Bills Digest No. 2,
2018–19
PDF version [698KB]
Don Arthur
Social Policy Section
11 July 2018
Contents
The Bills Digest at a glance
Purpose of
the Bill
Background
Committee
consideration
Policy
position of non-government parties/independents
Position of
major interest groups
Financial
implications
Statement of
Compatibility with Human Rights
Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights
Key issues
Date introduced: 18
October 2017
House: Senate
Portfolio: Communications
and the Arts
Commencement: The
day after Royal Assent.
Links: The links to the Bill,
its Explanatory Memorandum and second reading speech can be found on the
Bill’s home page, or through the Australian
Parliament website.
When Bills have been passed and have received Royal Assent, they
become Acts, which can be found at the Federal
Register of Legislation website.
All hyperlinks in this Bills Digest are correct as at
July 2018.
The Bills Digest at a glance
In August 2017 the Government
secured the support of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party (PHON) for passage of
the Broadcasting
Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Act 2017. In exchange for
this support, the Government agreed to put forward a Bill amending the Australian
Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 (the Act) altering the duties of the
ABC Board in section 8.
The Bill amends the Act to insert the words ‘fair’ and
‘balanced’ into paragraph 8(1)(c). The amended Act would require the Board ‘to
ensure that the gathering and presentation by the Corporation of news and
information is fair, balanced, accurate and impartial according to the
recognised standards of objective journalism.’
Both the Government and Senator Hanson acknowledge that the
ABC’s editorial policies already require ‘fair treatment’ and ‘a balance that
follows the weight of evidence’.
The Minister for Communications, Senator Fifield, argues
that the amendment would reinforce these requirements by enshrining them in legislation.
Supporters of the Bill, such as the National Farmers Federation, highlight
instances where they consider the ABC has not met these standards in its
reporting.
Both the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and the Australian
Greens oppose the Bill. Critics of the Bill include the ABC and the Media,
Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA).
Critics of the Bill argue that the amendment:
- is
not needed in order to strengthen the ABC’s reputation for trustworthiness
because opinion polling shows that the ABC already enjoys a high level of
public trust
- will
undermine rather than strengthen the ABC’s reputation for providing trustworthy
and dependable reporting
- will
have no practical effect on the behaviour of ABC staff because it adds nothing
to the obligations already set out in the Corporation’s editorial policies and
- may
undermine standards of objective journalism by encouraging demands for false
balance.
Purpose of the Bill
One of the duties of the Australian Broadcasting
Corporation (ABC) Board under section 8 of the Australian
Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 (the Act) is to ‘to ensure that the
gathering and presentation by the Corporation of news and information is
accurate and impartial according to the recognised standards of objective
journalism’ (paragraph 8(1)(c)).
The purpose of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Amendment (Fair and Balanced) Bill 2017 (the Bill) is to amend the Act to
insert the words ‘fair’ and ‘balanced’ so that paragraph 8(1)(c) reads: ‘to
ensure that the gathering and presentation by the Corporation of news and
information is fair, balanced, accurate and impartial according to the
recognised standards of objective journalism.’
Background
Concerns about fairness and balance are part of a broader
debate about bias at the ABC. This debate was part of the context for the
development of the Act. Over the years, a number of commentators have claimed
that ABC news and programming has a left-wing bias.[1]
Origin of
the Bill
In August 2017 the Government secured the support of
Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party (PHON) for passage of the Broadcasting
Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Act 2017.[2]
In exchange for this support, the Government agreed to put forward a Bill
amending paragraph 8(1)(c) of the Act to add the words ‘fair’ and ‘balanced’ to
the duties of the Board.[3]
While Senator Hanson has acknowledged that fairness and
balance are already required under the ABC’s editorial policies, she argued
that inserting the words into the Act is ‘about making sure that everyone is
aware of the need to be fair and balanced’.[4]
According to the Bill’s Explanatory
Memorandum:
The addition of the words ‘fair’ and ‘balanced’ will support
and strengthen the ABC’s reputation for providing trustworthy and dependable
reporting. The ABC’s own Editorial Policies cover fair treatment, as well as
having a balance that follows the weight of evidence. This amendment will
cement these requirements in the ABC’s Charter and ensure the ABC continues to
uphold the standards expected of it by the Australian public.[5]
As part of the negotiations over the Broadcasting
Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Act, the Government also agreed
to:
Existing
requirements for fairness and balance
The existing Act requires the ABC Board to ensure that
news and information is impartial. The requirement for impartiality does not
appear in the ABC Charter (section 6), but in the duties of the Board (section
8).
The ABC Board’s Directors (other than the staff-elected
Director) are appointed by the
Governor-General on the recommendation of the Government.[10]
The Board appoints the Managing Director.[11]
Paragraph 8(1)(e) of the Act requires the Board to develop a code of practice
relating to its television and radio programming. According to this Code of
Practice, two hallmarks of impartiality are ‘fair treatment’ and ‘a balance
that follows the weight of evidence’.[12]
The duties
of the ABC Board
According to paragraph 8(1)(c) of the Act ‘it is the duty
of the Board ... to ensure that the gathering and presentation by the Corporation
of news and information is accurate and impartial according to the recognised
standards of objective journalism’.
The ABC
Code of Practice and editorial policies
The ABC’s Code
of Practice interprets the impartiality requirement for ABC staff.
Under the heading of ‘Impartiality and diversity of perspectives’, the Code
of Practice states:
Judgements about whether impartiality was achieved in any
given circumstances can vary among individuals according to their personal and
subjective view of any given matter of contention. Acknowledging this fact of
life does not change the ABC’s obligation to apply its impartiality standard as
objectively as possible. In doing so, the ABC is guided by these hallmarks of
impartiality:
-
a balance that follows the weight of evidence;
-
fair treatment;
-
open-mindedness; and
- opportunities over time for principal relevant perspectives on
matters of contention to be expressed.
... Impartiality does not require that every perspective
receives equal time, nor that every facet of every argument is presented.[13]
The Code notes that ‘[a]ssessing the impartiality due in
given circumstances requires consideration in context of all relevant factors.’
These listed factors include ‘the range of principal relevant perspectives on
the matter of contention’ and ‘the timeframe within which it would be
appropriate for the ABC to provide opportunities for the principal relevant
perspectives to be expressed.’[14]
This information is mirrored in the ABC’s online editorial
policies.[15]
Dealing
with breaches
If a member of the public believes that the ABC has
breached the standards set out in the editorial policies or code of practice,
they can make a complaint to the ABC. Written complaints are handled by the
ABC’s Audience and Consumer Affairs which is described as ‘independent of
program making divisions within the ABC’.[16]
In relation to complaints which alleged breaches of the
editorial policies or ABC Code of Practice, the ABC’s annual report for 2017
stated:
During 2016–17, 2,348 complaint issues were investigated. A
total of 163 (6.9%) were upheld in cases where Audience and Consumer Affairs
determined that ABC editorial standards had not been met. A further 266 issues
(11.3%) were resolved, after the relevant content area took prompt and
appropriate action to remedy the cause of the complaint.[17]
It is unclear how many of these received complaints
related to concerns regarding ‘fairness’ or ‘balance’. The Audience and
Consumer Affairs area publishes quarterly reports regarding audience contacts
including complaints. These reports indicated that a substantial number of
complaints received were categorised as relating to topics such as ‘balance’,
‘bias’, ‘news value’, ‘standards of interviewing’, ‘standards of reporting’ and
‘unfair treatment’.[18]
Details regarding upheld complaints and the resulting action taken by the ABC
are published on the ABC
website.[19]
If a person is not satisfied with the ABC’s response to
their complaint (or does not receive a response within 60 days), they can
refer it to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).[20]
ACMA deals with complaints about matters covered by the ABC’s Code of Practice.
In September 2017, ACMA found that ABC News had breached the
impartiality provisions of the Code of Practice in relation to certain
historical child sexual abuse allegations. ACMA noted that this was the first
time ‘since 2011 that the ABC has been found in breach of those impartiality
provisions.’[21]
Earlier this year, ACMA again found that the ABC had breached the impartiality
provisions in its coverage of a climate change speech by former Prime Minister
Tony Abbott to the Global Warming Policy Foundation think tank.[22]
The legislative requirements of the complaints process are
set out in sections 150 to 153 of the Broadcasting
Services Act 1992.
History of
the existing provision
The Australian
Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 was part of the Government’s response
to the 1981 report of the Committee of Review of the Australian Broadcasting
Commission (Dix report).[23]
One of the issues the report covered was the question of bias. In discussing
the need for balance and impartiality, the Dix report drew on a report on the
future of broadcasting by Lord Annan in the United Kingdom.[24]
The Annan
report
The Annan report was presented to the UK Parliament in
1977. It argued that broadcasters could not achieve due impartiality through
balance or neutrality:
Due impartiality should not be synonymous with a mathematical
balance, nor should it be confused with neutrality or interpreted as
indifference. The broadcasters are operating within a system of parliamentary
democracy and must share is assumptions. They should not be expected to give
equal weight or show an impartiality which cannot be due to those who seek to
destroy it by violent, unparliamentary or illegal means.[25]
At the time, violent conflict in Northern Ireland posed a
problem for broadcasters. The Annan report noted that terrorism feeds off
publicity as terrorist acts form part of a campaign to attract attention for a
cause.[26]
As a result, giving equal time to all sides in the conflict could fuel further
violence.
The Annan report argued that ‘due impartiality’ was
different from balance and neutrality. It argued that rather than treating
issues as having only two sides, broadcasters should ‘allow the widest possible
range of views and opinions to be expressed’. The report also stressed that the
‘duty to let the public hear various voices does not oblige them to give too
much weight or coverage to opinions which are not widely held.’ The report
urged broadcasters to recognise that the range and weight of various views was
constantly changing.[27]
The Dix
report
The Dix report agreed that impartiality could not be
equated with mathematical balance, neutrality or indifference. It also argued
that professionalism had to go beyond impartiality. The report quoted the 1978
BBC Handbook:
The BBC does not feel obliged to be neutral as between truth
and untruth, justice and injustice, freedom and slavery, compassion and
cruelty, tolerance and intolerance.[28]
The Dix report stated that ‘The ABC has a responsibility
to adopt a positive attitude on basic values without which a humane and just
society will be at risk.’[29]
Controversy
over proposed legislation
After the dismissal of the Whitlam Government in 1975, the
ABC faced accusations of bias. Peter Nixon, the Minister responsible for
broadcasting, claimed that the ABC had a ‘now well-established bias towards
Labor and, socialist sides of politics’.[30]
He called for a Supreme Court judge to act as a moderator of ABC news during
the election campaign.[31]
When the Fraser Coalition Government introduced a Bill in
response to the recommendations of the Dix inquiry, the Bill (the Australian
Broadcasting Corporation Bill 1982) included provisions for a Commissioner for
Complaints.[32]
The Bill sought to give the Commissioner the power to enter ABC premises,
obtain documents, and examine witnesses under oath.[33]
The proposal for a Commissioner for Complaints came from
Cabinet. It was not one of the recommendations of the Dix report.[34]
The Labor Party opposed the proposal arguing that it threatened the ABC’s
independence.[35]
Peter Milton, the Labor Member for La Trobe, argued:
It appears to me that the sole purpose of the proposed
Commissioner for Complaints is to provide an institutionalised channel for
noisy, conservative and bigoted critics of the ABC to organise campaigns
designed to force the ABC to refrain from reporting or commenting objectively
on political, social and economic aspects of Australian life.[36]
Labor and the Democrats blocked the legislation in the
Senate.[37]
After a change of government in 1983, Labor introduced a new Bill without the
provisions for a Commissioner for Complaints (Australian Broadcasting
Corporation Bill 1983).
Committee consideration
Senate
Standing Committee on Environment and Communications
The Bill was referred to the Senate Environment and
Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 9 February 2018.
The Committee reported on 16 February 2018. Details of the inquiry are at the
inquiry’s home page.[38]
The majority report recommended the Bill be passed and considered that
‘enshrining a statutory requirement for fair and balanced reporting in the ABC
Act will promote community confidence in the news and information presented
by the ABC’.[39]
In relation to concerns raised that the Bill may result ‘false balance’ in the
ABC’s coverage, the majority committee report highlighted that the Bill ‘does
not create new editorial requirements and simply enshrines existing policies in
legislation.’[40]
However, separate dissenting minority reports from Labor and Australian Greens
senators opposed the Bill (discussed below).
Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
The Scrutiny of Bills Committee had no comment on the
Bill.[41]
Policy position of non-government parties/independents
Australian
Labor Party
In their dissenting report on the Bill, Labor Senators on
the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee opposed the Bill. They
argued that it is unnecessary to amend the Act because the ABC interprets
‘accurate and impartial’ to include ‘a balance that follows the weight of
evidence’ and ‘fair treatment’. They also argued that adding the words may
confuse established interpretation and possibly create a danger of ‘false
balance’.[42]
Australian
Greens
Australian Greens Senators also argued that the amendments
are unnecessary, raised the issue of false balance and stated that the Bill
‘undermines faith in a national public institution by implying it is correcting
a problem, even though no problem exists.’[43]
Pauline Hanson’s One Nation (PHON)
Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Senators support the Bill. Senator
Hanson has expressed the view that her party has not received fair treatment by
the ABC. For example, Senator Hanson characterised an investigation by the ABC
into PHON’s compliance with electoral laws as a ‘witch hunt by the ABC’ and
questioned ‘how many other political parties do they chase up.’[44]
While sitting as a One Nation Senator, Malcolm Roberts said that many of his
constituents complained that the ABC was not fair and balanced. In a speech to
the Senate he stated:
... its Greens' dominated, capital-city
staff in Melbourne and Sydney are killing the ABC's reputation. People in the
bush and people in the suburbs laugh at the ABC. They don't treat it seriously.
There is the misappropriation of taxpayer funding to push the political agenda.
Everyday Australians, everyday taxpayers, are fed up with political correctness
that has been incorrect and unreasonable and is peddled by the ABC. The ABC,
sadly, is not accountable to anyone.[45]
Position of major interest groups
National
Farmers’ Federation
The National Farmers’ Federation (NFF) supports the Bill.
In its submission, the NFF claims that the ABC has attempted to sensationalise
issues and to influence public policy rather than simply inform its audience.
The NFF cites two examples: the ABC’s persistence in appealing a court decision
that prevents it from broadcasting illegally obtained footage of alleged animal
cruelty; and a story on alleged water theft by the Four Corners program
(‘Pumped:
Who's benefitting from the billions spent on the Murray-Darling?’).[46]
Cotton
Australia
Cotton Australia supports the Bill. In its submission
Cotton Australia echoed the NFF’s concern that the ABC has attempted to
sensationalise issues affecting agricultural industries and influence public
policy.
Cotton Australia also cites the Four Corners
episode on irrigation in the Murray Darling Basin (‘Pumped’) arguing that the
ABC failed to treat the issue in an impartial and balanced way. Cotton
Australia argues that the ABC failed to give industry representatives an
opportunity to address negative claims about the industry.[47]
Australian
Broadcasting Corporation
The ABC opposes the Bill. In its submission the ABC argues
that ‘there is no lack of public trust or confidence in the ABC and the
amendments do not achieve any real public policy outcome or are driven by
public interest.’[48]
Media
Entertainment and Arts Alliance
The Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance (MEAA)
opposes the Bill. In its submission the MEAA argues that the proposed amendment
to the Act is ‘rooted in a transgressive campaign to undermine the performance
and reputation of the nation’s most esteemed (and scrutinised) broadcaster.’[49]
Financial implications
The Explanatory
Memorandum states that the measure in this Bill is expected to have no
financial impact.[50]
Statement of Compatibility
with Human Rights
As required under Part 3 of the Human Rights
(Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth), the Government has assessed the
Bill’s compatibility with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared
in the international instruments listed in section 3 of that Act. The
Government considers that the Bill is compatible.[51]
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (PJCHR)
assessed the Bill in relation to its compatibility with the right to freedom of
expression. After receiving further advice from the Minister, the PJCHR
concluded that ‘[o]n balance and in light of the information provided by the Minister,
the Committee considers that the measures are likely to be compatible with the
right to freedom of expression’.[52]
Key issues
Most of the controversy about the Bill is over the
insertion of the word ‘balanced’. Supporters of the Bill argue that it will
reinforce standards the ABC has already recognised in its editorial policies.
As Senator Hanson put it in a speech to the Senate, ‘It’s part of what they are
supposed to be doing anyway.’[53]
The ABC opposes the change arguing that balance should not
be an end in itself but should be seen as part of the broader standard of
impartiality.[54]
The ABC and other critics of the Bill argue that including the word ‘balanced’
outside of the context of the editorial policies as a whole could lead to
pressure for ‘false balance’ and ‘he said/she said journalism.’[55]
What does
the amendment do?
According to the Explanatory
Memorandum: ‘This amendment will cement these requirements [for fairness and
balance] in the ABC’s Charter and ensure the ABC continues to uphold the
standards expected of it by the Australian public.’[56]
However, the amendment does not alter the ABC’s Charter
(set out in section 6 of the Act). Instead it alters the duties of the Board
(section 8). If the amendment influences the behaviour of ABC staff it would do
so through the actions of the Board. As the Minister Mitch Fifield explained in
an interview with the ABC’s Fran Kelly:
... the Act is given effect to ultimately by the board of the
ABC. And it finds expression through the ABC’s editorial policies. The ABC’s
editorial policies, as they are today, will be matters that are determined
within the organisation, because the ABC has legislated independence...[57]
If a member of the public makes a formal complaint about
the ABC, they refer to the Corporation’s Code of Practice and editorial
policies, not to section 8 of the Act.[58]
There is no direct way for members of the public to hold the ABC Board
accountable for failing to discharge its duties under the Act. Subsection 8(3)
of the Act states that the duties of the Board are not enforceable by
proceedings in a court.
In public discussion of this Bill, neither Senator Hanson
nor the Government appear to have raised concerns about the ABC’s Code of
Practice or editorial policies. According to Senator Hanson, the amendment is
about raising awareness of the need for fairness and balance.[59]
The
Government’s position
The Government argues that the Bill will complement rather
than add to the requirements already set out in the ABC’s editorial policies.
These policies require fair treatment and a balance that follows the weight of
evidence.
In his second reading speech, the Minister for
Communications, Senator Fifield, stated that the amendment simply enshrines the
requirements of the editorial policies in legislation.[60]
The Minister made the same point in an interview with the ABC’s Raf Epstein
where he said that the Bill is ‘really just seeking to enshrine in legislation
that which is already within the ABC’s own editorial policies’ and that ‘it’s a
good thing to reinforce in the ABC’s Act some of the commonly understood
standards of journalism which the ABC themselves already reflect in the
editorial policies.’[61]
The Minister has not said that the ABC is failing to abide
by its editorial policies. However, the Bill’s Explanatory Memorandum does seem
to imply that the Government intends the amendment to have some practical
effect on the behaviour of the ABC:
... this Bill promotes transparent journalism, facilitates
confidence in the ABC, and provides for a better informed Australian public in
regards to issues of public significance, which will contribute to a more
robust debate in relation to those issues. [62]
In contrast to the Minister, Senator Hanson claims that
the ABC regularly fails to meet the obligations set out in its editorial
policies. In a speech to the Senate, she claimed that the ABC was opposed to
the amendment ‘because, heaven forbid, they may be held to account by the
public.’[63]
Arguments
against the amendment
Critics of the Bill argue that the amendment:
- is
not needed in order to strengthen the ABC’s reputation for trustworthiness
- will
undermine rather than strengthen the ABC’s reputation for providing trustworthy
and dependable reporting
- will
have no practical effect on the behaviour of ABC staff because it adds nothing
to the obligations already set out in the Corporation’s editorial policies and
- may
undermine standards of objective journalism by encouraging demands for false
balance.
The
amendment is not needed to strengthen the ABC’s reputation
While the Government argues that the amendment ‘will
support and strengthen the ABC’s reputation for providing trustworthy and
dependable reporting’,[64]
the ABC’s submission cites opinion polls showing that trust in the ABC is
already higher than other media outlets.[65]
For example, according to an October 2017 Essential ‘Trust in media’ poll: ‘The
most trusted media were ABC TV news and current affairs (63% a lot/some trust),
SBS TV news and current affairs (61%) and ABC radio news and current affairs
(58%).’[66]
In a 2017 Senate Estimates hearing, ABC Managing Director
Michelle Guthrie said:
I don't believe that adding the words 'fair and balanced'
into the charter is necessary. I think that compliance with our editorial
policies, which refer to fair and balanced based on the weight of evidence, is
sufficient. Frankly, nothing I've heard from the minister in public statements
says that what we're doing under our editorial policies needs to be changed. So
I query, again, what problem we're trying to solve to add those words into the
charter.[67]
The
amendment will undermine rather than strengthen the ABC’s reputation
In their dissenting report on the Bill, Greens Senators
argue that the Bill may damage the ABC’s reputation for trustworthy and
dependable reporting by suggesting that complaints about fairness and balance
are justified.[68]
The
amendment will have no practical effect
In a submission to the Committee, the ABC stated: ‘The
prevailing view among those who understand the ABC’s existing editorial
standards is that the proposed amendment is meaningless and without any practical
consequence.’[69]
The ABC’s editorial policies require ‘fair and honest
dealing’ and deal with balance in the context of the requirement for
impartiality. According to the editorial policy ‘a balance that follows the
weight of evidence’ is one of the ‘hallmarks of impartiality’.[70]
The ABC’s submission argues that if the purpose of the amendment ‘is to do
nothing more than enshrine those specific references to fairness and balance in
that specific context, then the change to the legislation will do nothing more
than describe what the ABC already does.’[71]
The risk of
false balance and the standards of objective journalism
False
balance
Both the ABC submission and the Media, Entertainment &
Arts Alliance (MEAA) submission warn that the amendment could encourage demands
for ‘false balance’.
The term ‘false balance’ refers to the practice of
presenting each side of a debate as if they were equally credible even when the
evidence favours the claims of one side over others. Individuals and groups may
complain about a lack of balance if their opponents’ claims are reported
unchallenged but theirs are not. Like many media outlets, the ABC urges its
staff to resist unjustified demands for equal time.[72]
Rather than simply calling for balance, the ABC’s
editorial policies and guidance call for ‘balance following the weight of
evidence.’ As an ABC editorial guidance note explains:
The ABC does not require differing viewpoints to be presented
evenly, as if they were poised on either side of a scale. In some
circumstances, when justified by the weight of evidence, it will be absolutely
appropriate for you to give more time or space to one perspective over another.
A clear, current example of this is in the vaccination debate where
near-universal professional consensus on the value of childhood inoculation is
opposed by a vocal minority, who are passionate in their cause but unsupported
by the weight of scientific evidence. It is legitimate to report on (and
challenge) their views at times when it’s editorially justified, but we would
not accord them the same weight of coverage as the scientists and medical
organisations on the other side.[73]
Objective
journalism
The ABC’s head of editorial policy, Alan Sunderland, has
argued that reporters ‘need to sift through facts, weigh them up, make
editorial judgements about their relative strength and importance, and then
present them in a way that illuminates the truth of a matter.’[74]
The process of identifying facts and evidence and sifting out unsupported
claims is part of what is meant by objectivity.
The Bill amends paragraph 8(1)(c) of the Act to make
ensuring ‘that the gathering and presentation by the Corporation of news and
information is fair, balanced, accurate and impartial according to the
recognised standards of objective journalism’ a duty of the Board. An issue in
interpreting the provision is whether the phrase ‘according to the recognised
standards of objective journalism’ qualifies the words ‘fair’, ‘balanced’,
‘accurate’ and ‘impartial’ or whether it only qualifies the word ‘impartial’.
The Explanatory Memorandum outlines an expectation that
the amendment will extend existing obligations ‘to also require the gathering
and presentation of news and information to be “fair” and “balanced” according
to the recognised standards of objective journalism.’[75]
If balance is qualified by the recognised standards of objective journalism
then the problem of false balance only arises if the requirement for balance is
read out of context. If this is the intent, the Bill could be redrafted to make
this clearer.
Balance and
values-based issues
In its editorial guidance the ABC acknowledges that there
is more to balance than weighing up evidence. In some cases the differences of
opinion hinge on values rather than scientific evidence. For example, in
relation to the issue of same sex marriage, ABC guidance for staff notes that
opponents of same sex marriage may object to the ABC using the term ‘marriage
equality’ arguing that it signals support. The guidance notes that there are no
rules for making decisions in these cases.[76]
Few people would argue that the ABC should always report
each side of a dispute over values. The 1981 Dix report noted that ‘the ABC has
a responsibility to adopt a positive attitude on basic values without which a
humane and just society will be at risk’.[77]
This suggests, for example, that the ABC is not obliged to balance a political
leader’s denunciation of a terrorist attack with comments from a supporter of
terrorism.
Not all cases are as clear-cut as terrorism. Reasonable people
may make different judgements on which points of view reflect basic values.
Fairness
and balance in context
The debate over fairness and balance is part of a much
broader debate over the role of the ABC and the need to avoid bias.
According to the ABC’s editorial policies, a ‘democratic
society depends on diverse sources of reliable information and contending
opinions.’[78]
The public broadcaster’s role is to provide access to information and opinion
that will enable audience members to make up their own minds.[79]
This is a widely held view. For example, American
political theorist John Zaller argues that the ‘most important criterion for
assessing the quality of the news is that it should provide the information
citizens need to discharge their democratic responsibilities.’[80]
If this is the overriding objective, then standards like
impartiality or balance cannot be about providing coverage that is equally
advantageous to all political parties or candidates. Providing people with the
information they need to make up their own minds is likely to disadvantage
political actors who do or say things audience members have reason to
disapprove of.
Impartiality and balance also need to be understood as
applying beyond party political issues. Not all interests in society are
represented politically. Many individuals and groups have interests that are
affected by media coverage. Impartial or balanced coverage may, at times,
disadvantage some of these individuals and groups.
One way of thinking about journalistic norms such as
impartiality, fairness, and balance is that they are not ends in themselves,
but ways of achieving a broader objective of providing audience members with
information and opinion that will enable them to form their own views and
participate in the social and political life of the community.
Avoiding
bias
One way of thinking about media bias is as deviation from
an ideal standard.[81]
That standard might include finding and reporting the facts about an issue to
the extent they can be known. According to this standard, journalists would not
be obliged to give false or unsupported claims the same weight as claims that
are supported by evidence. This idea is captured in US Senator Daniel Patrick
Moynihan’s quip: ‘everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own
facts.’[82]
Understood in this way, claims of bias can be distinguished from claims that a
media outlet’s coverage favours one side of politics over another.
Four
aspects of bias
There are at least four ways claims of bias can arise:
- Choice
of issues. Reporters, commentators and editors must make choices about what
issues to cover and how much space they give each issue. This is often known as
the gatekeeping or agenda setting role of the media.[83]
From a political perspective this is a concern because the issues covered by
the media can affect the issues voters have at top-of-mind when voting or
responding to polls. This can affect the results because voters may judge a
party more favourably if they are focusing on one issue rather than another.[84]
- Choice
of frame. Once an issue is chosen, journalists must make choices about how
to frame it.[85]
For example, a journalist could approach a story on poverty from an economic
perspective, looking at national statistics and exploring the structural causes
of change. Alternatively, a journalist could focus on particular individuals in
poverty, their experience, and the way they respond. These choices frame the
issue by giving it a context. This kind of framing can have an impact on the
way the audience attributes responsibility and the kind of policies they are
likely to support.[86]
- Choice
of positions and sources. Many issues are controversial. Different
individuals and groups will take different positions on whether a particular
state of affairs is a problem, who is responsible for causing it, who should be
responsible for responding to it, and on what ought to be done. Journalists
must choose which of these positions to include and which sources to use to
represent each position.
- Treatment
of sources. Journalists make choices about how to treat the sources they
use in their stories. For example, they might decide to simply report a
source’s claims or they might ask them to justify their claims and respond to
criticisms made by others. Bias is about consistently treating some sources
less favourably than others.
It is not clear that simply adding the words ‘fairness’
and ‘balance’ to the duties of the Board will address public concerns about
bias.
[1]. R
Jolly, The
ABC: an overview (updated), Research paper series, 2014–15,
Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2014.
[2]. M
Fifield (Minister for Communications), One
Nation support for media reform package, media release, 15 August 2017.
[3]. P
Hanson, ‘Second
reading speech: Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill
2017: Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017’, Senate, Debates,
13 September 2017, p. 7109.
[4]. P
Hanson, ‘Second
reading speech: Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill
2017: Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017’ Senate, Debates,
14 September 2017, p. 7438. In September 2017 Senator Hanson said: ‘... you need
for something to be fair and balanced from anyone. It's pretty much in the
ABC's manifesto now, at the moment, but it needs to be put there. They actually
tend to agree with it themselves in their own manifesto. So it is actually
about making sure that everyone is aware of the need to be fair and balanced’.
[5]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Fair and
Balanced) Bill 2017, p. 2.
[6]. M
Fifield (Minister for Communications), One
Nation support for media reform package, op. cit., p. 2.
[7]. Parliament
of Australia, ‘Broadcasting
Legislation Amendment (Foreign Media Ownership and Community Radio) Bill 2017
homepage’, Australian Parliament website.
[8]. Parliament
of Australia, ‘Broadcasting
Corporation Amendment (Rural and Regional Measures) Bill 2017 homepage’,
Australian Parliament website.
[9]. Parliament
of Australia, ‘National
Broadcasters Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Transparency) Bill 2017 homepage’,
Australian Parliament website; M Fifield (Minister for Communications), One
Nation support for media reform package, op. cit. See also: P
Hamilton, National
Broadcasters Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Transparency) Bill 2017,
Bills digest, 84, 2017–18, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2018, p. 3.
[10]. Sections
12 and 13A of the Australian
Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983.
[11]. ABC,
‘The ABC board’,
ABC website; section 13 of the Australian
Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983.
[12]. ABC,
ABC
code of practice 2011 (revised in 2016), ABC, Ultimo, 2016, pp. 5–6.
[13]. Ibid.,
pp. 5–6.
[14]. Ibid.
[15]. ABC,
‘Editorial policies’, ABC
website.
[16]. ABC,
‘Complaints
process’, ABC website.
[17]. ABC,
Australian
Broadcasting Corporation (ABC)—Report for 2016-17—Volume II, 26 October
2017, p. 60.
[18]. For
example: ABC, Statistical
report on audience comments and complaints (October to December 2017),
ABC website, 31 January 2018, p. 3.
[19]. ABC,
‘Upheld
complaints’, op. cit.
[20]. Australian
Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), ‘Complaints
about the ABC or SBS’, ACMA website, last updated 29 January 2016.
[21]. ACMA,
ABC
News breached impartiality requirements, ACMA, media release, 26
September 2017.
[22]. ACMA,
Statement
in ABC News breaches impartiality rules, media release, 1 May 2018.
[23]. Department
of the Parliamentary Library, Australian
Broadcasting Corporation Bill 1983, Bills digest, 12, 1983,
Department of the Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 1983, p. 1.
[24]. Committee
of Review of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, The ABC in review:
national broadcasting in the 1980s
[The Dix report], vol. 2, Australian Government Publishing Service,
Canberra, 1981, p. 249, 992.
[25]. Great
Britain, Committee on the Future of Broadcasting, Report of the Committee on
the Future of Broadcasting [Annan report], Her Majesty’s Stationary Office,
London, [March] 1977, p. 268.
[26]. Ibid.,
p. 270.
[27]. Ibid.,
p. 269.
[28]. As
quoted in: Committee of Review of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, The
Dix report, op. cit., p. 249, 992.
[29]. Ibid.,
p. 249, 992.
[30]. ‘ABC given “bias” warning’,
The Canberra Times, 13 November 1975, p. 10.
[31]. ‘“Balance” memo to ABC staff’,
The Canberra Times, 17 November 1975, p. 1.
[32]. Australian
Broadcasting Corporation Bill 1982.
[33]. K
Inglis, Whose ABC: The Australian Broadcasting Corporation 1983–2006,
Black Inc, Melbourne, 2006, p. 8; Department of the Parliamentary Library, Australian
Broadcasting Corporation Bill 1982, Bills digest, 105, 1982,
Department of the Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 1982, pp. 5–6.
[34]. Department
of the Parliamentary Library, Australian
Broadcasting Corporation Bill 1983, op. cit., p. 2.
[35]. Inglis,
Whose ABC: The Australian Broadcasting Corporation 1983–2006, op. cit.,
pp. 8–9.
[36]. P
Milton, ‘Second
reading speech: Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill 1982’, House of
Representatives, Debates, 16 September 1982, p. 1591.
[37]. Department
of the Parliamentary Library, Australian
Broadcasting Corporation Bill 1983, op. cit., p. 2.
[38]. Parliament
of Australia, ‘Australian
Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Fair and Balanced) Bill 2017’, Inquiry
homepage, Australian Parliament website.
[39]. Senate
Standing Committee for the Environment and Communications, Broadcasting
Corporation Amendment (Fair and Balanced) Bill 2017, Final report, The
Senate, Canberra, February 2018, p. 6.
[40]. Ibid.,
p. 7.
[41]. Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny
digest, 13, 2017, The Senate, 15 November 2017, p. 2.
[42]. Labor
Senators, Dissenting
report, Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Australian
Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Fair and Balanced) Bill 2017, The
Senate, Canberra, February 2018, pp. 9–10.
[43]. Greens
Senators, Dissenting
report, Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Australian
Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Fair and Balanced) Bill 2017, The
Senate, Canberra, February 2018, pp. 11–12.
[44]. J
Bavas, ‘One
Nation breaches Queensland electoral laws multiple times, blames weather and
computer’, ABC News,
3 August 2017.
[45]. M
Roberts, ‘Second
reading speech: Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill
2017: Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017’, Senate, Debates,
13 September 2017, p. 7241.
[46]. National
Farmers’ Federation (NFF), Submission
to Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Inquiry into
the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Fair and Balanced) Bill 2017,
18 January 2018, pp. 2–4.
[47]. Cotton
Australia, Submission
to Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Inquiry into
the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Fair and Balanced) Bill 2017,
18 January 2018, pp. 1–3.
[48]. Australian
Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), Submission
to Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Inquiry into
the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Fair and Balanced) Bill 2017,
January 2018, p. 4.
[49]. Media,
Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA), Submission
to Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Inquiry into
the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Fair and Balanced) Bill 2017,
18 January 2018, p. 2.
[50]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Fair and
Balanced) Bill 2017, p. 3.
[51]. The
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights can be found at page 4 of the Explanatory
Memorandum to the Bill.
[52]. Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights, Human
rights scrutiny report, 1, 6 February 2018, p. 83.
[53]. Hanson,
‘Second
reading speech: Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill
2017: Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017’, op. cit., p. 7358.
[54]. Australian
Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), Submission
to Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Inquiry into
the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Fair and Balanced) Bill 2017,
January 2018, p. 8.
[55]. Ibid.,
p. 8; Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA), Submission
to Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Inquiry into
the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Fair and Balanced) Bill 2017,
January 2018, p. 4.
[56]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Fair and
Balanced) Bill 2017, p. 2.
[57]. F
Kelly, ‘Andrew
Wilkie allegations; ABC legislation’, Radio National Breakfast,
transcript, ABC, 19 October 2017.
[58]. ABC,
‘Complaints
process’, op. cit.
[59]. Hanson,
‘Second
reading speech: Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill
2017: Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017’, op. cit., p. 7438.
[60]. M
Fifield, ‘Second
reading speech: Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Fair and
Balanced) Bill 2017: Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Rural and
Regional Measures) Bill 2017’,
Senate, Debates, 18 October 2017, p. 7900.
[61]. R
Epstein, ‘Interview
with Mitch Fifield’, ABC 774 Drive, transcript, 23 October 2017, p.
6.
[62]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Fair and
Balanced) Bill 2017, p. 5.
[63]. Hanson,
‘Second
reading speech: Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill
2017: Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017’, op. cit., p. 7109.
[64]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Fair and
Balanced) Bill 2017, p. 2.
[65]. Australian
Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), Submission
to Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Inquiry into
the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Fair and Balanced) Bill 2017,
op. cit., p. 4.
[66]. Essential
Research, ‘Essential
Report: trust in media’, Essential Research website, 4 October 2017.
[67]. Senate
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Official
committee Hansard, 24 October 2017, p. 113.
[68]. Greens
Senators, Dissenting
report, Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Australian
Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Fair and Balanced) Bill 2017, The
Senate, Canberra, February 2018, p. 12.
[69]. ABC,
Submission
to Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Inquiry into
the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Fair and Balanced) Bill 2017,
op. cit., p. 7.
[70]. ABC,
Editorial
policies: principles and standards, ABC, Ultimo, 2011, p. 6.
[71]. ABC,
Submission,
op. cit., p. 7.
[72]. ABC,
‘Editorial guidance
note: impartiality’, ABC website, revised 21 May 2014.
[73]. Ibid.
[74]. A
Sunderland, ‘Objective
reporting: it has never been more necessary’, The Drum, 10 September
2015.
[75]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Fair and
Balanced) Bill 2017, p. 2.
[76]. ABC,
‘Editorial guidance
note: impartiality’, op. cit.
[77]. Committee
of Review of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, The Dix report, op. cit.,
p. 249, 992.
[78]. ABC,
Editorial
policies: principles and standards, op. cit., p. 6.
[79]. Ibid.,
p. 6.
[80]. J
Zaller, ‘A
new standard of news quality: burglar alarms for the monitorial citizen’, Political
Communication, 20, 2003, pp. 109–30.
[81]. A
Schiffer, Evaluating
media bias, Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland, 2018, pp. 99,
40–5.
[82]. D
Moynihan, Social
security ‘Notch’ issue : hearing before the Subcommittee on Social Security and
Family Policy of the Committee on Finance, United States Senate, One
Hundred First Congress, first session, January 23 1989, p. 2.
[83]. S
Soroka, ‘The
gatekeeping function: distributions of information in media and the real world’,
The Journal of Politics, 74(2), 2012, p. 515.
[84]. J
Petrocik, ‘Issue
ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study’, American
Journal of Political Science, 40(3), 1996.
[85]. R
Entman, ‘Media
framing biases and political power: Explaining slant in news of Campaign 2008’,
Journalism 11(4), 2010, p. 391. According to American
researcher Robert Entman, framing ‘involves selecting a few aspects of a
perceived reality and connecting them together in a narrative that promotes a
particular interpretation. Frames can perform up to four functions: define
problems, specify causes, convey moral assessments, and endorse remedies’.
[86]. S
Iyengar, Is
anyone responsible? : how television frames political issues, The
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1991, pp. 46–68.
For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.
© Commonwealth of Australia
Creative Commons
With the exception of the Commonwealth
Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party,
this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.
In essence, you are free to copy and
communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as
long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence
terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this
publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of
publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.
To the extent that copyright subsists
in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may
be required to reuse the material.
Inquiries regarding the licence and
any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.
Disclaimer: Bills Digests are prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament.
They are produced under time and resource constraints and aim to be available
in time for debate in the Chambers. The views expressed in Bills Digests do
not reflect an official position of the Australian Parliamentary Library, nor
do they constitute professional legal opinion. Bills Digests reflect the
relevant legislation as introduced and do not canvass subsequent amendments
or developments. Other sources should be consulted to determine the official
status of the Bill.
Any concerns or complaints should be
directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are
available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members
and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or
the Library’s Central Enquiry Point for referral.