Menu lock

TV & Radio

Mar 12, 2014

Audits clear ABC of bias, but don’t expect critics to listen

The ABC has started conducting regular audits of bias in its news coverage. The first two, released today, posed nothing to worry about.

Two ABC audits have found no widespread bias in the national broadcaster’s news coverage. But a clean bill of health for the ABC is unlikely to soothe its detractors.

Last December, ABC chairman James Spigelman said the public broadcaster would begin conducting four audits a year looking for bias in its news coverage. Spigelman told the National Press Club:

“Since my appointment I have naturally been concerned with the frequency of allegations of a lack of impartiality. I do not accept that it is systematic, but I do accept that it sometimes occurs. Every news and current affairs program endeavours to ensure balance, whilst avoiding the pitfall of irrelevant dullness.”

This morning, the first two reviews were released, and they pose little to worry about for the public broadcaster. One of this morning’s audits, by the BBC’s former chief editorial policy adviser Andrea Wills, dealt with ABC radio’s coverage of the 2013 election. While it made some suggestions, it concluded that the ABC had done no wrong:

“On the whole interviewers asked well-informed and relevant questions that their audience would reasonably expect to hear, and they were robust and consistent in their dealings with the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition. I have to say that it was impossible to detect any actual ‘pre-judgement’ or personal positions of interviewers in this sample.

“Finally, I concluded that the 23 items analysed for this editorial audit were duly impartial within themselves and complied with Section 4 of the ABC’s Editorial Policies.”

Another audit, by former SBS director (and Coalition appointee) Gerald Stone, dealt with the ABC’s coverage of asylum seekers on Lateline and 7.30. This review was more critical — finding four reports (out of a total 97 examined) where editorial standards appeared to have lapsed — but it also cleared the ABC of biased reporting on the issue in its conclusion:

“In the course of this audit I have routinely checked for indicators of bias as typical TV viewers might believe they have detected it. Were interviewers tougher on some and notably softer on others? Did there appear to be an uneven distribution of time given to one topic or another? One political side or another? To academics and other expert commentators espousing humanitarian views as opposed to those more concerned with the practical need to protect Australia’s borders and deter people from resorting to people smugglers?

“As an independent observer, I found no grounds for concern in any of those measurements.

“The overall coverage of both programs included as wide a range of opinions as practical. Meanwhile, the air time given to any particular topic was in keeping with the newsworthiness of the asylum seeker debate as it progressed through the weeks nominated for this audit.”

Most concerning to Stone was a 2012 Lateline report in which Helen Brown visited an impoverished Indonesian fishing village, home to people smugglers held in Australian jails. “The segment appeared to have only one purpose — to exploit the bias of imagery to evoke sympathy for crew members of people-smuggling vessels,” Stone wrote.

He also criticised the interview with the people smugglers’ lawyer, who he said made dubious claims without being questioned on them. “It portrayed them — without any semblance of proof — as frequently misled as to their real mission and too naive to understand why they are offered more money for one voyage than the average Indonesian fisherman makes in a year,” he wrote. ABC news director Kate Torney accepted the criticism that more scrutiny should have been applied.

Another Lateline story came in for criticism from for supporting the claim that Australia’s treatment of Tamil refugees is so inhumane that it should not sit on the UN Security Council (Stone said many countries with far worse human rights records sat on the council).

Another segment, aired on 7.30, was deemed not to have made it clear that a Tamil asylum seeker’s claims about being tortured by Sri Lankan intelligence officers had not been proven, with the asylum seeker himself saying he couldn’t be sure who tortured him. Stone said the story should have used the word “alleged” in relation to the claim — the program responded that it wouldn’t have fit its conversational style.

Another segment, also with Tamil asylum seekers, did not probe their responses enough, Stone wrote.

Stone’s review only considered reports aired from August 2012 and December 2013. This means the most controversial ABC story on the issue — George Roberts’ piece reporting claims that the Australian navy had burnt the hands of asylum seekers en route to Indonesia — was not examined in the audit. It aired on January 22 this year.

Spigelman has welcomed both audits, saying they showed “95% of the content examined attracted no criticism or concern”:

“Consistent with other processes, these reviews have once again demonstrated that against the background of thousands of stories produced … The error rate is quite small.”

The next review, the chairman revealed, will be into how well the ABC’s daily radio programs cover the issues that matter to their audiences.

Michael Gawenda, a research fellow at the Centre for Advancing Journalism at the University of Melbourne, says it’s no wonder the ABC is happy with the result. “And why wouldn’t they be? The radio review basically said everything was hunky dory. The other one found four programs had some problems. But even with those, once the reviewer went back and spoke to the executive producers, there were explanations for a lot of the problems,” he said.

This raises another question. The audits were released by the ABC, and while the people writing them weren’t ABC employees, how much can we trust reviews commissioned by the organisation being reviewed? Matthew Ricketson, professor of journalism at the University of Canberra, says that self-scrutiny doesn’t come easily to many people, and that’s especially true for media organisations. Nonetheless, he told Crikey: “The ABC does it better than any other mainstream media organisation in this country.”

Will this be enough for the ABC’s critics? Gawenda reckons: not a chance.

But Ricketson thinks we shouldn’t be so cynical. “The ABC’s critics are not a monolithic group. A large news organisation will always have critics because of the sheer volume of material created, because of the difficulties of creating journalism against tight deadlines and because of the contentious subject matter that serious journalism necessarily delves into,” he said.

“Open-minded critics will, I believe, welcome the ABC’s commitment to reviewing and improving its practices. Close-minded critics of the ABC will find material that is grist to their mill.  As Daniel Okrent, former public editor of The New York Times, once put it: such people are able to identify all biases except their own.”

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

28 comments

Leave a comment

28 thoughts on “Audits clear ABC of bias, but don’t expect critics to listen

  1. BlueBox

    Interesting.. now conduct the same audit on News Corp.

  2. klewso

    Who audits the auditors?

  3. Ian

    Who picks the auditors and what exactly is balance?

    IMO the ABC is far from unbiased as its reporting and commentary by and large takes place within a very narrow framework where Labor is considered “The Left” and anything beyond that is not even worth mentioning. It hardly ever reports on rallies and protests. On foreign news such as the events in Ukraine and Venezuela it just parrots the Western line – no context, very little “other side”.

    Its coverage of economic/business news is equally mainstream and narrow.

    I’ve given up on it and on SBS.

  4. AR

    And why would anyone expect facts to soothe ideologues’ rants?
    I have plenty of criticism of ABC news, its mindless repeating of mudorc headlines, views & paying its reptiles to appear on Inciters or LL but most of all for the kindi-winki naivete & general ignorance of it cub reporters.
    Nonetheless, I pay for it and I intend to go on using it.
    Despite its manifest failings, it is orders of magnitude better than the rest of the swill available.

  5. Myriam Robin

    Hi Ian. The ABC picks the auditors, though they can’t be employees, and as for what exactly is ‘balance’, well, it’s pretty tricky. Have a read of the audits if you’re interested in their definitions of ‘balance’ – I linked to them in the piece. Each auditor seemed to pick his or her own similar but slightly different definition.

  6. Daveo11

    A simple question: What percentage of readers or commentators would have already made up their minds on the question of bias on the ABC before reading the article?

  7. Northy

    Thanks Myriam – I really enjoyed this well written article. No surprise to see the ABC given the all-clear on bias. The vast majority of Australians knew that would be the case. It’s only the noisy and self-interested News Corp (and the News Corp Coalition government of course) that has such an issue with the broadcaster. Survey after survey after survey finds the ABC is viewed as balanced, and is more trusted than any other news outlet. No matter how hard News Corp tries, it is a fact they cannot change.

  8. David Hand

    The problem with these audits is that they are auditing broadcasting that we listen to every day. So we actually witness the bias ourselves in the broadcasts. We don’t need an auditor to use some arcane definitions to assess broadcasts we have witnessed.

    Now I accept that bias is a subjective thing and that people hearing the same broadcast can have quite different views about bias in it. But I challenge anyone to disagree that editorially, the ABC is pro boat people, pro Palestine, anti live animal exports, pro the carbon tax, pro the mining tax and pro gay marriage. Hey I share some of those positions myself but it’s hard to see the ABC as unbiased when they lead with any story where a left wing punter uses the word Workchoices.

    Having said that, I believe both these well meaning auditors would see no bias in Cassidy’s shameless soft-focus pre-recorded interview with Peter Slipper in the height of last year’s election campaign when he allowed Slipper to blame Tony Abbott for his wife’s miscarriage.

  9. David Hand

    Oh and I agree with AR that the ABC is far superior to the rest of the swill available, except maybe The Australian.

  10. Ian

    Indeed Myriam, achieving “balance” is pretty tricky to say the least and the lack of all bias, if that were possible, would leave us with a sterile and intellectually bereft medium.

    Perhaps it is too much to expect any public broadcaster, be they the ABC, the BBC or the PBS to give more than cursory coverage of events or debate that falls outside the “mainstream”. The answer to a really informed society perhaps is, as authors McChesney and Nichols suggest, to encourage a vibrant, independent array of media outlets that express a wide variety of viewpoint. The internet already provides this but you have to go searching for it and not many do that. One thing is for sure though allowing increased media consolidation will narrow the already restricted framework for debate.