Month: April 2020

EXPLAINER

On December 4^th, 2012, Today FM recorded a prank call between two presenters; Mel Grieg and Michael Christian, who pretended to be Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Charles as well as two staff members of the King Edward VII Hospital in London. This was the hospital where the Duchess of Cambridge was being treated for her morning sickness, during the pregnancy of Prince George of Cambridge. The staff member didn’t realise she was being recorded, or that she hadn’t speaking to the real Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Charles, providing certain details about the Duchess’ condition while being admitted in the hospital. 

On the 13^th of December 2012 the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) formally notified Today FM that an investigation was going to commence the offence in question under section 11(1) of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW).

1)  A person must not possess a record of a private conversation or the carrying on of an activity knowing that it has been obtained, directly or indirectly, by the use of a listening device, optical surveillance device or tracking device in contravention of this Part.

 The ACMA were allowed to conduct said investigation “for the purposes of the performance or exercise of any of its broadcasting, content and datacasting functions”, stated in Australian Communications and Media Authority Act (2005) and related powers. 

---

LEGAL ISSUES AT HAND

There are thirteen main Australian Privacy Principles  , and they govern standards, rights and obligations around:

• the collection, use and disclosure of personal information
• an organisation or agency’s governance and accountability
• integrity and correction of personal information
• and the rights of individuals to access their personal information

As mentioned Today FM was investigated under the Surveillance Devices Act as they were clearly in breach of:

• Possession of record of private conversation or activity
  • (1)  A person must not possess a record of a private conversation or the carrying on of an activity knowing that it has been obtained, directly or indirectly, by the use of a listening device, optical surveillance device or tracking device in contravention of this Part.

Not only was it an issue for Today FM to record the nurse, but in deceiving the nurse on the other line – she became in breach of privacy, under her contract as a nurse when she disclosed the information to the presenters. NSW Nurses and Midwife Association General Secretary Brett Holmes stated: 

“Such a call, with similar outcomes at an Australian health facility, irrespective of who the patient was, could have serious legal and professional implications for the nurses, midwives or any other health worker involved.”

When do Pranks Break the Law?
Prank calls that are considered a criminal offence are those that threatened to kill or cause injury, making a bomb hoax, calling 000 faking an emergency is open to three years in jail. Even if the caller doesn’t threaten repeated calls can be considered harassment, stalking or bullying with criminal repercussions for the pranker. Today FM had been notoriously known for doing crude and insensitive pranks on their radio station for years, prior to the prank call that pushed them over the line. And due to this big incident, the continuous recording of certain calls had been put under a magnifying glass

---

SIDES OF THE CASE

4 June 2013, the ACMA provided Today FM with a confidential copy of Preliminary Investigation Report No. 2928.

“The ACMA, as an administrative body, has the power to form an opinion as to whether a licensee has committed a Commonwealth, State or Territory criminal offence, for the purposes of deciding whether a licensee has breached the licence condition… The ACMA is not limited to forming such an opinion after an adjudication of criminal guilt by a criminal court. The formation of such an opinion by the ACMA may occur independently of any trial or conviction for a criminal offence.”

Today FM responded to the report by filing a court application on Tuesday the 18^th of June 2013. The radio station truly believed the ACMA had no case against them and were confident in their decision to take the Association to court. They based their side on three points: 

1. Claiming the ACMA didn’t have authority to make their findings that Today FM had committed a crime
2. The ACMA Act does authorise the Authority to make such findings, the provisions are invalid. And the provisions don’t fall under the judicial power of the court.
3. And lastly, and independently, the findings will interfere with the administration of justice in a criminal proceeding and the Court would accordingly restrain it. 

The AMCA just wanted what was in breach (or wasn’t) to show through. They based their case on that the holder of a commercial radio broadcasting licence has breached the licence condition and to take any action in relation to the alleged breach.

---

IMPACT

The following events after the case went beyond any predictions. The nurse, Jacintha Saldanha, who was 46 when she took the prank phone call as a serious inquiry, took her own life on December 7^th 2012 (three days after the call) from the shame and the backlash and work related repercussions. Her regret was seen in many emails and messaged she left for her co-workers. 

Not only was it serious for her to give patient information on the Duchess, but it would be serious under any circumstance with any patient. In the NSW Health Agreement Policies for staff it states:

“Staff are bound by the NSW Health Code of Conduct and privacy legislation to maintain confidentiality of information accessed in the course of their duties. This includes not disclosing personal information about patients or staff on social media… Maximum penalty: $11,000 fine or imprisonment for 2 years or both.”

“Such a call, with similar outcomes at an Australian health facility, irrespective of who the patient was, could have serious legal and professional implications for the nurses, midwives or any other health worker involved.”

As for the backlash on the other end when news broke of the suicide, Today FM big name advertisers pulled away from the radio station. Which led to all advertising on the station to be suspended until further notice. 

---

WHY IT’S IMPORTANT FOR THE MEDIA INDUSTRY

For future broadcasting this effect the way Broadcasting Stations (specifically Today FM) are allowed to and permitted to operate. Prank calls are not uncommon for entertainment broadcasting shows, for a platform that is exclusively audio the means on entertaining has its boundaries. For Today FM the “punishment” of the call included the two presenters losing their jobs, for host Mel Greig she believes it also led to the end of her marriage. As well as a set of actions constructed by the ACMA:

• The broadcast of a three-hour program to “promote media ethics and raise public awareness of the signs and risks of bullying, depression and anxiety”, with advertising proceeds to be given to charity
• An additional licence condition for three years to ensure the station does not broadcast a person speaking without either informing the person before recording them, or requesting permission after recording them
• Further training for presenters, producers and management.

Although the station did breach the regulations held by ACMA and eventually lost the case, Today FM were allowed to keep their licence to remain on the air. Chairman of the ACMA, Chris Chapman, said as a whole the case was “a win for the industry”. 

“”I think the matter of debating media ethics and some of these other matters that are percolating around very seriously in society about bullying and harassment is a great start… If it provides encouragement for other broadcasters to seize on this, then I think for citizens, for the broadcaster, for the regulator that is a win win win.”

---

The case when taken to the Full Federal Court unanimously deciding that the Act that Today FM was investigated under the ACMA could not accuse the radio station of committing a criminal act. The case was then appealed and taken to The High Court which ruled in favour of the ACMA entitling them to make these findings and investigations. It also found seeking to enforce the matter did not amount to a judicial decision and, therefore, the constitutional challenge raised by Today FM failed. For future broadcasting offences this means an administrative decision-maker can make findings that an offence has been committed is likely to apply to a larger administrative enforcement of activities for radio broadcasting.  

“Modern propaganda is a consistent, enduring effort to create or shape events” – Edward Bernays, Propaganda, 1928

Media Framing has the ability to organise our reality to change our perception (or create it) to tell us what it happening. It tells us before we know, what is the correct frame. It influences us in a deeper way than we can understand.

In relation to the News Frame the medias coverage on the coronavirus has had the ability to waver a whole nations understanding of what the virus even does or is. For myself even if i was hearing things saying it could be a hoax I still have the mentality to believe to was real but I was sensible about it, opposite to the way many media platforms have handled it. For our remediation Chelsea, Emma and I discussed on how FOX News influences the United States with their converage and News Frame.

The Internet Paradigm – PART TWO Distributed Media and Meme Warfare. The way I understanding it is the media we as produsers share and create from the mass media are able to gain more ‘traction’ than mass media on its own. Controlling the way users connect with content out there in the Internet (culture) Paradigm and with each other is impossible. And Memes are bits of information replicated and transmitted from mind to mind which offer a systematic frame for interpreting reality. This is why organisations, such as the CIA, use memes and dissect them further to understand the way a population receives and remediates information. 

For my remediation this week my DA group ( Chelsea + Emma + Me) and I decided to make the most of Zoom and the social distancing by having a shot at recording one of our calls discussing our understanding of Memes and Meme Warfare.

Group Blog Post – BCM113

WHO ARE CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA?

Cambridge Analytica is a British political consulting firm driven by Alexander Nix – a British businessman with an extensive history in behavioural research and strategic communications consultancy. The company offers its services to “change audience behaviour”, to businesses as well as political parties who intend on influencing and persuading audience actions, reactions and ideologies. According to an article by The Guardian, Cambridge Analytica is able to analyse mass amounts of consumer data via data collection from myriad of media sources – commonly social media platforms such as Facebook, as well as its own primary polling. They then combine this consumer data with behavioural science to identify target audiences that the organisations they work with can slam with marketing material; often these audiences are people who are underinformed and easily influenced. 
Cambridge Analytica has also been involved in and accused of various sketchy engagements. In an explainer article by WIRED, it reports that Cambridge Analytica was accused of using the data of a huge 50 million Facebook users, without their permission. A researcher from Cambridge university created a third party app “thisisyourdigitallife”, where almost 300 000 people downloaded it, giving them access to all their data and their friends, unknowingly. That isn’t where it ends, in the same article, a political analyst who worked on the 2016 Trump presidential campaign, says that Cambridge Analytica gathered extensive personality profiles, which its clients can use for “psychographic targeting” of ads – is that all they did, though?

TO WHAT EXTENT CAN IT BE ARGUED THAT CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA INTERFERED IN THE 2016 US ELECTION?

Multiple investigations begun launching in 2018 into Cambridge Analytica’s misuse of 50 million Facebook uses’ personal data. The company was suspended from Facebook in 2018 after the backlash from the New York Times report exposing them for violating Facebook’s terms of service for using personal data. Former employee Christopher Wylie approached the media. Wylie and the media have focused on two aspects;

1.  the legality of Cambridge Analytica’s actions in getting users’ Facebook data, 
2. and the effectiveness of the Facebook advertisements and the ethical questions about them.

Cambridge Analytica came into American politics with the goal of giving conservatives big data tools to compete with Democrats. Its big promise: developing detailed psychological profiles of every American voter, so that campaigns could tailor their pitches from person to person. The company couldn’t fully capture the personality of every single voter. By using a targeted advertising technique they were able to specify individuals and their voting opinions. Nix described this technique as the opposite of blanket advertising which entails displaying the same message to millions of users. He explained how “today communication is becoming ever increasingly targeted. It’s being individualized for every single person in this room”. Nix pitched the company’s approach at the time. Cambridge Analytica worked with researchers to develop “a 120-question survey that seeks to probe personality,” he said. “And we’ve rolled this out to literally hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people across America.” By conducting lots of research to analyse the effectiveness of the Facebook advertisements the company aimed to persuade users to vote a certain way by showing different advertisements on the same issue, to different people. The persuasion was done by gathering information on the Facebook page likes of users and using that data to create models that predict personality.