Letter about PM

After watching some really first-rate interviews on Lateline recently, I truly thought the ABC had begun "move on" from its phase of glorifying suicide bombers.

But no! While the governments of the world focus their attention on radical Imams as promoters of terrorism, the ABC need look no further afield than your own Mark Willacy who is making his small contribution to incitement. I am sure that describing planners of suicide bombings (PM 25 July 2005) as :

"... attractive young woman",
"... big brown eyes and a large smile",
"... nursing a sparrow back to health",
"... hard to believe she was caught with a suicide bomb"

gives that extra little bit of encouragement and support to other would-be suicide bombers.

[This is not a comment about the ABC specifically, but the Old Guard Left must and will eventually take some responsibility for the current rise in global terrorism. By constantly drawing everyone's attention to the "good side" of terrorists they are surely aiding their cause.]

Here are a few samples from Monday night's PM program:

"big brown eyes and a large smile" - Mark Willacy shows his listener that he has sympathy for her. It is hard to make a case that her big brown eyes and her large smile (the accuracy of which is not in question) are fundamental to the news / caff item.

"This attractive young woman" - Mark Willacy shows his listener that he empathises with her. The word "young" is neutral and relevant. The word "attractive" (the accuracy of which is not in question) is not fundamental to the news / caff item. The coupling of the two words masks the important word "young".

"... a baby sparrow she nursed back to health. It's hard to believe this woman was caught with a suicide bomb belt." Mark Willacy once again shows his listener how much sympathy he has for her. It is not relevant to her status, unless Mark is trying to cast doubt on whether she belongs in jail. In this section of the transcript however, he has done a little worse than the two cases above. He has included the irrelevant at the expense of the relevant. He has avoided mentioning what she is serving time for. I, as a listener would like to know what her crime(s) were. Mark has not told me. He only mentions what she was carrying when she was caught. In effect he has not told me the whole story. Your Editorial Policy (Section 5.1.4) obliges you to present "wherever possible, principal relevant viewpoints on matters of importance". I imagine the ABC would accept that terrorism is a matter of importance. If ever there were a "principal relevant viewpoint" for an interview of a jail inmate it would have to be the crime for which she is serving time.

"... a baby sparrow she nursed back to health. It's hard to believe this woman was caught with a suicide bomb belt." Another point: Mark's wording tells the listener he questions whether she really is guilty of whatever crime it is that Mark left out of his report. It could have been worded the opposite way round:

"... caught with a suicide bomb belt. It's hard to believe that she is stroking a baby sparrow she nursed back to health" . This wording questions whether her efforts on behalf of the sparrow are genuine. Both my wording and Mark's wording are judgmental. They make a judgment in favour of, or against, the woman. There is nothing I can find in your Editorial Policy prohibiting judgmental reporting. There ought to be! The proper way to bring the sparrow into the story would be to say: "It's hard to believe that she could at one moment be carrying a suicide bomb belt and at another moment be nursing a sparrow back to health".

Could you please investigate the compliance of the above with your charter, especially the 5.1.4 "Prinipal relevant viewpoints" issue. Please do not investigate this on the grounds of "inaccurate reporting". I make NO CLAIM that there is any inaccuracy whatsoever in Mark Willacy's reporting. Also, since "judgemental reporting" is not proscribed anywhere as far as I can see, could you examine whether the points above contravene some other aspect of the Editorial Policy. After all, your brief is (or ought to be) to help the consumer to frame a complaint.