Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Investigation 2681

Dear Mr Hendrickx,

Thank you for your email in response to the outcome of Investigation 2681. There is no formal right to have the ACMA review its decision in this matter under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, but we can make some observations about your concerns.

You have queried why the ACMA did not consider the outcome of a 2007 UK  High Court decision concerning the accuracy of Al Gore’s film.

This aspect of the investigation concerned the statements made by the presenter of the ABC’s program,Background Briefing on commentary by Lord Monckton on a particular statement by Al Gore. The focus here was on the accuracy of the presenter’s statement, assessed against the ABC Code of Practice.

The ACMA consulted the scientific paper to which Al Gore and Lord Monckton’s statements referred.   As noted in the investigation report, the research findings could have led to either of the interpretations in dispute, but the material facts were presented in context.

Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth was not the subject of the investigationand therefore the UK decision concerning Al Gore was not taken into the assessment of the material broadcast, against the ABC Code.

The ACMA considers that it took relevant considerations into account.

If you remain dissatisfied with the way in which the ACMA has handled this matter, you may make a complaint to the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman - http://www.ombudsman.gov.au/


Broadcasting Investigations Section

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please keep to the topic. Abusive comments and bad language are simply not tolerated. Note that your comment may take a little while to appear.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.