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:
7 October 2026
3.6 MINS
Victoria’s 18th March for the Babies will bring families together to peacefully affirm the value of every human life and call for a cultural change towards life.
7 October 2026
1.5 MINS
Across the Middle East, North Africa and Anatolia, Christianity once shaped entire civilisations. Could Britain’s Christian heritage likewise become a memory rather than a reality?
7 October 2026
6 MINS
What can Tucker Carlson’s interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg teach us about political disagreement? Their clash over war, Russia and national defence highlights the importance of listening carefully and understanding an opponent’s position before attempting to refute it.
7 October 2026
8.5 MINS
Gerald McDermott’s work challenges Christians to approach Israel through Scripture first, exploring God’s covenant faithfulness, Christian Zionism, Jewish identity and antisemitism.
7 October 2026
3.7 MINS
Christians have their differences. But those differences should not, and need not, result in us being disconnected from each other in the one body of Christ.
6 October 2026
3.4 MINS
Christians cannot afford to let headlines and social media shape their view of Israel. Scripture provides a foundation for understanding Israel, God’s promises and our response.
6 October 2026
6.7 MINS
Fresh revelations about the foiled FlyDubai terror plot expose the attacker’s alleged extremist history, while a courageous pilot’s actions prevented an unthinkable catastrophe.
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!