The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Déjà vu on the ABC > Comments

Déjà vu on the ABC : Comments

By Roger Underwood, published 24/1/2007

There is clearly a culture within the ABC, or at least among its journalists, that they are above criticism. Best Blogs 2006.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
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.
Posted by vivy, Wednesday, 24 January 2007 10:52:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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..
Posted by spendocrat, Wednesday, 24 January 2007 11:51:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by SHONGA, Wednesday, 24 January 2007 3:42:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by analyst, Wednesday, 24 January 2007 4:59:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by SHONGA, Wednesday, 24 January 2007 5:43:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?
Posted by Johnj, Wednesday, 24 January 2007 6:41:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The solution to the ABC bias in these areas in simple. To fix the forestry bias, don't pay them in money, pay them in woodchips (which must be exported through CALM). Similarly, in the case of the wheat board, pay them in wheat, which must be exported through the AWB
Posted by plerdsus, Wednesday, 24 January 2007 9:53:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What Roger Underwood who in awe of Syd Shea failed to mention was that Syd Shea was parachuted in the CEO of CALM by the then Minister for Forests the illustrious Brian Burke.The Corruption and Crime Commission is currently putting the dealings of CALM and Brian Burke under a fine microscope over developments in the Busselton shire.
Posted by Vioetbou, Thursday, 25 January 2007 8:49:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Roger's article highlights the importance of taking public corrective action when a program is found to be Biased and inaccurate. It is not the first time that the media have been exposed on a biased forest story, and the similarities between the WA story and Tasmanian forest reporting are frightening and perhaps show a "culture" of 'bashing' professional forest agencies.
When the BBC was found to be unfair in its reporting on Tassie forestry, the BBC was forced to take out a large advertisement in the Times of London to apologise. The ABC and any other Australian media should do the same (if not voluntary then ACMA should make it a licence condition). They should also give back the Award for excellence in environmental journalism award for "Lords of the Forest" by the Australian Museum that was sponsored by the long suffering tax payer.
Posted by cinders, Thursday, 25 January 2007 10:39:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Happy to back up what Roger has posted about the ABC’s discredited Four Corners program Lords of the Forests and its reporter Tikki Fullerton yes they both should make good and issue an immediate and unqualified apology to viewers.

Not only did the ACMA find the program to be lacking but even more so damming was ABC’s Independent Complaints Review Panel. It reported to have found that Lords of the Forests was seriously flawed, riddled with instances of “serious bias, lack of balance and unfair treatment”. The ICRP went on to say “Much of the program was found to have failed to uphold the ABC’s key values of honesty, independence and fairness” and that "Four Corners used un-sourced vision out of context or in a way that was misleading to viewers".

The ICRP also found that the reporter’s use of emotive language throughout the program destroyed any claim that the production was balanced.

In a damming conclusion the ICRP found that the program compromised Four Corners own reputation as the “flagship” of the ABC Current Affairs program.

But no word of apology from the ABC or Ms Fullerton just continuing to hide from what is the right thing to do, what a great example of being prepared to correct wrongs, perhaps the ABC can learn from the BBC, which is prepared to publicly correct its wrongs, The BBC did go to the length of placing a half page advertisement in the London Times along with a week long repeated apology broadcast on BBC World when it was exposed for a similar unfair and inaccurate report on Tasmania’s Forests.
Posted by Bas, Thursday, 25 January 2007 10:54:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The objections were trivial. That the article claimed Huon pine is a hardwood and it isn't. That the article claimed Van Diemen discovered Tasmania when he merely organised and funded the expedition but didn't go. That the ABC was not timely in correcting the internet record. In fact, of the 62 complaints, ACMA upheld two, and stated that they thought the narration was too emotional. The article and its supporters display the kind of hysterical distortion that they accuse the ABC of.
Posted by barista, Friday, 26 January 2007 10:55:47 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Barista is being too modest, he should have posted a link to his own blog piece on the "Lords of the Forest" http://barista.media2.org/?p=2769

Read barista's piece and compare it to David Underwood's.

Could someone then please explain why barista's post should not have been chosen over Underwood's for the Best Blogs 2006?
Posted by Johnj, Sunday, 28 January 2007 2:07:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
barista

Your last post reads as a first rate example of “I can handle the facts so denial is the best way out.”

Again just for your benefit, the ABC Independent Complaints Review Panel found that ABC Four Corners program Lords of the Forests was seriously flawed, riddled with instances of “serious bias, lack of balance and unfair treatment”. The ICRP went on to say “Much of the program was found to have failed to uphold the ABC’s key values of honesty, independence and fairness” and that "Four Corners used un-sourced vision out of context or in a way that was misleading to viewers".

The ICRP also found that the reporter’s use of emotive language throughout the program destroyed any claim that the production was balanced.

Don't think these findings by the ABC’S own watch dog can be dismissed as only trivial but then again guess denial is the easy way out if the truth hurts.
Posted by Bas, Monday, 29 January 2007 6:56:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy