★★★★★ 0/5

Report: ABC to investigate complaints over royal coverage

Complaints lodged with ABC about Coronation coverage are the domain of management and ombudsman.

12
Leave a comment

ABC management is expected to investigate viewer complaints about its coverage of the Coronation, particularly a pre-event debate about the role of the Monarchy and the impact of Colonisation.

The late afternnon discussion hosted by Julia Baird and Jeremy Fernandez featured ABC’s Stan Grant, Australian Republic Movement co-chair Craig Foster, Liberal MP Julian Leeser, monarchist and writer Kathy Lette, lawyer Teela Reid, 2023 Australian Local Hero of the Year Amar Singh, youth advocate Angelica Ojinnaka, constitutional law professor Anne Twomey, and journalist Juliet Rieden.

Ex-board member Joe Gersh, who departed the ABC Board last Wednesday, has told The Australian, “Management are dealing with complaints and criticisms. But yes I can understand concerns about the appropriateness of the timing.”

ABC Ombudsman automatically investigates formally complaints about possible breaches of editorial guidelines, but management are likely to look into viewer complaints.

He added, “We’ll leave it to management to discuss and report on whether it was the right judgment call. I believe there will be further commentary on that in due course. There was quite a bit of criticism and complaints and they will be dealt with.”

The Australian Monarchist League told its supporters to complain about the ABC, while Australians for Constitutional Monarchy has also filed a formal complaint. That complaint centres on the broadcaster’s alleged failure to present alternative views on the role of the Crown in Indigenous matters.

Leeser described the discussion as respectful and said he didn’t have a problem with how he was treated during the broadcast, but told The Guardian the ABC “got the balance wrong with the discussion and panel”.

“I think the ABC’s audience would have been disappointed by the lack of balance. To have only one out of four panelists as supporters of our existing constitutional arrangements meant there was little opportunity for a panel discussion that reflected the warmth and respect Australians have for King Charles,” he said.

The ABC has previously defended its coverage, telling The Australian its role is to “reflect the diversity of views in the community and “Hearing from Indigenous Australians and reflecting on Australia’s history is an important part of this…”

Even Paul Barry on Media Watch asked, “Sure. But what about the timing?”

Despite the criticism, ABC still came out tops in national coverage on the night according to VOZ data.

ABC is yet to comment about internal reviews of its coverage.

Source: The Australian, Guardian Australia, The Age

12 Responses

  1. I’m amazed there was a lone Monarchist rep on the panel. I remember years ago when the ABC broadcast an anti-climate warming program. Not content with leaving the conclusions to its audience, a panel show followed immediately full of pro-climate change guests shooting down the previous program.

  3. The panel was deliberately selected with 4 radicals and one Monarchist as the token punching bag. Fernandez allowed four people to use 90 minutes of ABC air time to deliver one-sided rants, conspiracy theories, nonsense and op-ed pushing their personal agendas as an FU to their own audience. It clearly violated any proper journalistic codes and standards and the ABC charter. And yet Barry is fine with all this, he just thinks that they should have been smarter and run the same biased discussion at another time when there less chance of complaints being noticed. Not it wasn’t just timing it was terrible journalism. News and Current Affairs, The Ombudsman and Barry have already decided there is no problem, as they always do. And how likely is it that the ACMA will stand up to Albansese and the ABC after the public bollocking the ABC gave them last time with no consequence, before summoning them in for a further private less polite talking to?

  4. This is just lunatic right-wing trolls indulging in the usual ABC bashing. The ABC broadcast hour upon hour of the direct feed of the coronation from the UK, most of it with no commentary, some of it with sycophantic to adoring commentary about the royals. There wasn’t even the vaguest hint of criticism for a good six hours. A pre-broadcast discussion that touched on issues related to colonialism doesn’t even quite approach balance; it’s a lame token effort. Anyone using it to criticise the ABC doesn’t have a leg to stand on. What they’re really saying is there should be no criticism of the royals at all, which is just unacceptable in a country that purports to aspire to free speech.

  5. Right wing newspaper articles predictably had a field day with this story. The British Monarchy is still culturally relevant especially with expatriates from the UK and also people who just love watching the Monarchy, and the ABC was not all that concerned about interrupting their enjoyment of this rare historical occasion. As the national broadcaster the ABC should have left their political activist hat in it’s box.

  6. They’re absolutely right. There should be more balance. The Coronation went for hours so discussion about colonisation should have also gone for hours.

  7. I rarely watch ABC anymore beause of this sort of thing…they keep saying they are not biased but the evidence continues to say otherwise…and im a swinging voter so not a rusted on liberal supporter, but the very left biased view just turns me off watching many of their shows…
    Exceptions are hard quiz and bluey!

  8. “Despite the criticism, ABC still came out tops in national coverage on the night according to VOZ data”, but the data quoted is for the BBC coverage, not the ABC “preview” which only scored 239,000 in five cap cities …

    1. The data quoted was not intended to reflect one segment which as you note was 239k, but to illustrate that despite complaints ABC still topped the Coronation viewing. That said, 239k at 5pm Saturday is not exactly a fail. Nine’s coverage at that time looks to have been 293k and 10 News 180k. As an example you’re looking at about 75k for the Saturday slot just gone.

      1. Everyone broadcast the same BBC coverage of the processions and coronation ceremony. Obviously most people who streamed it later picked iView without any ads over commercial streams with loads of ads. Live more people watched Channel’s 7 coverage which had lots of crosses to their staff in London and tried to personalise the experience, but added nothing of an import really. IIRC Nine showed an NRL game that they were contractually obligated to show on their main channel Sydney and Brisbane and the coronation coverage started later than the others on Gem? The complaints about the panel show has nothing to do with the ABC’s broadcast of the BBC feed later.

  9. That stuff belongs on Q & A where sensible viewers will not not to bother tuning in. The viewers who tuned in to this presentation were there because there were interested in the Coronation not what was presented to them.

  10. I’m an ex ABC employee so I turn to it first for coverage of elections, big events like this. I felt so conflicted watching that first hour and a half. It just didn’t sit well. Tonally. There is a place and time for all the discussions that were raised but as Media Watch host editorialised: timing.

Leave a Reply