ACMA finds ABC breached impartiality rules with Four Corner’s Murray-Darling program

The Four Corners program omitted key information during a controversial Murray-Darling report, regulator finds.

The ABC’s Four Corners program breached the ABC’s impartiality rules.

The ABC’s flagship current affairs program broke the public broadcaster’s own impartiality rules during an investigation into the Murray Darling Basin Plan by omitting key information and other points of view, a review by the independent media regulator has found.

The Four Corners program “Cash Splash”, which aired in July 2019 and alleged the Basin Plan had become a waste of money benefiting only irrigators, “unduly favoured one perspective”, the Australian Communications and Media Authority found.

But the regulator dismissed complaints that the program, presented by ABC reporter Sean Rubinsztein-Dunlop, was inaccurate or materially misleading.

ABC Chair Ita Buttrose. Picture: Getty Images

The ACMA report comes amid a worsening row between the Morrison government and the public broadcaster over another Four Corners report which accused Attorney-General Christian Porter of sexism and revealed details of a consensual relationship between Cities Minister Alan Tudge and his adviser.

ABC chairwoman Ita Buttrose on Monday responded to Communications Minister Paul Fletcher, who had demanded to know how that broadcast was in the public interest, by accusing the government of attempting to interfere in the organisation’s independence.

The findings against the Four Corners “Cash splash” program follows an internal review of the ABC’s 2019 election coverage by former BBC advisor Kerry Blackburn which concluded two of the broadcaster’s political discussion programs favoured Labor over the Coalition.

The Blackburn review, which found the ABC had been impartial overall, nevertheless singled out The Drum and recommended it “achieve a ­better balance of voices”.

On Tuesday, the ACMA found that the Four Corners program on the Basin Plan didn’t present sufficient information from other relevant perspectives to enable viewers to make up their own minds about the schemes.

ACMA chairwoman Nerida O’Loughlin said the ABC failed to meet its own code of practice standards: “The ABC’s Code of Practice requires producers of ABC programs to present and report on issues in an impartial manner, and this Four Corners report fell short of that”.

“Although the producers of the program explored legitimate criticisms, Four Corners had a responsibility to acknowledge other perspectives on the matter of contention in a meaningful way.”

The ACMA said high levels of public interest and debate about the recovery of water under the Basin Plan increased the need for due impartiality in the program.

The ACMA investigation found the Four Corners episode omitted key information about the operation of the schemes, which prevented viewers from coming to an informed understanding of the criticisms aired.

“In proposing that the scheme was ineffective and too expensive, it was incumbent upon the program to acknowledge, in a meaningful way, that aspects of the Infrastructure Scheme were contested and other views existed. For example, while the program referred to government views about water returned to the environment, there was no detailed explanation of what those views were,” the ACMA review reads.

“As a consequence of this omission, and the omission of other relevant views from experts and business, the audience was deprived of the opportunity of positioning the views of the critics of the Infrastructure Scheme within the larger set of principal views on the matters of contention.”

Communications Minister Paul Fletcher. Picture: Sean Davey

The National Farmers’ Federation, which complained to the regulator about the Four Corners episode, said it felt vindicated but remained concerned about the damage.

“Disturbingly, by not being impartial and by unduly favouring one perspective, the ABC has called into question the integrity and the motives of farmers who accessed the now-complete grants program,” NFF chief executive Tony Mahar said.

“It’s simply not good enough and the ABC needs to be held to account for the angst caused in rural and regional communities as a result.”

But ABC spokeswoman Sally Jackson said the broadcaster stood by the program.

“Four Corners was anxious to explore the government’s perspective on this issue, and sought on-camera interviews for inclusion in the program,” she said.

“We respectfully disagree with the ACMA’s finding that the program lacked impartiality and that it should have referenced information already on the public record, or sought alternative viewpoints, when the relevant government representatives – who could have provided evidence and not just an opinion – declined to participate.”

However, the ACMA review was “not persuaded that the refusals by government officials and the Minister to participate prevented the ABC from presenting the principal relevant perspective on the matters of contention”.

The review, made public on Tuesday, said: “In such circumstances, perspectives on matters of contention are not limited to these sources.”

“Programs have other options by which they can acknowledge and incorporate contending perspectives – including interviews with other stakeholders, referencing information already on the public record, or through probing interrogation of advocates of one perspective about the alternatives.

“The ACMA considers that the hallmark of impartiality of a ‘balance that follows the weight of evidence’ should guide programs to gather and present information from a range of sources. In this instance, this did not occur.”