The ABC adopted a new editorial standard last night when accusing a former premier of being corrupt: it does not matter if the allegations are “proven facts” or if they are “right or wrong”. In other words, just publish them anyway.
These were the extraordinary responses by ABC managing director David Anderson and editorial director Craig McMurtrie in reply to sustained questioning by Labor senator Tony Sheldon about the claims made in the flawed documentary Exposed: The Ghost Train Fire.
The documentary about the tragic ghost train fire at Sydney’s Luna Park in 1979 included claims that former NSW premier Neville Wran was implicated in a cover-up over the fire and orchestrated for the amusement park lease to go to a front company controlled by crime boss Abe Saffron, with whom he enjoyed Friday night drinks.
These allegations have been condemned as unsubstantiated and uncorroborated – unproven – by former premiers and prime ministers, public servants, ministerial staff and media executives over the past month.
Anderson acknowledged receiving three complaints about the program – even though the ABC told me they had received four – with one still under investigation. He emphasised the claims about Wran were “presented as allegations not proven facts” and added the former premier was not “implicated in a cover-up of the cause of the fire”.
However, the principal reporter in the documentary, Caro Meldrum-Hanna, says the cover-up over the fire “went all the way to the top”. Wran was premier in 1979. He was, by definition, the top. It came after Meldrum-Hanna included absurd claims that Wran was corrupt. She certainly did not say that Wran was not implicated.
“This documentary was not about Premier Wran,” Anderson insisted. “This documentary was about the Luna Park fire and about the ABC and these families wanting justice for what had happened to their loved ones. That was the focus of the documentary.”
That was a convenient dodge. So, just because Wran was not the “focus” of the documentary, it is okay to accuse him of criminal activity? Does Anderson seriously expect anyone to believe that?
It got even worse when McMurtrie answered questions from Sheldon. McMurtrie, like Anderson, had a brief but either was either not well across it and had not watched the documentary, or it was not a good brief to be begin with.
Mr Sheldon asked why the ABC had not given Wran’s widow or former colleagues an opportunity to respond to the claims. This is a breach of editorial guidelines that go to fair and honest dealing. Again, the answer was to simply say that Wran was not the “focus” of the documentary and they were, after all, just “allegations” rather than “facts”.
McMurtrie even said the documentary was in the “true crime genre” which seemed to imply that it was more entertainment than journalism where facts are dispensable and wild allegations are made with impunity.
I have written at length about the two principal claims made about Wran. Rosemary Opitz, an employee of Saffron, claims Wran and Saffron had regular drinks together and were “pally”. It is so absurd that it should not have been put to air. Not one other witness corroborates it. It is another breach of editorial guidelines that go to accuracy.
The second concerns former policeman Paul Egge, who claims that Wran was mentioned on the so-called “Age Tapes” – illegal phone tapping by corrupt police – in connection with Saffron and High Court judge Lionel Murphy about Luna Park. But no tape or transcript exists to back this up. Nor does any other former policeman support Egge’s claims.
Sheldon asked McMurtrie about this specific claim. The response was to say that the program had referenced the Stewart royal commission and the parliamentary inquiry into Murphy to make these allegations – just allegations, not facts, remember – and was therefore well researched.
Well, McMurtrie made a fatal mistake in this reply because the Stewart commission and the Murphy inquiry found that Egge simply could not be believed. They could not substantiate his allegation about Wran being mentioned on the Age Tapes in connection with Luna Park and said he was not a reliable or credible accuser.
McMurtrie said he did not know if “the allegations are right or wrong” and again fell back on the dodge that Wran was not “a focus” of the documentary.
All up it was a truly disgraceful and pathetic effort by the ABC in response to questioning by Sheldon. The ABC showed it had absolute contempt for the line of questioning. No satisfactory answer was given. They promised to respond to further questions on notice. They better get their facts right next time and consulting editorial guidelines might be useful.
This is what we have come to expect from the ABC. It remains unaccountable to anyone, including the national parliament, and treats its audience with contempt. It has become a renegade national broadcaster. And it needs to be pulled into line. It is time for the chair and the board, and perhaps the government, to take action.
