From the vault - egg layer incorrectly billed

The 7.30 Report 5 March 2007
The complaint
A television promotion for a report on a disease threatening platypus populations was billed as a “marsupial mystery”. A viewer wrote to advise this was incorrect: the platypus is a monotreme, not a marsupial.
Findings
The ABC agreed with the viewer.

http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/public_report_jan_mar2007.pdf

"From the Vault" - digging up past corrections and clarifications from the ABC archives

From the vault - The Sir Geldof saga...does the ABC learn from its mistakes?

Updated 21 April-reply received from ABC-see outcome


ABC NEWS WATCH is quite sure it heard use of the name "Sir" Bob Geldof in a news report on ABC Radio National Breakfast at around 8.00 am on Monday 8/3/2010 (NSW). Use of the title "Sir" for Bob Geldof is of course incorrect as the ABC is aware. 
This post started off "From the vault" but this is one factual error that won't go away.

ABC Classic FM - News 16 September 2005
The complaint
A listener objected to the use of the honorary title “Sir” in relation to Bob Geldof in a news report. He pointed out that Mr Geldof has an honorary knighthood, which does not entitle him to the use of the title “Sir”.
Finding: The ABC acknowledged the error.
http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/Public_Report_Oct_Dec_2005.pdf

Nothing has changed since this complaint was upheld. Geldof is entitled to use the post-nominal letters "KBE", but as he is not a citizen of a Commonwealth realm, he is precluded from using the title "Sir" (from wikipedia). 


SO WHY DID THE ABC CONTINUE TO USE THE TITLE FOLLOWING THIS COMPLAINT BEING UPHELD?
Sir Bob Geldof 8/3/2010 ABC News report Radio National 8.00 am
Sir Geldof 20/9/2009 http://www.abc.net.au/compass/s2680053.htm
Sir Geldof 6/5/2009 http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/netw/200905/programs/ZY5705A002D6052009T140000.htm
Sir Geldof 2/4/2009 http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/02/2533750.htm
Sir Geldof 19/11/2007 http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/19/2094738.htm
Sir Geldof 19/11/2007 http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/19/2095123.htm
Sir Geldof 16/5/2007 http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/05/16/1924110.htm

THE COMPLAINT: Factual error. Can ABC conduct a global search and replace of its archive to correct these numerous errors, and perhaps flag future uses of Bob Geldof's name to ensure the same mistake isn't repeated.
OUTCOME: I am advised by ABC News that they recognise that Bob Geldof is not officially ‘Sir Bob’, however, the use of ‘Sir Bob’ has become common across the media, almost as a nickname. ABC News has reminded staff that ‘Sir Bob Geldof’ is not officially correct, but they accept that stories and programs will occasionally use ‘Sir’ and most audience members would be familiar with this usage.   ABC News have changed a few recent cases online from ‘Sir Bob Geldof’ to ‘Bob Geldof’, but the division does not plan to go back and change all online references as you suggest.

On review, and while noting your point that Audience and Consumer Affairs upheld a complaint on this issue some five years ago, on further consideration we are satisfied that the approach by ABC News is not in contravention of ABC editorial standards for accuracy.  We do not believe that the overall accuracy of the stories is compromised by using the title “Sir” in relation to Bob Geldof.

Nonetheless, please be assured that your comments are noted and have been raised with ABC News management.

Yours sincerely
Audience & Consumer Affairs

We have passed the matter on to the Complaints review executive-see HERE.

"From the Vault" - digging up past corrections and clarifications from the ABC archives (and sometimes re-living them again and again and again.)

Nature says "Asili", ABC says "Mwamba" - jambo ambalo si kweli

Update 23/3/2010-see outcome below
ABC HEADLINE: "Scientists discover ancient dinosaur ancestor" Posted Online news 5 March 2010

ABC REPORTED: An un-authored report covers the recent discovery of a dinosaur-like creature that roamed Earth at least 10 million years earlier than the oldest known dinosaur. The discovery was reported in Nature HERE.

The ABC report concludes: "The names asilisaurus kongwe comes from "asili," which means "founder" in Swahili, "sauros", the Greek for "lizard", and "kongwe," Swahili for "ancient".

THE COMPLAINT: As stated in the actual article the etymology of the name is derived thus "Etymology. From asili, Swahili for ancestor or foundation, and sauros, Greek for lizard; kongwe, Swahili for ancient.

The online Swahili - English translator (http://africanlanguages.com/swahili/) indicates the Swahili word for founder is "Mwamba". Clearly the dinosaur is named "Asilisaurus kongwe" and not "mwambasaurus kongwe".

Please correct the report to include the etymology stated in the original Nature article.
ABC ED POL 5.2.2 Accuracy

OUTCOME: Thank you for your emails of 6 and 8 March, regarding the ABC News online report Scientists discover ancient dinosaur ancestor.
Your concerns have been investigated by Audience and Consumer Affairs, a unit which is separate to and independent of program making areas within the ABC.  We have reviewed the broadcast, assessed it against the ABC’s editorial standards and sought and considered material provided by ABC News. 

I am advised by ABC News management that the error originated in the copy supplied to the ABC by its partner news agency AFP.  The ABC News online editor has corrected the report and brought the error to the attention of AFP.

Please be assured that your comments have been brought to the attention of ABC News management.  For your reference, the ABC’s Editorial Policies are available online at:  http://abc.net.au/corp/pubs/edpols.htm

COMMENT: Nature says "asili", ABC says "Mwamba" - jambo ambalo si kweli

ABC FOI - Keeping the lid on the chamber of secrets.

COMMENT: ABC submission to The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Public consultation on the exposure draft of the Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Bill 2009. The statements repeated below caught our eye. The full document is available here:
http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/ABCsub_DPMC_FOI-Reform-Bill_May2009.pdf

Ensuring public accountability while protecting independence and integrity.
When considering the extent to which the ABC is subject to the FOIA, it is important to bear in mind that the ABC’s administrative functions are quite distinct from its newsgathering and programming activities. The former are quite properly the subject of FOIA. The ABC is a public body funded by public monies and accordingly is and should be held to account for the management and administration of the corporation and its resources. The latter newsgathering and programming activities, however, are not governmental activities. The ABC is held to account for maintaining high standards in its journalistic and creative endeavours through a mixture of co- and self-regulatory measures which have been carefully crafted to protect the ABC’s independence and integrity and ensure it is not subject to interference by external influences – whether by government, commercial or private interests.

The proposed model for the ABC’s exclusion
 The ABC proposes that the current exclusion in the FOIA be replaced with wording that uses the Canadian exclusion, suitably adapted for the digital era. Accordingly, the following wording is proposed to be used in substitution to the current exclusion in Schedule 2 of the FOIA: Australian Broadcasting Corporation, in relation to documents in respect of its journalistic, creative or content activities, other than documents relating to its general administration.


Time that self regulation ended and the ABC was exposed to the full force of FOI to give the public the right to be able to investigate poor editorial and programming decisions such as those surrounding "A climate time line". With the ABC's  preferred text adopted that chamber of secrets will be sealed tight forever.

Was it in the International Journal of Sour Eggs?

Updated 23/3/2010
ABC HEADLINE: "Climate change scientists hit back" PM Radio National 5/3/2010

ABC REPORTED: ABC reporter Di Bain interviewed Professor David Karoly about new study that allegedly "shores up the facts and figures behind global warming."  The focus of the report was an interview with co-author of the study, Melbourne University's Professor David Karoly.  Di Bain asked David Karoly four questions about the study, including:
1. What prompted the research?
2.  What does this report do to debunk the growing scepticism about climate change?
3. How does the person who isn't adept in the science know what figures to trust, especially after the recent IPCC errors and the climate change email scandal last year? 
4. The climate change debate doesn't appear to be the number one priority for Kevin Rudd anymore, are the sceptics winning the public debate in Australia? 

THE COMPLAINT:
1. The title, and source of the study were not stated in the program leaving listeners with no knowledge of where the research was published. Was it in the International Journal of Sour Eggs, or perhaps Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change? Please amend the report with the title and source of the study.
2. The extent of questions did not concern the study itself and listeners were left somewhat in the dark as to what Prof. Karoly actually found. Presumably the ABC reporter asked Prof Karoly more questions. As this report poorly represents the research findings can ABC news post the interview in its entirety to its website?

OUTCOME: Received 22/3/2010
The report's title is: "Detection and attribution of climate change: a regional perspective."
It was published on the 5th of March by the peer review journal "Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews". An online scientific journal which collaborates with the Royal Meteorological Society and the Royal Geographical Society.

A link to the article is: http://wires.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WiresArticle/wisId-WCC34.html

This link has been added to the transcript of the story.

The ABC reporter did ask Prof Karoly more questions but there was not time to run the  9 minute interview in its entirety. The questions and answers used were judged by the program makers as those which would be heard and understood while giving the essence of the story .

There are no plans at this stage to post the whole interview if indeed it remains in the system.

Yours sincerely,

COMMENT: Yet another under done science report.

The Daily ABC Show

COMMENT: Just noticed that The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is shortly to appear on ABC2. The program blurb reads...
"Join Jon Stewart and a team of correspondents as they bring you the news like you've never seen it before - unburdened by objectivity, journalistic integrity or even accuracy."

No Objectivity! No Journalistic integrity! No Accuracy! Sounds like a certain news service I know.

Methane report under inflated - a lesson in science reporting from the NYT

Update 5/4/2010: ABC response posted below
ABC HEADLINE: "Scientists discover huge seabed methane leak", ABC News Online 5 March 2010.


ABC REPORTED: An uncredited article that reports:
Scientists have discovered the Arctic ocean seabed is leaking huge amounts of methane into the atmosphere.

The research published in the journal Science shows the permafrost under the East Siberian Arctic shelf, which was thought to be a barrier sealing methane, is perforated.

Compare the ABC's report with this one by the New York Times Study Says Undersea Release of Methane Is Under Way http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/science/earth/05methane.html


Which news agency do you think fairly represents the findings: the ABC or NYT?


For comparison try this article from Science News http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/56937/title/Arctic_seafloor_a_big_source_of_methane


THE COMPLAINT: The ABC claims to be Australia's most trusted, independent source of news. Based on a comparison of these two reports apparently it cannot claim to provide the highest quality news service. Rather than the brief sketch provided which misrepresents the findings of the paper, can the ABC amend the article to provide a better representation if its contents, or perhaps provide the NYT article instead. Perhaps the reporter can start by reading the original paper. It can be found here:http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/327/5970/1246


OUTCOME: Thank you for your email regarding the ABC News online report Scientists discover huge seabed methane leak.

Your concerns have been investigated by Audience and Consumer Affairs, a unit which is separate to and independent of program making areas within the ABC.  We have reviewed the report, assessed it against the ABC’s editorial standards and sought and considered material provided by ABC News.

Audience and Consumer Affairs is satisfied that the report is accurate and in keeping with section 5 of the ABC Editorial Policies, which are available online at the attached link; http://abc.net.au/corp/pubs/edpols.htm  The comments of a localexpert were included to provide context for the ABC’s audience.

It is important to note that Audience and Consumer Affairs does not review news coverage of other organisations.  It reviews ABC content only, as explained above. Your interest in the NYT’s coverage of this issue is noted.

COMMENT: Little difference between getting poor quality news and no news at all. Perhaps we don't need the ABC after all? I found the better report for free on the Internet.