★★★★★ 0/5

Media Watch breaches Code of Practice

The media watchdog rules the other media watchdog in breach, for failing to offer a journo a right of reply.

6
Leave a comment

ABC’s Media Watch has been found to have breached ABC’s Code of Practice for failing to give right of reply.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority ruled that an episode last September named Daily Telegraph journalist Andrew Clennell when discussing an article that had failed to ‘tell all sides of a story in any dispute.’

Under the ABC Code of Practice the broadcaster is obliged to make reasonable efforts to provide a fair opportunity for a person to respond.

ACMA found that the ABC did not make efforts to seek a response from Clennell.

Other objections about factual inaccuracy and impartiality were not supported.

Media Watch will acknowledge ACMA’s breach finding on air next Monday and when it should offer a right of reply. It has also added a clarification to its online transcript.

He will be explaining why the ABC initially rejected Clennell’s complaint.

Today, host Jonathan Holmes said, “I will be telling our viewers what The Daily Telegraph would have told us if we had asked them about the item, and I will be offering an apology to Andrew Clennell.”

Ironically, the issue emerged from an episode about ACMA, the Press Council, accuracy, unfairness and bias.

At the time Holmes discussed the current complaints system and having a new regulator based on voluntary self-regulation such as the Press Council:

“….Far better that, in my opinion, than giving a state regulator like ACMA authority over newspapers and bloggers.

“Many of you, I’m sure, will disagree. But I’d rather put up with unfairness, and inaccuracy, and bias, than see a statutory authority play policeman over the press.”

ABC statement:

ABC Television accepts the ruling of the ACMA that Media Watch should have given Andrew Clennell and/or The Daily Telegraph the opportunity to respond to comments by Jonathan Holmes about a report into Norwegian gaming machines published on 14 September 2011.

The ABC notes that five other complaints by Mr Clennell were rejected by the ACMA, which found that the Media Watch item in question was neither factually inaccurate nor misleading, and that it did not demonstrate bias against the Daily Telegraph.

The ABC also notes this paragraph in the ACMA finding: ‘It does not follow (from this ruling) that Media Watch would be required to offer an opportunity to respond “whenever any unflattering imputation against an individual or media organisation could be attributed to the presenter’s judgments and regardless of the facts of the matter”.’

In next Monday night’s program Jonathan Holmes will address the ACMA ruling, and the broader question of whether, and when, Media Watch should offer a right of reply.

He will be explaining why the ABC initially rejected Mr Clennell’s complaint.

In the process, Jonathan says: “I will be telling our viewers what The Daily Telegraph would have told us if we had asked them about the item, and I will be offering an apology to Andrew Clennell.”

6 Responses

  1. (Not excusing the initial failure but) this is how a network should respond to a finding of fault – as soon as practicable, on the program where the transgression occurred, advise viewers of the finding, own up to, and own, the error, if necessary explain why it occurred. This is in addition to apologising to anyone affected by the initial wrong-doing.

  2. God, a long time to investigate…

    But…

    This is the way a breach should be handled. Whereas 9 News in your item the other day is not answering and admitting to the issue in the same medium and manner as it was first done (and therefore unlikely to reach the audience that was first affected by it), the ABC is doing the right thing (again) by answering this in the same medium and place as the breach first occurred.

    But as you mention no punishment by ACMA David, are we to assume that this is voluntary on the part of the ABC?

    If so, that is the major problem with the findings by the wet blanket that is ACMA. A trustworthy organisation such as the ABC will do the right thing, whereas the dodgy ones will not. Until ACMA is a bear and not a teddy bear, all we can expect is that most news organisations will continue to basically get away with doing anything they like.

    Sorry for the long post David, but this issue really gets my goat.

  5. And only a year+ to “investigate” and “report”. Wow, things do move fast at ACMA.
    Let me guess, the Press Release was dated “2011”? Well, that would be understandable (LOL) with ACMA.

Leave a Reply