★★★★★ 0/5

Media Watch says ABC report was wrong

When Media Watch said an ABC report on asylum seekers was wrong, it actually reinforced the role of the public broadcaster.

8
Leave a comment

2014-02-04_1051It was inevitable that Media Watch would tackle the recent news of the ABC being branded unpatriotic and wider questions about its news reportage.

It would have become another story if it had not.

But last night host Paul Barry took the independent view that the story involving asylum seekers and the Australian Navy “got it wrong.”

Here is an edited version of the show’s transcript:

On 22nd January the ABC obtained exclusive video of the asylum seekers’ injuries, and spoke to the local police by phone.

GEORGE ROBERTS: Indonesian authorities have confirmed that seven asylum seekers had to be given medical treatment for severe burns on their hands. Indonesian police say that the burns were from being forced by Australian navy personnel to hold onto hot pipes coming out of their boat’s engine.

— ABC News 24, 22nd January, 2014

“But this is where the ABC over-reached, by essentially endorsing the allegations of Navy mistreatment on radio, TV and online throughout the day.

“Because even if the police did back the asylum seekers’ claims, there was no way of knowing they were true.

“The police and asylum seekers were on Rote Island off West Timor and in nearby Kupang.

“The incident had happened way out in the ocean. And the Navy wasn’t talking.

“Meanwhile, the ABC’s George Roberts, and it seems all other Australian reporters, were in Bali, Jakarta, Sydney or Canberra, trying to wrangle the truth from people who spoke little or no English.

“We believe the ABC should have been far more cautious, given the evidence it had, and given it was making such a big call against the Navy.

“And late last week, when the ABC and The Australian finally made it to Kupang, this became only too obvious .’

ABC navy brutality reports unravel

— The Weekend Australian, 1-2 February, 2014

“It now seems the burns occurred in a scuffle with the Navy. And were not deliberately inflicted by Navy personnel.

“We believe ABC News got it wrong.

“And if so … it needs to admit it, to find out how the mistake was made, and to make sure it will not happen again.

“But tonight the ABC’s Managing Director Mark Scott had this to say .”

It was an important story to report, the right story to report, the result of investigations by the ABC. And what’s very important in this context, is that it’s clear that the ABC was not judge and jury on that matter. The ABC did not say that these allegations had been proved

— ABC PM, 3rd February, 2014

“But if the ABC is to keep the trust of the Australian public it needs to nurture that balance and honesty.

“And it needs to come clean when it gets things wrong.

“All in all it’s going to be an interesting year, especially here on Media Watch.”

You can <http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3937354.htm”>read the full story here.

It’s worth reminding readers that Media Watch operates independent of ABC News and Current Affairs department. It is not answerable to the same execs who have been under the hammer to defend the ABC’s reportage.

The fact we have the public broadcaster allowing a forum to criticise its own content and colleagues, and even to determine it “got it wrong”, underlines the ABC’s capacity for balance and the need to support its continued role.

Frankly, commercial networks would never embrace this kind of transparency.

8 Responses

  1. This is why I admire the ABC and Media Watch in particular. Although I hope it doesn’t result in another Shier incident.

    That said as Media Watch explained the reporters weren’t there so they got the story from afar plus from people that English isn’t their first language. So I could understand if initial reports weren’t perfect. How could they be?

    I’ve had my problems with the ABC. But I know they are human beings trying to to the best job possible. I’ve never expected perfection from them. It’s impossible. I’m glad they are here to bring the News to all or most Australians as well as others. Thank you.

  2. Oh goodness I was shocked by your comments Pertinax, until I realised that someone as obviously knowledgeable as you must have been using sarcasm…

    I mean “forced to air corrections…” and “ABC internal process is slow…”

    Goodness, that was too much. I nearly had to buy a new computer screen I spurted so much coffee over it 😉

    On a more serious note, your last two paragraphs say it all David 🙂

  4. @Pertinax

    Just loved your hilarious B/S about commercial media and ACMA, and the side splitting comments about airing corrections/retractions, but at least your mind set is not as obscure as any commercial media corrections/retractions if they ever see the light of day.

  6. Other ABC reporters went much further with op-ed and questions masquerading as news than the original report, which at least gave the source.

    The ABC News and Current Affairs dept. has not conceded the reports were false and not only not issued a correction, but hasn’t even offered clarification.

    Commercial media are forced to air corrections by the ACMA. even when the ACMA’s basis for objection is rather silly. The ABC is bound only by an internal complaints process that is slow, generally backs ABC staff on every count, and never publishes corrections except in an obscure report.

    Media Watchwill criticise the ABC. But it has no official capacity, and produces no change, as it is just op-ed.

  7. Seems much depends entirely on if the source is commonly known as ” Aunty” or “Rupert” “Bolt” “Jones” “Hadley” “Price” and the list goes on and on.

Leave a Reply