Top Dog at the Watchdog speaks to Peter Saxon – Part One.
Most people in radio know The ACMA as the disciplinary watchdog that minds what presenters do and say. If that’s all you think they do, then you might be surprised to learn that The ACMA employs some 660 people to do it at a cost of around $160 million a year. Of course, given their powers shock jocks who would normally decry it as a shocking waste of tax payer money, have generally stayed mum.
The reality is that while the ATO is by far the single largest revenue source for the government, The ACMA is ranked about fourth. Last year alone it payed its own way by raking in $646.375 million from broadcasting, radiocommunications and telecommunications taxes, charges and licence fees as well as the income from spectrum auctions.
Only accountants could get excited about that, but the meaty stuff, the stuff that makes the headlines, is all about the regulation and enforcement side of the ‘business.’ And although he hasn’t said it, one gets the feeling that, given his background in law, it is also this side of the business that floats The ACMA Chairman Chris Chapman’s boat.
o commercial radio stations broadcast over 2 million hours of content each year
o in 2011-12, commercial radio stations received just under 600 complaints
o in the same period, the ACMA had only 31 investigations about commercial radio
Radiating a persona befitting the head of a statutory body, his roots are firmly planted in commercial media having reached the position of Managing Director of ATN 7. He has also held senior positions with Stadiums Australia and financiers Babcock and Brown, which went under in 2009 following the GFC – several years after, it must be said, that Chris Chapman had left the company to take up his current position.
Mr Chapman is The ACMA’s first and only Chairman, appointed by Howard era Communications Minister Helen Coonan in 2006. And despite rumblings emanating from the Finkelstein report last year that The ACMA may be disbanded in favour of a “super regulator,” Mr Chapman and his organisation seem more entrenched than ever under the current Minister, Stephen Conroy.
radioinfo: Last year when you held a media conference to add a condition to 2Day FM’s licence, much of the media that had gathered felt cheated because they were expecting to see Kyle Sandilands pilloried. Obviously “Today FM Sydney Pty Ltd licensee gets extra licence condition,” makes a very poor headline compared to, say, “ACMA Chairman throws book at Sandilands.” At times like that, don’t you wish you had broader powers to impose penalties on the talent that actually causes the problem?
Chapman: I am not a supporter of us having any relationship other than a relationship with the licensee because it could descend into arbitrariness. It could get messy. It could get legal. It could get complicated and completely would cut across contractual relationships between the licensee and their talent.
My view of life is simply that a licensee gets a licence and is entitled to do anything they can and want within the licence, consistent with broadcasting acts, licensing conditions and the codes of practice. And they are entitled to line up their assets – because at the end of the day, talent is just an asset – any way they like. So I have never advocated and won’t advocate anything other than a stronger set of powers for the ACMA with respect to the licensee.
radioinfo: Yet, having said that, The ACMA recently introduced a new form of resolution to a breach, or rap over the knuckles, which is to recommend to the station that the announcer who caused the breach make an on-air apology. FIVEaa’s Bob Francis had the dubious honour of being the first such apologist. Could you walk us through how that works?.
Chapman: You’re right, not many people have made much of that and this is the first time we’ve done it. It’s The ACMA’s attempt to bridge the gap between very poorly calibrated powers. And it’s consistent with my view that we have missing mid-tier powers with respect to the licensee.
For the regulator it gives us a more calibrated set of powers that are a better “fit for purpose” to these circumstances. They can be more quickly determined, enforced and the public’s trust in the process is maintained.
In this particular case – the Francis one – our recommendation to the licensee was that he should apologise to the reporter. FIVEaa management thought, ‘in all the circumstances that’s a fair and logical recommendation. We’re going to accept that.’ And they did.
radioinfo: Some would argue, however, that a forced, or even a “recommended” apology is no apology at all. What purpose then does it serve for the presenter and the licensee?
Chapman: If you take that particular matter, I think there are a lot of wins. I think that the public sees that the ACMA is in the space and recommended a sanction that was fit for purpose. And that’s healthy for the system. It’s healthy for the process. It’s healthy in terms of the ACMA maintaining public trust in the process.
I think it’s also healthy for the licensee because it (the apology) permeates, it trickles down through the organisation. And as much as the talent (Francis) on this particular occasion may or may not have wanted to, I don’t think in the long run that its harmful for the talent to say well, ‘I got it wrong. I overreacted. My facts weren’t right. I went over the top about this,’ or whatever it may be. ‘I’m sorry.’
Note: The full transcript of Bob Francis’ apology: “On the 6th of June 2012, I made a number of inappropriate and disrespectful comments about a journalist from The Australian, Sarah Martin. I apologise for any offence caused by my comments.”
I’m a great believer in brand equity as well. And I happen to have a view. And it happens to form in part the way I think about some of these sanctions. The extent you as a media asset, as a management team, as a talent as a program acknowledge that you were wrong, I think its very healthy and ultimately good for your brand equity.
radioinfo: Speaking of branding, The ACMA now seems to have some competition in the ‘watchdog’ arena. Organisations such as Change.org, GetUp and Destroy the Joint can mobilise tens of thousands a disgruntled consumers who pass judgment within few hours, whereas it would take The ACMA months. Also, they can mete out a swift financial penalty that dwarfs anything that the ACMA has ever imposed by warning off advertisers. What influence do these self-appointed regulators have on the official regulator? Do you see them in the same way as, say, the official police would view vigilantes?
Chapman: This whole area is fascinating and it’s a great question. I don’t see them as competition. I think they are a useful ally in a healthy system of accountability.
I see them as a triangulation between the regulator’s more measured approach, the public’s more immediate visceral response and ultimately the broadcaster’s re-education and re-awakening as to the fact that the public now has an ability to convey far more meaningfully and quickly their views.
In the old days media was One to Many. Now its Many to Many. And I think there is a very interesting transformation going on with the licensees that they are starting to understand that they’ve got to be far smarter about it and they’ve got to be much more alive to the potential of a community based reaction.
But you asked me if it (social media) has any impact on The ACMA? It doesn’t have any direct impact. We go about our job in exactly the same way whether its one person who’s complained or 10,000.
However, our job is to interpret what the community’s views are. We are there to enforce community standards and safeguard them. So clearly manifestation of viewpoints through aggregate numbers of people is a very healthy informer of our own views.
radioinfo: When you’re investigating a case, what weight do you give complainants who actually heard the offending broadcast compared to those who may have heard an audio clip on another station or just read a transcript in other media and got fired up by the presenter and wanted to join the lynch mob?
Chapman: The technical legal answer is that it is irrelevant whether a person heard the broadcast or not. And it makes no difference to the way in which we approach a matter. We place no weighting on whether the complainant heard it or otherwise. Because the person has gone through a process to write to the broadcaster to solicit the broadcaster’s views and responses. And then, that person has to make an assessment as to whether they’re happy or not (with the outcome).
Tomorrow, in Part Two, Chris Chapman explains why it takes so long for The ACMA to complete an investigation and what it’s latest Inquiry is all about.