Lateline, 16 February 2009Summary published: Monday 11, May 2009
Complaint: A viewer complained about a story which focused on debate about fuel reduction in the aftermath of recent bushfires in Victoria. The story included a case study of a family who had been fined by their local council some years previously for clearing trees on their property. The viewer raised a number of concerns and questioned the report’s accuracy, impartiality and balance.
Audience and Consumer Affairs response: The ABC agreed that the report contained two inaccuracies in relation to the precise size of the fine and the cost the family had incurred for clearing trees on their property. The online transcript of the report was amended and an Editor’s Note added to explain the changes.
Other aspects of the complaint were not upheld. The ABC was satisfied that the report presented principal relevant viewpoints on matters of importance and did not unduly favour a particular perspective.
http://www.abc.net.au/contact/corp_aud_upheld_May2009.htm
"From the Vault" - digging up past corrections and clarifications from the ABC archives
Audience and Consumer Affairs response: The ABC agreed that the report contained two inaccuracies in relation to the precise size of the fine and the cost the family had incurred for clearing trees on their property. The online transcript of the report was amended and an Editor’s Note added to explain the changes.
Other aspects of the complaint were not upheld. The ABC was satisfied that the report presented principal relevant viewpoints on matters of importance and did not unduly favour a particular perspective.
http://www.abc.net.au/contact/corp_aud_upheld_May2009.htm
"From the Vault" - digging up past corrections and clarifications from the ABC archives
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please keep to the topic. Abusive comments and bad language are simply not tolerated. Note that your comment may take a little while to appear.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.