Baird's religion report: illogical, unfair and quite possibly inaccurate.

If it was submitted by a trainee journalist Julia Baird's one sided report on domestic violence and the Christian church in Australia would have rated a fail and tought the young scribe some lasting lessons about objectivity, due diligence in research and balance in reporting. Instead the writer is in denial about her piece claiming on twitter:"For the record: there was not a single error in our piece on domestic violence and the church. Am about to publish a guide to the research."

Pieces published in The Australian today (see below) expose Baird's reporting, that resulted from a year of research (at your expense), as lacking balance, lacking inquiry and lacking judgement. The sad thing is that through her poor reporting the focus of the article has shifted to Baird herself and away from the victims of domestic violence.

It seems making themselves NEWS is becoming an increasing feature of reporting at the ABC of late. Take a big bow Chris Uhlmann.

ABC church report ‘misrepresented us’, say experts

Two US experts whose research was relied on by an ABC 7.30 television report claiming “sporadic” Christian church-goers are the worst wife-beaters say they were misrepresented, and the real message is that regular church ­attendance discourages domestic violence.

Phoenix Seminary theology and ethics professor Steven Tracy and sociologist Bradford Wilcox also said the ABC journalists said to have spent a year working on the religion and domestic violence series did not contact them either before or since the program went to air last week.

Facts go missing in ABC report on ‘violent Christians’
The ABC reports that this article was based on a year-long investigation. So they had a year to get this right.

They could have analysed existing ­national surveys, worked with ­serious scholars to conduct quantitative, nationally representative research on religion and domestic violence in Australia, or even fielded their own survey of Australian couples. But Baird and Gleeson, and their bosses at the ABC, did none of this hard work. ­Instead, they relied largely on ­research done in the US to make sweeping and illogical claims about religion and domestic violence in Australia.

So we really know nothing about how common domestic ­violence is among Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Buddhist and secular Aussies, what role relig­ious attendance plays in increasing or reducing the odds of abuse in Australia, or whether Australian clergy do a better or worse job of counselling abuse victims than other important figures in victims’ lives — such as psychologists and psychiatrists. That the reader is left so ignorant of the basic facts is perhaps the most scandalous and disappointing aspect of the ABC’s year-long investigation

Tony's words: your taxes paid for this

It seems one of ABC's senior reporters, Chris Uhlmann, has spent some time counting the words of PM Tony Abbot. One would think there are more important and fulfilling activities for a senior journalist to undertake.
The result:
What we can learn from Tony Abbott's words

A new analysis mines more than 200,000 words Mr Abbott uttered in Parliament and in speeches in the 12 months before and after the election. It is a fascinating portrait of the changing times.

Fascinating?...  Hardly. No mention by Chris in this ludicrous piece of who spent the time counting the numbers, the methods used, the manner of analysis, and ABC have to gall to use the words "scientific " to describe it. ABC complain about funding cuts then undertake utterly pointless "research" such as this. No mention also of Uhlmann's connections to the ALP (his wife is the ALP member for Canberra).

Some of the comments sum it up nicely...

What a load of cobblers. Surely Chris, with your training, you can find something more important than this dribble.

This is complete and utter rubbish. Of course the words he uses have changed because its a different year, and there is different things to talk about. Thats why QANTAS is one of those words on the list above. I bet he uses the words 'Islamic" and 'State' more now than he did before the election. That does not mean it is some kind of a strategy. It just means he is doing his job.

This kind of superficial textual analysis does more harm than good. By looking simply for words, phrases, without a context we misrepresent meaning.
It seems that the conclusion is seeking to explain away, rather than reveal.
Where's the methodology?

Think the ABC is home to quality journalism? Think Again!

In support of Mr Uhlmann

ABC 7:30 presenter Chris Uhlmann, should be congratulated for his reporting. Despite being married to a sitting ALP politician he has dealt with the conflict of interest well in the past 6 months, and he remains one of the few journalists in the ABC to live up to the corporation's charter that aims for impartial reporting. A challenge in an organisation whose own chairman recognized in it, a pervasive culture of Groupthink. 

Now the left wing "ignorarmy" at GETUP ("Petition hits ABC for shift to Right",The Australian 20/5) are calling for his resignation on the basis of one tough interview with Greens leader the "morally superior" Senator Bob Brown. Having been given a soft run by the media in recent years the Greens appear to be crumbling under the slightest scrutiny, leading its staffers to launch a "hate" campaign against Uhlmann and other members of the press. The Australian report (Brown staffers join the media war, 21/5) that Senator Brown's director of media, Marion Rae, posted a photograph of The Australian's James Massola, with the caption: "There's a hypertroll outside the window." and of the ABC's Chris Uhlmann, she said: "Some are born great, some become great and others have talented wives, eh mate?"

To get the ABC back to its charter, rather than sacking its one balanced journalist, it could start by sacking its cherry picking science reporter: Mr Confirmation Bias, Robyn Williams. Its doom saying radio announcer: the eco-catastrophist, Deborah Cameron. Its resident shamrock reporter: environmental activist Sara Phillips (so named as she only covers the green side of issues). And its one eyed opinion editor: Jonathan Green, who balances 12 left wing articles with just one from the right (Aunty makes no secret of prejudice, 11/5). That would make a start.