Their complaints process is an absolute joke. You can send them verbatim examples of the most egregious bias and they will find a way to justify it.
Further, emails of specific complaints to the program concerned simply go unanswered.
I don't think in my entire life I've ever encountered any organisation which is such a law unto itself and which possesses such a sense of moral superiority over anyone who fails to subscribe to its philosophy.
Like most of the Left, they have developed sneering into an art form.
It's well past that. An internal warning have already been sent and the timeframe suggests it had an immediate impact on the emphasis of one story, which was changed.The legislative framework that the ABC works within has very definite boundaries and serious consequences for non-compliance and displays of bias.
If you have any issue with the ABC and consider there is a breach of their code of conduct under Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983, nothing will be resolved on this thread.
Go here, http://about.abc.net.au/talk-to-the-abc/feedback-and-enquiries/complaints-process/
If you are unhappy with the response, go here > http://www.acma.gov.au/Citizen/Take...st-complaints/complaints-about-the-abc-or-sbs
I look forward to your published responses.
The ABC has been moving left and been infiltrated by leftists and Marxists since the 1970's. They just call themselves Greens now.
The links you give, have been used on numerous occasions to make complaints, without any meaningful result.
It is a complete waste of time to "Complain to Caesar, about what Caesar does"
Anyone who uses the complaint process either needs their head read, or has too little to do with too much time on their hands.
gg
+ 1 GG...I have given up in laying compliants to the ABC......you can never get any sense out of them......As you say, they (Labor) have been planting lefties into the ABC for many years.....time for some ethnic cleansing.
Their complaints process is an absolute joke. You can send them verbatim examples of the most egregious bias and they will find a way to justify it.
Further, emails of specific complaints to the program concerned simply go unanswered.
I don't think in my entire life I've ever encountered any organisation which is such a law unto itself and which possesses such a sense of moral superiority over anyone who fails to subscribe to its philosophy.
Like most of the Left, they have developed sneering into an art form.
Are you alleging specific incidents of breaches in their Charter and or Code of Conduct?
If so, it may be of interest to obtain a view from ACMA so it can be scrutinised if an infraction has occurred.
The legislative framework that the ABC works within has very definite boundaries and serious consequences for non-compliance and displays of bias.
I would be eager to review a response from ACMA regarding such an event.
S
The points that posters are making, Solly, hinge on the fact that the ABC and ACMA have a history of tin ears and legalism in their handling of complaints.
It is too late for the ABC.
The ABC will suffer for it's bias, through our elected representatives.
gg
Do to the ABC what Putin did to Russia's media? That's un-Australian
Is the ABC un-Australian? Is a review worth doing? Last December, Russia's President Vladimir Putin tightened his control over that country's media by dissolving the main state news agency and replacing it with an organisation that is to promote Moscow's image abroad.
Last week, Tony Abbott announced a review of the ABC and SBS and also said that it ''dismays Australians when the national broadcaster appears to take everybody's side but our own''.
The same day, the Institute of Public Affairs renewed the call to simply sell both broadcasters. Commercial rivals watched with more than passing interest to see whether there was momentum to rid the marketplace of this irritant - a disruptive publicly funded drain on their profits.
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/do-to-the-abc-what-putin-did-to-russias-media-thats-unaustralian-20140201-31typ.html#ixzz2s9eTp6LA
List of journalists killed in Russia
In its September 2009 report the Committee to Protect Journalists repeated its conclusion that Russia was one of the deadliest countries in the world for journalists and added that it remains among the worst at solving their murders. The Anatomy of Injustice[6] (Russian version: Анатомия безнаказанности[7]) offers an account of the deaths of 17 journalists in Russia since 2000. They died or were killed, the CPJ is convinced, because of the work they were doing and in only one case, it notes, has there been a partially successful prosecution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia#Under_Putin_.28incl._2nd_Chechen_conflict.29
Journalistic death toll in Putin's Russia
"In 2011, three journalists dead (including newspaper editor Khadzhimurad Kamalov, shot 14 times as he left his office).
In 2010, two killed; in 2009, five more (including a young reporter from Novaya Gazeta, caught in a hail of bullets). Add four for 2008, one in 2007 and then 2006 as Anna Politkovskaya, the most famous victim of them all, is murdered.
But she wouldn't forget Yevgeny Gerasimenko – found in his Saratov flat with a plastic bag pulled over his head and computer missing – and nor should we.
Two Russian journalists died in 2005, and three in both 2004 and 2003; but 2002 was a wicked year, with eight lost (including Valery Ivanov, battling editor, shot in the head) and 2001 added another victim.
Putin's reign of power in 2000 began with six dead reporters and editors: a grim portent, looking back, of bad things to come."
http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2012/mar/11/journalist-safety-vladimir-putin
You guys are in government and yet the endless complaining continues, what gives?
Seriously...an outsider looking at the activities of the ASF right would have to come to the conclusion that your a bunch of whiners and complainers with nothing better to do, the modern equivalent of those nutters that used to write opinions pieces to the newspapers...back when newspapers reported news.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-...-phone-calls-to-abc-managing-director/5235024But Mr Scott defended the ABC's decision to cover the story, saying it had never sought to be "judge and jury" on the asylum seekers claims.
"The ABC did not say that these allegations had been proved. The ABC said that they were important allegations and we went pursuing the truth," he said.
Video footage appears to back asylum seeker claims of Navy mistreatment
This was a fascinating interview. My impression was that in a back room Mr Scott and Mr Colvin got together and agreed they needed to put something out to the critics that demonstrated their astonishing level of self scrutiny. So they wrote themselves a script where both interviewer and respondent played their prescribed parts, thus demonstrating to the critics how fair the ABC is in examining itself.ABC managing director Mark Scott today in defence of the ABC's asylum seeker coverage,
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-...-phone-calls-to-abc-managing-director/5235024
The problem for the ABC and Mark Scott is that in its reporting, it jumped to the following conclusion and in that sense made a judgement.
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2013/s3929794.htm
COMMUNICATIONS Minister Malcolm Turnbull has issued a thinly veiled warning to the ABC to correct and apologise for errors, as senior cabinet figures voiced outrage and backbenchers seethed over the broadcaster's handling of claims that asylum-seekers were deliberately burnt by defence personnel.
Immigration Minister Scott Morrison yesterday demanded the broadcaster apologise for "outrageous slurs" against the navy while Joe Hockey revealed he has been so angry on occasions at ABC coverage he had called managing director Mark Scott to say "this is outrageous".
The comments came as Tony Abbott confirmed the government was examining the future of the ABC's involvement in the Australia Network and its role in "soft diplomacy".
The Prime Minister repeated his criticism last week of the ABC over its handling of unproven claims of torture by the navy and its reporting of The Guardian Australia's revelations of Australian spying on Indonesia.
"You would think any responsible news outlet, let alone the voice of Australia, the ABC would have sought corroboration before broadcast," Mr Abbott said of torture claims now under a serious cloud. "I want the ABC to be fair, balanced and accurate."
Mr Scott defended the ABC's exercise of the network contract. "The example we show in the region is of a fair, balanced independent public broadcaster."
An ABC spokesman cited independence when rejecting the Treasurer's criticisms, saying "ministers on both sides of the political fence" had been known "to personally convey to the
ABC frustrations about the organisation".
Mr Turnbull, who faced criticism from Coalition colleagues over his defence last week of the ABC, yesterday toughened his stance, warning that along with independence, the ABC also had statutory requirements for accuracy and impartiality.
He called on the national broadcaster to correct and apologise for incorrect reporting.
"The parliament has given the ABC editorial independence by law," Mr Turnbull told The Australian. "The same law has also required the ABC be accurate and impartial in its news and current affairs reporting 'according to the recognised standards of objective journalism'.
"The legal responsibility for ensuring this obligation is met is expressly stated in the law to lie with the board of the ABC which appoints the management of the ABC and sets the policies under which they operate."
Mr Turnbull, a former journalist, acknowledged that the media made mistakes. "However when a mistake is made, a news outlet's credibility is enhanced, not diminished, by acknowledging the error, correcting it and apologising for the offence caused," he said.
Last week ABC head of news content Gaven Morris ordered staff not to "embellish" or add "any flourish" to allegations of abuse at the hands of Australian border protection personnel by asylum seekers.
The federal government has strenuously denied the allegations of abuse.
Mr Scott said last night the criticism of the broadcaster over its reporting of the burns allegations was "not fair and is not correct".
"It was an important story to report, the right story to report," he told the PM program.
Mr Scott insisted the ABC had not acted as "judge and jury" on the veracity of the claims.
Despite broadcasting footage of burns with a voice-over saying it "appears to back" the allegations, Mr Scott insisted: "We've never said that we know the answer. I am convinced that that story on its merits needed to be broadcast and I'm standing by that story.
"If there's a problem with our broadcasts, if in fact we haven't held up to our editorial standards, if in fact we've had some breach or failure then we need to admit up to that. But our test is not 'are politicians happy with our content'."
When asked if ABC staff supported Mr Scott, staff-elected board member Matt Peacock declined to comment.
Former staff-elected board member and long-term ABC advocate Quentin Dempster said staff supported Mr Scott.
Mr Scott's remarks are likely to further infuriate government figures already angered by the asylum-seeker stories and fears of an anti-Coalition bias at the ABC.
ABC Media Watch host Paul Barry said ABC News had "overreached" with the original report of the asylum-seekers' claims, by essentially endorsing them. He said the ABC needed to admit it had "got it wrong".
Government sources say they expect both issues will be raised at the first joint party room meeting for the year when parliament returns next week.
On the ABC's 7.30 last night, Mr Abbott said the Coalition had for a long time had very serious issues about the Australian Network tender process which had given the Australia Network to "someone other than the ABC and then because of leadership problems inside the former government, the decision was changed". He said the audit office itself had found the tender had been handled badly.
Asked whether there was value in the service itself, Mr Abbott said "obviously it is important that we put our best foot forward, whether that's the best way to do it, whether there aren't other good ways of doing it, that's something we'll consider in the weeks and months ahead".
ABC managing director Mark Scott today in defence of the ABC's asylum seeker coverage,
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-...-phone-calls-to-abc-managing-director/5235024
The problem for the ABC and Mark Scott is that in its reporting, it jumped to the following conclusion and in that sense made a judgement.
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2013/s3929794.htm
Media Watch this week confirmed that the collective are squirming. Let them propagate all the propaganda they like, the evidence of left wing bias is overwhelming.
I believe the holding to account of the national broadcaster has majority public support. The ABC is bloated and smug after years of Labor-Green government.
On the subject of Media Watch, new host Paul Barry is a big improvement on the previous, 'ole Sneery, and not just because Barry last night claimed to have voted Liberal last time around.
Unprecedented attack by a government obsessed in turning back the news.
The issues with the ABC are easily explained its not what they have said is the problem but what everyone (bitter conservatives) think they said..............
The ABC says the wording of a story which reported claims from asylum seekers that they were mistreated by Australian Navy personnel should have been "more precise".
In a joint statement, the corporation's managing director, Mark Scott, and its director of news, Kate Torney, say they "regret if our reporting led anyone to mistakenly assume that the ABC supported the asylum seekers' claims".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?