At the heart of impartiality is a paradox. On the one hand, we want it. That is, we generally want our journalists to adhere to it, with ACMA research mirroring international studies to show that Australians are worried about bias and the blurring of fact and opinion. On the other hand, we don’t really know what it is. That is, we struggle to define it with any precision. Impartiality, like objectivity, remains a slippery concept to apply in practice.
This paradox is particularly evident at the ABC, where the issue of impartiality raised its head again this past fortnight following comments by chief political correspondent Laura Tingle at the Sydney Writers’ Festival. In the words of Media Watch, it prompted a Tingle Tangle, complete with a News Corp pile-on that was predictably relentless. And then, for good measure, the issue raised its head once more, as the Fair Work Commission declared that Antoinette Lattouf had indeed been sacked by the ABC for a social media re-post about the Israel-Gaza war.
Impartiality denotes the absence of bias. It is one of the core values of journalism, and is explicitly referenced in most journalistic codes of practice or conduct. As journalism professor Richard Sambrook wrote in 2012, it has been 'at the heart of serious news journalism for most of the last century'. For the ABC, Australia’s public broadcaster, impartiality plays a particularly significant role. Counting every Australian as a funder and stakeholder, the ABC should not be aligned with, and should not be seen to be aligned with, any political, partisan, commercial or personal interest.
The obligation to impartiality stems from the ABC Act, which requires the ABC to gather and present news and information that is ‘accurate and impartial according to the recognised standards of objective journalism’. The ABC’s Editorial Policies contain the Editorial Standards, including Standard 4.1: ‘Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.’ Outside the ABC, many other codes don’t reference this notion of ‘due’ impartiality. As the ABC Editorial Standards note, the notion of ‘due’ impartiality ‘recognises that there is no absolute or formula against which to assess impartiality’. This, I would argue, is a clear and commendable recognition that impartiality must be contextual. Impartiality can never be a value that’s absolute and one-size-fits-all. The Editorial Standards also draw a significant distinction between Analysis and Opinion, with the former intended ‘to aid understanding’, and the latter a means for ‘expressing a view’. The Standards are clear: ‘Opinion content must be carefully managed.’
For both Tingle and Latouff, however, their reporting was not at issue. Rather, controversy arose from comments made outside their reporting: at a writers’ festival event, and in a social media repost. The Editorial Standards explicitly don’t apply in these contexts. As the Standards state: ‘External activities of staff can, however, affect the perception of impartiality of staff and the ABC. Staff should be aware of the guidelines on the personal use of social media and external work.’ In other words, if you’re on a panel for bookworms or if you’re reposting to X, you’re not off the hook. The external work guidelines prescribe, ‘Maintain the independence and integrity of the ABC’. And the ABC’s personal social media guidelines prescribe, ‘Do not damage the ABC’s reputation for impartiality and independence’. And as Derek wrote in February, the Standards are more onerous for a ‘high-risk worker’ such as a journalist or program presenter.
So let’s focus on Tingle’s comments about the Opposition’s anti-immigration policies, which led her to say that Australia is a racist country. What do we make of those? The first thing to note is that the ABC is the country’s most-scrutinised news outlet. It receives mountains of complaints, most of which are dismissed. In one inquiry after another, the ABC has been found to be upholding its commitment to impartiality.
In The Conversation, Denis Muller was clear: ‘Were Tingle’s remarks partisan? Of course. They were statements of her opinions, clearly and obviously so. Do they reflect on her impartiality as a journalist? No.’ Alan Sunderland was even clearer in his piece, which didn’t just defend Tingle, but celebrated her. Sunderland wrote that the ABC needs to take these criticisms seriously, and acknowledged that Tingle deserves a rap over the knuckles for her ‘loose comments’. But he also commended the impartiality of Tingle’s work, including her criticism of the PM, as well as a piece spelling out in more detail her criticism of Peter Dutton’s migration policies.
Ok, then, three conclusions. First, News Corp should lay off the ABC pile-ons, if only for selfish reasons. Research shows that a strong public broadcaster improves levels of trust generally, and this benefits both news media and the wider public sphere. That includes staff at News Corp, who are currently suffering through a brutal round of job cuts. (Besides, it’s odd to attack an ABC commentator for calling Australia racist just as a News Corp commentator is lamenting an ‘explosion in racism against Jews’.)
Second, Tingle was entirely entitled to make her writers’ festival comments, which she had previously made more fully. However, should she have made them? Probably not. In the context of a writers’ festival, the comments had potential to damage the ABC’s reputation for independence and integrity. They had potential to foster a perception of partiality. That said, it’s a minor transgression, and the statement Tingle published on May 29 provided the necessary context and background.
Third, ABC management should have come to Tingle’s defence more quickly and resolutely. There is precedent here, particularly with the failure to back Stan Grant in somewhat similar circumstances, leading to his resignation. Sometimes, perhaps, the ABC needs to be a bit more partial to its own.
Sacha Molitorisz, Senior Lecturer, UTS Law