is also considered reporting. Elizabeth Carpenter, the expert, I’ve considered neutral – although someone who agrees that the employer mandate is “all sorted”, describes the website as “not working as smoothly as expected”, but just needing to “improve the consumer experience”, and the rollout as being “tough”, could be thought to be putting the best gloss on things.

6 The only anti-Obamacare opinion in the package – 5 seconds of customer Julie Price, and 8 seconds

of Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn. I have considered Sebelius’ apology and Obama’s “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan” as neutral.

7 The EJ Dionne piece is almost entirely about the shutdown. There is a short discussion late in the item

(6:34) which is entirely positive in its description of what Obamacare is, and dismissive of opposition, which is why I’ve considered it “pro Obamacare”.


man of colour, who has a foreign sounding name, to many people he is the embodiment of change in the United States that threatens what some people see as their way of life. And it is no surprise that the Tea Party crowd tends to be older, whiter, ah, quite well off and quite well educated. These are people who see their own privilege as being under threat from large scale change in America, including demographic change, and Obama to them is the embodiment of that, and they are afraid that Obama basically represents masses of new minorities in the country….

GD: Right…

DS: …newly empowered minorities in the country who will transform America into a welfare state

GD: Do you agree with this, Lesley?

Lesley Russell: Yes…. Yes I do

In my complaint, I did not say that those involved in the presentation “labelled” anyone or anything. I said that “anyone opposing it was characterised as a Tea Party fanatic and a racist” (my emphasis). “Characterise” is defined by Wiktionary as “to depict someone or something a particular way (often negative)”.

In the above, while the “Tea Party fanatic” characterisation may be arguable, there is no doubt that it characterises opponents of Obamacare as opposed because of Obama’s colour and name – hence, as racists. This was also the view of a commenter on the webpage of this presentation, and of prominent media columnist and commentator Gerard Henderson in his Media Watch Dog blog.

The ABC response to me was thus misleading in its alteration of my words (“labelled” for “characterise”) to suit their response, but also clearly and demonstrably false. Any observer hearing that exchange would be very clear that David Smith was characterising opposition to Obamacare as racist in nature.


http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/issue-206/#5

http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/issue-206/#5

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/saturdayextra/obamacare/5046454

Attachment CABC SubmissionsThe ABC’s response to the complainant included the following:

In accordance with the ABC's complaint handling procedures, your correspondence has been considered by Audience & Consumer Affairs, a unit which is separate to and independent of program making areas within the ABC. The role of Audience & Consumer Affairs is to investigate complaints alleging that ABC content is in contravention of the ABC's editorial standards. In the course of doing so, we seek comments from the relevant division, in this case ABC Radio.

As your complaint has raised concerns of a lack of impartiality, we have reviewed and assessed the broadcast against the relevant editorial standards:

“4.1 Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.

4.2 Present a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented.”

According to its website, Saturday Extra has “a focus on international politics and business” and “talks to expert commentators about the things that matter to Australians”.

In response to your complaint, ABC Radio have advised that:

“The discussion between host Geraldine Doogue and guests David Smith, Lecturer in American politics and foreign policy at the United States Studies Centre [University of Sydney], and Lesley Russell, Senior Research Fellow at the ANU College of Medicine, Biology and Environment, looked at the future of Obamacare and how it might work. Lesley Russell has worked in Washington on a range of issues around the implementation of healthcare reform and is a supporter of healthcare policy and David Smith is a well respected political analyst. The discussion was wide ranging, canvassing the complexity of both the politics and the legislation.”

Audience & Consumer Affairs not1e it is expected that experts will express their own views during interviews. This discussion provided listeners with the opportunity to hear the views of two respected academics on the practicalities of Obamacare – “What is the future of Obamacare, how will it work, when will it work, and really what is it offering?”, and how Australia could benefit from the US experience. The discussion was not of an adversarial nature; nor was it required to be in order to meet the ABC’s editorial standards. Host Geraldine Doogue did make clear at the outset that health insurance is a “controversial” topic and that “healthcare in the US ... has been at the centre of the recent impasse between President Obama and the Republican-led House of Representatives”. Drs Smith and Russell thoughtfully discussed what they considered to be the philosophical basis of Republican opposition to Obamacare; at no stage was the complexity of such opposition reduced to labelling those opposed as “Tea Party fanatic[s] and racist[s]”.

We note that Radio National has broadcast a range of perspectives on various facets of the Affordable Care Act including, recently, “Obamacare uptake hobbled by website rollout” on Breakfast on 20 November, which featured the view of Elizabeth Carpenter, Senior Manager of Avalere Health (http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/obamacare-takeup-


hobbled-by-website-rollout/5103930); “Obamacare teething problems” on PM on 31 October, featuring Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Republican congresswoman Marsha Blackburn and former Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala (http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2013/s3881391.htm); and “Obamacare dispute set to shut down US Government” on Breakfast on 1 October featuring Washington Post columnist EJ Dionne (http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/obamacare-dispute-set-to-shutdown-us-government/4990386). ABC Radio will continue to broadcast other views over time.

We are satisfied the broadcast was presented with due impartiality and that a diversity of perspectives has been presented in a reasonable timeframe, in keeping with standards 4.1 and 4.2.

For your reference, the Code of Practice is available here: http://about.abc.net.au/reports-publications/code-of-practice-2013/. Should you be dissatisfied with this response, you may be able to pursue your complaint with the Australian Communications and Media Authority (http://www.acma.gov.au).


Documents

6RN Investigation report 3156 - acma.gov.au/media/Broadcasting... · Web viewAcknowledging this fact of life does not change the ABC’s obligation to apply its impartiality standard