Monday, August 22, 2005

Overview of Australian television code(s) of practice

The Australian television industry broadcasts following guidelines established by the Federal Government in the Broadcasting Services Act. These broadcasters are considered to self-regulate their programming by operating within the Code of Practice established by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA, formerly the Australian Broadcast Authority, ABA. I’ll refer to both as they still seem to be in the process of changing over).

This system is better described as co-regulation as the television industry follows agreed guidelines that are developed through consultation. The broadcasters can establish their own codes of practice and register them with the AMCA/ABA, such as those of the ABC and SBS, but the ACMA/ABA ultimately establishes standards with respect to particular matters. It is worth noting they can amend a code of practice “and whilst its breach attracts no ‘penalty’, the ABA may nevertheless impose conditions on the issue and/or renewal of licences.”

Professor David Flint, former Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Authority, has said
The Australian system of co-regulation brings the regulation of broadcasting closer to the self-regulation the print media enjoys. Is this not more consistent to the standards of a democratic society, one where the various forms of media are converging?

He noted this relies on the power the AMCA/ABA has to regulate where codes of practice are lacking but he was satisfied the system operated successfully through comparison with attitudinal studies undertaken by the AMCA/ABA.

It is interesting Professor Flint thought complaints are not the best method to gauge community standards, suggesting they are not necessarily typical or representative. Complaints are, however, a democratic method for viewers to take issue with broadcasting.

Under this system of co-regulation complaints from viewers are directed to the offending station. They must be made in writing and within 30 days of the offending broadcast. The broadcaster then has 60 days to reply to your complaint. If they do not do this or you are unhappy with their response you are then encouraged to raise the issue with the ACMA/ABA, forwarding copies of any correspondence.

This system of regulation is not without critics. My view, not unlike Professor Flint, is it relies on a certain sort of person to pursue a complaint if they have to put it in writing. In recent years some complaints by politicians have been given discussion in the media, such as the 68 complaints made by former Senator Richard Alston, then Minister for Communications – the portfolio that oversaw the ABA. On that occasion the ABC’s Independent Complaint Review Executive dismissed all but two of these complaints:
It found the two instances were one of: "speculative reporting" and the second, a "tendency towards sarcasm" However, the review found 'AM' reported "reliably and competently" over 30 days of war coverage and that none of the Minister's complaints amounted to evidence of systemic anti-American or anti-coalition and partisan reporting.

An example of where the ACMA/ABA has acted in response to a broadcaster not responding to a complaint can be found here.