ABC Fact-check on another planet

ABC's fact checkers provide a highly biased and skewed version of India's record on nuclear non-proliferation. Surprisingly they are unable to recognize diplomatic language in a speech from the PM. The article reflects a distinct naivety among ABC reporters about the world and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in particular. But when the organisation is so severely hampered by inbreeding of ideas through a collective groupthink and a reticence to seek alternate informed views what else would do you expect?

As an example of their  "analysis" ABC provide the following quote:
"The NTI Nuclear Materials Security Index assesses the security of nuclear materials around the world. Dr Rublee says India scores below Pakistan on the index, and is ranked above only North Korea and Iran."

The NTI Index is a non peer reviewed report; that it places India below Pakistan, a state verging on failure is a testament to its lack of accuracy, but ABC happily recycle this dirge without question.

They also naively give air to BS like this: Professor Thakur says India is not bound by the NPT requirement to disarm its nuclear arsenal. Countries in the NPT with nuclear weapons capabilities are, but have increased their nuclear stockpiles since signing the treaty.
The irony of this sentence apparently beyond the simple minds at ABC FACT CHECK.

In their "analysis" they downplay India's positive contributions to NNP. A realistic analysis suggest Tony Abbot's comments are on the whole, correct.

This lack of balance and shallow analysis would be fine, except that the ABC is a government funded organisation paid for by all tax payers. It should reflect a diversity of opinion, and meet its obligations under its charter, that include reference to factual accuracy, but it does not.

We expect more than cliché and superficial analysis but it seems that this is all the organisation is capable of delivering.

Missing views: the Lewandowsky affair

Ben Pile at Spiked Online has an interesting essay about the flawed research behind recent attempts to smear climate sceptics as conspiracy theorists. The author of the flawed research, Stephen Lewandowsky, was recently "grilled" by ABC's Science Guru Robyn Williams. This is how Robyn introduced the story:
"What if I told you that paedophilia is good for children, or that asbestos is an excellent inhalant for those with asthma?" 

How positively Charming! Somehow Robyn missed the mistakes that Ben Pile outlines in detail in his essay, and this is someone ABC thinks is competent to present a Science Show (ed. perhaps those brain cells rusting with age?). The problems with Lewandowsky's research were widely covered on the internet (see Climate Audit) but somehow this important news failed to make the ABC's News Desk.

An extract...

A culture of intransigence has developed in the shadow of the compact between politics and science, which can be seen in the Lewandowsky affair in microcosm. Lewandowsky’s work unwittingly demonstrates that what is passed off as peer reviewed and published ‘science’, even in today’s world, is no more scientific than the worst ramblings of the least qualified and nuttiest climate change denier on the internet. It looks like science, certainly, but the product only survives a superficial inspection. The only difference being the institutional muscle that Lewandowsky has access to, but which unhinged climate change deniers do not. The object of the professor’s study is really his own refusal to debate with his lessers.

Marcott: Another Gergis moment

Search for "Gergis" on the ABC site through Google provides 2 pages of results. The first story is:
"Last 50 years were Australia's hottest: study". It's not until the very end of the article that the following editorial note appears in a smaller font:
Editor's note (June 21): Since this story was originally broadcast, errors have been identified in aspects of the data processing which may affect the results of this study. As a result, publication has been delayed and the research has been withdrawn from online publication. Professor Karoly says the data will be recalculated, peer reviewed and published in due course.

The world is still waiting for this deeply flawed study to be published. ABC ignored reporting on the manner in which the paper was found to be flawed. Those interested might like to re-visit relevant posts at Climate Audit. 

In the meantime in early March ABC uncritically re-published an AFP article that reported on a new study proclaiming:

"We already knew that on a global scale, Earth is warmer today than it was over much of the past 2,000 years," said Shaun Marcott, the lead author of the study, which was published in Science.
"Now we know that it is warmer than most of the past 11,300 years."

Through the tireless efforts of Steve McIntyre we now know that the specular uptick at the end of Marcott's temperature graph that lead to the alarming claims, is an artefact of an inappropriate statistical methodology, It seems the dates of sediments from cores used in the study were shifted in time up to 1000 years. This effectively shifted warming of the Medieval Warm Period into the modern period. Results that showed cooling were truncated from the period of the uptick. Anyone smell the cherries?

How long now to wait for the ABC to comprehensively report on the issue? 

Perhaps this time around rather than adding a footnote, ABC's "journalists" might take the time to fully investigate and report on the matter. However with activists in charge, we won't be holding our breath.

Press power by the bucket load

Gerard Henderson in today's Sydney Morning Herald...
  Power of the press a lot less muscular than some imagine
 "This lack of self-awareness is perhaps greater within the ABC. Some ABC journalists express concern about the possibility of a lack of diversity within Fairfax Media under Rinehart's possible influence without recognising that the ABC does not have one conservative presenter for any of its significant programs. It has one presenter who boasts about his support for the left and another on the left who declares that she is an activist. Yet no conservatives, activist or otherwise. The ABC managing director, Mark Scott, talks about the commercial media's "market failure". However, for the ABC, market success amounts to going to Canberra and getting a bucket-load of taxpayers' money. Meanwhile the ABC's uninhibited move into online news and opinion projects a market distortion into attempts by Fairfax Media and News Limited to move more of their products online. Which suggests that the ABC is a much greater threat to the private sector media than Rinehart or any other potential investor."

Gerard Henderson is the executive director of the Sydney Institute.

ABC Groupthink dissected

An excellent Media Watch Dog this week in which ABC's Groupthink explored on a number of levels. A must read....

GERARD HENDERSON’S MEDIA WATCH DOG – ISSUE NO. 141
This is delusion.
Mark Scott claims to have delivered “diversity and impartiality” within the ABC.   Yet the public broadcaster has not one political conservative as a presenter or a producer or an editor of any of the ABC’s major programs or publications.  Not one. That’s why the ABC can be said to stand for Anyone But Conservatives.

An exploration of Groupthink at the ABC

Update: see also Simon's comments at Australian Climate Madness. Simon's successful FOI request for ANU's emails sparked the current controversy.

The Australian has a series of articles in today's paper that examines the deleterious effects of "Groupthink" at the ABC.

In the first Chris Kenny delves into the way Groupthink has spread its tentacles through the ABC. There is a bright light however, exemplified by ABC reporters who work outside ABC's inner city Ultimo and Melbourne latte lines.

Groupthink takes over at national broadcaster

"Critics see the problem at the ABC as too much news judgment, opinion and perspective flowing in the same direction on a range of key issues. The ABC tends to favour an alarmist view on climate change, open borders approach on asylum-seekers, rights over responsibilities in indigenous affairs, antagonism towards Christianity but tolerance for Islam, reverence for the UN, animus towards the US, enthusiasm for gay marriage, suspicion about business and development, and deference to the green agenda. "

"Yet it can be argued that this "collection of low-lying tribes" - as one senior ABC journalist describes the organisation - acts as a counter to groupthink, ensuring that somewhere in the vast empire, always, dissent can flourish. And few would argue, for instance, that ABC regional radio stations aren't more entwined with their communities."

This blog gets a mention in the second article by Legal Affairs editor Chris Merritt. that discusses further issues surrounding reporting of the ANU "Death Threat" emails.

The world according to ABC has its own climate

"THE only uncontested lesson from the furore over the ABC's coverage of climate change is this: those inside the national broadcaster see the world very differently from their external critics."

"Everything else is the subject of deeply held views that are as polarised as they are sincere.

Alan Sunderland, head of policy at ABC news, gives every indication of being a reasonable man. But so does Marc Hendrickx, who runs the blog ABC News Watch. He has been left dumbfounded at what he sees as the national broadcaster's inability to accept that when it comes to climate change, the organisation is riddled with groupthink that diminishes its journalism on this subject.

Even when the ABC qualifies earlier reports on climate change - as it did this week - it does so in a way that Hendrickx believes is grudging and inadequate."

Our series of articles exploring aspects of ABC's reporting on Climate change can be found under the Climate coverage at the ABC page at the top right.

There's also a related piece in today's Australian by Christopher Booker about bias at the BBC mothership.
BBC's climate change scam

No doubt the Oz will carry contesting opinions on the above in next week's editions.

ABC: activism not journalism

ABC's refugee, climate crutches getting wobbly

The Australian's Chris Kenny looks at ABC's handling of climate and refugee news and finds activism rather than journalism. We reported similar findings in our series on ABC's climate coverage.

Some extracts below, read the rest via the link (Paywall protected).

To search for climate change references in the ABC archives is to drown in a rising tide of fear and loathing. To say the public broadcaster has campaigned on climate is now uncontroversial; even its outgoing chairman Maurice Newman spoke about the extent of its "groupthink".

With annual public funding of more than a billion dollars, it is incumbent upon our ABC to tackle significant national policy debates with an appropriate sense of objectivity and detachment and to play its part in encouraging sober, evidence-based discussion and analysis.

Seems the influence of ABC's climate Groupthink diminishes in proportion with distance from ABC's Sydney headquarters. Thankfully there are still some independently minded ABC presenters left in the bush, pity this won't be repeated on local radio in Sydney .

Fossils uncover a different take on climate change

Referring to the renowned Vostok ice core graph Dr Deacon explains how "about 800 years ago the sea levels were rising at about 14 millimetres per year."

"Well currently the sea level is rising arguably between one and three millimetres per year, so its rising very very much slower than it was at that time... carbon dioxide wasn't driving the changes in any of those plots and is probably not driving it now."

"So really if you're going to say that we actually have man-made global warming that has a runaway greenhouse where sea levels are rising faster than ever, absolutely not."

Dr Geoff Deacon will be presenting his lecture 'What fossils tell us about sea-levels and climate change' at the WA Museum in Geraldton on Thursday June 9 at 7.00pm and Friday June 10 at 10.00 am.

To read and listen to the rest follow the link above.

H/T Geoff Brown

ABC Bias yields no apology for Mr McIntyre

In an article published in The Australian last year we speculated that ABC's biased and unbalanced coverage of all things climate was not malicious but born from sensationalism and naivety. It seems that we were wrong and for one ABC reporter at least the basis for decided what news is worth reporting on is based on idle internet gossip and ideology rather than facts. Read why in an article titled Bias at the national broadcaster is as easy as ABC in today's Australian newspaper. This goes a long way to explain why there are so, so many peer reviewed papers sceptical of a climate catastrophe that are missing from ABC's news coverage. Maurice Newman, ABC's chairman, recognised Groupthink in ABC's climate reporting, here's a clear example of it.
Meanwhile there is no apology for Mr McIntyre, and his important research remains a mystery to ABC's Audience. We attempted to contact ABC's reporter on this but she declined to respond (see below).

As Jonathan Holmes put it last week regarding an unrelated ACMA finding..."But how anyone could conclude anything from this one, other than that the regulator is an ass, I have no idea." ABC regulates its own, its audience and consumer affairs section finding nothing wrong with ABC's moderation process. 

Update: Brief interview on the issue of ABC bias with Gary Hardgrave on Brisbane's 4BC this afternoon.

Email correspondence with the ABC (in italics) related to the matter is presented below...
To: Audience Consumer Affairs
From: Marc Hendrickx
Subject: offending comments on ABC's environment blog
Date: 06/12/10 12:53
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABC program: ABC enviroment-Cancun may see the abandonment of the UN process
Date of program: 30/11/2010
Contact type: Complaint
Location: NSW
Subject: offending comments on ABC's environment blog
Comments: The comments at the bottom of this complaint appear on ABC's Environment Blog under the post "Cancun may see the abandonment of the UN process" by Sara Phillips. The comments are defamatory and should not have been posted by the Blog moderator, contravening the following sections of ABC Online condition of use. I request ABC withdraw the comments and issue an apology to Mr McIntyre.
 Sections 4.4.1 defamatory, or otherwise unlawful or that it violates laws regarding harassment, discrimination, racial vilification, privacy or contempt;
4.4.2 intentionally false or misleading;
4.4.4 abusive, offensive or obscene;
4.4.5 inappropriate, off topic, repetitive or vexatious. 4.4.9 deliberate provocation of other community members.

from ABC Corporate_Affairs7
to marc hendrickx
date Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 5:08 PM
subject Re: offending comments on ABC's environment blog
Dear Mr Hendrickx
Thank you for your email regarding a comment from a user published in the comments section under the article 'Cancun may see the abandonment of the UN process' on the ABC Environment blog. I understand you believe the comment contravened the ABC Online Conditions of Use.
I should explain that the investigative remit of Audience & Consumer Affairs encompasses the ABC's editorial standards (as set out in the Code of Practice and Editorial Policies) only. The Conditions of Use are not editorial standards; they are the conditions under which users contribute to the ABC's interactive services.
Section 9 of the Editorial Policies sets out the principles and standards relevant to user-generated content (UGC) such as comments submitted on blogs. In particular, sections 9.4.3-8 set out the various types of UGC moderation available; section 9.4.10 provides that the ABC is not required to verify the accuracy of UGC or correct inaccuracies in UGC, but may exercise its discretion to edit, remove or clarify UGC containing errors; and section 9.4.12 requires the ABC to "be open to the spectrum of views and give users a fair opportunity to participate".
The moderator of the ABC Environment portal has advised that the comment to which you refer was approved for publication, following the pre-moderation process (see section 9.4.4(a)), as it was deemed not to be defamatory or otherwise in contravention of the Conditions of Use. The moderator has explained this decision as follows:
"Mr McIntyre is described by "Annie" as being an "extremist right wing provocateur".
Mr McIntyre's views are seen by some as extreme. "Annie", clearly, believes they are.
He could reasonably be described as "right wing" as a speaking member of the George C Marshall Institute, which is known for its right-leaning politically conservative views.
"Provocateur" is a name given to describe those whose thinking goes against that of the status quo, another label that could reasonably be given to Mr McIntyre.
As such, the comments from "Annie" are not unfounded and therefore not defamatory."
I appreciate that you may disagree with the moderator's decision. However, Audience & Consumer Affairs is satisfied that the relevant standards set out in section 9 of the Editorial Policies were met. The moderation process took place, as required, and users were given a fair opportunity to participate.
Nonetheless, please be assured that your comments have been noted and conveyed to the moderator. Thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention. For your reference, the ABC's editorial standards are available here: http://abc.net.au/corp/pubs/edpols.htm.
Yours sincerely
SM
ABC Audience & Consumer Affairs

from Marc Hendrickx
to scott.mark@abc.net.au,
Newman.Maurice@abc.net.au
date Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 8:22 PM
subject Fwd: offending comments on ABC's blog
Dear Mr Newman,
I refer the reply received from ABC complaints below above. What a low bar ABC now sets for itself.
Regards
Marc Hendrickx

from Marc Hendrickx
to ABC Corporate_Affairs6
cc smcintyre
date Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 10:15 PM
subject Fwd: offending comments on ABC's environment blog
To Head of ABC Audience & Consumer Affairs
Dear K,
Can you please review this response. It seems that ABC Audience & Consumer Affairs are editorialising on the part of the anonymous blogger concerned. There is in fact no way of knowing the reasons behind the defamatory post, unless ABC have contacted the blogger concerned. In regard to Mr McIntyre, ABC claims that "He could reasonably be described as "right wing" as a speaking member of the George C Marshall Institute, which is known for its right-leaning politically conservative views." The fact that Mr McIntyre has spoken at the Marshall institute does not make him a member of the "extremist right wing", it in fact says nothing about Mr McIntyre's political views whatsoever. As there is no foundation for the anonymous blogger's comments they can indeed be seen as defamatory.
This is perhaps the weakest argument I have had from the ABC and surely one beneath the usual high standard one expects from ABC Audience & Consumer Affairs. How does ABC contend this is the basis for the anonymous bloggers view point. It seems to be the uninformed view of the ABC staff member(s) concerned. Can you please clarify if this is the case?
Will ABC now retract the comments and issue Mr McIntyre with a formal apology?
Regards
Marc Hendrickx

from Steve McIntyre
to ABC Corporate_Affairs6
phillips.sara@,
CORPORATE_AFFAIRS7.
cc Marc Hendrickx
date Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 1:23 AM
subject RE: offending comments on ABC's environment blog

I am not a “member of the George Marshall Institute”. This allegation on your part is untrue. I once spoke at a briefing session sponsored by George Marshall Institute, but that does not make me a “member” or imply any endorsement on my part of their views. I would have been delighted to make the same presentation at a session sponsored by the Pew Center.
Nor is there any basis for characterizing my political views as “extremist right wing”. I have seldom expressed political opinions, though I once said that, in American terms, I would have been a Bill Clinton supporter. My only recent political contributions have been to a left-wing municipal politician in Toronto, Pam McConnell. I challenge you to provide any evidence that I hold “extremist right wing” political views.
The comments by Annie are totally unfounded and defamatory.
Yours truly,
Stephen McIntyre

from ABC Corporate_Affairs7
to marc hendrickx
date Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 4:34 PM
subject Re: offending comments on ABC's environment blog
Dear Mr Hendrickx
Thank you for your emails.
I wish to clarify that the section of my previous email explaining the reasons the comment you referred to was considered to be consistent with the Conditions of Use was a direct quote from the moderator. Audience & Consumer Affairs did not investigate the veracity of the moderator's position, and certainly did not editorialise on behalf of the user who submitted the comment. Instead, Audience & Consumer Affairs satisfied itself that the moderation process took place and the relevant provisions of section 9 of the Editorial Policies were met.
Please be assured, your additional comments have been brought to the attention of the moderator. The comment in question has now been removed from the comments section under the article.
Yours sincerely
SM
ABC Audience & Consumer Affairs

from Marc Hendrickx
to ABC Corporate_Affairs7
cc ABC Corporate_Affairs6
phillips.sara@abc.net.au,
smcintyre
Bruce Belsham
Newman.Maurice

date Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 7:30 AM
subject Re: offending comments on ABC's environment blog
Dear SM (Audience and consumer affairs),
Given your response it seems there is a problem with the moderator's judgement in allowing the comments through in the first place.
It surprises me that it has taken almost 4 weeks to sort this matter out. That the comments were posted in the first place is unacceptable. That it has required mine and Mr McIntyre's intervention to correct the matter speaks volumes about ABC's lack of capacity for independent investigation. For instance why didn't you contact Mr McIntyre in the first instance to independently confirm the moderators response, so that a quicker resolution to this complaint could be achieved?
Can you ensure:
1. An apology to Mr McIntyre will be posted to the ABC environment blog in the form of an editorial comment. Here's an example:
"Defamatory comments regarding Steve McIntyre were posted to this blog due to an error in judgement by the blog moderator. The comments have now been removed and ABC Environment apologies for any offence it may have caused Mr McIntyre. The moderator has been provided with additional training in ABC Editorial Policies to prevent such an event recurring."
2. The moderator will be provided with additional training in ABC Editorial Policy and condition's of use to prevent such a failure of judgement reoccurring.
Given Item 1 is not forthcoming, please pass this complaint on to ABC Complaints Review Executive for further consideration.
Regards
Marc Hendrickx

from Marc Hendrickx
to phillips.sara@abc.net.au,
ABC Corporate_Affairs6
ABC Corporate_Affairs7
date Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 7:00 AM
subject Fwd: offending comments on ABC's environment blog
Dear Ms Phillips,
I am in the process of writing up this episode for a possible opinion piece for an Australian Newspaper. Can confirm you are the moderator referred to below. Did you advise ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs the following:
"Mr McIntyre is described by "Annie" as being an "extremist right wing provocateur".
Mr McIntyre's views are seen by some as extreme. "Annie", clearly, believes they are.
He could reasonably be described as "right wing" as a speaking member of the George C Marshall Institute, which is known for its right-leaning politically conservative views.
"Provocateur" is a name given to describe those whose thinking goes against that of the status quo, another label that could reasonably be given to Mr McIntyre.
As such, the comments from "Annie" are not unfounded and therefore not defamatory." Sara it's your blog I'll presume it's you, unless you tell me otherwise. By the way have you provided an apology to Mr McIntyre yet?

K and SM,
Given you are independent of the ABC, if Sara declines to admit the comments are hers can you please confirm she is the originator of the comments quoted above.
Regards
Marc Hendrickx

from ABC Corporate_Affairs7
to Marc Hendrickx
date Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:27 PM
subject Re: offending comments on ABC's environment blog
Dear Mr Hendrickx
Thank you for your email.
Audience & Consumer Affairs has nothing further to add to our previous responses in relation to this matter. Your correspondence has been brought to the attention of ABC Innovation.
Yours sincerely
SM
ABC Audience & Consumer Affairs

We received no reply from Sara Phillips

ABC Complaints Review Executive correspondence
From: Marc Hendrickx
Sent: Thursday, 30 December 2010 11:57 AM
To: ABC Corporate_Affairs6
Cc: Steve McIntyre
Subject: Re: offending comments on ABC's environment blog
Thanks for your reply K,
As no apology to Mr McIntyre has been posted on the ABC Environment Blog can you please forward this matter on to ABC CRE for further deliberation. The grounds for further investigation are as follows:
1. Absence of independent verification of ABC Moderator's claims by ABC Audience and Consumer affairs. In this case ABC audience and consumer affairs have failed to be independent.
2. The failure in moderation process that allowed the offending comment to be posted and subsequent editorialising by ABC Moderator to support the defamatory post, who in the absence of other advice is assumed to be the author of the blog piece, namely Sara Phillips.
3. Absence of an apology to Mr McIntyre who was defamed by the ABC.
Regards
Marc Hendrickx

from CM
to marc hendrickx
date Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 2:53 PM
subject ABC Complaint - Acknowledgement
Dear Mr Hendrickx
The ABC’s Complaints Review Executive (CRE) has received your complaint concerning a blog posting on an online ABC Environment story published on 30 November 2010.
The CRE will consider the matter against the ABC’s editorial requirements and aims to complete the review by 1 February 2011.
Yours sincerely
CM
Assistant to the Complaints Review Executive

from
Marc Hendrickx
to "CM
cc ABC Corporate_Affairs6
date Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:13 AM
subject Re: ABC Complaint - Acknowledgement
Dear C,
Thankyou for the eacknowledgement. Further to the points raised in correspondence with ABC Audience and consumer affairs I challenge the claim that the complaint was not upheld. While the defamatory blog posting may have been moderated in the first instance, clearly the moderation failed to accord with ABC's Code of Conduct. That the moderator can hold such ignorant views appears to support Maurice Newman's claims of Groupthink in the ABC. That the views are held by a senior ABC reporter (Sara Phillips) is flabbergasting and suggests Ms Phillips needs help to distinguish environmental activism from environmental journalism. The biased views help account for the lack of coverage of the work of Mr McIntyre by the ABC.
Regards
Marc Hendrickx

REVIEW OF COMPLAINT
Background
On 24 December 2010 a request for review was received from a NSW reader of the ABC Environment blog, dissatisfied with a response from Audience and Consumer Affairs (A&CA). The complainant was advised that the Complaints Review Executive (CRE)would aim to complete the review by 1 February 2011.
Content
On 30 November 2010, the story Cancun may see the abandonment of the UN process was published by Sara Phillips on the ABC Environment blog with a number of subsequent contributions by members of the public.
Correspondence
On 6 December, the complainant wrote:
“The comments at the bottom of this complaint appear on ABC's Environment Blog under the post "Cancun may see the abandonment of the UN process" by Sara Clarke. The comments are defamatory and should not have been posted by the Blog moderator, contravening the following sections of ABC Online condition of use. I request ABC withdraw the comments and issue an apology to Mr McIntyre. Sections 4.4.1 defamatory, or otherwise unlawful or that it violates laws regarding harassment, discrimination, racial vilification, privacy or contempt;4.4.2 intentionally false or misleading;4.4.4 abusive, offensive or obscene;4.4.5 inappropriate, off topic, repetitive or vexatious. 4.4.9 deliberate provocation of other community members.

A&CA responded on 16 December and advised the complainant that A&CA is responsible for the ABC’s adherence to the Editorial Policies and the Conditions of Use are not editorial standards; they are the conditions under which users contribute to the ABC's interactive services. The item was assessed against Section 9 of the ABC’s Editorial Policies and found to be in keeping with the ABC’s process of user generated comment in that a moderation process was undertaken and that users were given a fair opportunity to contribute their views. In subsequent communication with the complainant, A&CA advised that the moderator of the content was made aware of the complainant’s views and the comments made by “annie” were removed from the blog.
Dissatisfied with the response the complainant replied on 24 December and requested a review by the CRE.
Basis of Assessment
Comments submitted on the ABC’s Environment blog are subject to Section 9 of the ABC Editorial Policies, which sets out the principles and standards relevant to usergenerated content (UGC). In particular the following:
9.4.10 Accuracy and corrections. The ABC cannot reasonably be expected to verify the accuracy of UGC or to correct all inaccuracies in UGC, other than for UGC that is used by the ABC in another content category (see section 9.1.6). However, where the ABC is satisfied it is necessary or appropriate, it may exercise its discretion to edit, remove or clarify UGC that contains an error or is otherwise false or misleading.
9.4.12 Mindful of its duty to maintain its independence and integrity, the ABC will be open to the spectrum of views and give users a fair opportunity to participate.
Assessment
I have read the relevant material contained on the ABC’s Environment blog as well as the email correspondence between the ABC’s A&CA and the complainant. In investigating this matter I note that the moderator of the Environment blog posted the “annie” comment on 3 rd December. Following correspondence between the complainant and the ABC, including additional comments sent to A&CA on 16th December (these comments were brought to the attention of the moderator), the “annie” post was removed from the blog.
This is action which conforms with Section 9 of ABC Editorial Policies, whereby the ABC may exercise discretion by editing or removing UGC considered to be false or misleading.
It also appears that under the terms of the ABC’s Editorial Policies relating to UGC this is all that the ABC is required to do in this matter.
I note the difficult task faced by journalists (in this case online moderators) having to quickly and accurately assess UGC, while maintaining an ongoing conversation with contributors used to rapid responses. Part of that difficult task involves dealing with the unpredictability of defamation law.I note that the complainant claims that the “annie” comment was defamatory, but this has not been legally tested.
In first choosing to post the “annie” comment I find that the Environment blog moderator was applying Editorial Policy 9.4.12 i.e. treating the “annie” comment as one which was within the spectrum of views.
I conclude that the moderation process did take place, as required, and users were given a fair opportunity to participate.
Finding
Having assessed the content and the concerns of the complainant I consider that ABC editorial requirements were met. Therefore the complaint is not upheld.
MARK BOWLING
COMPLAINTS REVIEW EXECUTIVE
DATE: 27 January 2011