THE ABC’s flagship radio current affairs programs — often the source of tension and controversy in the Howard years — have won overwhelming endorsement from a landmark report by an external expert.
An audit of AM, PM and The World Today found they were almost 96% accurate.
[…]
The review, by an expert who reported to the ABC’s director of editorial policies, Paul Chadwick, found 95.3% of items sampled from the three programs were either wholly or substantially accurate for plain facts and were 97.3% accurate on the context of the facts.
Denis Muller, an independent media research specialist and a former associate editor of The Age, devised a method to review a sample of 150 current affairs items from last October.
I’m sure that some will cavil that this audit only covered three radio programs, and thus doesn’t account for the dastardly mind-control powers of Red Kezza on the 7:30 report, but it’s a fine result considering the relentless complaints of bias from the Howard government, and especially the complaints from former Communications Minister Richard Alston against these radio programs in particular.
It would be interesting to see a comparative audit of programs from before the time of Director Scott’s “impartiality” rules (adopted in late 2006) to see whether they have made any fundamental difference to the flagship news programs, or whether the new mandates requiring a “balance” of opposing opinions on any “matter of public contention” have just meant that various opinion programs have subsequently been hijacked by “balance”, no matter how ridiculous and poorly argued some of those “balancing” views might be.
My own suspicion is that the news programs before the new regime would prove to have been just as accurate as in this last audit, while the accuracy of content presented in the opinion shows would prove to have declined drastically since the mandatory “balance” rules were imposed.
I’d love to see someone do the same for today tonight!
So they told nothing but the truth.
Neatly, there is no mention whether or not they told the whole truth.
Steve, I would hope that the phrase “context of the facts” would include such forms of misdirection. No actual data on that of course.
What a load of …. Having listened to AM on a regular basis, and written letters of complaint concerning their (ex) political correspondent, my expert opinion is that the program was 72.3% biased against the ALP prior to the election, is 45.9% full of tedious and fatuous trivia, 62.3% full of tedious trivia in the context of the facts, and contains only 22.1% nutritious and meaty current affairs.
As a result, my expert opinion is that the recipe needs some serious revision to provide the level of nutrition that we demand from our ABC.
“…hijacked by “balance”, no matter how ridiculous and poorly argued some of those “balancing” views might be..” is exactly put. Another public service trashed by the liberals
Of course the ABC is balanced - for every article praising the left, they have a balancing article criticising the right.
I’d like the exact same methodology applied to a variety of competing private sector radio programs. That would be interesting.
the methodology of the ‘audit’ is outlined briefly here http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/05/25/1211653848666.html
Well, when it comes to TV Bolt and Piers are balanced, aren’t they - especially when they up against that mean leftie, David Marr.
I wonder if the analysed where there were the 3-4% of inaccuracies to which political direction the bias would have been interpreted. It doesn’t take many errors to result in the impression of overall bias even if its not really there.
“95.3% either wholly or substantially accurate for plain facts”
In other words out of Twenty reports, One will be false?
to put it another way, we have a declared standard of accuracy, but nothing whatsoever to measure against. Is 95% accuracy excellent, as the media are telling us? Or pretty mediocre? How could you decide?
Clearly they need merely repeat the methodology on other media groups in Australia, or on other countries’ public providers, depending on what sort of context you’re after.
Or for another angle, ask journalists/reporters/newsreaders to anonymously rate all of their competitors’ work, Eurovision-style.
Of the 95.3% of reports which were accurate, one wonders how many were “wholly” accurate, and how many were only “substantially” accurate?
Similar gladdening news is that peanut butter is 40% fat free.
Okay, for teh haytaz:
Which Australian provider(s) of national TV and radio news do you think is the most accurate? If necessary, you may wish to specify your own criteria or reasoning. If your answer is anything other than the ABC, I for one would love to hear you justify it.
FDB, are you implying that lack of a better record in others somehow makes One false report in every Twenty to be acceptable?
Perhaps you may accept a 95% factual accuracy (perhaps only “substantially” accurate) from your solicitor/tax advisor/union rep?
Other may not agree with you.
Steve, are you implying that the reporting of news should be subject to the same standards as any other profession?
Some might argue not.
Some might argue moreover that solicitors, tax advisors and union reps have a substantially worse record when it comes to completeness and honesty of reporting, and that in fact this is a crucial element of their professional skills.
I take it you concede that the ABC is the best source of news we have.
I’ll take the development of this thread to mean that all believe the ABC has most definitely not PASSED any “bias test”
FDB, the professionalism of news reporting should be of a high standard, just as any other profession should be.
Is your post @18 a reflection of your personal professionalism? Or merely an attempt to excuse sloppiness by ABC journos?
ABC News on Saturday night did a completely uprofessional thing. The newsreader announced, as a lead in to a story, that “Rudd’s honeymoon is over”. Whether that’s right or wrong (and we are talking Mr 69% here), it’s opinion and it shouldn’t be part of a news broadcast. That should solely be about fact. Opinion belongs in current affairs shows.
“FDB, the professionalism of news reporting should be of a high standard, just as any other profession should be.”
Okay, so when the ABC get’s a 95% score, and as you implicitly concede but can’t quite bring yourself to say out loud, this is a higher score than would be achieved by anyone else in the industry, we have the follwing situation: a corporation is generally acknowledged to be the industry leader in terms of quality; said corporation is nonetheless subjected to a thoroughgoing critical analysis of its product; same corporation passes with flying colours. I wonder… how many other Australian industy leaders in “any other profession” are subject to this level of scrutiny - not merely of the lawfulness of their dealings (as would be good and proper) but on the quality of their work? Exactly none.
“Is your post @18 a reflection of your personal professionalism? Or merely an attempt to excuse sloppiness by ABC journos?”
Is this paragraph a reflection of your knowledge about what I do and how I do it? Or merely a cheap-shot? In any case, as a drummer I am expected to be much more than 95% accurate. This is because not all professions are the same. Thanks for proving my point.
I noticed that too, Fine and it isn’t the first time.
Your last point highlights the uselessness of a survey such as this which supposedly measures factual content in a field awash with opinion - even on the ABC.
Over 95% accuracy eh? Time to give the drummer some. [Liam breaks it down]
I like the idea, FDB, of someone from the ABC Board jumping into shot, sound-stage left, upon detecting editorialisation, with a James Brown “I gotcha!” Anything to terrify that sneer with legs Tony Jones.
I like it Liam. Maybe holding up fingers, also a la James B, for how many dollars the presenter’s pay would be docked for the transgression. Might have to make each digit a hundred to hurt TJ, but ten would work for most of the ABC.
Chris Uhlmann, ABC Chief Political Correspondent, is auntys worst offender when it comes to blurring opinion and news.
I also noticed that on Saturday night Fine and adrian. It is depressing when you hear that stuff like that.
Well do any of you think that the NEWs programmes on the commercial networks are accurate and unbiased,do any of you think the commercial radio news and opinion is unbiased and accurate,how about those organs of truth the newspapers,mainly controled by one company is that accurate and unbiased.
If the answer to these questions is no, then the ABC gets by in my book pretty well,if you answer is yes I have a nice bridge for sale,I exempt Bolt, Ackerman and their disciples from this as no one else would believe the crass stupidity then get away with.
John Ryan seems to have blurred the lines between factual accuracy, bias, editorial content, and opinion columnists.
Even the post at the top of this thread is ambivalent, construing factual accuracy 19 out of 20 times, as proof of an abscence of bias.
FDB considers 95% accuracy in news to be okay, then states that his professionalism demands a higher standard than that. Whatever.
Customers at my place don’t settle for their glasses being filled 95% of the time (& they certainly don’t settle for the glass being 95% full). Certainly we don’t allow customers to pay for only 95% of their drinks.
The staff won’t settle for 95% of their pay. I don’t settle for 95% accuracy from the toilet cleaners, & so on.
If a paddock had 1,000 cows in it, only 950 being yarded would not only be unacceptable, it would be humiliatinly unprofessional.
If there were calves in the yard to brand, slapping a brand on only 95% of them would be unacceptable.
It is stunning that 95% accuracy by journalists is considered by anyone to be acceptable.
This isn’t a sniper going for head shots at 1,000 yards in Iraq, where 95% accuracy would be better than most men could achieve.
It is the straighforward reporting of facts. Or so one would have thought.
I don’t accept that 95% accuracy in news reporting is something to be proud of(which includes reports that are “substantially if not wholly” accurate)
I assume you get your news from those shining examples of truth and accuracy, the commercial networks.
One of the things that is great about this is that for the first time in the
mediumsmedia, people are starting to use metrics.If this takes hold, we might get other newsmedia measured, and perhaps, shock horror, the professions and trades.
Imagine your average lawyer and financial planner being assessed and their metrics published for the market to see. (Not sure why the Thatcheright has not suggested this before).
Wonder what the teachers think about this?
Why? The “straighforward reporting of facts” can be anything but straightforward in a breaking news situation.
Bill Posters:
Front line dispatches by war correspondents perhaps, but AM, PM & The World Today reporting live from “breaking news” situations?
Speaking of which, I find that promo for the 7 30 Report where Red Kezza talks about breaking stories and responding to fast changing news a complete farce - when has that program been anything but stereotyped recently? Only worth watching for Clarke & Dawe imho these days.
On the broader issue, “bias” and “balance” are silly frames for analysing news, and I agree with what tigtog says in the post about that. It’s the problem not the solution. And I also agree that the intrusion of opinion into reporting is completely over the top. ABC news on Sunday night on the telly had the presenter saying “Labor’s badly received budget” as if that were fact - it’s not - it’s an opinion based loosely on one poll that doesn’t even say what it’s being represented as saying.
Several folk: I think the weekend ABC news on radio AND TV is not as well edited (e.g. to remove howlers like “honeymoon is over” or “badly received budget”). This is my hypothesis: at weekends there are fewer staff doing the bulletins and possdibly younger less experienced staff.
We had a friend who reported for ANC-TV news many years ago ion Melb: he said the editorial red pen was heavily used, sometimes to shave opinion away (e.g. a slanted adjective, a slanted verb, etc.) But that was long ago.
“Media Watch” a couple of years ago showed how one particular story was read on several capital city ABC TV news bulletins. As it happened, the Melbourne example was the least slanted.
I don’t accept the argument that “at least the ABC is better than the commercials” - that’s a WEAK excuse in my view. They should aim for excellence, not just aim to be a bit better than the others. Primary schoolkid: “yes, Mr Smith, I failed the test but Jimmy was worser than me!”
This is how the ABC slants its news. The other week they had a report on standardised national school tests. For their unbiased report they interviewed:
1. Julia Gillard, whose public teacher run party hates the policy but is stuck with the widely supported Liberal artifact for now.
2. Public teacher union official who hates their members being measured by it.
3. State minister who also represents a party run by public teacher unions but has the added interest of not wanting his own ministry measured against other states.
The responses run from tepid to freezing cold hostility. Wow, what a surprise!
The comparisons between the ABC and commercial networks is bogus. If the ABC was privately funded I wouldn’t care less what it did, much like most of Melbourne feels about The Age.
Oh please, Craig Mc!@ 34
We all pay for commercial media, whether we like it or not, as well.
I would be surprised if any of these organisations could score a “d” in any reasonable assessment as to unbiased reporting.
“State minister who also represents a party run by public teacher unions…”
That’s why said union’s members went out on strike against said government. Never let the facts get in the way of ideological prejudice, Craig Mc.
I’ll believe teachers have some balls when they actually go “out”.
A one day unpaid holiday ain’t a strike, ain’t gunna worry the govt one bit, & isn’t taken seriously by anybody, including those on “strike”.
I look forward to the day when teachers go out & stay out until they get what they want… but first the union would have to develop some balls.