A well worn tactic there SM. Start off with a snippet of a fact, ABC stops broadcast, but then start presenting as "facts" you own biased thoughts and opinions, your post is littered with them.

"it became clear" clear to whom? You
"were played up; were played down" so say you, evidence of the playing ups and downs please.
"reporters agonised" do you have any examples of reporters agonising?
"hand-wringing" ditto for reporters agonising.
"Hicks a hero; Bush a dangerous fool." examples please of the ABC editorialising on that score!
"the illegitimacy of the wars was assumed" by whom within the ABC, the dunny cleaner? Some, all, a few? How was it publicised/editorialise
"Many see nothing wrong in reporting unfounded allegations" Who are the many? Nothing should be reported unless it is a proven fact? If that was the case the news bulletins would be rather short at times. There would be no reporting on what was said in court cases or inquires. No reporting of sex scandals at the ADFA, all hearsay.
Is it reasonably likely that trained military personnel would act in such a brutal fashion? Frankly SM yes, if the military is capable of a criminal cover ups at ADFA, why shouldn't they also be capable of covering up this kind of brutality. Answer that one

Paul,

You really are the arch hypocrite. You accuse me of using tactics then immediately use the shonky tactic of ignoring the most damaging accepted information, then focus on nit picking some of the minor details and demanding "proof" that would require hours to gather and more space than available in the blog in a silly attempt to discredit the genuine information. I challenge you then to provide proof that what I posted was wrong! The last time you tried you failed dismally.

Considering the wishy washy drivelling emotive opinion pieces that you have proffered to support your case, you are in no position to demand far more than you are capable of providing.

You then come up with a gem of hypocrisy that almost made me choke on my coffee: "Nothing should be reported unless it is a proven fact? If that was the case the news bulletins would be rather short at times."

Most reputable news organisations incl Fairfax and Newscorp, have many full time fact checkers and do not report potentially harmful allegations (especially from those with a vested interest in lying) without corroborating information.

If they feel the news is in the public interest they make it very clear that the information is only alleged and uncorroborated, and offer no opinion on its veracity. The ABC went far further than this and the reporter clearly indicated that it believed that the allegations were true and the Navy had a case to answer, a basic error that would in a reputable news organisation got the journalist fired or crippled his career.

SM,

Yes we have some marvellous examples of "good journalism"
from the journalists at News Corp. Piers Akerman, Andrew
Bolt, Miranda Devine, immediately spring to mind.
Totally unbiased and fair reporting, full of accuracy,
nothing made up to see there. It's only those awful
people at Independent Media outlets that we should shun.
And the ABC - well just like Qantas - is not worthy
of our support.

Thankfully most of Australia does not agree with this take
on things and the current polls show it.
Mr Abbott and Mr Joe Hockey - combined, are suddenly less
popular than Malcom Turnbull - gee, I wonder why that is?
Take your blinkers off Sir, and come into the real world.
Look at what the current government's been doing in its
short term in office. One day people will be asking,
"Remember when those idiots ran the country?"
Well, hopefully not for much longer!

Shadow, for example if A said B was corrupt whilst giving evidence before the ICAC, then its not unreasonable for a news outlet to report the fact that A gave such evidence about B, it doesn't need to prove B is corrupt, by proving the evidence that A's evidence is true.
In the case of the allegation against the navy, the ABC was within its rights to report the allegation, it did not name any naval personnel.
You say; "The ABC went far further than this and the reporter clearly indicated that it believed that the allegations were true and the Navy had a case to answer. Show me anywhere in the story where the reporter George Roberts, done as you claim.

Here is an ABC story on what you are going on about.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-22/australian-navy-accused-of-beating-burning-asylum-seekers/5211996

At the bottom of the story is a link to the ABC's statement on the story, both seem reasonable to me.
p/s Don't think you would ever get such a statement like that from News Corp.

Watching the rebroadcast of media watch, ABC gee if you did not get to see it it is worth going to ABC site and doing so.
Seems some Conservatives may not think at all if some coments are seen.

Paul,

Firstly, a legal snippet: What is reported in a court, or in parliament can be reported verbatim with no risk to the news organisation, However, outside of these areas there are strict guidelines to news organisations publishing unfounded claims.

For example if I said to a reporter that I had seen Adam Bandt shagging Sarah Hanson Young in the parliamentary toilets, that would be slander, if the journalist published it, he and the paper could be sued for libel even if they offered no opinion on the veracity of the claim, as the simple publishing of the claim gives weight to the claim and causes damage. Several newspapers have lost millions for just this error.

Your link gives us the ABC's opinion on the validity of the uncorroborated claims:

"Video footage appears to back asylum seeker claims of injuries
Updated Tue 18 Feb 2014, 8:24pm AEDT

New footage appears to back asylum seekers' claims of mistreatment by the Australian Navy. Passengers claim the Navy fixed up their boat's engine and forced them back to Indonesia. They say some passengers were punched and beaten and others were burnt."

It is clear that the ABC violated some of the most basic tenets of journalistic integrity, and if this had been against a private individual, the ABC would be shelling out a small fortune.

Foxy,

I know that you and other left whingers don't like the journalists you mentioned, as they effectively expose the lies of the left. But if you have specifics then mention them. Considering these journalists prolific nature, they have made very few errors, probably less than the ABC journalists you defend.