Review of the ABC’sabout.abc.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/ReviewOfABC... · 2014-07-28 · Report – Self-Regulation Framework Review page 1 August 2009 Chairman’s Preface

Report

Review of the ABC’s

Self-Regulation Framework

September 2009

Advise. Verify. Review

Report – Self-Regulation Framework Review August 2009

Summary

The Review sought submissions and conducted consultations inside and outside the ABC.

Overall conclusions of the Review

The ABC‟s self-regulation framework needs renovation, not replacement. It has weaknesses, excess layers and stresses, but it also has strengths.

As the ABC and its audiences adapt to convergence and Web 2.0, change in media self-regulation is imperative (Section I A).

For the ABC the changes need to come with continuity, partly because of the statutory context, partly because of the diversity of its audiences, and partly because of its staff (Section I B).

The renovation will cost money and time, but it offers benefits too. They link in with other aspects of the changing media environment. If undertaken well, they may reduce the number of formal complaints, with associated savings in time and tensions.

Self-regulation has dual aims – effective accountability and continuous quality improvement. Much about the present framework works, and there is a broad acceptance of the legitimacy of making self-regulation work (Sections I C).

Changes to the framework should be made with these dual aims and the future media environment in mind (Section I D).

There is a sufficient foundation on which to try to develop better and mutual understanding among those whose roles in the self-regulation framework naturally cause tensions, in particular the tensions that arise between complaints handlers and content makers. Building on that foundation will require willingness by everyone to reconsider attitudes afresh (Section III D 3 and 4).

There are two views about whether local managers and program team leaders should be given greater autonomy to resolve matters directly with audience members. This should not occur yet, but the ABC should work towards it. Specific program teams, perhaps one from each of Radio, TV and News, should be incubators to trial the changes recommended by the Review. Depending on experience, greater local autonomy can then be extended gradually.

Meanwhile, while written complaints should continue to be referred to A&CA, A&CA should be enabled to refer less serious matters back to local managers and program teams for handling, with appropriate oversight and a clear option for the audience member to revert to A&CA. The suggestions of local managers and team leaders, who have relevant expertise and knowledge about how a matter may be resolved, should receive consideration and a response, whether or not those suggestions form part of the eventual resolution of the matter (Section III D 5).

If the framework is to be successfully renovated, both to improve self-regulation and to assist adaptation in a changing media environment, there will need to be commitment from the top.

ABC people will need to grow thicker skins.


Main proposals for change

Make the ABC‟s accountability system overall, including Web 2.0 audience engagement and formal complaints handling, easier for those outside the ABC to navigate (Section III C, III D 8)

Reduce the number of layers in the internal complaints-handling process to one, with built-in checks and balances and the timely involvement of senior decision-makers. Complainants retain the existing external appeal layer, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (Section III D 7 and 8)

Sort matters according to criteria that ensure that the time and resources applied to a matter are proportionate (Section III D 6 and 8)

Increase training, as a discrete part of self-regulation and because the discussion and reflection inherent in training can leaven the tendency to view all self-regulation as “policing” and “breach-spotting”. More and better training – both online and face-to-face – can improve compliance (ie prevention is better than cure) and also broaden understanding of the purposes and benefits of standards and greater openness (Section III B)

Separate remedies from penalties in the minds of ABC people and complainants, and apply remedies and penalties justly and consistently (Section III E)

Coordinate better the existing information about how the training, audience response and complaints-handling elements of the framework operate (Section III F)

Feed rich information back routinely so that follow-up action occurs, systemic issues are identified, and individuals and the organisation learn from mistakes (Section III G)

PAUL CHADWICK Director Editorial Policies


Report

Review of the ABC’s Self-Regulation Framework

August 2009

Table of contents

Chairman’s Preface ................................................................................................................................ 1

Managing Director’s Foreword ............................................................................................................. 2

I. Overview – the case for change, with continuity ................................................................... 4

A. Change ................................................................................................................................... 4

B. Continuity ................................................................................................................................ 5

C. Dual aims – effective accountability and continuous quality improvement ............................ 6

D. Designing for the future .......................................................................................................... 7

II. Conduct of the Review .............................................................................................................. 8

A. Terms of reference ................................................................................................................. 8

B. Call for public submissions ..................................................................................................... 8

C. Targeted external consultations ............................................................................................. 9

D. Internal consultations and submissions .................................................................................. 9

III. Findings and Proposals ............................................................................................................ 9

A. Setting standards .................................................................................................................... 9

B. Training ................................................................................................................................... 9

C. Dealing with audience responses ......................................................................................... 10

D. Complaints handling ............................................................................................................. 11 1. Current complaints-handling framework ............................................................................... 11 2. Complaints statistics (2007-2008)......................................................................................... 12 3. Understanding the role of others ........................................................................................... 13 4. More direct contact ............................................................................................................... 14 5. More local autonomy? Not yet, but work towards it ............................................................. 14 6. Defining “complaint” and “editorial complaint” ...................................................................... 17 7. Fewer layers .......................................................................................................................... 18 8. Streamlined process for handling complaints ....................................................................... 18

E. Remedies and penalties ....................................................................................................... 20

F. Data ...................................................................................................................................... 22

G. Feedback .............................................................................................................................. 23

Appendix I: List of Public Submissions ............................................................................................. 24

Appendix II: Staff Consultations ......................................................................................................... 25

Report – Self-Regulation Framework Review page 1 August 2009

Chairman’s Preface Our Editorial Policies are a living codification of what is expected of each and every one of us in the pursuit of excellence in broadcasting. It is living because there is no last word. We live in a changing world where community attitudes and new technology impact on the way we do things. Our continuous supervision of performance against these expectations, as part of the self-regulatory process, will give us valuable feedback and insights into ways we can enhance efficiency, effectiveness and audience satisfaction. The latest Review adopts this approach and reflects the importance of corporate-wide feedback in refining the framework through which we administer our Editorial Policies. This way we can make them contemporary and more user-friendly. I commend the Review of the ABC‟s self-regulatory framework to you. MAURICE L NEWMAN AC Chairman


Managing Director’s Foreword

The ABC is poised to make significant changes to its framework for monitoring performance standards and dealing with audience complaints. The reforms are designed to deliver a more interactive, robust system of self-regulation that recognises and responds to the challenges of the 21

st Century.

They will streamline many of the complicated processes and rules that in the past may have pushed staff and other stakeholders into adversarial positions, and then allowed issues to drag on interminably, to the detriment of all those involved. The reforms will promote accountability and continuous improvements in quality, especially accuracy – touchstones of a modern ABC. At a time of enormous challenge for the media sector, with commercial business models under pressure and the risk that traditional journalism values like balance, perspective and context become marginalised, it is more important than ever that the ABC get its self-regulation framework right. Self- regulation in the digital media era is an issue for media outlets around the world. In an era of information overload, trust becomes the critical factor in retaining and building audiences. I believe the changes we will be phasing in over time will put the ABC at the forefront of self-regulation, ensuring that fair treatment is delivered to complainants and to content makers in a timely and efficient manner. The changes signal a shift in thinking. The aim is to build a new understanding between content makers and complaint handlers and create new opportunities to resolve matters quickly. As we gradually extend autonomy to program makers and local managers, greater responsibility will accompany it. We all need to develop thicker skins, put up with sharper criticism from audiences, admit and correct errors quickly when they occur, and enhance our systems of feedback and review. We can all learn from mistakes. The key principles of reform and the specific measures to be introduced over time include:

Greater use of the ABC‟s online sites to encourage interaction between staff and audiences about ABC content;

New criteria to ensure investigations, remedies and penalties are proportionate to the issue at hand;

A renewed ABC-wide commitment to Editorial Policies training;

Streamlining the existing three-tiered complaints-handling system into a much simpler model. The roles of the Complaints Review Executive and Independent Complaints Review Panel will be phased out over time;

Director of Editorial Policies to assume responsibility for Audience and Consumer Affairs;

Gradually empowering content divisions to deal directly with complaints, acknowledging that the swift posting of corrections and clarifications can prevent issues building into much bigger problems;

A new discretionary power for A&CA to refer a complaint to a program team or local manager to give those closest to the content the initial opportunity to settle issues directly and quickly;

An Executive Editorial Complaints Advisor role to be created. At the request of Directors of content divisions, the EECA will give a second opinion on A&CA draft findings; and

A new internal bulletin about Ed Pols developments, including case notes, hypotheticals and FAQs.


Increasingly, technology is allowing people to publish their comments, corrections and criticism (as well as their praise and suggestions) in our many online forums. The more people are assisted to do that, the greater the likelihood that fewer matters will need to be handled as formal complaints. Our formal processes should be reserved for more serious matters. The current system of complaint handling will remain for the time being while these changes are phased in during a transitional period of preparation and consultation. Audience members will continue to have the option of external independent review of their complaint by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). The findings are the culmination of an extensive review undertaken at my request by the Chairman and the Director Editorial Policies. The team considered submissions from the public and the ABC‟s Divisions, consulted staff around Australia and received advice from Directors and industry self-regulation experts. Other reforms will be considered as part of the current review of Editorial Policies. Together, the two processes will help position the ABC in a rapidly-evolving media landscape.

MARK SCOTT

Managing Director


I. Overview – the case for change, with continuity

This is a renovation. The conclusion of the Review is that the ABC‟s self-regulation framework needs to be streamlined and upgraded, not razed and rebuilt.

One of the features of the ABC‟s many decades of service to Australians is its experience of change with continuity. The present exercise is another example of it.

Three themes have run through the Review, and they guide its proposals –

Convergence of communications technologies and the social networking that they enable make change imperative for all traditional media organisations, and change to their self-regulation methods is part of a wider transition.

Self regulation has dual aims – effective accountability and continuous improvement in quality. Neglect the first, and you can lose the trust of others. Neglect the second, and you can undermine yourself.

Design a framework to serve the dual aims, not to suit personalities. Individuals may change or move on, but the dual aims of self-regulation endure.

The Review has had regard to self-regulation theory and practice generally. It has not assessed the ABC‟s framework in isolation. Any self-regulation framework must take account of features unique to the entity building and operating it, but there are generic traits which a self-regulation system should include in order to make it “permeable to broader community values and appropriate democratic accountability”, as one leading authority puts it.

1 Those traits include –

methods for consultation with stakeholders

systematic policies and procedures for stakeholders to contest decisions that affect them

public disclosure of information that can be used to hold the self-regulator accountable

awareness in the self-regulator that there is always a possibility of greater government coercion and/or public criticism if the self-regulation is not appropriate

The framework the ABC ends up with following this Review should display these traits, in its design and in its day-to-day operations.

A. Change

Communications and media services that previously were separate, and could be treated separately in law and self-regulation, are steadily converging.

This coming together of technologies is rapidly enabling a coming together of people into connected networks.

When people can connect, many will form communities of interest. Non-linear, ever-changing, these communities can create, share and contribute. They can also request and suggest change by others. The ABC is working to foster this connectedness.

2

And the ABC, like other media institutions that grew strong in a passing era of separated technologies, is also facing pressure for change. Renovating media self-regulation frameworks is happening in that context, for the ABC and for others.

3

1 Dr Christine Parker, author of The Open Corporation (2002), in “Self-regulation and the not-for-profit sector”, a paper prepared for the Victorian State Services Authority, May 2007, p 12.

2 From the beginnings of its online presence in the 1990s, the ABC has shown a willingness to adapt and meet the challenges of convergence – some examples from recent times include its use of Twitter to augment coverage of the Victorian bushfires in February 2009, the online experience of Gallipoli, and Triple J‟s “Hottest 100 Of All Time”.


Audience members have increasing capacity to respond – whether to praise, suggest or complain – direct to the ABC or among each other. Web 2.0 tools enable a complainant to disseminate their concerns to big audiences at the same time as they engage with a media organisation about that concern, formally or informally.

The environment for media organisations‟ relationships with their audience members is less and less bi-lateral and private. It is multi-lateral and public. The barriers of time, cost and inconvenience are falling, so the ABC can expect an increase in audience responses. No matter how they are received, audience responses must be dealt with. A self-regulation framework, which was designed mainly for an era that is passing, must adapt.

It is to the advantage of both the ABC and the public that the ABC‟s self-regulation framework should be consciously designed to facilitate the transition to a more converged environment. This motive underpins several of the proposals of this Review.

If the ABC – in any of its endeavours, not just its self-regulation – resists the transition, if it is too rigid or too timid, then like any twentieth century media institution that fails to adapt to the transformation now underway, the ABC will lose credibility and relevance.

In coming years, as the new communications hardware and software develop in speed, drop in cost and spread throughout the community, this kind of ongoing audience participation with and through well-known media organisations such as the ABC can be expected to grow. Reliance on traditional one-to-one complaints-handling processes can be expected to decline.

But that era is not here yet. Complaints-handling processes continue to be needed, and audience members should be made aware of their option to choose to use them.

The ABC should invest more in its commitment to complaints-handling processes, aiming always and openly to observe key principles of good complaints handling: fairness; accessibility; responsiveness; efficiency; and integration into the organisation so that staff involvement grows.

4

B. Continuity

Three main reasons support a strategy of change with continuity in the ABC‟s self-regulation framework –

1 The statutory duties of the public broadcaster have not changed and are not optional

The ABC receives public funds and is obliged to fulfil certain functions, to meet high standards and to be accountable. Independence is assured by law and convention. The ABC‟s independence is fundamental to the ABC fulfilling its functions, especially its functions to inform, educate and promote the arts. Effective self-regulation is fundamental to maintaining independence. Lose enough credibility, lose enough relevance, lose enough public trust, and loss of independence is likely to follow.

2 Members of the public adopt new technologies at different speeds and everyone’s responses to the ABC must be dealt with. This requires the maintenance of older methods of self-regulation at the same time as the extension or creation of new ones

Australians are adapting to convergence in different ways and at varying speeds. One part of the self-regulation framework has to adapt quickly to audiences who rapidly adopt new ways to receive and to interact with old and new forms of media. That content may be generated by the ABC itself or it may

3 Australia‟s newspaper publishers are rethinking their Press Council. The UK Press Complaints Commission is under review. In the US, several publishers grappling with the impact of convergence on their economic model have rid themselves of one element of self-regulation, the in-house critics known typically as news ombudsmen, and suggested that the empowerment of audiences, through Web 2.0, to scrutinise and to critique the traditional press is a sufficient substitute.

4 Condensed from Better Practice Guide to Complaint Handling, Commonwealth Ombudsman, April 2009. Similar principles appear throughout the literature, including for media organisations, for instance in the statement by the UK media and communications regulator Ofcom Criteria for promoting effective co- and self-regulation.

http://www.pcc.org.uk/governance/index.html


be user-generated content (UGC) that is hosted by the ABC, either on its own platforms or on third-party controlled platforms where the ABC maintains a presence. The ABC needs to serve these audiences, and to learn from them.

Other Australians adjust at a different pace. They may choose not to adopt some new technologies, being comfortable with the older, separate technologies of radio and TV. Many Australians may not be able to afford the services convergence offers, or they may live in places where it is not practicable to use them – at least not yet. The ABC must serve these Australians too. Since the ABC has the same obligation to these Australians to be accountable and to meet high standards, it cannot abandon suddenly the old forms of media self-regulation. People who make a phone call or send a letter to the ABC – whether of praise, encouragement, suggestion or complaint – may reasonably expect a courteous response. All these modes of interaction, new and old, are valid. They can and do co-exist in the same household, and will continue to do so. The ABC‟s self-regulation framework must cope with them all.

3 Although the ABC and its staff are in the midst of great change to adapt to convergence, the ABC’s self-regulation framework is fundamentally sound and staff accept its legitimacy

The Review did not receive evidence, from inside or outside the ABC, of failure of the self-regulation framework such that it should be demolished and rebuilt.

The ABC has set its standards, the Editorial Policies, over at least six decades. The ABC‟s complaints-handling system has been developing in its present form for almost 10 years. Compared to other substantial media organisations in Australia, the ABC‟s self-regulation framework is well-developed and transparent. It can and should be improved, but viewed in light of the ABC‟s history and of contemporary media self-regulation, the current ABC framework is fundamentally sound.

C. Dual aims – effective accountability and continuous quality improvement

Many of the proposals of the Review are aimed at improving the accountability delivered through the ABC‟s self-regulation framework. In particular, accountability would be improved by –

making the ABC‟s system easier for those outside the ABC to navigate;

reducing the number of layers in the complaints-handling process;

separating with precision the standards that are enforceable from the non-binding guidance;

sorting matters according to criteria that ensure that the time and resources applied to a matter are proportionate to its seriousness;

increasing training, because that can leaven the tendency to view all self-regulation as “policing” and broaden understanding of the purposes and benefits of standards and of greater openness;

separating remedies from penalties in the minds of staff and complainants, and applying remedies and penalties justly and consistently;

coordinating better the existing information about how the audience-response and complaints-handling elements of the framework operate;

feeding information back efficiently so that follow-up action occurs, systemic issues are identified, and individuals and the organisation learn from mistakes.

Most of the steps listed above would improve quality too.

Although complaints handling is only one element of a self-regulation framework it tends to be the one that people identify most with accountability. However, where content-making staff genuinely engage with complaints-handling specialists about what can be learned from the flow of complaints and complainants‟ grievances, and where the complaints handlers genuinely engage with other staff about the practical details of making media content, the increased mutual understanding can lead to


improvements in the quality of the work of both. The Review has indentified in the ABC a sufficient foundation for this kind of positive interaction. To develop it will require a commitment from Directors to provide the resources and leadership necessary for mutual understanding to grow.

The Review found that ABC staff tend to see the Editorial Policies as part of what gives the ABC‟s its distinctive character as a public broadcaster aspiring to high standards. During the staff consultations there was broad acceptance among staff of the proposition that if you set standards for yourself and make them public you must have a credible framework for enforcing them. This is especially the case when, as part of your day-to-day media work, you are continuously holding to account, on the public‟s behalf, others who undertake functions that affect the public interest, whether in the government, commercial or community sectors.

An organisation‟s self-regulation system functions best when individuals who comprise the organisation and whose work is subject to the system understand its purposes and processes and accept the system as legitimate, notwithstanding that they may disagree with parts of it, or with particular results in particular cases (whether or not they are personally involved). Disagreements are inevitable, especially when the ingredients of media self-regulation cases include concepts such as accuracy and impartiality, matters of current and heated public controversy, and parties with competing interests in the outcome of the controversies as well as the case in hand.

Those held accountable under a complaints-handling system and their managers can provide useful feedback about whether the process was fair, whether they received timely information about their case, and whether the complainant‟s views or the decision-maker‟s reasons might usefully lead to improvements in work procedures that may reduce the incidence of the issue. This feedback can be valuable in a self-regulation framework whether or not the particular complaint that gave rise to it was upheld or not upheld. As the Commonwealth Ombudsman has observed: “Complaints can cast light on things that are not apparent to the complaints handling staff.”

5

All this forms the context in which changes to the self-regulation framework need to be considered and implemented.

D. Designing for the future

In so far as possible, this Review has approached the terms of reference not from the point of view of what particular individuals do now or want to do within the ABC‟s self-regulation framework, but instead by asking –

What are the elements of a self-regulation framework for the ABC, in this era of transition for media and audiences, that are most likely to lead to effective accountability and continuous improvement of quality, regardless of who is operating those elements?

The proposals depend in part on ABC management devoting resources to renovating the ABC‟s self-regulation framework. The resources of a public entity are limited. Choices about the extent and timing of the adoption of the proposals will have to be made.

The proposals also depend on staff responding to the opportunities that a renewed focus on the elements of self-regulation can create.

A striking feature of the contemporary media environment is the speed of change. For this reason the ABC should again openly review its self-regulation framework no later than 2012.

5 Better Practice Guide to Complaint Handling, Commonwealth Ombudsman, April 2009, p 15.


II. Conduct of the Review

A. 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

B. Call for public submissions

On 22 November 2008, the ABC released an issues paper and published it on the ABC‟s website. Advertisements seeking public submissions were published soon afterwards in major newspapers throughout the country.

The closing date for public consultation was 23 December 2008. Extensions of time were granted when sought, with the last extension expiring on 16 January 2009.

Twenty-eight submissions6 were received from the public – see Appendix I. Submitters wrote in from

all states and the Australian Capital Territory. Of the 28 submitters: one was anonymous and one may have been pseudonymous

7; four were confidential; four were from individuals or entities with special

interests, who had views on how the ABC covered those special interests and handled complaints about that coverage. Several submitters had professional and/or academic expertise in regulation and self-regulation. Other submitters declared themselves longstanding listeners/watchers of the ABC.

All these submissions were appreciated. They were considered from the perspective of what could be learned about the overall framework and how it could be improved.

6 Note: supplemental submissions sent in by the same submitter have not been separately counted.

7 The ABC‟s acknowledgement letter to the submitter was “returned to sender” and marked as addressee “unknown”.


C. Targeted external consultations

As well as receiving submissions, the Review consulted academic experts in self-regulation and experienced regulators and self-regulators in the media and other sectors, government and commercial.

D. Internal consultations and submissions

Following the publication of the Issues Paper, Divisions were invited to make submissions by 30 January 2009. ABC staff were invited to make submissions either directly to the Editorial Policies Division or by contributing their comments to their editorial managers for inclusion in the respective Divisional submissions.

The Director Editorial Policies carried out staff consultations (Appendix II) in each of the state and territory capital cities during January and February 2009. Telephone conferences were also held with staff in regional offices.

III. Findings and Proposals

A. Setting standards

Like most self-regulatory documents, the ABC‟s Editorial Policies are a mix of standards, guidance and aspiration. They give practical shape to the requirements of the ABC Act, especially section 8 (1). That section creates duties to maintain independence and integrity and to gather and present news and information that is accurate and impartial according to the recognised standards of objective journalism.

From the Editorial Policies the ABC distils a Code of Practice and notifies it to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). Complaints alleging a breach of the Code can be investigated by ACMA under procedures set out in Part 11, Division 2 of the Broadcasting Services Act.

Changing circumstances, including convergence and Web 2.0, are affecting the applicability of the Editorial Policies in their current form, and they will be separately reviewed in the second half of 2009.

8

B. Training

More training, as a discrete aspect of the self-regulation framework, was a strong theme of the consultations with staff. The Review found that while training in editorial standards occurs at present, it varies greatly across the ABC‟s various Divisions. Overall, there is not enough of it.

Training is fundamental to any self-regulation framework for the time-honoured reason that prevention is always better than cure. Media work is a deadline-pressured endeavour. More opportunities need to be provided outside of day-to-day working environments for staff to engage in the discussion, sharing of experiences, and personal reflection that together can improve a person‟s ability to make good ethical decisions.

8 Section 9 of the Editorial Policies “User Generated Content” took effect on 1 March 2009 and is part of the necessary adaptation.


The Review identified three broad categories in which renewed training efforts are required –

Training for all staff and contractors in what ABC editorial standards require, what they are designed to achieve, how they are to be enforced and how they can contribute to improved quality.

Training for those whose work as managers requires them to interpret and administer the standards for others and sometimes to refer doubts and problems to more senior decision-makers. Those doubts and problems may be about how a standard should be applied in a particular situation, but they may also be doubts about whether a standard drafted in the pre-convergence era is any longer relevant or may perhaps be impeding the transition that convergence requires of the ABC.

Training for those whose work requires them to investigate and determine allegations of breach of editorial standards and to decide appropriate remedies and penalties where breaches do occur.

The ABC should commit to a substantial increase in the amount and quality of training for staff and contractors in all elements of the self-regulation framework, using as appropriate the existing skills of the ABC as well as skills and techniques acquired from outside the ABC, in face-to-face and online training.

C. Dealing with audience responses

Convergence and Web 2.0 imply changes in the perspectives of both media professionals and audience members about what it means for media organisations to be accountable.

Media professionals need to grow thicker skins. They need to accept more and harsher criticism, disseminate it more readily, correct errors swiftly, be willing to clarify, explain their decisions, acknowledge their misjudgements and, where appropriate, apologise.

Convergence and Web 2.0 allow audience members to see themselves, at least initially, not as complainants in a bilateral private exchange with the ABC but instead as participants in a public exchange with the ABC from which they, other participants and the ABC may benefit.

Increasingly in the online space, audience members can swiftly air in their own words their grievances, suggestions or praise. They can do this direct to the responsible content-makers and to other members of the audience on the program‟s website. They can assert that the ABC is in error, if that is their view, and provide what they believe to be the correct information. They can add details which they may regard as essential but which program makers, in the exercise of their own editorial judgment, decided not to include. They can take issue with an opinion expressed by a person interviewed in a program, or another participant in an online discussion, and they can give their own opinion.

This can happen faster than letters through the mail or having a telephone message transcribed and relayed. Much audience response stays online for long periods. It is able to be sifted and retrieved by increasingly powerful search engines, giving the audience member‟s contribution opportunities to be found by others with an interest in the subject that moved the audience member to respond and to participate. It is disseminated far wider than the contents of letters passing to and from a complainant and a member of the ABC staff responsible for handling a complaint.

This is a very different environment from the circumstances in which traditional media self-regulation techniques developed. It is capable of processing vastly more audience response than, say, talkback calls on radio or the kinds of audience responses that ABC TV used to summarise and broadcast on the program Backchat. In that program, a few audience members wrote to the broadcaster, which made a selection from the responses and broadcast it to the many. Audience response online is many-to-many, hosted by one, the ABC, either on its own platforms like abc.net.au or on third-party-controlled platforms such as popular social media sites where the ABC maintains a presence (eg Facebook, Twitter). It is multichat.


The ABC should invest resources in facilitating audience responses online. It should be willing to cultivate this aspect of self-regulation. A single and easily remembered symbol should be devised and widely used on all ABC platforms to point people to the place or places where they can find out their options to respond or complain. The ABC‟s traditional platforms of radio and TV, as well as its retail outlets, should all be used to promote the symbol and basic message so that it becomes widely recognised in the Australian community. When people see it anywhere, most should know that it signifies a way to access easy-to-understand information about how they can participate in keeping the ABC accountable and continuously improving the quality of its services.

Thicker skins imply sharper content. That will require careful attention to the training and support given to moderators of the ABC‟s online forums. It is enough here to flag two aspects of the challenge to whomever undertakes moderator roles. The first will be the pressures that they may feel to exclude or to soften the harshness of criticism aimed at their ABC colleagues who make or present programs. If the ABC commits to grow a thicker skin, it must do so. As the esteemed American newspaper editor Ben Bradlee once observed, media self-regulation that is mere window-dressing is worse than no self-regulation at all.

The proposal to step up encouragement to its audiences to give the ABC a piece of their mind in its own forums has another aspect directly relevant to moderators. It is in the nature of media self-regulation that some people engage with it not with robust argument but with unreasoned abuse, hate speech, or other speech that exceeds the limits of the law. That tiny minority will always be a fact of life in media organisations. They must be borne. Under traditional media self-regulation systems, a very few people – often but not only the specialist complaints handlers – have the unpleasant task of sifting this bile for potential breaches of editorial standards that require action. Under the proposal to expand criticism of the ABC in its own online forums, it will be necessary for moderators to ensure that the ABC does not inflict this material on other participants in the forums. The moderators will need support.

D. Complaints handling

1. Current complaints-handling framework

The ABC‟s complaints-handling framework was described in the Issues Paper as follows (endnotes omitted) –

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”, including coordinating responses to audience feedback. 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. 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.” 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. In May 2005, the ICRP‟s jurisdiction was extended to include serious cases of factual inaccuracy.


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>.

A complainant is also entitled under Part 11, Division 2 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1997 (Cth) to make a complaint to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). The complaint must relate to the standards set out in the ABC Code of Practice, which the ABC Board has a duty under s 8 (1) of the ABC Act to develop and notify to ACMA. Before ACMA can accept the complaint, the complainant must have first made their complaint to the ABC. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the ABC‟s response or has not received a response within 60 days after making it, then the person may complain to ACMA. ACMA is required to investigate the complaint unless it is satisfied that either:

the complaint does not relate to the ABC Code of Practice, or

the complaint is frivolous or vexatious or was not made in good faith.

Where ACMA upholds a complaint, it may take action to encourage the ABC to comply with the Code of Practice and it may give notice to the ABC that it should take specified actions, such as broadcasting or publishing an apology or retraction. If the ABC fails to take the recommended actions within 30 days after the recommendation was given, then ACMA may give a written report to the Minister and that report must be laid before each House of Parliament.

A&CA deals with audience feedback (including praise, suggestions, requests, scheduling queries) and investigates complaints alleging a breach of editorial standards and complaints about non-editorial matters (such as scheduling and program changes). CRE, ICRP and ACMA deal only with editorial complaints.

2. Complaints statistics (2007-2008)

a. Complaints at first instance

A&CA was restructured in late 2007 to better distinguish between their different roles in handling complaints about editorial and non-editorial matters. A&CA explain in its submission –

Reflecting this split between complaints about editorial standards and audience contacts which either aren‟t complaints, or which are complaints about matters of personal taste and preference, Audience and Consumer Affairs has structured itself into two separate but complementary teams:

The Audience Liaison team deals with the broad range of audience contacts that don‟t allege a

breach of the ABC‟s Editorial Policies or Code of Practice. These include appreciative comments, requests and suggestions, and complaints about matters of personal taste and preference.

The Investigations team primarily deals with complaints which allege a breach of the ABC‟s Editorial

Policies or Code of Practice.

The system for compiling annual complaints statistics was accordingly revised from January 2008 to reflect this restructure in dealing with audience feedback and complaints. The restructure enabled A&CA to advise in the 2007-2008 annual report that, during the six months from January to June 2008, 2247 editorial complaints were investigated of which 335 (15%) were upheld.

Currently, A&CA works with content divisions to prepare an agreed response to the complainant. Where a content division does not agree with A&CA‟s proposed response, CRE can be asked to adjudicate between A&CA and the content division.

Over the whole of 2007-2008, the CRE adjudicated between A&CA and content divisions in 11 complaints matters. In 9 of those cases the CRE supported A&CA‟s original decision to uphold a complaint.

http://abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/200806_edpols07update010708.pdf


b. Reviews of complaints

Where a complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome of an agreed or adjudicated response, he or she can seek review by the CRE (in its review role, as distinct from its adjudicative role), ICRP or ACMA. The following table summarises the 2007-2008 complaints reviews statistics –

Complaints review outcomes for 2007-2008

CRE ICRP ACMA

Complaints finalised 70 3 14

Complaints not upheld 68 1 14

Complaints upheld in part or full

(percentage upheld)

2

(3%)

2

(67%)

0

(0%)

Source: ABC annual report for 2007-2008

3. Understanding the role of others

It is natural that tensions arise between the ABC‟s content makers and its complaints handlers. Part of the focus of the Review has been to consider ways to ease that tension. The first step is to lay out why the tension is natural, even when everyone involved is doing their best work.

The work of media content makers can provoke strong audience responses when that work is poor and when it is excellent. Leave to one side for the moment cases of evasion of accountability for poor work. That evasion is not justifiable and a decent self-regulation framework should not tolerate it.

Focus instead on the tensions that arise when the content makers reasonably believe their work was excellent, even though controversial. This is in the nature of an independent public broadcaster with a mandate to inform, educate and innovate. Sometimes content, especially journalism, provokes complaints because it is very good, according to recognised standards of objective journalism, and also very controversial.

The work of the complaints handlers involves receiving those strong audience reactions and putting them to the content makers. Given the natural tendency of people involved in a public controversy over their work to defend themselves and to find it difficult to appreciate the perspective of others, sometimes the mere fact that a complaints-handling system demands due process and a fair consideration of both sides of a matter can seem to content makers as though the complaints handlers have taken sides.

Similarly, complainants with strong views about a piece of content – especially those personally affected by it by name or organisation – may see the complaints handlers‟ efforts to gather and consider both sides of a matter as the complaints handlers taking the side of their ABC colleagues against an outsider.

When complaints handlers try fairly to gather and consider the relevant facts and perspectives from both sides of a disputed matter it is very good, according to the recognised standards of complaints handling, and also very controversial (at least from the perspective of the affected content makers).

Just as with content-makers, but in a different way, when complaints handlers do their work poorly and when they do it well they may find that one or the other party to a complaint – the content maker involved or the audience member – is dissatisfied.

Understanding this dynamic is part of managing it. It is also part of ensuring that complaints handling, which is only one element of the whole framework, serves the dual aims of effective accountability and continuous quality improvement.


4. More direct contact

To some extent, barriers to interaction between ABC content makers and ABC‟s complaints handlers are practical. For instance, the complaints handlers are few and mostly based in Sydney, while the content makers are many and spread throughout the country and overseas.

More interaction between content makers and complaints handlers is required during particular investigations. This should increase the speed of complaints handling. In some parts of the ABC, past practice has been for complaints handlers mostly to deal with content makers through a representative from the relevant Division who is delegated for the purpose. This has some advantages, including the familiarity that the Divisions‟ delegates acquire with the complaints process and their knowledge of their own Division and its staff. But there are disadvantages, including inefficiencies in the flow of information between those most immediately involved in the subject matter of a complaint and its proper resolution. The practice can institutionalise an unhelpful remoteness of content makers from complaints handlers. The self-regulation framework would operate better if ways were found to connect them more directly with each other.

This need not occur only in the context of handling particular complaints. The ABC should explore the possibilities of secondments of content makers into aspects of complaints-handling work and complaints handlers into suitable roles in or close to content-making teams.

5. More local autonomy? Not yet, but work towards it

Presently, the ABC requires that written complaints be referred to the Audience and Consumer Affairs unit. The ABC Innovation Division‟s submission to the Review argues for change to a more de-centralised, less prescriptive approach to dealing with audience complaints.

The submission says the current system has a number of strengths including objective and detached complaints handling, time-savings for staff, and the ability to monitor, record and report statistics. However, it is argued, a weak point is that the system focuses more on dealing with complaints than on resolving the conflict or enabling wider discussion of the grievance that lay behind the complaint. The Innovation Division point to a number of factors as relevant, including –

opacity of the process and lack of direct response, where complainants write to particular program areas or journalists and end up with “a carefully worded response from a department they have never heard of, signed by a person who had no role in making or approving the disputed content”;

the process is closed and complainants may not feel heard, where it is argued that some complainants may prefer to ventilate an issue they‟ve raised rather than have it dealt with by some formal adjudicative process, where the outcome of their complaint is contained in a private letter or email;

uneven ability amongst complainants to pursue their complaints, where unsophisticated first-time complainants who do not understand the complex architecture and tiers of review may end up receiving less attention “than a practised complainant with a marginal point to make”; and

the lengthy and judicial nature of the system, where complex and nuanced matters that travel through the various tiers of review end up being matters of judgement rather than fact, resulting in relatively minor consequences after months of deliberation, which “can be intensely frustrating for the complainant, does little to resolve the initial conflict, and does equally little for public confidence in the process.”

The Innovation Division suggests that complaints be published online for community discussion – as an alternative, or precursor, to formal direct handling.

Innovation proposes that, within a day of receipt of a complaint by the ABC, complainants should be offered the opportunity for online publication and community discussion. Complainants should also be


advised that a more formal complaint could be pursued if the complainant was dissatisfied with the discussion. They would also be told they could proceed formally without online publication, if they preferred. Guidelines would need to be developed about whether, and to what extent, the complainant would be identified.

Each program would set up a clear and easily accessible area for the discussion of complaints, and that programs should actively invite such participation. Discussion by the community might also include participation by the program maker and program executives. Innovation believes that online publication and discussion of disputed matters would lead program makers into more promptly and openly assessing and correcting mistakes or misjudgements. Program executives could (like in Editors‟ blogs) explain how they make individual editorial judgements. Innovation cautions that individual program staff responses should not be posted without editorial oversight by executive producers. In sensitive cases, upward referral or referral to A&CA could be implemented.

Innovation suggests that where program areas or content-producing Division executives felt a complaint should not be posted online, they could refer the matter to A&CA to assess how it should be handled. A complaint might be withheld from online publication, for example where –

the complaint might defame ABC staff or other individuals;

there are other serious legal issues (e.g. contempt of court);

factual content in a complaint is so demonstrably wrong that it might seriously mislead the public, or create anxiety or panic;

the complaint amounts to abusive or offensive behaviour.

A&CA would handle complaints when publication was not appropriate or the complainant expressed that preference.

Innovation point out that the proposal would have resourcing implications in posting and moderating complaints on individual program sites. Trained personnel from A&CA may be able to moderate comments from a number of sites at once, utilising software that allows aggregation. The software would require modest funding. Innovation argues that giving A&CA this central role has the advantage of providing consistent moderation standards and an ability for A&CA to monitor, record and report on the nature and frequency of complaints.

Whether or not criticism and complaints are to be published and discussed online, in the manner Innovation proposes or in some other way, the issue remains about who should handle complaints that require investigation and direct response to the complainant.

During the staff consultations, two clear and opposing views were expressed when it was proposed that ABC content makers and local managers be empowered to handle more matters themselves, without the need for Audience and Consumer Affairs necessarily to become involved.

In support were those who thought that it would be appropriate for the content makers to handle written complaints that came directly to them, so long as they copied in A&CA to the communications with the complainant. In this way, it was argued, the people with the most direct knowledge and involvement in the matter could sort it out. A&CA would not have to brief itself through separate communication with each party. This would save time and preserve relationships. The parties in these direct dealings – especially the ABC staff whose work was the subject of the complaint – would be aware of the oversight of A&CA, because it was copied into communications between the parties, and A&CA could at any time intervene or be asked to take the matter over. Some suggested that serious matters should always be referred to A&CA.

Those who were not in favour of changing the present practice argued that: content makers have too little time and training to handle such matters themselves; are too close to the issues; A&CA are more appropriate to handle complaints because they are a separate unit; the involvement of the separate unit sometimes defuses tensions between the parties directly involved and this preserves relationships too; and if matters did not have to be referred to A&CA its data collection would be weakened to the detriment of the organisation‟s overall understanding of audience responses. (For more on the role of proper data collection, see sections III F Data and G Feedback.)


On balance, the Review accepts that the arguments against greater local autonomy are stronger than those in favour of it, at this time. However, as other proposals of the Review are implemented, it would be appropriate to explore how to increase the extent to which content makers and local managers can contribute to the swift and fair resolution of less serious matters, with oversight that maintains the integrity of this aspect of the self-regulation framework. Increased autonomy for content makers needs to be accompanied by other changes such as better training and clear criteria for grading complaints according to seriousness.

The Review sees merit in the ABC adjusting itself and its audiences to the model proposed by Innovation. But it should be done gradually, and with good preparation and communication. Initially, particular program teams nominated by the content-producing Divisions‟ Directors could be selected as “incubators” to trial the changed approach.

Time and resources will be needed to facilitate the participation by audiences directly through online measures. If the change is or is perceived to be a way to evade accountability for material breaches of standards it will do harm.

Resources will be required to assist audience members who would prefer to participate online but who may have found their way into the ABC through traditional complaints handling avenues. Equally, those who make contact without awareness of the complaints-handling system also need assistance if, having learned the options, they want to make a formal complaint and receive a specific response, rather than to participate online.

In the transitional period, it will be invalid to assume that an audience member who participates online does not want to consider the option to have a matter considered under a complaints handling system. It will be equally invalid to assume that all audience criticism should be handled formally as a complaint.

Emphasis needs to be placed on giving the public knowledge of the variety of ways they can be heard by the ABC, and by other members of the public, on an appropriate ABC platform.

The ABC should give consideration to widening its audience liaison service to include assistance to those who may need it to transfer their concern from one medium to another. It would be a kind of “translation” service. For example, audience members may welcome the opportunity to have an agreed key part of their handwritten letter converted and posted as a comment on the website of the ABC program that gave rise to the audience member‟s decision to write the letter. In such ways, the ABC may assist audience members who may otherwise be unable to participate in Web 2.0-style media accountability. It should always be optional only. Many audience members may prefer, as they often do, simply to communicate their views to the ABC and have them acknowledged as having been heard.

Routinely, consultation is likely to be required to clarify whether a person wants to become a formal complainant and, if so, the precise nature of his or her complaint. If a person‟s concerns do not give rise to an editorial standards matter, he or she may nevertheless wish to take up other options to air concerns. These options should be promoted.

The contribution that program team leaders and local managers can make to resolution of formal complaints should be facilitated. Where a written complaint is referred to A&CA from anywhere in the ABC, the relevant senior person closest to the issues should be encouraged not only to supply relevant information but also to make appropriate suggestions, having regard to his or her specialised or local knowledge and experience, about how the matter could be satisfactorily resolved. These contributions should routinely receive appropriate consideration and a response, whether or not they form part of the resolution of the matter by those who handle the complaint.


6. Defining “complaint” and “editorial complaint”

The ABC‟s complaints-handling process should continue to distinguish between complaints relating to editorial standards and complaints about non-editorial matters (such as program scheduling, personal preference and taste).

For the ABC to consider a matter to be a “complaint”, it must be an expression of dissatisfaction made to the ABC, in relation to the ABC‟s content or services, where some response is expected. A complaint can be in any form (oral or written), made by any person or organisation, at any time.

For the ABC to consider a matter to be an “editorial complaint”, the matter must be a written expression of dissatisfaction, made to the ABC, about the ABC‟s content or services, relating to the ABC‟s editorial standards as expressed in the ABC Editorial Policies or ABC Code of Practice, and with an expectation of a response and action by the ABC.

The extent of time and resources with which editorial complaints are handled may vary according to the substance and nature of the complaint. For instance, the extent of time and resources devoted to a complaint about accuracy will be proportionate to the degree of likely harm to those affected by the content, the likelihood of material misunderstanding among audience members, or the likely damage to the ABC‟s reputation.

It is proposed that editorial complaints be considered for formal investigation by the ABC‟s Audience and Consumer Affairs Investigations Team where the following criteria are met: the complaint must –

be in writing and lodged with the ABC by hand, post, facsimile or other electronic transmission (excluding comments and other user-generated content posted to discussion boards and other interactive services);

be about a specific item of content (e.g., a program or online article) for which the ABC has editorial responsibility and which has already been transmitted or published;

be lodged within six months of the date of transmission or publication, although the ABC may consider extending this time period, having regard to –

o the interests of complainant in the subject matter of the complaint;

o the seriousness of the alleged breaches;

o the reasons for the delay;

o the availability of the content which is the subject of the complaint; and

o any prejudice the delay may otherwise have on the ABC‟s ability to investigate and determine the matter fairly.

Mindful that a complainant is entitled to apply to ACMA for a review of their complaint if the ABC does not respond (or does not respond adequately) to the complainant within the statutory time period of 60 days, the ABC‟s Audience and Consumer Affairs Investigations Team may determine it is appropriate to decline to investigate an editorial complaint where –

the complaint is the subject of legal proceedings;

the complaint is lodged more than six weeks after the transmission of the broadcast to which it refers, and a copy of the broadcast content is not available;

the complainant has chosen to complain to, or agreed to have their complaint referred to, a program or other area of the ABC and that area has dealt, or is dealing, adequately with the complaint or has not yet had an adequate opportunity to deal with the complaint; or

the complaint is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance.


7. Fewer layers

Most submissions, directly or indirectly, called for the streamlining of the complaints-handling process. As the above description of the process shows, it comprises several layers, which have been added and adjusted bit by bit over the years. Leaving to one side the intricacies of jurisdiction and procedure, the figures show that demand does not justify the time and resources required to maintain and operate the layers.

This is no reflection on those who, over many years, have served in the various layers and by so doing contributed to the ABC‟s self-regulation. One of the tasks of the renewed effort to collect and organise relevant data (Section III F Data) will be to gather the fruits of their work for future reference. The ABC puts on record here its appreciation of the efforts of those who have served as Complaints Review Executive and as members of the Independent Complaints Review Panel.

In order to streamline the complaints-handling process from the perspectives of complainants, content makers, managers, complaints handlers, and those who take an interest in media self-regulation, it is proposed to remove all but one internal layer, and to re-design that layer in a way that should make the system operate better overall.

8. Streamlined process for handling complaints

The process set out below is subject always to the discretion of the ABC Managing Director and Editor-in-Chief to intervene and determine any matter at any time by any process the Managing Director thinks fit.

Proposals –

Navigation

A single clear symbol to be adopted by the ABC to help people have their responses to the ABC heard by the ABC and, where they choose, heard by others on ABC platforms. (See also III C Audience responses.)

The meaning of the symbol to be heavily promoted on all ABC platforms.

Mandatory links (click on the symbol) from the homepage of every authorised ABC presence online to a “clearinghouse-style” page listing “How the ABC is accountable”. That page to provide further links to the various methods of accountability applying to the ABC, including formal complaints handling.

Range of options for audience members

Audience members to be assisted to make informed choices among options for making responses or otherwise engaging, including:

visiting and/or direct participation in online forums

indirect participation with the assistance of specific staff

messages related to particular programs which will be conveyed and

a formal complaints process.

Formal complaints streamlined

Director Editorial Policies to take executive responsibility for Audience and Consumer Affairs.

Remove from the ABC‟s self-regulation framework the current role and functions of the Complaints Review Executive and the Independent Complaints Review Panel (at the expiration of the terms of the current members of the ICRP).

Create the role of Executive Editorial Complaints Adviser and equip it with the powers and resources necessary to fulfil the functions described below.

The terms “complaint” and “editorial complaint” to be defined.


Written complaints to be directed to Audience and Consumer Affairs promptly after receipt by any part of the ABC.

A&CA to sort complaints as editorial or non-editorial and handle them according to procedures to be developed and made public.

A&CA to have discretion to return a matter to program staff and/or local managers for handling, with responses to complainants copied to A&CA and complainants made aware that they can revert to A&CA to handle the matter if they choose.

For editorial complaints, Divisions to provide A&CA with –

facts and argument sought by A&CA,

facts and argument the Division believes relevant to A&CA‟s consideration of the matter,

direct access to staff and contractors involved in the matter,

by methods and at times reasonable in the circumstances.

Procedures to be written down to give both A&CA and Divisions clarity about what is reasonably expected.

Procedures and standards to be interpreted having regard to –

statutory requirements,

recognised standards of objective journalism,

recognised standards in other genres of content making, and

recognised standards of objective complaints-handling.

Investigation of complaints to be proportionate. Proportionality to be assessed in context by reference to –

seriousness of the matter, including complexity and urgency,

proximity of the complainant to the circumstances of the case, and

risk to public trust and confidence in the ABC.

Following investigation of a complaint, the appropriately authorised A&CA decision-maker to make a draft finding.

Where draft finding upholds complaint, decision-maker may recommend (but not mandate) a suitable remedy.

Draft finding to be provided to the Director of the relevant Division.

Director may accept the finding and advise the decision-maker accordingly.

Director may choose to refer the draft finding to the Executive Editorial Complaints Adviser, together with any facts or arguments the Director believes relevant to the making of a different finding or different remedy or both.

Executive Editorial Complaints Adviser to consider the draft finding, the Director‟s submissions and any other facts or arguments the Executive Editorial Complaints Adviser receives or acquires, and to provide written advice to the decision-maker, copied to the Director.

The decision-maker must consider the Executive Editorial Complaints Adviser‟s advice and, to the extent the decision-maker does not take that advice, the decision-maker must give reasons in the final decision.

Decision-maker to convey final decision in writing to Director, copied to Executive Editorial Complaints Adviser.


Director to be responsible for determining, implementing and recording any remedy or penalty.

Decision-maker to convey final decision in writing to complainant, together with information about any option to appeal. (Matters under the ABC Code of Practice have a right for complainants to appeal to the Australian Communications and Media Authority.)

If the complainant appeals to ACMA, decision-maker to be responsible for representing the ABC in the ACMA proceeding and for conveying the ACMA decision to the Director and the Executive Editorial Complaints Adviser. Director to ensure any affected staff or contractor also informed.

Regardless of the outcome of the ACMA proceeding, decision-maker, Director, Executive Editorial Complaints Adviser and any other relevant ABC executive to meet to discuss the outcome, their own judgments in the matter and anything learned from the experience that is likely to be of use to them or others in future matters.

Lessons learned to be incorporated appropriately in writing in the data collections accessible to those who operate the ABC‟s self-regulation framework.

These proposals have checks and balances built in. Much will depend on how every person exercises his or her discretions to act or not to act in each particular case.

The proposals will place great weight on everyone responding properly at the earliest stages of a formal complaint so that the initial decision-maker has available all relevant material.

Directors will need to establish procedures to ensure that the staff or contractors affected in a particular matter are kept appropriately informed.

The ABC will need to prepare carefully for the changes and communicate them clearly.

The date at which the changes to the self-regulation system are to take effect is at the discretion of the Managing Director.

Appropriate transitional arrangements will need to be established to handle matters that begin before the change-of-system date and are ongoing as at that date.

E. Remedies and penalties

A remedy is what you do for a complainant who has been wronged in some way. A penalty is what you do to a wrong doer.

Remedies and penalties have different underpinnings, although both can promote, in their different ways, the dual aims of effective accountability and continuous quality improvement.

The Review found some confusion about the difference between a remedy and a penalty. It seemed that some perceive that penalties may be imposed for upheld breaches of editorial standards as a way of giving the complainant a remedy. This misconceives remedies and penalties. Retribution is a proper element of imposing penalties in law, but it is not a proper element of imposing penalties in a self-regulation context. In the context of media self-regulation, further confusion can arise because many cases require that it is the content that needs to be remedied, for example through the correction of error.

The basic purpose of a penalty in a self-regulation scheme is to obtain compliance with standards. Deterrence has a proper role. Factors in determining penalties in specific cases include –

purpose of the standards generally and the public interest in obtaining compliance;

purpose of the specific standard breached;

seriousness of the matter;

degree of responsibility;


any aggravating factors, such as recurring similar breaches despite awareness and opportunity to improve;

any mitigating factors, such as inexperience, special circumstances beyond control, cooperation, remorse.

The Review concludes that in the cases where penalty may be appropriate the ABC should handle the matter through its usual disciplinary processes. Results of relevant matters should be systematically recorded so that data (de-identified where appropriate) can be obtained to assist other aspects of self-regulation. Better data should also assist the ABC to treat like cases alike and to build the consistency that is a necessary element of enforcing standards fairly.

The issue of whether any individual is named in public reports of cases arising under the self-regulation framework should continue to be treated on a case-by-case basis. Any general policy always to name may produce injustices for the reason noted in the submission by the Complaints Review Executive –

…the nature of program making and editorial control usually means that a single person cannot be held totally responsible. Usually small teams interact, with presenters relying on the work of producers and editorial staff in the line of control making decisions with content captured and packaged by others.

A general policy never to name may expose the ABC‟s system to ridicule in cases where responsibility is clear and it is notorious who bears the responsibility, perhaps from the circumstances of the case or perhaps from publicity when the incident occurred.

In media self-regulation schemes remedies are well known. Common remedies are –

correct, clarify and/or retract (on air or online or both);

amend an online transcript of a broadcast program (and put on record that this has happened);

ensure any repeats of a program do not repeat the breach;

acknowledge error or misjudgement;

give assurances that outcomes of the complaint process will be conveyed to the relevant content makers, and make sure that it happens;

apologise.

The Review did not receive evidence of a need to add to or subtract from commonly used remedies. Remedies should be applied in good faith whenever it is just to do so in all the circumstances of the matter.

Remedies need to be proportionate, consistently applied to like circumstances but also capable of being tailored for the particular circumstances of each case. Broadly speaking, those who determine remedies in each case should bear in mind –

degree of harm caused;

proximity of the person seeking the remedy to the harm and any other circumstances giving rise to the need for remedy – generally, the more directly and more adversely a person is affected, the greater the justification for remedy;

practical and symbolic aspects of remedies;

whether in all the circumstances the elapse of time affects the remedy, to make it more or less appropriate;

the extent to which a person or organisation could reasonably be expected to have taken steps themselves to mitigate adverse effects of the breach;

any factors that have already contributed to remedy; and

the importance of following up to ensure that when a remedy is given it is delivered.


F. Data

The Review considered the ways the ABC collects and shares data about its self-regulation framework. Beyond the need to keep track of formal complaints for purposes of meeting deadlines and reporting to the ABC Board and Parliament, the data is both glue and fuel to any self-regulation framework.

If the right people get the right information at the right time in the right way for the right reason, in an organisation as large and complex as the ABC there is a greater likelihood that matters will be processed on time and the quality of decisions will improve.

But the data has other value. It can help when the Editorial Policies are being reviewed. As circumstances and technologies change, standards drafted for a passing era can require reconsideration. The cases tend to show which standards are under strain and how. They can also reveal gaps in the standards.

The data is relevant to managing staff. It can help to ensure that remedies and penalties are applied consistently.

The data assists parties to complaints cases and the decision-makers to see how the same standard in issue in the case before them has been interpreted by other decision-makers in the past. This technique, so basic to law, is under developed in ABC‟s self-regulation partly because the collection, organisation, sharing and retrieval of the relevant information is under developed.

The data is fuel for training efforts. Suitably de-identified, the cases allow staff to consider the application of the standards in real-life circumstances. Unlike most non-media entities, the ABC has the creative and production skills to turn this material into engaging training resources. Any online learning resource will depend over time on access to the data the self-regulation system generates. (During the consultation, staff also expressed a desire for more face-to-face training – see section III B Training.)

It is proposed that the ABC develop a regular bulletin for staff that summarises completed complaints cases and draws out any useful lessons, along the same lines as The Beagle, the bulletin that is circulated by the ABC Legal Department about relevant court cases and legislative developments.

The statistics from a self-regulation system can yield patterns. They might indicate systemic issues, process problems, resources gaps or the need for training in particular places or on specific topics.

All this promotes the dual aims of accountability and quality improvement. But good data, appropriately made transparent, can underpin trust and confidence in another way. Statistics can also help to show that a self-regulation framework is working well, that the number of serious complaints is small when seen in the context of overall output, and that the resolution of matters is not all one way, as critics of media self-regulation sometimes assert.

The Review found that the ABC has a significant amount of relevant data to achieve the benefits outlined above. Audience and Consumer Affairs, for example, supplied the Review with consistently detailed and worthwhile data.

ABC Switchboards around the country routinely gather valuable information about audience responses.

The Divisions each have their own methods of collecting information relevant to the several elements of the self-regulation framework.

The necessary data for running self-regulation better probably exists somewhere in the ABC.9 What is

needed is to –

9 For an indication of the complexity of managing this kind of data in the ABC see Quality Assurance Project 1: Verification of Corrective Actions (April 2008).


identify the different, and separately managed, datasets

rationalise them or arrange for the separate systems to connect or communicate

extract and share internally as much data as is relevant and appropriate within the ABC

make available externally as much data as appropriate to serve the dual aims of effective accountability and quality improvement.

The Review has become acutely aware that this would be a complex and potentially costly undertaking, but a start should be made. The potential dividends beckon.

Lastly, data is what circulates through feedback loops. Data is effective to the extent that it is actually used by people. How they together analyse and discuss data is one of the elements of a self-regulation framework, and the subject of the next and final section of the report.

G. Feedback

The Review acknowledges the existence of various methods currently used within the ABC to feed back the results of self-regulation, in particular complaints which affect each Division. A&CA makes information available internally and externally.

10 The most senior feedback loop is among Directors.

11

Apart from meetings of the full Executive Leadership Group, the Directors of the content-making Divisions (News, TV, Radio, Innovation, International and Commercial) meet regularly with the Managing Director, Director Legal and Head of Audience and Consumer Affairs. The Editorial Policies Group meets monthly and comprises representatives from across the ABC who specialise in policy, many of whom are also their Division‟s manager of complaints and of case-by-case liaison with A&CA. The executive groups of the various Divisions also meet regularly and consider the results of various self-regulation activities, whether their own or across Divisions.

The Review proposes that feedback loops be further developed to include at least –

Bi-monthly meetings comprising A&CA representatives and the managers in each Division who are responsible for liaison between content makers and A&CA. The role of chair should rotate. The meetings should not be a forum for “re-running” settled complaints, but rather for considering broader issues of substance relating to the effective operation of the self-regulation framework.

Greater attention to ensuring that staff who are affected by editorial complaints are kept informed, in particular about the outcome of complaints relating to them or their program‟s output.

Greater attention to analysing the trends that formal and informal interaction with audiences reveal about ABC accountability and quality, and then communication of that analysis to ABC staff, particularly content makers whose work may be contributing, whether positively or negatively – both matter from the point of view of providing feedback.

Consideration of how the ABC could improve feedback to the public and other stakeholders, in particular to Parliament, about the operation of the ABC‟s self-regulation framework.

10

The A&CA submission stated in part: Externally, we publish summary details of all upheld complaints (http://abc.net.au/contact/upheld.htm) and an RSS feed is available to regularly alert audience members to updated postings. A quarterly statistical summary will shortly be available to summarise and augment this material. We also publish select „Recent Responses‟ to enquiries and complaints about matters of personal taste and preference (http://abc.net.au/contact/), particularly in response to large numbers of audience contacts about the same subject. Summary details are published of all reviews conducted by the Complaints Review Executive (http://abc.net.au/contact/reviews_executive/), and all Independent Complaints Review Panel findings are announced through the publication of a media release which includes a link to the Panel‟s report (http://abc.net.au/contact/icrp.htm). In addition, where the Complaints Review Executive, Independent Complaints Review Panel or Australian Communications and Media Authority find complaints to be upheld, details of the finding are made available via an appropriate link from the content‟s website, wherever practicable (see for example http://abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s1943347.htm).

11 In the Review‟s consultations with the BBC it was emphasised that a culture of taking self-regulation matters seriously must be led from the most senior levels of an organisation. Similar observations appear regularly in the literature on self-regulation, in media and other sectors.

http://abc.net.au/contact/upheld.htm

http://abc.net.au/contact/

http://abc.net.au/contact/reviews_executive/

http://abc.net.au/contact/icrp.htm

http://abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s1943347.htm


Appendix I: List of Public Submissions

Name of Individual / Organisation Submission

Number Date of Submission

John T D Wood Director Baljurda Comprehensive Consulting Pty Ltd

1 1a

24 November 2008 10 December 2008

Stewart Scott-Irving 2 27 November 2008

Philip Lowe 3 23 November 2008

Confidential 4 4a 4b

25 November 2008 22 December 2008 undated

Asem Judeh & yourPalestineDiaryFromDownUnder 5 5a 5b 5c

29 November 2008 14 December 2008 15 December 2008 22 December 2008

Dr Rhonda Breit Senior Lecturer School of Journalism & Communication University of Queensland

6 6a

04 December 2008 19 December 2008

Henry Postelthwaite 7 04 December 2008

Peter Camps 8 undated

Betty Barnett 9 04 December 2008

Dr Tim Gilley JP 10 30 November 2008

Alexander Page 11 08 December 2008

Anonymous 12 undated

Sheila Gwynn-Jones 13 12 December 2008

Carol O'Donnell 14 14a 14b

14 December 2008 29 December 2008 06 January 2009

Confidential 15 17 December 2008

Denis Kemp 16 11 December 2008

David L. Allen 17 17a


Chris Jeremy 18 21 December 2008

Confidential 19 21 December 2008

Dougal Johnston 21 22 December 2008

Dr Colin Rubenstein & Mark Leibler Executive Director & National Chairman (respectively) Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC)

22 22 December 2008

Dr Ian F. Turnbull 23 02 December 2008

Confidential 24 24a


D. Hartley Secretary Family Council of W.A.

25 19 December 2008

Jennifer Borkowskis 26 22 December 2008

Philip S. Clark 27 24 December 2008

Barry Chipman Tasmanian State Manager Timber Communities Australia

28 05 January 2009

Klaus Wieneroider 29 07 January 2009


Appendix II: Staff Consultations

WA: Perth (15 and 16 January 2009), 3 sessions WA: Regionals (16 January 2009) teleconference NSW: Sydney (20 January 2009) NSW: Regionals (21 January 2009) teleconference ACT: Canberra (23 January 2009) NT: Darwin (4 February 2009), 2 sessions QLD: Brisbane & Regionals (10 February 2009), 3 sessions SA: Adelaide (13 February 2009), 2 sessions SA: Regionals (13 February 2009) teleconference VIC: Melbourne (16 February 2009) – no regional teleconference due to bushfires

aftermath TAS: Hobart (17 February 2009), 2 sessions

Documents

Review of the ABC’sabout.abc.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/ReviewOfABC... · 2014-07-28 · Report – Self-Regulation Framework Review page 1 August 2009 Chairman’s Preface