Sunrise breached broadcasting rules in Indigenous adoption coverage, watchdog rules
Seven’s breakfast show Sunrise has been slammed by the industry regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), for its discussion about Indigenous children and adoption.
ACMA found the segment was inaccurate and provoked racial contempt, however the broadcaster has hit out at the decision, saying political correctness is preventing meaningful discussion.
The ‘Hot Topics’ panel segment, broadcast in March this year, gave rise to protests against Sunrise which saw the station obscure street scenes and hosts David Koch and Samantha Armytage heckled by protesters during their Commonwealth Games coverage.
In the segment, conservative commentator Prue MacSween suggested Indigenous children should be taken from their families “just like the first Stolen Generation”.
“Don’t worry about the people that would cry and hand wringing and say this would be another Stolen Generation. Just like the first Stolen Generation where a lot of people were taken because it was for their wellbeing… we need to do it again, perhaps,” she said.
In its ruling against the program, ACMA slammed the panel discussion, writing: “The segment provoked serious contempt on the basis of race in breach of the Code as it contained strong negative generalisations about Indigenous people as a group.
“These included sweeping references to a ‘generation’ of young Indigenous children being abused. While it may not have been Seven’s intention, by implication the segment conveyed that children left in Indigenous families would be abused and neglected, in contrast to non-Indigenous families where they would be protected.”
ACMA also found the introduction to the segment, which claimed Indigenous children could “only be placed with relatives or other Indigenous families”, was inaccurate and in breach of the Code.
In response to ACMA’s inquiries, Seven said the introduction to the segment simply repeated a statement from a newspaper of the day. However, the regulator ruled Seven failed to verify the accuracy of this claim before it was used as the foundation of a panel discussion.
ACMA noted the follow-up ‘Hot Topics’ segment broadcast by Seven a week later was a more informed discussion in which a panellist accurately described the true position regarding placement of Indigenous children. However, ACMA found that the follow-up segment did not correct the earlier error in an appropriate manner given the circumstances.
A similar ruling against Nine’s A Current Affair in 2013 saw the station broadcast an apology.
In response to ACMA’s ruling, Craig McPherson, Seven’s director of news and public affairs, said political correctness was preventing meaningful discussion and action.
“We are extremely disappointed the ACMA has seen fit to cast a label on a segment that covered an important matter of public interest, child abuse, sparked by comments attributed to a government minister and widely circulated in the press on the morning of the broadcast.
“While the ACMA recognises the segment was underpinned by concern for the welfare of Indigenous children, it has isolated comments from independent commentators without any context to the broader coverage given to this topic.
“The coverage included a detailed follow-up segment on Sunrise featuring expert analysis from leading Aboriginal leaders and academics who expressed appreciation this issue was finally being raised in mainstream media.
“The irony is that the very issue the commentators were critical of, that is political correctness preventing meaningful discussion and action, has come to bear with this finding.
“The finding seeks to rule out issues and topics for discussion segments, as determined by ACMA. Its decision is a form of censorship; a direct assault on the workings of an independent media and the thousands of issue-based segments covered every year by Sunrise, other like programs, newspapers and talkback radio.”
Seven will be seeking a judicial appeal.
Ridiculous to claim that political correctness is preventing meaningful discussion in this case. In order to have a meaningful discussion, it helps to get your facts right in the first place and have at least some understanding of the topic.
Seven’s handling of this sensitive and difficult topic was appalling. As a non-indigenous foster parent to an indigenous child who was involuntarily removed from her family, I’m well aware of the complexity of the issues and that there are many differing views about the best way forward.
There are ways to have a meaningful discussion about potential solutions. Seven definitely did not.
User ID not verified.
Excuses, excuses from channel seven !!! If they want to cover Indigenous issues of my people ….our Indigenous fellow Australians with big sweeping claims and insight opinions …they are obligated to have an Indigenous Australian person with a profession on Indigenous issues and even grass roots people on the ground, NOT AN ALL WHITE panel. Clear careless act for ratings. Was slanderous and prejudices to say the least.
User ID not verified.
You need to be careful with that phrase starting with “they are obligated …”. If that were indeed the case, then every panel discussion about Donald Trump would be “obligated” to have him on the panel to provide his point of view. It’s also naive to suggest that there is a single point of view on any of these issues within the indigenous community itself and that is an inevitable part of the problem in seeking to open this up to discussion.
User ID not verified.
Why are aboriginals allowed to call Anglo-Australian’s “White Fella’s’ in movies like the 2016 release of “Red Dog: True Blue” broadcast on free-to-air last weekend?
There’s a rise to unfair racism in this country, which often favors minority groups.
User ID not verified.