ABC Ombudsman finds no editorial breach in Coronation coverage

The ABC Ombudsman has investigated complaints following the Coronation coverage by the broadcaster but found it did not breach editorial standards.

ABC received 1,832 complaints.

Ombudsman Fiona Cameron found many complaints related to the ABC’s judgement for scheduling this discussion while guests were entering the Abbey but the timing and format of the panel discussion were not matters for the Ombudsman’s consideration.

A total of 61 complaints broadly related to the ABC editorial standards, investigated by the Ombudsman’s Office.

In summary, the complaints contend that the panel discussion between the 5 and 6pm hour was unbalanced, biased, disrespectful, inappropriate, offensive, anti-monarchist and poorly timed. While some complainants referred to
inaccuracy concerns, no specific facts were disputed, and the concerns raised were in reference to the perceived lack of alternative views.

“It is acknowledged that the Crown represents different things to different people. The broadcast recognised the multicultural character of the Australian community and the 5pm to 6pm hour sought to reflect what the event meant to different cultures including the impact of Colonisation on Indigenous Australia,” the report stated.

“Each panellist was clearly introduced and identified to the ABC audience, and it was made clear that the discussion intended to canvas significant issues of context relevant to an Australian audience about the crowning of a new Monarch. I also note advice from ABC News that ‘a range of conservative voices were invited to appear on the coverage to contribute their perspectives but declined.’

“The panel’s views were robust but fair and the conversation was courteous and respectful allowing audiences to make up their own minds about the matters that were discussed.

“While the ABC should on all occasions be fair, accurate and open minded, the impartiality standards do not require that every perspective receives equal time, nor that every facet of every argument is presented.

“It is also relevant that this forty-five-minute panel discussion formed only part of the extensive coverage of the coronation across ABC television and digital radio platforms. In addition to live coverage of the Coronation, ABC iView featured Charles R: The Making of a Monarch; Camilla’s Country Life; A Grand Royal Design; and Prince Charles: Inside The Duchy Of Cornwall in honour of the day’s events.

“I also note that the matters discussed, and opinions shared, were not novel and did not bring up specific accuracy concerns. These are issues to consider when reflecting on matters of impartiality. Furthermore, the discussion reflected the contentious element of the role of the Monarch for many Australians. This contentious element is difficult to ignore and while potentially uncomfortable for the anticipated audience, is also a consideration in determining due impartiality.

“The role of the Monarchy to modern Australia and the Indigenous perspectives presented were legitimate and newsworthy topics for discussion on the rare occasion of a Coronation and in the context of ABC’s extensive coverage. In these circumstances, and for the reasons outlined above, I do not find a breach of the impartiality standards.

“While the broadcast did not breach the Corporation’s editorial standards, it was the decision to schedule the panel discussion between 5-6pm while footage of the arrivals at the Abbey was being broadcast, that attracted the most criticism and complaints received by the ABC. There were clearly instances where the footage being presented from London did not relate to the nature of the critical discussion being had by the panel in Australia, which was jarring and distracting for some of the audience as evidenced by complaints received.”

ABC News, in part, said in response to the findings:

“Often in news coverage journalists are told ‘now is not the time’ to discuss certain issues ………This line of argument is often used to shut down uncomfortable debates and to silence critical perspectives. While they may be uncomfortable, important topics and discussions are often best discussed alongside important events when the public is engaged and is open to discuss them.

“Discussing the function of the Crown in relation to Indigenous people for perhaps a sixth of the three-hour coverage before the ceremony itself began was not disproportionate given the importance and contemporary focus on the history of colonisation in Australia and elsewhere in recent public discussion and debate.

“Across the coverage as a whole, including the discussions between 17.00 – 19.00, there is no doubt that all principal perspectives were fairly presented as required by the editorial policies. Apart from Stan Grant, Teela Reid, a young lawyer who also provided a youth perspective, and Craig Foster, who contributed Indigenous and republican views, guests included Liberal backbencher Julian Leeser, Deputy Editor of The Australian Women’s Weekly Juliet Rieden, Australian Local Hero of the Year in 2023 Amar Singh, Anglican Bishop of South Sydney Michael Stead, UN youth rep Angelica Onjinaka, constitutional law expert Anne Twomey and author Kathy Lette, who has personally met King Charles III many times. They discussed royal traditions, the role of the monarchy and details on the ceremony as it unfolded. We do not accept that any particular perspective was unduly favoured. Julian Leeser, an articulate and prominent Monarchist and Liberal Party MP, was given ample opportunity to respond to them, furthermore he continued on the panel after they were gone. Other supporters of the monarchy and the constitutional status quo joined the discussion, providing a diverse range of mostly supportive perspectives.

“The editorial policies do not and never have required equal time for different arguments on matters of contention. It is distorting to see the approximately 40+ minutes in isolation from the coverage as a whole.

“While the program canvassed difficult topics it was at all times conducted respectfully, as has been remarked on publicly by the panellists. There were no errors of accuracy.”