Complaint
A viewer complained about coverage of the US Supreme Court鈥檚 decision that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. 聽The complainant argued the use of the word 鈥渃补谤别鈥 to describe the work done by staff at an abortion clinic amounted to bias as it failed to reflect the impact on the unborn child. The ECU considered the complaint against the 大象传媒 Guidelines on Impartiality.
Outcome
The 大象传媒 is committed to 鈥渄耻别鈥 impartiality, which means context is significant in determining whether there has been a breach of standards. In this case the ECU noted the word 鈥渃补谤别鈥 had been used on several occasions in the same report but in different circumstances. For example it 聽was initially used by a worker at an abortion clinic who expressed their dismay at the Supreme Court decision:
Clinic Worker:聽 This isn鈥檛 a country that I ever thought I would know.聽 I thought that this country would still care about people, would still care about women.
And then by the 大象传媒 reporter:
Sophie Long:聽 Inside they had to come to terms with the fact that the care they provided here is now a criminal offence.
The ECU considered viewers would have understood the clinic worker was using language to express her concern for the wellbeing of women seeking an abortion or abortion advice. 聽The context in which Ms Long used the word, however, was not the same.聽 She spoke about 鈥渢he care they provided here鈥 and was referring to the provision of care for women seeking an abortion, similar to a reference to the provision of social care or mental health care.聽 In this context, the word was appropriately neutral and did not, in the ECU鈥檚 view, imply support for one side of the abortion debate.
Not upheld