Issues Paper
Review of the ABC’s Self-Regulation Framework
November 2008
Advise. Verify . Review
Issues Paper
Review of the ABC’s Self-Regulation Framework
November 2008
Table of contents
Foreword ... 1
Terms of reference ... 3
I. Introduction... 4
II. Current ABC self-regulation framework ... 4
A. ABC Editorial Policies ... 4
B. Corporate-wide responsibility for maintaining and reviewing editorial standards ... 4
C. ABC complaints-handling system ... 5
D. Director Editorial Policies ... 6
III. Some questions for comment ... 7
A. Setting standards ... 7
B. Training ... 7
C. Dealing with audience responses ... 7
D. Complaints handling ... 7
E. Remedies and penalties ... 8
F. Data ... 8
G. Feedback ... 8
IV. How you can make a submission ... 9
Endnotes ... 10
The ABC Editorial Policies Division welcomes your comments on this issues paper. Submissions should be forwarded by email to [email protected] by 23 December 2008.
Alternatively, they can be posted to the address noted at page 8.
Foreword
The purpose of self-regulation
In democratic societies no public power is legitimate unless it is accountable. Democratic societies also know that heavy-handed regulation of media puts freedom at risk.
One of the great features of democracies is their capacity, through swift dissemination of reliable information, to detect problems, have second thoughts, debate, change, redesign and try again.
The process is constant, and it relies on information. In societies where information does not flow in this way – is limited by secrecy or deception – problems can go unrecognised for too long, and their harm is magnified.
When change inevitably comes, it costs more.
All three branches of government – Legislature, Executive and Judiciary – may be tempted at times to use their powers to affect the Fourth Estate‘s efforts to inform the public or question openly the exercise of power by those elected or appointed to it. Believing in good faith they are the only way media are held accountable, branches of government may end up unduly constraining media and in the process hampering one of society‘s vital institutional safeguards.
So, how should media organisations, which also undoubtedly wield public power, ensure their own legitimacy, make accountability practical, and earn trust?
The imperfect answer is through self-regulation that works.
Created by statute and sustained by public funds, the ABC has its independence protected by law and convention so that, along with commercial media, it can contribute to the traditional role of the Fourth Estate as a check and balance on other centres of power.
The term ‗self-regulation framework‘ is intended to leave matters connected to law out of this review. An exception is the Broadcasting Services Act, which literally picks up where ABC self-regulation leaves off.
Media self-regulation is driven by a care for maintaining quality of content. But self-regulation that works well is also a means to larger ends – such as protecting reputation, maintaining independence and integrity, and helping to maintain the freedoms, funding, legitimacy and trust which make the public broadcaster‘s contribution to society possible.
The terms of reference
The terms of reference for this review are designed to be brief but comprehensive, so that each part of the self-regulation framework gets attention including:
standards-setting training in standards responding to audiences complaints-handling
taking proper action when breaches of standards occur clarifying reporting lines, powers and duties
gathering and using data well
and ensuring that lessons are learned from all this, and contribute to continuous improvement.
Public involvement
A lot of thinking and gathering of materials relevant to this review is already going on, for existing self- regulation activities, inside the ABC. This review will pull this work together so that it can be assessed within a wider context and built into the new framework.
And while much of the work of this review is necessarily internal to the ABC, as the ABC serves the public and its output has public impact, the review also has an external dimension.
Non-media self-regulation models can be consulted, as well as results of previous relevant public inquiries.
Public submissions – related to the terms of reference – will also be welcomed.
While the review is not a mechanism for reviving and re-arguing specific complaints or categories of complaint, experience with and examples of the ABC‘s processes will of course affect the attitudes, arguments and suggestions of those making submissions.
Complaints-handling, while important, is only part of the larger, more complex framework of self- regulation that this review will analyse and refresh.
A well-designed, strong framework for self-regulation does more than look back case by case. It looks ahead to continuous improvement, and enables progress.
And when it works well, it leads to public confidence in the organisation, and reflects and instils self- confidence in the organisation that commits to it.
Your involvement in this review will help the ABC meet those goals.
MARK SCOTT Managing Director
Terms of reference
The Chairman, assisted by the Director Editorial Policies, will review the current framework for the self- regulation of the ABC‘s content and report by 27 February 2009 on any necessary or desirable changes.
The review will examine the processes through which the ABC –
1. sets standards for itself in its Editorial Policies and the Code of Practice derived from them;
2. trains staff and relevant independent service providers about the standards and the interpretation and enforcement of the standards;
3. deals with audience responses (other than complaints) that have a bearing on the standards;
4. handles complaints alleging breach of standards (including the handling of appeals);
5. provides just and practical remedies/penalties for breach;
6. records, circulates and publishes data about audience responses and complaints;
7. feeds the results of audience responses and complaints back into standards-setting, training and day-to-day content-making with the aim of continuous improvement.
The review will have regard to relevant provisions of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 (Cth) (ABC Act) and Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth) and will be conducted with the overarching aim of ensuring accountability to the public so as to maintain high levels of quality and trust.
MARK SCOTT Managing Director 21 November 2008
I. Introduction
The ABC‘s complaints-handling system is a mix of self- and co-regulation:
The ABC voluntarily complies with the standards it sets for itself in the ABC Editorial Policies (self-regulation).
The ABC is also required to adhere to a set of standards set out in a Code of Practice developed by the ABC and administered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), a federal government statutory authority authorised to investigate broadcasting complaints (co-regulation).1
The focus of this review is on the ABC‘s self-regulation.
II. Current ABC self-regulation framework A. ABC Editorial Policies
The Editorial Policies of the ABC2 are its leading standards and a day-to-day reference for makers of ABC content for radio, television, online and in print. The Editorial Policies serve three main purposes:
give practical shape to statutory obligations in the ABC Act, in particular the obligations to:
o provide services of a high standard;
o maintain independence and integrity; and
o ensure that the gathering of news and information is accurate and impartial according to the recognised standards of objective journalism;
set out the ABC‘s self-regulatory standards and how to enforce them, the source document for the Code of Practice that the ABC notifies to the ACMA;
describe and explain to staff and the community the editorial and ethical principles fundamental to the ABC.
Over the 76 years of the ABC, the Editorial Policies have been reviewed and updated from time to time. Under various names, they can be traced back to at least 1949. As technologies and the wider media environment have changed, so the policies have been adapted, pruned or expanded.
They are developed with the experience of ABC content makers and take account of the requirements of current legislation and regulation. Most importantly, they seek to reflect the standards that ABC audiences expect of their national broadcaster. Like any organisation‘s core standards, the Editorial Policies live and breathe with the ABC.
B. Corporate-wide responsibility for maintaining and reviewing editorial standards
Ensuring editorial standards are maintained to a high level is a corporate-wide responsibility. The ABC Chairman‘s introduction to the ABC‘s Corporate Plan 2007-10 explains:
The ABC‘s significance as a national cultural institution has extended unbroken across most of the history of the Australian federation. Since 1932, its journalists and program-makers have exercised their editorial independence and a high level of innovation to inform, challenge and excite audiences.
It is our primary purpose as a national public broadcaster in a modern democracy.
But the price of editorial independence and freedom is accountability. All who work in the
Corporation—from the ABC Board to all management and staff—are responsible for its reputation and the integrity and quality of its product.
One of the ABC‘s strategic priorities set out in its Corporate Plan is that the ABC strive for the highest editorial standards in Australian broadcasting. ABC Divisions contribute to achieving this objective by meeting the targets and actions set out in the Corporate Plan. These include:
ensuring that all staff understand their obligations and comply with ABC Editorial Policies and that content makers are trained in the Policies to an advanced level;
maintaining quality control of ABC content through regular self-evaluation;
acknowledging and responding to audience complaints in a timely and impartial manner.
Divisions have developed various practices that contribute to the ABC‘s self-regulation framework.
These include the publication of internal guidance notes and style guides to assist staff in
interpreting and applying editorial standards. Public accountability measures are also used, such as the online publication of upheld complaints <http://www.abc.net.au/contact/upheld.htm> and audience complaints and comments data<http://www.abc.net.au/contact/stats.htm>, and the development (by the News Division) of an online Corrections and Clarifications
page<http://www.abc.net.au/news/corrections/>.
C. ABC complaints-handling system
Over the past decade,3 ABC complaints handling has received attention and reform, resulting in:
new complaints handling processes and bodies,4 more accessible procedures,5 and more transparent and detailed information about complaints handling decisions.6
The ABC now has a multi-tier complaints-handling system for handling alleged breaches of the Editorial Policies. The ABC has established three complaints bodies:
Audience and Consumer Affairs (A&CA) was established in August 2000 ―to
undertake a number of functions aimed at improving the handling of complaints and audience comment‖,7 including coordinating responses to audience feedback.8 In August 2002, the complaints handling system was enhanced so that all serious complaints received by the ABC would be referred to A&CA for investigation and response.9 A&CA is a separate unit within the ABC that is independent of the ABC‘s content areas and reports to the Director of Corporate Strategy and Governance.
A&CA ordinarily carries out the initial investigation into a complaint and determines whether an editorial breach has occurred;
the Complaints Review Executive (CRE) is a senior ABC manager with editorial experience who is independent of A&CA and the ABC‘s content areas. The CRE was established in August 2002 ―to provide an additional level of independent internal review for complainants who express dissatisfaction with ABC Audience and
Consumer Affairs‘ response to their complaint.‖10 The CRE also has an adjudicative role when the head of A&CA and a content Director cannot reach agreement on a finding and appropriate response. In rare cases, the CRE investigates a complaint at first instance at the request of the Chairman, Managing Director, or Director Corporate Strategy;
the Independent Complaints Review Panel (ICRP), comprised of appropriately experienced persons independent of ABC content makers and managers, was established by the ABC in 1991 to review complaints alleging serious cases of bias, lack of balance and unfair treatment when complainants were not satisfied with the ABC‘s internal complaints handling procedures.11 In May 2005, the ICRP‘s jurisdiction was extended to include serious cases of factual inaccuracy.12
The ABC‘s complaints procedures are set out in Section 13 of the Editorial
Policies<http://abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/200806_edpols07update010708.pdf>.
D. Director Editorial Policies
The Director Editorial Polices has three main functions:
Advise: The purpose of the advice work is to ensure clarity and consistency in the interpretation of the Editorial Policies. For day-to-day Editorial Policies queries, the pre-existing upward referral processes within each Division remain unchanged. The Director Editorial Policies is co-equal with the other Directors, who remain sovereign over their content decisions to broadcast or publish, subject only to the Managing Director.
Verify: Verifying whether the ABC is meeting the high standards it sets itself involves the design and implementation of quality assurance projects that use fair and rigorous methodologies. These projects are unusual among Australian media and are an example of the ABC‘s longstanding record of innovation, this time in the field of media self-regulation.
Review: The review function reflects the ABC‘s heightened awareness of the speed of change in the media environment in which the ABC operates. This function
concentrates on the text of the Editorial Policies, to try to ensure the standards stay up to date. But the function contemplates other reviews, such as this review of the whole of the ABC‘s self-regulation framework.
III. Some questions for comment A. Setting standards
Sets standards for itself in its Editorial Policies and the Code of Practice derived from them
A-1. What do you regard as the purposes of self-regulatory standards?
A-2. What format and size should the Editorial Policies take, to improve access and use by those who need to refer to this document?
A-3. What should the Code of Practice contain, compared with what is contained in the Editorial Policies? Do you think the Code should apply to broadcasting content only, or to all of the ABC‘s content (including magazines and online content)?
B. Training
Trains staff and relevant independent service providers about the standards and the interpretation and enforcement of the standards
B-1. What are the relevant differences between training ABC staff and training independent service providers?
B-2. How can corporate-wide consistency be ensured, where that is necessary or desirable?
How can diversity be preserved, where that is necessary or desirable?
B-3. What are the likely future training needs of the ABC in a converging media environment?
C. Dealing with audience responses
Deals with audience responses (other than complaints) that have a bearing on the standards C-1. How should the ABC distinguish between audience feedback about presentation – e.g.,
attire, pronunciation, set design, scheduling – and audience complaints alleging a breach of editorial standards?
C-2. What criteria could usefully assist in identifying audience responses that fall below the threshold of a ‗complaint‘ but nevertheless relate to standards?
C-3. Should the ABC expand the ways audiences can respond (online especially) so that more responses – including the adverse or the ones urging minor correction of fact or emphasis – form part of a continuing engagement with audiences and debate hosted by the ABC without necessarily engaging the formal complaint-handling processes?
D. Complaints handling
Handles complaints alleging breach of standards (including the handling of appeals)
D-1. How should complaints be sorted so that the more serious get proportionate attention in investigation, appeal, remedy/penalty, and statistical reporting?
D-2. How should the ABC distinguish ‗editorial‘ complaints from all others types of complaint?
D-3. What are the most effective and efficient structure and procedures for complaint- handling? What avenues of appeal should be available for complainants who are dissatisfied with the ABC‘s initial response?
D-4. What are the essential powers and duties of complaints handlers, including independence within a self-regulatory framework?
E. Remedies and penalties
Provides just and practical remedies/penalties for breach
E-1. What types of remedies should be available for complainants where a complaint is upheld? In what kinds of cases is it sufficient to provide an apology for or
acknowledgement of the breach and take some corrective actions (such as publish a correction or clarification, or provide an opportunity to reply)?
E-2. What types of penalties should be imposed on staff or independent service providers for breach, and in what circumstances?
F. Data
Records, circulates and publishes data about audience responses and complaints
F-1. Should the data be made more accessible, to whom, how, why, and at what cost?
G. Feedback
Feeds the results of audience responses and complaints back into standards-setting, training and day-to-day content-making with the aim of continuous improvement
G-1. What methods, including from sectors other than media, illustrate best practice for using responses and complaints as part of a continuous improvement cycle?
G-2. How can audience feedback, complaints statistics, and decided complaints best be used as a means of continuous improvement in setting standards (when, e.g., Editorial Policies are reviewed), training (of content makers, managers and others), and day-to-day content making?
IV. How you can make a submission
This Issues Paper sets out a number of questions for comment by the public. ABC staff and independent service providers are encouraged to participate. Submissions should be made in writing by email to [email protected] or posted to:
Director Editorial Policies ABC Southbank Centre GPO Box 9994
Melbourne VIC 3001
The closing date for public submissions is 23 December 2008. Mark submissions ―Confidential‖
if preferred.
PAUL CHADWICK Director, Editorial Policies
Endnotes
1 ACMA can only consider a complaint where the complainant has first complained to the ABC and has not received an adequate response within 60 days. Where ACMA finds a complaint against the ABC is justified, ACMA may recommend the ABC comply with the Code of Practice or take other action, such as broadcasting or publishing an apology or retraction. If the ABC fails to act on an ACMA recommendation within 30 days, ACMA may give a written report to the Minister who must cause a copy of the report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament. ACMA also has a separate role, apart from the ABC Code of Practice, to regulate certain types of online content.
2 The ABC Editorial Policies (and ABC Code of Practice) are available on the ABC‘s website at http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/edpols.htm and can be directly downloaded at
http://abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/200806_edpols07update010708.pdf.
3 In 1999, ABC management commissioned an independent review of the ABC‘s ‗oral and electronic complaints handling processes which found that there was a need for an integrated system to ensure a more effective means of dealing with audience feedback‘:
page 21, ABC Annual report 1999-2000. The review was conducted by the former Deputy Commonwealth Ombudsman, Mr John Wood: page 70.
4 The establishment of Audience and Consumer Affairs unit and the Complaints Review Executive in 1992, along with other changes to the complaints handling processes, were noted in the Australian National Audit Office‘s report, Corporate Governance in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation – Follow-up Audit, report no. 38 2003-04, tabled 31 March 2004, pages 51-55, http://www.anao.gov.au/uploads/documents/2003-04_Audit_Report_38.pdf.
5 See, for example, ABC media release, ―ABC reforms its Independent Complaints Review Panel‖, 5 May 2005, http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/media/s1360839.htm.
6 For instance, in March 2003, the ABC began to publish quarterly reports summarising complaints dealt with by Audience and Consumer Affairs and the Complaints Review
Executive: Russell Balding (Managing Director), ―Foreword‖, ABC Public Report on Audience Comments and Complaints: October-December 2002, 7 March 2003.
7 ABC, Annual report 1999-2000, pages 68 and 70,
http://www.abc.net.au/corp/annual_reports/ar00/section1.pdf. The appointment of a new head of Audience and Consumer Affairs followed a recommendation in an internal review commissioned by the ABC and carried out by Mr John Wood, the former Commonwealth Deputy Ombudsman.
8 ABC, Annual report 2001-02, pages 38-39,
http://www.abc.net.au/corp/annual_reports/ar01/all.pdf.
9 ABC, Annual report 2002-03, pages 108 and 114,
http://intranet.corp.abc.net.au/corporate_affairs/corporate_documents/reports_submissions/a r03/pdf/abc_annual_rpt_2003_section4.pdf.
10 ABC, Annual report 2002-03, page 33,
http://www.abc.net.au/corp/annual_reports/ar03/pdf/abc_annual_rpt_2003_section2.pdf.
11 The ABC Board resolved in February 1991 to set up the Independent Review Complaints Panel, and the first members were appointed in May 1991: page 233 in K.S. Inglis, Whose ABC? The Australian Broadcasting Corporation 1983-2006, 2006, Melbourne: Black Inc.
12 The ABC reformed the Panel‘s jurisdiction and procedures in May 1991: ―ABC reforms its Independent Complaints Review Panel‖, media release, 5 May 2005,
http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/media/s1360839.htm.
