Quality Assurance Project 5: Impartiality (Opinion Content) Final Report July 2008 Advise. Verify. Review ABC Editorial Policies Editorial Policies The Editorial Policies of the ABC are its leading standards and a day-to-day reference for makers of ABC content. The Editorial Policies – • give practical shape to statutory obligations in the ABC Act; • set out the ABC’s self-regulatory standards and how to enforce them; and • describe and explain to staff and the community the editorial and ethical principles fundamental to the ABC. The role of Director Editorial Policies was established in 2007 and comprises three main functions: to advise, verify and review. The verification function principally involves the design and implementation of quality assurance projects to allow the ABC to assess whether it is meeting the standards required of it and to contribute to continuous improvement of the national public broadcaster and its content. Acknowledgements The project gained from the sustained efforts of several people, and the Director Editorial Policies acknowledges: Denis Muller, Michelle Fisher, Manager Research, and Jessica List, Executive Assistant. Thanks also to Ian Carroll and John Cameron, respectively the Directors of the Innovation Division and the News Division, and to their senior staff, whose engagement over the details of editorial decision-making gave the project layers that an assessment of this sort usually lacks. This paper is published by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation © 2008 ABC For information about the paper, please contact: Director Editorial Policies ABC Southbank Centre GPO Box 9994 Melbourne VIC 3001 Phone: +61 3 9626 1631 Email: [email protected] QA Project 05 – Final Report July 2008 ABC Editorial Policies Foreword Opinion and impartiality – are there any other words which, when paired, are more fraught for a public broadcaster? Is any other pair of words more apparently paradoxical? Opinion content is commissioned or acquired by the ABC to provide a particular perspective or point of view. It relates to matters of contention and public debate. This project is the first to test section 6.6.3 of the 2007 Editorial Policies, the essence of which states – The ABC is committed to impartiality and must demonstrate this in its opinion content through the presentation of a diversity of perspectives. This requires a diversity of perspectives to be demonstrated across a network or platform by providing content of a similar type and weight in an appropriate time-frame. We looked at a sample of opinion content relating to a longstanding matter of contention in Australian public debate, the Apology. Two forums on the online platform were examined: Unleashed, which is run by the Innovation Division, and the Opinion (News Online) forum run by the News Division. The overall conclusion is that the test for impartiality was met, according to the methodology used. Significant questions emerged about the methodology itself, and about the wording of the relevant section of the Editorial Policies. The complexities of the seemingly docile term “appropriate time-frame” became clearer as the project progressed, and a specific section of this report examines them. The challenges inherent in the phrase “of a similar type and weight” speak for themselves throughout the report – in the data, the responses and findings, and in the methodology, which is reproduced in full at Appendix II. The project showed up the importance of the ABC’s striving for consistency in basic standards across the different Divisions. Content created in isolation by each Division tends nowadays to gather and mix on the online platform, and that trend will grow. Linking, a feature unique to the online platform – with no analogues in traditional print media or radio or TV broadcasting to provide guidance – proved complex and we sought the Divisions’ responses to initial data, considered them, then sought a second round of comments from the Divisions and considered them also in reaching our conclusion. Their full responses comprise Appendix III. More than the other quality assurance projects so far conducted under the 2007 Editorial Policies, this fifth project laid bare the significance of the changes being wrought by technology on the ABC, in common with all institutional media. Audiences are using media differently now. It means mass media are behaving differently, so methods for judging media can be expected to change. Unlike earlier times, the power of widespread and irrevocable disclosure is now in the hands of anyone with a suitable device connected to the internet. Media standards used to be predicated on the notion that only a few controlled the means by which they or their invitees spoke to the many. It used to be assumed that the many were especially influenced by the few who ran newspapers and broadcasting. Online life is expanding and quickening with broadband growth and other technological improvements. Online, the many can talk back to the few, or talk to each other on forums that the traditional media do not control. Or the many can obtain the undiluted opinions of those who are only summarised by the mass media, or perhaps do not appear in mass media at all. QA Project 05 – Final Report July 2008 ABC Editorial Policies These changes will force change to traditional thinking about media accountability. Traditionally, judgements about media performance have been pronouncements made after shrouded processes performed by persons of implied Olympian detachment. On matters of contention and public debate no one comes values-free and opinion-less to the task of judging media coverage. That much can be straightforwardly acknowledged. It nevertheless remains necessary for entities like the ABC to devise credible ways to assess whether they are meeting their standards, including standards for impartiality. In future, in the field of media accountability – as in other fields – judgement is likely to become less definitive, more iterative; not so much a solo act but a shared process. Judgements will draw on more information, media decision-makers will be asked to explain more and to clarify, and conclusions will be drawn more from what the many discuss than from what the few pronounce. Of course, judgements will still be made by those with particular responsibilities to make them, as I have in this context. But the enduring value of projects like this one will not be to provide an illusory definitiveness. Rather, they will provide necessary information, explanation and discussion. For these new processes to be credible as a means of accountability there must be transparency. This is essential if the processes are to have legitimacy among those who, in good faith, form different judgements on the basis of the same material. Those who form those different judgements should be able to see what was done and how it all was queried, explained and argued out. This should build their confidence in the process, even if it does not, to their way of thinking, make the conclusions right. The exchanges between reviewers and editors set out in this report open up institutional media decision- making in a way that, to my knowledge, it has not been opened up before in Australian media self- regulation. Rarely do editors account in public for their choices in the systematic way this project required it. In this sense, the ABC is again innovating (one of its statutory functions), this time in the field of media self-regulation. Mutually testing and mutually respectful interaction between the reviewers conducting the assessment and the editorial teams being assessed was of critical importance to what was learned during this project. Transparency is not easy, but for the ABC and the Australia that the ABC exists to serve, I believe it will be better than the comparatively opaque complain-inquire-pronounce method of media accountability that marks the past. In today’s and tomorrow’s media environment, especially in matters as contentious as judging impartiality, accountability increasingly consists of routine transparency and continuing engagement. PAUL CHADWICK Director Editorial Policies July 2008 QA Project 05 – Final Report July 2008 ABC Editorial Policies Quality Assurance Project 5 Impartiality (Opinion Content) – Final Report July 2008 Table of contents I. Introduction........................................................................................................................................1 II. Rationale, Objectives and Guiding Principles................................................................................2 A. Objective.........................................................................................................................................2 B. Guiding Principles...........................................................................................................................2 III. Methodology summarised................................................................................................................3 A. Scope..............................................................................................................................................3 B. Collection and analysis...................................................................................................................4 C. Reporting procedures .....................................................................................................................4 IV. Findings..............................................................................................................................................5