Seven agrees to court-enforced independent review of Sunrise
The panel that appeared during the segment
As part of the ongoing saga surrounding a panel on the adoption of Indigenous children, Seven has agreed to a court-enforceable independent review of the Sunrise production process.
Earlier this year ACMA found that the panel segment, broadcast in March 2018, breached the Commercial TV Code of Practice. Seven sought a judicial review of the findings, but discontinued court proceedings in April.
The panel drew concern over the lack of inclusion of Indigenous commentators
Now Seven must conduct an independent review of how and which relevant production processes on Sunrise ensure code compliance around sensitive and complex matters.
The court-enforceable independent review will then require a report to be provided to Seven’s board and Audit and Risk Committee within six months. ACMA will verify the independence of, and terms of reference for, the review. A Seven spokesman noted the review is the ‘formalisation of the agreement made two months ago’.
The ‘Hot Topics’ segment saw a panel discuss the adoption of Indigenous children and child abuse in Indigenous communities, with the suggestion offered by panellist Prue MacSween that another Stolen Generation may be the answer.
The Stolen Generation refers to the time, between 1905 and 1970, when Indigenous children were forcibly removed from their families by the Australian federal and state government agencies and church missions.
MacSween made the suggestion after Sunrise host Samantha Armytage falsely stated that Indigenous children could only be fostered with Indigenous families.
ACMA found that the segment was inaccurate and provoked serious contempt on the basis of race in breach of the industry’s code.
Seven has also undertaken that Sunrise editorial staff will be trained to identify and deal with sensitive matters. This training must be done within six months and ACMA must be notified within five business days.
The review comes as Seven has failed to stop a lawsuit alleging that Sunrise defamed some Indigenous people by showing slightly blurred background footage of them during the panel discussion.
Yolngu woman Kathy Mununggurr and 14 others from the Northern Territory community of Yirrkala are suing Seven over the show.
Seven hit out at ACMA at the time of the ruling, with director of news and public affairs, Craig McPherson, saying the discussion of important topics was being hampered by political correctness.
“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,” said McPherson.
“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.”
Looks like the ACMA wants to wipe out dicussion viewpoints on aboriginals. China did this for Tiananmen square in 1989.
i think that it is disgusting in what CHINA DID TO THERE OWN PEOPLE IN TIANANMEN SQUARE IN 1989 AND NO ONE CARS ABOUT HOW THEY ARE MAKING SURE THAT NO ONE BRINGS UP THE PAST AND THIS GOVERNMENT SHOULD TAKE THAT GOVERNMENT TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT FOR CRIMES AGAINST THERE OWN PEOPLE
Logical thought and free speech in Australia? Dreamin’ ……forget it, else the thought police will get you
[quote] ” Four legs good, two legs bad ” [unquote]
One day, the penny may drop, it might just dawn on enough people that racism, sexism, elitism, ageism, homophobia, xenophobia, and general deliberate unkindness, are not mollified by political correctness, or any form of sociological chant or dictum.
Open opinion and debate, adherence to human kindness, and the realization that we are all from different yet closely related groups of the same human family are all that is required.
No, I think it’s more the ill-informed bigotry masquerading as informed comment that is the problem..
Basically it’s trying to prevent this:
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=242113943254380
Rob,
It is sad that there is no law to prevent low brow, talentless would-be comedy such as this. The concept alone is awful, but the writing is lower than the tap room humour of the 60s and 70s, the direction is non-existent, and the acting is below schoolyard review level.
Good satire is constructed with finer and more sophisticated material than this shameless dross.
Channel 7 have done it AGAIN …. Another story full of incorrect information, amateur journalism and poor production. Maybe if they employ professional journalists, research stories thoroughly, report honestly and sack Michael Usher I’ll watch channel 7 again!!
Show who the real journos are, I haven’t seen any they are all bullshitting arseholes, it’s not just seven that stupid project what a crock of shit, ABC it’s a crock of shit to I get my news from Google mostly and YouTube I don’t trust our media they feed us such bullshit I prefer to get my news online
Who cares, big deal, some people are just not happy unless they are whinging or suing, just more regulation and more impigement on free speech!
Why are we still trying to live in the past. What’s done is done. Move on. I knew a number of Aboriginal children that were part of the so-called stolen generation and not one regrets the decision the child welfare crowd made with gov. backing of removing them from their families. It was that or live in a dump being beaten up or raped by a drunken family member or relative. What people forget is that caucasian children were also “stolen” as well as (I think) Pacific Islander and Maori children (could be wrong about last two groups as it has been a long time since reading about this sort of thing).