Alan Sunderland
The ABC has quietly released a review into “analysis and opinion” — five months after a piece by economics correspondent Emma Alberici was pulled for not meeting editorial standards.
The review, from editorial director Alan Sunderland, was prompted by Alberici’s analysis of corporate tax, which management said immediately had breached impartiality standards, and which was confirmed by an investigation by the complaints division.
The ABC produces several pieces of analysis and opinion each day, clearly marked and often linked to on the ABC News homepage.
“Written analysis is a growing area of output for the ABC, as we respond to audience needs by offering content on new platforms and in news ways,” Sunderland wrote in the review.
As part of the review, Sunderland looked at 10 pieces of opinion or analysis published in recent months, and measured whether they met key editorial requirements: based on evidence, assists with understanding an issue, considers an appropriate range of perspectives; and the tone is explanatory and reasoned.
Sunderland didn’t find any of the pieces he considered to have breached the ABC’s editorial policies, but he did have some issues with pieces that were too “judgemental” in tone. One piece from Paul Kennedy about the response of the Catholic Church to child sexual abuse claims had used language and a tone that were too judgemental, Sunderland said:
In many of the cases highlighted … the judgemental adjective (merciless, ruthless, outrageous) could have been omitted or the way of describing an institution or event modified (the tactic rather than the intimidation, the assets rather than the cities of riches) to ensure the focus remained on the power of the information being presented rather than any sense that the author was prosecuting a particular view.
The tone and language used in a piece by Ian Verrender — the editor who had reviewed Alberici’s original piece for before it was published — was also mildly criticised in the review. Writing about the need for a Royal Commission into banking shortly before it was announced, Verrender outlined why it might be necessary. Sunderland found that while it met editorial standards, it was “littered with highly judgemental language”:
The strong tone and excessive language of this piece does entail some perception problems and would have been better without it, but at its heart the piece relies on a fair analysis of the overwhelming weight of evidence in order to perform its primary function, which is to remind readers of the history leading up to and justifying what would turn out to be an inevitable Royal Commission.
Managing director Michelle Guthrie contributed a comment to the review, saying it was essential that analysis was “impartial and in line with the ABC’s integrity and independence”.
“This is an important and timely review in view of recent discussions about whether ABC journalists should be providing opinions (and I clearly agree with Alan’s conclusion that they should not) and what is analysis and how do we ensure if doesn’t stray into the perception that it is opinion,” she said.
The ABC regularly conducts content reviews, which look at how what the ABC is producing measures up to the editorial standards.
Yet no comment on the judgement laden and factually untruthful comments by Ulhmann re renewable energy. Of course his comments dovetailed nicely into the Turnbull narrative, so ABC management had, and have, no problem with that, as they give almost as much exposure to climate deniers as to science based positions.
If the ABC does not offer analysis it is reduced to broadcasting the talking points churned out by the pollies’ hundreds of publicly-paid “media advisors”.
“….. too “judgemental” in tone ….”?
Have they had a look at the conservative perches of The Dum* or 7:30?
*van Onselen filling in on The Dum at the moment, for the sake of continuity?
Three conservatives last night : two Murdoch Muppets for the price of one? “Carnell an ex-politician”? With her job, and the way she defends her Coal-ition and blames Labor at every opportunity? The way the three of them went off at Badham for having a dig at Limited News Party “infrastructure neglect”?
There’s no one at the ABC that could have done this van Onselen gig?
I reckon Van did a pretty good job talking down Katie of imploding hospital fame. What a disgrace that Paul Kennedy’s fantastic, empathetic report on the havoc wrecked by the Catholic Church on children and their families was deemed to be “judgemental”. I call b.s. Sunderland et al.
Yes I agree. Van was in feisty good form yesterday evening.
And Kennedy’s piece was hardly judgemental – just an unusual departure from the usual safe, bland.
And Ian Verrender calls it as he sees it which is hardly “excessive language”. And what does this sentence even mean? – “The strong tone and excessive language of this piece does entail some perception problems … “
Another “meat & two veg” Muppet Show tonight – Campbell with a Licciadello sausage.
“Trump can win a second term because …….” – let’s see.
And van Oselen the “political scientist”? Is there such a thing as a “political flat-earth/conservative scientist”?
Now “Big Trev” Ruthenberg and the rest of the Limited News Party caravan have an excuse for not winning Longman? Or “winning against all odds”?
An “honest mistake”?
Attacks against him were “over the top”?
…… Imagine the “analysis” if Big Trev had been a Labor candidate?
….. And let’s play “Let’s laugh at the Fairfax hack”?
Well said, Klewie! The Drum under Van, and his no doubt carefully chosen ‘conservative guests’, is a disgrace. To-night the focus was on the man who was editor of the Herald Sun…as though he was the only one whose opinions were worth hearing??
When is the ABC going to do a ‘review’ on what ‘balance’ is exhibited on programs such as The Drum and other current affairs programs????
Do what I do – when I see Van Onselen or Leigh Sales hosting a program, I turn it off. Ellen Fanning, Virginia Trioli and Stan Grant are a cut above. Hopefully Steve Cannane, who has finished his UK stint, will be given a go on The Drum. He was good at it before he went to London.
I suspect 7.30 is pretty much a lost cause no matter who hosts it – it is just tabloid now, with no gravitas. If you want that, you have to search through News24.
So what’s your point in terms of the article? Do you want journalists to express their opinions or not? Some may have a bias to the left, some to the right, its called being a human being, not a muppet. Ridding the ABC of those whom you perceive have a right bias means the same for the other side, and you get left with blandness. I don’t watch the Drum but I listen to Jon Faine. I’d rather they both remain than neither.
The point is you aren’t allowed to come to any point. No conclusion must be drawn……it is forbidden.
Soon the ABC will be so constrained, so inhibited, so lacking in insightful, in depth, analysis it will sadly begin to be seen as to be not worth saving. Meanwhile Freedom of Speech will increasingly be protected only for those of a conservative bent.
In terms of balance I look forward to seeing a couple of CFMEU types to cut through the reems of crapola we regularly experience from the mandatory inclusion of IPA drones on any ABC panel discussion.
Wouldn’t that be a treat?!
At least Sally McManus for a start. Has she ever appeared? No, thought not.
Were McManus to appear with a bunch of mudorc muppets there would be blood on the floor in short order.
And it would not be hers.
What an unfair showdown ….. she’d be armed with real facts.
She did. She was great. Q&A and 7:30.