Media regulator investigation finds ABC’s Four Corners breached impartiality obligations on War Memorial story

The ABC’s Four Corners program has come under fire for breaching impartiality for the second time this year, with the media watchdog finding the public broadcaster favoured one side of the debate over the Australian War Memorial redevelopment.

Findings from the Australian Communications and Media Authority, released on Thursday, said the episode Sacrifice, aired on March 10 last year, “unduly favoured one perspective” in its presentation of aspects of the project.

That included its treatment of findings from an Australian National Audit Office report, analysis of the redevelopment consultation process and the selection and treatment of interviewees.

The investigation found the program did not adequately explain the findings of an Australian National Audit Office audit and predominantly focused on its deficiencies.

It also conflated different stages of the redevelopment consultation process, which was likely to leave viewers confused about the accuracy of claims made by the Memorial director.

ACMA chair Nerida O’Loughlin said investigative journalism could take a variety of approaches, but Four Corners must comply with the impartiality obligations under the ABC Code of Practice.

“Investigative journalism plays an important role in scrutinising matters in the public interest,” she said.

“However, the ABC must present contentious issues with due impartiality and provide audiences with sufficient context.

“We found that the cumulative effect of the program’s framing, its use of strong and emotive language and its selection and differing treatment of interviewees unduly favoured critics of the redevelopment.”

However, ACMA found the episode did not breach the code’s accuracy requirements over a complaint about the use of Last Post audio alongside footage and sounds of construction work.

ACMA said the ABC had advised that it disagreed with the finding on the Sacrifice episode and did not propose to take any remedial action.

“It is disappointing that the ABC chooses to regularly dispute the findings of the regulator when we stand in place of ordinary reasonable viewers in assessing its compliance with its code,” Ms O’Loughlin said.

“Instead, we would expect the ABC to take on board our findings and consider any improvements it should make in response.”

ABC managing director Hugh Marks rejected ACMA’s finding on impartiality, warning it could have a “chilling effect” on investigative journalism if widely applied.

“The ABC is committed to constructively engaging with ACMA and has overwhelmingly accepted its rulings and acted on them in the past,” he said.

“However, the ABC does not accept this finding.

“If this interpretation of the Code is applied, including more widely across the industry, it could have a chilling effect on the body of investigative journalism that delivers the important stories that serve the public interest.”

The ABC said the ACMA finding created an “unworkable interpretation” of impartiality and imposed false balance on public interest reporting.

“It fails to understand the difference between an explanatory interview and an accountability interview and the obligation on public officials to be held to appropriate scrutiny,” its statement said.

“It also unfairly impugns the integrity of the reporter and fails to acknowledge the great efforts made by the program team to ensure impartiality.”

The finding marks the second time this year that ACMA has found a Four Corners program breached the ABC Code of Practice.

In March, ACMA published its finding that a 2024 episode, Water Grab, about water usage in the Northern Territory had breached the code’s accuracy and impartiality requirements.

ACMA said it was considering whether to exercise any formal regulatory response to the breaches.

Under broadcasting legislation, ACMA may recommend, but cannot compel, the ABC to take remedial action for a breach of its code.