Channel Seven wanted only to film 'strongest and best looking'

Channel Seven provoked racism and contempt for an Amazonian tribe by portraying them as stone age people who killed innocent babies, the broadcasting authority said in a report which was suppressed for two and a half years after a legal challenge from the network.

Completed in August 2012, the Australian Communication and Media Authority investigation into Sunday Night's 2011 story about the Suruwaha Indians could not be published before now because Seven did not accept the findings and pursued a judicial review which went all the way to the federal court.

Last month the full federal court dismissed Channel Seven's appeal and ordered it to pay Acma's costs, ending what has been the most contentious complaint in recent years.

Acma found that the ordinary, reasonable viewer would have taken from the program that it is "an uncontroverted, undisputed and established fact that the Suruwaha currently believe that children born with birth defects or to a single mother are evil and should be killed".

Survival International, a London-based lobby group which lodged the complaint in 2011, said infanticide was rarely if ever practiced in modern times. Survival's complaint to Acma was that the program was factually inaccurate and racially offensive.

The licensee was found to have breached two clauses in the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2010 by broadcasting material which was inaccurate and likely to provoke racist sentiments.

The offending statements in the prime-time report by Tim Noonan and adventurer Paul Raffaele included: "These lost tribes encourage the murder of disabled children" and "the Suruwaha believe that children born with birth defects or born to a single mother are evil spirits and should be killed in the most gruesome way possible".

"The Acma is satisfied that given the highly evocative language used in the report to describe the killing of babies and the judgmental tone used by [Paul Raffaele] and the reporter condemning the alleged practice, it is likely that in all the circumstances these contributory factors would have perpetuated and provoked an intense dislike and serious contempt for the Suruwaha.

"The Acma is of the view that the negative reactions would be on the grounds of the cultural/ethnic practice of the tribe given that the report conveyed the impression that the practice of killing children who are born with birth defects or born to a single mother, was based on the tribes' beliefs."

The 38-page report makes fascinating reading on the way popular current affairs shows operate.

An official who accompanied Seven's crew to meet the Suruwaha told the authority that the journalists only wanted to show the "strongest and best-looking" Suruwaha "without industrialised clothes, like caps or T-shirts".

"The Suruwaha asked to be filmed as they really are, not as actors. They ignored the Australians' insistence that they paint and decorate themselves before a hunting scene," he said.

But Seven denies this account, saying they did not on any occasion request that a member of the Suruwaha remove any garments they may have been wearing.

In a curious legal argument, Seven defended itself against the charge of factual inaccuracy by saying it didn't have to present all sides of the story.

"Seven submits that current affairs programs are not obliged to present all or even opposing viewpoints on a matter being reported on," the network argued.

"Accordingly, Seven does not believe that [Paul Raffael's] comment should be considered as 'unfair' due to the fact there were no other comments presented at the time which rejected the statement that infanticide occurs."

But Acma didn't accept Seven's argument. "The Acma does not accept the licensee's submissions on this issue. The Acma has found, in relation to accuracy, that the licensee failed to include reference to the fact that there was a significant level of dispute and controversy about this topic, which it presented as factually uncontroversial. In these circumstances the Acma is not satisfied that the relevant comments can be regarded as fair comment."

Seven took Acma to court over another two preliminary investigations, both of which they also lost.

Any action to be taken against Seven is still under consideration, a spokeswoman for Acma said.

Where there has been a breach of code or practice, the authority may agree to accept measures offered by the broadcaster to improve compliance or impose an additional licence condition.

The authority cannot fine or prosecute a broadcaster for breaching a code and - unlike the Australian Press Council - neither can it order a licensee to broadcast an apology or correction.

http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2015/jan/07/channel-7-wanted-to…