Senate estimates - ABC scrutiny

CHAIR—Thanks, Senator Lundy. Senator Troeth.

Senator TROETH — Good afternoon, gentlemen. I had a series of questions and I would just like to give some background first so you can place this. On or about 1 May 2009 and following, the ABC reported the UN allegation that Israel had targeted and hit a UN school at Jabalia in Gaza, resulting in the deaths of proximately 40 civilians who had sought shelter there. The ABC reported these allegations widely; no fewer than 19 News Online articles, three AM, three PM, 2RN Breakfast and The 7.30 Report programs covered or mentioned what proved to be a false UN allegation. Those allegations also received significant coverage on ABC television and radio news.

A month later, on or about 5 February, the UN issued a clarification retracting that allegation, but the ABC coverage of that retraction was very much less than for the original allegation. There was one News Online article and a solitary radio broadcast on The World Today. Many of the reports and programs referencing the original false allegations remain entirely uncorrected, although in some cases an editor’s note has been added to the transcript located on the ABC website. Can you give me an explanation for the failure by the ABC to correct many of the reports and programs reporting those false allegations, as required by your editorial policies?

Mr Scott—I can give you some information, but we will be able to provide more to you down the track. As you would be aware, complaints have been made around this. An investigation is being led by our audience and consumer affairs division. That investigation is nearly complete and we will be releasing detail on that shortly. This is a challenging set of facts for us to cover. As you would be aware, there will be many circumstances where there is a story where either facts change or new facts emerge down the track. We have six million pages on abc.net.au and we need to attempt to exercise judgment and do our best to put editors’ notes on, to correct or clarify as best we can. I think the question that is being reviewed at the moment is whether in fact we did enough in these circumstances where new facts emerged a considerable time after the original reporting. The other thing that we are looking at too is whether in fact there was the correct dissemination when these new facts emerged and the UN made a different statement, whether there was a complete enough dissemination of that around the ABC. That is the work that we are now doing and is now underway.

I would say to you it is going to be very difficult for us to correct everything that is online that has ever been said around a story when new facts eventually emerge, and so we need to look at where we correct or clarify. If you go to our website at abc.net.au you will find a correction around this. If you go back and look at some of the stories, you will find an editor’s note that has been appended to that. But whether it was complete or thorough enough, Senator, that is what we are reviewing at the moment. I will be able to provide you with more details of that down the track.

I would say to you also that one of the things that media organisations often do is correct and clarify and make statements but also in the coverage that is being provided. When this story was first reported, it was a global story; it was a very big story. When the UN retracted that, we did report it. It did come in our news cycle here, tragically, just about the time of the bushfires. If you look at the weight of our media coverage, we provided an enormous and exhaustive coverage of the bushfires, and so therefore the focus of time that we were giving around the Middle East coverage was somewhat diminished. But we are aware of it and we are working through it.

Senator TROETH—Will the report come down regarding a general policy on corrections or will it be just this particular case?

Mr Scott—It will be looking at what we believe is necessary to do to comply with section 4.3 that you have referred to of our editorial policies, which is about correcting online records. We have, I think, been doing more as far as online corrections or corrections in recent times are concerned, but I think we are using this case study as an effort to help guide our thinking around what is appropriate.

Senator TROETH—I appreciate your remarks about the bushfires. Certainly it was entirely necessary and appropriate that the ABC devoted an enormous amount of time and effort to covering that. Nevertheless, would you concede that few, if any, of the groups who are interested in this particular question would ever have seen the corrections by way of the editor’s note appended to the transcript?

Mr Scott—I think that depends. There is a debate—we have discussed this with Senator Abetz in the past— as to when it is appropriate to make on-air corrections. We do run on-air corrections, we do run on-air clarifications, but we are attempting to broaden our range of options on running corrections. We now do have a website, which we did not have a year ago, that people can go to, rather than going to specific programs. I think a lot of people would not quite remember where they heard something. So you can go to one place and have it all captured. I think people who study these things do look at the editors’ notes, but there are some who say that we should do more on-air corrections and clarifications. Part of the difficulty of that, Senator, is that the person who is listening one day may not have been the person who was listening originally. So we are continuing to look and review. We are quite open to the criticism. I take on board the concerns of the people. It was a very significant story that got significant coverage at the time and we will review whether in fact we didenough when new facts came to light.

Senator TROETH—You mentioned the review or report to be released by the consumer panel. Is that the name of the body?

Mr Scott—No, what I am saying is that complaints were made. We then, through our internal selfregulatory processes, review that. We will then respond to the complainants but also we will often put a statement up on our online consumer affairs site which clarifies our findings on this matter. I will be happy to provide you with a copy of those findings as well.

Senator TROETH—Yes, thank you. Apparently, neither the code of practice nor the editorial policies mention specifically what constitutes an appropriate manner of correction.

Mr Scott—Yes.

Senator TROETH—But a recent report by the Independent Complaints Review Panel has provided some guidance. The view was that the correction should have been broadcast promptly as in this way the corrections would have reached as many as possible of the original viewers who could have been misled. Would you agree with that?

Mr Scott—I accept, Senator, that if we identify that an error has been made that is a major factual error which may have misled the audience if it was not corrected and it is a matter that can be easily and clearly corrected, then to do that in a timely fashion is, of course, beneficial. I think sometimes there are complaints around the delay that it might take to put a correction up on air, but that is a reflection of the fact that we have run a quite detailed analysis of the circumstances, a reconstruction of what has happened. We have reviewed it and then, when we have come to a decision, we have put it up on air. Sometimes I think we need to be able to run appropriate processes, but if in fact there is something that is a major factual error which can be easilycorrected and has been officially corrected on air, then, yes, we should do that as quickly as possible. That is our advice. That is what we want to do.

Senator TROETH—You did not consider this a major factual error—the fact that 40 people had not necessarily been killed or injured?

Mr Scott—What I am not going to do is pre-judge the process that we are running now and whether in fact we have handled this correctly or not.

Senator TROETH—All right. I will be interested to see that. I gather there was no curiosity at editorial level regarding how such an error could possibly have been made by the UN and why it took such a long time to correct the record. I mean from a program point of view.

Mr Scott—I am not sure where that comes from. I am not in a position to go into the thinking and the planning of our editorial managers around that. That may well have been considered, but I am not sure. All I know is that at the time this came out, the absolute clear focus of our editorial activity was not around Middle East coverage, as I indicated earlier.

Senator TROETH—The ABC repeated these false allegations in a recent AM report broadcast on 6 May, headed ‘Israel rejects UN Gaza report’. An editor’s note has since been appended to the transcript, but that is the limit of the ‘correction’ made to that. So there is still continuing promotion of UN allegations which have been proved to be false.

Mr Scott—I think, Senator, as you pointed out, we did correct that immediately on the record.

Senator TROETH—So that has been corrected?

Mr Scott—I think you pointed out the editor’s note there, Senator. I can get across the detail of that and come back to you on that.

Senator TROETH—That would be useful, thanks. I know this issue has been raised in the past but for those who see—and I am not necessarily one of them—a pattern of systemic bias in the ABC reporting on Israel, would you not agree that that failure, if that is how you can see it, adds fuel to that argument?

Mr Scott—I am not going to attempt to read into the minds or the motives of those who are providing criticism of this. Let me just say broadly, though, that the ABC takes its reputation for fairness, balance and impartiality very seriously. We are aware that coverage of issues that are as complex and as sensitive as the Middle East means that our coverage is highly scrutinised. I am not saying at any point that it is perfect or should not be questioned or challenged. I welcome robust debate around that. I welcome scrutiny of our performance. If in fact we do not always deliver to our high standards and expectations, then we need to improve our performance. I would say to you, though, that we are not defensive around this. I do receive correspondence from people who have been critics of the ABC’s Middle East coverage in the past, like Dr Colin Rubenstein, and Dr Rubenstein will at times point out concerns in our coverage and will at times pointout things that he believed were strong and robust in our coverage. We are open to engagement around the issues. I suppose we could talk here about half a dozen issues more than any other that generate attention and scrutiny and debate. Often on these matters, Senator, I can tell you we are criticised on both sides. We have been criticised in our coverage of Israel and our coverage of the Middle East from both sides, and we need to engage with our critics. One of the things we are trying to do in this area is to actively engage with our critics, to listen to criticism, to test ourselves and to test our own standards. We have some external monitoring that is now happening of our work around different issues to ensure adherence to the editorial policies. We have a positive and robust process in place.

Senator TROETH—Where do the external monitorings report to?

Mr Scott—They report through me to the board and you will find outcomes of those editorial reviews listed on our website.

Senator TROETH—I see, yes.

Senator ABETZ—Has there been a requirement for any on-air apology or retraction or editor’s note in relation to a story that might be deemed as being too pro the Israel point of view?

Mr Scott—I would have to check on that.

Senator ABETZ—I do not think there is, but it would be very interesting because, Mr Scott, you do tell us from time to time that you get the criticisms from both sides of the fence.

Mr Scott—Yes.

Senator ABETZ—But it seems that apologies are required on only one side of the fence, which would suggest potentially that there is some basis to a degree of systemic bias in relation to the reporting of Middle Eastern issues.

Mr Scott—I am not aware of examples off the top of my head.

Senator ABETZ—Could you take that on notice?

Mr Scott—Sure, I would be happy to.

Senator ABETZ—Thank you.

Senator TROETH—Suppose a consumer wished to report what he or she considered to be allegations of systemic bias. I understand that the Independent Complaints Review Panel considers itself unable to respond to that, that it is not equipped to deal with allegations of systemic bias—is that correct?

Senator TROETH—They respond to specific complaints, not complaints in the general.

Senator TROETH—Yes, rather than general complaints?

Mr Scott—Yes, that is true.

Senator TROETH—I understand that ACMA has advised that they, too, are unable to consider allegations of systemic bias.

Mr Scott—ACMA also reviews specific issues, but I suppose I would simply argue that, if there are arguments about systemic concerns, they will be underpinned by specific examples.

Senator TROETH—Yes, of course, they would have to be.

Mr Scott—I think some of our critics have sent in a number of complaints around specific examples that we monitor. Can I say I think it is often a more meaningful debate and process when it is embedded in the particular, rather than in the general. It is certainly more meaningful for us in dealing with these issues.

Senator TROETH—Of course, anyone making these allegations would have to provide evidence to justify their concerns, but if the ICRP cannot do it and ACMA cannot do it, where would a consumer with those allegations underpinned by evidence go in order for the ABC to be accountable?

Mr Scott—They would go to the ABC’s Audience and Consumer Affairs Division in the first instance. Then they can appeal decisions, if they do not like them, to the ICRP or to ACMA, but they need specific examples. It is a little bit of a false dichotomy I think to say that they cannot bring examples of systemic bias, if that is what they feel. They can couch it how they like; they just need specific examples to bring forward and to review.

Senator TROETH—So they would make a judgment based on the specific examples—

Mr Scott—Yes, they would.

Senator TROETH—on a case by case basis, rather than attempting to prove a general principle.

Mr Scott—Yes, that would be right.

Senator TROETH—In your 16 October 2006 address at the Sydney Institute you promised no more bias and I do not—

Mr Scott—Is that a direct quote, Senator?

Senator TROETH—That is a direct quote apparently.

Mr Scott—Is it really?

Senator TROETH—Yes. I have got the web link for it if you want it.

Mr Scott—I do not know. I certainly did speak at length on the editorial policy and we are happy to take about it again this morning.

Senator TROETH—All right, that is fine.

Senator ABETZ—Surely that should not be an issue, that you would not be biased.

Mr Scott—No, I draw the distinction between our goal and aspiration for fairness, balance and impartiality. I certainly do not want there to be bias at the ABC, but nor will I say to you that with 15,000 unduplicated hours of news and current affairs reporting, with 65 live microphones broadcasting ABC content every morning, with us taking content into 60 local radio stations and to 44 countries around the region, you will not be able to sit back and find some examples of where we fall short of our aspirational goal. I have never said that we are perfect; I have said that we are putting processes in place to deliver the best possible outcome for the taxpayers who fund us.

Senator TROETH—ACMA is authorised to review your compliance with your code of practice.

Mr Scott—Yes.

Senator TROETH—But it is not authorised to review the separate and non-identical editorial policies—is that correct?

Mr Scott—I think that is a fair interpretation, Senator.

Senator TROETH—What would be the reason for introducing the reforms by way of the editorial policies—which I gather is a new section, if you like—rather than through the code of practice?

Mr Scott—I am not sure the editorial policies are new.

Mr Green—No, the editorial policies have been in place for decades.

Senator TROETH—That is good. These are two parallel streams, are they, editorial policy and the code of practice?

Mr Green—The code of practice is required by the ABC Act and we have to place with ACMA a code of practice, as do other broadcasters. The editorial policy is a broader document that covers far more ground than the requirements of the code of practice.

Senator TROETH—You would not see yourselves as unaccountable?

Mr Green—Certainly not.

Senator TROETH—Mr Scott, you would not see yourselves as unaccountable?

Mr Scott—No, I believe we are the most watched, scrutinised and accountable media organisation in the country. I believe we are systematically reviewed. I am happy to appear before this hearing three times a year. I can point out numerous examples of where the ABC’s performance as a broadcaster is monitored and scrutinised and also where we systematically welcome that scrutiny.

Senator ABETZ—But you should be more accountable, do you say, than other broadcasters because you are wholly publicly funded?

Mr Scott—I think that is reality. That is why I think we are happy to come to this process and to talk about the decisions that we make.

Senator ABETZ—Are you really happy to come to this process?

Mr Scott—We are always delighted to engage with you.

Senator ABETZ—Good.

Senator TROETH—In reporting, as I see it, more widely one side of the argument in the Middle East rather than the other, as sometimes could be indicated—we would all agree that the Middle East question obviously arouses very strong emotions in viewers and listeners in Australia as much as anywhere else. We would not want to be seen fuelling either side of the very strong emotions; that is why I am anxious to get to the bottom of this.

Mr Scott—I would say, Senator, the ABC does not have a position; the ABC does not have a point of view.

Senator TROETH—It reports the news as it sees it.

Mr Scott—We respect that there are divergent viewpoints in the community and our editorial policies set out our responsibility to ensure principal, relevant viewpoints around matters of contention. I think if you look at the array of voices and discussions that we have on our programs, from radio current affairs, like AM and PM, from News Breakfast on ABC2 through to the 7.30 Report and Four Corners and Lateline, we can demonstrate in great detail the plurality and range of voices and views that are heard. A program like Q&A celebrates that diversity.

Senator TROETH—Yes, I have often watched it.

Mr Scott—So, Senator, that is our obligation—not to have a point of view, not to ensure that only one side is heard but to ensure that the plurality of views are heard, and we do test and monitor that.

Senator TROETH—I would be obliged if you would send me the result of the inquiry when it becomes available.

Mr Scott—I am happy to do that, Senator.

Senator TROETH—That is all, Chair, thank you.

Senator ABETZ—I will get started and see how far we get. One of the dangers of going to Aussie’s and buying colleagues coffees is that there are other colleagues from the house of reps who suggest questions to you. One question that was suggested to me was that during the last election ABC had SMS alerts for news items; is that right?

Mr Scott—That would probably be right, Senator.

Senator ABETZ—I think I have asked questions about this in the past but I confess my memory fails me. Are the texts that were sent out somehow retrievable? Can we be provided with what those texts said during the 2007 election period?

Mr Scott—Senator, I do not recall us discussing it but let me take that on notice and see what we can find.

Senator ABETZ—If you could, I would be much obliged. Can I take you to the Hansard of Monday 23 February 2009, where we were discussing Q&A.

Senator Conroy—How many times have you been on it?

Senator ABETZ—Not at all, Senator.

Senator Conroy—Really! Even I will defend Senator Abetz at this stage. Senator Abetz needs to be on TV more.

Senator ABETZ—I have not been seduced, you see, by being invited to be a guest. Can I take you to the bottom of page 52? You will recall we had a discussion about how you were seeking to recruit more coalition supporters into the Q&A audience. Turning to page 53, about half way down the page, at the time I said: Do you know what I suspect? You did not write to them saying, ‘We are writing to you with a view to gaining more coalition supporters for the Q&A program,’ and that is why I am specifically interested in your actual communication with them.

Mr Scott—Yes.

Senator ABETZ—You took that on notice, kindly provided me with answers, and the emails that were sent, and I thank you for that. Can I tell you I think my suspicion has now been verified that in fact the emails that were sent out did not make any suggestion or hint that you were in fact looking to recruit more coalition supporters; is that correct? Have I read the emails correctly?

Mr Scott—Senator, I have some updated information for you on the Q&A audience.

Senator ABETZ—Thank you for that, but before we go onto that and you distract my attention, can I ask you to please answer the question as to whether the emails that were sent out and in fact the quote ‘in order to recruit more coalition supporters’ was in fact taken by me out of a written answer provided by the ABC, and it was then that I followed up, asking for the exact emails.

Full senate transcript here