Following the appalling radio interview on April 7th 2016 by 7HOFM breakfast presenter Mick Newell and Mayor Peter Coad ( HERE ), I wrote to 7HO General Manager Col Taylor to register my disgust.
Ten days later Mr Taylor replied in part stating “I am comfortable that no codes of practice have actually been breached.” and “Further, on my instruction, Mick Newell issued an on-air apology to Mayor Coad on Wednesday morning.”
When I asked Mr Col Taylor for a transcript or an audio bite of the on-air apology his response was very brief, “We will not be providing you with a copy of the apology. It is your prerogative to pursue the matter further with the ACMA” and “I am sorry you haven’t accepted our answer to your complaint and wish you well.”
I then wrote to the ACMA on May 4th who confirmed the receipt of my complaint and advised, “While some investigations may take several months, the average time for completing an investigation is approximately 1.6 months.”
On 19th July the ACMA advised me:
“The ACMA has concluded its investigation and determined that the broadcaster did not breach code 1.1 [proscribed matter] of the Commercial Radio Australia Codes of Practice & Guidelines 2013 (the Codes).”
A copy of the this rather comprehensive report is available to view on the ACMA website at: http://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/ACMAi/Investigation-reports/Radio-investigations/2016-radio-investigations
Not satisfied with the bureaucratic response I sought further confirmation from the ACMA relating to the Mick Newell interview and the “very suspicious” Main Street interviews (how did you go Sleepless in Franklin with the forensic investigation) and was advised,
“The ACMA’s investigation was limited to the matters raised in your complaint about the broadcast on 7 April 2016, that are covered by provisions of the Commercial Radio Codes of Practice and Guidelines 2013.”
“As you mentioned the ‘vox pops’ and an interview with another Councillor ( ….. ) in your complaint, it was important for the ACMA to confirm the contents of the segment broadcast on Breakfast with Mick and Anna on 7 April 2016. The additional material to which you referred in your complaint was not broadcast in the segment on 7 April. The licensee also confirmed that this material was broadcast on a date earlier in April. The ACMA investigation was therefore confined to the interview between Mr Newell and Mr Coad as broadcast on 7 April.”
The ACMA also advised me they did not have jurisdiction to compel a licensee to provide broadcast material to a third party.
I am yet to find any person who did actually hear this on air apology… (did any TT readers hear the apology…)
The final page of the 18 page report states:
(a) Mr Newell is receiving additional training on:
(i) selection of on-air material (including reconsidering topics that are better dealt with in news or current affairs segments); and
(ii) strategies to avoid causing offence to interviewees or listeners.
My last comments back to the ACMA 19th July were (to which I have had no response) …
I have just viewed your complaints over the past 5 years, not in detail, only from the initial page and not by reading the attachments. It appears in 5 years there have been some 161 complaints investigated yet only 25% of those were deemed breaches – and it appears to me a number of those are indeed very minor infringements.
Also of interest in 2014 only 2 breaches out of 13 complaints and this year to date no breaches out of 15 complaints. Substantially less complaints and breaches than previous years which could reflect that our radio broadcasters are playing by the rules, or that maybe people who do take the time and energy to go through the ACMA complaint process have become somewhat jaded over time and begin to feel that complaining is a waste of time.
I just offer these comments though I am sure you have people on staff who interrogate your statistics with far more thoroughness than me.
