What is going on at the ABC?

This article reflects on the surprising finding of no breach of Editorial Policy by the ABC. A review was conducted by Andrea Wills. At the time of this review the ABC should have been fully aware of complaints about pro Carbon Tax and pro Population Growth bias. These complaints remain open to this day. There has been no independent audit of arguably invalid and unreasonable denials from the ABC, the ACMA and the Commonwealth Ombudsman. These are all Government Agencies. Presumably none of this information was reviewed by Andrea Wills. One such instance was the refusal to respond to a complaint about Vote Compass bias by claiming that it was not broadcast over conventional media and was therefore beyond the scope of the ABC Code of Practice. The ACMA claimed that it was therefore not obliged to respond. But the Editorial Policy document is not limited to conventional media and includes the web based media platform used for the Vote Compass. The Editorial Policy document prohibits party political advertising, which is the essence of the bias referred to in this particular complaint: Proof of the ABC’s breach of Editorial Policy?

On February 16, 2014 I sent the following letter to the ABC and Malcolm Turnbull:

Attn: Mr Malcolm Turnbull and ACMA (sent by email),
Attn: Mr James Spigelman, Chairman of the ABC Board, GPO Box 9994 Melbourne (by post and also by email c/- Louise Lander)

Subject: Second Letter providing proof of the ABC’s dishonest conduct in the area of Editorial Policy

All,

I think it is extremely important to understand the gravity of the situation created by bad Editorial Policy at ABC News.

I created my Petition on Population Growth Management because the ABC refuses to address the issue:
http://www.communityrun.org/petitions/australia-requires-a-public-inquiry-to-determine-a-basis-for-the-optimum-rate-of-population-growth-2

These links provide more examples of the problems in Editorial Policy at the ABC:

http://candobetter.net/?q=node/3613 (Statistical, irrefutable Proof of Vote Compass bias)

http://candobetter.net/?q=node/3655 (Proof of ABC complicity in crimes against humanity and proof of the economic impacts of population growth being ignored?)

http://candobetter.net/?q=node/3668 (Proof that the ABC/ACMA alliance is a sham designed to shut down the complaints process regardless of the facts)

http://candobetter.net/?q=node/3688 (Proof of the longstanding history of this problem)

If you have anything to say that will explain why my interpretation of the FACTS is incorrect; please let me know.

This is not about condemning the ABC; it is about fixing it. A Public Inquiry into the due diligence and safeguards in place to ensure balanced Editorial Policy would be a good start. Undemocratic conduct by ABC News, of which I have seen significant evidence over the last 5 years in relation to both politics and specific matters of national importance, needs to end.

Regards and yours sincerely,
........................................

On 12 March 2014 the ABC Chairman, James Spigelman AO, made a public statement which included the following comments:

"The ABC Board welcomes these two reviews into ABC content, the first in what will be an ongoing series of regular independent reviews of editorial performance..........

The first review, by Andrea Wills, found no breaches of editorial policy but made a range of suggestions about ways to improve our content. The second review, by Gerald Stone, identified four items out of almost 100 separate pieces of content that raised concerns. He asked for further investigation of these programs, which were conducted and the results reflected in his conclusions.

Both reviews reflect a high degree of professional experience and cogency of analysis. I thank both authors for their significant contribution to improving the ABC’s capacity for accurate and impartial reporting.

Well over 95% of the content examined attracted no criticism or concerns. However the criticisms that were made are welcome, and have received proper consideration by content divisions and the relevant journalists and program teams. As the Divisional statements indicate, the criticisms have been accepted and acted upon. No further steps with respect to the individual journalists are required.

Furthermore, in response to the analysis in these reviews the ABC’s guidelines on impartiality will be expanded and updated, and this will be supported by ongoing training and editorial discussion. Specifically, the review of guidelines will address the risks arising if questions are not asked, allegations and claims are not closely scrutinised or the evidence that they have been is not broadcast. This reflects the principle thrust of the Stone critique........"

Meanwhile my complaints with the ABC about breach of the Code of Practice (and Editorial Policy) remained open and without satisfactory response. I had contacted Spigelman about this on more than one occasion. The ABC refused to provide a valid response to my complaint that the Vote Compass was biased. The Vote Compass was effectively biased party political advertising in breach of Editorial Policy. If statistics are correct it was accessed by roughly 10% of the voting public. The ABC stated that it was designed to promote electoral literacy, yet its biased content was prohibited by Editorial Policy.

The ABC and the ACMA failed to provide valid or reasonable responses to this complaint based on a tenuous argument that it had not been broadcast over conventional broadcasting media because it was web based. It was advertised through conventional media which provided the means of access. Also, the breach of Editorial Policy was established, even if the breach of the Code of Practice based on the "conventional media" argument was not. There have been many other open complaints to which I have received neither valid nor reasonable responses.

Another interesting twist was the RN Breakfast broadcast of 18 September 2014. Chris Uhlmann announced that Malcolm Turnbull would appear to discuss ABC bias. This was in the on air version of the broadcast which is not available as a podcast. Was this a "joke" by Chris Uhlmann that was presumably directed at me? The interview on bias did not occur. Turnbull was interviewed on another issue.

In the preceding few days I had sent several comments to RN Breakfast as follows:

• (8 Sept 2014) The conversation about the conflict between Australia's high interest rates and the Reserve Bank's concern about the housing bubble has been going on for over a decade. Never once has the ABC mentioned that extreme population growth puts pressure on the housing market, and therefore also on interest rates. This is pro population growth bias. It is quite clear that the high Australian dollar is to some extent supported by extreme population growth.
  This impacts Australia's competitiveness.
• (16 Sept 2014) Today’s interview with Greg Combet was a pro-Carbon Tax story. Giving Greg air time to explain how difficult it had been to push through the Carbon Tax and then see it repealed is legitimate.

  What is not legitimate is to continue to pump propaganda that the Carbon Tax was the only rational way to address climate change. You have a Statutory Duty to cover the other side of this argument. The truth is that the cost of PV Solar in recent years has dropped much further than the maximum percentage increase in coal-based electricity prices that was ever predicted under a Carbon Tax regime. It is also true that Germany is not seeking to hide the fact that its emissions are increasing because they are using more brown coal as a result of shutting down 8 nuclear power plants.

  The ABC remains dishonest about Australia’s emissions growth and their primary cause. That cause is a rate of population growth that was 4 times the OECD country average in 2012. You fail to report the facts. Without the facts scientific solutions cannot be coherently developed. Greg Combet is telling everyone that a Carbon Tax that internationalises trading in emissions is the right answer. There is a counter argument that sustainability within each country must be achieved in order to bring order to the current chaos. The internationalization of carbon trading is contrary to the essence of what sustainability actually is. It is an economic solution to a problem created by economic growth that has ignored the physical realities of a finite world. The irony of this is beyond a joke. The ABC is wrong to suppress coherent debate on this subject. You are the only organisation with the standing to challenge conventional wisdom yet you betray us all with your refusal to act with integrity.

• (17 Sept 2014) Sheryle Bagwell spoke today of the house price bubble and skipped across a comment by Joe Hockey that demand caused by population growth would simply be addressed by building more houses. The ABC doesn't want to go any further analysing this fundamental driver of high interest rates, the high Australian Dollar and house price growth.
  The ABC is arguably guilty of criminal breach of its Statutory Duty. This blog: http://candobetter.net/node/4049 explains that the 1986 Space Shuttle Disaster was caused by similar tactics to the ABC on climate change.

To me the above sets the context for an ABC attitude which treats the truth with contempt. I have, at various times over the last 6 years, communicated with James Spigelman, Mark Scott and Malcolm Turnbull over ABC bias in coverage of the issues of extreme population growth and the Carbon Tax, despite the evidence that the majority of Australians are opposed to the covert policy of extreme population growth. I have referred to both Fran Kelly and Chris Uhlmann in my articles.

Does Chris Ulhmann's "joke" reflect a form of collaboration in contempt of the ABC's Statutory Duty between Malcolm Turnbull, Fran Kelly and Chris Uhlmann? Why claim the ABC would interview Malcolm Turnbull on bias if Chris Uhlmann was not aware that I had communicated with Turnbull on this subject? Why say it at all unless it was an abuse of media power?

I would now expect the ABC to defend its interview with Greg Combet by claiming that the Government had repealed the Carbon Tax and now it was the ABC's "Duty" to talk about the other side of the story. But the truth is that in over 6 years of the ABC's Carbon Tax Debate the ABC used pro-population growth bias to mislead the public and politicians about the primary cause of emissions growth. The ABC never mentioned that both emissions and population rose a massive 32% between 1991 and 2011. It is the ABC that produced pro Carbon Tax bias that supported passing of the legislation in the first place. A biased, criminal breach of ABC Editorial Policy lay at the heart of the Carbon Tax debate.

The ABC can be very self-righteous when it speaks of its biased view of "Duty". In my opinion contempt for impartiality can become endemic in an organisation that has no obligation to follow its own editorial policy and is free to operate above the law.

Are ABC operatives sitting around mocking attempts by the Australian public to seek democratic impartiality from an institution that is taxpayer funded and should be dedicated to that public duty?

What is the ABC up to?