ACMA’s recent finding of one error of fact in one segment of one episode of Foreign Correspondent[i] exemplifies the extreme scrutiny that ordinary ABC media workers face from their own management, from Hard Right critics, and from those in the community with particular views.
ACMA (Australian Communication and Media Authority) in fact dismissed four of the five complaints that were made. The one finding of error - that the ABC did not make every reasonable effort to ensure the accuracy of the presenter’s statement that “one third of [Estonia’s] citizens live in poverty” – is trivial. Preceding the above quote was the uncontested statement that Estonia is one of the poorest countries in the EU; such a definitive comparison rendered the proportion in poverty almost redundant.
Yet the ABC issued an apology to every complainant, even though apologies are normally reserved for matters that cause direct personal hurt. An acknowledgement of error would’ve seemed ample; posted promptly on the relevant website, of course. Such attention to an immaterial item can be read as an expression of no-confidence in the staff.
ABC’s current managing director and board have introduced a set of Editorial and other policies that reinforces the view that they want to force a Right-wing bias onto ABC staff. Several members of the Board, Senator Fierravanti-Wells, McGuinness and Gray et al through The Australian, comprise a coven of ideologues long determined to silence any public debate with which they and the Howard Government don’t agree. Statements and assumptions that support the existing power structure tend to be regarded as "facts" while those that are critical of it tend to be rejected as "opinions"[ii].
The (anonymous) complainants appeared to be seeking to blame non-Estonians (Russians and the Russian mafia) for the Estonian sex trade. It is not the ABC’s role to tell people what they would like to hear, notwithstanding that such is often the reason for the complaint. Thus editorialising such as “Since throwing off the Soviet shackles” is better avoided.
To that officious bystander so often cited in legal judgments, the presenter would seem to have included much more unfavourable assertions about Estonia than a poverty statistic:
- Since throwing off the Soviet shackles, optimism has given way to foreigners who flock here with a lust for girls, grog and cheap thrills.
- this medieval city [Tallinn] is now trading on a new found reputation as the Bangkok of Europe.
- Estonia has the highest HIV/Aids infection rate in the European Union.
- poverty had forced Olga Reet into a life of prostitution. The late 90’s was a time of great deprivation in [Estonia] and sex work gave her a steady income of a few hundred dollars a week.
- [anti-pimping] laws are usually not enforced and pimps and brothel owners pay off corrupt police
Having passed scrutiny, we can be very confident that all those are correct.
ACMA’s statement that it “...would have strong concerns if there were any subsequent breaches of this Code provision.“ is quite unjustifiable unless errors are frequent or arise from a common cause. Staff will err. One good way of avoiding error is for ABC staff to say only what the Hard Right wants to hear. ACMA is in effect reinforcing ABC management’s pressure for Right-wing self-censorship.
It also contrasts with ACMA’s recent finding that 2GB had broadcast a program which was likely to incite or perpetuate hatred against or vilify Lebanese, where ACMA merely indicated it “will closely monitor the licensee’s ongoing performance against this provision of the code.”
Thus a minor error of fact at the ABC is apparently worse than a case of racial vilification in the commercial media. Compare and contrast this matter, or politicians’ aggressive criticisms over minor errors in Four Corners’ the Lord of the Forests, with the silence regarding Alan Jones’ incitement of the Cronulla riot (the violence of which was described by a NSW Police report as "unprecedented in Australia" – though perhaps an exaggeration given Lambing Flat or the Eureka Stockade).
Presentation of alternative views has only a limited place in professional journalism. Such views are examined during the preparation of the programme, using a number of quite simple tests – is it relevant? is it sound? is it in context? what of the historical development of the issues? are the “facts” facts? does the completed programme fairly represent the arguments? Often, the staff-elected director was the only one on the Board who knew how contemporary programme-making is done.
As we saw with the 68 Alston complaints, neither the appellate bodies nor ACMA’s predecessor – the ABA – actually understood journalism. Both ACMA and the ABA may have been more informed had they had a staff-elected director on the Board.
In contrast, we have the example of Janet Albrechtsen, a board director. Not only has she never rebutted the allegations of journalistic fraud made against her, but also she has refused to correct apparent errors of fact in an article (“Iraq Good News Not Hitting Target”, 28th of June 2006, The Australian). WA FABC invites the ABC Board to lead by example, and require the Editorial Policies to apply to board directors in all their public statements.
WA FABC believes that current policies of the current ABC management may lead to considerable self-censorship and a Right-wing bias – a situation that we would deplore and condemn. WA FABC also condemns senior management’s failure to defend their organisation against what is usually baseless and biased criticism by anti-ABC elements of the Hard Right.