ABC ‘Materially Misled’ Viewers: Regulator
The Australian media regulator, ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority), has found that Four Corners, the ABC’s flagship current-affairs program, “materially misled” viewers and breached the ABC’s own code of conduct, which requires accuracy and fair and honest treatment of complaints.
The ACMA report was handed down in the week before Christmas, so passed almost unnoticed.
The two-part Four Corners program, telecast in August 2021, used inflammatory and suggestive language to allege that the Fox News cable television network contributed to what the ABC repeatedly referred to as the January 6 “insurrection” when demonstrators tried to occupy the United States Congress as U.S. senators met to confirm the 2020 U.S. presidential election.
The word “insurrection” has a number of meanings, but it typically means an organised and violent attempt to overthrow a government.
ABC presenter Sarah Ferguson introduced the first episode with the following words: “Fox News didn’t send the mob, but its worst outrage generators certainly fuelled its anger. Trump wasn’t alone in his assault on the truth, but he could never have spread the big lie so widely without his most reliable echo chamber, the Murdoch-owned and run Fox News.
“Tonight, on Four Corners, how America’s number one cable news network became a propaganda vehicle for Donald Trump and helped destabilise democracy.”
Accusations
The second episode linked the Murdoch family to the Fox News coverage. Ferguson said: “The second part of our Four Corners’ special will focus on the role of the powerful Murdoch cable news network, in the critical period after the 2020 election, when Fox News hosts embraced and spread the big lie.”
In addition to its finding that the ABC breached its own accuracy and fair-and-honest dealing requirements, ACMA found that the Four Corners program was misleading to viewers by not reporting relevant contextual information.
In one case, the ABC reported the appearance of two Fox presenters at a 2018 Trump rally without disclosing that Fox had issued a public statement censuring the two presenters. This omission left it open to viewers to conclude that Fox News had either endorsed or at least did not object to the appearances.
In a further omission of relevant facts, the ABC also failed to report on the role social media played in inciting the Capitol Hill riots.
Half-Truths
ACMA chairwoman Nerida O’Loughlin said the ABC has an obligation to present facts accurately and in context. “By omitting key information, the ABC did not give its audience the opportunity to make up their own minds about Fox News,” Ms O’Loughlin said.
The ACMA also found that, in approaching a Fox News host for an interview, the ABC did not appropriately inform her about the nature of her participation in the program as required by its Code of Practice.
“Both audiences and participants are entitled to the full picture. In this case, by omitting information, the ABC did not do justice to the story or provide all relevant facts to its audience,” Ms O’Loughlin said.
The program included a considerable range and number of opinions, several of which were expressed in strong terms and were subjective personal accounts. These expressions of opinion are not subject to code accuracy standards, but were considered by the ACMA to fall outside the ABC’s impartiality requirements.
Media Bias
“Current affairs programs such as Four Corners are not precluded from presenting a particular perspective on an issue or reaching a particular conclusion. But that needs to be balanced against requirements to gather and present information with due impartiality.
“The ACMA considers that the ABC could have taken greater care in striking that balance in this program to avoid perceptions of partiality,” Ms O’Loughlin said.
The ABC’s response to the 12-month ACMA investigation was extraordinary. Not only did it reject the ACMA criticisms, but it launched an attack on ACMA itself.
In a revealing statement, the ABC said that the ACMA “has made three findings that the ABC has consistently disagreed with during the course of the ACMA’s investigation”.
This indicates that the ABC had responded to the allegations while the inquiry was under way, but had been unable to convince the ACMA.
The ABC also claimed that the ACMA report “will have negative consequences for the future production of strong public-interest journalism.”
The ABC’s refusal to accept any independent review of its journalism is a long-standing problem with the publicly funded broadcaster.
___
Originally published in News Weekly. Photo by Bogdan Glisik.
4 Comments
Leave A Comment
Recent Articles:
4 June 2026
2.7 MINS
Last Thursday, we witnessed something truly remarkable. The Australian Christian Freedom Index (ACFI) launch at Parliament House exceeded even our highest hopes — and God's generosity was unmistakable.
4 June 2026
5.3 MINS
The murder of 18-year-old Henry Nowak has reignited debate over policing, race, multiculturalism, and DEI policies, following allegations that officers prioritized racism claims over a dying victim.
4 June 2026
5.2 MINS
A major new report warns that Christian freedoms in Australia are under increasing pressure, documenting legal restrictions, personal testimonies, and growing concerns about religious liberty.
4 June 2026
11.2 MINS
A major science publisher says the peer-reviewed article on the link between vaccines and SIDS is too dangerous for doctors and parents to read.
4 June 2026
4.2 MINS
The Henry Nowak case exposes declining trust in British policing. Ideological influences risk undermining impartial justice, public confidence, and equal treatment under the law.
4 June 2026
2.1 MINS
The harassment of Helen Mirren in London highlights rising antisemitism, political intimidation, and the distortion of public statements in an increasingly hostile debate over Israel.
3 June 2026
3.3 MINS
A New Zealand gang leader's radical conversion is turning hardened criminals toward Christ — and his own violent past is exactly what makes him the right man for the job.
As I understand it Peter, this is not the 1st time the ABC have been found guilty of such deception. It seems clear that they believe themselves to be independent of the rules which govern decent moral behaviour. Is this because there are no consequences with such guilty verdicts? That we the people continue to support them with our time and attention?
Thank you for your work.
More pressure on the ABC’s unreliable journalism. Good, good!
ABC seems to be a law unto themselves. I know of someone who only watches ABC and SBS. Is it any wonder this person is like a brick wall when an alternative opinion (truth) is stated.
“The ABC also claimed that the ACMA report “will have negative consequences for the future production of strong public-interest journalism.””
This simply confirms to me that the ABC sees itself above reproach. Five years ago, I was an avid listener to the ABC but now I never turn it on! The ABC has lost my confidence completely, and my taxes still pay her!