Folks,
You will remember last year there was a complaint made to the ABC regarding possible miss use off file footage during a 7pm news story, this was the story that had vision of a dead wallaby supposably in a creek.
The long and short of the story was the footage was supplied by Doctors for Forests and the filming date changed from 2006 to 2004 then 2003 finally some time during 2000.
Posted on the ABC’s Quarterly Complaint Report web site is their findings of the matter.
7pm Television News, 25 April 2006
The complaint
The ABC received two complaints from a single complainant about the source of footage used during a news story about tax cuts for timber plantations. The report included statements about the poisoning of native animals and the footage depicted a dead native animal. The ABC’s initial response to the complainant advised that the footage was supplied by the group Doctors for Forests and was filmed during 2004. The complainant was unhappy with this response and wrote again to the ABC, stating that the source of the footage was not attributed during the story and that the date of the footage could not be correct because it appeared to be the same footage used in the Four Corners program ‘Lords of the Forests’.
Findings
In a further response to the complainant the ABC acknowledged that the footage was filmed in 2003, not in 2004 as the complainant had initially been advised. The ABC also agreed that the footage should have been accompanied by a caption identifying that it was supplied by Doctors for Forests, because it was likely that it had been used as media release by a lobby group. The ABC apologised to the complainant and the News Editor put out a memo to all of
his staff warning of the dangers of using third party material.
Following receipt of this further response from the ABC, the complainant raised further questions about its accuracy. Additional information was sought from News & Current Affairs, and the ABC acknowledged that it had again provided an inaccurate response to the complainant. The ABC apologised for these regrettable and embarrassing errors in its advice to the complainant.
These complaints were upheld on the grounds of both inaccuracy and unsatisfactory complaint handling.
One would have though that the memo sent out by the ABC’s News Editor would have re-established the standards for the future but alas it looks like the standard has dropped again, this time the 7:30 Report with its segment about pulp mills and scallop fishing. I’ve forwarded a number of questions** to the ABC for their response.
Cheers,
Barry Chipman
————————————
** more in a future blog post
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I admire your enthusiasm Barry but forcing the ABC to separate advocacy and current affairs/news content is apparently beyond the CEO , the Board and the Federal Government!
Remember , the ABC’s Editorial Policies include a committment to “…..seek to reflect the standards that ABC audiences expect of their national broadcaster.”
I’m sure that nearly always it does just that!
Good on you for trying!
A PhD in Maths posing as an expert in chemical diffusion in marine ecosystems? 10 for gall, 1 for content. Same old ABC crappo.
Well done Barry. You are doing a lot better than I am, as the following saga demonstrates.
On the 4th August 2006 the ABC’s Stateline in WA broadcast a program alleging that logging of southwest forests would result in the extinction of the quokka (a small furry marsupial, extremely common on Rottnest Island, but relatively rare on the mainland, mostly due to fox predation). The program contained several errors of fact, one ridiculous misprepresentation, many false assertions and included an anecdote masquerading as a fact. I sent in an official complaint, citing 11 separate issues on which the program had erred or failed to meet the ABC’s Code of Practice. My complaint was comprehensively rejected by the ABC’s “independent” Audience and Consumer Affairs Branch. When I phoned the officer who had carried out the “independent” investigation to discuss his investigation he admitted that the only people he had checked with were the journalist and the producer who had made the offending program. Not one forest or wildlife management expert had been contacted, no research scientists had been consulted, nor did he check with the Conservation Commission in whom the forests are vested. He looked at no maps of quokka disctibution, nor consulted any records on quokka occurrence in relation to past logging history; these would have revealed that quokkas are well known to occur in areas previously logged and regenerated, especially where foxes are controlled and the areas have been protected from large high intensity bushfires.
Unsurprisingly, the journalist and producer defended themselves and the ABC’s “independent” investigator then defended them. I wrote to the ABC’s Managing Director about this, but my new complaint was also throuwn out. I was told by one of the MD’s off-siders that any furher investigation “would not be beneficial”…presumably he meant it would not be beneficial to the ABC. I subsequently sent a comprehensive new complaint to the ABC’s Independent Review Panel. This was in December 2006. I have never heard back from them. In April this year I drew this to the attention of the ABC’s Director of Editorial Policies (who is responsible for ensuring the ABC’s complaint handling procedures are effecient). He did not reply either.
I think perhaps it is getting close to the time when I visit these people in person to see how they perform when they can’t hide behind bland corrospondence or by simply ignoring me. Want to come Barry?
Stay tuned.
Roger Underwood
Gwambygine,WA
Since falsification was done for the sake of a Green cause, no harm, no foul. Some lies are good for you!
Now, I’d like to sell you all some carbon credits. Guaranteed to cool the planet! See, my fridge is broken, and me and my room-mate are a few dollars short, but your contributions will definitely make a dent in the ‘urban heat island’ effect which is definitely having an impact on our beer.
Then there’s a problem with the air conditioner, but we’ll deal with that later.
Roger, don’t piss about with pond scum. Write directly to the Minister with a formal request to investigate whether the Director of Editorial Policies has committed a breach of discipline.
You should also publish, here, the names of every ABC employee that has been involved in this scam. Stick to the truth and you have nothing to fear from actions for defamation.
The evil that men do should, indeed, live after them.
Deafening silence from the greenies who thrive on falsehood.
Speaks for itself.
Guilty by silence. Novel. Speaks reams about the above contributor. The “greenies” likely have better things to do than sit and read this nonsense. No prizes for who is the wiser and more decent in this case.
I have just one comment for Mr Chipman. Wood and wood products will be well preserved in the new order of things.
Ian: you failed to mention besides his maths, Andrew Wadsley on 7.30 had thirty years in the petroleum industry. Counting gallons helps develop a big perspective with any biz. I monitored fluids in chemical industries, oil and gas also pulp and paper. I judged Andrews comments with some regard.
Most of these threads on Jen’s are fired up by people jumping after spot comments in the media that really have so little bearing on final outcomes.
Many time I walked through a factory gate sometimes with the unions lined up ahead, sometimes behind. Every time the media had their own field day with the issue but each time wives at home knew nothing but the pay packet truth.
In my day beating on the media never saved an industry or its people.
I would like to see a clear and coherent explanation of how this claimed dioxin gets into the process, or is produced by the process, in the first place.
And if that is the best Louis Wu can do then, jue nei ma ge hai.
Roger Underwood should be ashamed of himself. Everybody knows that quokkas are under threat from Global Warming. Before European arrival, quokkas dug up the whole of the jarrah forest and so bushfires never occurred. Woylies ate the fungus that caused jarrah dieback, so that never occurred either. It’s all to do with fossil fuels and globalisation, and human domination of nature, as prescribed by the Judaeo-Christian ethic. Also right-wing conspirators playing quokka soccer on Rottnest. I support the Conervation Council of WA in its sane and responsible efforts to stop all logging and burning, and so conserve quokkas, bandicoots and woylies. Deep Ecology, that’s the answer to the world’s problems. Both Ayatollah Khomeini (1981) and Field Marshall Idi Amin Dada VC (1984) said that years ago. I think Sir Robert Mugabe AOM said it quite recently (Mugabe 2006). Why don’t you listen to the experts, and read the refereed scientific literature, Roger?
References:
Amin, I. (1984) Deep Ecology in Darkest Africa. Journal of Eco-mumbo-jumbo. Bureau of Statistics, Kampala.
Khomeini, A. (1981) Islam and Deep Ecology. Journal of Holy Writ, Government Printer, Teheran.
Mugabe, R. (2006) How to save the world from crypto-neo-colonialists. Central African Journal of Marxism. Government Printer, Harare.
P.S. That should be Consternation Council…
Well Ian Mott, at least you are resorting to your usual. And we know that IS the best you can do.
Louis Wu,
You should be standing up proudly in defense of the lies being mustered in defense of the environment. If the environment is at stake, does that not justify lies, and nearly anything else?
Come on, man! Be brave and speak your piece! Since ‘environmental collapse’ threatens ‘the world as we know it,’ doesn’t ‘defense of the environment’ excuse anything at all?
What if you could tell a clever lie that became a popular belief that saved the environment. Wouldn’t you tell it? If it took two or three lies, wouldn’t you tell them, too? Or maybe a dozen lies.
If there were a few human casualties in the process–‘collateral damage,’ as they say–that wouldn’t be a bad exchange for the environment, would it?
Well, just a few human casualties. Since we’re overpopulated, maybe a few million human casualties wouldn’t be all that bad. A few million deaths to save the environment–is that a bad bargain? They’re mostly black, don’t vote, and don’t donate to Greenpeace, anyhow.
Not a bad deal, Louis Wu, wouldn’t you say?
Why should I be “standing up proudly in defense of the lies being mustered in defense of the environment”? Are you assuming I am one of your “greenies” despite the fact I have done nothing to indicate which cause I support? Are you assuming that, just like you assumed that because no one could be bothered to comment to the contrary on this thread about the dead wallably footage that “Deafening silence from the greenies who thrive on falsehood. Speaks for itself” was an accurate assesment of the truth, as you perceive it?
You’re an idiot Schiller, and I believe people on either side of the “green fence” or even sittingly comfortably with a foot on either side would agree on this one. No wonder the comments from people have dropped off in recent months. The lunatics have taken over the asylum.