The Australian Communications and Media Authority has found that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) breached the ABC’s own Code of Practice 2002 by failing to make every reasonable effort to ensure that a Four Corners program about the forestry industry in Tasmania was impartial. ACMA also found the ABC failed to make every reasonable effort to ensure that the factual content of the program was accurate.
Following is some comment from Cinders, a reader of this blog and member of Timber Communities Australia:
“The ABC broadcast a summary of the finding at the conclusion of Monday’s Four Corners program but failed to apologise for the inaccurate and biased program of February 2004.
No apology was forthcoming when the ABC’s own Independent Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) found the same program inaccurate, misleading and seriously lacking in balance and fairness.
Whilst the forest industry feels vindicated by the ACMA findings, when will the ABC actually publish facts about Tasmanian forestry such as 45% of its native forest being reserved and managed for conservation, that it has a million hectares of old growth locked up as well as 97% of its high quality wilderness? That its native forest harvesting has been assessed as ecologically sustainable and complies with all Australian and State laws and is internationally accredited.
E-journal Crikey has raised another dilemma for the ABC: What to do with its Eureka award for outstanding journalism that it received for three environmental programs including ‘Lords of the Forests’?
Can the ABC continue to advertise Four Corners and its journalist as Eureka award winners in the light of this damming report?
The ACMA also needs to review its procedures. This finding comes two years and five months after the program was first shown.
Despite having extensive powers to investigate and hold hearings under Section 168 of the Broadcasting Service Act, it chose to only assess the written submissions of the ABC and the complainants. In fact it provided only the ABC with a copy of its preliminary findings, denying the complainants of opportunity to dispute findings.
Four Corners claims to be Australia’s premier television current affairs program. It has been part of the national story since August 1961, with consistently high standards of journalism and film-making earning international recognition and an array of Walkleys, Logies and other national awards. The program claims that its current team of reporters maintains a proud tradition of investigative journalism and rigorous analysis.
Can these claims and its place in TV journalism be maintained if it fails to apologise and issue a retraction over this discredited program?
Hopefully the ABC will return the Eureka Award to the Australian Museum and the $10,000 to the Australian taxpayers who sponsored the award.
Cinders.”
——————-
Christian Kerr from Crikey summarized the case against the ABC in a piece published by the IPA titled ‘ABC’s Paralysis on Bias’ in March 2005.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
If drug cheats lose their sporting medals then ABC must return the award. They must also refrain from breaching the trade practices act for false advertising of 4 corners as the eureka award winner. Fines for breaching the TPA are $40,000 for individuals and $200,000 for corporates, for each breach. Take the bastards out.
Yes Ian you are correct it will be interesting to see if the ABC is up to doing the only honourable thing and return the tax payer funded award. Also Iinteresting will be the future for Ms Fulton. Perhapes there is a past precedent of how thing turn out within the ABC that could get a re run. (I think its call “fall on thi sword for the company”)
Below is a pasted transcript from a ABC Media Watch program ABC Baghdad: Kids and bombs :29/09/2003
It is a long read but it highlights to what length the ABC will go to present the angle they are after.
ABC Baghdad: Kids and bombs :: 29/09/2003
It’s not surprising that The Australian, which barracked so enthusiastically for the war, is still fudging the facts, but we expected better from the ABC.
Gina Wilkinson: When the Iraqi army retreated from Baghdad it left behind about one hundred Soviet era SA-2 missiles like these in an empty block in the suburb of Baladyat. The missiles are filled with volatile rocket fuel and two hundred kilograms of high explosives. Locals fear their children could be injured or their homes destroyed by these deadly weapons.
Saaed Hassan (trans): I often see children from the neighbourhood playing on the missiles or scrap collectors, dismantling them for metal and parts. It’s very dangerous.
– ABC TV News, 19 August 2003
– Watch video »
As Gina Wilkinson’s report shows, the dangers are real.
Sabbah Abbas (trans): My children were climbing this tree. They didn’t know a cluster bomb had been caught in the branches. It exploded and killed my six-year-old son, Abdul, and my daughter Anwar.
Gina Wilkinson: Abdul and Anwar are just some of over 1000 children whom UNICEF says have been killed or maimed by unexploded ordnance since the war ended three months ago.
– ABC TV News, 19 August 2003
– Watch video »
It’s a tragic story and an important one, especially for an Australian audience that sent troops to join the coalition of the willing in Iraq. The broad facts as Gina Wilkinson reports are backed up in this media release from UNICEF.
In Iraq, unexploded munitions become child’s play
UNICEF says cluster bombs, left over munitions and hundreds of surface-to-air missiles are a deadly threat to the children of Iraq.
– UNICEF media release
Gina Wilkinson would have known that press release well because it was issued by her husband, UNICEF media officer Geoff Keele.
But what concerns Media Watch is how this story was made. We’ve been given a copy of Gina Wilkinson’s unedited camera tapes.
Here’s what we saw on the news:
The missiles are filled with volatile rocket fuel and two hundred kilograms of high explosives. Locals fear their children could be injured or their homes destroyed by these deadly weapons.
– ABC TV News, 19 August 2003
– Watch video »
But why were those children standing on the missile launcher? So Gina could film them. Here’s what the camera tapes reveal.
– You want to show the children on there?
Gina Wilkinson: Yeah, that would be good. Yeah, if they don’t mind.
– (trans) You want them to stand over there to be filmed?
– (trans) Come on sweetie. What’s her name?
– Noona
– (trans) I’m worried about them.
– Sit. Sit on this.
– (trans) I’m worried about them.
– (trans) Sit on the edge.
Gina Wilkinson: Please God, don’t let this thing explode now.
– ABC Camera Tape
– Watch video »
That’s Mr Saadi, Gina Wilkinson’s assistant, helping the kids up onto the missile launcher.
We’ve translated the Arabic instructions from Mr Saadi as well as concerns expressed for the children’s safety in Arabic by some other men standing off camera.
Perhaps Wilkinson didn’t understand their comments, but her own report made the risk of those missiles clear, and if she needed more detail it was in the UNICEF press release.
Around 100 surface to air missiles (SA-2) are lying around Baghdad in various stages of decay, some damaged by shrapnel, filled with volatile rocket fuel and with functioning warheads…Experts say that small leaks through punctures or cracks produce a dark yellow smoke which if inhaled, can sear a person’s lungs and inflict a slow, painful death. Contact with skin causes serious burns.
– UNICEF media release
The whole point of the story was the danger these missiles pose to children. So why was Gina Wilkinson asking the kids to do this?
Gina Wilkinson: Mr Saadi?
– Yes.
Gina Wilkinson: Can we get these two kids to walk around underneath the missile?
Just around it?
– Mohammad. Mohammad.
Gina Wilkinson: And this one?
– (trans) Come here. Go up there. Go with him. Casually, casually. Walk behind him. Go with him.
– ABC camera tape
– Watch video »
Gina wasn’t satisfied with the first take, so after re-positioning the camera slightly –
Gina Wilkinson: Mr Saadi, could you ask them to do that one more time for me?
– (trans): This time in reverse?
– (trans): No no no.
Gina Wilkinson: Excellent.
– ABC camera tape
– Watch video »
We asked the ABC about Wilkinsons’s actions.
What is the ABC’s view of Ms Wilkinson’s actions in encouraging children to pose on and around unexploded ordnance?
Does the ABC believe that Ms Wilkinson’s actions put these children at risk?
– Media Watch letter to John Tulloh, Head, ABC International Operations
– Read letter in full (.doc) »
The ABC’s Head of International Operations, John Tulloh told us her behaviour was unacceptable.
The ABC finds Ms Wilkinson’s actions in encouraging children to pose on and around unexploded ordnance to be a serious error of judgement.
The ABC believes that, based on the descriptions in Ms Wilkinson’s report about the dangers of unexploded ordnance, her actions could have put the children at risk. (It is worth noting that UNICEF had no compunction about taking the media to the sites.)
– John Tulloh statement to Media Watch
– Read statement in full (.gif) »
We asked what action the ABC would be taking and were told:
This is an internal matter and will be dealt with appropriately.
– John Tulloh statement to Media Watch
The leaking of the camera tapes is a harsh lesson for Gina Wilkinson, but no journalist should need to be told the appropriate way to film reports of this kind. Using kids in this way to get pictures is just not on.
You can read our questions and the ABC’s full response on our website, at abc.net.au/mediawatch.*
*On the day of our program, 29 September 2003, ABC News carried the following clarification:
“And now to a clarification on a story we ran on the news on August 19th.
The story related to the threat posed by unexploded ordnance left over in Iraq. Some images we used showed children on or near some of the weapons.
We now know through a Media Watch inquiry that the children were asked to pose for the camera. While it was known that the children regularly played there, the ABC regards the request to the children was an error of judgement.”
ABC Baghdad update :: 06/10/2003
Before we go tonight, another look at our own dirty linen.
Last week we brought you the sorry story of the ABC’s Baghdad reporter Gina Wilkinson who had highlighted dangers to children in post war Iraq by posing them on missiles.
– You want to show the children on there?
Gina Wilkinson: Yeah, that would be good. Yeah, if they don’t mind.
– (trans) You want them to stand over there to be filmed.
– (trans) Come on sweetie. What’s her name?
– Noona
– (trans) I’m worried about them.
– Sit. Sit on this.
– (trans) I’m worried about them.
– (trans) Sit on the edge.
Gina Wilkinson: Please God, don’t let this thing explode now.
– Media Watch, 29 September 2003
– Watch video »
Wilkinson clearly knew the danger those children were in.
Last week the ABC’s Head of International Operations, John Tulloh told Media Watch Wilkinson’s actions were a “serious error of judgement” that “could have put the children at risk”, but he added this about UNICEF.
It is worth noting that UNICEF had no compunction about taking the media to the sites.
– John Tulloh statement on Media Watch 29 September 2003
Media Watch has since been contacted by the Executive Director of UNICEF Australia, Gaye Phillips, who asked us to make it clear that while UNICEF did conduct a tour of these discarded missile sites as part of a media briefing, it did not accompany Wilkinson when she returned to film her story.
UNICEF had no part in, and does not condone in any way or at any time, the use of children as media “props”…
It is regrettable and unworthy of Mr Tulloh to try and deflect blame away from the ABC by making insinuating comments against UNICEF…
UNICEF is mandated to protect children and cannot also be expected to baby-sit experienced adult journalists who, in their own wisdom, choose to present a story in their own way.
– UNICEF letter to Media Watch
And Gaye Phillips tells us she received a personal apology from Gina Wilkinson.
She writes that she is “sorry that UNICEF has been dragged into the debate over my stupid and irresponsible mistake.. Geoff and UNICEF have been unfairly linked by Media Watch to my own stupid behaviour”.
– UNICEF letter to Media Watch
Last Friday night ABC journalists were told that Gina Wilkinson had left. John Tulloh has told us
Gina Wilkinson is no longer filing for the ABC from Baghdad. She does not wish to continue her contract.
– John Tulloh statement to Media Watch
The ABC has a hard won reputation for international reporting and senior ABC journalists were extremely concerned that Wilkinson’s “stupid behaviour” was putting that reputation at risk.
They should be just as worried that some of their managers were so reluctant to accept responsibility for this mess.
Until next week, Good Night
Ian – the award is a side issue, the damage is done. They aired the show, convinced many many people that the Tas timber industry is an evil empire from top to bottom. Yet there is nothing but a pukey little apology to offset that damage. They should have been forced to air a similar program to illustrate just how biased the first one was.
I recently complained about a local radio broadcast and was told I needed evidence. I was asked to send a copy of my letter of complaint to the manager and foolishly did. Now I notice that all the publicity given to this activist (not just by the ABC) has suddenly disappeared off the internet. The point is they achieved what they wanted to in the broadcast. My complaint will come back at me and abslutely nothing will have changed and they will claim they are unbiased when in fact they are completely devoted to promoting green causes and personalities.
I notice the same thing happens in the local newspaper letters to editor – its all done with an eye on history and the building up of documentary evidence for the picture they want to be portrayed as the historical record. The problem is no one has compiled documentary evidence of their spin doctoring and flim flam.
Fullerton is a serial abuser of her position. the award must be returned, if only to show that shonks should never be rewarded. And then she can find her rightful career as some sort of funds collector in a greenpeace koala suit.
So who is the actual issuing authority for the Eureka award? The Australian Museum? And who is the relevant funding Minister? Lets get some dirt into this cut and turn it into a festering boil.
Who judges the Eureka Award? Well, an independent panel. In that year the indepedent judging panel appointed by the Museum was Kirsten Garrett (Executive Producer, Background Briefing, ABC Radio National), Associate Professor Michael Gillings (Commonwealth Key Centre for Biodiversity and Bioresources, Macquarie University), and Professor Roger Kitching (Chair of Ecology, Faculty of Environmental Studies,
Griffith University). The Australian Museum appoints the panel, and when advised of adverse findings by the ABC’s own independent complaints review panel, the Museum did ask its independent panel to review the ICRP finding to see if there was any need to review the award. All three members concluded that the ICRP findings were not sufficient to over turn their original decision.
The Australian Museum would not overturn the judges reconsidered decision as it would “compromise the independence of the judging process and not be in the best interests of the integrity” of the Prize.
Which independent panel will now rejudge the prize in the light of the ACMA findings?
So the head of the Australian Museum allowed the panel to assess whether their own decision should or should not be overturned? And who, exactly, is the person or persons within the Australian Museum who decided that this was an appropriate course of action?
Remember, this broadcast took place during an election campaign in which Tasmanian forestry was a major issue. And the introduction of such false and misleading information to such a process, by a public sector employee, must surely amount to a serious breach of discipline if not official misconduct.
And I would have thought that any person in a position of such authority would regard the protection of the integrity of their brand to be a major part of their professional duty.
So when do we gatecrash the next awards and present the gathering with a bucket of bull$hit?
Timber Jack,
I am reminded of two occasions in Africa, just before wicked colonial Rhodesia became glorious, free and democratic Zimbabwe. Some journalists, reluctant to travel far from their hotel, tipped some garbage cans in the street, then threw coins in the pile. Small African bystanders were then encouraged to rummage for the coins. A photograph later appeared in western newspapers of ‘starving African children scavenging in the waste of rich Europeans.’
The second was a street fight between two rival African gangs. An old man was knocked to the ground, just before the police arrived. Two European police, batons on their wrists, helped the old African to his feet, blood streaming down his face, and supported him to their vehicle to take him to hospital. A journalist photographed the scene, and it appeared, I am told, as ‘two white police drag away old African man they have beaten up’.
Since then, I believe little that appears in the media, no matter how graphic and convincing. In fact, especially if it is graphic and convincing.
So are you a member of the “whenwe” club, Davey?
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
To the sound of the ABC news theme is this cutting edge 2006 Australian Broadcasting CorporationTHE GLOBE AND MAIL April 10, 2006 OTTAWA More Cr…
ionolsen23 I like your site
1edb79f8cc5c Hello!