Journalists, media corporations and even readers have obligations that they have to meet. People cut corners when they are under pressures to achieve temporal and financial dead lines. More than anything, we have to ask ourselves, what lessons are learnt from errors, why were they made, and to what extent we believe what we read.

I hardly think the ABC's bad journalism described here even comes close to comparing with, say, any episode of any current affairs program on any commercial network ever.

The suggestion that they are above criticism is a bit much, too. After all, Media Watch has no problem going after the ABC as it does any other network.

I guess the main point is that all TV needs to be viewed critically, and all news and other information should be sought after from multiple viewpoints. Unfortunately these days most of the media is owned by a handful of people, so its a tad difficult to do..

Just another attack on the ABC to soften the general public up to the idea of Howard privatising it. Then we will have no independent news, we will only know what Jamie Packer, and Rupert Murdoch want us to know, what a refreshing thougt, of course they would both have our best interests at heart wouldn't they.

Roger Underwood has written a well-documented account of a Four Corners item. As he points out, it is not that those developing and using Australia's resources can't take criticism. It's the lies and misrepresentation that are used to criticise, seemingly with the agenda of taking a swipe at capitalism - logging, mining or whatever.
People seek my advice in how to handle the media, and I have heard horror stories like CALM's many times. In my opinion, many bring this misrepresentation upon themselves by doing interviews with Four Corners. There is no law that says they have to, and they run a high risk of being misreported. For anyone approached by Four Corners the answer is simple. Decline the interview. If you wish to be quoted your quote is: "I'm not prepared to get involved with your story because I don't think you will edit my remarks fairly."
When one of my clients was quoted on Four Corners saying this about three years ago, his phone ran hot for days with people congratulating him for saying what many people think, but don't say.

analyst,
So what you are basically saying is that one incident 3 years ago should be considered as the norm? What a pity you could not have come up with a body of evidence to support your claim, sad, very sad.

I followed the link in the article and had a look at the press release on the ACMA website. The findings?

"1. Impartiality, in that it failed to make every effort to ensure that the program was impartial."

"2. Accuracy, in that it failed to make every effort to ensure that the factual content of the program was accurate in relation to the discovery of Tasmania and the properties of Huon Pine and it failed to correct the errors in a timely manner."

My own view is that the breach sited in no. 2 looks pretty slight. No question that no. 1 is the more serious charge. Roger Underwood states that the story was "found by the independent adjudicators to fail almost every test of professional journalism". Oh dear Roger, don't you think that's just a teensy weensy bit of an exaggeration? Especially coming from someone who wants the ABC to uphold the highest standards of honsesty, integrity and balance?