UPDATE: On that question of bias-a reply from ABC

"The ABC does not possesses the skills to determine the scientific veracity of the claims made in the study." 

ABC News Watch raised a number of questions regarding how news is reported on the ABC in this post in early February: Un-skeptical reporting on climate change from Auntie. 

The post was based on an ABC re-hash of a Reuters' report of a study by the Pew Environment Group that claimed that: "Arctic ice melting could cost global agriculture, real estate and insurance anywhere from $US2.4 trillion to $US24 trillion by 2050 in damage from rising sea levels, floods and heat waves, according to a new report."

To re-fresh, we put the following questions to ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs who have now provided answers. Q and A (Italics) appear below. The complete response is listed as an update in the original post HERE  (We have emboldened a few interesting comments)

Q1.Why does this report, by an obviously biased organisation, constitute news?

A1. Section 5.2.2(d) of the ABC Editorial Policies states that editorial judgements are based on news values.  What is or is not considered newsworthy is a decision made by ABC News editorial managers, based on their considerable editorial experience.  Audience and Consumer Affairs is satisfied that the findings of the research are newsworthy and notes the findings received broad coverage across a range of news media. 

Q2. Did the ABC attempt to investigate the veracity of the report?

A2.This news story was written by the Reuters news agency, which attributed the claims in the report and featured the comments of one of the co-authors.  The ABC does not possesses the skills to determine the scientific veracity of the claims made in the study.  Audience and Consumer Affairs is satisfied that the PEW organisation is credible, that the research was reviewed by a range of economists and scientists and that the decision to report on the research was based on news values. 

Q3. It seems the report is based mainly on the PEW Environment Groups Press Release. Does the ABC now just publish press releases from organisations without additional investigation? Is this a sign that the ABC's editorial staff are under new pressure following the announcement that ABC will host a 24 hour news service?

A3. Audience and Consumer Affairs acknowledges the noteworthy findings of the research appear in both the press release and the news story.  Audience and Consumer Affairs cannot agree that the story is a direct lift from that press release.  Audience and Consumer Affairs believe the story accurately conveys of the findings of the research and is in keeping with section 5.2.2(c) of the ABC Editorial Policies. I am advised by ABC News management that ABC News editorial staff are not under any increased pressure following the announcement that the ABC will host a 24 hour news service.

Q4. Why wasn't the release of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change report covered in the same manner? (http://www.climatechangereconsidered.org/). I can find no mention of the NIPCC in ABC NEWS.

A4. I am advised by ABC News management that it did not cover the release of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change’s report, based on news values.  As advised above, what is or is not considered newsworthy is a decision made by ABC News editorial managers, based on their considerable editorial experience. ABC News advise that it is unaware of any reference to a recent report published by NIPCC.

Q5.Is the apparent differential treatment provided by the ABC to organisations promoting climate catastrophe a sign of biased news coverage on the part of the ABC?

A5. ABC News online provides comprehensive coverage of climate related issues, from a broad range of perspectives over time.  Audience and Consumer Affairs does not believe that reports relating to “climate catastrophe” are unduly favoured and notes the following recent reports critical of certain pro-climate change perspectives:

Push to change embattled climate panel: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/08/2813722.htm?site=news

Climate body ‘embarrassed’ over forest claim: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/01/2807122.htm

UN admits Himalaya glacier data dodgy: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/21/2797485.htm

Scientist denies UN glacier melt date: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/20/2797363.htm

UN climate claims ‘based on student essay’: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/31/2805918.htm

Q6. If so, how does the ABC propose to re-dress this in-balance?

(No reply- I guess ABC consider that 5 stories in 2 years balances the scales!)

A few follow up questions were sent to ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs:

Just a few quick follow up questions. In the original complaint we identified ABC Editorial Policy Section 5.6.1 as being important where information is drawn from secondary sources such as this. Section 5.6.1 states that "Where secondary sources such as media releases or other media reports are used to either generate ideas or gather information, the information drawn from those sources must be cross-checked and verified before use." 

In light of revelations below that ABC does not "possesses [sic] the skills to determine the scientific veracity of the claims made in the study."

Can you confirm that ABC News made no attempt to verify the content of the Reuters piece and instead relied on the reputation of the secondary source? If so, does this contravene section 5.6.1?
Is it the case that if ABC is unable to verify claims, then under section 5.6.1 publication of the news item should be deferred until such time the claims can be verified?