Investigation 2755-The Embedded Journalist Part 3

ACMA have provided a ruling about our complaint regarding Tony Eastley's lack of objectivity and conflict of interest in an interview last year with Climate Commissioner Lesley Hughes. Eastley was employed by the climate commission last year, to MC a meeting. He did not declare this at any stage in the interview.

ACMA were unable to rule on Tony Eastley's undeclared conflict of interest related to the interview stating: 

"The complainant submitted that Mr EastIey's previous engagement, on a one-off basis as a master of ceremony, was not declared during the interview and led to a conflict of interest. This matter does not raise any issues of compliance with the Code and relates to the ABC's Editorial Policies, therefore the matter is outside the  jurisdiction."


It is in error here as ABC's Editorial Policies are the source of its Code, and therefore ACMA should be able to scrutinise ABC's Editorial Policies. ABC states: The ABC Editorial Policies set out the ABC's self-regulatory standards and how the Corporation enforces them. They are also the source for the ABC Code of Practice, which the ABC notifies to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).

It also did not uphold our complaint of bias and lack of partiality in the interview, stating:

"The ACMA notes the complainant's concerns that alternate questions could have been pursued, such as mosquito borne diseases. However, it is the ACMA‘s view that the matters covered in the interview were appropriate given the duration of the report and the nature and type of program AM purports to be (ED: a mouth piece for associates of the host). Furthermore, the ACMA considers that neither the direction of the interview nor any comments made by the interviewer represented a bias or prejudice against the interviewee, and that the presenter conducted the interview with due impartiality."

The full report should be available soon from the ACMA website (HERE).

It seems ABC's journalist are free to work for external organisations and then interview members of these organisations without bothering to inform its audience, in complete contravention of its rules regarding conflict of interest. ACMA the toothless media regulator finds this is okay!

One wonders what ACMA's response would be if Eastley had been engaged as an MC, lets say by the Heartland Institute to MC one of its climate change conferences, and he then gave a soft interview of its President? According to ACMA this would be okay as well.

The embedded journalist part 2.

Earlier in the year we reported that AM reporter Tony Eastley had taken up a role as MC for the Climate Commission's public forums. The Australian covered the matter in this story under the headline "ABC defends host's climate gig".

Today Eastley gave Climate Commissioner Lesley Hughes a very soft interview on AM (see Health imperilled by climate change: Report).

It would have been interesting to see how Lesley Hughes would have handled questions relating to the absence of references in the commission's report to the work of Paul Reiter on mosquito borne diseases that contradicts the climate commission's alarmist narrative. Also of interest the exchange between Hughes' co-author Tony McMichael and Mike Hulme in relation to Reiter as featured in recently released climategate emails.

ABC's new Editorial Guidelines no longer mention the phrase "conflict of interest". However section 1.3 of the new guidelines state:

1.3 Ensure that editorial decisions are not improperly influenced by political, sectional, commercial or personal interests.

On face value it appears Mr Eastley's interview puts him in breach of this clause. We have asked the ABC for an explanation.

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).