★★★★★ 0/5

ABC Ombudsman clears Media Watch over ‘Red Alert’ complaint

Complaints by newspaper that Media Watch did not seek right of reply over articles on possible China war are rejected.

3
Leave a comment

ABC Ombudsman Fiona Cameron has cleared Media Watch following complaints from Sydney Morning Herald and The Age over its analysis of “Red Alert” stories on a potential war between Australia and China.

The ‘Red Alert’ series spanned three days of front-page coverage and was amplified across the Nine Network, based on the findings of an expert five-person panel convened by the papers. The key finding was that ‘Australia faces the prospect of an armed conflict in the Indo-Pacific within three years’ and made a series of recommendations.

Media Watch referred to the copy as alarmist, hysterical and hyperbolic.

But the newspapers complained ABC overlooked one of the basics of journalism, to seek a right of reply, prompting a complaint to the broadcaster.

The Ombudsman’s Office has since investigated the issues raised in the complaint against its own editorial standards.

Media Watch, which sits outside of the News & Current Affairs division, told the Ombudsman:

We did give the Nine Papers a voice by citing that editorial. We summarised their defence and quoted from it.
So what did Hartcher and Nine have to say in the face of all this criticism? Essentially, that the risk of war is real, and it’s a conversation we absolutely need to have. Or as the Herald editorial put it: “In publishing the Red Alert series, the Herald believes that discussing Australia’s preparedness or lack of preparedness for war is responsible journalism and important for democracy.” – Sydney Morning Herald, Editorial, 9 March, 2023
https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/china/102090318

ABC Ombudsman Fiona Cameron was satisfied that the program made reasonable efforts in the circumstances to fairly convey the complainant’s strong defence of the series and its justification for covering the issue.  She ruled in the circumstances, it was not considered that there was an editorial requirement for the program to seek an additional response on this occasion in order to meet the ABC’s standard for fair and honest dealing.

There was also a second complaint that Media Watch omitted that Paul Keating had a long history of pro-China commentary and failed to mention the ABC’s own reports on this issue.

In part, Media Watch noted,

“…we called him a China DOVE. He does not believe China is a military threat to mainland Australia. He makes a coherent argument that China would not mount a blockade of the Taiwan Strait. To show the opposing views on China, we called Hartcher a hawk. …”

The Ombudsman concluded that audience members were provided with appropriate context to interpret Paul Keating’s criticism and form their own views about it, and therefore did not breach impartiality standards.

3 Responses

  1. Though I wouldn’t consider the ABC’s Media Watch program as being an indispensable judicator of unethical journalism, the contemporary clickbait headline style of news making used by various news media is worthy of an occasional critical review, even though it could be considered to be shamelessly self serving for all the parties involved, including ABC News. Unless you are well read and have formed an educated opinion of your own most contentious news content stories should be taken with a pinch of salt in my opinion, especially if it involves geopolitics.

  2. The ABC’s version of a “right of reply” needs a rethink. They should have allowed the SMH and the Age to offer a formal reply to their reporting. Cherry picking it for themselves was a very bad move. I have much respect for Media Watch, but this blows a big hole in their credibility that will be difficult to repair.

  3. So the ABC’s version of a right of reply is that you don’t contact them, you don’t let them say anything. Instead you cherry pick their reply for them so you can label it alarmist, hysterical and hyperbolic. Of course without an expert opinion or facts cited to back it up. Only op-ed from an ABC journalist and crazy 19 year-old ex-politician whose position has been rabidly pro-China since the 1970s and who’s position it totally at odds with Australia’s official position put forward by Penny Wong at the Press Club.

    So according the the ABC Ombudsman no reply is a right of reply and two equally biased biased, sensation op-eds constitute high standard objective reporting according the ABC’s totally worthless editorial policy. Hopefully the ACMA won’t stand for this nonsense, they wouldn’t from a commerical broadcater.

Leave a Reply