ABC NEWS 24 paranoid about public scrutiny

More on ABC's latest news failure in the letters page of today's Australian newspaper under the header ABC doesn't offer news value for our money, including this one from yours truely:

WITH the death of Osama bin Laden, the ABC once again failed to promptly cover one of the most important news stories of the decade, raising legitimate questions about whether taxpayers are getting value for money.
In response to The Australian's criticism, the ABC's News Director, Kate Torney, believes News Ltd is out to get the national broadcaster. The government had a similar paranoid response to questions The Australian raised about other publicly funded white elephants, including the failed pink batts scheme and money wasted on the Building the Education Revolution (two other stories the ABC was late to cover).
The public demands appropriate scrutiny of public finances, so what makes the ABC so special that it should be sheltered from public accountability? The term "value for money" is missing from the ABC's charter; perhaps it's time it was inserted.

ABC NEWS 24: Spectacular failure

Media Diary looks at ABC NEWS 24 coverage of the Japanese earthquake and tsunami finding it ranks as a spectacular failure:  ABC News 24 fails big test

Tim Blair has also cast an eye over ABC NEWS 24 woeful coverage. Looking for news of the devastating earthquake in Japan but finding old news and repeats...SLOW NEWS DAY

UPDATE: Tim Blair provides more detail about how ABC has blown $20 million dollars of your money on a white elephant....Tsunami Minimised

ABC News 24 a black hole

COMMENT: According to The Australian  ABC pledges improvements to 24-hour news


Prior to News 24, ABC News Radio was already providing an effective 24 hour news service, and it was always possible for important breaking news to be broadcast on ABC1 by interrupting into scheduled programming. In creating ABC News 24, not only did ABC duplicate services already satisfactorily provided by the private sector, it duplicated its own internal services with no marked improvement. ABC have now generated a singularity in its Ultimo head quarters that threatens to suck the rest of the organisation in with it.
We have shown ABC News already does less with more, and now by spreading itself more and more thinly with is News 24 channel it has succeeded in undermining the quality of its own product.
Based on its performance to date we suggest scrapping it and sinking the funds into more investigative journalism. Perhaps Auntie can start with an investigation into its own Groupthink culture.

Managing bias at ABC 24 News

ABC's 24 hours news channel starts on July 22 and ABC have announced the presenters. Chris Uhlmann has been appointed as Political Editor, and we wish him all the best in the challenging role. A role made even more challenging given Mr Uhlmann's wife, Gai Brodtmann, was recently pre-selected by the ruling Australian Labour Party (ALP) for the federal seat of Canberra. This relationship represents a conflict of interest under section 4.4 of ABC's editorial policy (see notes below), and becomes more significant should Ms Brodtmann win and enter federal parliament.  In relation to the matter Mr Uhlmann has stated  “It’s a perfectly reasonable thing to raise and I have no problems with people raising it at all." So we add a few thoughts.
While Mr Uhlmann, appears to have avoided the worst of ABC's Groupthink culture, it's hard to see how Mr Uhlmann will be able to report on federal political affairs without the constant perception of bias tainting his reporting and commentary, particularly on any story or interview unfavourable to the Coalition. Likewise ALP supporters could argue unfavourable ALP reports are due to Mr Uhlmann seeking to ensure he is not seen as favouring the ALP. While we hope Mr Uhlmann will spend equal time scrutinising all sides of politics it might be the stories that go un-reported that are the most telling. Will Mr Uhlmann risk his relationship in reporting stories highly damaging to the ALP, or will these stories be left at the kitchen table with the breakfast leftovers?
It seems Mr Uhlmann will find it hard to win either way. In light of this perhaps an overseas posting or a "world affairs" brief for Mr Uhlmann would be a more appropriate way for ABC to manage the conflict of interest.
ABC continue to turn a blind eye to the close relationship between its current affairs presenters and the ALP (think Kerry O'Brien and Maxine McKew). On the face of comments from ABC's head of national programs for ABC News, Alan Sunderland, that he’s “very comfortable” with the relationship, it seems Auntie's eyes will probably remain covered in this instance.
ABC NEWS WATCH intends to keep an eye on the stories that go to air, and perhaps more importantly, on those that don't.

ABC's Editorial Policies provide the following guidance on Conflict of Interest.

4.4 Conflict of interest
4.4.1 There should be no conflict between the private interests of ABC staff and their official duties. The outside activities of staff, including financial, personal and political relationships, must not compromise the editorial integrity of ABC programs. Staff are expected to arrange their affairs in a manner that will prevent conflict of interest.
4.4.3 There are three areas to consider: potential, actual and perceived conflict of interest:
(a) Potential conflict of interest is, for example, where an employee has an interest in or association with an organisation (eg. being a director or substantial shareholder) or individual that could become a conflict of interest.
(b) Actual conflict of interest is, for example, where a staff member has an interest in or association with an organisation or individual to the point where their judgement may be affected; and they are asked to (or are in a position to) enter into negotiations with, or to interview, that individual or someone from that organisation.
(c) A perceived conflict of interest should not be confused with potential or actual conflict of interest, but it may need investigating to see if there is a potential or actual conflict behind the perception.
4.4.7 In deciding the appropriate course of action, consideration should be given to:
(a) whether the activity, association or interest would damage the editorial integrity of the program and ABC
(b) whether the activity, association or interest would damage the ability of the individual to do his or her job
(c) the editorial nature of the program

(d) the nature of the outside activity, association or interest
(e) any damage that could be done to the audience’s perception of the editorial integrity of the program if the outside activity, association or interest were discovered.
4.4.15 In assessing whether a staff member should cover, or continue to cover, a story in which he or she is or is likely to become a participant, the staff member and supervisors should consider factors including –
(a) the extent to which the essential elements of the story relate to the staff member’s own actions or inaction;
(b) the nature of the personal interests involved;
(c) the relationship between those personal interests and the organisation, individuals, issues and events required to be covered by the ABC, in particular the extent to which the staff member’s personal honor or reputation has or is likely to be pitted against the honor or reputation of other participants;
(d) whether disclosure of the personal interests would be sufficient in all the circumstances of the case;
(e) whether, if the staff member were to cover the story, audience members with knowledge of the facts giving rise to the conflict could reasonably doubt the fairness and accuracy of the story;
(f) whether, if the staff member stands aside, audience members will lose any element of substance from the ABC’s coverage which could not be provided through other means (for example, by having another journalist interview the staff member-participant in the same way as any other participant).