ABC Bias - Verdict from the government appointed umpire
Accusations of bias continue to be made against the ABC, but they are most usually made in general terms, lacking specifics. While few would agree that bias is entirely in the eye of the beholder, it is difficult to measure, and difficult to get unanimous agreement about the whether or not a particular program was biased.
Most of the complaints about bias in the ABC have come from the government of the day – Labor or Liberal. Significantly both parties have been far less hostile to the ABC when in opposition. Given that Senator Santo Santoro and former Senator Richard Alston have made so many allegations about ABC bias why have they not used the findings of the government appointed authority, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), to back their claims?
The ACMA (formerly the ABA – Australian Broadcasting Authority) regulates broadcasting in Australia. Listeners or viewers who believe that a program was inaccurate or biased, and who are not satisfied with the response they received from the station in question, can complain to the ACMA (ABA). The ACMA(ABA) has wide disciplinary powers. It may make findings that a station has breached its code of practice, impose conditions on a broadcasting licence and, in certain circumstances, refuse to renew a broadcasting license.
In short the ACMA(ABA) has been set up by the government with a range of powers, one of which is to adjudicate on allegations of bias against broadcasters. What then has the ABA found over the last five years?
Issues of biased or inaccurate reporting are governed by codes of practice developed by industry groups representing the various broadcasting sectors. The ACMA registers codes once it is satisfied that broadcasters have undertaken appropriate public consultation and the codes contain appropriate community safeguards.
Those sections of the relevant codes of practice which deal with factual accuracy, fairness, balance and impartiality are summarised here.
ABC
Every reasonable effort must be made to ensure that the factual content of news, current affairs and information programs is accurate.
Every reasonable effort must be made to ensure that programs are balanced and impartial. The commitment to balance and impartiality requires that editorial staff present a wide range of perspectives and not unduly favour one over the others. But it does not require them to be unquestioning, nor to give all sides of the issue the same amount of time.
Balance will be sought through the presentation, as far as possible, of principal relevant viewpoints on matters of importance. This requirement may not always be reached within a single program or news bulleting, but will be achieved as soon as possible.
Re-enactments of events will be clearly identified as such and presented in a way which will not mislead audiences.*
Commercial Television
This Section is intended to ensure that:
· News and current affairs programs are presented accurately and fairly
· News is presented impartially
Licensees must present factual material accurately and represent viewpoints fairly, having regard to the circumstances at the time of preparing and broadcasting the program.*
At first glance the commercial and ABC codes of practice look similar. Both require factual accuracy, and impartiality.
However the Australian Broadcasting Authority has pointed out one important difference. While the ABC Code provides that news, current affairs and information programs must be balanced and impartial, the commercial code only requires news programs to be impartial. The commercial code does not require current affairs programs to be impartial, although it does provide that they represent viewpoints fairly.
The other difference is that the ABC code is more detailed when it comes to matters of accuracy and impartiality.
Thus while both codes are broadly similar the ABC code is more demanding, at least with respect to current affairs programs.
What then has the government appointed umpire found? The ABA’s web site lists all of the breaches of the relevant codes that it has found between 1998 and June 2005. With regard to code requirements relating to accuracy and fairness in news and current affairs the Authority found that ABC television breached the code on four occasions over nearly eight years. Channel 9, by contrast, breached the code on 19 occasions.
The situation with radio is a little different. While Channel 2 (ABC) and Channel 9 are available in all metropolitan and most (larger) regional areas, the ABC’s national networks (Radio National, Triple J, Classic FM and NewsRadio) are difficult to compare with commercial radio stations which, while they network many programs, often operate locally under different call signs.
However we can compare findings against all ABC radio stations relating to impartiality and accuracy (four national networks, and around sixty local stations) against just one commercial station, 2UE Sydney.
During the period 1998 to 2005 the ABA made a total of six findings against ABC radio stations relating to impartiality or accuracy (four of these related to Senator Alston’s complaints against Radio National).
Around the same time the ABA investigated the “Cash for Comment” scandal, where it was revealed that sponsors were “buying opinions” from commercial current affairs commentators. The ABA found, in its “Cash for Comment” Inquiry in the year 2000 that:
2UE breached the Act on five occasions;
2UE breached Code 2 on 60 occasions; and
2UE breached Code 3 on 30 occasions.
Does this establish that the ABC is unbiased? Of course not. On the contrary the ABA found four examples of biased or inaccurate reporting on ABC television over nearly eight years, and four breaches on the “AM” radio program . However what it does seem to suggest is that either the ABA gets fewer complaints about bias on ABC TV compared to Channel 9, or that fewer of the complaints about the ABC are found to be valid.
Similarly, the ABA’s findings against just one commercial radio station far outnumber its adverse findings against all four ABC radio national networks and all of the ABC’s local radio stations.
What is equally important is the attitude that station management takes to findings of this kind. It seems that the commercial industry treats the ACMA/ABA findings with contempt. Earlier this year the ABA found that Adelaide broadcaster Bob Francis, in his 5AA talkback program, broadcast material which incited hatred of Aboriginal people. More recently, Francis made these abusive remarks to an elderly caller, Constance, who had trouble remembering the name of Guantanamo Bay detainee, David Hicks:
Constance: I was just, just going to bed when I was listening to the last chappie that spoke about ah, Biggs is it?
Bob Francis: About what?
C: About Biggs?
BF: Biggs?
C: About Biggs, you know, the guy over in ahhh, you know, the going to court and all that.
BF: Hicks!
C: Who?
BF: Hicks!
C: Higgs?
BF: No, H-I-C-K-S.
C: Oh Hicks yes, that’s right, I’m sorry, I …
BF: You dick brain.
C: …think I lost my, Higgs ...
BF: Hicks.
C: Hicks, of course it is.
BF: Yeah.
C: Well, it was the best call that I’ve ever heard anybody speak on your um …
BF: What because …
C: … radio show.
BF: Why, because they liked him?
C: Now, I’ll just, just please listen to me.
BF: Okay, I’m listening … you wank!
C: I, I bet he went to a better school than St Peters.
BF: No I …
…………………………………………
C: I hope you talkback ...
BF: [yelling] If you’re smart enough you’d know I went to Prince Alfred, you dick brain!
C: You … I beg your pardon.
BF: Prince Alfred College I went to.
C: Do you speak to your elders with respect?
BF: How old are you?
C: I happen to be 81 and I, and you don’t talk to me like that …
BF: Oh I don’t give a bugger. I’m 66 and I’ll talk the way I, and I went to Prince Alfred College not St Peter’s College, you ...
C: Well wherever you went I think he would’ve done better than you.
BF: ... you bloody, you’re a dick brain, see you later you bloody stupid old lady.
C: You are so rude…
BF: You’re a stupid old … you’re a stupid old ...
C: I beg your pardon, you ...
BF: You are a stupid old lady. Goodbye!
How did the commercial industry react to a broadcaster who vilified Aboriginal people and abused an elderly caller who had trouble remembering names? In October 2005 Francis was inducted into the commercial radio hall of fame.
How would the ABC treat Bob Francis?
* The full text of the commercial TV code is available at http://www.aba.gov.au/contentreg/codes/television/documents/CodeofPractice-July2004.pdf , the full text of the commrcial radio code is at http://www.aba.gov.au/contentreg/codes/radio/documents/CRA-CodeofPractice.pdf and the full text of the ABC code (which applies to both radio and TV) is at http://www.abc.net.au/corp/codeprac.htm#news
Darce Cassidy November 2005
Update March 2010
Has the situation changed over the last five years? Clearly not. The ACMA makes far more findings against commercial stations than the ABC. In its Annual Report for 2008-9 the ACMA reveals that:
Channel 9 News was guilty of one breach. WIN News was guilty of two breaches.
ABC News (both radio and television) was guilty of no breaches.
When we turn to the nightly current affairs shows the differences are even more dramatic.
The ACMA found "A Current Affair" guilty of six breaches and "Today Tonight" guilty of four.
The ABC's 7.30 Report and Four Corners were guilty of none.
Here are some of the ACMA's comments:
A story featured personal and private information about a child (A Current Affair).
Segment about municipal parking rangers containted factually inaccurate information and misrepresented viewpoints. (A Current Affair).
Segment about immigrant taxi drivers, and promotions for the segment, were factually incorrect and vilified immigrants. (Today Tonight).
A telephone conversation with a Current Affair member was recoded and broadcast without the complainant's consent. (A Current Affair).
