media/broadcasting... web viewthese dramatisations were identifiable as re-creations given the...

Attachment B

Investigation Report No. 3060File no. ACMA2013/890

Licensee Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd

Station ATN Sydney

Type of service Commercial television

Name of program Today Tonight

Date/s of broadcast 11 and 12 March 2013

Relevant Code Clauses 1.9.6, 4.3.1, 4.3.6, 4.3.7, 4.3.10 and 4.5 of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2010

Date Finalised 30 May 2014Decision No breach of clause 1.9.6 [provoke or perpetuate intense dislike,

serious contempt or severe ridicule on the grounds of religion];

Breach of clause 4.3.1 [factual accuracy];

No breach of clause 4.3.1 [fair representation of viewpoints];

No breach of clause 4.3.6 [sensitivity in broadcasting images of or interviews with bereaved relatives];

No breach of clause 4.3.7 [unfairly identifying a single person when commenting on the behaviour of a group];

No breach of clause 4.3.10 [portray group of persons in a negative light by placing gratuitous emphasis on religion]; and

Breach of clause 4.5 [factual accuracy of news and current affairs promotions]

ACMA Investigation Report – Today Tonight broadcast by ATN on 11 and 12 March 2013

The complaintsIn June 2013, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) commenced an investigation in response to two complaints about a segment of the program Today Tonight, broadcast on 12 March 2013 by Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd, the licensee of ATN, and the promotions for the segment.

The first complaint was made on behalf of the Danthonia Bruderhof Community of New South Wales (first complainant) and the second on behalf of Dr Christopher Maendel (second complainant), both of whom featured in the segment.

The complaints were in similar terms, and both submitted that the licensee breached the following clauses of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2010 (the Code):

1.9.1 [simulating news or events in such a way as to mislead or alarm viewers];

1.9.6 [provoke or perpetuate intense dislike, serious contempt or severe ridicule on the grounds of religion];

4.3.1 [factual accuracy and fair representation of viewpoints];

4.3.6 [exercise sensitivity in broadcasting images of or interviews with bereaved relatives];

4.3.10 [portray group of persons in a negative light by placing gratuitous emphasis on religion];

4.4 [fair and impartial presentation of news];

4.5 [factual accuracy of news and current affairs promotions].

Further, the first complainant submitted that the licensee had breached 4.3.7 [unfairly identifying a single person when commenting on the behaviour of a group].

The second complainant also submitted that the licensee had breached the following two clauses of the Code:

4.3.3 [appropriate regard to the feelings of relatives and viewers when including images of dead or seriously wounded people]; and

4.3.11 [correction of significant errors of fact].

In this report, any issues raised by both complaints have been considered together. Given that the complaints were almost identically worded, in cases where both complainants have raised the same issue, the first complainant’s submissions have been extracted, and elements of the second complainant’s submissions added where appropriate.

ACMA Investigation Report – Today Tonight broadcast by ATN on 11 and 12 March 2013 2

Matters not pursued For the reasons outlined below, the ACMA has not investigated concerns raised by the complainants about:

clauses 1.9.1, 4.3.3, 4.3.11 and 4.4 of the Code;

website material; and

alleged references to a particular individual.

Clauses 1.9.1, 4.3.3, 4.3.11 and 4.4 of the CodeThe complainants submitted that the licensee breached clause 1.9.1 of the Code by broadcasting inaccurate information that ‘misled viewers’.

Clause 1.9.1 deals with circumstances where news or events are simulated in such a way as to mislead or alarm viewers. As the complainants’ concerns are primarily about the accuracy of information (including information conveyed by dramatisations) rather than the simulation of news or events, clause 1.9.1 has not been considered in this investigation. However, the complainants’ concerns about factual accuracy have been assessed against clause 4.3.1 [factual accuracy] at Issue 2 below.

In relation to clause 4.3.3, the ACMA notes that the segment included some images of Mrs Maendel that were either:

taken well before her illness and showed her in good health; or

were clearly a dramatisation, with the role of Mrs Maendel performed by an actress.

Clause 4.3.3 applies where images of ‘dead or seriously wounded people’ are shown. In this case, images in the segment that fit this description were of an actress portraying a deceased member of the Bruderhof community, the late Mrs Irene Maendel, in dramatisations. These dramatisations were identifiable as re-creations given the appearance of the word ‘DRAMATISATION’ in the top right-hand corner of the screen and the production techniques employed: use of a different colour tone, slow motion, and blurred or shaky images.

The ACMA is satisfied that the ordinary reasonable viewer would have appreciated that this footage was a dramatisation and that the woman in question was an actress.

While the images that appeared in the dramatisation may have caused some distress to Mrs Maendel’s family, given that they were clearly identifiable as staged and not images of the real Mrs Maendel the ACMA is satisfied that clause 4.3.3 does not apply.

The second complainant alleged a breach of clause 4.3.11, which provides that licensees must make reasonable efforts to correct significant errors of fact at the earliest opportunity. In this case, the licensee has submitted that the segment did not contain any significant errors of fact and that it came under no obligation to correct under clause 4.3.11. In all of the circumstances, the ACMA has decided not to pursue the complaint regarding this clause.

The complainants also submitted that the licensee breached clause 4.4 of the Code [fair and impartial presentation of news]. However, clause 4.4 applies only to ‘news programs’. As Today Tonight is a current affairs program, it is not subject to the requirements in clause 4.4 of the Code and the ACMA has not examined the licensee’s compliance with the clause.


Website materialThe complainants submitted that a related promotion on the licensee’s website was inaccurate. The ACMA does not have jurisdiction to investigate the complainants’ concerns about accuracy of material on the licensee’s website, as online material is not covered by the Code.

References to a particular individualThe first complainant submitted that a particular individual (particular individual 1) was inaccurately referred to in the broadcast as ‘someone who exercised behavioural control over members of the Danthonia Bruderhof Community’.1

Upon review of the segment, the ACMA is satisfied that particular individual 1 is not named or referenced in the broadcast, nor is there any suggestion that he is ‘someone who exercised behavioural control over members of the Danthonia Bruderhof Community’.

The ACMA has therefore not considered these aspects of the complaints further in the investigation.

The broadcastsThe segmentToday Tonight is a 30 minute current affairs program which was formerly broadcast to most cities and regional areas across Australia on weeknights on the Seven Network at 6.30pm. It is currently only broadcast in South Australia and Western Australia.

On 12 March 2013, the relevant segment (11 minutes in length) was introduced as follows:

...they are called the ‘Bruderhof’. A little-known religious group originally from the United States who’ve set up an outpost in rural Australia. Little is known about them. But when one of their flock fell ill, the spotlight was shone on the Bruderhof for all the wrong reasons. [Reporter’s name] reports.

The segment, ‘Death of a Believer’, reported on the death in March 2010 of Mrs Irene Maendel, a member of the Bruderhof from the United States. At the time, she was visiting the Danthonia Bruderhof community (the community), located near Inverell in northern NSW. Mrs Maendel was treated by her son, Dr Christopher Maendel (another member of the community). Dr Maendel’s treatment of his mother was the subject of a decision made by the Medical Tribunal of NSW (the Medical Tribunal) on 8 March 2013.2

The segment featured interviews with other relatives of Mrs Maendel (particular individuals 2, 3 and 4) and members of the community, as well as former members of the Bruderhof including a descendant of the Bruderhof’s founder (particular individual 5). The segment also featured an interview with Dr Maendel as he was leaving the Medical Tribunal. In addition, the segment featured several dramatisations in which actors recreated events.

A transcript of the segment is reproduced at Attachment A.

1 Danthonia Bruderhof Community refers to the Bruderhof Community at Inverell, NSW. The property on which they reside is called Danthonia.

2 http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/action/PJUDG?jgmtid=164910


http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/action/PJUDG?jgmtid=164910

The promotionsThere were two promotions for the segment:

a 20-second promotion, broadcast on 11-12 March 2013 (the first promotion); and

a 10-second promotion, broadcast on 12 March 2013 (the second promotion).

The first promotion included images of actors portraying Mrs Maendel being treated by Dr Maendel, with other members of the community sitting by her side in a sparse, rustic room, described by the complainants as a ‘barn’. It included a close-up shot of an actress portraying a Bruderhof member in prayer. It also featured brief images of Dr Maendel himself, [particular individual 2] and the Danthonia Bruderhof community from a distance.

It was accompanied by the following dialogue:

Narrator – Playing God... the cult and their doctor. They prayed for six days, instead of seeking medical help for a dying woman.

Reporter – What happened in this remote compound will shock you.

[Particular individual 2] – Why is everyone giving up on [Mrs Maendel] so soon?

Narrator – A special investigation, on Today Tonight.

The second promotion was an abbreviated version of the first promotion. It featured some of the same footage, but did not include the comments ‘They prayed for six days, instead of seeking medical help for a dying woman’ or ‘Why is everyone giving up on [Mrs Maendel] so soon?’

AssessmentThis investigation is based on submissions on behalf of each of the complainants, submissions by and on behalf of the licensee, correspondence between the licensee and the complainants and their lawyers, and a copy of the broadcast provided by the licensee. Other relevant sources have been identified where used.

In assessing content against the Code, the ACMA considers the meaning conveyed by the relevant material. This is assessed according to the understanding of an ‘ordinary reasonable viewer.’

Australian Courts have considered an ‘ordinary, reasonable’ viewer to be:

A person of fair average intelligence, who is neither perverse, nor morbid or suspicious of mind, nor avid for scandal. That person does not live in an ivory tower, but can and does read between the lines in the light of that person’s general knowledge and experience of worldly affairs3.

In considering compliance with the Code, the ACMA considers the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone, visual images and any inferences that may be drawn. In the case of factual material which is presented, the ACMA will also consider relevant omissions (if any).

Once the ACMA has applied this test to ascertain the meaning of the material broadcast, it then determines whether or not that material has breached the Code.

3 Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 at pp 164–167.


Issue 1: Provoke or perpetuate intense dislike, serious contempt or severe ridicule

Relevant Code clause Proscribed Material

1.9 A licensee may not broadcast a program, program promotion, station identification or community service announcement which is likely, in all the circumstances, to:

1.9.6 provoke or perpetuate intense dislike, serious contempt or severe ridicule against a person or group of persons on the grounds of age, colour, gender, national or ethnic origin, disability, race, religion or sexual preference.

Complainants’ submissionsThe complainants each stated that the licensee has breached clause 1.9.6 because the segment portrayed the Bruderhof in general, the Danthonia Bruderhof Community, its members and Dr Maendel in a negative light on the grounds of their religion:

Whilst the Offending Program purported to be dealing with the death of Mrs Maendel, it actually placed a gratuitous focus on the religion of the Danthonia Bruderhof Community and its members [and Dr Maendel]...

These implications were likely to provoke or perpetuate intense dislike, serious contempt and severe ridicule of the Bruderhof in general [and Dr Maendel], and/or the Danthonia Bruderhof Community in particular, [on the grounds ... of religion...].

Licensee’s submissionsThe licensee submitted in its responses to the complainants that:

...the Report does not set out to convey an overall tone of dislike or contempt against the Danthonia Bruderhof Community and its members on any ground. In fact, the Report makes reference on multiple occasions to the attributes of the Danthonia Bruderhof Community which many would regard as highly admirable. This includes, for instance, a reference to the fact that members... take a vow of poverty.

Also, some of the individuals who are involved in the report and who are critical of the medical treatment received by Irene Maendel expressly acknowledge that their grievance is not with the religion observed by Danthonia Bruderhof Community. For instance, [particular individual 2] says ‘we’ve…never had a problem with [Mrs Maendel]’s religion. I do have a problem with substandard medical care’.

Any critical views which are expressed in [the segment] and relate to the Bruderhof are, in context, statements of opinion held by those people based on facts which were presented to the NSW Medical Tribunal... While an ordinary viewer might draw their own conclusions as to the adequacy of medical care provided in the case of Mrs Maendel, they would not then have the requisite negative reaction to the Bruderhof Community as a whole because of their religion.

Moreover, in relation to the portrayal of Dr Maendel in the report, any criticism of Dr Maendel in the report clearly relates to the medical treatment he provided to his mother and not his religion. In that regard, as you are aware, Dr Maendel’s conduct was the


subject of disciplinary proceedings in the Medical Tribunal of NSW in which he was held to have engaged in unsatisfactory conduct and was therefore legitimately the subject of criticism in the report...

FindingThe licensee did not breach clause 1.9.6 of the Code.

ReasonsIn determining whether the licensee has breached clause 1.9.6, consideration must be given to the following:

identification of the relevant person or group and the relevant ground; and

whether the broadcast provoked intense dislike, serious contempt or severe ridicule against the relevant individual/group on that ground.

The ACMA’s interpretation of clause 1.9.6 of the Code is outlined at Attachment B.

The relevant person or group of persons and the relevant ground

The Bruderhof describe themselves as ‘an international communal movement of families and single men and women who seek to put into action Christ’s command to love God and neighbour’.4

The segment referred repeatedly to the Bruderhof and its beliefs. It was made clear in the segment that the community was by its nature a religious one. It was also central to the segment that Mrs Maendel and her son, Dr Maendel, were members of the community, and that Mrs Maendel was treated on the Danthonia community’s property.

Therefore, the ACMA is satisfied that the relevant group is the Bruderhof and the relevant ground is religion for the purposes of clause 1.9.6 of the Code. Dr Maendel, as a clearly-identified member of the Bruderhof, was also a relevant person for the purposes of the clause.

Provoke or incite

The complaints are that the segment portrayed the Bruderhof, the Danthonia community and Dr Maendel in a negative light because of their religion and that these ‘implications’ gave rise to a breach of clause 1.9.6 of the Code.

The ACMA considers that implications are insufficient to found a breach and that the requisite element of provocation or incitement was absent from the segment. There was no inflammatory language and there were no explicit terms of condemnation or engagement with the audience appealing to it to respond to the Bruderhof or Dr Maendel with hatred, contempt or ridicule on the basis of their religion or practices.

‘intense dislike, serious contempt or severe ridicule’

Further, clause 1.9.6 sets a high threshold for the likely effect of proscribed material. The definitions of ‘intense dislike’, ‘serious contempt’ and ‘severe ridicule’, as outlined at Attachment B, indicate that the Code contemplates a very strong reaction to the impugned material.

4 http://www.bruderhof.com/


http://www.bruderhof.com/

While the segment suggested that the community had treated Mrs Maendel with prayer and several of those interviewed sought to present the Bruderhof and Dr Maendel in a negative light, the ACMA does not consider that these factors reach the high bar of ‘provoking’ ‘intense’ dislike or ‘serious’ contempt.

The ACMA is not satisfied that the segment was likely to have provoked intense dislike, serious contempt or severe ridicule against members of the Bruderhof, including members of the Danthonia community or Dr Maendel, on the basis of religion. Therefore, the ACMA finds that the licensee did not breach clause 1.9.6 of the Code.

Issue 2: Factual accuracy

Relevant Code clause News and Current Affairs Programs

4.3 In broadcasting news and current affairs programs, licensees:

4.3.1 must broadcast factual material accurately and represent viewpoints fairly, having regard to the circumstances at the time of preparing and broadcasting the program;

4.3.1.1 An assessment of whether the factual material is accurate is to be determined in the context of the segment in its entirety.

The considerations which the ACMA generally applies in assessing whether particular broadcast material is factual in character are set out at Attachment C.

SubmissionsExtracts of submissions on factual accuracy are at Attachment D (complainants’ submissions) and Attachment E (licensee’s submissions) respectively.

FindingsThe licensee breached clause 4.3.1 of the Code in relation to factual material representing that Dr Maendel and the community treated Mrs Maendel with prayer and hymn singing as a substitute for medical care.

The licensee did not breach clause 4.3.1 of the Code in relation to the remaining material identified by the complainants.


ReasonsBackground - Medical Tribunal’s decision

The ACMA notes that the segment was broadcast four days after the Medical Tribunal made a decision concerning Heath Care Complaints Commission proceedings arising from Dr Maendel’s conduct with respect to the treatment of his mother.

The Medical Tribunal found Dr Maendel guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct, the particulars of which included that: after rendering emergency care he continued to treat the patient notwithstanding his close familial and personal relationship to her; he failed to consult with specialists; he failed to arrange for her to be transferred to hospital; he failed to arrange an independent investigation or tests including CT scan or assessment by specialist emergency medicine or neurosurgical practitioners; and he failed to have her clinical and neurological state closely monitored or assessed by himself or nursing staff.

It further found that Dr Maendel formed the clinical judgement that his mother should receive only palliative care and that other assessment or treatment options would not impact upon her prognosis in circumstances where he did not have sufficient clinical information to make a properly informed judgement about these matters.5

However, the Medical Tribunal’s decision made it clear that:

the community included a healthcare clinic in which Dr Maendel worked, along with registered nurses in the community, as needed;6

while palliative care was not necessarily appropriate and proactive medical care should have been undertaken, the palliative care provided to Mrs Maendel was ‘sympathetic and competent’;7

Dr Maendel had a ‘genuine belief that his mother would not have elected to receive aggressive treatment’ and ‘his conduct must be seen as a sincere attempt to act in the best wishes of his mother’;8 and

his actions ‘were not dictated by any directions or guidelines forming part of the church’s beliefs’.9

The Medical Tribunal also described the physical environment in which Mrs Maendel was cared for:

Mrs Maendel was first of all moved to a bed within an apartment in the Danthonia complex and then later moved to her own home. She was placed in a new ‘hospital’ bed and provided ongoing care until her death on 8 March [2010].10

Dr Maendel was also cleared of the more serious complaint of professional misconduct by the Medical Tribunal.

5 Health Care Complaints Commission v Dr Maendel (8 March 2013) – Medical Tribunal of NSW, p236 Ibid, p2.7 Ibid, p5.8 Ibid, pp3, 14 and 20.9 Ibid, pp3.10 Ibid, p4.


Claims that the Bruderhof and Dr Maendel believe that prayer and religious faith are substitutes for medical care and they provided ‘third world’ medical care

The complaint

The complainants submitted that the broadcast claimed that the Bruderhof in general, the Danthonia community and Dr Maendel believe that prayer and hymn singing are substitutes for medical care and that the Bruderhof and Dr Maendel provided ‘third world’ medical care to Mrs Maendel.

Factual material

Clause 4.3.1.1 of the Code requires any assessment of whether factual material is accurate to be determined in the context of the segment in its entirety.

The ACMA notes that the segment included the following statement by the reporter:

1. ‘Still no ambulance; no neuro-specialist; no CT-scan; no review of her treatment. Just more prayer and hymn singing’ (emphasis added).

The statement was factual material for the purposes of clause 4.3.1, conveying to the ordinary reasonable viewer that Mrs Maendel received prayer and hymn singing in lieu of medical care.

The ACMA also notes that the segment included the following questions, put by the reporter:

2. (To Dr Maendel): ‘Have you ever witnessed someone being denied medical care and being healed with prayer?’ (the reporter’s first words in the segment);

3. (To community member): ‘Do you think Irene would be alive today if she received first world medical treatment, rather than being left in the hands of Jesus? She died, here, without a CT scan; without a neuro-specialist; she was given morphine and prayer’;

4. (To Dr Maendel): ‘Will you treat other patients with prayer, or will you treat them with medicine in future?’ (the reporter’s concluding words in the segment).

In context, each of these questions contains an implicit factual assertion, respectively: that Dr Maendel denied Mrs Maendel medical care; that Mrs Maendel did not receive first world medical treatment; and that Mrs Mandel was treated with prayer and not with medicine.

In addition to the statement and questions extracted above, the ACMA notes (with regard to clause 4.3.1.1) the following matters of context:

5. The tenor of the segment was set by the written backdrop to the presenter’s strong introduction, namely the words ‘playing God’.

6. The reporter then said, ‘Dr Maendel...decided Irene had suffered a stroke, was bleeding inside her skull and would probably die, or at best become permanently disabled. So Dr Maendel, his father, and the group all prayed, taking turns in shifts at her bedside’.

7. This was followed by the unchallenged statement of opinion from [particular individual 2], ‘I feel that medical care took a back seat to some sort of religious experience. We’ve never had a problem with [Mrs Maendel’s] religion. I do have a problem with substandard medical care’.


8. The segment included dramatisations which depicted Mrs Maendel on her death bed in a sparse, rustic building clad in corrugated iron (described by the complainants as a ‘barn’) with members of the community praying at her bedside.

The ACMA considers that this contextual material reinforced the factual assertions expressed at points 1 to 4 quoted above.

The ACMA considers that the references to morphine in conjunction with references to prayer, and the rustic setting of the dramatisation of Mrs Maendel’s death bed which included images of an intra-venous drip, did not provide sufficiently clear contextualising material to convey the fact that morphine was provided as part of the competent palliative care Mrs Maendel received. Rather, in the context of the segment as a whole, it appeared to have been administered as part of a regime of prayer and ‘third world’ medical care.

The licensee’s submissions

The licensee has submitted (see Attachment E) that in the context of the entire segment in accordance with clause 4.3.1.1, the statement (‘Just more prayer…’) conveys that whilst the patient was being comforted with palliative care, she did not receive appropriate pro-active medical treatment which a doctor in Dr Maendel’s position should have provided in the circumstances. The submission refers to preceding statements in the broadcast which the licensee argues are consistent with the Medical Tribunal’s decision.

The ACMA does not accept this submission.

The references to prayer, God, Jesus, hymn singing and religious experience at points 1-8 above were framed as the alternative to proactive medical treatment. The ACMA considers that in the context of the entire segment, the statements conveyed that the patient was treated with prayer as a substitute for medical care.

The licensee also submitted that:

the factual assertion in the first of the questions [at point 2 of 8] was that the patient was not denied medical care in general, rather, she was denied ‘the appropriate medical help which a competent doctor would have provided’;

the assertion in the second question [at point 3 of 8] is more properly characterised as an opinion, but even if characterised as a factual assertion, it is not incorrect;

if choosing palliative care over more pro-active care resulted in Mrs Maendel missing the opportunity of prolonging her life, then it is not factually inaccurate to label this care as ‘substandard’; and

the end of the report explicitly states that the Bruderhof ‘advocate the best possible medical care for their members and have no input in their treatment’ and when viewed in the context of the entire report, this statement reinforces the fact that Dr Maendel’s treatment of his mother was an isolated incident and that the Bruderhof do not influence their members’ medical care by advocating prayer in lieu of medical treatment.

While the Medical Tribunal found Dr Maendel had engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct being ‘significantly below the standard reasonably expected of a practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience’, the ACMA considers that the segment conveyed that the reason for this was the substitution of medical care with prayer and hymn singing,


rather than his (insufficiently informed) decision to provide palliative care instead of pro-active medical treatment.

As is made clear in the Medical Tribunal’s reasons for its decision, Dr Maendel’s decision to provide palliative care (although flawed) was not motivated by his religious beliefs or the directions of the Bruderhof community but in the genuine belief that his decision reflected the patient’s wish. This was not explored in the segment. The ACMA considers that if anything, the segment in its entirety reinforced the impression that religion had interfered with Dr Maendel’s treatment of his mother.

As to the brief back announcement made at the end of the 11 minute-long segment, it is neither:

directed at the specific matters reported on in the segment (being focused instead on what the Bruderhof ‘advocate’ generally); nor

of sufficient impact or detail to dispel the inaccurate factual assertions and strong surrounding contextual material presented in the segment.

The ACMA therefore finds that the broadcast of the factual material identified above was not accurate. Accordingly, the ACMA finds that the licensee has breached clause 4.3.1.

Claims arising from the dramatisations

The complainants submitted that the dramatisations were factually inaccurate because:

the actors in the dramatisations are dressed in old-fashioned clothes akin to those worn by Amish communities in the United States, whereas the Bruderhof do not dress in this manner; and

the action of crossing oneself in prayer (as appears in the dramatisations) is not a practice of the Bruderhof.

The ACMA has also considered the separate dramatisation of the deathbed scene which featured in the promotions at Issue 7 below.

The licensee submitted that it does not consider ‘the dramatisation of Mrs Maendel’s death was a factual representation in relation to those details alleged to be inaccurate, such as the clothing worn.’

At the outset, the ACMA observes that dramatisations and re-enactments are well-established means of story-telling in current affairs programs. The ordinary reasonable viewer understands that dramatisations and re-enactments will not perfectly replicate the events portrayed and probably involve some ‘colour’. Accordingly, some amount of leeway is permissible in the production of dramatisations of this nature.

Due regard must still be had to clause 4.3.1, and particular care should be taken in the accurate presentation of matters that might contribute to the viewers’ understanding of facts that are material to the story.


The dress worn by the actorsThe ACMA’s view is that the dress worn by the actors in the dramatisation was similar to the dress of the Bruderhof as shown in publicly available photographs contained in media reports of Mrs Maendel’s death.11 The ACMA notes that Bruderhof women typically wear tunic-style dresses with headscarves and/or hats, as depicted in the dramatisations. A video available from the Bruderhof’s website explains that members prefer to dress modestly.12

Further, the segment included footage of other Bruderhof communities and Mrs Maendel before she passed away, giving viewers a further understanding of how the Bruderhof generally dress.

To the extent that some inaccuracies featured, they did not relate to material facts in the context of the issues raised by the segment’s contents.

Accordingly, the ACMA’s finding is that the licensee did not breach clause 4.3.1 of the Code in this regard.

‘Crossing oneself’ in prayer

At a number of points in the dramatisations, actresses portraying members of the community are shown making the sign of the cross. The complainants submitted that this action is not a practice of the Bruderhof, and is particular to other branches of Christianity.

The ACMA accepts that crossing oneself is not an action practiced by the Bruderhof. However, whether the Bruderhof do or do not cross themselves was not a material fact in the context of the issues raised by the segment’s contents.

Accordingly, the ACMA’s finding is that the licensee did not breach clause 4.3.1 of the Code in this regard.

Claims that the Bruderhof is a secretive group

The relevant statements (highlighted in bold) were made in the following context:

Presenter: But first, they are called the ‘Bruderhof’. A little-known religious group originally from the United States who’ve set up an outpost in rural Australia. Little is known about them. But when one of their flock fell ill, the spotlight was shone on the Bruderhof for all the wrong reasons. [The reporter’s name] reports.

The ACMA considers that the relevant statements were factual material as they were presented in a conclusive and unequivocal manner, and that the ordinary, reasonable viewer would have understood from them that the Bruderhof are a little-known religious community.

The complainants do not dispute that little is known about the Bruderhof and the community, but rather consider that the statements portray the Bruderhof as a ‘secretive group’.

The ACMA acknowledges that some individuals may have interpreted these statements in isolation as implying that the Bruderhof are a secretive group. However, the segment also showed the reporter freely entering the Danthonia property and approaching members of the community to ask them questions. The ACMA is satisfied that overall,

11 http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/nurses-investigated-in-cult-death-inquiry-20130302-2fd1p.html12 http://www.bruderhof.com/en/about/faq#jump5


http://www.bruderhof.com/en/about/faq#jump5

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/nurses-investigated-in-cult-death-inquiry-20130302-2fd1p.html

the statements accurately conveyed that little is generally known of the Bruderhof among the general public.

The ACMA finds that the licensee did not breach clause 4.3.1 of the Code in this regard.

References to a ‘compound’

During the segment, the reporter referred to the community’s property as a ‘compound’ on several occasions. The complainants submit that this is factually inaccurate.

The ACMA considers that the relevant statements were factual in nature, and that they would have conveyed to the ordinary, reasonable viewer that the community and Dr Maendel reside in a ‘compound’.

The licensee relied on the Macquarie Dictionary definition of ‘compound’ to support its use of the term to describe the large property on which the group resides. It submitted that there was nothing pejorative or otherwise untoward conveyed by the use of the term.

The ACMA notes that the Macquarie Dictionary (Fifth Edition) relevantly defines ‘compound’ as:

3. an enclosed area containing several buildings or houses with some empty space.

The ACMA considers that the term was used accurately as a description of the Danthonia property given that the program included images which fit the description of ‘compound’ in the definition above; namely, footage of a fenced country property containing several buildings.

From the segment, the property appeared open to public access, as the reporter was shown entering the property with no difficulty. The ACMA does not consider that the segment conveyed the notion that the community was in any way closed off or that its members were not at liberty to leave whenever they wished.

The ACMA finds that the licensee did not breach clause 4.3.1 of the Code in this respect.

Claims that the Bruderhof acted against the wishes of Irene Maendel

The ACMA notes the presence of the following in the segment:

Reporter - Despite the morphine, Irene broke out of her coma, something that experts say can indicate the possibility of a recovery. One eye witness in the group, a young Bruderhof sister, wrote to [particular individual 2] and [particular individual 3], recounting how on the second day:

Young Bruderhof sister (from the dramatisation): She woke up and asked what had happened to her.

Reporter: The next day, Mrs Maendel:

Young Bruderhof sister (from the dramatisation): greeted many brothers and sisters by name including many children... she asked several times ‘What happened to me?’ or ‘Am I sick?’ She wanted to get up and take a shower.’


Reporter: Still no ambulance; no neuro-specialist; no CT-scan; no review of her treatment. Just more prayer and hymn singing. Five days passed then on the sixth day, March 8, Irene finally succumbed.

The first complainant submitted that these statements conveyed that Dr Maendel and the Bruderhof had acted against the wishes of Mrs Maendel in their treatment of her.

The ACMA is not satisfied that the segment would have conveyed this to the ordinary, reasonable viewer. Rather, the ACMA considers that these statements conveyed that Mrs Maendel awoke from unconsciousness several times and even had some moments of lucidity. The ACMA notes that the Medical Tribunal preferred two nurses’ accounts of the patient’s level of consciousness to that of the Bruderhof sister,13 but considers this material did not convey that she was being treated against her wishes.

The ACMA notes that the reporter quoted directly from evidence given at the hearing before the Medical Tribunal and that the Tribunal ‘accepted that Dr Maendel acted according to his perception of his patient’s wishes’.14

Accordingly, the ACMA finds that the licensee did not breach clause 4.3.1 of the Code in this respect.

Claims that Dr Maendel and the Bruderhof attempted to hasten Mrs Maendel’s death

The relevant statement (highlighted in bold) was made in the following context:

Reporter: Dr Maendel knew he shouldn’t continue treating his own mother, but he did. He decided Irene had suffered a stroke, was bleeding inside her skull and that she would probably die or at best become permanently disabled. So Dr Maendel, [particular individual 7], and the group all prayed taking turns in shifts at her bedside. At the same time, Irene was given large doses of morphine.

The ACMA considers that the relevant statement was factual in nature.

The two complainants submitted that the segment implied that morphine was given in an attempt by the community and Dr Maendel respectively to hasten Mrs Maendel’s death.

Having considered the context in which it was made, the ACMA considers that the relevant statement conveyed to the ordinary, reasonable viewer that Mrs Maendel, following diagnosis by Dr Maendel, was given large doses of morphine.

It is not disputed that Mrs Maendel was given morphine as part of her palliative care. This was not, however, done in order to hasten her death. The ACMA notes that the Medical Tribunal’s decision supports this fact given that, as mentioned above, it stated that ‘as palliative care, the regime was sympathetic and competent’.15

The ACMA does not consider that the relevant statement or the segment as a whole conveyed to the ordinary reasonable viewer that the community or Dr Maendel attempted to hasten Mrs Maendel’s death with large doses of morphine.

13 Health Care Complaints Commission v Dr Maendel (8 March 2013) – Medical Tribunal of NSW, pp 13-14.

14 Ibid, p.14.15 Ibid, p.5.


Accordingly, the ACMA finds that the licensee did not breach clause 4.3.1 of the Code in this respect.

Claims about events immediately after Mrs Maendel’s death

The complainants submitted that the segment conveyed that Dr Maendel and the Bruderhof more generally had acted ‘improperly’ by burying Mrs Maendel on the Danthonia property, and had acted ‘unlawfully’ by failing to notify the NSW police or coroner of her death.

The relevant statements are as follows (relevant portions in bold):

Reporter: Dr Maendel then signed his own mother’s death certificate and Irene was buried in the compound. Neither the police nor the coroner was informed.

[Particular individual 3]: I was disturbed when I found that out. I believe here in the US, coroners must be informed and the police, you know, when there is a death.

The ACMA is satisfied that the licensee did not breach clause 4.3.1 in relation to these statements:

The reporter simply stated that Mrs Maendel had been buried on the Danthonia property, without commenting on the propriety or otherwise of these actions;

[Particular individual 3]’s comment is a statement of opinion based on her understanding of the position in the United States.

The ACMA finds that the licensee did not breach clause 4.3.1 of the Code in this respect.

Remaining material identified by the complainants

The complainants’ submissions included that the segment contained the following allegations:

the Bruderhof are a ‘cult’;

Mrs Maendel’s illness was exploited by the community and Dr Maendel for religious purposes;

the Bruderhof and Danthonia community are improperly controlled by Bruderhof leaders (first complainant);

Dr Maendel’s care of his mother was controlled, directed or influenced by the Bruderhof (second complainant).

The ACMA considers that any allegations suggesting the above arise from statements made by interviewees…or were clear references to the views of those interviewees (with relevant sections highlighted in bold):

[Particular individual 5]: It’s become a cult.

[Particular individual 2]: I feel that her medical care took a back seat to some sort of religious experience. We’ve never had a problem with [Mrs Maendel]’s religion. I do have a problem with substandard medical care.

[Particular individual 3]: I would say it’s a dangerous cult. When a person is penniless, dependent on the group for everything in their life and a situation like this arises, it’s a situation that is rife for exploitation and human rights abuses



[Particular individual 2]: [Mrs Maendel] was well-loved. To have had this happen to her, this did not happen in a vacuum. In my experience, nothing is done there without the leadership of elders and the guidance of elders, we didn’t dare take a step out of line when I was growing up there.

[Particular individual 5]: That’s one difference between …and the whole difference is that he loves money.

[Particular individual 5]: They look like warm and friendly but they are actually very, very hard. Especially to their own children.

Reporter: At her home in Amsterdam, [particular individual 5] has written about her life in the Bruderhof and says the group has lost its way under … [particular individual 6].

In assessing clause 4.3.1 of the Code, the ACMA must first consider whether or not the relevant broadcast material is factual in nature, as clause 4.3.1 only applies to factual material.

The ACMA considers that the relevant statements were expressions of opinion rather than statements of fact. The use of the words such as ‘I would say’, ‘I feel’, ‘I believe’, ‘in my experience’ and ‘[particular individual 5] says the group has lost its way’ (emphasis added), combined with the tone and tenor in which these words were said and the emotive language used, indicate the expression of various opinions.

As the ACMA is satisfied that the relevant statements are expressions of opinion and not factual material, it is not necessary to assess the accuracy of these statements under the Code.

Issue 3: Fair representation of viewpoints



4.3.1 must broadcast factual material accurately and represent viewpoints fairly, having regard to the circumstances at the time of preparing and broadcasting the program;

Complainants’ submissionsThe first complainant submitted that this provision of the Code had been breached due to the following:

the licensee did ‘not [provide] equal air time to the viewpoint of the Danthonia Bruderhof community...’;

the licensee ‘[did] not provide notice of [the reporter’s] intention to visit the Danthonia property so as to enable the latter to prepare answers to the many questions put to them by [the reporter]’;


the licensee did ‘not [broadcast] the answers of the first member of the Bruderhof Community to speak to [the reporter] and instead [broadcast] a period of silence...’.

Licensee’s submissionsThe licensee submitted the following in relation to this issue:

...whilst the report is required to ‘represent viewpoints fairly’, the Code does not require broadcasters to present all or even opposing viewpoints on a matter being reported on, nor does the Code require that equal time be dedicated in the report to different viewpoints in relation to an issue. Current affairs programs, unlike news programs, are not subject to general provisions regarding fair and impartial presentation of program material... it is our position that the report included a fair representation of the views provided, either on camera or in writing, by Dr Maendel, members of the Bruderhof and members of the Maendel family. ...

[The complaint] asserts that [the reporter] did not provide notice to the Danthonia Bruderhof Community of his intention to visit the Danthonia property so as to enable the Community to prepare answers to many of the questions which were put to them by [the reporter]. We note that this particular complaint does not concern a matter covered under the Code (and in particular clause 4.3.1). Nowhere in the Code is it a requirement that [the reporter] give advance notice to interviewees of his visit or the questions which he intended to ask. Moreover, it is standard practice for journalists to withhold their questions so as to preserve the integrity of the information-gathering process. In any event, the responsive answers given to [the reporter] were clearly genuine and thoughtfully given and were broadcast in full...

In the licensee’s response to the first complainant, in relation to an interview with a Bruderhof community member conducted by the reporter in the segment, it advised:

[The community member’s] answers were unresponsive and Seven did not broadcast a period of silence in lieu of response. Seven understands that the first member provided responses to the effect of ‘I don’t know’ and ‘I will find someone to speak to you’. The sensible decision was made to omit these responses from the Report as they would add nothing of substance. Responses provided by the second member to be interviewed by [the reporter] were utilised in the program and fairly represented his viewpoints.

The licensee further submitted:

…Clause 4.3.1 is only concerned with the fair representation of viewpoints. In the interview with the community member, the interviewee did not offer a viewpoint. Statements to the effect of ‘I don’t know’ and ‘I will find somebody to speak to you’ are not viewpoints. As the interviewee did not provide a viewpoint in the interview, and Seven did not purport to present any viewpoints of the interviewee, Seven did not misrepresent any viewpoint in that interview. Therefore, Seven submits that clause 4.3.1 in respect of viewpoints was not engaged by this segment of the report.

FindingThe ACMA finds that the licensee did not breach clause 4.3.1 of the Code in respect of the representation of viewpoints.


Reasons Generally

In determining whether or not a licensee has represented a viewpoint fairly (having regard to the circumstances at the time of preparing and broadcasting the program), the ACMA takes into account that the Code does not require a licensee to present all material which it obtains. The overriding requirement is that the program (that is, whatever goes to air in its entirety), must represent viewpoints fairly. A program may omit material, but must not misrepresent a viewpoint in doing so.

The ACMA notes that misleading editing or inappropriate juxtaposition of material can contribute towards that representation being rendered unfair in the sense contemplated by clause 4.3.1.

The ACMA also notes that the segment includes the views of some members of the community on the events surrounding Mrs Maendel’s death, including an interview with an unnamed member as the reporter entered the Danthonia property and another with Dr Maendel, and a back announcement at the end of the segment that:

Meanwhile, the Bruderhof say they are not a cult and do not play God. They advocate the best possible medical care for their members and have no input to their treatment.

The ACMA considers that the participants’ viewpoints were not misrepresented in these interviews.

The ACMA is aware that while the first complainant provided the licensee with material prior to the segment being broadcast, the licensee made only minimal reference to this material during the segment. However, as explained above, licensees may omit material as long as they do not misrepresent a viewpoint in doing so.

The ACMA finds that in light of the interviews mentioned above, combined with the back announcement, the licensee did not breach clause 4.3.1 in this respect.

Interview with community memberThe first complainant also submitted that the responses given by one of the members of the community during an interview with the reporter were not included in the broadcast, that the licensee broadcast ‘a period of silence’ instead, and that this constituted an unfair representation of the member’s viewpoint.

The following extract from the transcript of the broadcast includes the relevant interview:

Reporter [to a community member]: Do you think Irene would be alive today if she received first world medical treatment, rather than being left in the hands of Jesus?

[Silence, as the member stares into the distance]

Reporter: She died, here, without a CT scan; without a neuro-specialist; she was given morphine and prayer.

[Silence as the member stares at the ground].

Reporter: If someone collapses in the bathroom today, do you do the same thing or do you take them to hospital? What’s the plan?


The ACMA notes the licensee’s submission that including the interviewee’s responses to the reporter’s questions would not have added anything of substance to the segment, and that the community member did not offer a viewpoint during the interview. Therefore, it argued, no viewpoint was represented during the exchange, whether fairly or otherwise.

The ACMA is persuaded by this submission. While the omission of the community member’s responses may, to a certain extent, have made him appear evasive and uncooperative, the ACMA considers that as no viewpoint was expressed in the broadcast by the community member, the licensee did not unfairly represent a viewpoint.

Therefore, the ACMA finds that the licensee did not breach clause 4.3.1 in this respect.

Issue 4: Interviews with bereaved relatives



4.3.6 must exercise sensitivity in broadcasting images of or interviews with bereaved relatives and survivors or witnesses of traumatic incidents.

Complainants’ submissionsThe complainants submitted that the ‘aggressive interviews’ conducted by the reporter with Dr Maendel shortly after the Medical Tribunal proceedings were insensitive in that it was suggested to Dr Maendel that he ‘was responsible for his mother’s death’, ‘was a victim who had been improperly instructed by the Bruderhof’ and ‘that he had treated his mother with prayer and not with medicine’.

Licensee’s submissionsThe licensee submitted that:

[The reporter]’s interview with Dr Maendel needs to be considered in its context. Matters which are relevant to the context include the following:

As [the complainants] rightly acknowledge, [the reporter] interviewed Dr Maendel at a time when Dr Maendel was facing disciplinary proceedings in the [Medical Tribunal] in connection with the medical treatment which he provided to his mother and was no doubt thoroughly questioned about the events leading up to the passing of his mother and his involvement in the events, far more so than the interviews conducted by [the reporter].

The questions posed by [the reporter] related to evidence which had emerged during the hearing and the outcome of the proceedings generally.

The interview was recorded and broadcast some 3 years after those events (as opposed to in the immediate aftermath of the events).



ReasonsThe segment included interviews with and footage of Dr Maendel on the day of the hearing at the Medical Tribunal. The reporter approached Dr Maendel on the street after the Medical Tribunal hearing. The following exchange then occurred:

Reporter (to Dr Maendel): Would your mother still be here today if you’d taken her to the hospital?

Reporter (voiceover): I caught up with Dr Maendel at the New South Wales Medical Tribunal. There, he was acquitted of professional misconduct. But, Dr Maendel admitted multiple counts of unsatisfactory conduct, including: not calling an ambulance; not taking Irene to hospital; not getting a CT scan; not getting an expert opinion; not reviewing his decisions; and continuing to treat his own mother; and signing his mother’s death certificate.

Reporter (to Dr Maendel): It’s been suggested to me that you’re as much a victim as anyone else in this. Has the Bruderhof instructed you how to behave or how to handle this matter?

Reporter (voiceover): Dr Maendel’s defence centred on his claim that he treated his mother no differently from any other patient.

Reporter (to Dr Maendel): Can we get just a quick reaction from you? Doctor?

Dr Maendel (voiceover): There’s a part two to this so I won’t comment on it. But I appreciate the unbiased assessment of my conduct by the Tribunal.

Reporter (to Dr Maendel): Is today a win? Or how would you describe it?

Dr Maendel (voiceover): That will be my only comment.

The ACMA acknowledges the complainants’ concerns about the reporter’s questions, particularly given Dr Maendel’s involvement in the events that led to his mother’s death. However, the ACMA considers that the interview with Dr Maendel did not breach clause 4.3.6 of the Code. Dr Maendel did not appear to be in distress during the questioning by the reporter, and the interview was brief. In addition, the reporter posed questions on matters that would have been discussed in detail in the Medical Tribunal earlier that day. Further, at the time of the interview, some three years had elapsed since Mrs Maendel passed away in March 2010.

Accordingly, the ACMA finds that the licensee did not breach clause 4.3.6 of the Code.


Issue 5: Unfairly identifying a single person when commenting on the behaviour of a groupRelevant Code clause

News and Current Affairs Programs


4.3.7 should avoid unfairly identifying a single person or business when commenting on the behaviour of a group of persons or businesses.

Complainant’s submissionsThe first complainant submitted that the program:

... unfairly identified [Particular individual 6] when commenting on the behaviour of the Bruderhof as a group.

Licensee’s submissionsThe licensee responded to the first complainant that:

All comments regarding [particular individual 6] were a fair representation of the views provided by [particular individual 5] and were attributed as opinions held by [particular individual 5], a person well entitled to express such views given her close relationship with the Bruderhof founder.

Aside from the comments we make above, we consider that your assertions misconstrue clause 4.3.7 of the Code... the Report does not identify [particular individual 6] ‘when commenting on the behaviour of the group of persons’, in this case the Danthonia Bruderhof Community or the Bruderhof generally. [Particular individual 6] is not discussed in the context of a comment about the behaviour of the Danthonia Bruderhof Community or the Bruderhof generally.


ReasonsThe following statements were made in relation to [particular individual 6]:

Reporter: At her home in Amsterdam, [particular individual 5] has written about her life in the Bruderhof and says the group has lost its way under …[particular individual 6].

[Particular individual 5]: That’s one difference…and the whole difference is that he loves money. The community’s rich; very rich, and they can buy anything they want.

Clause 4.3.7 states that a single person must not be unfairly identified when commenting on the behaviour of a group of persons. In this case, the ACMA considers that the ‘single person’ is [particular individual 6] and the ‘group of persons’ is the Bruderhof community.

Given that [particular individual 6] was associated with the community and the Bruderhof were the central focus of the broadcast, the ACMA does not consider that it was unfair to comment on [particular individual 6] when commenting on the behaviour of the Bruderhof. Further, the comments were made by an interviewee expressing her personal views on the Bruderhof based on her experience as a former member and, therefore, formed a legitimate and relevant part of the story.


The ACMA finds that licensee did not breach clause 4.3.7 of the Code.

Issue 6: Must not portray any person or group in a negative light by placing gratuitous emphasis on... religionRelevant Code clause



4.3.10 must not portray any person or group of persons in a negative light by placing gratuitous emphasis on age, colour, gender, national or ethnic origin, physical or mental disability, race, religion or sexual preference. Nevertheless, where it is in the public interest, licensees may report events and broadcast comments in which such matters are raised.

Complainants’ submissionsThe complainants submitted that the licensee breached clause 4.3.10 through:

The making of sarcastic references to prayer... by [the reporter].

The use of ‘religious language’ by [the reporter] in describing what was a palliative care event.

A gratuitous, not to mention misleading and inaccurate, re-enactment featuring a parody of Bruderhof religious costume and practices... As anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Christian practice would be aware, the act of ‘crossing oneself’ is largely confined to Catholic and Orthodox communities. It is not a practice of Protestant communities and is certainly completely alien to Bruderhof practice. Furthermore, the form of dress depicted in this parody does not represent Bruderhof practice and seems to have been sourced from North American Amish examples.

The complainants also submitted that ‘having visited the Danthonia property, [the reporter] was well-aware that this parody did not represent actual Bruderhof members, their form of dress or religious practice’ and that ‘these actions were intended, and have in fact, held the Danthonia Bruderhof Community up to ridicule’.

Licensee’s submissionsThe licensee submitted in response to the complainants that:

To the extent that there are any aspects of the report which can be said to be critical of practices within the Danthonia Bruderhof Community, the report does not place gratuitous emphasis on the religion observed by [the] Danthonia Bruderhof Community. In particular:

(a) The religion observed by the Danthonia Bruderhof Community was relevant as context in the Report...

(b) We dispute that any statements made by [the reporter] regarding prayer were, or were intended to be, sarcastic in nature;

(c) We disagree that [the reporter] used religious terminology in a gratuitous manner...



ReasonsThe test in clause 4.3.10 is an objective one under which material is judged from the perspective of an ordinary, reasonable viewer.

In applying the first part of the test in clause 4.3.10 of the Code, the ACMA has assessed whether the broadcast portrayed members of the Bruderhof in a negative light, and if so, whether that negative portrayal resulted from the program placing gratuitous emphasis on religion.

The ACMA accepts that the licensee did portray members of the Bruderhof community in a negative light and that there was some emphasis on the Bruderhof’s religion and religious practices including by:

repeated and inaccurate references to the Bruderhof’s reliance on prayer and hymn-singing as a substitute for medical care;

use of the ‘cult’ and ‘compound’ with respect to the Bruderhof and the community’s property respectively;

depictions in the dramatisations of community members making the sign of the cross and continuously praying; and

giving some details of the Bruderhof’s history.

In relation to the complainants’ claim that statements made by reporters were ‘sarcastic’, the ACMA notes that the adoption of an editorial perspective (which can include conveying possible sarcasm or irony) in a current affairs program will not of itself render such perspectives ‘gratuitous’ for the purposes of the Code, as long as the matters being commented on are themselves sufficiently relevant and material.

Similarly, while it will usually be possible for a current affairs segment to proceed without a dramatisation, this is, nevertheless, (as has been noted above) a common and well-understood device for storytelling. The use of such a device is not of itself ‘gratuitous’ within the meaning of the Code, as long as its content bears sufficient relationship to the issues being canvassed in the story.

To the extent that these matters raise issues of accuracy, they have been dealt with at Issue 2 above.

Otherwise, the ACMA is not satisfied that the emphasis placed on the Bruderhof’s religion was ‘gratuitous’ in the sense contemplated in clause 4.3.10. In reaching this conclusion, the ACMA has considered the ordinary meaning of the word ‘gratuitous’, as defined in the Macquarie Dictionary (Fifth Edition):

Gratuitous adjective 2. being without reason, cause or justification.

The segment concerned the death of a member of a community which is, by its nature, a religious one. The death occurred on that community’s property, and the segment featured allegations by … [particular individual 2], that ‘her medical care took a back seat to some sort of religious experience’. In this context, references to and descriptions of the Bruderhof’s religious observances were justified, particularly given that the Bruderhof is a small and relatively unknown religious community.


The ACMA notes that the Medical Tribunal also considered and acknowledged the significance of religion to its inquiry and decision. As discussed above at Issue 2, the Medical Tribunal expressly found that Dr Maendel’s actions ‘were not dictated by...the church’s belief’ but also noted that:

... in all likelihood [Dr Maendel] afforded his mother her final days in the manner she would have wished and without the rigours of rough and lengthy transportation, invasive investigation and possibly surgery and death in a hospital away from her church and community environment.16

For these reasons, the ACMA does not consider that the emphasis given to the Bruderhof’s religious practices and details of the organisation’s operation was ‘gratuitous’ for the purposes of the Code.

As the material did not breach clause 4.3.10 of the Code, it is not necessary for the ACMA to consider whether its broadcast was in the public interest.

Issue 7: Factual accuracy of promotions in news or current affairs programsRelevant Code clause


4.5 In broadcasting a promotion for a news or current affairs program, a licensee must present factual material accurately and represent featured viewpoints fairly, having regard to the circumstances at the time of preparing and broadcasting the program promotion, and its brevity. A licensee is not required by this clause to portray all aspects or themes of a program or program segment in a program promotion, or to represent all viewpoints contained in the program or program segment.

SubmissionsExtracts from the complainants’ submissions in relation to this clause can be found at Attachment D and extracts from the licensee’s submissions can be found at Attachment E.

FindingThe ACMA finds that the licensee breached clause 4.5 of the Code.

ReasonsThe claim that the Bruderhof and/or Dr Maendel ‘prayed... instead of seeking medical help’

As stated above, the first promotion featured the following dialogue:

Narrator – Playing God... the cult and their doctor. They prayed for six days, instead of seeking medical help for a dying woman.

Reporter – What happened in this remote compound will shock you.

[Particular individual 2] – Why is everyone giving up on [Mrs Maendel] so soon?

16 Health Care Complaints Commission v Dr Maendel (8 March 2013) – Medical Tribunal of NSW, p21.


Narrator – A special investigation, on Today Tonight.

The complainants both submitted that the narrator’s statement ‘they prayed for six days, instead of seeking medical help for a dying woman’ was inaccurate.

The ACMA considers that the statement in question was factual material for the purposes of the Code. There was no language to indicate that the comment was the opinion of the narrator. Whether or not Mrs Maendel received medical help is a matter capable of independent verification.

The ACMA considers that the ordinary reasonable viewer would have understood from the statement that the Bruderhof had not provided medical care to Mrs Maendel, and had instead prayed by her bedside. The dramatisation contained in the first promotion, including a shot of several actresses depicting Bruderhof members sitting by Mrs Maendel’s bedside and a close-up shot of a Bruderhof member in prayer, would have reinforced this notion.

For the reasons explained at Issue 2 (above), the ACMA considers that this factual material was inaccurate.

The licensee has further submitted, that given that the promotion made reference to a ‘doctor’, ‘it is implicit that Mrs Maendel received some form of medical care (because a doctor was present)’. It has also submitted that there is an important distinction to be drawn between the promotion’s reference to ‘medical help’ as opposed to ‘medical care’. It submits that the statement was an accurate one, due to the fact that the Bruderhof did not seek external medical assistance in treating Mrs Maendel, relying only on community members.

The ACMA is not persuaded by this submission, and maintains that the promotion would have conveyed to the ordinary, reasonable viewer that the Bruderhof had prayed by Mrs Maendel’s bedside in lieu of providing medical care.

As such, the ACMA finds that the licensee breached clause 4.5 of the Code in relation to this issue.

Dramatisation

In their complaints about the promotions, the complainants claimed that the images of actors in old fashioned clothing and praying in a ‘barn’ conveyed, among other things, that Dr Maendel, the Bruderhof and the Danthonia community do not use real doctors and that Mrs Maendel died in a ‘compound’ and was deprived of medical care, whereas the reality is that she was treated in a medical facility.

The licensee submitted that having regard to the brief nature of the promotions, it was accurate as regards the general subject of the upcoming report.

The promotions (described in detail above) featured fleeting dramatisations of Mrs Maendel being treated in a sparse, rustic building with wooden floors and corrugated iron walls. These dramatisations were similar to, but not the same as, the dramatisation that featured in the segment. They were accompanied by the narrated words:

‘Playing God. The cult and their doctor. They prayed for six days, instead of seeking medical help for a dying woman...’

For the reasons outlined at Issue 2 above, the ACMA does not consider that the images of clothing and signing of the cross were central to the viewers’ understanding of the issue of the


level of care provided to Mrs Maendel. While the depiction in the main segment of her being treated in a sparse, rustic, corrugated iron clad building provided contextual material relevant to the viewers’ understanding of the level of care received by her, the ACMA notes that the dramatisation in the promotions was fleeting, being only a few seconds in length.

The ACMA finds, therefore, that the licensee did not breach clause 4.5 of the Code in respect of the dramatisation in the promotions.

The use of the terms ‘cult’ and ‘compound’

For the reasons outlined at Issue 2, the ACMA considers that the use of the term ‘compound’ in both of the promotions was not inaccurate and the licensee has not breached clause 4.5 of the Code in this regard.

With respect to the statement, ‘the cult and their doctor’ which also featured in both promotions, the ACMA considers that the relevant statement was presented as factual material as it was presented in a conclusive and unequivocal manner.

The ordinary, reasonable viewer would have understood that the religious group being referred to in the promotions was a cult.

The ACMA is aware that there is debate over whether the Bruderhof are properly characterised as a cult, with a range of views on the matter. In this regard, it is noted that there are various publicly available sources in which the Bruderhof are referred to as a ‘cult’.17

Given the debate on the subject, the ACMA is not in a position to find that the term was inaccurate.

Accordingly, the licensee did not breach clause 4.5 of the Code in respect of the use of the term ‘cult’.

17 See for example http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/nurses-investigated-in-cult-death-inquiry-20130302-2fd1p.html and http://www.culthelp.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=116&Itemid=8


http://www.culthelp.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=116&Itemid=8

http://www.culthelp.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=116&Itemid=8



Attachment ATranscript – Today Tonight ‘The Death of a Believer’ – 12 March 2013Presenter: But first, they are called the ‘Bruderhof’. A little-known religious group originally from the United States who’ve set up an outpost in rural Australia. Little is known about them. But when one of their flock fell ill, the spotlight was shone on the Bruderhof for all the wrong reasons. [Reporter’s name] reports.

[Particular individual 2]: Why is everybody giving up on [Mrs Maendel] so soon? I didn’t understand that.

[Particular individual 5]: It’s become a cult.

Reporter [to Dr Maendel]: Have you ever witnessed someone being denied medical care and being healed with prayer?

This is a story about a loving mother and grandmother who belonged to a deeply religious Christian sect and her son who was also her Doctor. It’s about how and why she died and whether she could have been saved.

Irene Maendel and her husband were members of the Bruderhof. Like the Amish, the Bruderhof is based in America but also has satellite groups in the United Kingdom, South America and now here.

Bruderhof member: We’re a Christian community that tries to live out Christ’s teachings to love neighbour, love yourself. If you read in the Book of Acts in the New Testament, you’ll see that the first church actually lived a life where they shared everything in common...

Reporter: Yeah, you’ve taken the vow of poverty

Bruderhof member: Absolutely.

Reporter: Yeah, and you live communally, you raise the children communally...

Bruderhof member: We share things together.

Reporter: The Bruderhof call themselves ‘Christian Communists’. Members are not allowed to have bank accounts and any money they earn goes straight to the group and its leaders. There’s no television or radio. Just a strict adherence to the group’s religious beliefs.

[Particular individual 3]: …I would say it’s a dangerous cult. When a person is penniless, dependent on the group for everything in their life and a situation like this arises, it’s a situation that is rife for exploitation and human rights abuses

Reporter: [Particular Individual 2] and …[particular Individual 3] are fighting to find out what happened to his mother during a visit to Australia in 2010.

It was the 2nd of March, after dinner Irene went to the bathroom and collapsed. A young follower discovered her and called for help. Within minutes her son, Dr Chris Maendel, was at her side.

Here in the heart of this compound on that extraordinary night, Dr Maendel did not call an ambulance. Instead, he gathered together the followers and they placed Irene on the bathroom door, then carried her out into the night, into the pouring rain, led by Dr Maendel with a torch, carried her up this steep slope 400 meters singing Palm Sunday songs. Bringing her finally to a building just over here called the ‘Roan House’. Six days later, in that building, Irene died.


Dr Maendel knew he shouldn’t continue treating his own mother, but he did. He decided Irene had suffered a stroke, was bleeding inside her skull and that she would probably die, or at best become permanently disabled. So Dr Maendel, his father, and the group all prayed, taking turns in shifts at her bedside. At the same time, Irene was given large doses of morphine.

[Particular individual 2]: I feel that her medical care took a back seat to some sort of religious experience. We’ve never had a problem with [Mrs Maendel]’s religion. I do have a problem with substandard medical care.

Reporter: From his home in the United States, [particular individual 2] called [Dr Maendel] and begged him to take [Mrs Maendel] to hospital and to seek an expert opinion.

[Particular individual 2]: We asked very early on, you know, is she going to a hospital, and we were very perplexed when he said that they weren’t going to send her to a hospital. That they had decided not to. We didn’t understand this.

Reporter: Despite the morphine, Irene broke out of her coma, something that experts say can indicate the possibility of a recovery.

One eye-witness in the group, a young Bruderhof sister, wrote to [particular individual 2] and [particular individual 3], recounting how on the second day:

Young Bruderhof sister dramatisation: She woke up and asked what had happened to her.

Reporter: The next day, Irene:

Young Bruderhof sister dramatisation: greeted many brothers and sisters by name including many children... she asked several times ‘What happened to me?’ or ‘Am I sick?’ She wanted to get up and take a shower.

Reporter: Still no ambulance; no neuro-specialist; no CT-scan; no review of her treatment. Just more prayer and hymn singing. Five days passed, then on the sixth day, March 8, Irene finally succumbed:

Young Bruderhof sister dramatisation: I feel this experience was a gift from God to Danthonia to melt our hearts of stone.

Reporter: Dr Maendel then signed his own mother’s death certificate and Irene was buried in the compound. Neither the police nor the coroner was informed.


Reporter: I approached the leader of the Australian group for an interview, which he declined.

I travelled to the far north of New South Wales, near the Queensland border to Danthonia - the property the Bruderhof own, work and live on; the place where Irene was buried.

[To Bruderhof member]: Were you here that week that Irene fell ill and then passed away?

Bruderhof member: Yes, I was but ummm, where are you from?

Reporter: Oh, I’m sorry, Channel Seven, [reporter’s name]. We’re just trying to get a sense of what happened that night. Which one’s the Roan House?

Bruderhof member: Look, I don’t really want to talk about things to do with the community.

Reporter: Do you think Irene should have been taken to hospital though, now with the benefit of hindsight?


Bruderhof member: I can’t speak on behalf of the community.

Reporter: No, I know, but what do you personally think?

Bruderhof member: What I personally think, is that she probably should have.

Reporter: Yeah.

Bruderhof member: And I think Dr Maendel said the same thing.

Reporter: He did, he did. He has said that, yeah.

Bruderhof member: In hindsight, there’s something to be learned there.

Reporter: The Bruderhof are not good at learning lessons from the past, according to [particular individual 5], the [descendant] of the group’s founder.

[Particular individual 5]: They look like warm and friendly but they are actually very, very hard. Especially to their own children.

Reporter: At her home in Amsterdam, [particular individual 5] has written about her life in the Bruderhof and says the group has lost its way under…[particular individual 6].

[Particular Individual 5]: That’s one difference…and the whole difference is that he loves money. The community’s rich, very rich, and they can buy anything they want.

Reporter: There are less than 200 members of the Bruderhof in Australia. World-wide the group claims to have 2,600 members with the headquarters at Rifton in New York. There, the leadership calls the shots for all the groups across the globe.

[To Bruderhof member]: Do you think Irene would be alive today if she had received first world medical treatment, rather than being left in the hands of Jesus? She died, here, without a CT scan; without a neuro-specialist; she was given morphine and prayer. If someone collapses in the bathroom today, do you do the same thing or do you take them to hospital? What’s the plan?

[Narrated]: Just up the road from the Bruderhof compound is Inverell – a large country town with a decent hospital. Less than 30 minutes drive from Danthonia. Still, Irene never made that journey. A decision her son now admits was wrong.

[To Dr Maendel]: Would your mother still be here today if you’d taken her to the hospital?

[Narrated]: I caught up with Dr Chris Maendel at the New South Wales Medical Tribunal. There, he was acquitted of professional misconduct. But, Dr Maendel admitted multiple counts of unsatisfactory conduct, including: not calling an ambulance; not taking Irene to hospital; not getting a CT scan; not getting an expert opinion; not reviewing his decisions; continuing to treat his own mother; and signing his mother’s death certificate.

[To Dr Maendel]: It’s been suggested to me that you’re as much a victim as anyone else in this. Has the Bruderhof instructed you how to behave or how to handle this matter?

[Narrated]: Dr Maendel’s defence centred on his claim that he treated his mother no differently from any other patient.

[To Dr Maendel]: Can we get just a quick reaction from you? Doctor?

Dr Maendel: There’s a part two to this so I won’t comment on it. But I appreciate the unbiased assessment of my conduct by the Tribunal.


Reporter: Is today a win? Or how would you describe it?

Dr Maendel: That will be my only comment.

[Particular individual 4]: Given that she woke up without any treatment and seemed to be able to talk and move, I think with treatment she would have recovered.

Reporter: In Vancouver, Canada, [particular individual 4] still mourns the loss of [Mrs Maendel].

[Particular individual 4]: No-one from the community called me when she had a stroke but that is the way they deal with the members, the ex-members that are outside the community.

Reporter:…[particular individual 2[… and his wife were the ones who called in the Australian Police. Irene’s body was exhumed and the coroner confirmed she died of a brain haemorrhage.

[Particular Individual 2]: [Mrs Maendel] was well-loved. To have had this happen to her, this did not happen in a vacuum. In my experience, nothing is done there without the leadership of elders and the guidance of elders. We didn’t dare take a step out of line when I was growing up there.

Reporter: Dr Maendel will keep his licence to practice as a GP. [Particular individual 2] wants another investigation into any possible role the Bruderhof leadership played in the treatment of his mother.

[Particular individual 2]: I think it’s a public health issue, I do. And I’m concerned for my relatives... If this happened to [Mrs Maendel], in my opinion, it can happen to anybody.

Reporter: Will you treat other patients with prayer, or will you treat them with medicine in future, Doctor?

Presenter: Dr Maendel is due back before the Medical Tribunal for a second hearing to determine what penalty he will face. Meanwhile, the Bruderhof say they are not a cult and do not play God. They advocate the best possible medical care for their members and have no input to their treatment.


Attachment BInterpretation of clause 1.9.6 of the Code

When a statute or code contains no definition, the ordinary English language meaning is used. The ACMA adopts the ordinary English language meanings of the word ‘provoke’ as relevantly set out in the Macquarie Dictionary (Fifth Edition).

Provoke verb 2. to stir up, arouse or call forth;

3. to incite or stimulate (a person etc. to action)

Incitement or provocation can be achieved though comments made about a person or group; there is no requirement that those comments include a specific call to action. There is no need for proof of intention to incite or that any one was in fact incited.18 The relevant conduct must have the capacity or tendency to incite others, in the sense of urging, promoting the audience to experience the relevant reaction. Conduct that merely conveys a person’s hatred of, intense dislike, serious contempt or severe ridicule towards a person is not unlawful.

There must be something more than an expression of opinion, something that is positively stimulatory of that reaction in others.19

In deciding whether there has been a breach of clause [1.9.6] of the Code, the ACMA has considered whether an ordinary reasonable listener/viewer would regard the programs as ‘likely, in all the circumstances’ to stir up, arouse, or call forth or to incite or stimulate serious contempt or severe ridicule.

The Macquarie Dictionary (Fifth Edition) includes the following relevant definitions:

serious adjective 5. weighty or important; 6. giving cause for apprehension; critical

contempt noun 1. the act of scorning or despising; 2. the feeling with which one regards anything considered mean, vile or worthless

severe adj 1. harsh, harshly extreme

ridicule noun 1. words or actions intended to excite contemptuous laughter at a person or thing; derision.

The meaning of the term ‘severe ridicule’ has been considered in a number of cases dealing with vilification on prohibited grounds, most notably in the context of homosexual vilification.

In relation to ‘ridicule’, the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal (ADT)20 said of the test in section 20C of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act (1977) that the words should be given their ordinary dictionary meaning and then quoted the following from definitions set out in Kazak v John Fairfax Publications21.

‘ridicule’ means ‘subject to ridicule or mockery; make fun of, deride, laugh at’ (Oxford); ‘words or actions intended to excite contemptuous laughter at a person or thing; derision’ (Macquarie).

18 Kazak v John Fairfax Publications [2000] NSWADT 77 at [23-29].19 Trad v Jones & anor (No 3) [2009] NSWADT 318 at [61].20 Burns v Dye [2002] NSW ADT 32.21 NSW ADT at 40.


Use of the words, ‘serious’ and ‘severe’ indicate that the Code contemplates a very strong reaction and sets a high test for the prohibited behaviours.22 It is not sufficient that the behaviour induces a mild or even strong response or reaction.23

In relation to the concept of ‘severe’ the New South Wales Administrative Decisions Tribunal said, in the case of Burns v Laws24:

‘severe’ is a qualifier but there is no sharp dividing line between ‘ridicule’ and ‘severe’ ridicule. In any case where the issue arises, a value judgement must be made.

22 The definition of ‘severe ridicule’ is addressed in more detail at pages 13 and 14 of this investigation report.

23 The ACMA has set out this test before in relation to the consideration of these elements of the code. See for example, Investigation 1909 – 12 February 2009.

24 (No. 2) [2007] NSWADT 47.


Attachment CConsiderations to which the ACMA has regard in assessing whether or not broadcast material is factual in character The primary consideration is whether, according to the natural and ordinary meaning of

the language used and the substantive nature of the message conveyed, the relevant material is presented as a statement of fact or as an expression of opinion. In that regard, the relevant statement must be evaluated in its context, i.e. contextual

indications from the rest of the broadcast (including tenor and tone) are relevant in assessing the meaning conveyed to the ordinary reasonable listener/viewer.

The use of language such as ‘it seems to me’, ‘we consider/think/believe’ tends to indicate that a statement is presented as an opinion. However, a common sense judgment is required as to how the substantive nature of the statement would be understood by the ordinary reasonable listener/viewer, and the form of words introducing the relevant statement is not conclusive.

Factual material will usually be specific, unequivocal and capable of independent verification.

Inferences of a factual nature made from observed facts are usually still characterised as factual material (subject to context); to qualify as an opinion/viewpoint, an inference reasoned from observed facts would usually have to be presented as an inference of a judgmental or contestable kind.

The identity of the person making the statement would not in and of itself determine whether the statement is factual material or opinion, i.e. it is not possible to conclude that because a statement was made by an interviewee, it was necessarily a statement of opinion rather than factual material.

Statements in the nature of prediction as to future events would nearly always be characterised as statements of opinion.


Attachment D

Complainants’ submissions Factual accuracy – clause 4.3.1

The complainants’ submissions, taken in combination with one another, are that the segment ‘falsely claimed or suggested’ that the Bruderhof, including the Danthonia Bruderhof community and Dr Maendel as a member of that community:

...are a secretive group. The reality is as follows:

o The Danthonia Bruderhof Community, like all Bruderhof communities around the

world, is an open community that welcomes visitors.o Danthonia Bruderhof Community members interact with the wider community on

a daily basis and the community collaborates with local charities and civic organisations.

o The Danthonia Bruderhof Community holds frequent events for its neighbours,

including weekly open-invitation dinners attended by many from the surrounding area.

o The Danthonia Bruderhof Community as a whole is open and transparent. As

noted in Foundations of our Faith and Calling (the Bruderhof statement of faith freely available on the Bruderhof website) maintaining an open door to all is a central tenet of the Bruderhof faith.

...are a ‘cult’. The reality is as follows:

o The Bruderhof espouse an orthodox Christian faith.o The Bruderhof’s doctrine and practice are clearly and fully documented in

Foundations of our Faith and Calling.o As Cardinal Dolan, Catholic Archbishop of New York, has publicly stated, ‘The

Bruderhof, as a religious community that includes families, seems part of the great and venerable tradition of Christian monasticism’.

o Members of the Bruderhof, including those appointed to leadership positions,

take vows of poverty, chastity and mutual obedience.o We are instructed that your reporter... was provided with an extensive list of

public figures, including former Deputy Prime Minister Mr John Anderson AO etc., who know the Bruderhof Community at Danthonia well and who were prepared to attest to the fact that the Bruderhof is not a ‘cult’.

... believe that prayer and hymn singing are substitutes for medical care. The reality is as follows:

o Medical science is held in high regard within Bruderhof communities.o [1st complainant]: Bruderhof members receive primary care from qualified

medical professionals trained at world-class institutions, who work in fully-equipped primary care clinics.

o [2nd complainant]: Dr Maendel is a medical professional who trained at world-

class institutions, and works in fully-equipped primary care clinics.

ACMA Investigation Report – Today Tonight broadcast by ATN on 12 March 2013 35

o With the exception of some aspects of artificial reproductive medicine, Dr

Maendel’s patients who are members of the Bruderhof members [sic] are not constrained by their faith to forego any particular type of medical care.

o These facts were accepted by the Medical Tribunal of New South Wales

(Medical Tribunal) in its decision dated 8 March 2013, in which the Medical Tribunal stated at paragraph 9(c): ‘Other than a desire for his mother to remain in the caring environment of the church community [Dr Maendel’s] actions were not dictated by any directions or guidelines forming part of the church’s beliefs’. [The reporter] was aware of this finding of the Medical Tribunal.

...live in a ‘compound’. The reality is that:

o Danthonia is a rural village set on open farmland.o The only fences that exist on the Danthonia property are in place to constrain the

community’s cattle.o Visitors to the Danthonia Bruderhof Community are most welcome if they come

with friendly intent.o No-one is prevented from leaving the Danthonia Bruderhof Community when

they wish.o [1st complainant]: These facts were obvious to [the reporter] when he visited the

Danthonia property.o [2nd complainant]: We are instructed that [the reporter] visited the Danthonia

property and therefore these facts would have been apparent to him.

[The following almost identical points]:

o [1st complainant]: ...acted against the wishes of an American Bruderhof member

visiting the Danthonia community, the late Mrs Irene Maendel... [2nd complainant]... that Dr Maendel’s care of his mother was controlled, directed or influenced by the Bruderhof. The reality is that:

As expressly held by the Medical Tribunal in its findings of fact, the decisions relating to Mrs Maendel’s medical care were made by [particular individual 7] in consultation with … Dr Maendel.

The Medical Tribunal further held that, in making those decisions, [particular individual 7] and Dr Maendel were not constrained by any pressure imposed by the Bruderhof or its leadership, but rather made all decisions in what they believed to be Mrs Maendel’s best interests.

[The reporter] had full access to the Medical Tribunal’s decision prior to the broadcast of the offending program. Furthermore, [the reporter] attended the Medical Tribunal hearing when the above points were explicitly conceded by the Health Care Complaints Commission.

As expressly held by the Medical Tribunal in its findings of fact, the decisions relating to Mrs Maendel’s medical care were made by [particular individual 7], in consultation with Dr Maendel.

The Medical Tribunal further held that, in making those decisions, [particular individual 7] and Dr Maendel were not constrained by any pressure imposed by the Bruderhof or its leadership, but rather made all decisions in what they believed to be Mrs Maendel’s best interests.

[The reporter] had full access to the Medical Tribunal’s decision prior to the broadcast of the program. Furthermore, [the reporter] attended the


Medical Tribunal hearing when the above points were explicitly conceded by the Health Care Complaints Commission.

... exploited Mrs Maendel’s illness for religious purposes. The reality is that:

o As recognised by the Medical Tribunal, all decisions made in relation to Mrs

Maendel’s medical care were made by her husband in consultation with Dr Maendel.

o Neither the Bruderhof as a whole nor its leadership played any role in Mrs

Maendel’s care other than providing support to the Maendel family during a difficult time.

o Furthermore, as recognised by the Medical Tribunal, all decisions made by

[particular individual 7] and Dr Maendel were made in what they believed to be Mrs Maendel’s best interests.

... attempted to hasten Mrs Maendel’s death by the administration of unnecessarily high doses of morphine or that they were at least complicit in such behaviour.

o The reality is that, as demonstrated by evidence accepted by both the coronial

inquest into Mrs Maendel’s death and the Medical Tribunal, the morphine administered to Mrs Maendel was not only proper but it was administered in appropriate doses and was clinically indicated in a palliative care context.

...provide ‘third world’ medical care. The reality is that:

o Dr Maendel provides members of the Bruderhof are provided [sic] with the

highest standard of medical care consistent with their wishes.o As noted by... the Health Care Complaints Commission’s witness, during the

Medical Tribunal hearing, the palliative care provided to Mrs Maendel was ‘done as well as it possibly could be done’.

o Your reporter... was present at the Medical Tribunal hearing when this testimony

was given and was therefore aware that his portrayal of the care provided to Mrs Maendel in the program was both false and misleading.

...acted improperly by burying Mrs Maendel on the Danthonia property. The reality is that:

o The Danthonia Bruderhof Community operates a properly registered private

cemetery in compliance with all legal requirements.o Mrs Maendel’s funeral and subsequent burial were public events attended by

members of the Danthonia Bruderhof Community as well as friends from the local Inverell area.

...acted unlawfully by burying Mrs Maendel without informing either the NSW Police or the NSW Coroner

o The reality is that, whilst in hindsight it may have been more prudent for Dr

Maendel to inform the NSW Police or the NSW Coroner of this event, neither the Danthonia Bruderhof Community nor Dr Maendel was under any legal obligation to do so.

... were/are improperly controlled by Bruderhof leaders.


o The reality is that Bruderhof leadership is answerable to the members and that it

is the obligation of all Bruderhof leaders to serve the community in humility.

Referring to the dramatisation in the broadcast, the complainants submitted that it was:

[a] misleading and inaccurate dramatisation featuring a parody of Bruderhof religious costume and practice.... As anyone with rudimentary knowledge of Christian practice would be aware, the act of ‘crossing oneself’ is largely confined to Catholic and Orthodox communities. It is not a practice of Protestant communities and is certainly completely alien to Bruderhof practice. Furthermore the form of dress depicted in this parody does not represent Bruderhof practice and seems to have been sourced from North American Amish examples.

...having visited the Danthonia property [the reporter] would have been well-aware that this parody did not represent actual Bruderhof members, their form of dress or religious practice...

Factual accuracy in promotions – Clause 4.5

The complainants submitted that:

The promotional video contained the following offending material:

The text ‘the cult and their doctor trying to use prayer instead of medicine to heal a dying woman’.

Images of actors in old fashioned (perhaps 19th century) clothing in a barn around a ‘dying woman’ on a bed. The promotional videos did not identify these persons as actors and, accordingly, the viewers of the promotional videos would understand the images to be of members of the Bruderhof in general, or of the Danthonia Bruderhof Community in particular.

The use of the words:o ‘playing God’;o ‘the cult and their doctor who prayed for 6 days instead of getting medical

help for a dying woman’, ando ‘what happened in this compound will shock you’.

[...]

...The facts are as follows:

[...]

The Medical Tribunal determined that Mrs Maendel’s treatment [by Dr Maendel]25 was not dictated by any directions or guidelines forming part of the Bruderhof’s beliefs...

[...]

Mrs Maendel received treatment over a period of six days provided by a registered doctor, registered nurses and other carers from the Danthonia Bruderhof Community. The Medical Tribunal found that ‘there is no doubt that, as palliative care, the regime was sympathetic and competent’

The Danthonia Bruderhof Community and Dr Maendel treat patients in a medical facility and not in a ‘barn’ as indicated in the Promotional videos...

25 Wording in square brackets appeared only in second complaint.


Attachment ELicensee’s submissions

Factual accuracy – clause 4.3.1

In response to the complainants, the licensee submitted that:

Dr Maendel as a member of the Bruderhof Community was part of a secretive group – We deny that any such claim or suggestion is made in the report. The report merely states that ‘little is known about’ the Bruderhof. The report does not go so far as to suggest that this is the case because the Bruderhof or the Danthonia Bruderhof Community are secretive. Indeed, the reporter’s presence on the property suggests the opposite.

Dr Maendel as a member of the Bruderhof belonged to a ‘cult’ – The report included an accurate and fair representation of the views provided regarding whether the Bruderhof are a cult. Only [particular individual 2] and [particular individual 5 characterised the Bruderhof as a ‘cult’ in the report, and Seven did not adopt that language in its description of the Bruderhof. [The reporter] described the Bruderhof as a ‘deeply religious Christian sect’. Also, the back announce made at the end of the report made it clear that the Bruderhof do not regard themselves as a cult. In any event, the Bruderhof have been described as a cult in numerous media both locally and overseas and it is clearly a matter of open debate as to how they are perceived in this respect.

Dr Maendel as a member of the Bruderhof in general, and/or the Danthonia Bruderhof Community in particular, believed that prayer and hymn singing are substitutes for medical care – The report made no such generalisation and referred only to the medical treatment of Mrs Maendel, by her son Dr Maendel, which is a matter of public record in the NSW Medical Tribunal. The back announce made at the end of the report made it clear that the Bruderhof ‘advocate the best possible medical care for their members and have no input into their treatment’.

Dr Maendel as a member of the Danthonia Bruderhof community live in a ‘compound’ – The term ‘compound’ is defined in the Macquarie Dictionary (3rd Edition) to mean ‘an enclosure containing a residence or other establishment of Europeans’. It is a term in everyday usage to describe a large property on which a family or group reside. Seven understands that the Danthonia property is enclosed by a fence and includes a large building and several smaller buildings, which is consistent with this definition. The term ‘compound’ carries no negative consequences and describes Danthonia accurately.

Dr Maendel’s care of the late Irene Maendel was controlled, directed or influenced by the Bruderhof in general, and the Danthonia Bruderhof Community in particular – we deny that any such claim or suggestion is made in the report. The report included an accurate and fair representation of the views provided to Today Tonight regarding whether the Bruderhof leadership had any involvement in the medical treatment received by Mrs Maendel. As is made clear by Dr Mandel’s brother, the criticism made in the report (as was the case before the Medical Tribunal) was not the Bruderhof, but the medical treatment that Mrs Maendel received. Whilst [particular individual 2] explained that he felt that Mrs Maendel’s care had taken a ‘backseat’ to a religious experience, he does not suggest that religion or the Bruderhof played any active role in


Mrs Maendel’s care. Moreover, we reiterate that the back announce made at the end of the report made it clear that the Bruderhof ‘advocate the best possible medical care for their members and have no input into their treatment’.

Dr Maendel under the direction of the Bruderhof in general, and/or the Danthonia Bruderhof Community in particular, exploited Mrs Maendel’s illness for religious purposes – We fail to see how, and therefore deny that, any such claim or suggestion is made in the report. Moreover, as to the claim that Dr Maendel was under the direction of the Bruderhof and/or the Danthonia Bruderhof Community, we repeat our response at paragraph 3.4(e) above.

Dr Maendel under the direction of the Bruderhof in general, and/or the Danthonia Bruderhof Community in particular, attempted to hasten Mrs Mandel’s death by the administration of unnecessarily high doses of morphine or that they were at least complicit in such behaviour – We deny that any such claim or suggestion is made in the report. The report notes that large doses of morphine were administered to Mrs Maendel, which we understand is consistent with evidence given at the hearing before the Medical Tribunal of New South Wales. As far as Seven is aware, morphine manages severe pain but does not hasten death. Moreover, as to the claim that Dr Maendel was under the direction of the Bruderhof and/or the Danthonia Bruderhof Community, we repeat our response... above.

Dr Maendel as a member of the Bruderhof in general, and/or the Danthonia Bruderhof Community in particular, provided ‘third world medical care’ – We deny that any such claim or suggestion is made in the report. [The reporter] does not suggest that ‘third world medical care’ was provided to Mrs Maendel. Rather, the issue was that little to no medical treatment other than palliative care was provided to Mrs Maendel as was confirmed by the Medical Tribunal.

Dr Maendel as a member of the Bruderhof in general, and/or the Danthonia Bruderhof Community in particular, acted unlawfully by burying Mrs Maendel on the Danthonia property – We deny that any such claim or suggestion is made in the report. The report makes reference to Mrs Maendel being buried on the Danthonia property and Dr Maendel signing her death certificate but there is no suggestion that the burial was an improper act.

Dr Maendel as a member of the Bruderhof in general, and/or the Danthonia Bruderhof Community in particular, acted unlawfully by burying Mrs Maendel without informing either the NSW Police or the NSW Coroner – We deny that any such claim or suggestion is made in the report. [Particular individual 3] merely states her belief that ‘in the US, coroners must be informed and the police, you know, when there is a death’. No suggestion is made that Dr Maendel, the Bruderhof or the Danthonia Bruderhof Community acted unlawfully in that regard. Moreover, as you are aware, following the complaint made by [particular individual 2] and [particular individual 3], Mrs Maendel’s body was exhumed and an autopsy was carried out by the coroner. Dr Maendel has since been the subject of disciplinary proceedings in the Medical Tribunal of New South Wales and was found to have engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct.

Dr Maendel as a member of the Bruderhof in general, and/or the Danthonia Bruderhof Community in particular, were/are improperly controlled by Bruderhof leaders – We


deny that any such claim or suggestion is made in the report. Whilst we accept that the report suggests that the leadership within the Bruderhof is heavily involved in decision-making within the community and the management of its resources (including its finances), we deny that the report claims or suggests that such involvement is improper.

The Bruderhof in general, and/or the Danthonia Bruderhof Community in particular, acted against the wishes of an American Bruderhof member visiting the Danthonia community, the late Mrs Irene Maendel – We fail to see how, and therefore deny that, any such claim or suggestion is made in the report. Rather, it is clear that Dr Maendel at least believed he was following his mother’s wishes, even though his brother disagreed that he should have done so.

The licensee subsequently submitted the following to the ACMA:

1. The Danthonia property is not a compound

We understand that the complainant asserts the following statements are inaccurate on the basis that ‘the Danthonia property is not a compound’:

Reporter: ‘Here in the heart of this compound on that extraordinary night...’

Reporter: ‘Dr Maendel then signed his own mother’s death certificate and Irene was buried in the compound’.

We consider the term ‘compound’ was accurately used to describe a large property on which the group resides. The term ‘compound’ is defined in the Macquarie Dictionary (3rd Edition) as ‘an enclosure containing a residence or other establishment of Europeans’.

The term ‘compound’ or ‘family compound’ is also often used to describe a large residential property consisting of several dwellings where many members of the same extended family or other group reside and share some common facilities. Well known examples include the family compounds of US Presidents George Bush in Kennebunkport, Main [sic] and the Kennedy family compound in Hyannis, Massachusetts.

There is nothing pejorative or otherwise untoward conveyed by the term ‘compound’ and Seven submits that the use of the term is incapable of giving rise to any materially inaccurate statement.

The Danthonia property is enclosed by a fence and includes several residential buildings in which members of the community reside, which we believe is entirely consistent with this definition. The Medical Tribunal uses the term ‘conclave’ to describe the property in its judgement in the proceedings taken against Dr Maendel by the Health Care Complaints Commission, noting at [4] that:

In November 2005 the respondent came to Australia and took up residence in a Bruderhof conclave near Inverell in New South Wales known as the Danthonia community. The community included a healthcare clinic in which the respondent worked as a general practitioner on a voluntary basis.

This description fits the one used on the Bruderhof’s own website, which states:


There are more than twenty Bruderhofs worldwide. About half of these are like self-contained villages of 150-300 people. Children attend day-care and elementary school on the grounds, and adults work in communal departments such as the laundry, kitchen, school, or workshop. Gatherings for meals, prayer and singing are the focal point for each day.

Further, the property was shown during the report. So in the context of the report as a whole the nature of the property was abundantly clear.

2. The reporter’s statements suggest the Bruderhof, including Danthonia, believe in hymn singing and prayer as a substitute for medical care.

We understand that the complainant asserts the following statements are inaccurate, on the basis that they suggest ‘the Bruderhof, including Danthonia, believe in hymn singing and prayer as substitutes for medical care’:

Reporter: ‘...So Dr Maendel, his father, and the group all prayed taking turns in shifts at her bedside. At the same time Irene was given large doses of morphine’.

Reporter: ‘Do you think Irene would be alive today if she received first world medical treatment, rather than being left in the hands of Jesus?’

Reporter: ‘Will you treat other patients with prayer, or will you treat them with medicine in future, Doctor?’

Seven rejects the assertion that any of these statements, or anything else in the report, amounted to a factual claim that the Bruderhof generally believe in singing and prayer as substitutes for medical care.

The report referred specifically to the medical treatment given to Mrs Maendel, by her son Dr Maendel, which has been investigated by the Medical Tribunal of New South Wales.

A back announcement at the end of the report clearly states that the Bruderhof ‘advocate the best possible medical care for their members and have no input in their treatment’.

In the specific case of Mrs Maendel, however, it is beyond question that she was offered palliative care only, as a result of her son’s decision not to transfer her to the local hospital. Further, the Medical Tribunal found that the care provided to Mrs Maendel amounted to unsatisfactory professional conduct as a result of which substantive restrictions have been placed on Dr Maendel should he choose to return from the United States and ever practice again in Australia, namely that he must:

Only practise in a Medical Council of NSW approved group practice

Have a mentor

Submit to a medical records audit six months after he resumes practice or as required by the Medical Council of NSW.


We attach copies of an updated media release issued by the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission regarding the Medical Tribunal’s findings against Dr Maendel. We note in particular the following:

[Dr Maendel] decided that Mrs Maendel should only receive palliative care in the community and recommended this to her husband.

Dr Maendel continued to provide treatment to his mother and was her sole treating doctor. He failed to consult with specialist neurological colleagues, failed to arrange for transfer to hospital and to arrange for independent tests including a CT scan. He also did not make medical records, as required.

Similarly, the findings of the Medical Tribunal included the following:

Notwithstanding the subjective matters set out above the Tribunal is also mindful of the severity of the conduct displayed by the respondent. After stabilising his mother’s condition he continued to treat her in circumstances where he should have arranged a CT scan., he should have obtained specialist opinion, he should have involved a local general practitioner, he should have kept more detailed clinical notes. In addition he should not have been the prime medical adviser to his father and he should not have signed the death certificate.

Dr Maendel’s use of morphine is a particular of the grounds of complaint admitted by Dr Maendel and found to have been established against him by the Medical Tribunal. Specifically, the charge was that ‘between 3 and 8 March 2010 the practitioner prescribed large doses of morphine to [Mrs Maendel] in circumstances where [she] was a close family member of the practitioner and without consultation with colleagues’.

Seven does not understand it to be contentious that there was singing and prayer at Mrs Maendel’s bedside. However, should any support be required for the statements made in its report to that effect, Seven notes the following:

Whilst she was under her son’s care, Mrs Maendel received visitors from the community who sang and prayed by her bedside. The Medical Tribunal received the following evidence:

There was a group of children that had come in to see her and they sang a song to her or something like that and she woke up and they were talking to her and she seemed to be responding...

Other reports of the evidence given at the hearing noted that ‘...They instead administered repeated doses of morphine and the 170-strong flock took shifts to pray at her bedside’.

3. The reporter’s statements suggest the Bruderhof, including Danthonia, provides its members with third world medical care.

Seven rejects the assertion that any of the statements referred to by the complainants amounted to a factual claim that the Bruderhof provides its members with third world medical care.


As stated above, the report related specifically to the medical treatment given to Mrs Maendel, by her son Dr Maendel. The fact that little to no medical treatment was provided by Dr Maendel, other than palliative care, has been confirmed by the Medical Tribunal of New South Wales in the course of its finding that such treatment amounted to unsatisfactory professional conduct.

The back announcement at the end of the report clearly stated that the Bruderhof ‘advocate the best possible medical treatment for their members and have no input in their treatment’.

4. The dramatisation of Mrs Maendel’s death is inaccurate

The complainants assert that dramatisation of Mrs Maendel is inaccurate [sic] on the basis that:

The Bruderhof do not dress like the actors portrayed in the dramatisation, who wore old-fashioned, 19th century style, Amish like clothing;

Mrs Maendel was not treated in a barn;

The action of crossing oneself in prayer, as done by one of the actors, is not a practice of the Bruderhof.

First of all, a dramatisation is not a factual representation. Of course there was no film taken of the actual treatment of Mrs Maendel, so what was depicted was a fictionalised performance of what those events might have looked like. From the perspective of a viewer the details of the dramatisation, such as the clothing worn, the décor of the location and the precise actions of individuals, would have been understood to be a creative interpretation rather than fact.

Dramatisations are commonplace in current affairs programs and our viewers would be very familiar with them. It was made clear during the report that the scenes were depicted by actors, as many scenes had the word ‘dramatisation’ included as well as being filmed in a different style to the rest of the report.

The actors’ costumes were prepared using photographs taken of the Danthonia Bruderhof Community and film footage of Mrs Maendel herself. We would also like to note that the report included footage of Bruderhof members wearing modern clothing. As a result, it would be clear to viewers that some members of the community at least choose to wear more traditional dress, whilst other members of the Bruderhof community clearly portrayed in more traditional styles of clothing [sic].

Further, we note that the topic of dress is discussed on the Bruderhof’s website, including in the Australian version of the website, under the topic ‘FAQ: Why do you dress differently?’

The portrayal of an actor crossing themselves [sic] was merely that performer’s artistic means of visually conveying that they were praying – and would have been interpreted as such by viewers. The act is commonly associated with any Christian groups (i.e. those for whom the Cross has significance) even though it is mostly performed by Catholics and Orthodox believers. The act was accompanied by a voiceover which stated ‘Dr Maendel, his father and the group all prayed. Taking


turns in shifts at her bedside’. We believe that it was intended to illustrate to viewers the act of prayer in the dramatisation, as stated by the voiceover. The act was peripheral to the overall report and in the context of the dramatisation viewers would not have interpreted the action as a factual representation of Bruderhof religious rituals and practices.

The licensee submitted the following in response to the preliminary investigation report:

Background - Medical Tribunal decision

At the outset, Seven is concerned that the ACMA has not properly considered the entirety of the Medical Tribunal decision. In particular, the ACMA noted that ‘The Medical Tribunal found unsatisfactory professional conduct in respect of Dr Maendel treating his own mother’ and concluded that ‘two options were available in providing medical care for his mother: “proactive treatment directed to establishing the patient’s chances of recovery” or palliative care aimed solely at minimising her suffering prior to her death, and that he chose the latter’.

Seven submits that the ACMA’s conclusions in this respect were erroneous for two reasons.

Firstly, the Medical Tribunal found unsatisfactory professional conduct in respect of Dr Maendel not just because he treated his own mother (as the ACMA noted), but on numerous other serious grounds, including that he:

Failed to consult with specialist neurological colleagues on the diagnosis and management of his mother, including the desirability of transfer to hospital and/or investigations;

Failed to arrange for his mother to be transferred to a hospital for investigation, diagnosis and/or treatment;

Failed to take any steps to have his mother’s condition investigated by independent tests or examinations including CT scan or assessment and observation by a specialist emergency medicine or a neurosurgical practitioner;

Failed to instruct nursing staff to regularly monitor and assess his mother’s physical and neurological state, including performing observations of vital signs and/or neurological examinations;

Failed to closely monitor and assess his mother’s clinical and neurological state;

Failed to document certain matters, including the reasons for a decision not to obtain CT imaging;

And, critically, in the context of the Today Tonight report:

Made the decision that Mrs Maendel should only receive palliative care instead of pursuing other assessment or treatment options (including hospital transfer), in circumstances where he did not have sufficient clinical information for a properly informed judgement.

Second, in noting that two options were available to Dr Maendel (proactive treatment or palliative care) and that he chose the palliative care option, the ACMA has, incorrectly in Seven’s view, interpreted the Medical Tribunal’s decision as regarding these two options as equally valid in the circumstances. This is clearly not the case, as is evident from the


Medical Tribunal’s finding directly above, namely, that Dr Maendel’s decision to pursue only palliative care was, in fact, a demonstration of unsatisfactory professional conduct.

See in particular the statements of the Medical Tribunal on this point (emphasis added):

‘The tribunal being satisfied that pro-active care was, at least initially, appropriate, the failure to give instructions to effect such care must result in establishment of Particular 1(e) [of the HCCC Complaint]’.

‘Again accepting that palliative care was not necessarily appropriate and also taking into account that the respondent was the only medical practitioner providing treatment to the patient, in a home setting, the Tribunal is of the view that proper practice required the practitioner to closely monitor and assess the patient’s clinical and neurological state... The Tribunal therefore finds the conduct was unsatisfactory professional conduct’.

‘The issue... was whether the respondent formed a judgment that the patient should only receive palliative care. As the Tribunal understands the respondent’s position, he admits this particular provided it is taken to include a consideration of his mother’s wishes. Accepting that to be the case the Tribunal finds the particular proved and that, because no CT was ordered and no local independent opinion was sought, the facts constitute unsatisfactory professional conduct.’

It is this fundamental error of judgement on the part of Dr Maendel, of administering palliative care only, in circumstances where, by judgment of his peers at the Medical Tribunal, he should properly have sought medical assistance from other sources (including hospital admission, specialist neurological advice and treatment, and CT scans), which forms the basis for the entire Today Tonight report.

Claims that the Bruderhof and Dr Maendel believe that prayer and religious faith are substitutes for medical care and that they provided ‘third world’ medical care

The ACMA first considered the following statement in the Today Tonight report ‘Still no ambulance; no neuro-specialist; no CT-scan; no review of her treatment. Just more prayer and hymn singing.’ The ACMA took the view that this statement conveyed a factual assertion that ‘Mrs Maendel received only prayer and hymn singing, and did not receive appropriate medical treatment’.

Seven argues that, on the contrary, viewed in the context of the entire segment in accordance with clause 4.3.1.1, that statement conveys, in an accurate way, the fact that, whilst she was being comforted with palliative care, she did not receive appropriate pro-active medical treatment which a reasonable doctor in Dr Maendel’s position should have provided in the circumstances. This is emphasised by the word ‘still no ambulance...’ To put this in context, the above statement is preceded by these earlier statements by the reporter [emphasis added]:

‘Here in the heart of this compound... Dr Maendel did not call an ambulance.’

‘Dr Maendel knew he shouldn’t continue treating his own mother, but he did. He decided Irene had suffered a stroke, was bleeding inside her skull and that she would probably die, or at best become permanently disabled. So Dr


Maendel, his father, and the group all prayed, taking turns in shifts at her bedside. At the same time, Irene was given large doses of morphine.’

‘Despite the morphine, Irene broke out of her coma, something that experts say can indicate the possibility of a recovery.’

See also this statement by PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL 2: ‘We asked very early on, you know, is she going to a hospital, and we were very perplexed when he [Dr Maendel] said that they weren’t going to send her to a hospital. That they had decided not to.’

The above statements are consistent with the Medical Tribunal findings that Dr Maendel should not have continued treating his mother and that he should have sought pro-active medical care for her in the form of external medical help. Instead, he opted for palliative care only, which, in the context of all of the above statements, included prayer, song, close observation and administration of morphine.

On the issue of palliative care generally, Seven notes that palliative care can, and often does, involve integration of ‘the physical, psychological, social, emotional and spiritual aspects of care’, including comfort and care in the form of prayer, music and physical touch. It was these elements of palliative care that the reporter was conveying in the ‘Just more prayer and hymn singing’ statement.

In those circumstances, Seven submits that the statement ‘Still no ambulance; no neuor-specialist; no CT-scan, no review of her treatment. Just more prayer and hymn singing’, when considered in the context of the entire report, including the other statements set out above, was factually accurate.

The ACMA then considered the following questions put by the reporter:

1. (To Dr Maendel): ‘Have you ever witnessed someone being denied medical care and being healed with prayer?’ (the reporter’s first words in the segment);

2. (To community member): ‘Do you think Irene would be alive today if she received first world medical treatment, rather than being left in the hands of Jesus? She died, here, without a CT scan; without a neuro-specialist; she was given morphine and prayer’;

3. (To Dr Maendel): ‘Will you treat other patients with prayer, or will you treat them with medicine in future?’ (the reporter’s concluding words in the segment).

Seven disagrees with the first finding that the above three statements amounted to a factual claim that ‘the Danthonia Community and Dr Maendel believe that prayer and hymn singing are substitutes for medical care’ or that ‘Mrs Maendel was treated with prayer and not with medicine’. Again, considered in the context of the segment as a whole, including the additional 4 statements set out on page 4 of this letter, the three questions above convey, in an accurate way, the fact that singing and prayer, as well as the administration or morphine, were offered to Mrs Maendel as palliative care options, in circumstances where, in the opinion of a tribunal of experts (the Medical Tribunal), pro-active medical treatment should instead have been offered, which might have saved her life.

As to the ACMA’s finding that the first question contained ‘an implicit factual assertion that Dr Maendel denied Mrs Maendel medical care’, we make the following comments.


This statement was made at the very beginning of the program amongst several very short segments in the style of a program promotion, which is a common television production technique to bring the viewer’s attention to the program. It is not intended to viewed in isolation and, when placed in the context of the program as a whole (including the statements on page 4), Seven contends that the factual assertion here is that Mrs Maendel was not denied medical care in general, rather, she was denied the appropriate medical help which a competent doctor would have provided, including referral to a specialist, being taken to hospital and CT scans. Accordingly, Seven submits that the first question, when viewed in context, conveyed that fact accurately.

As to the ACMA’s finding that the second question contained ‘an implicit factual assertion that Mrs Maendel did not receive first world medical treatment’, Seven contends that that question is more properly characterised as an opinon. But even if it could be regarded as a factual assertion, it is not factually incorrect to suggest that a doctor, when presented with a patient in a state of dire health in these circumstances, who does not refer the patient to hospital or specialist intervention (as was found by the Medical Tribunal), could be characterised as not ‘first world’ medical treatment. It is well known that many third world countries lack basic services that we take for granted, including ambulances and quality hospitals and specialists, and that mortality rates in those countries are higher as a result.

Seven also disagrees with the finding that ‘the Danthonia community and Dr Maendel provided Mrs Maendel with substandard medical care’ is factually incorrect. If by choosing palliative care over more pro-active care resulted in Mrs Maendel missing the opportunity of prolonging her life, then in our view it is not factuall inaccurate to label this medical care as ‘substandard’. The Medical Tribunal held that Dr Maendel made the inappropriate decision to provide only palliative care to Mrs Maendel, and this conduct was found to be unsatisfactory professional conduct, as it fell short of the standard of care expected of a medical practitioner. In Seven’s submission, falling short of a standard, and ‘substandard’ are equivalent in meaning.

Finally, Seven reiterates that the end of the report explicitly states that the Bruderhof ‘advocate the best possible medical care for their members and have no input in their treatment’. Not only does this statement effectively bring this point home to the viewer at the end of the program, when viewed in the context of the entire report, this statement reinforces the fact that Dr Maendel’s treatment of his mother was n islated incident and that the Briderhof do not influence their members’ medical care by advocating prayer in lieu of medical treatment...

Factual accuracy in promotions – Clause 4.5

The licensee submitted the following to the ACMA in relation to this clause:

Seven does not believe that the relevant promotions for this report were inaccurate, having regard to the circumstances at the time of the report and the brevity of the promotion.

For the reasons stated above in relation to the report as a whole:

We do not believe that referring to Danthonia as a compound is inaccurate; and


We do not believe that the dramatisation of Mrs Maendel’s death was a factual representation in relation to those details alleged to be inaccurate, such as the clothing worn.

In relation to the reference in the program promotion to ‘the cult’, the Macquarie Dictionary defines ‘cult’ as ‘a particular system of religious worship, with reference to its rites and ceremonies.’ We therefore believe that in the brief promotion it was not inaccurate to use the term ‘cult’ in reference to the Bruderhof as a group with a particular system of religious worship. The Cult Awareness and Information Library includes listings on the Bruderhof, which has been described as a cult by many former members, including the [descendant] of the group’s founder, [particular individual 5] who appeared in the Today Tonight segment. [Particular individual 2]… who also appeared in the segment, also describes the Bruderhof as a cult.

While the term ‘cult’ can be used in a pejorative sense, any such interpretation is clearly a matter of opinion rather than a factual representation.

We note that in the full report the back announce addressed the Bruderhof’s position on this matter in the following terms: ‘The Bruderhof say they are not a cult and do not play God.’ However, a program promotion is not required to portray all aspects or themes of a program or program segment, or to represent all viewpoints contained in the program or program segment.

The licensee submitted the following to the ACMA in response to the preliminary investigation report:

The ACMA found the statement in the promotion ‘they prayed for six days, instead of seeking medical help for a dying woman’ was factually inaccurate because ‘Mrs Maendel did, in fact, receive medical care in the form of palliative treatment’.

Seven submits that, when considered in the context of the promotion as a whole, in particular, the opening words ‘The cult and their doctor...’, it is implicit that Mrs Maendel received some form of medical care (because a doctor was present).

However, ‘medical help’ must be distinguished from ‘medical care’. Seven maintains that the phrase ‘instead of seeking medical help’ is accurate because the Medical Tribunal found that Dr Maendel made the incorrect decision not to seek the appropriate medical assistance from a third party in the form of transferring her to a hospital for independent tests and examination including CT scans and observations by emergency medicine and neurosurgical practitioners. It is implicit from the mention of both ‘doctor’ and ‘medical help’ in the promotion that the medical ‘help’ referred to was third party medical assistance.

Therefore Seven contends that, having regard to the circumstances at the time of the report and the brevity of the promotion, the promotion is factually correct as Dr Maendel did not seek the appropriate medical help for his mother.


media/broadcasting... web viewthese dramatisations were identifiable as re-creations given the...

Documents