Calling for a Public Inquiry into the conduct of ABC Editorial Policy

My argument is that the "The Story is the Boats, not the ABC" blog of 3 February posted by the ABC's Head of Editorial Policy (copy at bottom of page), in conjunction with that same ABC Executive's communications with me, appear to show that Editorial Policy at the ABC is duplicitous. Hence I am calling for a Public Inquiry into the conduct of the ABC's Editorial Policy.

There is a stark contradiction between what this spokesman for the ABC has said in 2 different forums (his own "public image" blog and correspondence with me designed to shut down the democratic complaint process) on a fundamental issue – i.e. the ABC's responsibility to inform the public about "important matters that affect Australians" and one which 50+% of the population has confirmed, in repeated polling, is of concern to them.

Population Growth Management is a most important issue for Australia’s future, and is one with a large (if not the largest) ongoing and profound impact on its people; and it is being wilfully ignored by the ABC.

DUPLICITY

Duplicity has been defined as:

"Deceitfulness in speech or conduct, as by speaking or acting in two different ways to different people concerning the same matter; double-dealing."

It seems to me that decisions about what is important to the public are made very subjectively by the ABC, and that it is very selective in what it takes issue with. Also, that there is no justification for this scam masquerading as "Editorial Policy".

In this context "the same matter" - ie what is important to the public - is clarified by these words extracted from the ABC Head of Editorial Policy's blog:

"Journalists, though, have a different set of responsibilities to Governments. Journalists have a responsibility to inform the public about important matters that affect them......... As the result of a lot of hard work and persistence from many good journalists we now know that some extraordinary and dangerous things happened on the open seas and Australian personnel were involved."

Why report on one aspect of immigration - refugees - but persistently refuse to report on the broad-ranging impacts of population growth; particularly when ours is by far the highest in the OECD and there are numerous statistical correlations indicating its influence on many of the most important social and environmental problems faced by Australia AND the developing world to which we are obliged to provide humanitarian aid?

There are some other extraordinary and dangerous things occurring as a direct result of the actions of Australia's government in the area of (lack of) Population Growth Management. All the major parties are dedicated to rapid population growth as a driver for achieving rapid GDP growth targets. The ABC appears to support this strategy fully, and without question, due diligence or justification. This is an important matter that affects Australians.

A SUMMARY OF MY COMPLAINT

In August 2013 I submitted a complaint to this Executive at the ABC. Essentially the complaint was about bias. After years of mostly (if not completely) omitting the Population Growth Management issue from public policy interviews with politicians, and others, it was also omitted from the Vote Compass; yet immigration and asylum seeker issues were included. I also explained that Population Growth Management is a pure sustainability issue, whereas the others can be tainted by association with racism and xenophobia. This plays directly into the hands of pro-growth lobbyists - of whom there are many. Hence the importance of addressing the Population issue; in particular because of the repeated polling in recent years that confirms that 50% or more of Australians are concerned about this issue.

As far as the ABC is concerned, it appears that they believe (without due diligence and as a matter of opinion or confused ideological dogma only?) that the rate of population growth is not up for discussion with politicians; and the status quo should not be challenged; regardless of any extraordinary and dangerous things that this may be imposing on Australians; or anyone else for that matter.

Just one "extraordinary and dangerous thing" (if you believe climate change is a concern - as the ABC surely does) is the fact that from 1991 to 2011 fossil fuel based emissions rose roughly 32% - as did population. Yet the ABC has not regarded this relationship as newsworthy, relevant or worthy of investigation in the context of the Carbon Tax debate. These are FACTS.

DESCRIPTION OF THE ABC EXECUTIVE'S RESPONSE TO MY COMPLAINT:

A Quote:

"I won’t be responding further as you’ve raised nothing new, and in my view your characterisation of this as an example of bias is not supported by any facts."

This was in response to submission of previous complaints and, on this occasion, an 11 page, factually based, complaint covering facts including, but not limited to:

(1) RN Breakfast nor any other area of ABC News, in 5+ years from 2008 (unless I missed it) raised the issue of population policy review (and the reasons for it, some of which are listed at the foot of this article) with politicians, or others
(2) In the 5+ years from 2008, population policy review was never mentioned by ABC News in the context of its relevance to the Carbon Tax debate, despite the direct correlation between the 32% rise in population from 1991 to 2011 and the 32% rise in annual emissions over the same period
(3) Repeated polling that shows 50+% of the population are concerned about population growth management
(4) The Population Growth Management issue (a pure sustainability issue) was omitted from the Vote Compass's 30 Federal Election Issues and the Immigration issue (an issue often tainted with xenophobia and racist sentiment) was included.
(5) The name of the Stable (now Sustainable) Population Party standing for election on the basis of Population Growth Management had its identity selectively concealed from the Vote Compass under the description "other parties", while other new parties, such as Wikileaks, were named - despite, for example, having fewer candidates and an arguably narrower policy platform. There was no logical basis for doing this and the ABC provided no explanation that explained this decision
(6) The ABC's stated objective for the Vote Compass is that it (was) "primarily and fundamentally an educational tool intended to promote electoral literacy and stimulate public engagement in the policy aspect of election campaigns"; yet it was used to omit an issue that is of concern to over 50% of Australians, and also to selectively conceal the identity of a new political party standing with a policy to address this issue on behalf of all Australians
(7) The ABC has a statutory duty to ensure that the gathering and presentation of news and information is impartial according to the recognised standards of objective journalism
(8) A democratic society depends on diverse sources of reliable information and contending opinions
(9) The Stable (now Sustainable) Population Party's identity was selectively concealed despite the direct impact of Population Growth Management on at least 12 of the 30 election issues listed in the Vote Compass
(10) The Vote Compass, which statistics indicate was reviewed by approximately 10% of voters, provided those voters with misleading information.

My comments on this:
I note characterisation of the facts I presented as views and no acknowledgement of the facts. Is this code for: This ABC Executive's opinion is different to that of over 50% of Australians and he, at his absolute discretion and contrary to the ABC Code of Practice, does not intend to investigate something he, or his ABC associates, do not agree with personally?

Note also no mention of the fact that the ABC never addresses the issue...... Is this Executive suggesting that omitting an issue from discussion is not biased despite the enormous track record of Agenda-Setting Theory? (Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda-setting_theory)

So here we have an ABC Executive who thinks a complaint about consistent omission of reference to Population Growth Management as a political policy issue over a 5+ year period, was not worthy of responding to with any kind of explanation and simply wants to shut down the complaint?

When is a fact not a fact? When an opinionated, or otherwise biased, ABC Head of Editorial Policy decides to ignore it?

Note that my subsequent review of Vote Compass results provides additional statistical facts supporting the initial bias complaint.

QUOTES FROM THE ABC VOTE COMPASS WEBPAGES:

"Love them or hate them, opinion polls are seen as having an impact on Australian political parties' policies and politics. Use our charts and tables to explore recent poll results from Newspoll, Essential and Nielsen. They publish their methodology and sample size, ask standard questions and publish their recent poll history."

My comment:
So the existence of the Essential Poll, 23 July 2013, which identified Population Growth Management as a Top 15 Federal Election Issue, was something the ABC was aware of?

"(The Vote Compass) is primarily and fundamentally an educational tool intended to promote electoral literacy and stimulate public engagement in the policy aspect of election campaigns."

DESCRIPTION OF MY RECENT BLOG DESCRIBING ABC VOTE COMPASS BIAS

This was prepared after the response from the ABC Executive, and provides more statistical facts supporting the argument of bias. The facts have been extracted from the ABC's published results of the Vote Compass. The evidence of bias is supported by the immigration issue being rated as one of the most contentious and also as having one of the highest neutral/undecided votes. No other issue fell into this combined category in this way, and no other highly contentious issue was omitted from discussion by the ABC in the run up to the election; with the exception of the Monarchy - which had already been subject to a referendum.

Isn't all this just more evidence of the public's lack of understanding of the issue related to biased under-reporting of the Population Growth Management issue by the ABC? Isn't this just more evidence of Editorial failure and failure to comply with the ABC's Code of Practice; which exists for the sole purpose of preventing this from happening?

Both the ABC and the ACMA are continuing to reject my complaint about bias. Are they running amok and unaccountable?

COPY OF ABC HEAD OF EDITORIAL POLICY blog dated 3 February:
http://about.abc.net.au/2014/02/the-story-is-the-boats-not-the-abc/

THE STORY IS THE BOATS, NOT THE ABC

There is a very important story running across daily news bulletins and the front pages of the newspapers at the moment. Some organisations, for reasons that are painfully apparent, think it’s a story about how well the ABC carries out its journalism.

It is not.

Over the past few weeks, two boatloads of asylum seekers heading for Australia have been stopped, turned around and sent or helped or towed back to Indonesia. The navy has, it says inadvertently, entered Indonesian territorial waters while doing so. In the process of these activities, there appears to have been scuffles or contact between asylum seekers and navy personnel. There have been injuries. All sorts of claims are being made about precisely what happened on board those boats.

By any measure, and regardless of whether you consider the Government’s decision to turn back asylum seeker boats good policy or bad, these are important and highly newsworthy matters. In the past (think no further back than the ‘children overboard’ controversy of 2001) such drama on the high seas involving Australians has been major news.

But this time, there is a big difference. This time, the Australian Government has adopted a carefully considered position of making no comment whatsoever on operational matters when it comes to asylum seeker boats. They have put forward their clear and principled reasons for taking such a stand, and they have stuck to it.

Journalists, though, have a different set of responsibilities to Governments. Journalists have a responsibility to inform the public about important matters that affect them. Good journalists will chase important stories through every available source, even when official sources refuse to comment.

So when those boats were turned back and when the allegations of violence and mistreatment of asylum seekers began to emerge, the ABC started reporting. Equally importantly, we started probing.

In early January, when the allegations of mistreatment and burnt hands first emerged, they were flatly denied without qualification by Australian authorities. The ABC reported the allegations after first seeking a response. Then, when the response came, we reported those denials prominently and for some time the matter rested there. Then, some weeks later, video evidence emerged. This too was reported.

Behind the scenes, the ABC’s journalists kept probing. Our contacts on the ground in Indonesia were strong, and we worked them relentlessly. We travelled to where the asylum seekers were and sought as many different accounts as we could. We reached out to all of our contacts in Australia, including among the armed forces, to get information from as many sources as possible. And at every possible opportunity we sought official information on the details of precisely what happened.

As the result of a lot of hard work and persistence from many good journalists we now know that some extraordinary and dangerous things happened on the open seas and Australian personnel were involved. Due to the lack of official information there is still great confusion, claim and counter-claim about the precise details, and without a formal public inquiry we may never know. But already, in addition to the original hotly disputed claims by some asylum seekers that their hands were deliberately hurt by navy personnel, there have been assertions that people were pepper sprayed and, as a result, stumbled blindly into hot engines. That people threw themselves into the ocean, that there were angry and violent confrontations and that boats were deliberately disabled.

MY FINAL COMMENTS:

Should ABC Editorial Policy be so focussed on these issues:

(1) "claims by some asylum seekers that their hands were deliberately hurt by navy personnel"
(2) "there have been assertions that people were pepper sprayed and, as a result, stumbled blindly into hot engines"
(3) "That people threw themselves into the ocean"
(4) "that there were angry and violent confrontations and that boats were deliberately disabled."

Yet ignore the Population Growth Management issue and all these facts for over 5 years as if they do not exist:

(1) Australia's GDP and population growth rates in 2012 were roughly 4 times the OECD country average. (1.8% population growth in 2012)
(2) Australia's public and private sector debt are rising steeply; and population growth may be a direct cause
(3) Infrastructure expansion is not keeping up with demand, so intangible "debt" may be much higher; and population growth may be a direct cause
(4) Australia's unemployment has been compounding at 2.3% for a decade; and population growth may be a direct cause
(5) Australia's Multifactor Productivity (an ABS reported statistic) reduced at a compound rate of 1% per year from 2004 to 2011; and population growth may be a direct cause
(6) Australia's ability to provide global philanthropic aid is impacted by adverse domestic economic outcomes; and population growth may be a direct cause
(7) Over 20,000 children die every day in the developing world as a direct result of lack of philanthropic aid
(8) Etc........
Don't we really need to see the ABC made accountable for (lack of) Editorial Policy?